BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE

Subject: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:17 AM

There may be more to be said in continuation of Part Four over here, but it is too long.

So say it here instead!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bagpuss
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:24 AM

Sumthin' up with that link....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bagpuss
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:27 AM

Part Four over here

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:29 AM

Thanks, 'Puss! One of these days I am gonna stop doing that!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:45 AM

Notes on 9-12: The headquarters of the command overseeing U.S. forces in
the Mideast is at least temporarily moving much of its staff from
its current home in Florida to a base in the Persian Gulf state
of Qatar. The NYT and WP both point out that the base in question
has recently been expanded and is now probably ready to serve as
a big war HQ. FYI: One of the reasons the papers may know that is
because some folks have recently published commercial satellite
photos showing construction at the base. [See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/al-udeid-imagery2.htm]

Ethnic groups in northern Iraq are
"already squabbling" about who should control one oil-rich area
if and when Saddam falls. Various pundit-types have been warning
recently that should Saddam get the boot, the U.S. will have a
tough-time keeping Iraq in one piece.

(From "Today's Papers" digest).

As if the Balkanization of the Balkans wasn't bad enough, and the disintegration of the Afghan tribes into squabbles, now we'll be back to the days of Lawrence of Arabia, with feuding tribal segments making life in Iraq look like a war zone...well, er...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 11:31 AM

Well, danged, Amos... I'm not liking this anymore today than yesterday but then again Iz keeping my ol' Wes Ginny butt the heck away from the brainwashing television like it was a box illed with high grade uranium...

Ahhhhh, I understand that the Pope has now weighed in and thinks that the US needs to go to the United Nations and not attack without a Security Council resolution, which of course the US most definately won't get.

This does not bode well for Junior since an attack on Iraq would be in violation of International Law, well unless we just don't give a danged about those minor details.

Well, this is one heck of a mess. Junior & Co. might just have to settle for months of arms inspection in Iraq, long enough for that sleeping dog (the 2000 Selection) to awaken and come out from under the porch. Talk about a man sweatin' bullets? Whew. When that dog gets out, man, the Prez. gonna be busier than an Envon paper-shreader...

BTW, just in case I have forgotten to mention. "Iraq Attack. No!"

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: curmudgeon
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:06 PM

Bobert -- I think there might just be two dogs under that porch. The "axis of evil" speech was delivered exactly two months after the collapse of Enron. Based on a very basic look through Google, it seems that the intensity of the sabre rattling goes up with each corporate scandal -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:24 PM

Remember the old story about the drunk who dropped his keys? They found him looking for them under the street lamp. "But you didn't drop them here" they said "Ah, but there's more light here so I can see better."

That seems to me the same basic logic as there is for this war they're gearing up for. Al Qaida might have organised September 11th, but it's tricky finding them. Iraq on the other hand appears to have had nothing to do with September 11th - but at least they know where Iraq is.

And there's all that lovely oil up for grabs as well...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:36 PM

Now lookie here, Bobert...

When God, justice, AND freedom, AND all human decency are on YOUR side...who the hell cares about "international law". If a law ain't made in America, what kind of damn law is it anyway??? I ask you that!

International law did not stop Uncle Sam from mining harbours in Nicaragua, assassinating priests and politicians in South and Central America, and financing death squads in them places either...and it sure as hell ain't gonna stop Uncle Sam from kicking Saddam's ugly butt around the block!

Got that, sucker? Make my day, Islamic fanatics! Eat leaden death! The Yanks are comin'!

The above is a despatch from the American Bureau of World Cultural Improvement and Ameliorization. Our motto: "Resistance is Futile"

See Mel Gibson's next heroic movie for further moral reinforcement of our cause, and bring a hankie or two just in case.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 01:21 PM

Hawk:

As the founder of the ABWCIA I am sure you will take into consideration a suggestion: change your motto to "Renaissance is Feudal"!

Oh, BTW, what color IS your passport?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 03:31 PM

Well, danged, Little Hawk. Don't know what got into my pea sized Wes Ginny thinkerator... Must have been a bad batch of mountain liquir... I hate it when they use them old Chevy radiators... Nothin' like a sip of crystal clear Ford radiator moonshine.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 03:45 PM

Huh? Just what are you implying, Amos?

(I can't remember what colour it is...I will have to go dig it out of wherever it is hiding, and see.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:06 PM

Bobert: Uh, just what international law are your referring to?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:06 PM

I was just reflecting that you might actually be a Canadian, LH -- you know, a subject of a monarch?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Venthony
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:25 PM

"Renaissance is feudal" -- I like that. Really. It's clever.

Now then, down to it.

Most of you folks remind me of the "peace at any price" socialists who made a lot of noise here in the U.S. back in the 30s.

The facts are that radical fundamentalist Islam IS evil, and that sooner or later the Democratic nations -- OK, the West -- is going to have to kill it. Might as well be sooner.

I don't know about you, but the next song I plan to write will be something along the lines of "God Bless the 82nd Airborne."

We won't be here, but it'll be interesting -- in 100 years -- to see who was right. Given how most liberals thought the Soviet Union would come out, I'd bet $100 that history is on my side.

Tony

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:28 PM

Oh. Ha! Ha! Well, the Queen has actually never made any real demands on me that I know of...

Some days I feel like an object, but very seldom do I feel like a subject.

I would prefer to be a planetary citizen, but that system hasn't been set up yet.

I do enjoy creating bogus organizations with impressive names, as you know. The WSSBA, by the way, is a ferment of activity at the moment, what with the new students coming in all hopeful and bright-eyed, each of them dreaming of accomplishing full Shatnerization in the next 3 to 4 years of diligent study.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:44 PM

Well, the new motto is a reflection on the current belief system in play at the Hill. As you probably know the REAL Renaissance was anything but feudal!

Venthony: I dunno who I remind you of -- not my problem -- but I do not believe in peace at any price. If you read my many posts trying to understand the situation around 11-30 September 201, you will see that I insist over and over again that what we must do is focus on the intelligent use of the correct tools on correctly identified targets for valid purposes. That does not include going into international war without a well defined goal. It does not include relying on half-assed intell to commit millions of dollars and hundreds of American lives.

If that Hussein-hole is building nukes, we should take them out, and him as wlel if need be.

But I shun the role of eliminating other people's lives and I think every thinking human being should shun it , except in the case of clear and present threat and real danger. If you read what I have written here about Shrub, it is over and over that he should state the factys on which he believes he is operating plainly. I do not believe he is up to it, either in terms of courage or in terms of ethics.

You may be right about history, but I wouldn't bet on it. The future blessing ofhistory has been used to inspire true believers in every mad mass movement since the first crusade, and such invocations are more often wrong than right, and are semantically null.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:57 PM

"The facts are that radical fundamentalist Islam IS evil, and that sooner or later the Democratic nations -- OK, the West -- is going to have to kill it."

How anthropocentric of you. Islam is not a form of government and democracy is not a religion. Democracy is not limited to the west or Christianity and theocratic and fundamentalist governments are not limited to the middle east. Let's stop perpetuating the stereotypes. Evil comes in all shapes, sizes, religions and governments. Arbitrarily condemning an entire country or region based on the actions of a portion of the people only serves to reinforce the support for the extremists who want to wage religious war.

Is fundamentalist Islam more or less evil than the fundamentalist Christians who attacked me, kicked me in the ribs and stomach, and stabbed at me with the stakes of their picket signs outside a woman's hospital -- presumably because I was young and female, and therefore MUST getting an abortion? (I was getting a pap smear. What if I had been pregnant and was coming in for a sonogram?)

Shall we label the US or the West evil because a segment of Christianity has hateful, violent views in the name of their religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 05:14 PM

My God, Nicole!!    What an awful encounter!!! Thanks god it wasn't an appointment for a sonogram!!

What city was this in, if I may ask?

Venthony: part of intelligent analysis is recognizing correct sources and correct targets. For example, your statement that "radical fundamental Islamism is evil" is a partial or disguised truth. And the conclusion, that therefore the West needs to kill something or someone, is erroneous.

It is true that radical fundamentalism, in the sense you use the word, is generally pretty evil stuff. It is no prettier in Virginia than it is in Bhaghdad. In either case the lesson has been taught over and over that making martyrs does not resolve theistic facisms or fanatacism. Education, and finding root causes (such as poverty, political oppression, or intention manipulation) can be effective, though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Venthony
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 05:24 PM

Dear Nicole,

I am sorry -- heartbroken, if you will believe me -- for your pain.

