 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush, Iraq and War Part 6
|
|
|
Subject: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:07 PM This thread still seems to have some legs, but over the hundred it's now way too long.
So carry on carrying on here, I suggest. Search for "Bush, Iraq" threads |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:13 PM Sorted! (The thread, not the war, I'm afraid,) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: greg stephens Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:14 PM oh dear, I've just posted to the other one. Help! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:15 PM And here is a post that got made to that misnumbered "Part 5" I started just now:
From: greg stephens Date: 16-Sep-02 - 04:13 PM The different positions adopted on this topic are strikingly similar to the arguments deployed in the current "smoking in front of kids". there is a general agreement that Saddam and smoking are bad. There is radical disagrement over how far the US government is entitled to go to eradicate badness. A genuine moral dilemma, with people taking deeply entrenched opposing views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:16 PM Ahhh, not to mention the timing of Saddams eminent all out attack on the US with his vast arsonal of weapons of mass destruction.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 02 - 04:52 PM There's also a view that that the things the US Gvernment is liable to do is actually likely to make things a lot worse.
And if that's so, the argument that its "entitled" to act that way isn't too relevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: kendall Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:26 PM What happened to Scott Ritter? how did they shut him up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:30 PM He was on Pacifica yesterday, Kendall. Problem is that those beating the drum for war own almost all the drums. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: kendall Date: 16 Sep 02 - 05:31 PM I just looked into my crystal ball, and, it looks like Saddam will blink. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 02 - 06:14 PM The assumption being that Mr Bush actually wants Saddam to blink? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Donuel Date: 16 Sep 02 - 07:59 PM Close the thread...Get over it. It is a done deal. Stick a fork in yourselves - you're done. The war is on the way. When nuclear retalliation begins everyone will have the appropriate excuse. Men won't stop it. Women won't stop it and God...well he/she or it - is for both sides.
Civilization [image] http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/egyya.jpg [/image] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: curmudgeon Date: 16 Sep 02 - 08:25 PM According to the 8:00 PM, EDT Npr news, Iraq has agreed unconditionally to the UN mandated inspections. Check, George. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: michaelr Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:14 PM Unconditionally...??? In any case Bush has said that no matter what Saddam does, we'll still run him out of town. Talk about motivating a guy! Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:17 PM If true that I suspect will really piss off some people. But don't uncross your fingers yet.
And whatever happens America is more lkely to be hit by a rogue asteroid than an Iraqi A-bomb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: kendall Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:31 PM DEATH TO ASTEROIDS!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:33 PM Yes - I've just checked with the BBC news site - and as I thought, the USA has immediately denounced it as a "false hope", and is continuing preparations to invade.
"They've shot our fox" is the traditional expression for this kind of development.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: greg stephens Date: 16 Sep 02 - 09:47 PM Say what you like about Bush, he's agood sabre-rattler. Mind you, it's easy to play poker if you've got five aces face up on the table in front of you. Except nobody else wants to bet very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 02 - 10:40 PM Incidentally, the USA in direct breach of a UN resolution - supported by the USA at the time - requiring inspections of biological warfare facilities. I hope no one takes this as entitling them to invade the country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: kendall Date: 16 Sep 02 - 11:04 PM Saddam blinked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Donuel Date: 16 Sep 02 - 11:30 PM Inspectors will not be looking for Iraqi asteroids now will they - Gentlemen, we must not allow an asteroid gap! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: The Pooka Date: 16 Sep 02 - 11:31 PM The Asteroid will hit in 2060 btw. / Rhode Island, I believe. / We in Connecticut be's very afraid. (Well. Our descendants y'know.) / I've never opened this thread (these threads) till now; but now I gotta say: who does this Saddam think he is, tryna trick us by complying with our demands? The nerve of the man. Kick ass, sez I. USA! USA! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Amos Date: 16 Sep 02 - 11:47 PM I am very pleased at this capitulation even at a superficial level. I am surprised at the speed with which the United Staes, G. Bush, Prop., responded by scoffing. Maybe the real money isn't on the table yet. He'll (GB Jr) win a lot of credibility if he pulls this off. Too bad. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 17 Sep 02 - 03:51 AM The Bushies' reaction to the news that the war is off says a lot about them. If they were sincere, they should move on from Iraq, threaten to invade Israel, which has been flouting UN resolutions for decades, and invite the UN to send international monitors to the US to ensure that that country has free and fair elections... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Teribus Date: 17 Sep 02 - 04:26 AM In the latter part of Part 5, Bobert mentioned the existance of a "position paper" reported by the Scottish Tribune. The report apparently prepared in 2000 "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." A "position paper" is evidence of what exactly? That certain leading figures in the US took an analytical view of the feasibility of an attack on Iraq should come as no great surprise to anybody. I have no doubt that within the US, dating back to early "cold war times", there are "position papers" on attacks on Iceland, Ireland and the UK. Those papers would deal with scenarios that would not be confined to response to a Soviet attack, they would address all likely reactions by the governments of "friendly" countries to the threat of a Soviet attack, or Soviet destabilisation of key "friendly" countries as a precursor to a Soviet attack. The evidence I was referring to in my posting relates to continued Iraqi interest in the development of chemical/biological weapons and nuclear weapons. I still contend that to offer such evidience to the world at large would result in the sources of that information being compromised and silenced. American intelligence assets in this region of the world have always been scarce, it would therefore be a very foolish move to squander them. Since 11th September, 2001, pooling of intelligence information has been on an unprecedented level. The American Intelligence Services and the current American administration knows that it cannot disclose information obtained through this network for fear of harming the intelligence assets of their allies. It should also come as no great surprise that the root cause of this conflict is seated in politics and money - or put in more basic terms, resources and control of those resources - that has been the root cause of damn near every conflict throughout history. McG of H and Amos tend to think that blackmail and coercion were the reasons for the shift in position of the states comprising the Arab League, but offer no basis for this belief. If was possible for the US to do this, on the reasoning that the US is big and powerful - why have they not done this in the past as a means of solving the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Another factor that McG of H and Amos conveniently ignore is the position of Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world. As has been reported above and predicted by myself in previous posts - Iraq has agreed to the unconditional return of the UN weapons inspectors. The reactions to this announcement by Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, are described above by some as predictable and "hawkish". Given Saddam Hussein's track record a more considered and accurate viewpoint would be to describe them as cautionary and prudent. Why? Because the inspectors are not yet in place, and it remains to seen what access and co-operation they will be afforded. The initial reactions of the United States, Britain and France maintain the required focus and pressure on Iraq and that pressure must be maintained or we end up going round the houses one more time - and IF IRAQ IS developing a nuclear weapon capability, then time is the thing they want more than anything else - George W is making it clear from the outset, that he is not prepared to let them have that time - my bet is that the UN will back that position. No negotiation, total compliance, if Iraqi claims are substantiated then the threat of war is averted, if evidence is found the facilities are destroyed and the threat of war is averted. The Iraqi request that any threat of attack is removed during weapons inspections, that assurance to be categorically given by the United Nations is interesting. The Americans have claimed that the Iraqis are months away from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability, so it will be interesting to see what transpires. I still remain cautiously optimistic that this situation will be resolved peacefully.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:33 AM What those claims seem to add up to is that, if the Iraqis had the materials for an atomic bomb, than, assuming they had the know-how and the equipment, it would only take a few months to put one together. This is undoubtedly true. I am sure there are a fair number of Mudcatters of whom it is true as well, for example. And I imagine that somewhere on the Internet there is a do-it-yourself guide to building your own atom bomb. I remember they use to have stuff like that in Eagle comic.
Thisnwhole thing has to be spun as a triumph for Bush. I have a feeling he's not seeing it this way right now, but I note that the UK givernment is energetically saying what a triumph it looks like being for Bush.
