BS: Another Bush War (2) (Bush, Iraq)

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 07:49 PM

Oh, OK, OK!!

Mosey on over to Part Three boys. This part of the barn is full up!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 07:03 PM

Once again: This thread is getting a bit long to load? I people want to continue it I suggest a part 3 is started. I won't do it myself, because I started the part 2. (But remember, even a thread of 40 or 50 posts keeps some people from being able to open them.)

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 06:02 PM

To keep "our" oil coming through, Doug? Who says it's yours, or does America own the world? And you can't send flowers to the terrorists till you find out where they are. (Clue: try looking in the USA. I doubt if there are any in Guantanamo Bay.)

But you've changed your position a fair bit, Doug, so I shouldn't be arguing with you. It even looks like Bush himself is beginning to heed rational argument just a little bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: kendall
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 05:10 PM

that should be disillusion

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: kendall
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 05:08 PM

Bobert, sorry to disallusion you, but, I havn't yet grown up myself! Thanks anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 04:57 PM

And ain't this thread getting a bit long to load? I people want to continue it I suggest a part 3 is started. I won't do it myself, because I started the part 2. (But remember, even a thread of 40 or 50 posts keeps some people from being able to open them.)

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 04:53 PM

But what indications are there that he's going to invade Poland, or the local equivalent?

The Kuwait business was very much on the same lines as the Argentine adventure in the Falklands/Malvinas, or the Chinese in Tibet - an attempt to re-incorporate what was seen as a chunk of the homeland that had been detached to suit the needs of the foreign imperialists. And the war with Iran - in a real sense that was Iraq acting as an agent of America against Iran at a time when Iran was seen as the main enemy. A willing agent, seizing what must have looked like an opportunity, and to reduce the real possibility that there might be a popular pro-Iranian radical Islamic revolution in Iraq.

I'm sure that, if the possibility of expansion of Iraq's regional power dropped into his lap, Saddam would be only too happy to take it. But there's no reason to see that happening. And that assumed appetite for aggrandisement is something which is present in a very large number of regimes around the world, at all times.

And if it's really true that acquiring Iraqi oil is a reason to invade the country, how would that be anything other than another example of that assumed appetite?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 04:52 PM

(sigh)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: DougR
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 04:20 PM

No, McGrath, it is not about our taking over the oil fields, it partially is about keeping our oil supply coming though. I still believe the major reason there is talk of war is because Saddam is a dangerous person with dangerous weapons.

Suppose some president had settled things with Hitler before he had a chance to invade Poland. Wouldn't the world have been a better place with WWII?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 02:30 PM

When I grow up, I want to be just like you Kendall. You can say so much with so few words...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: kendall
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 02:24 PM

IF Saddam gets a nuclear device you can bet your ass that Isreal will take it out. Remember that nuclear "power plant"? They didn't debate endlessly whether or not to put it out of business.

To quote a 1960's saying; "Fighting for peace is like balling for chastity." War IS the ultimate failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 02:17 PM

Add to what Amos has said, Iraq may have WMD's but no real way to get them where they would like to get them. At best, what they have would be like hunting deer with No.12 bird shot.

Their scariest delivery system are the few SCUD's they may have, which they still don't know how to steer. Yeah, they're dangerous, but to whom? Iraq doesn't even know. Yeah, they'll shoot them if attacked but the danged things, for all they know, may turn around and blow up on them.

Then they have the L-29's. Real scarey drones, just filled with anthrax and nasty stuff. These planes are drones and fly real slow. And they're not easy to hide and the US beyond any showdow of a doubt knows just where they are and should Iraq launch one or two they're gonna get their butts covered with anthrax as the f-16's take em' out.

Then they have, and you'll hear Bush talking about these things as if its new info. a helicopter mounted sparyer (the "Zubaidy") and a "drop tank" that mounts on a F-1 Mirages. Problem is that if these aircraft get anywhere close to the "no fly zones" they're history and agian the anthrax ends up falling on Saddam and Co.