But Islamic fundamentalism IS a form of government in several of the the world's most repressive and powerful regimes.

You were attacked by hooligans who can -- one hopes -- be charged, prosecuted and jailed. The Kurds, and others, have no such hope.

Their lives are being extinguished, their wives and daughters raped, their leaders totured, their land seized, and their environment poisoned for no other reason than to realize a madman's dream of a theocratic dictatorship.

Every good wish and prayer that God may heal your pain. But Saddam, to put it bluntly, simply has to be killed.

Respectfully, Anthony Brown

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 05:31 PM

Doug: Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Tony: What Nicole and Amos said. I have a longer more involved post on the "Vengence" threads that rouches on some of these issues.

Nicole: I am so sorry that these fundementalist Christains dud this to you but you can bet the farm that they know a lot more about Papst Blue Ribbon and carburetors than the New Testament.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:31 PM

This was years ago in LA and I was not seriously injured although I was only 18, terrified, and black and blue for weeks -- no thanks to the police who just watched it happen. I later learned the hospital was used to dealing with it and their security guards -- the ones that intervened in my case -- were temps they hired when they saw the "demonstrators" show up in the morning.

Tony, the fact that you justify the murder of Saddam Hussein under the guise of the "evils" of fundamental Islam shows how little you know actually about the subject and how much your views have been colored by those who would much rather you accept their interpretations of "evil." Saddam is a dictator, but Iraq is not a theocracy and most Iraqis do not practice fundamentalist forms of Islam, like Wahhabi.

It may be time for a pop quiz on the three major western religions. Lemmee think about that tonight...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:52 PM

Bobert: Iraq is the law breaker, not the U.S or any of it's allies. The president laid it on the line at the U.N. today. Either the U. N. will enforce the Resolutions Iraq agreed to, or the U. S.,and by then, many allies with enforce them. No doubt about it in my mind, and no doubt that we will be justified doing it.

'Peers to me, Bobert, that a member of your new administration mayb be bolting the corral. Amos agreed that if Saddam has nukes, he should be taken out. You don't agree with that statement do you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:55 PM

Without getting in to academics, let's draw some insight from ordinary human experience.

When an individual is able to kill, and upset enough to kill, but thinks it through and does not, he is called a normal guy.

WHen an individual steps in and uses physical force to protect someone else from violence, or to subdue a criminal who is threatening the use of violence. and thus save aparticular situation by handling the source of it, he is often called heroic.

When an individual is angry and takes it out on anyone who crosses his path, using emotional and physical force to intimidate others needlessly and arbitrarily, he is usually known as a cheap bully.

When this form of bullying gets violent to the point of physical harm, he is labeled a criminal, a thug, or perhaps a murderer or serial killer.

The difference is in the balance between analysis and dramatization used, which shows up in whether his force is used on the right people for the right reason (see case "hero" above) or on wrong targets and for wrong reasons (see cases "thug", "bully", "criminal" above).

It does not make a whit of difference whether he rationalizes his acts by conscience, theism, his mother's memory, or his boss' orders. It is the act and the degree of sanity behind it that matters. Never mind the content, the explanations or the justifications.

It is clear from this perspective that we have plenty of heros, plenty of bullies, plenty of thugs and criminals in this country. So does Saddam and so does every other nation. These are not categories based on philosophical notions; they are found in any collection of human beings.

'Course, letting them in office is another matter! :>)...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: bob jr
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 07:18 PM

I find it interesting that people discuss the plight of the Kurds in Irag (where some live and are persecuted) when its handy to do so but not when it isnt i.e. the Kurds in Turkey (where MOST of them live) who have been systematically marginalized and yes killed in large numbers. Could it be that those in Iraq serve a purpose (it suits current propaganda needs?) while those in Turkey (an important American ally) serve none? I dont think its even a question you have to consider for more than two seconds. Rheoteric and bluster may get Americans worked up about attacking Iraq but never kid yourselves into believing the reasons you are being given are even remotely close to the truth. If American foreign policy was based on removing dictators Vietnam and Korea would never have happened..Pinnochet would be an imprisoned ex army general and Samosa would have been removed after two minutes as president. Just in case any of you have forgotten, when it was convient for the states, Saddam was an american ally. He was no less a despot back in those days either.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 07:33 PM

Saddam's regime isn't a nice regime, but it isn't a fundamentalist Islamic one either. One in five Iraqis are Catholics, including members of the government, and there's no pressure on women to keep out of sight or not to drive and so forth. All of which is in sharp contrast with such friendly countries as Saudi Arabia (where the hijackers came from, and where their perverted brand of Islam has its main backers.)

But passports - I was rather under the impression that in some circles having a passport is seen as rather opening holders to the suspicion of being a bit un-American.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 09:23 PM

You're right Bob Jr. Folks also conveniently forget that the Kurds are rarely criticized for trying to overthrow the governments of the countries in which they live, murder non-Kurds, and basically be just as vicious as the "bad guys."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 09:28 PM

Doug,

No one breakin' ranks here, buddy. Yeah, sure. If Saddam has nuclear weapons that can't be delivered than we have a problem, 'cept he don't. Bush even knows he don't.

Like I've tried to tell you before, it ain't rocket science to realize you're gonna need some good ones to deliver a nuclear warhead with any level of accuracy.

Now, rockets ain't exactly invisable and when folk go firin' em off other folks know it. Most rockey programs blow yp a lot of rockets before they actually get the first one off the ground.

So there's Saddam, with his nuclear device inside a suitcase that is duct taped to the nose cone of lets say a scud. We'll, during the Persian Gulf thing Saddam found out that he doesn't know the first thing about even flying one of them.

So there's a couple of fuses that need to be lit. One fir the nuclear device in the suitcast taped to the rocket and then one fir the rocket and Saddam has a book of matches in his hand.... Oh no, this is not a good sign.

"Hmmmmm?" Saddam wonders outloud. "Which one do I light first and then what if I light the nuclear device in the suitcase and then can't get the rocket one lit. Hmmmmmm? Waht happen if like the last time I lit one of these rockets it went stright up and came right back at me? Hmmmmm? What if...."

So Saddam figures that maybe today isn't a good day for flying his rocket afterall...

The End

And, Doug. This little story is not far off the mark...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 09:46 PM

LOL!! Bobert, you should have beem a political cartoonist!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:55 PM

Actually, the thing for Saddam to do...if he had say one or two or three nuclear bombs...would be this: Save them as a last ditch revenge weapon if he is invaded and his regime is about to fall, then use them in revenge. He would maybe be able to lob one to Israel (just maybe...but no guarantee) and save the other 2 to detonate on the ground or at very short range by artillery or scud missile onto the American or Coalition forces coming in on his borders. In this way he would at least have the satisfaction of going out in a blaze of glory and killing a whole lot of his enemies before they killed him.

Only a direct invasion of Iraq would be likely to inspire an act this desperate, since it would be a suicidal and final gesture.

The very possession of nuclear weapons by smaller powers is because they are a deterrent to attack, correct? Pakistan has them as a deterrent to India, knowing that India is militarily stronger.

The only way you can force a smaller country to use its nuclear weapons is to invade them and leave them "no other choice", as they see it.

Knowing this, why would Bush invade Iraq? Does he not care about the consequences? Or does he in fact not believe that Saddam has any nuclear weapons?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:41 AM

The thing for Saddam to do, if really wants to attack the US, is to use our vast stockpile of weapons against us. Saddam doesn't HAVE to have a nuke if he can sabotage a nuclear reactor. You don't have to have a huge bomb to take down a major building (as we've learned the hard way), and even less to take out a busy bridge or dam, and you don't have to transport a huge quanity of explosives if you can just start a fire at a large refinery situated near a metropolitan area.

Comparative Western Religions quiz coming up soon...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:58 AM

If he were to do that, we would pour Marines into Iraq until they ran every stoplight and watering hole in the country. Not a wise course of action.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 01:08 AM

I agree, not a wise thing to do at all. But if Saddam is crazy enough to launch a nuke at us (as we're all supposed to believe), he wouldn't need to build one and stick it on a rocket.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:29 AM

Amos, will you quit sucking up to your boss (Bobert)! You said if Saddam has nukes, we should get rid of him, or words to that effect. I called this to the attention of your boss, and he babbles on about "if Saddam has nuclear weapons he can't deliver, then we have a problem." That's a problem? The problem, Mr. President, is if he CAN deliver them! Geeze! If you're gonna be president, Bobert ole' Buddy, then you're going to have to shape up a bit. Bush has, so I'm sure if you put your mind to it, you can too!