What I imagine will happen is that, assuming the inspections take place, if they come up with reports that there is nothing to worry about, that will be presented by Bush and Co as cast-iron evidence that Saddam is even better at concealing things than anyone thought. This will mean that an immidiate assault is needed as a way of enforcing UN resolutions which forbade him to have these weapons he has managed to conceal so successfully ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 02 - 10:06 AM Terriblus, I do not prejudge the situation without data; I simply said that the reasons for the shifting of positions of Arab states was not explained and could have come about from the use of graft, blackmail and coercion. I don't know that this was the case but I do know it is among the possible explanations. As for "conveniently ignoring" the Audi position in the Arab world, would you like to be more explicit? I am sure you are not referring to the geographical location. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 02 - 01:15 PM I made a logical point about the possible reasons for shifts in public statements by Arab States (notably Saudi Arabia), I didn't actually express an opinion.
"Something is known, otherwise what is the basis for the above mentioned about face by some of Iraq's immediate neighbours."Teribus
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.
In other words, there are other possible explanations than the one Teribus suggested was the only one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Sep 02 - 04:37 PM There is simply nothing worse or sneakier that the chosen despot of the hour can do than to meekly capitulate to the demands made upon him by the democratic forces in this world, and say "Well, okay then. Inspect me." It's a devious and dastardly plot to avoid war and massive destruction of the Evil Axis by democracy. It reminds me of when Daniel Ortega agreed to have a free and open election with a foreign-sponsored opposition, and then quietly stepped down when he lost it. Disgusting! That is no way for a dictator to behave. I hope that G.W. and his advisors can come up with a new demand of some sort that will get the ball rolling again. We'll see... Keepa you fingers crossed, and don't put away them invasion plans yet. There's gotta be a smoking gun somewhere in that wretched country... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 02 - 04:44 PM Typical Mudcat phiological thread drift:
How should Iraq be pronounced? I've noticed that English broadcasters and politicians tend to say it with the long a, to rhyme with "park", and the Americans seems to have a short a, to rhyme with track. But how do the people of Iraq pronounce it? (Similarly for Iran.)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 02 - 05:19 PM A long "a" would rhyme with "jake", I would think - as in Eye-rake. Can't imagine pronouncing it that way OR Eye-rark either -- or do you mean Eye-rock as compared to eye-rack? I believe the locals pronounce it irrrOK, but that could just be the colons. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 02 - 06:26 PM The sort of long a that makes it rhyme with "park", not the sort that rhymes with "rake".
And there's also the other pronunciation - should that initial "I" be prononced "eye" (which Americans seem to do) or "Ee" , which is how its normally pronounced in England. The BBC has this department that is supposed to take this kind of thing very seriously, and issue directives to newsreaders and so forth, so I'd suspect that "Eerark" is probably closer to the Iraqi way with the word than "eyerack" and so forth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: greg stephens Date: 17 Sep 02 - 07:00 PM Having spent all day with people from Iraq I would say their pronunciation is rather more like the English Irrahk rather than the American which tends more to the Eye-rack. But the trouble is the people I was with were nearly all Iraqi Kurds. Maybe the Arabic speakers say it another way. I'll have to ask about this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 17 Sep 02 - 07:25 PM Poor Junior is loosing his "boogie man"! Darned. Now he's got two choices: 1. Figure out a way to attack anyway, or 2. Deal with reality that his failed economic and domestic policies might now crawl back onto the stage. (Not to mention, the total thievery of the White House.) Man, looks like he's gonna be singing the, "Lost my Boogie Man Blues".... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Don Firth Date: 17 Sep 02 - 07:34 PM Spending eight years as a radio announcer/newscaster and not wanting to sound like a doofus while I was doing it made me a bit sensitive to matters of pronunciation. I was told to try to pronounce geographical names as closely as possible to the way people who live there pronounce it, without sounding affected (i.e., rolling Rs, etc.). When in doubt, I check a couple different dictionaries, the NBC Pronunciation Guide, and any other authoritative source I have at hand. The consensus appears to be something very close to "ear-RAHK" (not being able to use actual diacritical marks). Another attempt would be "ee-ROCK." According to what I was able to find, the above is pretty much the way Iraqis pronounce it. Listening to sound-bites of Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, whom one hears frequently in the news these days, tends to verify this. It drives me nuts when people who should know better, such as high ranking politicians who are involved in foreign policy, don't take the time or trouble (two minutes to look it up in a good dictionary) to learn to pronounce the names of people and countries they're dealing with constantly. Lots of U. S politicians insist on saying "EYE-RACK." Lyndon B. Johnson, while deeply involved with Vietnam ("VEE-et-NAHM"), insisted on pronouncing it "VEET-NAM" (short A). Will someone please tell George W. Bush that the word is "NYEW-klee-ar," not "NOO-kyuh-ler?" (You'd be amazed at the number of nuclear physicists who do the same thing!!! Weird!) End of thread drifty rant. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: curmudgeon Date: 17 Sep 02 - 07:37 PM Don't expect one who cannot pronounce "nuclear" correctly to deal with words of more than one syllable. You never hear him say his middle name now, do you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 02 - 07:57 PM Well it could be intentional, a sort of studied insult, like the way Churchill (and a lot of others) pronounced "Nazi" as "Nazzee". Though that comes across better when it's the speaker doing the mispronouncing is an underdog defying a bigger enemy rather than a superpower dealing with a far weaker one.
Or maybe no one has the nerve to tell Bush bnhe's pronouncing it wrong, and everyone takes their lead from there... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Sep 02 - 08:16 PM He's not alone. I'd say that half to two thirds of the people in North America pronounce "nuclear" incorrectly, in the same manner as G.W. does. Around here, you can tell the general educational level of people by this simple technique: the not-so-well educated say "youse" when they are speaking to more than one person and mean to say "you". "Would youse like ketchup with that?" I don't know who started that one, but I'd like to give him a kick... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Don Firth Date: 17 Sep 02 - 08:38 PM In his speech to the U. N., Bush pronounced "Iraq" fairly correctly, slipping only once that I noticed. He used to pronounce it "EYE-RACK" all the time, but I think he's been coached. He did say "NOO-kyuh-ler" about a dozen times before I stopped counting. In some cases the mispronunciation may be studied insult, but I don't really think so. In the U. S., the "EYE-RACK" and "EYE-RAN" pronunciations seem to be regionalisms. Southerners and Midwesterners mostly. You don't hear it that much in the Northeastern U. S. or on the West Coast. Since Bush and many of the current crop of U. S. political leaders are from the South, I guess we're sort of stuck with it. ". . . until the times do alter. . . ." Don Firth
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Don Firth Date: 17 Sep 02 - 08:42 PM Consistent with "EYE-tal-yun." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Ebbie Date: 17 Sep 02 - 09:59 PM There is also the occasional bafflement - I remember when I heard President Ronald Reagan, after his having spent most of his life not more than 30 miles from the Mexican border and with loads of Mexicans living and working around him, tell the President of Mexico: "Mi cazza est zoo cazza". Now, I ask you! Little Hawk, it's not necessarily lack of education that lets some people use regionalisms, imo. Most of us will for the fun of it occasionally use something we would not among strangers. For instance, I sometimes say y'all among family or friends when I would not in speaking before a group. Colloquial speech as opposed to formal, correct speech denotes a higher degree of comfort between the two communicators. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 17 Sep 02 - 10:53 PM Well, dan-ger-rang, if this don't get it. Here, we're talking about weather or not a lot of folks are gonna get their butts blown up and we're here talking over the E-nun-cee-a-tion of words. What have I missed in this love-fest. Oh well? Bobert