Now Bush is going to use all kinds of words to descibe the threat to the US when he talks about Iraq at the UN but Bobert's money is that you won't hear any evidence of Saddam having anything else. Oh yeah, he'll huuf and puff and try to make these things sound real scarey. You know, kind of like what they have to do before Mike Tyson fights anymore. But guess where Mike ends up on fight night?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 01:41 PM

Doug:

The hard fact is we will be on the front edge if the U.N. takes military action against Iraq as a rogue state. But the world of difference will be that it will be the community of nations versus a rogue state under a process of international law, rather than a unilateral invasion by the United States as an act of undocumented "preemption". Bush keeps calling Saddam "a threat to America" but he won't say plainly why he says so. What's a thinking person to make of that? Paranoia, rabble-rousing, dramatizing his father's regime, or worse? It isn't good leadership to harp on about an enemy of great magnitude based on a subjective opinion, and he offers precious little else! WHY?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 01:35 PM

"Iraq has oil, China does not." So, Doug, this is really all about a cynical use of the terrible events of September 11 as a way of getting hold of another country's resources and making a lot of money for the people in the oil business?

That's a degree of cynicism about the people in control of the USA government that takes my breath away a bit; though looking back over the decades maybe its right after all. So often it has turned out that what seemed like paranoid fanbtasies about that kind of thing have been the truth, or have even fallen short of the full truth.

But then you suggest that "GWB is trying to PREVENT a "few thousand, maybe a million civilian lives (being killed)". And that suggests a completely different and rather less cynical explanation, and what's the fact that Iraq has more oil than China got to do with that?

I've still to hear any serious evidence that Iraq is any more of a danger to the rest of the world than a number of other states, including some with good relations with teh USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: DougR
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 01:26 PM

There you go, Bobert! Now you've spoiled the whole thing for me. I've been on the first page for three months now and I haven't got to the part where he might have said those things you quoted.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:58 PM

Doug: Well, Good Mornin' to ya, my friend. Hope you're not too worn out from yesterday. Looks like you had a purdy big day hangin' in for your guy. And thanks fir not callin' me a Democrat 'cause you know that get's ol' Bobert real cranky.

So you're reading Einsein's "Law of Relativity"? Well, I'm hear to tell ya, without giving too much away, that the ending is a little disappointing. Well, that's the way I found it to be. Heck, you'll probably love it.

Speaking of Einstein, didn't he say that "A problem cannot be solved with the same consciouness from which it was created"? Well, I know for certain he is creadited with saying, "Insanity is repeating a behavior expecting different results." I kind of think both of those thoughts are relavent here, especially when one considers the fact that Bush's first thoughts in solving problems involve violence. Nevermind. Just rambling...

I gotta go turn some wrenches, Doug.

Later.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: DougR
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 01:46 AM

Wow! Lots of material to respond to. Ebbie, if you are reading this, I'm sorry I cannot respond with reams of rhetric, must be brief.

McGrath: Iraq has oil, China does not. I do wish folks would quit quoting from the Guardian as though it was the epitamy of truth. Were I to quote from a Rush Limbaugh newsletter, I would be hung and quartered, but those who quote from the Guardian expect that it should be taken as unimpeachable truth. I don't think that is so.

Amos: So the U.N. goes in. Who will supply the majority of the troops and equipment? Tahiti? Puerto Rico?

Curmudgeon: Be that as it may, George W. Bush is the president.

Kendall: "Maybe there is hope for him?" I'm going to tell your daughter what you wrote!

Bobert: Right! A giant conspiracy! Your offer would be tempting under different circumstances, but at the moment I am reading Einstein's Theory of Relativity and it requires all of my time.

Amos: So Hentiff wants Ashcroft to resign? Lots of folks do. I respect Jonathan Turley, but if something is wrong, sue, and let the courts decide what is right.

Fionn: The terrorists declared war on the United States in 1998. Duh! So assumeing the terrorists are the fuckor, and we are the fuckee, what are we supposed to do? Send flowers? I don't think so.

Nicole: No, I think GWB is trying to PREVENT a "few thousand, maybe a million civilian lives (being killed)." That really is the point of the whole thing!

Bobert: You do keep croping up. No, Bush has not painted himself into a corner. The Democrats are using that tactic (no, I'm not calling you a Democrat so don't get excited)for political purposes, but when the chips are down, if Bush decides to invade Iraq, I'll bet you a penny sucker most of the Democrats in Congress will say, "Right one!."

I feel a bit like an Africanized Bee protecting my hive, and it is late at night, so would you folks take a deep breath, and agree to attack me tomorrow? I really need the rest.