And as to our backing Saddam many years ago, yes that's right. Why? Because our relations with Iran happened to be piss poor at the time. Why? Because they held lots of fine American folks as hostage and Jimmy Carter couldn't figure out a way to "talk" them into freedom. So yes, we crawled into bed with Saddam. Why? It suited our interest at the time to do so. Rocket science, right?

The ball is in the U.N. and Saddam's court now. The U. S., for the time being, is out of it. Now we will see just how strong the U. N. is, and how dedicated they are to enforcing their own Resolutions.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bagpuss
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 05:51 AM

"And as to our backing Saddam many years ago, yes that's right. Why? Because our relations with Iran happened to be piss poor at the time. Why? Because they held lots of fine American folks as hostage and Jimmy Carter couldn't figure out a way to "talk" them into freedom. So yes, we crawled into bed with Saddam. Why? It suited our interest at the time to do so. Rocket science, right?"

If you can't see why that is a problem, then I'm not sure what to say...

As others have said, the Iraqi government is not an islamic fundamentalist one. Some of the peoples in his country (eg the Kurds and the Shia muslims) are more fundamentalist than them. Since Islamic fundamentalism is evil, is Saddam justified in attacking them and and trying to stamp out this "evil"? Iran is also actively seeking nuclear weapons, and is a fundamentalist regime. Why aren't we attacking him first?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 08:49 AM

The UN be damned. Give the job to Isreal. They did well in 1981, and with no endless debates.They just went in and took it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 09:02 AM

The argument is that it is possible that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction at some time, and might launch a suicidal attack against the rest of the world, and that this justifies a pre-emptive strike by the USA against that country.

That is an argument that would justify a pre-emptive strike against any country on the planet that a US government might at any time choose to target.

One thing for certain, if Bin Laden is alive he must be praying for that attack on Iraq to take place.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Peg
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:21 AM

Did anyone catch Letterman on 9-11? I did not watch TV all day but switched it on after midnight. Bill Clinton was his guest. Lots of intelligent conversation (good questions from Dave) on energy policy and also Iraq. Bill's opinion: Saddam is dangerous and a proven murderer and thug and not very bright to boot. But he thinks an all-out, hastily-planned attack is not a good idea. He suggested that going through the UN was the best course, since any violations would result in the widespread removal of chemical and nuclear weapons. (Of course there is one inspector who is now claiming there are no WMDs there; one wonders if he has been bought). Clinton reminded everyone that this is what happened during his presidency; that the weapons inspection, before it went awry, did result in removal of dangerous WMDs. He also stated that if we do not get these weapons soon, Saddam will likely give them to nations happy to use them against us, in addition to using them himself. Now I hear on NPR that the deadlines connected to inspections will be in terms of "days and weeks" and not "months."

Meanwhile the armed forces are already preparing to fight a war there and Congress still has not declared anything...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:38 AM

Weird things happen when powerful people want war. The Japanese Navy was bittery opposed to launching a war on the USA in the late 30's and early 40's because their commander, Admiral Yamamoto, believed they could not win such a war. He was called "defeatist" and threatened with assassination by the Army hawks, who wanted a war (which the Navy would have to fight...). He was finally sent to sea, in order to keep him alive, since he still opposed going to war, and a lot of people were out to kill him for it.

The Army, you see, was running the political show in Japan at that time.

Well, the Army finally got its way, and war became absolutely inevitable, despite the fact that Yamamoto was dead right...it was virtually unwinnable for Japan, unless they worked miracles...and the USA made huge blunders at the same time.

Yamamoto got the order to fight...and like any good Japanese immediately set out to obey it as best he could. He planned the Pearl Harbour operation, which he figured was the best shot at evening up some very uneven long range odds.

For this he was hated by Americans, yet he was the strongest voice in Japan against fighting the USA in the first place. Americans did not know that, I suppose, although I'm sure their political and military top leaders knew it.

The Americans later planned a trap for Yamamoto, and shot him down with P-38's in 1943. Sweet revenge, they called it.

Now...I wonder if Bush, like Tojo, will finally get his way and have his war. At least in his case, he knows he can "win" it...conventionally speaking. Sort of like Japan attacking some little place like Thailand in 1941 would have been....but with greater long term risk this time, I'd say. Too much possible fallout in all the wrong directions.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:04 AM

Danged, Doug. As we know the Prez, ain't much at typing, especially on the home pudder since with the exception of 3 or4 letters my 17 year old has worn the rest off the keys but my post should have read:

"nuclear waepons that he *can*, not *can't* deliver. I figured the rest of the post made my point perfectly clear.

And I will try to get this keyboeard thing straightened out.

And since when did Junior shape up as Prez.? Following orders and shaping up are two different things. Boy, I'd like to know how many of my hard earned tax dollars go toward the long distance calls between Junior and his daddy... Whew...

Heard some congressman on C-Span yesterday talking about how his emails, letter and calls were 40 to 1 against a unilaterial strike. So, right now, Doug, your guy is looking real out of the mainstream.

But I sure am glad that folks are doing what I, and others have advised, in letting the powers at be know out dipleasure for continuing failed foriegn policies.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:45 AM

Bobert: you evidently read the post I wrote concerning our (the U.S.) position after the president's speech to the U.N. We are out of it. The ball is in the U.N.'s court. It also is in Saddam's court. It is up to the U.N. to enforce it's resolutions. If they don't, resolutions mean nothing to any nation. If Saddam refuses to abide by the agreements he made to end Desert Storm, the U. N. should assume that the Desert Storm conflict is not over, and U. N. forces should go into Iraq and take Saddam out. Now who do you suppose will comprise the majority of U. N. forces? Who will likely spend most of the money to finance the U. N. effort? Who will supply the majority of the weapons required? The U. S.? Yep!

I didn't catch the Letterman show Peg. Did Dave ask Clinton what had changed since 1998 that caused him to change his opinion as to what course the U. S. should take in regard to Iraq? In 1998 he was proposing military action against Iraq. So was Tom Daschle, the Hawk who suddenly has become a Dove. I doubt that was among the many "good" questions Dave posed to the former president though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Peg
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:16 PM

Doug: I don't think Clinton has changed his opinion. Refined it, perhaps. He did not say that military action was out of the question but that to do so without first using the avenue of weapons inspection by way of the UN was not advisable.

One thing that has changed (which is obvious and perhaps why it did not need to be discussed) is that the American public, for the most part, is much more highly-sensitized to the implications of our foreign policy than we were a year and two days ago. Even though he seems to be charging ahead in bull-headed fashion, Bush has also had to backpedal a bit in recent days (though this may just be for appearances since we are amassing troops and making preparations in the Gulf as we speak). It is clear that public suport for him is high, but it is also clear that Americans are not overwhelmingly in favor of an invasion of Iraq. Some of them may only be worried about higher gasoline prices for their stupid SUVs, but plenty of them are worried that agression against Iraq without attempting to contain the chemical weapons situation could result in an unthinkable situation once again on American soil. The Europeans are understandably nervous as destruction of chemical or biological weapons depots in Iraq could have devastating implications for neighboring nations. I admire Blair for standing his ground because I consider him an intelligent and compassionate man... but then again, this is a man who is shockingly unwilling to acknowledge that the vast majority of his constituents are opposed to his stance in this matter. This worries me. But not as much as it worries me that our own leader is displaying this same contrariness, which is much more likely a result of his own obliviousness and stubborn Oedipal-driven ego.

Clinton seemed to be saying that Bush has not thought this through. I would agree. And Clinton's skills in foreign policy, while not exemplary, are nevertheless impressive far and away more practiced and informed than the shrub, who continues to deal in jingoistic platitudes and Bubba-friendly rhetoric.

Oh for a thoughtful and well-informed leader. One who managed to travel to Europe just once before he got "elected."

peg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:34 PM

And just another thought or two, my friend... All of a sudden, when backed into a corner by public pressure, where does Junior run but to the United Nations. You asked who's gonna pay. Last I heard, it was Ted Tunrner paying the past due bills for the US. The US, over the last 30 years goes to the United Nations only as a PR stop but if they don't get their way they jkust go ahead and do what ever the heck they want to do anyway.

And this is what Jniour has implied. Either you guys do this or if not, then we will. This isn't about the security of the US or even the region for that matter. Its a big ol' PR thing for Junior to keep the big dog under the porch.

And as for violations. If we do invade, we will be in violation of Article 51. But like who cares, right. And we have allies, close allies, in the Middle East who have violated UN agreements over the last decade or so that we never went to the UN to complain about. Hmmmmmmm? Dual standards.