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 02 - 10:56 PM Bobert: Y'ever hear the phrase "Jes' laughin' to keep from cryin'"??? Quod erat demonstrarum, amigo! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: GUEST,Richard H Date: 17 Sep 02 - 10:58 PM Just came across the Joseph Warren song "Free America" written around 1780 with the chilling words: Some future day shall crown us The masters of the main, Our fleets shall speak in thunder To England, France and Spain. And the nations o'er the ocean's spread, Shall tremble and obey The sons, the sons, the sons, Of brave Amerikay! Yup! Tremble and obey sure seems to be the fate of us across the ocean with Bush in charge. Didn't know it had been planned so long ago, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 17 Sep 02 - 10:59 PM Gotcha, Amos.... ~B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: NicoleC Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:16 AM Ahhh... the irony. Quote form Dubya today, "The United States remains strong in our conviction that we must not and will not allow the world's worst leaders to hold the United States and our friends and allies (subject to) blackmail or threaten us with the world's worst weapons." You know, if you replace "United States" with "Iraq," that sounds awfully familiar. (Is it just me, or should the President of the US spend less time raising money and more time on the job? It's not like there isn't enough for the president to do, after all! Each successive president does more and more of this nonsense.) Hey, maybe Saddam is full of it. Maybe the capitulation on inspections IS a ploy to take steam off of the Bush crusade. But wouldn't an effective leader use the opportunity to compromise with the international skeptics who have thusfar been unhappy about the war plans, and get them to agree to nail Saddam down and not let him wiggle out of it this time? THAT is a coalition that could be successful. The reports that the US is continuing preparations for war unabated only makes us look more and more like the schoolyard bully, and less and less like the "benevolent but tough police officer" image we try to project. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: GUEST,Kiwi Date: 18 Sep 02 - 02:33 AM Like the last war the States was involved in a few months ago it's purely about oil and gas. I still say the CIA were involved with Sept 11th. Bush has huge personal vested energy interests. How arrogant of the states to talk about bullies with weapons of mass destruction. Do you guys ever look into mirrors? Perhaps there should be United Nations inspections of the United States. As Dylan said " With god on our side" HA. Don't forget that the CIA backed overthrow of the democratic govt of Chile was on 11th. Sept. And speaking of democracy. I thought that that meant that the person with the most votes became the leader. THats not what happened in your last election. To my mind Bush is the biggest worry the world has had in the last century. Don't forget that the Germans burnt down their own Parliament as an excuse to start a war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Teribus Date: 18 Sep 02 - 04:18 AM Since their withdrawal in December 1998 the UN (Note the UN not the United States of America) has been trying to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. They are now going back - Why? What has caused the shift in their position? Answer: Pressure applied by the United States of America - nothing else - no change of heart on the part of Saddam Hussein - no sudden stiffening of the resolve of the united nations. There are many in this community who, irrespective of fact, just point blank refuse to give GWB any credit for his handling of a situation resulting from the only direct attack on the United States since Pearl Harbour. Doesn't matter what this man does - it will never in their eyes be right, so there is no point in responding to some of the more outrageous statements made here. Please, go back and read what he said to the United Nations - Look what resulted from that address.
Guest Kiwi: Oh yeah? - perfectly plausible, totally credible - my arse.
Nicole C: The reports that the US is continuing preparations for war unabated only makes us look more and more like the schoolyard bully, and less and less like the "benevolent but tough police officer" image we try to project." First paragraph - that is exactly what the current American Administration has, and is continuing to do. Second paragraph - perfectly logical course of action to follow, given Saddam Hussein's track record - it keeps the pressure on.
Kevin: The United States has been in this position for sometime. I will repeat my question, if they have been able to coerce Iraq's neighbours on this occasion, why have they not played the same card previously to settle the Israeli- Palestinian conflict?
Also from Kevin: "assuming the inspections take place" - completely ignores and pours ice cold water on the fact that Iraq has stated that the inspectors are free to return - and have been invited to return unconditionally - and that the Iraqi Foreign Office has already held preliminary talks with the Head of the UN inspection teams. Kevin the inspections will take place - you can bet the farm on it. The remainder of your comment quoted above, bears out exactly what I say in my opening remarks of this post. You have absolutely no grounds for making the above statement. Unlike his Democrat predecessor, GWB has acted throughout, strictly within the constraints of existing UN Resolutions wrt Iraq. Clinton on the other hand only went to Congress before he authorised the lobbing of cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan. To you my friend, I get the impression, that the cup will always be half empty.
Amos:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Venthony Date: 18 Sep 02 - 04:23 AM Dear Folks, Oil and gas make the world run. I daresay everyone on this thread pays utility bills, and even the relatively few woodburners on this site own a car, truck or van. (How else would we get to the gigs?) As for Saddam: He's a cancer on the face of the earth whose sole destiny appears to be justifying the existence of the 82nd Airborne. In the immortal words of Doc Holiday, "Hell, Wyatt, SOMEBODY'S got to kill the sonsabitches." I know all you European folks (with the possible exception of Tony Blair and his supporters) are apoplectic. But, face it, Europe doesn't count for much these days. Jeez, you guys still have Royalty and crap over there, de-clawed as they may be. In the end, the U.S. will take the hits and turn the tide, and, as always, Euro-trash businessmen will ride our economy's backwash. They always do, so why would they find any semblance of moral courage at this late date? And they sure as hell will keep on sucking up the cheap oil after this war on radical Islam (I refuse to use the phrase "War on Terror") is won. And it will be won, of course, probably at little or no cost to an ineffectual Europe. As for the fanatical jerks who blew up our skyscrapers (and who Saddam is certainly aiding), watch your frontline. As always the classic U.S. military maneuver is "Grab them by the balls and kick them in the ass." We've used it since that little stir we had with England back in the 18th Century. Funny, but it always works. And, yes, Saddam, your ass -- UN or no UN -- is ours. Tony |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Sep 02 - 05:37 AM Don't forget that the Germans burnt down their own Parliament as an excuse to start a war. (Kiwi) correction: The Nazis burnt down the parliament and they started the war, but the two events are not related to each other at all. One was in 1933 the other was in 1939. As an excuse to start the war they faked an attack by Poland. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Teribus Date: 18 Sep 02 - 07:40 AM Tony - I've read some crap in my time but your contribution above takes the biscuit - up until now I thought (wrt this thread) that Guest Kiwi's held that honour. "...As always the classic U.S. military maneuver is "Grab them by the balls and kick them in the ass." We've used it since that little stir we had with England back in the 18th Century. Funny, but it always works." In my own personal experience the classic U.S. military manoeuvre when operating independently has been "Christ their shootin' back - Lets get the hell outta here!". Additionally, for your edification, by way of a little historical note, the participants in the "little stir you had with England back in the 18th Century." were predominatly English settlers/colonists fighting against British and Hessian troops. The latter would have won but for weather and the intervention of a French Fleet. "As for the fanatical jerks who blew up our skyscrapers (and who Saddam is certainly aiding), watch your frontline." To date there has been no evidence offered that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq had anything to do with the attack on the WTC on 11th September, 2001. That has been acknowledged by the current American Administration. You advise "..the fanatical jerks.." to watch their frontline - they don't have one to watch, that's what makes them so difficult to fight. Certain ineffectual states (complete with Royalty) do know how its done and have had years of experience in doing it - the American Intelligence community is relying on that heavily at the moment - believe me. "But, face it, Europe doesn't count for much these days. " - Don't you believe it - your President certainly doesn't share your opinion.
Of Saddam you say two things:
1. That he is the sole justification for the existance of the 82nd Airbourne.
2. that his ass ... UN or no UN .. is ours (USA's) Without the UN, Tony, just tell me precisely what the 82nd Airbourne is going to do - and how.
