BS: Bush, Iraq and War Part 6

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: 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: 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: 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: 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:
"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."

Oh yeah? - perfectly plausible, totally credible - my arse.

Nicole C:
"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."

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:
"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."

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:
"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 ..."

"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:
The position of Saudi Arabia within the Muslim world I was referring to was as guardians of the most sacred sites of Islam and leader of the Muslim world. Don't laugh at that - it makes them an extremely influential force in the world, they are already extremely rich, and America needs them more that they need America. Anything the government of Saudi Arabia agrees to wrt foreign policy adversely affecting another "muslim" country must be justifiable to the world muslim community. In Desert Storm, that was easy because against the tenets of the Koran, Iraq (muslim country) attacked and invaded Kuwait (another muslim country). This time the change in attitude was a little bit more difficult, something caused it and I do not believe that Saudi Arabia would compromise its position in the muslim world by bowing to "graft, blackmail and coercion". Hard evidence against Saddam's regime in Iraq would be one compelling reason that would be acceptable - another would be a firm commitment by the international community backed solidly by America, Russia, Europe under the auspices of the United Nations to resolve the Isreali - Palestinian conflict once and for all within the next three years. That was announced at the UN last night. In one of my previous posts on this subject stated my belief that if you got movement on one, you would get movement on the other - seems to be happenning - bet Amos and Kevin don't agree.

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: 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: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 02 - 10:59 PM

Gotcha, Amos....

~B~

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: kendall
Date: 16 Sep 02 - 11:04 PM

Saddam blinked.

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: 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 - 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: 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 - 09:17 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: 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: 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: 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
like a moth to flame
gives way to the masculine will
The women find fame
and loudly exclaim
but seldom halt the kill.

[image] http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/egyya.jpg [/image]

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: 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: 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 - 05:26 PM

What happened to Scott Ritter? how did they shut him up?

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: 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 - 04:15 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: 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 - 04:13 PM

Sorted! (The thread, not the war, I'm afraid,)