BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT

Subject: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:06 PM

The prior thread on this topic which can be found over here by clicking has 100 messages on it. So I am starting this extension, although I am not sure there is a lot more to say that hasn't been said.

A

---

Search for "Bush, Iraq" threads

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:10 PM

But are we not looking forward to more long posts about the relative strengths of Germany and Britain in 1940?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:12 PM

Now that we have the page split function, perhaps multiple parts are less needful.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:37 PM

I think you're right, WYSIWYG (aka "IMPRESSION CONFORME À LA VISUALISATION"), but this is a transition period while the new pattern works itself out.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:39 PM

Well, danged. Haven't been able to get a word in edgewias with all these reinactments being fought around the joint.

Hey, so the United Nations hammers out an accord with the Iraqis on a strict arms inspection program and Bush is all sad and down in the dumps. What am I missing here? One day that's what he wants and the next day he doesn't want it at all. Hmmmmmmm? He's certainly is acting like a spoiled brat whoes parents *give* him a new Corvette but he doesn't like the brand of tires and won't drive it....

Come on, folks, get real here. This is a start. Hey, *A start*, danged it!!! Since Bush hasn't nay proof that the US is about to be attcaked by Iraq, or proof that Iraq even has anything much with which to attack, then this seems reasonable.

Hey, if it doesn't work then other stuff can come into play and with all the huffin-n-puffin going 'round, one can reasonably expect that Iraq knows this. So, whats the big deal?

Bush could have just claimed a small victory here but, no. He's gotta go off in the corner and pout.

Hey, Mr. President, not everything in the world is about you. You can't be in every photograph. You're not going to be the center of attention in all circumstances. Get over it! And get the heck away from that "button".

Yeah, Mr. President, show a little humility, say, "Good work, UN", pay your UN bills and buckle down on trying to get the econmony out of the crapper. Don't worry, Saddam ain't going nowhere in case you want to mess with him later....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:02 PM

Oh, Bobert. Sigh. You do go on, don't you.

The offer you so willingly embrace, and the President doesn't, does not allow the inspectors to do the job that has to be done. Saddam will not allow the inspectors to inspect some seven palaces comprising 12 square miles of that country. Do you have a guess as to why he won't let them inspect the palaces?

The inspections won't work unless the inspectors can go where they want, when they want.

I just heard on the radio that the Congress has passed a bill providing Bush the authorization to go to war if that become necessary. So we will just have to see what happens, I guess.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:31 PM

And why is the U.N. not allowed to inspect the USA's secret military operations and weapons facilities on a regular basis? And why is the U.N. not allowed to enforce its rulings upon the USA and Israel from time to time?

Why, oh why?

Because they are strong enough to prevent any such thing being done by the U.N., that's why.

Not because of any moral rectitude, folks, because of brute strength. And the world knows it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:35 PM

Why won't it work, Doug. First of all you get a group of folks who represent the UN into Bagdad. That seems to be a good start. Next, the yeah, you go around and check out all the other places, which under any plan would take a lot of time. Now since you're over there and there are these palaces, and you have folks there, it ain't imposssible to get a lot of evidence in just the comings and goings of folks and vehicles in and out of the palaces. Meanwhile, let you intellegence folks make up to the American people by doing their jobs better than in the past and next thing, you've got a pretty clear picture of what's going on.

Next, after we've gotten the rest of Iraq clean, then it's Phase Two. Turn up the heat a tad by using any evidence or intellegence against Saddam and get into one palace after another. And don't tell me that he'll crawfish and move stuff 'cause we all know our abilities to track movements on the ground. Heck, if we can photograph a footprint from 12 miles up then we can surely see trucks.

Hey, like I've said before. Time is on our side and most of this stuff that Iraq and the UN have agreed upon represents a lot of work...

And there's just something real smart about getting into one's enemy's camp...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:03 PM

Susan:

I have been well aware of the split-thread function for several months, so you can rest assured I did not overlook it. But thanks for looking out for my acuity. You never know! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:23 PM

Heard a discussion on the radio yesterday between three former inspectors. They were in agreement a) that Iraq was pretty clean when they left; b) about the only thing they weren't able to find was some canisters of a biological agent the Iraqi's admitted they had but said they had destroyed (but by now it would be academic because due to the short shelf-life of this particular agent, it would no longer be usable); c) that just the presence of the inspectors poking around would make it very expensive for Hussein to keep trying to build and/or hide WMDs.

Expensive financially, because he would have to keep quickly moving the stuff away from where the inspectors (not announcing their visits ahead of time) were about to inspect, which would be a logistical nightmare; and expensive politically, because after announcing that he didn't have any, if he were inadvertently caught with some, lots of folks would be more amenable to lowering to boom on him.

Thus spake three former inspectors (Americans), who also said that several of the American "inspectors" were not inspectors at all, they were there for purposes of espionage, and everybody, including Hussein, knew it. Well documented, in fact.

Last I heard, as far as the presidential palaces are concerned, they're still leaning on Hussein about that. So far, he hasn't said "no inspections," he's said "no inspections without prior arrangements." It's not a done deal yet.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:05 PM

The agreement does in fact allow inspections of those palaces. In line with what was the policy supported by the USA back in 1998 there's an agreed procedure involving having diplomats along. The people who know most about this, the inspectors themselves, have indicated that they see it as satisfactory - in line once again with the US government back in 1998.

Maybe there is extra work to be done - extra guarantees that there won't be delays and dirty tricks, and a procedure for effective ways of dealing with any that were attempted.

But for the government of one member state in an instant kneejerk reaction to denounce all this and to threaten to "thwart" any kind of inspections is... not exactly helpful.

Bush is trying to keep the pressure up so as to ensure that there are effective inspections, and that any "weapons of mass destruction" are destroyed? Or he's trying to ensure that there are no effective inspections, because he is frightened that they will in fact either demonstrate that there aren't such weapons, or succeed in destroying them, and in the process depriving him of the excuse for making war?

I'm sure there are some people who will persuade themselves that the first explanation is the true one. Or in the case of people close to positions of power, such as maybe Colin Powell and Tony Blair they might even be desperately trying to manoeuvre things so that it becomes true, in spite of all the people working in the opposite direction who seem to be making the running in the White House at present.

And isn't it all going well for the calculating fanatics who planned September 11th, for whom a unilateral war by an isolated USA is surely the next move in a gameplan in which Iraq is merely a chess piece to be sacrificed? (And not even a friendly chess piece.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:53 PM

Kevin, I'm intrigued -- you seem to have a high opinion of Tony Blair as a peacemaker and moderating force. On this side of the pond, he pretty much comes off as an American lackey. I'm sure the truth is really somewhere in between, but PM Blair hasn't exactly done a darned thing to disagree with the US in recent events.

So I'm curious why you arrive at that conclusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 07:35 PM

I said "might even" - that means precisely what it says. It means I don't actually dismiss out of hand the possibility that, when he talks about the importance of carrying out inspections and avoiding war, Blair might actually mean it.

It seems likely that Bush believes that getting involved in this war will actually help him domestically, assuming it doesn't turn out disastrously (a big if), and not too many Americans are killed. But it won't do Blair one little bit of good.

If this ends up with a guarantee there are no WMDs in Iraq, but with Saddam still in place, that will be very damaging for Bush. But it would be perfectly satisfactory for Blair. (And if such an outcome damages Bush, that's a bonus.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,native
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 10:12 PM

Bush claims Iraq has weapons of mass destrutions,theres many countries have weapons of mass distrutions, but only one country has ever used them .I wonder which country it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 10:46 PM

Yes, it's rather like the British Empire in the late 1800's going to war against the Zulus or some other African tribe, on account of the rumour that the bloodthirsty natives and their uspeakably evil (and fat and ugly) king have acquired some modern rifles, and may use them on decent, civilized white people at any time...

Can't have that, can we? Tally ho, lads, and have at the heathen upstarts! We should be able to wrap this one up in short order, chaps. Drinks all around! Make mine scotch, please. Gin and bitters for Dickie.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 10:58 PM

Native:

In recent history, it is Iraq. The US is the only country to deploy a nuclear weapon.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 02:30 AM

Only a complete surrender by Iraq to the UN, and an immediate deployment of a UN force in that country [ a powerful force would not be required] will stymie Bush and his Tony-tail in their settled plans for invasion and subsequent manipulation of population and resources. Anything less, and , as Gw has shown, any old excuse can be used to proceed as planned. The Usa , mind you, could veto any move by the UN which might avoid their war----

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: kendall
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 05:46 AM

We didn't like Allende as leader of Chile, Norega in Panama, etc. now, we are about to take out S.H. in Iraq. Who is next? Remember the Roman empire? they were invincible, swinging the world by the tail, wonder what ever happened to them? Does anyone see any similarity here?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 07:53 AM

Bobert, What you are mising is this:

"...the United Nations hammers out an accord with the Iraqis on a strict arms inspection program..."

No actually they haven't. The designated head of the proposed UN arms inspection team has held negotiations with Iraqi representatives regarding return of the weapons inspection teams, formerly UNSCOM. Odd thing, if these guys are going back in to do carry out the same work they did before, why do they need a new name?

"Come on, folks, get real here. This is a start. Hey, *A start*, danged it!!! Since Bush hasn't nay proof that the US is about to be attcaked by Iraq, or proof that Iraq even has anything much with which to attack, then this seems reasonable."

Its not so much a start as a re-run of the same old game.

"Hey, if it doesn't work then other stuff can come into play and with all the huffin-n-puffin going 'round, one can reasonably expect that Iraq knows this. So, whats the big deal?"

Time, Bobert is the big deal. What you suggest, which is the French and increasingly becoming the Russian position, will take time, lots of it. On the existing procedures for arms inspection thrashed out as a result of the UN resolutions as they stand, it took the UN from 1991 until 1998 to finally admit that the Iraqi government was giving them the run-around to such an extent that it was pointless having inspectors there. How much time should they be given this time round? At the moment this is totally open, the USA and the UK want it clearly stated - that's all, and I do not view that as being unreasonable at all.


"Yeah, Mr. President, show a little humility, say, "Good work, UN", pay your UN bills and buckle down on trying to get the econmony out of the crapper."

Don't think he can do both regarding paying what the US owes the UN and sorting out your economy - Have you seen how much the USA owes the UN?

"Don't worry, Saddam ain't going nowhere in case you want to mess with him later...."

Well let's sincerely hope he's not going anywhere Bobert. Your assurances on that must be a great comfort to his neighbouring states. And if things go ahead based on current agreements and existing resolutions, and Saddam manages to fool them again, when he does have to be messed with later, you will no doubt be the first person to castigate the President for not acting sooner - because later Bobert he will be a far more difficult proposition.


When DougR said above that, "The inspections won't work unless the inspectors can go where they want, when they want." He is stating a glaringly obvious and essential condition - no more, no less.

Your reply as to why the inspections will work in response to Doug was interesting:

"Why won't it work, Doug. First of all you get a group of folks who represent the UN into Bagdad. That seems to be a good start. Next, the yeah, you go around and check out all the other places, which under any plan would take a lot of time (HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE?). Now since you're over there and there are these palaces, and you have folks there, it ain't imposssible to get a lot of evidence in just the comings and goings of folks and vehicles in and out of the palaces (YOU MEAN INFILTRATE THE WEAPONS INSPECTION TEAMS WITH SPYS BOBERT?). Meanwhile, let you intellegence folks make up to the American people by doing their jobs better than in the past and next thing, you've got a pretty clear picture of what's going on (WHY YOUR BELIEF IN WHAT THEY WILL TELL YOU THIS TIME ROUND WHEN YOU DID NOT BELIEVE THEM THE LAST TIME THEY WERE THERE?).

Next, after we've gotten the rest of Iraq clean (SO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THERE?), then it's Phase Two. Turn up the heat a tad by using any evidence or intellegence against Saddam and get into one palace after another (HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT EXACTLY?). And don't tell me that he'll crawfish and move stuff 'cause we all know our abilities to track movements on the ground (PALACE INSPECTIONS REQUIRE ONE MONTHS NOTICE AND YOU ARE STATING CLEARLY THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT ESPIONAGE IS REQUIRED). Heck, if we can photograph a footprint from 12 miles up then we can surely see trucks (AH! BOBERT BUT CAN YOU SEE WHAT'S IN 'EM).

Hey, like I've said before. Time is on our side (LETS HOPE SO - IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO TAKE THAT CHANCE THEN WHAT THE HECK Hmmmmmmmm?) and most of this stuff that Iraq and the UN have agreed upon represents a lot of work...(SURE DOES)

And there's just something real smart about getting into one's enemy's camp...(NOT IF IT'S JUST TO MAKE A FOOL OF YOU - LIKE HE DID LAST TIME)

Don, in your post above you refer to a discussion between thre former weapons inspectors, who I presume were part of the UNSCOM team operating in Iraq between 1991 and 1998.

"They were in agreement a) that Iraq was pretty clean when they left; b) about the only thing they weren't able to find was some canisters of a biological agent the Iraqi's admitted they had but said they had destroyed (but by now it would be academic because due to the short shelf-life of this particular agent, it would no longer be usable); c) that just the presence of the inspectors poking around would make it very expensive for Hussein to keep trying to build and/or hide WMDs."

Your point b) above was quite well covered in the "Dossier" presented to the British Parliament:

"Chemical and biological agents: surviving stocks

6. When confronted with questions about unaccounted stocks, Iraq has claimed repeatedly that if it had retained any chemical agents from before the Gulf War they would have deteriorated sufficiently to render themselves harmless. But Iraq has admitted to UNSCOM to having knowledge and capability to add stabiliser to nerve agent and other chemical warfare agents which would prevent such decomposition. In 1997 UNSCOM also examined some munitions which had been filled with mustard gas prior to 1991 and found that they remained very toxic and showed little sign of deterioration.

7. Iraq has claimed that all its biological agents and weapons have been destroyed. No convincing proof of any kind has been produced to support this claim. In particular, Iraq could not explain large discrepancies between the amount of growth media (nutrients required for the specialised growth of agent) it procured before 1991 and the amounts of agent it admits to having manufactured. The discrepancy is enough to produce more than three times the amount of anthrax allegedly manufactured."

There seems to be rather a large difference in those two assessments. I would rather hope that UNSCOM retains the data from their examination of the munitions tested in 1997.

"Expensive financially, because he would have to keep quickly moving the stuff away from where the inspectors (not announcing their visits ahead of time) were about to inspect, which would be a logistical nightmare; and expensive politically, because after announcing that he didn't have any, if he were inadvertently caught with some, lots of folks would be more amenable to lowering to boom on him."

That risk of getting caught is there, but the Iraqi's freely admitted that they had deceptive counter-measures in place during the previous inspection programme. There are four UN resolutions relating to weapons of mass destruction. Three of them 687, 707 and 715 are all dated in 1991. A fourth was passed in 1996 which stated that Iraq must declare the shipment of dual-use goods which could be used for mass destruction weaponry programmes. That last resolution passed in 1996 serves as a good indication of how effective the Iraqi deception and harrassment programme was.