Lets save the best till last: "In the end, the U.S. will take the hits and turn the tide, " - that qualifies as the best joke I've heard this year to date - the only scary thing is I think you honestly believe it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Amos Date: 18 Sep 02 - 08:50 AM Mark that last post; it is just possible that Tony is right on that last point. Everything so far is consistent with a very expensive, very grim game of high stakes poker. So far no-one's been shot over it, at least recently. Calling the near-term future can be a fool's game when this much is in play. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Sep 02 - 11:16 AM Speaking of "royalty"...I've lived in the USA (for ten years), and I've frequently visited the USA, and I can state this: The status of the President in the USA is far closer to "royalty"...or to a sort of demigod...than is the status of the Queen in countries such as England or Canada. Is there a day when his face is not in the media, making some grand statement of dire importance? Americans are obsessed and fixated upon their chief executive to a point that I consider unrealistic and dangerous. He accordingly has tremendous power and influence on people's minds. This is not the case with the Queen of England or with the other old monarchies in countries like Holland or Spain or wherever else in Europe you could choose to mention. They are merely affectionately regarded holdovers of an old and familiar tradition...not political powerbrokers, and their faces are just occasionally in the media, since they really hold little or no power. Therefore, who has "royalty" with teeth? I submit that the USA does. (And so does Iraq, ironically.) Fortunately, the "king" of the USA is retired after 4 to 8 years of omnipotent and grandiose one-man rule, but then, by golly, along comes another one, and the whole damn thing starts all over again! Your "kings" are also supposed to get the approval of Congress before going to war, but they have gotten around that repeatedly by fighting wars without declaring war officially. When is a war not a war? When Congress won't come onside. Clever, clever...and unscrupulous. "Hail to the Chief!" (Hail Caesar!) - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 18 Sep 02 - 11:50 AM Heard on the BBC TV news this morning that a statement from the UN implicitly admitted that there was some truth in Saddam's claim that the UN verification missions to Iraq had gone beyond their mandate and been used for military intelligence-gathering on behalf of the US and Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:01 PM I wrote: "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."
Teribus wrote: The United States has been in this position for sometime. I will repeat my question, if they have been able to coerce Iraq's neighbours on this occasion, why have they not played the same card previously to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Why hasn't the US effectively pressured Israel to comply with UN resolutions for withdrawal from the occupied territories, and to remove illegal settlements on occupied land? I can't say, but it doesn't seem to have applied too much pressure. The key word in the alternative explanation that I suggested for consideration in connection with Saudi Arabia's u-turn was "forceful".
As for my saying "assuming the inspections take place", the thing that I can envisage stopping them is not so much Saddam being stupid enough to go back on his agreement to unconditional inspections (though I never rule out any level of stupidity on the part of rulers). But the White House doesn't seem at all happy with this development. There is a real possibility of an American move to avoid what is seen as a delaying tactic on the part of Saddam, by launching an attack on Iraq before the inspections can start.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:24 PM Speaking about alternative explanations: I can imagine that some Arab states played pleasing both parties. They gave in to US American wishes when they knew (they'd be stupid if they had no clandestine contact with Iraq) that Saddam would shortly later announce to allow inspections. So they promised the Americans something they knew before they had not to give (for there would be no new UN resolution) and at the same time made sure the strong neighbour would not be miffed. US planning and strategy doesn't look good these days. I simply cannot understand that Iraq's move seemed to surprise the US government. Don't they think in alternatives like: What shall we do when...? If they had the intention (and it looks a bit the Cheney faction has/had) to overthrow the regime in Iraq anyway Bush's UN speech was a mistake, for the quick response of the dictator ("you win, I give in") took away a lot of possible justifications for an invasion. If you make public demands you must at least consider what do to if all or most of the demands are met. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: NicoleC Date: 18 Sep 02 - 12:30 PM Heck, Americans are obsessed with BRITISH royalty. We should have kept a figurehead King way back when; Americans would be so much happier. Teribus, I disagree with the concept that Bush & Co. are such masterminds of strategy that all of this has been a subtle and complex plan to enforce UN resolutions. If it works out that way, it'll be nice. Saddam is not a very pleasant fellow, and I have disagreed all along with a policy of sanctions that destroys the populace while leaving him unharmed -- change must come from within to be legitimate, and people dying of dysentary make poor rebels. The US is very selective in which UN resolutions we want enforced, and it smacks of hypocrasy, not diplomacy. Being the world bully only stirs up the kind of resentment that spurs the recruiting efforts of terrorist organizations -- the "war" we are currently fighting. Thanks for the well-reasoned arguments; I'm enjoying them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: DougR Date: 18 Sep 02 - 02:32 PM Yep, Don, you're right. Those folk down South just don't know how to talk, and that includes Texans. However, for once I agree with Bobert. To get hung up on elocution and word pronunciaton seems a bit picky to me. Bobert may accept Amos' explanation but it seems a bit shallow to me nontheless. If it was intended as humor, as Amos suggests, then it is humor at the expense of others. Something I would think most of you folks would resent. As to whether or not the situation with Iraq has been resolved by that country's letter to the U. N. General Secretary, I doubt it. It might buy Saddam more time though. Perhaps even the amount of time he might be looking for. You will note that Saddam did not offer to abide by the other Resolutions called for in Bush's speech. One of them involves better treatment for his own people. I would think, as humanitarians, most of you would favor enforcement of that Resolution, right? Neither did it deal with the resolution that would require Saddam to use the money from the sale of oil to provide better conditions for his people rather than build palaces for himself, or to build up his arsenal. Is that not something you, as humanitarians, feel should be enforced? The letter addressed none of the resolutions other than inspections, and while one paragraph stated the inspections would be unconditional, later in the letter it is clear they want to negotiate. Does that sound familiar? It should, that's what they have always done, agree to admit inspectors, but deprive them of the freedom required to inspect any site they wish to. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Amos Date: 18 Sep 02 - 02:48 PM THe only weasel-room I saw in that letter was the last bit, about "let's get together and discuss implementation plans." Of course, that would be necessary in any case, but it is kind of unbounded and could be used as a real time-waster, with the intent to do the same kind of procrastinating under the guise of a different process. It doesn't matter what you say you're doing, if all you are really doing is stalling, after all. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 02 - 03:40 PM I'm all for people abiding by all UN resolutions. But I'm against countries taking it upon themselves to go to war to enforce that.
That applies not just in the case if Iraq, but also in the case of Israel, Turkey, India, Pakistan and no doubt a fair number of other countries which have failed to comply with various UN Security Council resolutions. (One of these being the USA, as it happens.)