Come to think about this entire situation one can find dual standards as a primary driving force behind most of it....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 01:22 PM

Last poll I heard -- and this was about a week ago, so it may be quite different now -- was that about 37% of Americans believe there is sufficient evidence to attack Iraq.

That's not even close. The UN is not just a PR stop, it's vital to the Prez making a case to the American people. With everyone paying so much attention, an attack right now would severly damage his credibility with the American people.

Which is not to say it won't happen. There's a great article in a recent Christian Science Monitor (not exactly a bastion of liberal ideals) titled "Beware of Babies in Incubators." Last time a Bush wanted to attack Iraq and public support was low, a story suddenly started circulating about how the Iraqi invaders had taken Kuwaiti babies out of hospital incubators so they take the incubators. Average folks were justifiably outraged at that kind of cruelty, and Bush Sr. had the public support he needed for the war.

The story not only turned out to be completely false, but witnesses with fake identities purjured themselves before Congress and the UN to testify to the event.

The articles point was, of course, that we need to evaluate the actual evidence, and beware of PR stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 01:42 PM

"For while Bush made token gestures towards the UN...the kind of UN resolution he sketched out would be essentially the same as Austria's ultimatum to Serbia in July 1914: written in such a way as to produce rejection, and thereby to lead to war."

I was interested to see that same parallel drawn this time by Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC, in a piece in The Guardian today, from which that quote comes. Bush as Emperor Franz-Josef? Or maybe Kaiser Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:23 PM

Well, This is Bobert's 17 year old degenerate computer-obssessed-hair-dyed-2-diff.-colors-all-pierced-up-n-ready-to-go-son. Ol' Bobert is eatin his lunch, and I'm supposed to be workin an all, but nobody ever done defined the word work to me, so I'z not that good with this whole responsible working thing. I decided to read up on this thing I like to call 'the catbox' well, I'z readin the posts, Figgered I pretty much knew the story from the news and all them good sources, and I should make a comment er 2. First comment is, hospital grilled cheeze sammiches are yummy and cooked, but not burnt. Second comment is how Emporer Junior thinks alot of things, but can't remember them when it comes time to discuss anything...I give him points for...WAit..no I dont. Sorry. First of all, he's got empty-box-itis, he thinks we all have empty-box-itis too, well thats the way it seems anyway. I'm not too political, I'd rather keep out of politics and keep my friends, but this thing gets me so mad I could....I could....I could chase down a raccoon and hog-tie it with it's own tail I'm so mad. Where's his support. Where's the proof, I mean really, Where be the proof at? I got some proof at home, 200 proof, good stuf...But that aint even scratchin the surface, he thinks that cuz we're america and we're so BIG AND BAD, and everybody lives our rule, like Dictator of the world. But we're just a country, living like we choose to live, if some country lives otherwise its not our business. As long as they hurtin people its all good, well it might not be good, but it aint our business. We got a world to make peaceful and all it seems we're doing is stirrin up war after war after war after war, etc. Can you think of any changes that have been brought about since El Supreme Being: Shrub came into office? I belive, now, I belive that war isn't the answer for this situation. Why kill people for killin people, you see, that brings us down to their level. That make us as bad as they are, we need to show them we're not like that, manipulate them with some good actions and by *NOT* talking about war, we shoudln't even discuss war, its only going to fire 'em up and make them run their moutshs, then Ol'J-R. is gonna say 'they were threatening the lives of american citizens and thats all I can take and I can't take no more!!! ***pushes little red button*** ((Nuklear Launce Detected)) \ \ ~~~>>>[(NUKE)]> 5...4...3...2..1...*+*~BOOOM~*+* / /

'The American people are now safe from Iraq threats, but it would seem that ***picks number out of lotto machine*** 47, powell, whats 47..***looks over list*** It would appear that China, ladies and gentlmen, China is making threats against American lives, And thats all I can take..and I cant take no more!!!! ***pushes little red button........"

It will continue until the 2004 election when he gets outta there unless something happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:29 PM

Now I really gotta go to work, These views do not represent the views of my Dad. I am 17 and stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:55 PM

Thanks Peg. I wish I had watched Letterman.

Bobert: I don't think we would be in violation of ANY U. N. Resolutions were we to invade Iraq. We would simply be finishing the job not done by Desert Storm. Saddam agreed to abide by Sixteen U. N. Resolutions as a proviso for ending Desert Storm. He has not adhered to even one of them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:51 PM

Well, heck, there, Dougie. I believe the Golf of Tonkin Resolution is still in effect so, what the hey, why not just go back there, too?

Doug, Doug, Doug... Man, I had allready given you more credut than to buy that crapola. Come on, I think we'd agree that dragging out a 13 year old resolution for a war that ended after about 30 days is kinds like really grasping for straws.

But, heck, the entire premise is based on smoke and mirrors... so wht not?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:54 PM

Ahhhh, yeah, I'll second that remark bu my son that his views do not represent mine. No wonder he didn't finish his putter work while I was at lunch today.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: bob jr
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 09:09 PM

who ordered the un inspectors out of iraq? if you guess saddam you dont get the gold star.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:09 PM

Quote me somewhere where it says that a country has the right to go to war because another country is not complying with UN resolutions?

The only case where it is legal for a country to go to war, without specific authorisation from the UN, is when it is responding to a direct attack.

Iraq has not made any attack on the USA. When it attacked Iran, it did so wit the backing of the United States, acting as its agent. When it occupied Kuwait, this appears to have been after it understood that US diplomats had given it the green light to do so. Its use of poison gas was colluded in by the then US government.

None of that makes it anything other than a vile regime, guilty of appalling atrocities (although these do not not include September 11). But the people in Washington who colluded in the crimes, and who aided and abetted them, are still walking free, as respected citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:38 PM

Well, there you go again, McGrath, usin' facts. Ain't you figured it out yet. Facts don't matter in this deal. Doesn't matter that that JUnior was a multinationalist yesterday and today is a unilaterialist. Doesn't matter if the US breaks international law or minimalizes the United Nations. Nope, none of that matters at all.

What does matter, is that Junior keep a "Boogie Man" in front of him to keep the Amercian attention off:

1. First and formost, the crookedness of the 2000 election.

2. To keep the focus off a failed economic policy that has given a lot of money to Bush's supporters in thre name of stimulating the economy.

3. An all out assault on American Labor.

4. The fact that Bush isa not much more than a puppet of the ruling class.

5. An energy policy that was written by 42 of Bushes closest oilmen buddies.

6. The green flag he has given to corporate America, in spite of his warnings to his buddies to not get caugt.

7. The Bill of Rights and the fact that John Ashcroft has absolutely no rexspect for the Bill of Rights.

8. The efforts to sacre the media into goose stepping to his tune in the name of patriotism.

9. The seemless incorporation of beliefs of the Christain Right into the policies of the country. (Hey, Junior, we all gotta face judgement...)

and 10. The simple fact that what Jefferson had in mind was a society of ideas and desent.

Add yours...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:57 PM

No, no, no, Bobert, and McGrath. If U. N. Resolutions are not enforced, why adopt them in the first place? The U. N. does not have a standing Army, so if they are going to enforce Resolutions adopted, who is to do it? A coalition of forces, right? If it is impossible to build a coalition, then the strongest nation militarily has to do it, right? Or perhaps you are of the opinion that the U. N. should establish Resolutions that they know will not be enforced. If so, no point in reading further. Also, no point to having a United Nations.

Bobert, my friend, your ten points are opinions. No point in replying to them. In most instances just figure a 180 and let it go at that.

McGrath, you are an intelligent man. You know (whether you agree or not with the decision) that governments make alliances with governments from time that suit the national interest. Not just the U. S., but all nations, including yours. I think anyone with any "bright" at all would be willing to concede that the U. S. backed Iraq in the war between that country and Iran. So? That was then, this is now! It's easy to look back on history and nit pick mistakes (if it was a mistake)but the world has changed a bunch since the Iraq/Iran conflict. Nothing can be done to change what happened then, and it is irrelivant anyway. We are not faced with the same challenges we were faced with then (speaking not just of the U. S. but of the free world), so why is it so difficult to accept the fact that nations must adjust to the times? Today's friend, may be tomorrow's enemy, or today's enemy may be tomorrow's friend.