"Thus spake three former inspectors (Americans), who also said that several of the American "inspectors" were not inspectors at all, they were there for purposes of espionage, and everybody, including Hussein, knew it. Well documented, in fact."

As you can read above Bobert is in favour of these additions to the weapons inspection teams - in fact for his inspection programme to succeed they are essential.

"Last I heard, as far as the presidential palaces are concerned, they're still leaning on Hussein about that. So far, he hasn't said "no inspections," he's said "no inspections without prior arrangements." It's not a done deal yet."

Interesting subject these eight "Palaces", or more correctly termed "Presidential" or "Sovereign" Sites. You see they didn't exist before December 1997, if a report by UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler is to be believed. He was informed about these sites by the Iraqi's in December 1997, they were a new category of site from which UNSCOM Inspectors were barred. The terms of the ceasefire in 1991 foresaw no such restriction and, I suppose strictly speaking, they are not covered by any existing UN Resolution.

Oh, Little Hawk:

"the British Empire in the late 1800's going to war against the Zulus or some other African tribe, on account of the rumour that the bloodthirsty natives and their uspeakably evil (and fat and ugly) king have acquired some modern rifles, and may use them on decent, civilized white people at any time..."

Nothing so altruistic - Gold and Diamonds - Brits in Cape Colony grant equal status in law to ALL inhabitants of Cape Colony, that completely pisses off the Boers who trek north (1835 to 1842) fighting Xhosa, Tsonga and Ndebele tribesmen on the way. They met the Zulus who were doing the same thing from the opposite direction. States of Transvaal and The Orange Free State established and the aforementioned natural resources were discovered. Brits said, "Oh we'll have some of that", the Boers said "Oh No you won't", so the Brits said "OK then we'll have all of that". Zulus just got caught in the middle. Much the same thing happened all over the place at the time - The British got whopped by Zulus at Isandhlwana (1876) the Americans got whopped by Souix at Little Big Horn (1879). The latter over gold. Both were considered minor set backs and didn't affect the final outcome one jot.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: kendall
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 08:47 AM

Now that Senator "NO" is leaving the senate, maybe we will pay our dues.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 10:52 AM

Teribus: I respect your right to voice your opinions but they are nothing more than opinons. Since you do not have any real facts, you just go about reciting the rhetoric that you're getting from Bush's PR campaign. Nothing more.

I present ideas that represent peaceful and pro-human ideals and you, Sir or Mame, recite the same old lies. If you side has any more information it wouild like to share with the American voters and taxpayers and parents of kids who may be asked to die, then we'd certainly appreciate you bringing them to the forefront of this discussion.

Until then, I see the inspections as a forward step.

No War for Bush's and Teribus's Egos, thank you!

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:06 AM

Teribus:

Thanks for the refreshers on history.

Amazing how easy it is to forget, isn't it? Maybe that's why, as Kendall points out, we seem to be reliving it!

The big question -- how do you make the same old movie turn out different in the matinee showing?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 11:32 AM

UNITED NATIONS-In an address before the U.N. General Assembly Monday,
President Bush called upon the international community to support his
"U.S. Does Whatever It Wants" plan, which would permit the U.S. to take any
action it wishes anywhere in the world at any time.


"As a shining beacon of freedom and democracy, America has inspired
the world," said Bush in his 25-minute address. "With its military might, it
has kept the peace and bravely defended the unalienable [sic] rights
of millions around the globe. In this spirit, I call upon the world's
nations to support my proposal to give America unrestricted carte blanche to
remove whatever leaders, plunder whatever resources, and impose
whatever policies it deems necessary or expedient."

MORE .....

http://theonion.com/onion3836/bush_seeks_un_support.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 12:00 PM

The leaked details of Wasingtoms proposals for "inspections" are in effect plans for an occupation of Iraq.

"I could never imagine Iraq agreeing to this. If you're going to be invaded you might as well make the invading force shoot their way in. It's the sort of proposal meant to be rejected." And those aren't the word of some peace minded "liberal" - they are those of John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington military thinktank.

Here is a link to the lead story in today's Guardian "US hardline on Iraq leaves full-scale invasion a 'hair-trigger' away"

I don't think overlong posts are a good idea - anything over a couple of hundred words gets so hard to read that I doubt if many people actually read it (even this one is a bit lengthy). And it's much easier to read this story in the Guardian's websites. (Unlike some papers the Guardian doesn't charge, and keeps its archives permanently.)

But here is a taster:
"Weapons inspectors would operate out of bases inside Iraq, where they would be under the protection of UN troops. UN forces or the forces of a member state would enforce no-fly and no-drive zones around a suspected weapons site, preventing anything being removed before inspection.

Diplomats at the UN said there was no doubt that US troops would play a leading role in any such enforcement, allowing the Pentagon to deploy forces inside Iraq even before hostilities got under way...

...John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington military thinktank, said the resolution was worded in such a way that Iraq was almost certain to reject it, even if the alternative was invasion.

"I could never imagine Iraq agreeing to this. If you're going to be invaded you might as well make the invading force shoot their way in. It's the sort of proposal meant to be rejected," Mr Pike said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 12:03 PM

Bobert:

1. The UN appointed Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler - Lied????

2. The UNSCOM Report of January 1999 to the United Nations Security Council - IS LIES ?????

For what purpose? For what motive? - job protection!!! Do come along.

Those are my sources, situated in Europe I am less subject to Bush's PR campaign than those located in America.

While expressing my opinions, is my right, I usually base those on fact and experience. I also challenge other view points in specific questions - which you tend to side-step or ignore, I tend to aswer questions fielded my way.

While I commend your ideals and your opinions (no ideas have come out yet) - in the light of past experience with regard to what Baghdad says it's going to do and what it actually does - I think you are being a bit niaive.

I am all for the return of inspectors - under the present mandate Bobert, if those weapons inspection teams were to go to work tomorrow - when will they submit their final report? What are your criteria for accepting the authenticity of the contents of that report? When will sanctions be lifted?

And once again I remind you that you are the one constantly harping on about there's going to be a war. I on the other hand have from the outset said that there is not.

The bottom line Bobert is for you and your fellow travellers to get over it once and for all - George W Bush won the last American Presidential Election - There is nothing you can do about it.

Go back and review your posts, everything about them insularly looks to how this affects domestic matters - your underlying sentiment seems to smack of - Screw the rest of the world, to hell with the people of Iraq and any chance of a peaceful settlement in the middle east - If Saddam Hussein is George Bush's sworn enemy then I'll back him to the hilt. I'll believe him unquestionably, before I'd believe anybody that forms part of the present administration, or anyone that concurs with their views, irrespective of qualification and past experience. If they're not singing my song - then they're automatically lying.

As you are only to willing to attribute the motives of your President, and his advisors, to, so far unproven, financial interests. I take it that you are aware that Iraq's major trading partners have been France and Russia - but that's all clean and above board - both have supplied nuclear technology, the latter was Iraq's major source of weapons. Also in Europe, Germany was the country that supplied the nutrients for his Sarin project.

Your sentence (which I will paraphrase): "If you side has any more information it wouild like to share with the ..... parents of kids who may be asked to die, then we'd certainly appreciate you bringing them to the forefront of this discussion."

For your information, one of my sons is currently serving in the Royal Marines, Bobert - I have got a bloody good idea where he might be when and if this thing kicks off. So if you will pardon me for pandering to my ego, I sincerely hope that it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 12:23 PM

teribus - Excellent summation of the British war with the Zulus (and Boers). Bang-on. My statement about natives with modern rifles was intended as political satire, not historical fact. I suspect that the USA also has valuable resources and a strategically advantageous arrangement in certain lands in mind...just as Britain had in South Africa.

The battle of Isandlwana was an interesting case of a spectacular phyrric victory...the Zulus lost so many of their best warriors there and at Rorke's Drift immediately afterward, that it kind of tore the heart out of their army. The inevitable and final slaughter of the impis occurred later at Ulundi, where the British square mowed them down like cattle. Pathetic. But at least they had their day of glory at Isandlwana, and gave the Brits something to remember...rather like the Sioux at Little Big Horn.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 12:50 PM

Ah Blackadder,

From the Guardian:

Points relating to the leaked draft resolution:


· The US (as a permanent member of the UN security council) can ask to be present in any inspection team and thus gain access to any part of the country.

Can't see anyhting wrong with that? The bit in brackets also implies that Britain, France, Russia and China could do the same.

· The inspectors can set up bases throughout the country. They will be accompanied at those bases by soldiers under the UN banner sufficient to protect them.

Well they have been threatened in the past, warning shots, threats - but then the UNSCOM boys could have been joking about all that. They would also go in as UN troops - I don't believe for one minute that they'd be American (Turkish, Irish, Nigerian, Norwegian, etc. i.e. the usual suspects)

· The UN will have the right to declare no-fly, no-drive and exclusion zones, ground and air transit corridors, to be enforced either by the UN or by member states which could include the US

It avoids embarrassing episodes like those UN inspectors stuck in that car park for four days. It avoids those ever so convenient traffic accidents and traffic jams, when the lads want to get to work.

· Iraq must agree to free and unrestricted landing of aircraft, including unmanned spy planes

Guarantees access for whatever specialist as and when they are required. Also ensures that aircraft (helicopters) are available at all times and that flight plans are not tampered with. It also makes this clear understanding that this time the Iraqi's cannot interfere with helicopter operations, or threaten the safety of their (UN) aircraft and crews. Aw well maybe they were just joking about that too.

· The UN can take anyone it wishes to interview out of Iraq, along with his or her family

This one is interesting, have they people targeted that may be willing to talk - Don't know, can't tell - but it is interesting.

· Any false information provided by Iraq or any failure to comply with the resolution would automatically entitle member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace

Hmmm? On the face of it this shouldn't worry the Iraqi's - As they've told us they don't have anything. The verbage "all necessary means to restore international peace" seems a bit OTT. International peace has not yet been interrupted. It would have made more sense to state, "all necessary means to ensure total compliance with UNSC Resolutions". Maybe that is the bargaining point that will be negotiated down. It certainly appears in terms of language to be the most strident.

Hi Amos,

Thought theonion.com link was a gas - very funny - really.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 01:16 PM

Another thing I would have expected to see in the above but don't is some reference for a time frame for Iraq to make a declaration regarding WMD. Blair was mentioning it at the Labour Party Conference yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 01:22 PM

So in adddition to the UN inspectors there'd be five sets of inspectors from the five Permanent Members of the Security Council roaming around and threading on each other toes, each with its own military forces, and military bases. It all sounds like what happened to China at the end of the last century. And that didn't work out too well.

Or maybe a US Zone of Occupation, UK Zone, Frenmch Zone, Russian Zone and Chinese Zone. And a guerrilla war of national liberation in all ofvthem, spilling over the frontiers. Al Qaida will love this.

This "proposal" is designed to be rejected by Iraq and allow a figleaf for a US run invasion with hired help from the UK.

The best hope is that the French and the Russians will dig their heels in, and that in spite of it all there'll be viable inspections without delay. Not that that will stop Bush more like than not - even if there's a report saying Iraq no longer has any WMDs, he's likely to brush it aside and press the invasion button. The only people who can stop Bush are the Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 02:37 PM

kevin, you say "Not that that will stop Bush more like than not - even if there's a report saying Iraq no longer has any WMDs, he's likely to brush it aside and press the invasion button."
Why would he want to do that? If the WMDs are gone than there is no more danger to our interests in the Persian Gulf.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 03:25 PM

Troll:

I think Kevin is saying that Bush will choose not to believe the report. His motive would be either (a) he has persuasive intelligence that there are such weapons even if not found by inspectors OR (b) he has a compelling desire to control Iraqi territory for economic reasons (c) OR Both.

Even without WMD, IRaq can be an interfering nuisance to the oil strategies we would otherwise deploy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Goosed
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 03:26 PM

Troll,

You're joking right?

Goosed

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 03:31 PM

Anyone who says Americans don't go in for irony has it dead wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 03:34 PM

LOL!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 07:04 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military has dropped leaflets over southern Iraq in a promised psychological campaign to undercut support for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, U.S. officials told CNN on Thursday.

The propaganda is being dropped over southern Iraq, warning the rank-and-file Iraqi military not to target coalition warplanes. The wording notes a determined U.S. effort to attack the sources of such ground fire, and says "You could be next."

The leaflet mission occurred in the last several days, with one such drop coming under fire by Iraqi ground forces. Officials told CNN a plane carrying leaflets, flanked by jet fighters, came under fire during a flight over the southern no-fly zone of Iraq.

U.S. and coalition warplanes retaliated early Thursday with a raid on a location about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad, targeting Iraq's air defense sector headquarters and operations center near Tallil.

A Pentagon-supplied English translation of the leaflet says: "The destruction experienced by your colleagues in other air defense locations is a response to your continuing aggression toward planes of the coalition forces. No tracking or firing on these aircraft will be tolerated. You could be next."


Wow -- that PR is sure designed to persuade....I don't think!!

Sounds more like bullyragging than persuasion.

Wonder what they couldhave been thinking of?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 07:24 PM

You mean they actually got round to printing the leaflets in Arabic?

Mind, in English it comes across as pretty strange. Take that sentence: "The destruction experienced by your colleagues in other air defense locations is a response to your continuing aggression toward planes of the coalition forces." You could recite that in chorus, and it sound quite impressive. But pretty impenetrable

However it really is a weird use of language to describe aiming a missile at a hostile warplane flying over your own country as "aggression". I don't mean to say that there mightn't be good grounds for the warplane being there and all - but "aggression" is a weird word to use in that context. I'm sure that when the Germans fired at Allied planes over Germany it wasn't normally referred to as "aggression".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 08:17 PM

Amos: did you offer the link to "The Onion" story as evidence of something, or as a joke? I heard the speech. He didn't say what the Onion reports that he did! What they say is what they would like people who did not hear the speech believe he said.

I assume you offered the link as tongue in cheek, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 08:20 PM

Maybe I should rethink what I just said about irony...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 08:34 PM

DougR:

Sorry -- I thoughtlessly left off the little emoticon to clarify; yes, it was meant in humor. I am sure that is not what he said.   

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 08:58 PM

What?! You mean "The Onion" isn't TRUE?!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:04 PM

Nicole:

If I'd read your line one second earlier, you'd owe me a new monitor!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 02:41 AM

"However it really is a weird use of language to describe aiming a missile at a hostile warplane flying over your own country as "aggression". I don't mean to say that there mightn't be good grounds for the warplane being there and all - but "aggression" is a weird word to use in that context. I'm sure that when the Germans fired at Allied planes over Germany it wasn't normally referred to as "aggression". "

Not weird at all Kevin. Illuminating an aircraft with a guidance radar is universally accepted as being a hostile act as it may signal intent to fire. Another one, is surfacing a submarine in the path of an oncoming vessel, which is actually classified as an act of war. That dates back to the days when submarines carried deck guns and used those for sending merchant ships to the bottom, torpedoes tended to be reserved for sinking warships as they could fight back.