Thank you, and goodnight.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:58 AM

there is a time peace and time for war

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:36 PM

You are right, Nicole, as per usual. Junior has painted himself into the corner and now...ahhh... it's either try to salvage something or just look the fool that he is. And if he tries to salvage something, he will be a bigger fool. If this were chess, he'd be just two moves from being checkmated, which doesn't say too much for him since so far his only opponent is himself....

"Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"....

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:20 PM

Anyone catch the interviews with the Armed Services and Intelligence Committie Heads in NPR thing evening? It was nominally about GW's suggestion today that he would approach Congress and the UN about Iraq, but they wandered afield, of course. Both stated that they were not aware of any evidence that Saddam posed an imminent threat, although it is believed that he has WMDs, but that the intelligence community was quite certain that he WOULD use them if we attacked, since he had nothing left to lose. If anyone knows of solid evidence, it would probably be these two. There is a chance that GW has some evidence they don't, but that seem pretty unlikely. Gramm (Intelligence) mentioned that the deterrent effect that has worked so well with N. Korea, which has both the weapons and the delivery mechanism, seems like it would work fine in this case.

Another commentator brought up the issue that having made the threats, GW is in danger of losing his far-right war-hawk supporters if he *doesn't* attack. I hate to gamble lives on GW's desire to save face.

I wonder if GW ever plans to ask the American public if they are willing to lose a few more thousand, maybe million, civilian lives for the sake of this war when Saddam retaliates by sending a nice package of American weaponized anthrax to a crowded city like NYC or Boston or Atlanta?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 09:53 PM

Steve/Norton, thanks for the link to the James Webb piece - all the more forceful for being penned by a Reaganite.

Watching the anniversary stuff I am reminded that in the aftermath of WTC, the whole world felt for America. Never has such an abundance of goodwill been squandered with such profligacy. Tonight I watched, astonished, as Powell was booed off the stage in Joburg. Nothing personal, I'm sure. The message was aimed at the US administration, in which Powell, ironically, is far from the worst.

Doug defends the Bushes against accusations of base motives. Maybe he's right. But you can bet that Clinton would never have led America to this nadir. And Clinton would have had the guts to go to Joburg, where he would have commanded respect, for all his personal failings.

Doug, I don't see why you hold out for this being a war. Surely the WTC atrocity, perpetrated by terrorists representative of no government, were criminals, albeit on a larger scale than we have previously seen? The crazy rhetoric by which it is called a war will come to haunt America - not least at Guantanamo Bay, where generous portions of humble pie will have to be consumed before that monumental fiasco is finally untangled.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 08:46 PM

I definitely agree with Norton1 about the James Webb article. It gives a good overview of what's really at stake. And the Nat Hentoff article is enough to really give one the creeps. There is the old saying that "those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The following demonstrates my level of trust in governments in general, and has nothing at all to do with partisan politics. In this, I share the same misgivings the Founding Fathers had when they wrote the Constitution.

How to Build a Monster

Pre-WWII Germany was a democracy. The way Adolph Hitler managed it—building a nearly invincible military machine and gaining absolute control at home—was by mounting a campaign to frighten the German people with threats of imminent danger posed by both external and internal enemies (like communists and Jews), blaming all of the nation's problems on "them," and at the same time, invoking fanatical patriotism. Then he raised the fear level and gained verisimilitude by getting some of his goons to stage a few bits of domestic sabotage and blamed it on communists. Duly frightened, the people then gave Hitler free rein to do whatever he deemed necessary to keep the nation secure. At which point, as some of you may recall, things got a little unpleasant for a whole lot of people.

Now, I'm not suggesting that GWB is any kind of Hitler. Nor am I suggesting that 9/11 was some devious domestic plot. But when I hear the policies that Bush and his minions want to institute, it tends to make me a bit apprehensive. I really don't like the direction the current administration is trying to take this country.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 08:42 PM

Thanks. 'mudgeon.!

I think this article on Lieberman's Thought Police is also of significance here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: curmudgeon
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 08:20 PM

Many thanks, Amos, for posting this link. It so ably describes the potential for domestic terrorism in the guise of patriotism

American Patriot Act; do you remember what the last refuge of the scoundrel is?

Office of Homeland Security; what's the real difference between "homeland" and "fatherland?"

Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 08:01 PM

Nat Hentoff has written for New York's Village Voice since I was a lad.