Many liberals accuse conservatives of having tunnel vision. Yet when an issue suits the liberal, they embrace tunnel vision with a vengence. It's a puzzelment.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: bob jr
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:19 PM

Dougr you over simplfy things to the point of them being meanigless. The United States didnt just back saddam against Iran...they backed him BEFORE he came to power. He was considered a better alternative to the less diplomatic "moderate" leaders of the Ba'ath" party. The United nations has passed a myriad of resolutions against israel...are you advocating the use of a coallition style force to enforce these resolutions?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:22 PM

Yo, Doug, we aren't the "liberals". You and you guy are. They are the ones Hell bent on changing things. McGrath, Nicole, Amos, etal and I are the conservatives.

Lets keep this thing in some perspective. After 20 years of your side spendin' $millions$ on their PR program to discredit "liberals" now you find yourself one of the biggies.

Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it...

Here, Dougie, sit down and I'll help you with it. Sorry, buddy, but your side is the one that wants to tip over the cart. Not ours...

And as for opinions? No, just fact. You pick anyone of 'em out and we can go toe to toe on it.

Now come on over and get a big hug, Big Guy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 02:32 AM

Hmmmm...that's true. The U.N. has been passing resolutions against Israel for decades. Israel and the USA choose to condemn or ignore those resolutions. Hmmm. I wonder why? Because those resolutions don't suit Israel and the USA.

Same deal in Vietnam, way back then. The USA ignored the fact that after the French left there was to be an agreed-upon erasure of the temporary (one-year) line of division between the northern and southern half of the country and a national election. They did not permit either event to happen, but installed a government of their own choosing in the southern half...a government run by the Catholic Vietnamese minority under Ngo Dinh Diem.

Why? Because the Buddhist majority was going to vote for Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh. That was clear and the USA knew it. The Americans didn't like Uncle Ho, so they:

1. Prevented a legal and peaceful reunification of the country of Vietnam.

2. Thereby subverted the legal arrangements which the French had made with Vietnam a year earlier.

3. Prevented the national election and installed a local dictatorship in the South instead.

3. Got slowly and inexorably involved in the resulting civil war, to preserve that dictatorship and rule a primarily Buddhist country with a minority Catholic administration. They also sought out other minorities such as the Montagnards to help them fight the Vietnamese. This did not give them the winning combination they were hoping for, but it killed a great many people and exacerbated old hatreds in the country.

4. They finally lost the damn war anyway, at the cost of probably a couple of million lives (mostly Southeast Asian lives).

So...what does the US administration believe in? Democracy? No. Justice? No. Equality? No. National sovereignty? (other people's, I mean...) No. International law? No. Anything deeply idealistic whatsoever? NO!!!

The USA believes in WINNING, and it believes its own mythology of cultural superiority. Period. This is basically what Al Capone believed in too, and it's what Stalin, Napoleon, and Caesar believed in, and it's what Saddam Hussein believes in.

The actual truth of the matter is that the USA favours democracy and the rule of law when it is in the interests of the USA and doesn't when it's not. It's that simple. In this respect, the USA is much like most other countries...a hypocrite when its own interests are at variance with the truth.

It is the job of George Bush and Saddam and most other politicians to obfuscate these things, so that their public remains patriotic and supportive of their chosen agendas. (Some politicians are naive enough to believe even the most unlikely of their own propaganda statements, and might thus be called "honest men". I don't know if George Bush is that naive, but he may be. Reagan was. Saddam certainly is not.)

They accomplish that job it by thumping the drum of patriotism, and scaring the bejesus out of their citizens with tales of "enemies", foreign and domestic. This is the oldest trick in the book. An aggressive country NEEDS enemies, and constantly creates them by its actions. If there are no real enemies available it will manufacture some...usually on a prime piece of desirable real estate somewhere where there are valuable strategic gains to be made.

It's been going on for centuries.

Nothing new really at all.

The USA worries me more than Saddam, simply because it is very powerful and he is much less so.

In the same way, Imperial Rome would have worried me more than, say, the Celts in Ireland....had I been living in Egypt around 55 BC or thereabouts. I trust no national administration, but the ones that worry me most are the ones with the most long range firepower...and the most control of the media.

If I were a Kurd I would worry plenty about Saddam ("enemy" of America) and about the Turks (ally of America)...being a North American, I am far more worried about an irresponsible administration in the most powerful country on Earth...just across the border from where I happen to live.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Troll
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 03:01 AM

McGrath, because Saddam invaded Kuwait "after it understood that US diplomats had given it the green light to do so" Does not mean that the US actually said OK. It means that Saddam THOUGHT that's what they said. Or so he says.
And " Its use of poison gas was colluded in by the then US government."
You of course have documentary evidence to back this statement up?
Bobert: " If Saddam has nuclear weapons that can't be delivered than we have a problem, 'cept he don't. Bush even knows he don't."
Please provide hard evidence to back up this statement.
If you have such hard evidence, (not some newspaper article or radio report thank you) why not publish it here and now and save the world a lot of grief.
If the situation is more one of you hope and pray Saddam doesn't have nukes, then say that.
You are a lawyer.
You know the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence. Why not apply the same rules to your writings on the Forum as you would to a brief?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 09:04 AM

Troll,

My best piece of evidence is Juniors lack thereof. If he had the goods, he would have delivered them to Congress and the UN.

And as I have said before, rocket science is just that and it seems that when countries test rockets everyone knows it because of the sophisticated monitering capabilities. And rockets are tricky. Ask the US. Heck, with the best of the crop of rocket scientists they blow up their share also.

Are these two observations 100% conclusive? No. But they're darned more conclusive than waht Junior has presented...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: bob jr
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:07 PM

Troll a far more "conclusive" piece of evidence was suppllied by Scott Ritter an american arms inspector (for the un) who stated (while speaking in the English house of parliment) thatIraq has no weapons of mass destruction of any kind. He is american....he was a UN arms inspector....Why would he lie?........"A further irony is that the top weapons-inspector at the time of this report, former Marine Scott Ritter, says Iraq is "qualitatively disarmed" and that "there can be no honor in a policy that that leads to the death, through malnutrition and untreated disease, of 5,000 children under the age of 5 every month." (Boston Globe, 3-9-2000)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:17 PM

By the way, I did not wish to imply that the American public does not hold high ideals...like a belief in democracy, justice, fairness, equality, and so on...

It was rather the government that rules over them that I was referring to. Governments don't deal much in ideals, they deal in material objectives. They play to win. In order to keep playing they have to rally the public around some supposed cause or ideal...and that is primarily what the "War On Terrorism" hype is really about: rallying the public. Terrorism has, after all, been practived repeatedly by most of the powers who claim to be against it. I won't bother naming them. It's obvious to everyone but themselves that their own acts of aggression against others and/or repression on the homefront are...terrorism. Just as war is murder, well organized murder.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:22 PM

Trust the Marines to think about what path of action is honorable. I tell that Corps is a piece of good work, considering the dirty jobs they get sent to do.

McGrath, I too would like to hear the facts behind the proposition that the US colluded with the use of poison gas. Against Iran? When? What did this collusion consist of?


LH -- your Egyptian period was stressful, wasn't it?

Never mind. I hear Liebenscheiss is running a special on past life regressions -- good only through December 30th -- $250 per incarnation, with no charges for phone and xeroxing. (Although you should know that he was the guy who dropped the remark at the Castle Tanstaffel luncheon in Germany, "You'ff scheen vun past life, you'ff scheen dem all!". But you can't beat the price!)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:27 PM

If U. N. Resolutions are not enforced, why adopt them in the first place? The U. N. does not have a standing Army, so if they are going to enforce Resolutions adopted, who is to do it?

Well, Iraq isn't the only country defying UN resolutions. Israel and India have been doing it a lot longer. I can't see many people agreeing that that makes it legal for some third party to come in as an enforcer and wage war against those countries.

And sure Doug, nations get into bed with all kinds of nasty people when it suits them. But there's a price for that, accepting some respopnsibioity fdor what thise allies do. with your help.

The point is, the nastiest things that Saddam has done were done with the collusion of the US (and the UK). And in the case of the US it's even the same set of people in power. And surely the use of poison gas against civilian populations is something any normal human being, even a politician, should recoil from at the time, not when its politically convenient many years later.

"Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the past is repeatedly cited by the US and British governments as justification for his removal from power now. But just what was their response to his use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s? Far from condemning his actions, they stepped up their support for Baghdad." That's from a recent article about all this. In the Guardian, since that's the paper I read - but very likely the same facts would be in the Daily Telegraph, a Tory paper which I don't read but which is pretty good on covering foreign news, being a newspaper rather than a comic or propaganda sheet.