Regarding the inspections Kevin, it was confirmed last night that any permanent member of the UNSC can elect to have a representative at any inspection. That does not, repeat not, mean that they have five sets of inspection teams on the ground. As to your suggestion regarding occupied zones - you quoted China at the turn of last century as an example of how it didn't work - what about Germany when it did. Like your quotation from the Guardian article, another example of selective presentation Private Fraser.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 03:33 AM

I assume "The Onion" is a well known publication to some, it was unknown by me. Mark it up to old age, or lack of sophistication, or whatever.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 06:15 AM

I didn't say it wasn't hostile did I, Teribus? Obviously pointing guns and missiles is in some sense hostile. I said "aggression" was a weird word to use, and I made it quite clear that I was talking about the use of the word.

And you sound off about distortion... The comment normally addressed to Private Pike comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 07:31 AM

It is my understanding that the reason for wanting Saddam out of the way is that his policies are a direct threat to our strategic and economic interests in the Persian Gulf Region.
The ideal situation, of course, would to be to replace Saddam with a regiem more friendly to the US. Failing that, the next best thing is to neutralize his military power and support opposition movements in Iraq.
So no, I was quite serious when I said,"Why would he want to do that? If the WMDs are gone than there is no more danger to our interests in the Persian Gulf."
This isn,t quite true since Saddam still has his army but it is not well equiped or trained. The exception are the Republican Guards who are Saddams elite troops and are mostly from his own clan.
Without the treat of WMDs Bush would be able to garner little support for any massive military expedition into the Middle East.
The rule, as always, is follow the money. The countries who are opposed to a strong UN resolution with military action as the consequence of non-cooperation on the prat of Iraq, are also those who have a history of trade with Iraq over the last ten years in direct opposition to the trade embargo set up by the UN. Thanks to countries like France, China and Russia, Saddam has been able to amass Billions of dollars to use in rebuilding his damaged weapons programs and reequiping his army.
While the world blamed the US for the starvation od Iraqi children, Saddam was pumping humanitarian funds into his military machine.
Sorry about the thread creep.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 08:10 AM

A hostile act is by nature an act of aggression.

Well put Troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Rag
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 08:32 AM

Interesting Troll,

"While the world blamed the US for the starvation od Iraqi children, Saddam was pumping humanitarian funds into his military machine.
Sorry about the thread creep."

There is already a huge amount of evidence detailed by among others Edward Said, and Fred Halliday, that the sanctions are preventing the replacement of bombed water treatement plants and essential infrastructure and that this is what is causing the huge number of deaths of Iraqi civilians. Any country that bombs away the infrastructure and then bans by sanctions the supply of syringes, plasma drips and even wheelbarrows and stepladders, has got to ask itself what's the real purpose of the sanctions. It's easy to jump to a defensive posture and assume that the sanctions are justified.

I argue that the sanctions are designed to produce a subject people ripe for occupation. The fact that Britain has been bombing Iraq for longer than the Americans bombed Vietnam is completely indefensible. And the fact that Turkey is permitted to bomb the kurds in the no-fly zone (Turkey is a UN member) is equally scandalous.

Let's hear it for the Iraqi people. Stop the sanctions. Oppose the Bush tub-thumping and his war-mongering sycophants. And let's not play would-be intellectual games about US White House strategy. This is a point of political principle not some tactical exercise to defend oil company interests. The Standard Oil Company in the Gulf created havoc in its campaigns to get and preserve drilling rights and most of the middle east regimes were set up and sponsored with oil interests in mind. Just look at the history of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Dhofar, Aden, Yemen, as well as Iran and Iraq. The US government's role in all this is only about oil. Their record in the region marks them as just about the most aggressive world power ever to get near it (the UK is the other leading contender).

If anyone is really concerned about countries with nuclear weapons, attacking their own population, hounding oppositionists, sponsoring extra-judicial killings, invading neighbouring countries, violating UN resolutions, how come the US is not concerned about Israel. Oh yeah, it's a democracy isn't it - except that the regime is apartheid and bans arabs from voting...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 09:28 AM

"A hostile act is by nature an act of aggression."

In the same sense that "A vegetable is by nature a carrot."

Wrong way round, Pikey.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 03:46 PM

GUEST, Rag. What the heck does "evidence" have to do with anything? This ain't about facts and evidence but whoes PR firm can beat up the other sides PR firm.

And guess what? Bush's PR firm is winning big.

Oh, the big loosers? Ahhhh, the usual cast, except this time around throw in a few thousand American kids to boot...

I've asked a couple of folks here to furnish new evidnece and facts to support their opinions, but they don't have much to offer other than recycled rhetoric and the same guessed up evidence, so don't expect much new from them, Rag.

If they had the cards, they'd play 'em.

So would Bush...

No Evidence, No War!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 04:04 PM

Rag, my point is that Saddam HAS and has HAD the money to repair his countries damaged infrastructure. He has instead used it to build up his army.
I repeat, Saddam has the money but he is NOT spending it on his people.
This is, of course, the fault of the US in general and George Bush in particular.
Bobert, by logical extention, Evidence, War!

troll

BTW Rag, I believe there is, or was, an Israeli Arab in the Knesset. All Israeli citizens are allowed to vote, be they Jew, Muslim or atheist or whatever.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 04:36 PM

Ethnic cleansing and then free elections, a great technique.

Of course in the old South Africa they couldn't quite get the ethnic cleansing carried out effectively enough, so they never got round to allowing the remnant to vote along with the whites. So when they pointed to their elections and said how democratic the country was, noone bought it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 08:04 PM

Troll,

Ras is partially correct. The law does discriminate against non-Jews, but does not actually prevent citizenship. Jews are granted citizenship automatically, non-Jews have to go through a naturalization process, and some of those can be quite hairy!

However, as I understand it, in the occupied territories, like Gaza and the West Bank, non-Jews cannot obtain citizenship, yet are required to live under Israel's laws. Since they are citizens of a country that no longer exists, they are essentially permanently disenfranchised.

Some portions of the occupied territories -- East Jerusalem, for example, allow a permanent resident status, and I've seen hints that it is possible (it seems possible through marriage; there may be other ways) for non-Jews to obtain citizenship, but there IS a religious decree banning all Palestinians living in Jerusalem from obtaining citizenship.

Israel has a HUGE problem with racism against Arabs -- it seems analgous to the old Jim Crow laws in the US South. In general, racism against Arabs is usually illegal, yet tolerated and rarely enforced. Some of this stems from the almost impossible position of being a "Jewish state" while trying to live up to ideals of a non-racist society. I dunno -- I don't think it can be done, particularly since Jewish religious custom draws clear lines between Jews and Gentiles. But I am certain that it won't get any better until the Palestinian issue is solved.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 08:22 PM

But can anyone explain why it wouldn't be a good idea to set about getting inspectors in to Iraq at this point? Why hang about until some new resolution can get hammered out or not?

I was glad to see that's the position Ireland is supporting, as one of the junior members of the Security Council. (So the UK is supporting the USA position, and Ireland isn't - that must confuse a few people.)

There's no reason why the presence of inspection teams under the existing procedures should get in the way of the US ("and the UK") trying to persuade the rest of the Security Council to agree on a new resolution. And if Bush can't get his resolution and decides to go to war anyway, he can still go ahead. He's just got a resolution through Congress that allows him to do just about anything he wants to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 01:46 AM

Thanks Nicole. The problem is that Gentiles seem to think that Jews think that they are better than them.
Not so. They are not better but different. Being called the "Chosen People" does NOT denote superiority. God made a pact with the Jews that as long as they followed His laws, He would not allow them to perish as a people.
As far as racism is concerned, non-Muslims may not enter Saudi Arabia except under the most stringent conditions and must conform to Muslim dress and food (no booze) restrictions while there. There are virtually no Jews in Syria, Iraq, or Iran. They were driven out and their property confiscated. Racism abounds in ALL countries to a greater or lesser degree.
The problem in Israel and the Occupied Territories is not one of religion or race, but of geo-politics and PR.
Outside of China, who knows or cares about the plight of the people of Inner Mongolia where the Government is methodically moving Han chinese into the area. They now outnumber the ethnic Mongolians and their language and cultural identity is in danger of being lost.
In Afghanistan, the Pushtuns and the Tadjiks are at odds about who gets how much power.
And I could go on. On one thing you are correct though; things won't get better for either side until the issue of a Palestinian homeland is taken care of.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 07:52 AM

Not very different at all. (And wasn't that pact supposed to be about the descendants of Abraham anyway? That includes the Arabs if you go by the Book.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 12:20 PM

The sons of Shem have never gotten along as well as they should. Hard to say why.

Meanwhile Bush is flooding the airwaves characterizing Saddam as a cold-blooded killer -- a fair description, I guess -- and waving his arms about the "massive sudden horror" he would certainly cause if it weren't for George.

In other news:

< A new report by U.S. intelligence agencies backed the
administration's contention that Iraq had significant caches of
dangerous weapons despite numerous international searches.


The agencies said Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and some long-range missiles, but probably no nuclear weapons. ``If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade,'' the unclassified report concluded..

I wish to hell Blix and co would roll in and sort out where they keep what .

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 01:14 PM

"A new report by U.S. intelligence agencies backed the
administration's contention..." Surprise. surprise.

Just imagine them releasing any report that didn't back the administration's contention. Whatever that might happen to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Rag
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 03:19 AM

Thanks Nicole for demonstrating that Israel is an apartheid state, does have anti-Arab racist laws and does prevent citizenship for Arabs living in their homeland. By the way, Israel is illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, part of the expansionist "Greater Israel" policy supported by ALL the major parties in Israel in one form or another. And yes, arabs who leave the country are routinely denied the right of return. And yes, the imposition of Israeli law in the occupied territories is illegal under international law.

Saddam Hussein is military dictator put there by the western powers because when he was put in power, he would do what the west wanted. Now he won't. Whatever wealth he has accumulated, the amount of infrastructure damage and consequent death inflicted by the western powers in the last 10 years has had a much greater impact on the population. Whether or not he accumulates wealth, that's no justification for the US and UK bombing water treatment plants, roads, bridges, and power plants. And the UN IS turning a blind eye to Turkish planes bombing kurds in the no-fly zone.

As for evidence of the effects of sanctions, how much does anyone need? A cursory glance around the web will trawl plenty. Oh and please don't pretend that everything you ever read is PR and can therefore be dismissed. It's not always just "I believe it/I don't believe it".

Too many people are willing to drift towards war because they are comfortable with the idea that a small country far away will get bashed and very few of us will be involved. Political adults generally take a different line.

It's important to focus on ending the sanctions. This takes the issue away from Bush making stupid claims about Iraq and Hussein and concentrates on the Iraqi people. Concentrating on the aggression and illegal activity of Israel again concentrates attention on the Palestinian people who are under occupation.

A Scottish worker's leader called John McLean once described a bayonet as a weapon with a worker on each end. It's worth thinking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 03:20 AM

"A vegetable is by nature a carrot."

Poor choice of vegetable - ref to Prat Kinnock and his fellow Commissioners of the EU. Snails are fish and carrots are fruit - if you believe them.

The selection of the wording of the leaflet may well have something to do with translation. Kind of like the drug company marketing headache tablets in the middle east - read left to right, picture one, man with headache in terrible pain, picture two, man seen taking tablets, picture three, man with headache gone, all smiles. That sequence read right to left protrays a completely different story.

"But can anyone explain why it wouldn't be a good idea to set about getting inspectors in to Iraq at this point? Why hang about until some new resolution can get hammered out or not? "

Ask Mr. Blix - I think he's covered this question.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 06:28 AM

Guest Rag:

"Saddam Hussein is military dictator put there by the western powers.."

Where on earth did you get that from - certainly not from any biography on the man.

"Let's hear it for the Iraqi people. Stop the sanctions."

Saddam Hussein could have brought this about at any time during the last ten years simply by complying with what the UN asked him to do, and what he agreed to in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

Bobert:

On one hand you say, "What the heck does "evidence" have to do with anything? This ain't about facts and evidence but whoes PR firm can beat up the other sides PR firm."

On the other you say, "I've asked a couple of folks here to furnish new evidnece and facts to support their opinions, but they don't have much to offer other than recycled rhetoric and the same guessed up evidence, so don't expect much new from them, Rag."

Which is it Bobert? Do you want evidence? Are you actually even looking at it, or for it? It would be interesting to know what bits you believe and what bits you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Rag
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:22 AM

For a detailed history of how these regimes came into being and who sponsored them you might want to look at:

Arabia Without Sultans by Fred Halliday.
He's a professor of international relations at the LSE and has written extensively about the region. He gives original sources of all the details. But you don't have to dig too deep into any history of the region to come across the details. Just take a look at the history of the Saud family in Saudi Arabia, or take a peek at the Yemen story. Find out what the oil companies were doing when British troops were fighting the people of Dhofar - who was it who bought the weapons?...

For evidence about the sanctions look at Edward Said's books where he again gives copious references to newspaper reports of the region, UN reports, and also first hand evidence of the brutal treatment of palestinians. You don't even have to go that far. You can read the statements in Haaretz, the israeli newspaper. Some of the "labour" politicians go on about their intention to ethnically cleans Israel of arabs. You just need to make the effort to get at the evidence.

'course, you don't have to believe it...

As for Saddam Hussein being able to avoid the territorial aggression of the US in the oil region by complying with UN resolutions - that's just naive. The UN resolutions are not what this is about - otherwise Israel would have been hauled over the coals years ago.

And how come both Iran and Iraq have been considered good friends of the west at various times, including Yemen and Qatar when the regimes have been brutal to their populations?

There's way too much posturing on this thread and not enough concern about the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:49 AM

Teribus:

Okay, I'll admit to a little sarcasm on the "what the heck" remark but I'm still waiting on the goods. You know, like, something more than what people think Saddam wants or what people think he has. He either *wants* or *has* something. Suppostion is not grounds for a war, especially when there are alternatives.

Speaking of supposition, when folks bring up things like,ahhhh, alternatives (such as weapons inspection or peace summits), your side goes thru a litiney of excuses on why those alternatives "won't* work.
Well, I for one, am again waiting on the evidence. Condellas Rice telling me that I won't believe their PR crap until a nuclear bomb lands in my back yard, while entertaining, is *not* evidence.

So, yeah, if you've got anything new in the way of evidence, Teribus, that wasn't on the table three months ago before Junior started beating his drum for war, then I'm sure there are a few billion folks who would like see it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:58 AM

Sorry Guest Rag, I must be missing something in what you are saying.