Here a clip on his current piece, distributed by Declan Mccullough:





   Nat Hentoff
   General Ashcroft's Detention Camps
   Time to Call for His Resignation
   September 4 - September 10, 2002

      Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional and
   public-interest law at George Washington University Law School in D.C.
   He is also a defense attorney in national security cases and other
   matters, writes for a number of publications, and is often on
   television. He and I occasionally exchange leads on civil liberties
   stories, but I learn much more from him than he does from me.
   
   For example, a Jonathan Turley column in the national edition of the
   August 14 Los Angeles Times ("Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish
   Vision") begins:
   
   "Attorney General John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S.
   citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely
   being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace."
   Actually, ever since General Ashcroft pushed the U.S. Patriot Act
   through an overwhelmingly supine Congress soon after September 11, he
   has subverted more elements of the Bill of Rights than any attorney
   general in American history.

   [...]

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:53 PM

Doug: Tell ya' what, mu friend, I'll make the same offer to you as I made to Tony. There just happens to be an American journalist who just happens to have the goods on Jeb and Katherine. Copies of memos, interviews, film footage, the whole nine yards. But can he work in this country? Heck no, the ruling class is scared, ahhhh, well they're real scared of this guy. You see that no matter what, Dem or Repub they don't want the "system" questioned becuase if the American people ever figure out that the governemnt is as rigged a TV wrestling, then the ruling class will be ousted.

So, Greg Palist, American, works for the Guardian and the BBC. Now he has written a book entitled "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" which details not only the Jim Crow stuff that Jeb and Kate pulled off but will provide you a climpse of just how controlling the ruling class is.

So Doug, here's the deal. You read this book and I'll read any book that you want me to, The we'll have fun comparing notes. How about it? And no cheatin' 'cause I'm gonna test you and you can test me on whatever you want me to read... Deal?

Now I will warn you that if you are not prepared to find out just how shady your guy is then you might want to stand pat. Just like Bush.... "For God's sake, fon't let *that dog* out from under the porch." Junior told an advisor.

And you thing Tom Dascle is going to blow the whistle and risk costing his party a couple hindref million dollars from the ruling class. Hmmmmmmmmm? Think about it. Those guys all know the rules...

Bobert

Deal?

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: kendall
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:30 PM

Bush was on the evening news, and, he said he would go to congress, and to our allies. Maybe there is hope for him. (And us)

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: curmudgeon
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:01 PM

Doug,

You stated that "...Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, to say nothing of Al Gore, would be on that like flies on you know what. " While not perfect, they are most assuredly not flies, but I'm not sure I "know Iwhat" Bush really is aside from being a de facto president, certainly not de jure.

This man, more ill advised than Aethelred the Redeless, has shown a total disregard for the Constitution on more than one count. His belief that he can engage this country in war withouth so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, puts him in league with Charles I who,tried to levy war without parliamentary consent. Look at where that got him.

At the same time, Bushcroft is holding American citizens incommunicado for alleged offenses. The Constitution clearly requires the "...privelege of the writ of habeas corpus" be untouched except in the case of "..rebellion or invasion..."

By declaring these same citizens to be "enemy combatants," Bushcroft has again affronted the Constitution"s absolute prohibition of bills of attainder.

While it is most important for us to exercise our rights of dissent in this unilateral attempt to overthrow a foreign sovereign power, we must be more diligent with regard to this administration's attempt to cast aside those principles upon which this nation is founded.

To paraprhase B. Franklin, Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 05:59 PM

James Webb makes more sense than anyone currently on the Hill that I have seen.

This is dicey brinkmanship with high risks and only problematic benefits on the outcome side...

The UN is the right force to send in to Iraq, if the situation is as grim as Bushie baby would suggest without substantiating it... it is possible that he WILL substantiate it next week, but it is still the best choice of forces. Not the US Army, except as an adjunct to a United Nations action taken with plenary consent.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 05:38 PM

The thing is, if Saddam does have some kind of weapon of mass destruction, like any number of other governments, including some with human rights records as bad as or worse than his, is he more likely to use them if Iraq isn't attacked or is attacked.

Like a lot of other people in presidential palaces round the world, Saddam is a nasty piece of work - but the other thing he has in common with the other nasty pieces of work is that he probably wants to survive, and stay in power (well, staying in power must seem pretty vital for him if he wants to survive, given the enemies he has made.) There are no indications whatsoever that he shares the dedicated suicidal attitude of the people who carried out September 11.

Just what is it that makes Iraq a more suitable target than China, for example? A worse record on human rights and expansionism? Apart of course from the fact that China definitely does have weapons of mass destruction.