Itwasn't just the USA - "One of the most damning revelations to come out of the Scott inquiry into the arms-to-Iraq affair was the British government's secret decision to supply Saddam with even more weapons-related equipment after he shelled the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988 with gas bombs, killing an estimated 5,000 civilians and maiming thousands more. Saddam said he had punished the Kurds for "collaboration" after the town had been successfully attacked by Iran. The weapons were produced with German-supplied chemicals.

As for the US government:"Soon after the attack, Washington approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a $1bn contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas."

And here is another related article, this time from the Observer. It comments that "So powerful was the grip of the pro-Baghdad lobby on the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan that it got the White House to foil the Senate's attempt to penalise Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons to which it was a signatory. This made Saddam believe that the US was his firm ally - a deduction that paved the way for his brutal invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:44 PM

Thanks, Kevin. Five thousand civilians being slaughtered for "collaboration" sounds like the kind of atrocity only Hitler's management team could dream up. Murderous, and unconscionable and intolerable.

I question the Guardian's analysis or use of language. That 1-billion-dollar petro plant -- mustard gas? They may be stretching that one. But that is a quibble. It is clear that during the Iran-Iraq war the United States was completely shamefully acquiescent on the issue of chemical weapons deployment.

It is a sickening perpsective on the seamiest of politics during the era of Ronal Reagan, the forerunner of Clan Bush, and its moral fountainhead. ANd he seemed such a nice old fart, too...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:50 PM

An interesting counterpoint on the Iraq intervention issue can be found in this article.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 12:55 PM

Saddam's biggest miscalculation of his whole career was the attack on Kuwait. He obviously thought that the USA would either tacitly support him or else just look the other way. He was dead wrong. My personal belief is that the USA wanted him to be misled as to their actual intentions, and suckered him in...for much larger geopolitical reasons...but I may be wrong about that. I think they had decided he was no longer useful, but was becoming a dispensable liability, having failed to destroy the Islamic regime in Iran.

If so, it was a pretty clever move by the USA.

Amos - Ha! I'm not that sure about the Egyptian period...can't get a clear handle on it. I couldn't possibly afford to look into all those past lives at Liebenscheiss's rate, but maybe one or two of the more interesting ones...

I always wanted to have a life as a great lover. That would be worth doing, I think. I've was way too serious in most of this life to manage such a role very well.

Being a femme fatale would be pretty cool too, I suppose... They say that if all of Marlene Dietrich's lovers were lined up in a row, it would reach from here to St. Petersburg.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 01:29 PM

Dang, LH, I missed out on that one!! I think I was grooming myself for a dramatic but short Naval career at the time. Would have loved to've been part of that line out to Saint Petersburg -- I assume you mean the one in RUssia, of course. I mean, why would Marlene's lovers want to make a line to Florida??

LOL!!

Well, as for having a life as a great lover, it's not too late, but you'll need to learn a few new tricks -- but that's a subject for a different thread.

Iraq going through a change of regime, as is pointed out in the article above, would disappoint the find affections of such luminaries as GB Senior and Henry Kissinger. That would be worth a lot. But not at the price, I'm afraid.

The Hussein character is ugly as hell, and will fry for a long time in the dark corners of between-lives oblivion, soon enough. I see no advantage at this point in sacrificing hundreds of lives on both sides to make it happen any sooner. And while Bush Junior argues as if he is the sole repository of all the information needed to make a compelling case, he has proven unwilling to idenitfy such information. We can believe he has compelling intell, if we trust him and his intelligence, or we can consider he is, himself, being a dramatizing psycho.

I am inclined toward the latter view, personally.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 03:15 PM

"The U. N. does not have a standing Army, so if they are going to enforce Resolutions adopted, who is to do it? A coalition of forces, right? If it is impossible to build a coalition, then the strongest nation militarily has to do it, right? "

I will leave the hypocrasy of which resolutions get enforced and which do not aside for the moment. The point I want to address is the statement that if a coalition can't be built, the strongest nation has to do it.

If there's not a consensus of opinion to build a coalition, there's *is* no U.N. action. That's the whole point of the U.N., although sometimes the US likes to think of the U.N. as a puppet for US interests. (And sometimes it is.)

But justifying any act because the U.N. chose not to, and you're bigger and stronger, is not upholding the U.N. or any of the resolutions, it's working against it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 03:20 PM

You folks have found a darling in Scott Ritter, no doubt about it. I believe, though Bobert, Ritter made those remarks to the Iraqi Parliment, not the British Parliment (perhaps he did to both but I'm not aware of it). Scott fails to point out that he accepted $400,000 stipend to produce a documentary on the subject from a wealthy Muslim in the eastern (I think) part of the U. S. That could affect his credibility a bit I think. Also, Ritter presented testamony before the U. S. Congress when the inspectors left Iraq warning of the danger of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. No inspections have taken place since 1998. What proof does he have Saddam doesn't have them now? Maybe Saddam told him so? Yeah, right.

Neither Israel or India is the subject here. Neither of them pose a threat to their neighbors (discounting Pakistan and the Palestinians)or the rest of the world. They have the weapons, but do not have the record of aggretion Saddam has.

Why is it that when you folks, are confronted with the facts about Iraq not living up to it's agreements, you immediately want to refer back to something that happend years ago? Or point out that other nations have not lived up to their agreements. What agreements did Israel and India not live up to anyway? Maybe Tahati hasn't lived up to it's U.N. agreements too! Anybody know? Iraq is the subject, and Iraq is the problem.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 03:33 PM

DougR:

"Iraq is the problem". OK, I accept that, although it would be stupid to imagine that actions on or in Iraq could possibly occur in a vacuum, given the layers of close connection between it and Iran, Palestine, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other nations.

Iraq is the problem because it is doing what, exactly?

I grant you that its history is loathesome, but you are insisting on present danger as the criteria, not the patterns to be learned from the past.

So, what do we know about the clear and present danger which Iraq poses, its munitions levels, its preparations, its support for Al Queada, or its involvement in the current drama of terrorism?

What IS the problem, in fact? Or, do we not have facts?

Let's get that defined. Then it will be a lot clearer what would be a rational address thereto, don't you think?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 04:02 PM

"Neither Israel or India is the subject here. Neither of them pose a threat to their neighbors (discounting Pakistan and the Palestinians)"

Wouldn't that be posing a threat to their neighbors? Or don't Pakistan (our fair-weather ally) and the Palestinians (not our ally) count? If so, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 04:30 PM

The point you were making, Doug, was surely that if UN resolutions are defied it is the duty and right of powerful nations to enforce them.

It's a different point from the one about the supposed threat posed by Saddam tro world peace. However, there is no evidence that I have seen that Iraq poses a particular threat to world peace. Like Israel and Pakistan he has been involved in wars with his neighbours, and has sought to occupy some of their territory, though with less success. (And he's also a very nasty ruler of his own people, but that is another matter, and he is hardly unique in that.)

Iraq's war with Iran was indeed a horrible example of aggression, with enormous loss of life, and involving the use of genocidal weapons. However it is highly unlikely that it would have occurred if the USA had not approved of it.

The occupation of Kuwait appears to have been carried out with the Iraqi government being under the mistaken understanding that the USA had no objections to it, as a kind of consolation prize for the losses in the war against Iran.

The launching of Scud missiles against Israel has to be seen in the context of the Gulf War, as a reprisal against the USA's proxy.

I'm not justifying any of these things. I think they were totally misconceived. But the image of Saddam as an expansionist latter day Hitler is absurd. He bears more resemblance to such people as Batista or Pinochet, a ruthless opportunist, but one who, through the way the historical dice have fallen, has found himself on the wrong side of the blanket.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 04:30 PM

The main thing Saddam has actually done that upsets G.W. is this: he has endured and survived, despite the disapproval of America. He has proven capable (so far) of doing that. He poses no credible threat to the USA itself, but he has survived. Now we all know from all good western movies that there is one hard and fast rule, and it is this: The Bad Guy does NOT survive to the end of the movie. He gets gunned down in the climactic scene by the Good Guy. Since George Bush, in his own mind, is the Good Guy, he just wants like hell to get to the end of the movie and set things right and do like his daddy should've done, that's all...

Then there will naturally be a sequel, with a new Bad Guy (I wonder who it will be?), and so it will go...ad infinitum...or until the USA vanishes into the dust bin of history, which happens to all great empires eventually.

In the meantime, let's get that guy with the portentious voice who does all the movie trailers to do up one for this great new film "GULF WAR II (This time it's personal...)"

Appearing in theatres EVERYWHERE sometime after the November elections...