I thought it interesting the way Bush and his corner have been saying how, if the UN doesn't do what the USA says it should do, it'll have effectively turned into the old League of Nations. Since the general consensus among historians I've read is that the crucial flaw with the League of Nations was that America wouldn't have anything to do with it, I wondered if that was a hint that if the UN doesn't fall in line, the USA might remove itself? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: DougR Date: 18 Sep 02 - 04:10 PM Amos: That's how I read the situation. Stall, stall, stall. Kevin: Perhaps. Do you see any point in being involved in a orgaization that does not enforce it's own rules? That becomes irrevelant? I suspect, were the U. S. to withdraw (which I don't think really will happen because this situation will be resolved one way or the other), Great Britain would not be far behind. DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 18 Sep 02 - 04:24 PM Well, danged, with everyone ragin' on so well I figured I'd juyst wait and see if some of you folks were going to get all that Blowin' out of you systems but I guess not. DougR: Law of averages was with us, buddy. Eventually we'd end up agreein' on simething, dang it... Glad to have that out of the way. Everyone else: In the words of the late Vince Lombardi: "What the Hell is going on in there?" Of course he was referring the Redskins porrer tand usual play. But really, What;s going on with junior and Co. They change their tunes more often than a chain smoker lights up. And some of the stuff they've paid that PR firm with out hard earned tax bucks ain't worth a nickle. Okay, first the inconsistencies: 1. Ari Fliesher today says that Iraq lost the War during the Persian Gulf and then 15 minutes later Donald Rumsfield says the war5 never ended? As per usual with these guys, one is rather misinformed. But, hey they are both be paid with our hard earned tax dollars to give us two different stories. 2. One day Junior is a unilaterialist and the next a mutinationalist and then back unilateralism and then... and then... What, does he flip a coin every morning? Guess it seems on whether he gets the right responses from the other folks in the world. 3. Okay, the administration has said repeatedly that an attack on Iraq is based on Iraq's WMD program and has said acknowledged that Iraq played no part in the 9-11 attacks then Rumsfield goes agin and shoots off his big mouth today about how the two are pretty much the same thing. Hmmmmmmm? See what I mean about talking out of both sides of their mouth? Now, lets see what we have gotten from out tax bucks from Junior and Cos. PR firm.(One day, we may actually know how much money we took away from a perscription drug plan for our folks to pay these Menza=ites...) 1. "Crawfishing" has certainly been served up over and over. I reckon that cost the tax payers about half a dozen schools and maybe a hospital on the side. 2. Today's Biggie; "Page and a half" has made its debut and by tonight I would guess that at least cabinet memeber and a couple hundred congressfolk will have used it. Yeah, don't matter that the *Declaration of Independence* is only one page. Danged, maybe Iraq should have used larger type and got it too look longer. I mean, give me a break. How many ways can you say, "Okay, okay. Don't bomb us. Come on over an take a peek". Which brings up another inconsistency. Now if Juniorhas made up his mind that he's gonna go to war no matter what, then why complain that Iraq's letter was too short. So they don't like a "page and a half". Well, how long does it have to be for Junior to not go blow up some folks??? Now lastly, there was a time before Vietnam where a few of the folks had the facts but did nothing. And those folks probably have carried their guilt since then. Today is quite the opposite. Lots of folks know lots and are either doing nothing, or worse yet, beating the drum. For you drum beaters, be warned that when history proves you folks to have been accomplices in getting a war started and a lot of folks killed, that their lives will be on your heads. And, whether you believe in a final acounting or not, I do so you stand to loose twice here. War isn't like a football game. It's not like a video game. It's real lives. So, beat the drum if you will, but know the personal consequences of your actions. Now, lastly, Part 2. I would ask all the drum beaters to stop beating the drum for just one minute and ask two questions of themselves; 1. What are my motives? 2. Has the US done absolutely everything it can to prevent this upcoming war? Got your answers. How long did it take you to answer these two imporatnt questions? If you had pat answers taht just flowed otu of you like breathing then you just flunked the quiz. No to War. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 18 Sep 02 - 04:26 PM Well, danged, with everyone ragin' on so well I figured I'd juyst wait and see if some of you folks were going to get all that Blowin' out of you systems but I guess not. DougR: Law of averages was with us, buddy. Eventually we'd end up agreein' on simething, dang it... Glad to have that out of the way. Everyone else: In the words of the late Vince Lombardi: "What the Hell is going on in there?" Of course he was referring the Redskins porrer tand usual play. But really, What;s going on with junior and Co. They change their tunes more often than a chain smoker lights up. And some of the stuff they've paid that PR firm with out hard earned tax bucks ain't worth a nickle. Okay, first the inconsistencies: 1. Ari Fliesher today says that Iraq lost the War during the Persian Gulf and then 15 minutes later Donald Rumsfield says the war5 never ended? As per usual with these guys, one is rather misinformed. But, hey they are both be paid with our hard earned tax dollars to give us two different stories. 2. One day Junior is a unilaterialist and the next a mutinationalist and then back unilateralism and then... and then... What, does he flip a coin every morning? Guess it seems on whether he gets the right responses from the other folks in the world. 3. Okay, the administration has said repeatedly that an attack on Iraq is based on Iraq's WMD program and has said acknowledged that Iraq played no part in the 9-11 attacks then Rumsfield goes agin and shoots off his big mouth today about how the two are pretty much the same thing. Hmmmmmmm? See what I mean about talking out of both sides of their mouth? Now, lets see what we have gotten from out tax bucks from Junior and Cos. PR firm.(One day, we may actually know how much money we took away from a perscription drug plan for our folks to pay these Menza=ites...) 1. "Crawfishing" has certainly been served up over and over. I reckon that cost the tax payers about half a dozen schools and maybe a hospital on the side. 2. Today's Biggie; "Page and a half" has made its debut and by tonight I would guess that at least cabinet memeber and a couple hundred congressfolk will have used it. Yeah, don't matter that the *Declaration of Independence* is only one page. Danged, maybe Iraq should have used larger type and got it too look longer. I mean, give me a break. How many ways can you say, "Okay, okay. Don't bomb us. Come on over an take a peek". Which brings up another inconsistency. Now if Juniorhas made up his mind that he's gonna go to war no matter what, then why complain that Iraq's letter was too short. So they don't like a "page and a half". Well, how long does it have to be for Junior to not go blow up some folks??? Now lastly, there was a time before Vietnam where a few of the folks had the facts but did nothing. And those folks probably have carried their guilt since then. Today is quite the opposite. Lots of folks know lots and are either doing nothing, or worse yet, beating the drum. For you drum beaters, be warned that when history proves you folks to have been accomplices in getting a war started and a lot of folks killed, that their lives will be on your heads. And, whether you believe in a final acounting or not, I do so you stand to loose twice here. War isn't like a football game. It's not like a video game. It's real lives. So, beat the drum if you will, but know the personal consequences of your actions. Now, lastly, Part 2. I would ask all the drum beaters to stop beating the drum for just one minute and ask two questions of themselves; 1. What are my motives? 2. Has the US done absolutely everything it can to prevent this upcoming war? Got your answers. How long did it take you to answer these two imporatnt questions? If you had pat answers taht just flowed otu of you like breathing then you just flunked the quiz. No to War. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 02 - 04:53 PM Clearly Bush doesn't think that it matters too much that the various countries I mentioned (including the USA) are failing to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. So who is supposed to decide which UN resolutions matter and which don't?
There are countries all round the world which treat their citizens appallingly. There are limits on what outside governments can do to change this. It would be good if governments were to do what they could to try to make things better in such countries. Starting maybe with the oppressive governments which are friendly to them, because they are perhaps most likely to take some notice.
Maybe if the USA had had this as a priority when it was supporting and arming Saddam Hussein the situation there would never have got as bad.
Somehow I'm reminded of a group of kids kicking a football around. And one of them says "It's my ball. If I can't be captain, I'm going to take it and go home." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: kendall Date: 18 Sep 02 - 05:13 PM QUESTIONS: How many countries have the nuclear bomb? How many of them hate us? Why are we not attacking them? What country created the bomb? What country is the only one to use it? If Saddam H. decided that the USA should have a different leader, could he/would he set about getting it done? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: DougR Date: 18 Sep 02 - 07:48 PM Answers: Several Most Because they are no threat to us. The U. S. The U. S. I'm sure he would like to try. Do I get a A+ Kendall? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 18 Sep 02 - 08:19 PM Yes, Doug, he would "like" to try, but he wouldn't actually *try* because he is a little man in a big scarey world. Contrary to Bush's accusations, he has little weoponry compared to countries like Isreal, the US, China, The UK, France, Pakinstan, India, Russis, Japan and ohters. Now for the tough question. Since Bush *desperately* needs a boogie man, who next on his list? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 02 - 08:41 PM It musn't be anyone who actually poses a threat of effective reprisal. That's a pretty long list.
But it's got to be someone who can be presented as a potential threat, and that is harder.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: curmudgeon Date: 18 Sep 02 - 08:50 PM There's always Castro. Just think about the perils of cigars, rum and sugar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 02 - 08:51 PM And I was commenting on the curious way that some resolutions, and some human rights are seen as a lot more important than others, and some just don't get a look in.
On December 10th 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am pretty sure the United Sates voted for it.
Here is Article 13:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
An article which has consistently been broken by the refusal of Israel to allow the refugees from the 1948 war to return back home. As it has been broken by a lot of other countries, including Iraq, and it's quite right to remind people of that, and to conbemn the Saddam regime. But it's a human right that is dismissed out of hand when kit comes to talking about Israel.