There was a thought provoking cartoon in today's Guardian. A bunch of generals sitting around maps of Iraq, all looking highly taken aback when one of them blurts out "What if he has got weapons of mass destruction?"

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 05:19 PM

Here's what James Webb, former Marine and Secretary for the Navy under Reagan, had to say Clik here .

Makes more sense than anything I've read so far.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: DougR
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 04:51 PM

Bobert: When are you going to put a cork in that tired old argument that Bush didn't win the election? Don't you know if there were any teeth in that argument, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, to say nothing of Al Gore, would be on that like flies on you know what.

Is it reasonable to say that even if Saddam DOES have weapons of mass destruction including a nuclear bomb, hydrogen bomb, time bomb, stink bomb, anthrax bomb, whatever, the majority of you would be in favor of just letting him go his own way, and do whatever he wants to do? Is that what you think we should do?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 03:37 PM

The default mode of communication round here is ironic, is what I meant. If I actually mean precisely what I say I tend to feel a need to signal that, rather then the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: kendall
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 03:06 PM

If Eisenhower was a liberal, I'm a Martian. And, I know where Harlow is.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: curmudgeon
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 02:50 PM

Lar Daley, America First Party Presidential candidate in 1956 declared Eisenhower to be a card carrying Communist. Daley dressed in an Uncle Sam suit as well.

Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 01:48 PM

Actually it wasn't wholly irony either - there was the implication that there appear to be people around in positions of power and influence in the USA who probably would class Eisenhower as a liberal at the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 01:45 PM

Kendall is in Maine, KEvin! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 01:42 PM

Harlow is in England, kendall.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 01:00 PM

Methinks it was a touch of irony. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: kendall
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:37 PM

President Eisenhower was a Liberal? What are you smoking?

My definition of war: The Ultimate Failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:02 PM

No-one seems to mind the fruits of that complex, though -- advanced technologies on every front. Let me remind you that one of the keystones of the complex is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency which was responsible for the development of the Internet (with support from Al Gore) and made it possible for a lot of good to happen, including the Mudcat.

That said, I could not agree more with the resurrection of Ike's warning. In many ways the M.I.C. is a bloated monster. IF anyone were to closely examine the value gained for money spent in services from TRW and Lockheed Martin, to name two key participants, there would be a sky-high scandal rippling through every administration back to Herbert Hoover!

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 11:13 AM

"military industrial complex" - a phrase coined by that well known liberal fellow traveller President Eisenhower, when he warned against it as a threat to democracy in th USA. It was tiny in those days, mind. compared to today.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:53 AM

Some really good arguments here and I would agree, as I stated in an earlier post. Sure, Bush, has oil on his mind and the fact that he and Cheney are both oilmen should be a cause for some "hmmmmmmmm, what's this all about" thinking.

Also, enter the "military industrial complex" that my friend Dougie and others don't like to hear me talk about and thinks get even stinkier. These folks have been supported very well from the working classes tax dollars for the last 50 years. They've always had some "evil empire" or renigade country to keep them in business. And these folks spend alot of dough on politicans. Why? Hmmmmmmm? Ain't rocket science. If there were no "bad guys" they'd, as they may be doing now, invent some.

Lastly, there is one motivation that that comes to mind. Bush desperately needs to find something to "Legitimize" his Presidency. I think by now we all know that he didn't actually win the election. The facts are in and it shows a well thought out Jim Crow effort on the part of Bush's brother, Jeb, and Katherine Harris to disfranchize some 57,700 voters who were disporportionately black. And Bush knows this.So a war with Iraq is something he wants very badly. To him, it gives him legitamcy while keeping that sleeping dog (the election) under the porch.

Problem is, the American people, thru internet and emails and letter writing, I think have gotten the government's attention. As bad as Bush wants and needs this war, he has positioned himself nicely between the proverbial rock and hard place hopefully just end up being served a large slice of Crow Pie instead.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:52 AM

I don't think that's silly McGrath; I totally agree. The 1972 Germ Warfare Treaty says just that, but it has no teeth and can't really be enforced. There have been international calls to revise the Convention adding enforcement protocol, including major efforts on the part of George Sr. Both Bush Sr. and Clinton recieved flack from the pharmeuceutical industry because they don't want their property inspected.

BWC treaty finally added compliance measures. In July 2001, George Jr. has spurned the convention altogether and refused to comply with it, stating that since the compliance measures were inadequate, the US wouldn't ratify the treaty at all.