Har! Har! BS reigns supreme as the dollars roll in. Harrison Ford will portray George Bush Jr., and Mel Gibson will play a hardbitten but sensitive US tank commander with a deep love of his family and country, while Jodie Foster will take on the role of an American war correspondent from CNN, on station in Baghdad when the going gets REALLY tough. Some ugly f**king Mexican with a big moustache will play Saddam, and boy, will he get HIS! But not before ordering a few heartless atrocities and harassing Ms Foster, so we can all really enjoy seeing him go down the tube in the nastiest way possible. He won't die easily, but he'll die with a big bang...be sure of that.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 04:40 PM

Gee, LH, sounds like you got a movie project on yourhands, buddy!

Flog that plot! Flog that plot!! Raaaah!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 05:41 PM

It's really Gulf War III - but the first one didn't get very much distribution, because it didn't have the right cast.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 06:47 PM

"Son of Gulf War?" "I Was a Prepubescent Intenrational Nuisance"? "Back to the Past?" "Daddy's Little Gull"?

I need to get back to work here! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 06:58 PM

Of course it could be an English Film.

"Carry on Shrub"; or "Up the Gulf." Or maybe "The Full Tony". ("The Madness of King George" has already been used.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 08:34 PM

By golly, McGrath, you are right! It IS Gulf War III.

Sort of like what happened with "First Blood", which was actually Rambo I. They just didn't realize it at the time.

Interestingly enough, the Saddam character was one of the main Good Guys in Gulf War I (Iran-Iraq war), while Ayatollah Kohmeini played the Head Honcho Heavy...and WHAT a nasty Bad Guy he was! Sheer casting genius.

Unfortunately, Kohmeini passed away of old age awhile after that, so the Good Guys never got to gun him down. That's a box office tragedy, if you ask me. Maybe he could be recreated through cloning or digital techology, just in time for GULF WAR IV (Return to Teheran).

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 09:27 PM

In this segue, keep in mind that I tend to be pacifistic- or at least anti-capital punishment. (I make the distinction because I feel that if an intruder gets him/her self killed in someone's home because the householder panicked, them's the breaks.)

However- Does anyone imagine that the bushlet will lie awake at night worrying about casualties in the event he sends the troops in? This is the same man who, while he was governor of Texas, acquiesced in the execution of 150 felons. (Luckily, not a single one was innocent.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: bob jr
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 10:27 PM

how about "on the road again to baghdad"? make it a musical

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: GUEST,Amelia
Date: 14 Sep 02 - 11:32 PM

How come there was no bad words said aabout Iraq before we couldn't catch Osama etc.?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 01:09 AM

Well, danged, Doug. Here I go out and spend an evening with Jeery Rasmussen and come home and find you holding down the fort against... well... everyone. So, you being my friend, Iz figures that, what the heck, you'd step in and help me...soz...

Herez what I'm gonna do for you. I'm gonna fight along side you this one time so you can catch your breath. Now watch the ol' bobert in action. Ahhhh, Doug. Why don't you just sit down here in this comfy folding chair whilst I fight fir a while... Here, let me fluff that pillow for ya. Ya comfy? Well good. Now here's how it done, Dougie:

Stand back, you commie pinkos! Doug has put *me* in charge! No more of this wllygagging and walzin'. No sir! Saddam is the devil. He's used weapopns of mass destuction against his own poeole and his neighbors. He'd really like to have a nuclear weapon to shoot at America and if he gets one he's gonna do it. Fir sure...

Howz I doing, Doug?

Now, we gotta stop this mad amn 'cause... ahhh... well, hmmmmmm? (Psssttt. Dougie, Help. Why do we have to stop him?)

Oh yeah, Saddam is a mad man and he's gonna blow up....( Yo, Doug. Ahhh, what's he gonna blow up?)

^$#&^)*&^#&^%*&*)(*)(&*

Yeah, Doug, but howz he gonna do that without...

(^&$#@*^^@^$&^%@%$#@*&

Sorry, Pal. But that doesn't make no sense at all. I thought you all over here on this side had all kinds of real stuff and ideas but, hmmmmmmm?

Look< Doug, atleast I tried. I called 'em a bunch of commies, didn't I?.....

Danged!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 09:51 AM

**BOSEG**, Bobert!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 11:23 AM

Bobert, ol' pal, what are you on? You oughta join in a spelling incoherency competition with John in Hull and see who comes in last! :-)

You could've done a better job than that pinch-hitting for Doug. Try reading some columns by our very own Canadian columnist Barbara Amiel, for some really well thought out analysis of why the left is wrong, wrong, wrong, always has been, and the USA is right, right, right. Barbara is a very smart woman, and she married Conrad Black, who is the most notoriously blackhearted capitalist robber baron in all of Canada (But he moved to England, and I believe is seeking a knighthood there. He despises Canada, cos we're too moderate, wimpy, wishy-washy, and liberal here for his taste. Besides, we're too small for Conrad.)

Anyway, look up Barbara Amiel on Google, read some of her stuff, and you will then be well versed in the rhetoric you sorely need if you want to stand up for what is "RIGHT" in this world. :-)

By the way, I read Barbara's autobiography, and she's an impressive character...but I think she's got a rather skewed view of reality. She would think the same of me.

The other thing you could do is read the Toronto Sun, but they are barely as coherent as you... :-) They are just panting, waiting for the bombs to start falling. There is no international problem which the Sun does not feel cannot be sorted out by a massive military strike by the good ol' USA.

Kill! Kill! Kill!

Kill all bad foreign people, and then go in and develop the place and give 'em shopping malls and McDonald's franchises. That's the Sun's prescription for world peace.

Also, kill or jail all welfare cases, street people, chronically unemployed, and social malcontents and deregulate all industries everywhere and reduce all taxes by, oh, let's say 80%, and lay off virtually all government workers, and privatize everything, selling it off to the highest bidder, and teach everybody to look out for NUMBER ONE, since life is a pitiless fight for survival, and only the strong shall live!

Oh, and build more jails and step up the execution rate drastically. Canada is so far from the kind of society that the editors of the Toronto Sun want that I am surprised they have not simply given up and moved to the USA. No, they remain hopeful...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 11:35 AM

And yet radical nuts like that are allowed to get away with using use a label like "conservative" - "solicitous to preserve the institutions and traditions of the past, where experience has proved their value, opposed to wanton destruction of institutions, to rash change or sudden innovation".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 12:49 PM

Well, Little Hawk, first of all, I just want you to know that two nights ago I followed someone's advice and got some nail polish and painted the letters back on the keys so any bad spelling is well earned. Yeah, anyone can spell poorly when they don't have a clue which key is which. That's my latest story and as per usual... Iz stickin' with it... Fir now, that is...

Yeah, I don't think I did a very credible job last night in my relief. And I know I let Doug down, for which I'm feeling ashamed this mornin'.

But ya know what? By the time I decided to throw in the towell, I looked over at Dougie and, man, was he sawin' some logs. The poor guy is wiped out manning the fort so much recently that I didn't have the heart to wake him up, so I just put a blanket on 'im and turned out the lights.

Gee, wish he'd get some real help 'cause that *right* (*wrong*) thinkin' is a a square peg to this ol' hillbilly...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 01:06 PM

I'm beginning to wish I had not started this rinktum. It's all been said as far as I can see, and we are mostly repeating ourselves. Now, this is the bottom line; We can either work for peace in the world, including fair treatment for the Palistinians, or, we can just blow up everyone who hates us. An Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth makes the whole world blind and toothless. (Ghandi)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 01:18 PM

Kendall, for once I agree with you. "It's all been said."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 01:19 PM

Well said, Kendall. See you at the Peace rallies...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 01:36 PM

I have read the above posts up to a point and need to get to some Personal Business soon, so I hope that no one is offended or annoyed if what I write now has already been covered:

At some time in the future someone will detonate a nuclear device, probably in one of the USA or Britain's costal cities. It will be a snall device, probably very dirty and it will be a "one shot" action. None of THAT will matter to those who will suffer from the act, of course.

I don't know if Iraq will play a role or not. There is no certainty that any of us will know from what country such an attack will come.

There was a chilling remark, spoken by a character in the series The West Wing. He is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said, with a great deal of sadness in his voice; "I no longer know when we are at war and when we are at peace. We used to judge a military operation as a success by the number of innocent lives spared. Our enemies seem to judge their success by the number of innocent lives taken. I simply do not understand it." (That is not an accurate quote, but it conveys the sentiment well enough). There have been many actions taken by dissidents against established regeimes(sp) over the many years. Even though all such "targets" consider such actions as acts of terrorists, quite often they are not and are legitimate responses to a untenable political condition. Implicit in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution is the right to remove an unjust and illegal government by force if necessary. We vote instead. It works. In many of the world's countries the peaceful means simply don't work. But WE have ABSOLUTELY NO right to act against the governments or leaders in those countries.