My question regarding Saddam Husein was asked in connection with your assertion that he was put in power as a military dictator by the western powers. In your reply above you mention the Sauds in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman. What is the connection to my question?

"As for Saddam Hussein being able to avoid the territorial aggression of the US in the oil region by complying with UN resolutions - that's just naive."

It's not naive - It's fact.

Here's another fact with regard to Iraq. Their greatest supplier of arms and weapon technology since the Ba'ath Regime came to power in Iraq have been the Russians and the French.

That you seem to believe that alliances and national interests do not change with the passage of time stikes me as being incredibly naive.

I would agree that there is too much posturing on this thread with respect to the issues, mainly undertaken by individuals who blithely ignore fact or reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 06:07 PM

Hey Bobert! You got TV in West-By-God-Virginia? Well, if you don't get yourself by a battery operated radio and listen to your president tonight. You'll find out why he thinks we should attack Iraq, if that becomes necessary. You might learn something!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 06:26 PM

Everyone learns a different something from those kind of speeches. If you find the man impressive, you'll find what he says convincing; if not, not.

By definition no public speech can present and analyse the evidence for any policy, even when it comes across as doing just that. (And I don't say that because it is Bush - I think it'd be just as true about a public speech by someone whom I really liked, and who generally seemed to say things I agree with.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 07:54 PM

Dougie: Not only do we have TV's but we got *lectrical* to run 'em, we got flush toilets and all that stuff. I mean, we're like modern.

Ahh, now I hate to disappoint ya' but, you know when I was back in high school I didn't attend the other team's pep rallies the night before the big football games... and Iz ain't about to waste timne listenin' to you guy go on and on about hos Saddam is a threat not only to the US but to the Universe and the survival of mankind. Heck, the media has allready said that he doesn't have nuthin' new so it's kinda like watchin' an old rerun that ain't really all that old. I mean, how long's he been huffin' and puffin' now. I think since January when he gave his "axis of evil" speech.

I'm still real concerned about a few things, Dougie. First, I know that the US can probably put a good whoppin' on Saddam, but there's always the chance that someone down at the Pentegon and misplaced a decimal point and that the Iraqis ain't gonna get the message that Bush doesn't have nuthin' against them and the war turns into an urban slugfest anf the US looses on heck of a lot of folks and kills one heck of a lot of Iraqi's that we supoosedly ain't got nuthin' against. Hmmmmmmm? That would be real bad and rival Vietnem as the US's largest misplaced decimal place.

Then there's this *mulitnational* mantra that the Bush has been spouting when he allready told everyond that he was gonna kick some Saddam butt no matter what. That kind of stuff tends to make folks think of the US as arrogant unilaterialists and kind of foriegn olicy is going to get us bit down the road.

So, Doug, you go ahead and listen to Bush and be sure to have a note pad handy to write down *anything* that is new. Heck, you won't need a note pad, you won't even need a match book cover for that matter.

But don't worry. All the media folks will tell you what a great job he did so you can at least have that to report...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:45 PM

Bobert:

Bushie was persuasive, collected, and read his speech well. It was good rhetoric. In the part I saw he went beyond the margin of reasonable rhetorical devices only once. I only wish I could believe he was capable of writing what he read.

However, I am mindful of McGrath's point -- the qualityy of the rhetric does not change the fact that rhetoric is what it is, and the statements made are intended to be persuasive, not state facts.

Interestingly, the news station kept running a series of knee-jerks bullets along the bottom of the screen, things like "Iraq Trained Al-Qaeda Members" and "Saddame Pursuing Nuclear Capability" -- sort of pargraph headers, unless you were a bit dull and interpreted them as factual statements.

All said, I think Congress is going to give him his endorsement, and he is boldly going into the teeth of a really messy situation which may have some very ugly ttwists and turns.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:45 PM

Bobert:

Bushie was persuasive, collected, and read his speech well. It was good rhetoric. In the part I saw he went beyond the margin of reasonable rhetorical devices only once. I only wish I could believe he was capable of writing what he read.

However, I am mindful of McGrath's point -- the qualityy of the rhetric does not change the fact that rhetoric is what it is, and the statements made are intended to be persuasive, not state facts.

Interestingly, the news station kept running a series of knee-jerks bullets along the bottom of the screen, things like "Iraq Trained Al-Qaeda Members" and "Saddame Pursuing Nuclear Capability" -- sort of pargraph headers, unless you were a bit dull and interpreted them as factual statements.

All said, I think Congress is going to give him his endorsement, and he is boldly going into the teeth of a really messy situation which may have some very ugly ttwists and turns.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:59 PM

Amos:

It's a forgone conclusion that Congress is gonna give Bush what ever he wants if he'll just *shut up* long enough so they can get a shot of getting some more of their folks elected...

Oh course he didn't write the speech. The man never wrote nuthin' includin' the college term papers, which I'm sure he bought...


Like I've said all a along, Bush is gonna get his little war, come Hell or high water. Why? Because he can!

This ain't got nuthin' to do with security. But everything to do with Daddy Bush, Cheney, oil and politics.

Fine. For every action thare is an equal counteraction. I want to apologize now to the families whose kids may get blown up while Bush gets his jollies but you can bet that history will not be kind to this man...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 10:27 PM

Bobert:

The thought of those wasted sons makes me want to scream and wave my arms; but I fear you are right. What seems like a well-painted rationale now may well evaporate as the force of events uncover other truths, conveniently left out of the rhetorical picture.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 10:54 PM

Amos: What leads you to believe that those banners that ran across the bottom of your screen or incorrect? Because you haven't seen the evidence for yourself? You got that kind of security clearance?

Bobert: you are wedded to an idea, and nothing Bush or anyone else could say would sway you from the way you believe. You are every bit as hard headed as I am.

I would think that recent events would scare the bejesus out of you folks, but all you do is wave your banners (Peace, Peace, Peace) and expect that you will be protected because that is what you want!

The events: Iraq has biological and chemical weapons. That is an undisputed fact. Iraq is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. No one is disputing that fact.

So what do we do? Wait until he uses them? Do you really want the responsibility of promoting that view? I guess you do.

Boggles the mind.

Of course, Bobert, you will skip along spouting platitudes without even tuning in to what well might be one of the most important foreign policy speeches made in decades.

Did the president present pictures, documents, graphs, secret CIA or FBI reports that ensure that Iraq has nuclear weapons? No he did't. But he convinced me Saddam is going to get them if we let him.

The thrust of the speech, since you didn't watch it, was the UN should adopt a more stringent inspection procedure with unfettered access to any site the inspectors want to look at, any time, without interference. In other words, Saddam will have to comply with the agreements he agreed to at he close of Desert Storm. If he doesn't, then the U. S. and it's allies will see that he does. It is fairly obvious, even with all of the Democratic posturing of late, that a strong resolution will be forthcoming from the U. S. Congress probably this week, giving the president the powers the has been seeking. The powers every president since Jimmy Carter has had.

The only network that carried the speech live, though, was the Fox News Network, and you probably wouldn't have watched it even if your state has a station that carries that network. Better to bitch, right? Bobert, you disappoint me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 11:52 PM

Doug's gotten his meds!! Yay!!

Seriously, Doug, the bullets that ran across the screen were not being presented as facts, but as buttons. They were not covered as facts in the speech -- what I heard of it, anyway. They had no attribution, no metrics, just bullets of belief. I have never seen this particular device added to straight televised rhetoric before. It struck me as a seriosu dumbing-down technique.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 04:21 AM

Amos,

In your post above you say that you believe that:

"....Congress is going to give him his endorsement."

I assume that the elected representatives that make up your Senate and House of Representatives are not all sheep - Why are they going to give him his endorsement? - Could one reason be that he has convinced them. I am sure that they have received a far more detailed briefing than Joe Public.

Yourself, Bobert, Nicole, McGoH and others keep demanding facts and evidence. As things stand at the moment the following represent the facts of the situation as I see them as a member of Joe Public:

1. The current regime in power in Iraq has openly threatened it's immediate neighbours at least three times in the last 44 years (1958, 1980 and 1991). It also openly backs Hamas and provides financial incentive and aid to suicide bombers and their families. Along with Iran it still adheres to the aim of total annihilation of the State of Israel.

2. This regime has not moderated its stance in the above respect since the conclusion of "Desert Storm", a conflict, which Saddam Hussein believes he won. Binding commitments made by the Iraqi regime, after cessation of hostilities in 1991, have all been totally ignored.

3. At the end of the Gulf War, the UNSC put into force a number of resolutions designed to stabilise the situation in this part of the world with respect to Iraq. Those resolutions were aimed at protecting minority ethnic groups within Iraq, improving the country's human rights record and the total removal from Iraq's military capability of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

4. To accomplish the tasks set out in the UNSC resolutions, monitors and inspection teams were put in place. Did the Iraqi regime afford them full co-operation and unhindered access? According to the people comprising those teams - No they did not. Throughout the seven year period that they were in place, those teams were subjected to a carefully orchestrated programme of intimidation, evasion and deception - Why?

5. The UNSCOM Team reported to the UN that although much of Iraq's WMD stocks and delivery systems had been destroyed, they could not ascertain to any degree of comfort, or confidence, that Iraqi capability had been totally destroyed.

6. UN inspection teams were removed by the UN in 1998, as it was becoming increasingly clear that there was no way that they could fulfil the tasks set them by the UN in the light of hardening Iraqi attitudes with regard to access to sites of interest. This hardening of Iraqi attitudes took place with the current UN resolutions in force and was, in all probability driven by lack of progress with regard to the lifting of sanctions by the UN. Sanctions however were brought in to ensure Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, not as the sliding scale reward perceived by Baghdad.

7. There are records of Iraqi attempts to obtain equipment and materials to restart its nuclear weapons programme. Why?

8. Since 1998 sites and facilities previously used for WMD production and for missile development are being brought back into production. Why?

I would very much like to know;

1. Whether, or not, you agree with the above as being a reasonable summation of the situation.

2. What is your evaluation of that situation.

3. Proposed course of action if required.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Rag
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 08:00 AM

Hi teribus,

"My question regarding Saddam Husein was asked in connection with your assertion that he was put in power as a military dictator by the western powers. In your reply above you mention the Sauds in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman. What is the connection to my question?"

As I tried to point out, the origin of the regimes in the region depended critically on the support and interests of the US, the UK and other European powers. They become "friends" to the extent that economic interests of the west are supported. That's why I suggested reading about it. In my view, the evidence points to the US always defending its oil interests and promoting regimes that will look after them regardless of their human rights records, democracy, or anything else. Fred Halliday has provided very detailed evidence of where these regimes came from, including of the Ba'ath Party and what they stand for, and the conclusion is as above.

Sounds like you really don't want to know about this stuff.


Given the historical record, it is naive to think that the US will somehow change its tune. All over the world, it defends its capital by whatever means it can get away with. No expectation that this will change.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 09:03 AM

Thanks Bagpuss, I will certainly read the books you suggested in your earlier post.

If you look into causes of conflict throughout history, the root causes revolve around resources and control of those resources, not religion, race or political doctrine, although those aspects do get involved as a means to ignite the situation.

In this the US is no different in principal than any of its predecessors, although I do believe it is a lot more benign than most.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 09:07 AM

Me? Who? Where? When?

???

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 09:51 AM

Teribus:

From what I know, most of what you say is public record. The man (Saddam) is an evil blight on the landscape.

My greatest objection to the situation portrayed by Bush is that he seems determined to go to war with the nation of Iraq, whether other means will serve or not. To my mind that sort of obsessive focus is unhealthy. He is also willing to launch a military preemptive attack at the first opportunity. He is contributing to a problem of deranged forve and violence by offering more deranged force and violence. Perhaps this does not trouble you. It troubles the hell out of me.

Saddam troubles me too. If I was smart enough to advise nations on a better course of events, I would. But my sense is that these leaders, and the nations that they represent, are deeply entrenched in a massive and monstrous dramatization which has a lot of onertia to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 09:58 AM

Well. Teribus you certainlt have been busy with that drum beating...

Ahh, as I don't have the luxary of having the endless hours to pudder time, I'll try to be brief.

You start out in your *justifications* pointing out that Iraq has "openly threatened its immediate neighbors 3 times in the last 44 years", which sounds pretty bad. I'd just point out that in the Middle East, that ain't a bad track record. Just look at the Isreali?Palestinian conflict for starters. There are those who were in the US government that feel that the US evewn gave Saddam a wink on the invasion of Kuwait, but that's a different story for a different thread.

Then you go on to say that Saddam believes he won the "Desert Storm" War. Yeah, right...

Well, we could go over the other 6 or 7 points of *justifications* and challenge them, too, but then this would get so long that folks would just skip reading them all.

Then you ask for "agreement".

Well, that's funny, Bush did the same thing last night except he didn't ask. I didn't watch the pep rally but read the text and found a pettern of Bush throwing 2 or 3 *suppostions* out and then saying "We all agree...". (Sounds like Teribus to me. You two in cohoots?....)

The you ask for "evaluation".

Well, if one is to go on *suppositions* only then we would all probably come up with about the same answer. "Garbage in, garbage out."

Then you ask for a "proposed course of action".

Well, not that I have any chopice in the matter, because I don't. Nor do the millions of US citizens who have allready contacted their Congressmen. Nor do the Democrats who have been out manuvered by Bush's PR firm on the issue of "patriotism". (Nice work, I must admit, but reminds me of Germany in the 30's to be perfectly honest...)

So it's gonna be "Bush Doctrine" and more "Bush Doctrine" until man figures out that it won't work over the long run. It will increase incidents of terrorism as it isolates desperate disenfranchished people. It will strain the US's resources, especially if any of the victimes us Vietnem as an example of how to beat the US. Iraq might.

Yeah, Bush said last night that "We will plan carefully" but plan goes in the shredder if Iraq decides to do the "rope-a-dope" and withdraw its military into Bagdad and forces the US into a street fight.

You've heard my ideas. But they are probably too late since Bush is way too Hell bent on huffin-n-puffin and blowing folks houses down.

But I'll go on record once again of saying that if I were the President, I'd have called for an Emergency Middle East Peace Summit, used that drum beating PR money on pursuading full participation and more PR money to get leaders to feel like they were part of something historic and not adjorn the danged thing until there was an inclusive comprehensive plan in place, which involved UN inspectors and peace keepers.

But, like I say, Bush and his folks don't find that course political advantageous, so it ain't gonna happen.

Lastly, if Iraq does force the US into a street brawl, remember this post, and know that some of that blood will be on the hands of those who allowed themselves to be either led like sheep or bullied into submisssion.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 12:09 PM

I think what I saw must have been a tape of an old speech.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 05:46 PM

Bobert: I don't know this is true, but I've heard a rumor that your Senator (take all the pork to WV) Byrd might lead the charge through main street Baghad. Like I say, I don't know if this is true or not. Just a rumor.

