BS: Bush, Iraq and War Part 6

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.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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:
The war referred to is the Gulf War. Hostilities were ended once the UN mandate to liberate Kuwait had been achieved.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:41 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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