Ironically, the strains of several of the biological agents found in Iraq were identical to the US-created versions, meaning somehow Iraq got them from us. The US exports biological media, like anthrax, around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 09:50 AM

Agreed McGrath - and not forgetting that there is only one country to have used nuclear weapons so far. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the US had the biggest capability for chemical and biological attack that they are not telling their citizens about. But ofcourse that would only be for defence purposes...

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 09:41 AM

Wouldn't it be great if there could be an agreement that all states open themselves to full and fair weapons inspection, so that any weapons of mass destruction, and preparations to make and deploy them, could be a matter of independently verified public record.

Once countries like the USA and the UK had signed up to that then it'd be fair to come down heavy on places like Iraq if they didn't fall in line.

That's a serious suggestion mind, nothing ironical about it. I can't see why any democratic country should be shy about letting its citizens know what is being done with their taxes.

(After all the first people to use poison gas against the Kurds were the British back in the 1920s, and the USA used Agent Orange freely in Vietnam, with continuing appalling results - birth defects, cancer...)

"War is good for business" Thirty-fourth Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.

"Peace is good for business" Thirty Fifth Ferengi Rule of Acquisition.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 06:32 AM

Were the weapons inspectors expelled, or were they withdrawn?

Here's a timeline from the guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,768571,00.html

April 3 1991 UN security council passes resolution 687, dictating terms of Gulf war ceasefire. Requires Iraq to declare and destroy weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems. Also establishes UN special commission (Unscom) to monitor and verify elimination of weapons May 1991 Unscom begins inspections in Iraq

February 1992 Security council condemns lack of full compliance

July 1992 Unscom personnel try to enter agriculture ministry in Baghdad without warning for inspection. They are blocked and begin 24-hour observation. Forced to leave country after being attacked by mobs in street

July 1993 Unscom prevented from installing monitoring cameras at two missile test stands. Government backs down under threat of international military action

June 1994 Unscom destroys chemical warfare agents

June 1996 Inspectors denied access to sites associated with Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard, believed to be involved in concealment of weapons. Iraq denies access to four of six sites, saying they are presidential areas. Iraq condemned in August for gross violations of UN resolutions

June 1997 Iraq again blocks Unscom from certain sites

October 1997 Iraq refuses to deal with US personnel working for Unscom

November 1997 Resolution 1137 condemns continued violation by Iraq

November 1997 Russians secure return of Unscom

January 1998 Iraq continues to block inspection teams

October 31 1998 Iraq ends all cooperation with Unscom

December 16 1998 Special commission withdraws staff from Iraq, Unscom disbanded

December 17 1999 Resolution 1284 creates UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission (Unmovic) to replace Unscom. Iraq rejects resolution

March 1 2000 Hans Blix assumes post of Unmovic executive chairman

November 2000 Deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz rejects new weapons inspection proposals

March/May 2002 UN secretary general Kofi Annan unable to persuade Iraqi representatives to allow inspectors' return

July 5-6 Talks in Vienna between Annan and Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, fail.

July 25 2002 Sabri says any agreement must include route towards lifting sanctions, ending threats of regime change, and end to no-flight zones

August 2002 Iraq invites chief weapons inspector to Baghdad for talks on resuming inspections

***

So the weapons inspectors were withdrawn, but only after repeated refusal to co-operate. Part of Iraq's premise for nonco-operation was that the US were using the inspection teams in order to spy - a claim that turned out to be true, which is why they were particularly opposed to their being any Americans on the inspection team.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 01:35 AM

Doug, if Geo. W. would indulge in insider trading with Harken Energy, perjure himself over the Waltrip/McNeil funeral home scam, went AWOL for a year while supposedly serving with the 187th Tactical Recon (Alabama National Guard), and suddenly dump oil stock right before the Gulf War while Daddy was in office (no coincidence there?), do I believe that he is capable of starting a war to linehis own pockets?

Hell, yes. Is he? I have no idea. Boy, I hope not. But I also don't think his code of ethics has suddenly taken a 180 now that he's in the White House.

Amos, WWII is kind of an exception, but it's the one we still judge war economy by. In the aftermath of WWII, although the vast majority of women lost their jobs when the GI's came home, it also socially opened up a huge segment of today's workforce. Women didn't flock to factories right away, but the potential workforce was effectively doubled; reducing the wages they had to pay to an individual, a shock to the average American family from which we've never recovered. How many familes can get by on one income now?