I think he is pretty impressed with GWB though.

:>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 06:06 PM

People keep on saying Bush is going to go it alone. I just wish he would.

There's no way he can start a war for a few months anyway - so why is he so determined to stop the arms inspectors going in right away -"thwart them", as they say - while he's getting ready, if the danger is so acute?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 06:43 PM

Bush don't like party crashers, McGrath. It's *his* war and his daddy said *he* could have it...

No, Dougie, quite the opposite unless Byrd has changed his tune in recent days. He gave a forceful speech last week warning that Bush was attempting to do an "end around" on the Constitution. Yeah, I know you're gonna say that all the others have done it since 1941 and I agree with you, but it doesn't make it "Constitutional".

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 07:35 PM

McGrath: the main point made in Bush's speech last night is exactly the point you criticize him for. He made it quite clear that he favors the inspectors going back to Iraq, but this time with a stronger resolution than the one Saddam violated before. This time the will go where and when they want, with no interference. He said that war was not inevetable and that war was his last choice not his first. He put the onus on Saddam to decide whether or not there will be a war.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 07:53 PM

And then Doug woke up....

Yeah, right!

Hahahaha!!!!

Ahhhhh, that was 'sposed to be a joke, wasn't it, Doug?

Make no mistake about it, this is a coonskin to be nailed on daddy's wall. We're talkin' regime change. We're talkin' usin' up some old weapons so the tax payers can buy Bush's buddies some new ones. We're talkin' gouging the American working taxpayers for the next 20 years so that Bush can get his jollies. We're talking oil. And egos. And politics. And revising history so that Senior can go to his grave thinkin' the historians will place him right up there with the best.

And you think it's about weapons inspections?

Dougie, I'm danged disappointed in ya. I thought you had a slightly wider vision. No cats-eye or panoramic mind you. But not tuneel vison either...

Gonna have to get you some glasses, I reckon. No, maybe a caterack operation. Hmmmmmm. Me the Wes Ginny slide rule are on the case.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 08:41 PM

The USA has declared that it intends to "thwart" any inspections going ahead until the rest of the Security Council does what it is instructed to do, and votes the kind of resolution that Bush has decided is necessary.

And the text of the resolution, as leaked, indicates that what is required, though still referred to as "inspection", actually involves a kind of occupation of Iraq. It's a resolution written with the intention of being rejected - and that is not my judgement, but that of knowledgeable commentators without any liking for Saddam whatsoever.

But that's beside the point. Noone can stop Bush making war on Iraq, except the American people, who do not seem inclined to do so. But in the meantime, real and rigorous inspections could be going ahead, even without the kind of resolution Bush is demanding. At least they might have the effect of ensuring that fewer people were killed "if" Bush attacks.

And maybe he'll allow real and rigorous inspections to go ahead, and will accept it if they say that there aren't any Weapons of Mass Destruction left when they are through. But I think most people take it as read that he's just treading water until he's logistically ready to invade.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 10:00 PM

McGrath: Yeah, it would be nice to get the inspectors in there before Bush can stop 'em so at least they are there and he can't go bombing Bagdad with inspectors there...

*But*, Bush will crawfish a little his own self while trying tobe danged sure that the Pentegon is offering a plan than will insure a quick victory...

Problem is. They can't. Sure, if everyone in Iraq just throws up their hanas and says, "We quit" then the Pentagon looks like geniouses but if the Iraqis pull all their stuff into Bagdad and say, "Come on, Georgie Porge, come and get us" then the Pentagon is gonna look like some folks that climbed out the special ed window.

Hmmmmmmm? Yeah, it's got to be darned frusterating to Junior. I mean, he could actually loose a war against Iraq!!!...

Now would that make daddy real mad!!!...

As for the resistence, McGrath, we will get it together. I promise. There is 100 times more resistence than there was in '63 going into the Vietnam War...

Peace thru resistence

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:56 AM

"geniouses?" "frusterating?" Bobert, somebody is stealing your personna!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 09:09 AM

The evil Guardian is at it again...

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'

Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday October 9, 2002
The Guardian

President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence.

In his address, the president reassured Americans that military action was not "imminent or unavoidable", but he made the most detailed case to date for the use of force, should it become necessary.

But some of the key allegations against the Iraqi regime were not supported by intelligence currently available to the administration. Mr Bush repeated a claim already made by senior members of his administration that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminium tubes "for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons". The tubes were also mentioned by Tony Blair in his dossier of evidence presented to parliament last month.

However, US government experts on nuclear weapons and centrifuges have suggested that they were more likely to be used for making conventional weapons.

"I would just say there is not much support for that [nuclear] theory around here," said a department of energy specialist.

David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector who was consulted on the purpose of the aluminium tubes, said it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for a uranium centrifuge.

Mr Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said: "There's a catfight going on about this right now. On one side you have most of the experts on gas centrifuges. On the other you have one guy sitting in the CIA."

Mr Albright said sceptics at the energy department's Lawrence Livermore national laboratory in California had been ordered to keep their doubts to themselves. He quoted a colleague at the laboratory as saying: "The administration can say what it wants and we are expected to remain silent."

There is already considerable scepticism among US intelligence officials about Mr Bush's claims of links between Iraq and al-Qaida. In his speech on Monday, Mr Bush referred to a "very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year".

An intelligence source said the man the president was referring to was Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was arrested in Jordan in 2001 for his part in the "millennium plot" to bomb tourist sites there. He was subsequently released and eventually made his way to Iraq in search of treatment. However, intercepted telephone calls did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government.

There is also profound scepticism among US intelligence experts about the president's claim that "Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases".

Bob Baer, a former CIA agent who tracked al-Qaida's rise, said that there were contacts between Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the early 1990s and in 1998: "But there is no evidence that a strategic partnership came out of it. I'm unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the United States."

A source familiar with the September 11 investigation said: "The FBI has been pounded on to make this link."

In making his case on Monday, Mr Bush made a startling claim that the Iraqi regime was developing drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which "could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas".

"We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," he warned.

US military experts confirmed that Iraq had been converting eastern European trainer jets, known as L-29s, into drones, but said that with a maximum range of a few hundred miles they were no threat to targets in the US.

"It doesn't make any sense to me if he meant United States territory," said Stephen Baker, a retired US navy rear admiral who assesses Iraqi military capabilities at the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information.

Mr Cannistraro said the flow of intelligence to the top levels of the administration had been deliberately skewed by hawks at the Pentagon.

"CIA assessments are being put aside by the defence department in favour of intelligence they are getting from various Iraqi exiles," he said. "Machiavelli warned princes against listening to exiles. Well, that is what is happening now."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 09:30 AM

The more I learn about Bush Sr's involvement with covert Ops before he was President, the more I am inclined to think that they are a family of poeple whose moral code includes lying abount international affairs. Seems to run in the family.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 10:51 AM

Having read through the Presidents speech, there were two sections that were fairly impressive:

1.

"Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world, where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

2.

"Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance - his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of 11 September showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al-Qaeda's plans and designs.
Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities."


Should the inspectors go back into Iraq under the same conditions and with the existing mandate, to perform "real and rigorous inspections" as they did during the period 1991 to 1998, what is the level of confidence that they will not be subject to the same programme of deception they experienced before? - Neither I, nor anyone here can tell. How long should those inspectors inspect? Iraq is obviously anxious for the lifting of UN sanctions.

Bagpuss, thank you for post above, intelligence material is raw data that requires interpretation. That interpretation can vary from being viewed through "rose coloured glasses" to it being viewed as "the portent of doom". Richard Cobbold, explained the workings of the JIC during his recent interview with Tim Sebastian on BBC's Hardtalk programme, information is gathered, it is evaluated and interpreted on the basis of best case and worst case.

Your point regarding the potential use of the hardened aluminium tubes - I note that the source you quote does not deny that Iraq has tried to procure these items - seems to favour the best case, but offers no reasoning why that should be regarded as the most probable.

In missile technology Iraq is permitted ballistic missiles with a range of 150 kilometers - A worst case interpretation of available information indicates that research is underway to extend the range capability of existing missiles to 1200 kilometers.

IF the inspectors go back in, and IF they are successfully deceived as they have been in the past. Within a fairly short timespan Saddam Hussein will be in a position to threaten the entire region. You may then hold all the Middle East Peace Summits you wish - there will be no peace in the middle east because for the first time Israel could be looking at the real threat of a nuclear attack.

I assume that you guys have been looking and reading the same stuff that I have - As part of Joe Public, I can see a potential threat that if not checked, could possibly kick off a nuclear war - A large number of you contributing to this threat do not - Hope your right.

By the way.

Quotation 1 belongs to President John F. Kennedy. (Oct 1962)

Quotation 2 belongs to George W Bush. (Oct 2002).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 10:57 AM

The effort to reactively associate Iraq with Al Qaeda was pretty flimsy. Semantically it was a flood of "guilt by contextual association".

Of course, the rhetoric is self-supporting. Buy the picture, and you buy the strategy. No-one said fascism had to be stupid.

Listen all you fascists
I'm gonna put you wise
People of this world
Are getting organized
Bound to lose,
You're bound to lose
All you fascists
Are bound to lose.

By the way...

The italicized segment belongs to Woodie Guthrie.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:09 PM

A intelligence analyst interviewed on NPR a few weeks ago reported that the aluminum tubes in question had been purchased by Iraq in the past and used for conventional weapons more than once. While it's possible that they could be using them for something else now, the pattern of behavior doesn't fit.

The evidence being presented is so flimsy and circumstantial it would never stand up in a court of law in the US for any crime, let alone one where the death penalty is being considered. Why are some members of the US administration considering this enough evidence to exact the death penalty on Iraqi civilians?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:21 PM

From an old Usenet discussion, of relevance here, is this definition of Fascism:

But Fascism, which is anti-intellectual, is not so much a system of thought, not so much a definable political position, as it is an emotional disease.

It has been different in each country. It is marked by fear, basically - the fear that breeds hatred and intolerance of whatever is different, whatever does not conform to the simplest patterns of behavior, whatever cannot be directly and completely controlled.

Frightened by the problems and complexities of modern life, Fascists seek to simplify through destruction and control through force. Fascism is a psychological condition that can be found among people of all countries, including our own.


Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:46 PM

"Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small."

There's a saying about one domestic appliance commenting on the coloration of another which comes to mind.

The United States has actually solemly abandoned for ever the use of deliberate deception and offensive threats? The son of the man who was head of the CIA is abjuring deliberate deception? Four thousand nuclear weapons in his arsenal and the most powerful military machine in world history, and no more offensive threats against anybody?

That's really great news.

"Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue." (De La Rochefoucauld - not Oscar Wilde, though people tend to attribute it to him; probably including Wilde himself.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 01:19 PM

"By God, I wish I'd said that!"
"Oh, never mind, Oscar -- you will!"

Deliberate deception by a nation is now off-limits? The whole bloody clan is undone, Georgie!! Unless you were actually practicing deception when you said that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 04:42 PM

Anyone tuned in to C-Span2? Interesting debate on the Iraqi situation going on as I write this. Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Mass. just finished an excellent speech I thought. It seems to me, listening to the debate, that the majority of senators do not agree with your assement of the president's speech Monday night (Bagpuss and Amos).

Bobert's senator (Byrd)is opposed to the resolution being debated because the debate is occuring so close to a national election. He wants to know why the decision to send America's young military people off to war has to be made this close to an election. Is one to assume, Bobert, that after the election it would be okay? :>)

I'm pleased to see "The Guardian" has popped up again as a source of unbiased opinion. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 05:21 PM

Almost as unbiased as those semi-subliminal messages running across a screen while Bush does his party piece. That's sounds to me like the kind of thing you'd expect in some ricketty dictatorship, when the Great Leader speaks to his people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 05:43 PM

Nocole: I love ya' but ya' gotta remember how them courts work down there in Texas. Especially in capital punishment cases. Lots of poor and mostlt black men have been executed for nothing more than confessions that they were beaten and abused to sign of on... Circumstantial? Flimsy? Hey, if its ggod enough for Texas, than ought to be good enough for Iraq.

DougR: Yeah, I've heard a couple of hours of the debates on C-Span radio and now have a better understanding of why America's workers are getting the shaft. Man, there are a bunch of rednecks in the House of Representatives. Well, they didn't have I'Q. tests back when the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution but I would think that an I.Q, of, ohhh 100, would make a nice qualification for the job. That would certainly clear about half of those dim-witted folks out.
Really, I didn't realize that the US had dumbed down to such a degree...

Teribus: I don't know what to say to you. "True Believers" are real hard to deal with.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 05:51 PM

Well, it at least oughta be above room temperature, Bobert.

Doug: you will recall I gave the speech high marks as a rthetorical staging. If the senators you refer to have changed their opinion about operations based on that rhetoric alone, it is clear they are too easily wafted by hot air to weigh very much. Or are they grateful for the new basis of honest fact suddenly made manifest in that speech? If they were already on board Mister Bush's Oil Train, let me suggest they would have applauded even if he had taken his shoe off and pounded on the table like one of his predecessors. As it was, he made all the right facial gestures, spoke with earnestness and good timing -- it was almost as though someone smart had their hand up the back of his shirt or something!!

"Hey, Chief -- those your sheep over there??"
"Sheep LIE!"

(It's an old joke about a ventriloquist practicing out in the back country. Never mind).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 07:17 PM

Amos: I would hardly call John Kerry a fan of the president. He hopes to be the Democratic candidate to unseat him in the next election.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 09:48 PM

Ya' know what makes my poor ol' Wes Ginny butt so mad these days is that in these times we need the voice of Bobby Kennedy or Martin Luther King but they ain't around no more since folks that had absolutely *no motives* decided they didn't need to be around. Hmmmmm? Sorry, I'm feeling just a tad paranoid 'cause ther's no one left with any credibility to satnd up and declare that Emporer George is without pants.

Bunch of lame crop of leaders we have when they are goose-steppin' behind *this* President.

You're right, Amos. Room temperature, at best...

Hope none of them get hurt too bad trippin' over their self-serving butts trying to show how much more patriotic they are compared to the last one who got up and did his best huff-n-puff routine.

Well, nothin' like a new *fresh* war to get a bunch of chickens all warm and fuzzy. They'll be "runnin' like pigs from gun" when the stink sets in.

But, hey, we *know* who these mindless folks are and we *vote*. Don't call off America too soon.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:44 AM

Hey, Bobert, your senator is doing a pretty good job of representing your POV, don't you think?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 06:33 AM

To quote the words from an article by Allan Judd:

"..responsible governments should prepare for the world they fear, rather than the one they hope for."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 06:46 AM

Thought I'd make a change and quote a story in a lovely right wing paper The Telegraph so you don't get you knickers in a twist about The Guardian. I think you have to register to read it, so I'll print it here.