Double standards? Fragmented standards rather. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 02 - 09:04 PM And here's a link to theFranklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute's web site for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: DougR Date: 18 Sep 02 - 09:32 PM Hmmm. Maybe it will be you Bobert! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 18 Sep 02 - 09:43 PM It would be my proudest assignemnt, indeed. Yep, anythime Junior wants to put me on his "Demon of the Day" list, I'm ready and willing to serve. Just get me about 15 of microphone time to go with the honors, thank you. That's what I like about you, Doug. You're always lookin' for opportunities for me... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Amos Date: 18 Sep 02 - 10:08 PM LOL! You be quick, all right , Bobert. :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: DougR Date: 19 Sep 02 - 12:32 AM Well Bobert, I'm always concerned about your welfare, you know that! I've read somewhere that the food down there where they are keeping Osama's buddies is pretty good, and the weather would have to be better than West Virginia's. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Teribus Date: 19 Sep 02 - 05:40 AM Boberts Quiz:
First lets examine these "inconsistences" 1. Ari Fliesher today says that Iraq lost the War during the Persian Gulf and then 15 minutes later Donald Rumsfield says the war5 never ended? As per usual with these guys, one is rather misinformed. But, hey they are both be paid with our hard earned tax dollars to give us two different stories.
Explanation: Iraq agreed to a number of conditions defined by UN resolutions (outlined in GWB's speach to the United Nations on 12th September this year). Iraq did lose the war so that statement by Ari Fliesher was correct, otherwise they would not have come to the negotiating table. On cessation of hostilities, Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein failed to follow through any of the undertakings agreed to. Now had the same been true of Nazi Germany in May 1945 - had they gone to Luneberg Heath and agreed to cessation of hostilities, withdrawal from occupied land and total disarmament, then failed to follow through with those undertakings - would a state of war still exist? On those grounds, Donald Rumsfields contention is valid. The UN, as the worlds international forum, are responsible ensuring that its resolutions are fulfilled. In doing that they have proved fairly ineffectual. 2. One day Junior is a unilaterialist and the next a mutinationalist and then back unilateralism and then... and then... What, does he flip a coin every morning? Guess it seems on whether he gets the right responses from the other folks in the world. Explanation: Subsequent to 11th September, 2001, after a period of ineffectual action on the part of the United Nations. The President of America, and his administration, were forced to take stock. Iraq, or more correctly Saddam Hussein, was unique in announcing to the world his admiration of the terrorists who carried out the attack on the WTC. The US highlights future potential threats from terrorist organisations and identifies regimes that might sponsor their activities. Patriotic speeches and rhetoric aside the current American administration has conducted itself within protocols laid down by the UN. Information regarding Iraqi interest in a programme to replenish/expand their weapons of mass destruction has been available from defectors. With a fair amount of justification the American government makes the assessment that the situation with regard to Iraq and undertakings regarding weapons of mass destruction must be resolved in line with UN dictate. How this was to be done was to build a case and threaten action (first phase unilateralism). This case and the need for action is then taken to the United Nations and the security council (phase two multinationalism). As a result of clearly outlining the status quo, the UN are seen to be moving towards the American point of view - result Iraq invites the weapons inspectors to return unconditionally - Now if anybody thinks that they were going to do that, after thumbing their nose at the world for years, without the blatant threat of an American attack, I would suggest that they are deluding themselves. Iraq has agreed to the return of the weapons inspectors without mentioning movement, or intention to move, on the other resolutions resulting from the Gulf War. Iraq's track record on delay and prevarication is well known, with regard to the nuclear element of their WMD programme they MAY BE MONTHS away from acquiring such a weapon. The UN options are do we sit back and wait for the weapons inspection reports (remember that the inspectors are not yet in place) or for the first delaying tactics from Iraq, or do we keep the pressure on. American government opinion is for the implimentation of a new resolution that ties Iraq to a firm timetable to comply with all previous UN resolutions or face attack (third phase unilateralism). That draft resolution goes before Congress today - it will then be put to the UN security council (Predicted fourth stage multinationalism) 3. Okay, the administration has said repeatedly that an attack on Iraq is based on Iraq's WMD program and has said acknowledged that Iraq played no part in the 9-11 attacks then Rumsfield goes agin and shoots off his big mouth today about how the two are pretty much the same thing. Hmmmmmmm? Explanation: The first part, regarding Iraq's WMD programme, I think is pretty well covered in points 1 and 2 above. It has been fairly conclusively proved that Iraq had no part in the WTC attack. How the two become pretty much the same thing is if nothing is done regarding Iraq's WMD programme. Al-Queda has lost what it thought was a secure base with the removal of the Taliban regime from power in Afghanistan - where are they likely to move to? Saddam Hussein was the the only national leader who applauded their attack, so it is not unreasonable for the American government to suspect that Al-Queda could get support from Iraq, and that if nothing is done with regard to the WMD programme, then the assistance that could be given by Iraq could have major consequences regarding any future attack on America. Now the Quiz: 1. What are my motives? Answer: I believe that my country, and others, may be under threat. That threat eminates from a strategically vital part of the world, that is unstable due to two long running and unresolved flash-points - The Israeli/Palestinian/Arab situation and the situation regarding Iraqi failure to impliment UN resolutions and their continued interest in weapons of mass destruction. I wish to assist in bringing about a peaceful solution to the former and I wish to satisfy myself through international action that the latter is proved to pose no threat to my own country, it's immediate neighbours and the world in general. The best chance of both coming to fruition is by a change in perspective that can be brought about by a change in leadership, that must be initiated from within the two regimes where their present leaders have failed the people they are supposed to represent. I know that if I adopt a totally passive stance and allow things to continue as they have been for the last ten years the consequences may be extremely grave not only for my own country but for the region and world as a whole. 2. Has the US done absolutely everything it can to prevent this upcoming war? Answer: The question asked assumes that war is inevitable, which I believe is not the case. In the past I have been involved in supporting an internationally backed military campaign to eject Iraq from one of its neighbouring states and thwart Iraq's expansionist aspirations. At the time I believed that this was successfully accomplished. In the ensuing ten years I have noted Iraqs refusal to impliment undertakings forced on it by the international community. Subsequent to suffering a major terrorist attack on my country I have been forced to adopt measures to fulfil the obligation of my office to protect my people. To achieve this I have called the attention of the international community to what I perceive to be a continued threat. I have done this by declaring my intention to act independently if need be, and by clearly outlining my reasons for doing so to the United Nations General Assembly. The United Nations General Assembly has put the matter before the Security Council of the United Nations and they have supported my case that action must be taken. Iraq's response to this chain of events has been to invite the United nations weapons inspectors to return unconditionally - I fervently believe that they would not have taken this step had I not threatened action. Past history has led me to believe that what Iraq says it is going to do, compared to what it actually does, are two completely different things. In the light of that I have asked the United Nations to draft an additional resolution, based on the current situation, that will ensure Iraqi compliance on all existing resolution requirements within a set time-frame or face direct military action by the international community. I believe that to be essential knowing the current leadership of Iraq. The international community has accepted the Iraqi invitation to the UN weapons inspectors and awaits their arrival in Iraq and their report. In the meantime I will maintain credible pressure on the regime in power in Iraq by continuing with my preparations for action should the international community call for it. Should the UN weapons inspectors report back stating that Iraq possesses no weapons of mass destruction, that they have no intention, or capability, of developing those weapons in the future, I can recall forces currently deployed. How long did it take you to answer these two imporatnt questions? About two hours. No to War. - Quite agree Bobert, but then I don't think there is going to be one.