Everything about economics is arguable; you'll never find two economists that agree. We had a postwar economic surge after the Gulf, but was that due to the war, or due to the growing popularity of the internet and it's power to reduce business costs? The internet was a military project started in 1957, not a Gulf War benefit. Most of those technical advances you mentioned were not products of the Gulf War, but the generous spending on scientific research from 1940 to about 1990. I guess you could say it's a Cold War benefit, so maybe I'm wrong :)

Either way, the post-Gulf economy a short-lived surge, and we've fallen back to pre-war levels. Like other wars, brought short-term economic gains, but recession in it's aftermath. Vietnam is a prime example.

Doug, so what if people want to drive their SUVs? I'm talking about simple measures that cater to self-interest. Proper tire inflation (which hardly anyone has, because the owner's manual doesn't usually tell you the correct pressure) can increase gas mileage by 2-3 mpg. What a savings! There's a great collection of war posters at: http://www.state.nh.us/ww2/index.html
What a difference in attitude! ('Cept the "loose lips" stuff, but at least they weren't asking you to spy on your neighbor.)

Lord, if you think that that silly $300 tax ADVANCE (not refund) helped the economy, your IRA must be doing way the hell better than mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:47 AM

Doug,

With all due respect, the economy was not stimulated by Bush's magnaminious return of small amounts of money to taxpayers. It was abread and circuses gesture. The fact that our budget WAS balanced and is now again running a deficit while the national debt continues to swell is not offset by his generosity. It was not meant as an economic stimulus but as a PR token.

As for his tax policies causing the economy's improvement, I don't know if you have noticed but the Dow is sitting around 8300. It hasn't been so anemic since Jimmy Cartter yielded the throne. The economy reflects, among other things, confidence in money and in markets.

However I woudl disagree with Nicole that economies inevitably slump post war. The boom post WWII brought us suburbs, refrigerators, the electric home, the family Chevy, the transistor radio and the popularization of tennis and television, the 45 rpm and 33 1/3 RPM LP record, stereos, the Weavers, Pete Seeger and the seeds of the Beat, Hip and Flowerchild generations.

The post Gulf War boom brought us the Internet, PDAs, desktop computers in bounding numbers, optical technology, HUMVEEs and HDTV, USB and Firewire and wireless networks, cellphones, E-Bay and Amazon.

Just to keep both perspectives in view here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Another Bush War (2)
From: DougR
Date: 03 Sep 02 - 11:36 PM

Michaelr: I beg to differ. I think Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq. I dont' know why there is so much hemming and hawing about who is to blame for the cessation of inspections anyway. Saddam is clearly in violation of the U. N. Accord because he agreed, at the end of Desert Storm, to allow unfettered inspections. He reneged. Seems pretty clear to me. I do think it would be wise for Bush to go back to the U.N. and take another shot at requiring Saddam to allow the inspectors back in and allow them to look wherever they wish and at whatever they wish. If he doesn't agree, and there is ample proof he is planning the kind of mischief the administration thinks he is, then go get him. His offer to allow a congressional delegation in to make the inspections is laughable.

Someone earlier asked, why should there be inspections in the first place? It was a condition Saddam agreed to in order to stop Desert Storm from going on into Bagdad and killing his sorry ass.

Nicole: Do you REALLY believe Bush would start a war only to line his own pockets with money? If you do, I think that is sad.

The fact that people DID go out and buy consumer goods their tax refund is greatly responsible for the economy's improvment. That and the tax reduction.

Telling folks to save oil isn't going to get the job done. Americans still want to drive their SUVs, pickups, big cars, etc., and consider the right to do so, almost as important as preserving their civil rights.

I just saw an interview with Alan Dershowitz (sp?) on TV. Now no one can point the finger at him and say, "Conservative." Yet, when asked about the loss of civil liberties so many of you are concerned about he said, (paraphrasing) "there are times during national emergencies when it is necessary to revise our civil rights to suit the situation." Not an exact quote, but that was the gist of what he said. I agree, and I never thought in a hundred years I would ever agree with him on anything.

I was around during WW II, which was the last declared war as Don pointed out, the Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and I do not remember any debate about the formality of declaring war. As I recall, there was only one single vote in the Congress against declaring war against Germany and Japan in 1941.

DougR