As I wrote I don't know WHERE such an attack will come from but I DO know that should we act against Iraq as Bush wishes, we will increase the possibility of such an attack. Do we do nothing? No, of course not. What we DO, however, must be sure and clean (if that is possible) and SOON. Does Saddam need (NEED?) to be killed? If there is specific evidence that he is capable of causing or supporting such an attack, YES! but all of this must be done as carefully as possible and only with intelligence which is pure gold!

Fundamentalist Islam? There will ALWAYS be those who invoke their culture's religious credos to justify their dirty work. The Loyalists "protestants" of the North of Ireland, The "Right to Life" activists on picket duty outside of Planned Parenthood clinics, all those hatemongers who distort and pervert religion in order to claim legitimacy for their causes. No that doesn't make all adherants to those religions evil. But evil they are and the sects and churches and congregations that activly support them are our enemies! Make NO mistake about that!

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 03:26 PM

If I could go back in history and make one change to determine the future of mankind, it would be to eliminate fear, and, as a result of that to eliminate all organized relegion. All hatred is based in fear. Now, to preempt the nitpickers, I'm not talking about fear of snakes, stepping in front of cars,etc, I'm talking about fear of other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 04:15 PM

Other people can be just as likely to do you injury as snakes and cars etc. It isn't fear that is the probem, its what you do with the fear.

Knowing that cars can kill you makes you look before you cross the road, and take extra care when driving. As a rule it doesn't mean you go round and burn down garages and smash up the cars as a preemptive measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 09:57 PM

kendall - I agree with you. Fear is the problem. It's the problem between nations, it's the problem in society generally, and it's the problem in dysfunctional relationships of all kinds.

Only love can cast out fear, as anyone should know if they have loved deeply and sincerely. (No offense intended to you, McGrath, or anyone else here...I'm just discussing a philosophical concept.) The challenge to love rather than fear is one that confronts every one of us every day of our lives, and I'm afraid most of us have a whole lot to learn in rising to that challenge. I know I do.

There's trememdous fear out there right now...on all sides of the playing field.

I believe Coyote Breath is also right about the great risk and probability of some form of nuclear attack on a western nation at some point. That will also be done out of fear, and it will engender even greater fear as a result. It's really a very sad situation the whole way round, regardless of whether you're a US Marine or an Islamic warrior or whatever you happen to call yourself. There can never be security while people live in fear and hatred of one another. No amount of firepower can provide such security.

May people learn to love their neighbours as themselves, and not even consider taking such actions in the first place. I will defend my own borders if necessary, but I will not drop atomic bombs on people (assuming I was in a postion to). Never. I don't care upon what jusitification. I don't care if I die. I won't do it. I have a soul, and my soul cannot bear to carry such karma.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 15 Sep 02 - 10:05 PM

I think that is what I was hoping to get accross LH. Fear IS the true evil. We had a president (Roosevelt) who once said that "we had nothing to fear but fear itself". That was true in those VERY scary days at the begining of WWII and it is still true.

I wish I could hope that God will help us but I am fairly certain that He wants us to help ourselves and I see little chance for that being done humanely and intelligently.

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 06:07 AM

Developments over the week-end would seem to indicate that former "Desert Storm" coalition members are moving towards a requirement by Iraq to re-admit the UN weapons inspection teams. On the perfectly reasonable premise that if Iraq (during the period 1998 - present) has not continued to develope weapons of mass destruction then they can have no objection to those teams going into the country to perform their task - unhindered. If Iraq refuses then those formely sceptical coalition partners will permit any UN APPROVED military action from bases within their borders.

This apparent change of heart has been formulated by countries making up the Arab League.

In previous postings on this thread, and other related threads, I have been of the opinion that without Saudi Arabia and Turkey on side - No attack will occur.

A great number of correspondents ask about what hard evidence exists, and why this has not been placed before the United Nations and Congress - don't hold your breath - it won't be. What ever evidence does exists will be shared with the governments of the five permanent members of the security council and with the governments of countries most likely to be immediately at risk. The world and its dog will not be privy to this information as that would undoubtedly compromise the sources of this intelligence. Something is known, otherwise what is the basis for the above mentioned about face by some of Iraq's immediate neighbours.

While above there is a statement about reluctance to use atomic/nuclear weapons - please accept as CB pointed out in another post above - there are others who would only be too willing to use such weapons, and those weapons do not require any sophisticated delivery system to place them at the designated target.

The fact that Saddam Hussein is not an expansionist Hitler is not from his want of trying, but more because he has been effectively contained. Subsequent to the events of 11th September, 2001, it has been dramatically shown that the term a-symmetric warfare does present a real threat - not only to the USA, but to every nation on this planet. This is different in nature to anything seen before and as such requires a different approach that cannot be paralleled to events in history.

The speach to the UN was exceptionally well crafted, it was meant to focus the attention of the governments on a specific problem that has been allowed to fester for too long. The result will be a UNITED NATIONS resolution that requires compliance of Iraq. Iraq may elect to ignore that resolution, in which case any action taken will be taken by the UNITED NATIONS - not the USA in isolation.

My guess is that the inspectors will be allowed in. The powers that be in Iraq have witnessed over the past few days:

1. Establishment of a major HQ facility in Qatar.

2. Announced build up of US forces in Kuwait to 26,000.

3. Saudi Statement regarding possible use of Saudi land bases should Iraq refuse to admit and co-operate with UN weapons inspectors/ UN resolutions regarding their deployment and work.

There must be within their ranks a collective feeling of deja-vu.

To forestall the attack as described by CB above, intelligence agencies, throughout the world must identify likely bases from which that attack may come, they must also identify regimes that are likely to support/sponsor those planning such an attack. Those bases must then be made untennable.

Regarding other countries ignoring UN Resolutions what about looking at it from the other perspective. It will be easier for the UN to convince those states to comply with those resolutions after the situation in Iraq has been resolved.

I sincerely hope that that resolution is peaceful.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:13 AM

Amen!

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 11:25 AM

According to a report in the Scottish Triobune today, a "position paper" has surfaced that was written in 2000 prior to the 2000 election laying out a scenerio where Iraq would be attcked for stategic reasons. This paper was prepared for Jeb Bush and Donald Rumsfield wha as we know are4 now key figures in bringing GWB into office and having vast influence over the current administration.

More will be coming our about this evidence over the next day or so and I will repost with sources. As for now, I think that if true, that Teribus's arguments that there is a body of evidence known only to the folks that have to know, may not in fact have any substance.

I believe that the only reasons that other nations are becoming more receptive is that they realize the this administartion is Hell bent on taking Iraq and they do not want their oil interests jeopradized. See "Lets Make a Deal" thread for more specifics and sources.

I think that historians will have a field day thrying to come up with a revisionist theory that differs from the real motives behind this attack which boil down to politics and money...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 12:50 PM

"Something is known, otherwise what is the basis for the above mentioned about face by some of Iraq's immediate neighbours."

I can think of several other possible explanations. When you are very strong and very rich and very forceful, the fact that people go along with your wishes does not necessarily mean they agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 02:40 PM

POssible explanations that would have nothing to do with real strategy or genuine politics include bullying, blackmail, graft and bribery.

Of course GWB Jr doesn't go in for such crass tactics, but they are a theoretical A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 03:34 PM

And, of course, while Mr. Bush and his minions have us all gazing out overseas at Saddam Hussein, the mighty Colossus whose threatening shadow falls over the entire world, not very many people seem to be noticing that the economy is in the toilet, unemployment is on the rise, blatant corporate greed and graft has reach previously unplumbed depths, public lands are being given away to those eager to exploit them, and the Bill of Rights and several other portions of the Constitution are being run through the shedder.

Also, people are no longer paying much attention to the dubious manner in which Bush attained office in the first place (the recent Florida f—k-up was a little glitch there, for which Jeb and Katey have probably been duly reprimanded).

Please forgive my cynicism (my knowledge of history tends to make me that way), but methinks I detect a hint of smoke and the glint of mirrors.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 03:56 PM

Oh, Donald!! You unpatriotic cad!!! LOL!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:09 PM

I suggest it's time for Part 6, if people want to continue.