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:49 AM Teribus: Well, I'll give you credit for wordiness. I once had a calculis instructor who one day proved that 1 = 2. You and he would be in good company with one another. I agree with you on "No to War". Unfortunately, I am a lot less optomistic on those chances. Bush needs a war desperately. His handlers and supporters need and very much want a war. Too bad that they can't just be satisfied with their "War on Terrorism (a term I find hypocritical) but it's like baseball in that it doesn't move too fast. The American people are allready bored with it and need something more entertaining to keep their minds away from the economy and social programs... Sound familiar? Deja vu, all over again... Bobert p.s. I'll take your word for it that you spent two hours contimplating your answers but there is just a cynical part of me that thinks what you meant to say is that it took you two hours to come up with your rationization s and type them. Half funnin'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Sep 02 - 11:08 AM rationizations? Who's got the best guess what Bobert means? My guess is 'ratiocination', like 'reasoned train of thoughts'. A big praise for you, Teribus. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 02 - 11:23 AM Saddam Hussein, was unique in announcing to the world his admiration of the terrorists who carried out the attack on the WTC Sorry, but this is codwallop; the sentiment you refer to was voiced by many throughout the Muslim world. Besides, it is a matter of no concern to any free person what another person admires or does not, except as backgrou8nd information. The statement is used here asd an emotional argument. Saddam is dangerous for a lot more concrete reasons than wishing ill to others. He has shown in the past an energetic willingness to act on that ill will in very nasty ways. The other thing I don't understand, Teribus, is why you are writing in the first person about bringing the issue to the UN and maintaining pressure on Iraq. I assume you are quoting George Bush, and it would be helpful if it were clear where your language ends and his begins. I believe th word Bobert meant to insert was rationalizations -- architectures of explanation designed to sound rational about what are essentially irrational actions or thoughts. That said, I agree ya done good, Teribus. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Sep 02 - 12:05 PM One thing I should clarify in my discussion way back there of the American President's status as virtual demigod...a fairly unique situation these days outside of totalitarian states...is: America is actually a schizophrenic culture, divided eternally between Republicans and Democrats ((or, if you prefer, liberals (city slicker, bleeding heart, birkenstock-wearing, quiche-eaters) and conservatives (real, pledge-allegiance-to-the-flag, rural American patriots))... So... While more or less half of the American public at any given time regards the president as a demigod, the sum of all their hopes and dreams for prosperity and security... The other half (more or less) regards him as a fool, a criminal, or the Antichrist. This makes for a pretty unstable situation. The only way of really calming it down is to come up with a foreign Antichrist who appears far more evil than any President ever could (even if he does have illicit sex in the oval office or mispronounces the word "nuclear" at public functions). If a war can be launched against the foreign Antichrist that pretty well does the trick, and the nation is once again unified, at least until war's end or the next election. It's good for the economy too. It is important to pick a foreign Antichrist who cannot possibly defeat or seriously damage the US forces, which isn't too difficult these days, as long as one doesn't take on really big opponents such as Russia or China. Thus the war on a small country is clearly the best option. Finding the right small country is tricky. But...with due diligence one can find a small country willing to shoulder the burden of being "bad guy" for a limited period of time, after which they can be rescued from their sins and invested in by multinational energy corporations. All this would be unnecessary, were the USA not a house permanently divided against itself, but we have to deal with things as they are and grin and bear it. I think Saddam should be paid a large bonus for fulfilling his chosen role with such absolute style and panache. He is truly the Mother of all Bad Guys. :-) - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Sep 02 - 12:59 PM While more or less half of the American public at any given time regards the president as a demigod, the sum of all their hopes and dreams for prosperity and security...
The other half (more or less) regards him as a fool, a criminal, or the Antichrist. But only half the American population thought it worth voting for any of the candidates for President... And most of them voted against Bush anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 19 Sep 02 - 03:20 PM Amos: Thanks fir cleaning up after my. I certainly do spill a lot. Well the thoughts are there, itz just this danged lexdexic stuff. Man, for the most part I like it, but when it comes to raedin' and writin', belive me it's a pain. I can look a word that is perfectly mis-speeled, like porbably the one that I either just typed or the one Iz typin' now and know how its 'spozed to be spelled, but somehow, it looks just fine... As fir the war, I'm wonderin' why such confusion amongst the members of the administration? They go from wanting Iraq to be rid of waepons one minute to regime change the next. There is a monsterous difference gbetween these two objectives but they seem to use them interchangably until they are confronted and then they go on this spin about how Iraq has or hasn't done this or that but don't answer the question that was asked. I think D. Rumsfield and Cheney have made it perfectly clear that the US wants a regime change, but now they don't wnat to use those words but want a Congressional Resolution that will give them a green light to do just that. Well, I'll guarentee you that if they get their Resoultion, UN be damned, Junior is going to get his war, and possibly a second term out of it unless Saddam just surrenders before the first missle is fired. Then Junior will most definately be a one termer like his father. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 02 - 03:33 PM He sure as hell won't get no term from me!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Sep 02 - 03:43 PM But he didn't get elected fair and square last time, and that didn't stop him.
Presumably if the arms inspectors get in there in time Bush will drop bombs on them as well. This is a war on terror? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Don Firth Date: 19 Sep 02 - 03:47 PM Doug, I wasn't putting Texans or anyone else down for the way they pronounce words, nor was I trying to be nit-picky about Bush's diction. I am not so petty. The matter had already been brought up by others, and I was lending the benefit of my profession expertise in regard to matters of pronunciation. This was simply an observation, and has nothing to do with the policies of the administration which, if you'll read carefully, was not my point at all. I was answering the supposition that mispronouncing the name of a country might possibly be a "studied insult" by saying that I did not believe so. In the Masterpiece Theatre mini-series made from Robert Graves' novel I, Claudius, shortly after he was made emperor against his wishes, Claudius addresses his courtiers, saying, "They say I am hard of hearing. If I do not hear well, it is not through want of listening. They say that I stammer. I have always believed that what a man says is far more important than the way he says it. They say I am half-witted. And yet, I am still alive, while many who had all their wits are now dead!" I've always liked that speech. The way Bush (or anyone else) speaks does not influence my opinion of what he says, nor should it influence anyone. The fact that he uses regionalisms (as opposed to standard American English) with some consistency tends to excuse him, rather than condemn him. On the other hand, when a nuclear physicist doesn't pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly, it tends to make me a bit dubious of his competence. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Sep 02 - 05:24 PM But surely Bush wasn't born or brought up in Texas anyway? Isn't that accent an act for political purposes?