First strike 'may trigger Saddam's terror weapons'
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 10/10/2002)


A US military strike against Iraq could prompt Saddam Hussein to unleash weapons of mass destruction that he might not otherwise use, the director of the CIA, George Tenet, has told Congress.

Opponents of war seized on the letter as evidence that President George W Bush should adopt a more cautious approach and continue the US policy of containment.

Mr Tenet said in a letter released this week that Iraq "for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons".

But he gave warning that the dictator might use those weapons for terrorism if faced with an imminent attack by American-led forces.

The White House denied that there was any contradiction between the letter and the Bush administration's position that toppling Saddam is imperative because he is likely to attack America at any time.

Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, said the CIA director "did not say we're OK".

He added: "If Saddam Hussein holds a gun to someone's head, while he denies he even owns a gun, do you really want to take a chance that he'll never use it?"

Donald Payne, a New Jersey Democrat, said the letter suggested a more cautious approach towards Iraq.

He said Mr Tenet's report suggested that an attack on Iraq "could trigger the very things that our president has said he is trying to prevent, the use of chemical or biological weapons". He added: "In view of this report, the policy of a pre-emptive strike is troublesome."

Mr Tenet's letter came as both houses of Congress prepared to vote on a resolution giving Mr Bush wide-ranging authority to wage war against Saddam's regime.

The White House is confident that Mr Bush will secure overwhelming majorities in both chambers and avoid the kind of narrow 52 to 47 victory in the Senate that his father scrambled to get in 1991.

Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat senator, who is implacably opposed to Mr Bush, has threatened to delay the vote in the Senate until next week, arguing that the resolution is a "blank cheque" for a foolish war.

The Bush administration insists that a vote is needed as soon as possible to strengthen the hand of American diplomats working to get a United Nations Security Council resolution passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 12:24 PM

Thanks for the article Bagpuss. The headline and first paragraph of the story tells the tale. "First Strike MAY trigger Saddam's terror weapons." True. But they also MAY not. "The Telegraph" has a fifty-fifty chance of being right, as does George Tenet.

So we do nothing and wait until Saddam uses the weapons when HE chooses? The cat is out of the bag by then, isn't it? How many people will perish if he chooses to dump some biological or chemical weapons on Israel? How many Palestinians will die? I don't think there is a wall of some sort that would protect innocent Palestinians from the same germs that would be visited on the Israeli population. Do you?

It would be interesting to know the opinion of the opposers to what Bush is proposing on the following:
1. Do you believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?
2. Do you believe, if he has them, Saddam will use them against the U. S.and/or our Allies without provocation?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 12:39 PM

Well, it seems evident from listening to the debate that anything other than a rather dim bulb in the attic tends to pervade the Senate. But not all Senators suffer from this malady. Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington State) laid down one helluva speech last night. She put it right where it's at!

I voted for her. And will again. And Jim McDermott is the congressional representative from my district. I voted for him also. And will again. I'm watching Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington State) very carefully to see whether or not I'll vote for her again.

Keep track, folks. That's politics in action.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:21 PM

I do enjoy watching the proceedings, Don. It's too bad the debate is during working hours so many people are prevented from watching them. I regard to your representatives, I sure wish there was some way the voters of Washington State could convinced to replace all of those you named. *BG*

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:34 PM

Doug, my answer to the two questions you pose:—

1. Yes, I do believe he has weapons of mass destruction. But nowhere near the arsenal that some people would like everybody to think. I'm pretty sure he has squirreled away both biological and chemical agents, at least in small amounts, perhaps more. I do not believe he has nuclear weapons, although I think he would like to have them, and is probably rooting around for ways to make them or get them. Saddam Hussein is a tin-pot dictator with delusions of grandeur. But—he's not stupid.

2. Since he's not stupid, he is certainly aware that any overt attack on his part would undoubtedly result in a massive retaliation, with the full support and quite probably the participation of many nations. The first country to use a nuclear weapon lets the genie out of the bottle. The United States alone has a nuclear arsenal sufficient to reduce Iraq to a plain of glowing, fused green glass, should we ever be of a mind to do so. I'm quite sure Saddam is fully aware of that fact. Same with an overt chemical/biological attack. Could he support and supply terrorists? Certainly. In fact, quite probably. But that's a whole different problem. Saddam is not the only one. If determined terrorists couldn't get support—and possibly WMDs—from Saddam, there are a number of other places where they could. And when and if a terrorist attack comes, how can we be sure where it actually came from? Osama bin Laden and his ilk are what are called "men without a country." Who do we retaliate against? Germany? Canada? Florida? They have all "harbored" terrorists.

The problem with singling Iraq out as "the enemy" and dealing with it militarily is that it is an attempt to use a simple-minded solution to solve a complex problem. If the U. S. were to unilaterally wipe out Iraq or move in and replace Saddam with a puppet government of our own, we would probably engender the enmity of much of the world. But the terrorists would still be out there!.

It's roughly the equivalent of facing a problem you can't deal with easily or directly and, because of your frustration, coming home and kicking the cat. Now, it may be a very nasty cat, but that doesn't do much to solve the real problem.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:40 PM

Okay, folks...now get out your old Beatles LP's, search through them for the most throwaway cut of them all...and put it on...

"Number Nine, Number Nine, Number Nine..."

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:57 PM

Doug: While in agreement with everything Don has said I'd just add my 3 cents worth.

1. Sure he does, just as sure as a rattle snake has venom.

2. Heck no! Like the snake his range is severely limited. Sure, he could probably attempt to attack Isreal and surely get his butt nuked for his efforts. His unmaned drones fly so slow that they would be shot down before they left Iraqi airspace. His SCUD's are a mystery to him since he ain't too good at aiming them as shown the last time he tried to fire 'em. Plus since he has so few, he's afraid to pull em' out for fear of the US blowin' em' up on the ground. Man, he is in a pickle.

Yep, it's back to the Mohammed Ali's "Rope-A-Dope" trick of drawing the opponent into your space, let em' punch away, then counter. The US is not ready to fight a street brawl. I'm not saying it wouldn't win, but I am saying that the casualties would be so high and the collateral damage so devestating that it would be victory that would only produce an entire legion of folks standing in line to volunteer to give their lives in terrorists acts as revenge for a couple of generations to come...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 02:00 PM

Look. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them. There are no indications that Saddam is suicidal, however murderous. On the other hand he could well be nuts enough to kill as many people as he can just as a last throw, if he'd going down anyway.

After all, it was the official policy of the United States to do exactly that, though on a vastly greater scale, throughout the Cold War - Mutual Assured Destruction it was called, so why should we expect anything better from a man like Saddam?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Ivan
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 02:25 PM

I'm a little (OK a LOT) late to this thread and I haven't read it all so someone may already have posted this link but just in case:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
has a on-line petition.
I admit that Blair and Bush won't take a blind bit of notice however many names are on it but at least it gives people a chance to stand up and be counted.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 02:48 PM

Couldn't have said it better, Don. Saddam is neither stupid nor suicidal, and like any petty dictator he has a healthy share of self-interest and survival skills. He's not going to attack us or his allies (not that he has much to attack with), because it would make short work of not only his regime, but his life.

However, if he has nothing left to lose -- or believes so -- his ego will require him to go out with a bang.

The sophisticated deployment of biological weapons is a lot harder than people like to believe (Remember the cult that tried to infect a salad bar with influenza? Or how few people even got ill from weaponized anthrax letters? Not many countries could pull off a successful bio attack; it requires a ton of research and a lot of resources Saddam just doesn't have.) And he is unlikely to be able to hit the US significantly with either chemical or conventional weapons, although I can think of several nasty terrorist-like scenarios that might work with a little luck and a LOT of planning.

But Israel? He'll lob everything he has at Israel, 'cause he can reach 'em and it'll piss us off. I persoanlly have no desire for Israeli citizens to pay for US political mistakes with their lives and property.

Ohmigod... I'm agreeing with Tenet?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 05:02 PM

"He who goes unarmed in paradise
had better be sure that
that is where he is." -- James Thurber

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 06:56 PM

Don, Bobert, Nicole, thanks for your input.

I do have one question, though, of you Nicole, you too Bobert. You two appear to have a lot more information about Iraqs weapons (number they have and capability to deliver them)than I do. Do either of you work in jobs that enable you access to information not available to common folk like me. In other words, are you CIA or something? Don you have a lot more information along that line than I do too. You FBI or something?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 07:48 PM

Doug, if the US and Russia aren't sure they have the capability to successfully pull off a biological attack on a foreign populace, it seems ludicrous to jump to the conclusion that a relatively poor, embargoed country like Iraq could. Having biological and chemical agents is vastly different than having the delivery mechanisms. It's like saying because someone has a pile of gunpowder, they can shoot somebody. You need the gunpowder, but you also need the gun.

Example: the guy/gal mailing out the anthrax letters. Said culprit had access to a weaponized (US) military strain of anthrax. The Russians may have better stuff, but this is pretty close to premium grade. How many people died despite the deliberate attempt to deliver the goods?

Chemical weapons are easier to deliver, and almost anyone can make them. You. Me. Short range delivery is pretty easy. Land mines, bombs, SCUDs, etc. Long range ballistic delivery requires sophisticated rocketry.

If Saddam had long-range rocketry, we'd know. You can't test rocketry in secret, and it's awfully hard to hide with folks pouring over daily satellite photos. We know he has SCUD capability, because he's used them before. It's reasonable to assume he still has a few stashed away at least.

Nuclear: you also can't test this stuff in secret anymore. It's relatively easy to build a small nuclear device (we did it in 8th grade Physics with a couple of potato pieces standing in for uranium), but again, delivery is the hard part. Overland delivery, to, say, Jerusalem, would be a cakewalk compared to getting the supplies or the completed weapon into the US.

We KNOW he can hit Israel. It seems doubtful he could really damage the US.

Truthfully, it would be easier for you or me to attack the US, Doug. I daresay you have a local dam or busy bridge you could take out with a little side trip to the hardware store and a thorough disregard for law? Or maybe just a government building? How about a busy Wal-Mart at 2pm on Saturday?

Wanna know more about missiles and other nasties, some of which relate to Iraq's capabilities?
http://www.cdiss.org/hometemp.htm Mostly non-partisan, info-only kind of site.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/biologocal-weapons.html Mostly non-partisan article on BW here. This site tries real hard to present all sides of the issue, but seems to lean a wee bit left in total. Good commentary and discussion of various positions, including the Iraq/US issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 10:00 PM

Come on Nicole and Don. The jig is up. Doug has found us out. No use stringing him along any more. Okay, Doug. You guessed it, except Don is CIA, too.

Yeah, what you've been hearing from one expert after another about Saddam's inability to deliver a WMD to the US is absolutely correct. Heck, we even have a picture of him satnding next to one of his 30 year old SCUD missles with a nuclear device duct tapded to it and each has a fuse. As far as we could make of from the translaters he said, "No way, Jose" to lighting either of them for fear that if he lit the nuke and the rocket wouldn;t go he's get blown up, and if he lit the rocket first and the nuke fuse wouldn't lite then he'd be wasting a perfectly good suit case and if he lit them both then the rocket would go up and turn around and come right back at him....

So you've found us out, Doug. That was some purdy nifty investigative work on your part. Hey, we're looking for a few folks like you. Your counrty needs ya', Dougie.

Agent Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 12:28 AM

It doesn't take much to work this stuff out, Doug. Tom Clancy, who if I remember correctly was an insurance salesman before his writing took off, got thoroughly and angrily investigated after The Hunt for Red October was published. He knew a whole lot—and wrote a whole lot—about the details, tactics, and general behavior of nuclear submarines, both Soviet and American. Military secrets. "Where did you learn that?" the authorities wanted to know. Clancy had no secret pipeline to the Pentagon. He read magazines. He read books. He read newspapers. He watched television (right now, Frontline is on, with a program about ICBMs). He took notes. He thought about it. All the technical information he wanted to lend verisimilitude to his novel was there for the looking. It just happens that what he dug up was all pretty accurate. Most upsetting!

In 1945, just a few weeks after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, Life Magazine came out with an issue all about the atomic bomb. I specifically recall a two-page spread, complete with formulae and diagrams explaining how an atomic bomb works!! At the age of fourteen, I understood the whole thing. It's pretty basic physics. The only problem is some fairly simple engineering. The Russians didn't need the Rosenbergs, all they needed was a dime (yes, a dime) to buy of copy of that issue of Life.

I've been interested in writing all my life, and it's only within the last few years that I've had a chance to do some. But I've thought like a writer all my life. Ideas are everywhere. Data is everywhere. This, plus a little intelligence and imagination, then formulate a theory. Check a few things for verification, and you can come up with a lot of very accurate information.

There's a lot of information out there. All you have to do is keep your eyes open, your mind open, and look.

Don Firth
(I hope that re-establishes my cover.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 03:35 AM

Nicole:

"The sophisticated deployment of biological weapons is a lot harder than people like to believe (Remember the cult that tried to infect a salad bar with influenza? Or how few people even got ill from weaponized anthrax letters? Not many countries could pull off a successful bio attack; it requires a ton of research and a lot of resources Saddam just doesn't have.) And he is unlikely to be able to hit the US significantly with either chemical or conventional weapons, although I can think of several nasty terrorist-like scenarios that might work with a little luck and a LOT of planning."

The first part of your contention above is true with respect to using these weapons in a "conventional" sense (They were originally conceived as tactical theatre weapons). It does take a great deal in terms of research and resources. Go along the road that the French, yourself and Bobert propose and Saddam has a sixty/forty chance of having both those necessary ingredients aplenty. Having successfully duped the weapons inspectors for a second time, the pressure will be on to lift sanctions and terminate patrols over the two existing no-fly zones.

You say that you can think of several nasty terrorist-like scenarios. Those terrorists require the same resources and material. Most important of all they need a safe and secure base to prepare and plan - they've lost Afghanistan, where are they likely to go?

You have also said:

"If Saddam had long-range rocketry, we'd know. You can't test rocketry in secret, and it's awfully hard to hide with folks pouring over daily satellite photos. We know he has SCUD capability, because he's used them before. It's reasonable to assume he still has a few stashed away at least."

We do know, or we have a very good indication from satellite photographs and from reports from defectors. Page 29 of the "Iraq Dossier" presented to the House of Commons shows a picture of the Al-Rafa/Shahiyat liquid propellant engine static test facility in Iraq. It shows a new engine test stand under construction. This new stand is larger than the current stand used for testing the engines for the Al-Samoud missile and larger than the one, dismantled by UNSCOM, for testing SCUD. Now there may be other explanations for the increase in the size of this facility, maybe soil conditions neccessitate larger foundations?, maybe it has a larger and better equipped canteen for the workforce?, or maybe they are building engines to increase the range of their missiles. In previous posts you, and others, have been totally dismissive of this evaluation - going by the votes in your House of Representatives and Senate your elected representatives they seem to have taken heed.

McGoH:

"Look. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them. There are no indications that Saddam is suicidal, however murderous. On the other hand he could well be nuts enough to kill as many people as he can just as a last throw, if he'd going down anyway."

You obviously have not read some of his books. Besides your hypothesis ignores the possible reaction from Israel. If they, at anytime, believe that Iraq has developed a nuclear weapon, my guess is, based on past experience, they will not hesitate - In this scenario, Saddam does not have to launch an attack, the Israelis will (remember that Iraq and Iran are the only two countries in the region still holding fast to Gamal Abdul Nasser's vow to wipe the State of Israel from the face of the earth - You might not believe that - the Israelis cannot afford to share your point of view).

Don:

"Could he support and supply terrorists? Certainly. In fact, quite probably. But that's a whole different problem. Saddam is not the only one. If determined terrorists couldn't get support—and possibly WMDs—from Saddam, there are a number of other places where they could."

As I said above Al-Quaeda has lost Afghanistan, if Iraq is cleared of WMD and the research facilities and capability, then that would be one less refuge. If the above is accomplished along with a change of regime that sends a very clear message to the other likely candidates you refer to.

The continuous assumption, mainly by American contributers to this thread, that your President is foolishly charging on with this blindly "shooting from the hip", is wrong. He is handling it very well, he is in a position to negotiate the terms of the new resolution he wants from the UNSC. I believe he will get that resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 03:54 AM

I see people quoting the FBI and, especialy, the CIA.
Given the records of those august bodies over the past few years, I would check if they said that the sun was shining at high noon before I believed it.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 11:03 AM

Ah Ha! I knew it! Even a dumb old ex-cowboy like me knew NOBODY could have the knowledge exhibited by you three unless you had inside information. Now I feel perfectly safe from terrorists! I am confident any one of you will warn me well ahead of any danger from terrorist cells. I will sleep good tonight. Bobert: I was a bit surprised to learn all three of you are CIA though. I would have sworn Don was FBI! What led me to this conclusion? All three of you post such positive, "without a doubt statements" that if taken literally leave no room for questioning. Thanks for the input. Thank you too, for voting for your representative and your senators if they voted to give Bush his resolution. I think we are much less likely to be involved in a war now, than we were this time last week.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 11:54 AM

And where are you getting your information, Doug, other than Fox News?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 12:30 PM

DougR:

I have pointed out repeatedly in these threads that the biggest problem with Georgie-boy's assertions is that they are not accompanied by hard facts. THisi is all well and good if it is sabre-rattling he is engaged in, which I suspect.

But if it is not, I will not be party to subscribing to rolling out the death machines based on mob-rhetoric from a subliterate redneck with mor eprivelege than brains. No matter how white his shirt looks on CNN.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 12:51 PM

Amos: Why are people here so quick to accept as facts, opinions expressed by Bush critics? I just read the critique on Bush's speech in Cincinnatti by the anti-administration, pro-Saddam, anti-Israel critics quoted in the article. It, like so many posts to threads like this, could hardly be classified, I believe, as being non-partisan in any way. The facts presented by the writers are devestating to Bush's argument! Now, if any of you listened to any of the debate in the U. S. Senate yesterday and the days before, you will have to agree that there were many senators who, had they had the information Nicole supplied me, could have used that piece to blow holes in the administration's argument. Senator Byrd, or Senator Levin, and many others would have been delighted to use that critique to defeat the Resolution that was passed by a very large majority in the U. S. Senate, and an even larger one in the Republican controlled House of Representatives. Bush wouldn't have had a chance!

Probably, were an even more extensive search of the Internet be made, even more articles from multiple "Policy Review Committees," "Think Tanks," etc. could be found that would have offered "evidence" that would have been even more valuable to the senators and representatives, voting with the minority, to defeat the majority.

I wonder why they didn't use them?

(Except we all know that all senators and representatives who voted with the majority are "misguided," "in it for their own personal gain," "wanted to help CEO's of large multinational corporations," or are "crooked," or "dumb." Right?)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 01:39 PM

BELIEFS

"As long as people believe in absurdities
they will continue to commit atrocities."

               Voltaire


Senators and Congressmen have always had a hard time getting clear dope from the intelligence community. That's why the Sandanista scandal rolled as far as it did -- old man Casey was carrying out a widdle war for the Gipper, and he wasn't much interested in letting the Senate Committee on Intell know where all the cards were. It was all supposed to be about "arms traffic interdiction", when actually Casey was pushing the contras to come down and take over Guatemala, IIRC.

Anyway, a clear set of facts is glaring in its absence. Assuming that ":they must know more than we do" is always dangerous and usually flawed as an assumption. Rolling out the mass-death machine based on such assumptions is not justified to my conscience. All Bush has done is present conclusions and Saddam's history, which gruesome though it is, is not clear grounds for the wide-scale destruction of lives and body parts.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 03:10 PM

However sad, it must be taken for granted that everyday citizens will not see the evidence if it exists, unless independant journalists dig it up. I'm sure they can trot out some satellite photos or something -- everyone KNOWS we have satellites photographing everybody; no intelligence loss there.

Even if you accept the arguement that revealing hard evidence would put intelligence efforts in danger (which is impossible to judge without seeing the evidence itself), high ranking government officials share this information with other high-ranking government officials of countries that are our allies when trying to create a coalition.

So why haven't our allies seen the evidence and declared their support, as they did after 9/11? Is it that we haven't any hard evidence to present, or is it that we haven't bothered to present it to them? I suspect the former -- the evidence that justifies a "JUST WAR" (a Catholic doctrine I don't agree with anyway) isn't there. We can suspect any number of things until we are blue in the face, but suspicion alone is not just cause for mass murder.

I'm sorry to say this, but the fact that Britain has agreed to support the US means nothing. I do wish the British leadership would stop being a US patsy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 03:53 PM

This *modern day* Gulf of Tonkin Resolution will play itself out, Doug, and I pray that Saddam backs down, which he may do. Either way the message has been sent out to the world that unilatreialism and preemptivism are jstifiable forieng policy options. The world is a little more dangerous today that in was yesterday, my friend.

But do keep in mind that Saddam may dig in and if he does it's gonna take a lot more than huffin and puffin to blow his house down...

And all this has come about on suspicion and supposition. Hmmmmmmm? This is definately a step backwards for mankind...

But, hark, as long as we still have a 1st Ammendment they'll be a lot of us resisting Bush's the march to insanity, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 04:48 PM

Dear MoveOn Member,

Over the last five days, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and our friends in Congress fought a pitched battle against a hasty and dangerous war resolution. Senator Byrd fought with every tool at his disposal, from an array of parliamentary tactics to his pocket copy of the Constitution. Joined by Senators Kennedy (D-MA), Sarbanes (D-MD), Durbin (D-IL), and Boxer (D-CA) in outrage, he launched a furious filibuster, demanding that our elected representatives give this issue the lengthy and deep consideration it deserves.

In the House, Representatives Doggett (D-TX), Lee (D-CA), Kucinich (D-OH), and Pelosi (D-CA) took a stand against House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) and worked unstoppingly to deliver a defeat for the authorization of force. In doing so, they risked political retaliation from both within their party and outside of it, but they spoke out anyway.

Early yesterday afternoon, the House voted 296 to 133 in support of the President's resolution. Surprising nearly everyone, a significant majority of Democrats stood with Pelosi and Doggett in opposition to the resolution.

And around 1 in the morning last night, the Senate voted to support President Bush's proposal, 77 for to 23 against. Senator Byrd said, "I have fought the good fight. I might as well talk to the ocean."

For those of us who are worried about a war on Iraq -- worried what it will do to our country, our future, or our world -- this is a dark day. Our Congress has been stampeded innto supporting a unilateral, pre-emptive war that could set the Middle East on fire and turn the world against us. In the immediate aftermath of this decision, it's easy to feel, like Senator Byrd, that we might as well have talked to the ocean.

But that is just plain wrong. This vote hurts, but without our work it would have been much worse.

Let us not undersestimate what we're up against. In the Bush Administration, we have a cadre of men hungry for war. Iraq has been on the agenda since President Bush and Vice President Cheney were on the campaign trail. When September 11th happened, the President immediately tried to link it to Saddam. No dice. When anthrax brought our capitol to a halt, the FBI was dispatched to find connections to Baghdad. Nothing surfaced.

The President has demonstrated that he is willing to use every Machiavellian trick in the book to force our country to war. He hasn't hesitated to use our national tragedy to push his agenda. He hasn't hesitated to play off the fear of Americans. He hasn't hesitated to take advantage of this election year to divide and conquer his opposition. When the President of the United States, a man with the loudest megaphone in the world, chooses to use such tactics, he is an extremely formidable opponent.

Make no mistake: the President did everything he could to make this vote a unanimous one. He failed. And the dissent in Congress will resonate throughout our country.

The New York Times today interviewed Representative Susan Davis (D-CA), from southern California: "Ms. Davis's San Diego district includes thousands of active and retired military personnel in the West Coast's largest Navy base, many of whom, she said, may not be happy with her decision to vote against the president's wishes. But having agonized over her decision until a few hours before the vote, she said she was persuaded by a large number of calls and e-mail messages from voters who were deeply uneasy about the prospect of a new war that could be fought with terrible weapons." That was us.

And when Senator Byrd was speaking out on the Senate floor, he knew we stood behind him. When Representative Pelosi spoke out against the House leadership, she knew that we were with her. Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota is in the political fight of his life against a candidate hand-picked by the White House to defeat him. But even though it could damage his re-election campaign, Senator Wellstone voiced his conscience. Our work helped to make that possible.

Our impact can be felt far beyond Washington, D.C. The American people are a lot smarter than politicians think, and support for this warmongering is paper thin. With each dissenter, with each dissenting vote we will gain the support of more of our fellow citizens. President Bush may now have the legal authority for a war, but thanks to the concern we've voiced in the media and in our representatives' offices, he does not have the mandate of his constituents.

This vote will not stand. We will keep fighting this thoughtless war in every way we can. We will fight it over the next weeks and the next months, in Washington and at home.

For now, though, we should take a moment to reflect on the hard work we've put in, on our successes and our failures. Remember: we're not talking to the ocean. We're turning the tide.

Sincerely,

--Eli, Wes, Carrie, Joan, Peter, and Susan
MoveOn.org
Friday, October 11, 2002

P.S. The pressure we've put on Congress has been overwhelming. Over the last two months, we've met with Senators' offices in every state. We've mobilized a team of volunteer lobbyists who worked with over 400 Congressional offices. We've written over 3,600 letters to the editor on Iraq. And we've made, at the very least, a staggering 143,000 phone calls to Congress. With countless emails and a petition with over 200,000 signers, we've communicated a deep and broad concern to our elected representatives.

Here's what Senator Byrd had to say about the grassroots feedback he received:

"I have heard from tens of thousands of Americans ˆ people from all across this country of ours ˆ who have urged me to keep up the fight. I am only one Senator from a small state, yet in the past week I have received nearly 20,000 telephone calls and nearly 50,000 e-mails supporting my position.

I want all of those people across America who took the time to contact me to know how their words have heartened me and sustained me in my efforts to turn the tide of opinion in the Senate. They are my heroes, and I will never forget the remarkable courage and patriotism that reverberated in the fervor of their messages." (From http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_3.html)

P.P.S. Below is a list of the Senators and Representatives who voted against a war on Iraq. If you feel like calling some of them to thank them for taking a stand, it will certainly be appreciated.

Senators who voted against the resolution:

Akaka (D) -- [phone]
Bingaman (D) -- [phone]
Boxer (D) -- [phone]
Byrd (D) -- [phone]
Chafee (R) -- [phone]
Conrad (D) -- [phone]
Corzine (D) -- [phone]
Dayton (D) -- [phone]
Durbin (D) -- [phone]
Feingold (D) -- [phone]
Graham (D) -- [phone]
Inouye (D) -- [phone]
Jeffords (I) -- [phone]
Kennedy (D) -- [phone]
Leahy (D) -- [phone]
Levin (D) -- [phone]
Mikulski (D) -- [phone]
Murray (D) -- [phone]
Reed (D) -- [phone]
Sarbanes (D) -- [phone]
Stabenow (D) -- [phone]
Wellstone (D) -- [phone]
Wyden (D) -- [phone]

A full roll call list for the Senate is available on our website at:
http://www.moveon.org/senatevote.html

A full roll call for the House is available at:
http://www.moveon.org/housevote.html


Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 05:18 PM

"There is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of Western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the US. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of Western countries." - George Orwell (in 1945), quoted in a letter to The Spectator

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 05:33 PM

Amos, my friend: Or perhaps I should begin with, Amos, my distinguished friend from the state of California, since that's how the Senators handle it, you state in your post of 1:39 P.M. today: "Senators and Congressmen have always had a hard time getting clear dope from the Intelligence community."

Yet, Mudcatters present as "facts" stuff they read on the Internet and are convinced that what they read is unaltered truth! You are making my point!

The information Nicole supplied to me from the Internet is readily available to anybody with a computer. I would be shocked to learn that the office of every Senator and Congressman is not equipped with computers. Why, oh why, don't the legislators rely on those same sources to defeat legislation they do not wish to have passed?

You probably are dying to know why I think they don't. Okay, I'll tell you. BECAUSE IT IS NOT CREDIBLE!

Any United States Senator could have used the information Nicole supplied me to completely demolish any chances the president might have had to gain the powers he was seeking via the Resolution. But no Senator, no Congressman did.

Why?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 05:43 PM

Two quotes from Teribus "...they've lost Afghanistan, where are they likely to go?"

Maybe Montana? You don't need a faraway country and lots of equipment to carry out a devastating attack. A few people enthused enough to die, and some box-cutters were enough on September 11th. (And has there been any evidence that any of the people directly involved had ever actually been to those Afghanistan training camps? They got their most significant bits of training in the USA.)

"Besides your hypothesis ignores the possible reaction from Israel." That was precisely my hypothesis - I was suggesting that the idea of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction against an Israel bristling with nuclear weapons was not very plausible; and that seems to be what Teribus thinks too, but for some reason also seems to think I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Mr whites Out IV
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 06:49 PM

Just what the hell do all you old farts care? Yur asses aint gonna go Anybody can tell none of you is under 25 and don't start whining about yuor kids going like that WUSSIWIG rich. The yuong the poorand th darker brothers are gonna go not you talkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 07:03 PM

Uh Oh. A troll has struck. How did we sustain a thread as long as this one without attracting at least one before this one?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 07:26 PM

Dunno, Doug. I can't tell if he's complaining about people who are trying to stop a war, start a war, or just complaining that someone over 25 has an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 07:27 PM

Yeah, Guest (troll) is very much onto the real deal. Bunch of rich white guys who wouldn't know war from a touch footabll game in their backyard, get together, do their secret handshakes from their college fraternity days, huff and puff for a few days acting as if they *actually* know anything, which they don't... and then send the working class off to slaughter and be slaughtered....