Nothing unusual about that kind of thing. It's the kind of thing politicians everywhere do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: DougR Date: 19 Sep 02 - 07:26 PM McGrath: I believe Bush spent the majority of his life in Texas prior to his move to D. C. "Rationization." Thats the plural of what happened during WWII, I think. Some things were "rationized." I'm sure, Bobert, you meant rationalization, as Amos pointed out. I just assumed your West Ginny accent started creeping out and didn't think much of it. Bobert: you seem hung up on your theory that "Bush needs a war desperately." Why do you think he does? For what purpose? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: bob jr Date: 19 Sep 02 - 07:31 PM A random but disturbing thought occured to me...well two actually. First off ,what is Americas real interest in afghanistan? Before everyone gets on their respective soapboxes...think for a second.Its been over a year and exactly how many leaders of al queida have shown up dead? I count one but this is a digression...what is Americas interest there? I can only think of one thing...and its not good. The talliban (who were not terrorists) shut down for the most part the drug industry. Where does the CIA go every time it needs funding and the goverment wont grant it? Remeber the 80s with that plane pilot who crashed in nicauraga? I dont mean to be so cynical but I think some American agencies have a vested interest in seeing the afghan drug industry back in place. If you think they went all that way just to restore democracy I suggest you watch footage of the new leader (surronded by heavily armed americans since his own "supporters" have attempted several assinations) on CNN. Reminds me of the "great day for democracy" when the Emir of Kuwait was returned to power (no elections,no taxation with representation ...and a poor human rights record just the way American foreign policy likes it's tin pot dictators).I personally believe that Bush saw an oppurtunity in the post sept 11th haze to rid himself of his Dad's old nemisis and grab some cheap oil all at the same time. Problem was he waited too long..and has no support (even turkey is waffling...so you know the support isnt there internationally) but he would still like to do it. 8 months ago everyone would have said "hell yeah" but the complete lack of ties between sept 11 and Saddam has the american public somewhat confused. rightly so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: NicoleC Date: 19 Sep 02 - 08:57 PM Bob Jr, I have the same suspicious thoughts. I may think that Bush's motives on this issue are self-serving, twisted and murderous and the probable outcome of his actions is far worse than the current "threat" -- BUT also I think that Bush & Co. are unaware of their... tainted judgement... in this area. If it weren't for the amount of sugar-coating and rationizing they were trying to put up this would-be war, they would have just trumped up some fake evidence on Saddam's links to al Q'aida. It isn't like it hasn't happened before. The fact that they haven't done this (yet) suggests to me that they really think they are doing the "right" thing. And any good ol' unilaterist like Dubya is unlikely to take the opinions of the rest of the world seriously, or, apparently, the wide majority of American opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 19 Sep 02 - 09:51 PM Bob jr: Well, what did you expect of Junior anyway. These C- Presidnets ain't too quick on the draw... DougR: Here are a few reasons why Junior desperately needs this war: 1. A perscription drug plan for our retired folks, which I think includes you, my friend. 2. 2,000,000 lost jobs since Junior came on board. Yeah, I know, Clinton did it. That dog don't hunt no more. Might of fact, that dog died a while back, sorry to say. 3. Oh, how about the $800,000 that Junior took out of his oil company just before it went down. Makes Clinton look like a 3rd grader who just got caught passin a bnote to a fellow classmate. 4. And, while we're on money, how about Cheney's $17M pay off from the oil industry just before resigning to run for office. 5. And while we're talkin' about the oil industry, how about the so called energy policy that was written by 42 of Junior's closest oil buddies. 6. And since we're talking energy, how about Enron and the ties it has to Dick Cheney. 7. And how about the tax cut which put $300 in the pockets of the working man to go toward paying off debt, while the bulk went to Junior's buddies. And all in the hopes of stimulating the economy. 8. And speaking of the economy, its in the crapper, but Junior (like daddy) can't be bother with details. 9. Speaking of details, how about the matter that Junior didn't win the election. Now there's the biggest dog of them all. 10. But speaking of big dogs, why is it that some 13 years after the Persian Gulf War, with no one particularilly giving Saddam much of a thought, all of a sudden, *he is* the most dangerous man in history. Give me a break... Now, Doug, if you'd like another 10 reasons why Junior needs this war, including things like the upcoming election, then ring the bell... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Don Firth Date: 19 Sep 02 - 10:49 PM Well laid out, Bobert. During World War II, when FDR was president, there was a national election (1944). Since the war was going full blast at the time and we were winning, the big slogan that Roosevelt's supporters used was "Don't change horses in the middle of the stream." It sounded like good advice to just about everyone, and Roosevelt was re-elected to an unprecedented fourth term. A question occurred to me: have we ever not re-elected a president while a war was in progress? Just a thought. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 07:13 AM In the UK of course they just postponed the election till the war was over. And the result was a resounding victory for the Labour opposition, and the best government of the century in many ways.
I note that the two Koreas are pushing ahead with getting together and making friends. And this doesn't seem to be pleasing the USA government too much, since it takes away another member of the "evil axis", and a useful next chapter in the ongoing war that keeps the domestic problems at bay.
I imagine there's a sign up in the inner sanctums of Bush and co: "It's the war, stupid" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Sep 02 - 11:30 AM Nicole - I suspect that you are quite right, and that Bush & Co. do indeed think they are doing "the right thing". That's the usual story out there. The same is true of the most zealous Zionists and Islamic warriors, who are busily trying to exterminate each other. Very, very few people are consciously evil, in their own judgment of themselves...and even the ones who ARE feel personally justified, along some line of rationale that makes sense to them, and perhaps to them only. This doesn't mean that they cannot later change their minds, and become aware of having done wrong and repent of it. Some do. Some don't. This is why saints and enlightened people are known to have compassion for those whom they may disagree with vehemently...even when done to death by those people. They have gone beyond mere surface reaction to events to recognizing the inner state of mind of the other, which usually "knows not what it does" from the larger point of view. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 12:05 PM You can be absolutely certain that the hijackers of September 11 thought they were doing "the right thing". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: DougR Date: 20 Sep 02 - 01:19 PM Don says, "Well laid out" to Bobert. I say, horse pucky. All you have done, Bobert my esteemed friend, is repeat a bunch of unrelated facts (as you see them)and expect everyone to jump aboard your bandwagon. Well don't count on me. Those tired old arguments merely serve to change the subject. Not one of them sufficiently explains the reason you believe Bush would benefit from a war with Iraq. And by the way, I think you left out one of the tired old arguments you folks like to trot out when you can't come up with a valid reason. "He's doing it to settle old scores because his Daddy lost an election." How could you possibly overlook that one? I suppose it would have been in icluded in the next ten you so graciously offered to supply us. I ask again: how would Bush, Cheney, Powell, et al benefit from a war with Iraq? I don't need ten reasons, Bobert old boy, name just one. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 01:42 PM 1)Wars keeps a leader popular, unless the war is lost, or maybe the cost gets too high. 2)Oil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Don Firth Date: 20 Sep 02 - 02:52 PM WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration released a report Friday outlining an aggressive national security policy that says the United States must adapt its forces and planning toward favoring pre-emptive action against terrorist groups and hostile states that possess or are developing weapons of mass destruction . . . Bush pursues a war on terrorism on two fronts: pursuit of a group accused of attacking the United States - al Qaeda - and contemplation of a military strike against Iraq. The sovereign state has not been tied to any terrorist attack, but the administration has declared it is pursuing weapons of mass destruction . . . "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively." And there is more. This is straight news, not editorial. Whole article HERE. Since I was a child, the only justification for hostile action has been "He hit me first!" In Western movies, the hero never drew his gun until the guy in the black hat started to draw his. The United States has always justified warlike activity by (at the very least) trying to make a fairly convincing case they we were responding to an attack or other hostile action—and always the retaliation was against the country that initiated the alleged hostile action. "Pre-emptive strike?" It appears that our "Western hero" wants carte blanche to shoot anyone else who might possibly be carrying a gun. Including anyone who is not obviously carrying a gun, but might possibly have a Derringer tucked in his boot. Does anyone besides me find this absolutely appalling? Don Firth
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Don Firth Date: 20 Sep 02 - 02:56 PM "Horse pucky" is hardly a cogent refutation, Doug. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 03:15 PM The approach to law enforcement that led to Amadou Diallou being shot 40 times.
There was an item on the news last night - seems at least one of the prisoners being held in Guantanamo is a totally innocent taxi-driver from Kabul, with a record of anti-Taliban activity. But when you dispense with having trials and producing evidence and so forth that kind of thing is bound to happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: Bobert Date: 20 Sep 02 - 04:12 PM Well, Don, you can count me in fir sure, and I'll be you can count..... well, nevermind. A shorter list around this joint that disagree. Doug: See McGrath's comment. Plus, Junior, keep that war drum pounding so lout that you can't hear yourself think. Turn on any talk radio and there's one of the War Team pounding and pounding. I reckon, thier philosophy is the best way to get a lie to stcik is to repeat it oftern and loud enough. This makes the Gulf of Tonkin thing look like a coffee break, for gosh sakes... But history has palces fro screw ups. One can only revise the stuff but so much. Unfortunately, before that happens, Juniors going to get some folks blown the heck up, if not, he's gonna just bully them into submisssion and then you can bet we'll have lots more terrorist activities to look forward to. Pick your poison. What a short sighted and self selving little man... Heck, Doug, I'd rather see you as President, and that's a fact. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 07:27 PM Heck, Doug, I'd rather see you as President, and that's a fact. With you there on that Bobert. Who was the last honest Republican President you had? Eisenhower wasn't it? (And the last honest Democrat was Carter) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq and War Part 6 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 08:06 PM Reached the century. Time for Part Seven So please post there instead. |