Normal....

What's new???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Rodger
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 07:56 PM

An open letter to T-Bag:

Shut up, wannabe. Yeah I know it's you, bro. Let 'em talk as much as they want to. We got our own to work for.

yours,

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 08:35 PM

Actually, DougR, my data about the history between the intell community and the Hill does not come from the Internet. It comes from Bob Woodward's history of the CIA during the Sandanista-contra troubles, and personal interviews with people who were involved.

These data have little to do with Iraqs current status of threat. Nicole has offered a line of reasoning which stirkes me as quite rationale in her assessments; but her assessments, like yours, are based on viewpoint, since you are both trying to extrapolate from a dearth of hard facts. You extrapolate by crediting authorities with better data than you have, or so it seems to me; she extrapolates by estimating how things work. Either way, we are outside the palisade of certainty.

Now our respected Commander-In-Chief is standing somewhere along the same gradation between ignorance, half-ignorance, and actual knowledge, which has a lot of way-stops along it. He is speaking as though he has enough facts to arrive at a high degree of certainty. But he has not seen fit to provide facts, other than the same ones that have been out there since before the election with very few exceptions.

If that is all the data he really has than he is arriving at a very bellicose conclusion based on little data which is why some people feel he is a war-monger. And he is rejecting what may well be much more viable alternatives, exrtrapolating from the known facts, which is why some people accuse him of being stupid.

If he has a much higher grade or amount of information, then I would ask--for the ninth time -- why he feels so strongly that he cannot articulate the data he has, at least indirectly. I understand the sanctity of sources. But somehow I do not believe that is the explanation behind his failure to make a factual caser for armed intervention.

It isn't so much that his path will lead to the use of weapons and the waste of millions of dollars better spent improving water. It is that people will be wounded, torn apart, killed, and deprived of their husbands, children, wives, parents, and grandparents (collateral damage of this sort may be unacceptable, but that doesn't make it avoidable!).

T-bag: The reason I keep on here talking, even though I "won't be going" is because unlike some of your peers, I give a shit about other humans than myself, or those just like me. There are a lot of brownskinned lads and lasses on both sides of the ocean who are going to be eating lead and discovering that death is not a cartoon figure, you dig? And for no good reason that I have yet seen. What do you care, anyway? You're not speaking up about it one way or the other.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 09:42 PM

Right on, Amos...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 11:21 PM

Whew, Amos! You're gonna get a reputation if you keep being that lucid and reasonable.

My California Senators seem to hitch up and decide voting strategy. On controversial issues, one votes yes and the other no. Next vote, on the same kind of controversial issue, they swap positions. It makes it hard to get too mad at one and kick her out... and makes both seem like opportunists. (Which I'm sure they are. Aren't all [successful] politicians?)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 12:18 AM

Everyone seems to have an opinion for or against (mostly against). But other than "no war" I have seem no viable solutions suggested to deal with the problems presented by Saddam. His history of military adventurism is pretty well documented.
So how about it, people? Instead of vilifying each others viewpoints can we now present some ideas on just what we should do vis a vis Saddam?
I await your input.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 01:32 AM

Troll:

A number of more reasonable approaches have been discussed along the history of this thread. Conferral, PR campaigns, and a lot more HumInt to start with.

It is possible we are being fed good intell from the ground over there and Bush is just wanting to act the know-best and not tell anyone about it. But he'd be a lot more convincing and a lot better trusted if he did.

Sending in inspectors would be a good start. UAV and U2 flyovers would be a good support line. MASSIVE PR campaigns done with intelligence and a sensitivity to the people being addressed, who trace there descent back before the rise of the Norsemen, would be in order.

My sense is that Bush or whoever is operating him is up to his ears in a self-fulfilling loop, a self-intiated and self-designed vicious self-reinforcing circle. I don't care for it at all.





A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 02:25 AM

Amos says, "DougR, actually, my data about the history of the Intel and the Hill does not come from the Internet. It comes from Bob Woodward, etc., etc." So big deal! Bob Woodward has a direct line to who our intelligence service does not have? If it's available to you, isn't it available to your congressman? Your senator?

There is not point in repeating what I have already posted on the subject, but I note that no one has offered a credible argument against my POV. If you can, have at it!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 03:45 AM

Oh, no, Doug -- it's bulletproof, for sure. :>)

I guess there as many ways to not know things as there are to know things, huh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 05:50 AM

Doug -- My argument against your POV would go like this:

Fifty years ago last spring I got a job as a deputy sheriff in North Idaho. Boundary County. You didn't have to have a Police Science degree then, had to learn on the job. One thing I learned was

Shooting somebody because you think he might shoot you someday isn't self defense. No matter who told you he's going to shoot you someday. Even if he's a rotten guy.

There are good reasons behind that rule if you think about it; shooting that guy might work out good one time, but as a code of conduct it's destructive; it's gangster ethics. Think about it.

And that's what's wrong with pre-emptive attacks. Gangster ethics. You don't need a quote from the CIA, or Geo.W. Bush, or Bob Woodward; all you need is common sense and/or common decency.

Clint

--and pre-emptive attacks kill more than that one rotten guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: kendall
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 06:44 AM

Doug, why do we believe the president's critics and not him? Simple, I have two problems with Bush,
1. I don't believe him,
2 I don't trust him.

My own Senator, Collins(R) said to me in a letter not more than aweek old, that she has serious reservations about war with Iraq. Good. For once we agree. But, then just the other day, she voted to give Bush the power to go to war.

We have a republican running for governor, and, his main thrust is lying about the democrat who is also running.
We have a republican running for rep. to Congress; His main thrust is defaming the democrat who is also running. The republican party here is running ads that are simply not true, and one local TV station has exposed their half truths and mis information. Those arrogant assholes are STILL running those mean nasy untrue ads!
Neither of the democrats have stooped that low.
And to think, I used to be one of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 08:52 AM

Now, Kendall, calm down. Just remember the guy walking thru the cemetray and saw a grave stone with the following inscription carved out under the name: Here lies a politican and an Honest Man". Well, the feller got that puzzled look and said to himself, "Danged, they've gon to burying two folks in the same grave."

Now, as I have pointed out in the past, ain't too wild about either the Repubs or Dems but it does seem that the Dems get caught lieing about getting laid which I'll admit is rather lame. The Repubs on the other hand tell lies that have the potential of getting a lot of folks seriously hurt or worse. But ya' gotta hand it to 'em in that they are purdy danged good when it comes to telling the *big* lie.

(Well, Bobert, they ought to be. Heck, they've just spent millions of taxpayers dollars on PR men who have fine tuned the art of telling the *big* lie.)

OH, did I mention the PR firms and the millions of tax payers bucks?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 12:38 PM

Amos, how in the world do you mount a massive PR campaign in a country where criticizing the ruler can get you disappeared? Besides, the Iraqi people KNOW what Saddam is and they don't like him but they hate the US. They blame us for the sanctions that have brought them so much misery even though they were imposed by the UN.
As we both know, those sanctions didn't work for a number of reasons, not the least of which were the refusals of France and Russia (among others) to give them more than casual lip service. But the money garnered in that trade did not go to rebuild Iraq. Instead, it went to rebuild Saddams war machine.
So how far do we let it go before we finally act? Until he has nuclear bombs with which to play nuclear blackmail?
If that is the case, we WILL have nuclear war in the Middle East. Saddam isn't stupid but he IS reckless at times and if he threatens or strikes at Israel, they will blow Bagdad off the map along with a lot of other Arab real estate.
We need the THREAT of war to make sure he cooperates fully with the inspectors unlike the way he did in the 90's.
And the longer we wait, the more time he has to hide stuff and work on existing projects.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 01:06 PM

"Here lies a politician",
I do not know his name;
Death has not changed him much at all -
he's lying, just the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 01:07 PM

Troll, after 11 years of sanctions, Iraqi support for Saddam has never been higher. 11 years ago they wanted his boney butt out -- now they think of him as a hero for standing up to the evil Americans and Brits for destroying their water treatment plants, food processing plants, medical facilities and embargoing dangerous military items like medicine.

For the record, money generated under the Oil For Food program does NOT go to Saddam. It goes into a trust account in New York that he can't touch and CAN'T spend on weapons. He never has control over that money, the UN does and only the UN.

As for mounting a PR campaign, Psy-Ops does it all the time. Shortwave radio is still very much alive and well in poorer countries, and it's the primary source of news in many places.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 04:57 PM

Nicole: there you go again! Bush and company, even the leadership in both houses of the congress have informed the American people that Saddam has been skimming the oil for food program in order to continue to build his weapons program. You state unequivocally that he is not.

Unless you have some super source for information (not some article published in a anti-U.S. publication) the president and the congress do not have, I must doubt that you are correct. Respectfully.

You also appear to have an uncanny source of information about how the Iraqi people feel about Saddam. I heard a reporter for the New York Times (it could have been the New Yorker ...I'm sure it wasn't The Guardian)on NPR who was interviewed by Diane Rhemes' temporary replacement last week. He had gone to Iraq specifically to see if he could find out how the people feel about Saddam. Since it is against the law to criticize Saddam (and people have lost tongues for doing so according to the reporter)it is impossible, he reported, to say HOW the people feel about Saddam.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 06:48 PM

It may be true or it may not be true - but the fact that Bush and company, and a bunch of other leading politicians has said so doesn't make it any more likely to be true. (Note, I said "leading" - there are decent and honest politicians, but they generally aren't "leading", or so it seems. In any party, in any country.)

Just by instinct I would imagine that Saddam is a lot more popular in Iraq now than he was a few month back. For the same reason that Bush appears to be more popular than he was before September 11th. When your country seems to be under attack, there's a tendency to rally round the leader. Even when it's a pretty unpleasant leader. Americans and Iraqis aren't so very different.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 07:17 PM

What you are expressing, Kevin, is an opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Were Nicole to have expressed herself in the same way, this thread would have had one less posting to it. On the other hand, she may have a credible source to back up both of her statements. If so, it would be interesting to know what that source is.

You may be right that the Iraqi people will rally around Saddam because of his strong stand against the U. S., but on the other hand they may not rally because they might veiw their leader as being responsible for getting the Iraqi population blown to smithereens.

My point is, I doubt we know for certain what their reaction to Saddam is.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 07:44 PM

If the Iraqi population do get blown to smithereens, I think it is very likely that the survivors will not feel too keen on Saddam, whatever they may feel now.

However I think it is also pretty likely that, together with most people in other Arab and Muslim countries, they will feel very hostile indeed towards America (and the UK, assuming Blair stays "on side" and manages to pull a reluctant country with him). And I anticipate that this will result in a significantly greater likelihood of low-tech and borrowed tech terrorist reprisals. September 11th was a chilling indication of how devastating that can be. Who needs "weapons of mass destruction"?

And as I have said before, this will in my view be exactly what Bin Laden (or whoever) has had as the game plan all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 09:26 PM

No, Doug, there you go again failing to provide any kind of counter evidence, except to say "the administration says so."

My source for the current popularity of Saddam comes form many sources, including the Congressmen who recently visited Iraq, numerous radio interviews over the past several years in which Iraqis expressed their support for Saddam and their distruct of all things American, specifically stating it was because of the sanctions.

On the Oil For Food Program, Doug, I might refer you to the UN Sanctions Committee, the current and former UN Humanities Coordinator for Irag, and CNN. I refer you to UN Resolution 986, particularly paragraphs 7-9 and 15, Resolution 1051, which establishes the monitoring program.

Of course, you could read all about it directly from the UN Office of the Iraq Programme Oil For Food . But it's so much easier to believe unsubstantiated propaganda from the President, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 10:31 PM

Gotta love a gal that does her homework!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 02 - 11:33 PM

Dougie, my friend:

Hey, pal. I hate to say it but you're downright slackin' here. You keep askin' Nicole for sources and the girl provides one after another and then you just dismiss her work by saying that her sources are biased or anit-Bush. Well, yeah, anything that might be served up as evidence against *your guy*, you dismiss.

But here's the real kicker. When we ask you for your sources all we get is either silence or the same old *bumper sticker* answers. Come on, I know you are smarter than this, Doug. Would it be asking too much to have you actually go a step beyond the PR rhetoric that is being spoon-fed to the entire population, which is not based on actual facts but supposition, speculation and imagination.

We are still waiting for the evidence. It doesn't matter how amny folks of postion march before the world and do their best huff and puff routines, a lot of us, like millions... are still awaiting the proof.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 03:31 AM

Come on, Doug. Where's your documentation?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 07:44 AM

If the UN is administering and monitoring the Oil for Food money to see that it is used for it's intended purpose, why are we told that children are starving and that it's our fault? Where is the money being used?
Not for food and medicine apparently.
Where has Saddam gotten the money to rebuild his military machine?
If not from the sale of oil, then where?
In this last weeks Newsweek there was an article which looked at the the view that the Iraqi people have of Saddam and of the US. If my memory serves me, they don't like Saddam but they HATE the US. The article was written by, I believe, an Arab.
As far as PR programs run by Psy-Ops using such things as shortwave radio, those broadcasts are only a small part of an overall campaign and pre-suppose that the target population have access to the radios and the power (battery of public utility) to operate them.
My father spent 30 years in Military Intelligence and I grew up around it. I am familiar with Psy-Ops and what they can do. It takes time to mount an effective campaign, and we may not have time.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 09:10 AM

"There may be a difference of perspective about weapons of mass destruction, there is one certain way to find out and that is to let the inspectors back in to do their job."

That's about as sensible a summary of the situation as I've read. It's Putin, the Russian President talking. The quote comes from this article,in (yes) the Guardian (well, it's the paper I read) - Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons - "Blair dossier on weapons of mass destruction scorned as sceptical leader calls for return of inspectors."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 01:48 PM

Troll,

I'm not sure Saddam has spent a lot of money rebuilding his military machine. The only sources I have seen that says so are the same ones stirring up rhetoric. It is reasonable to expect that he would rebuild his forces (given the huge number of hostile troops on his borders), but I don't see the massive build-up that is being asserted. If he is getting the money, it's probably through the black market, but it's not through the Oil For Food Program.

To address your question about why the US is being blamed for the humanitarian disaster, it's a complex issue. Here's an interesting transcipt of a chat with the former UN Humanities Coordinator for Iraq, Dennis Halliday, from Jan 2001. Needless to say, his focus on Iraq is about the humanitarian issue, and since this is prior to the current issues, it doesn't really address political issues. But it is enlightening -- this is a man who knows as much about the humanitarian issue inside Iraq as anyone.

(Since it looks like this page is dying and links starting to go haywire, I'll post the whole thing.)

http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2001/01/16/halliday/

CNN Moderator: Welcome to CNN.com, Denis Halliday.

Denis Halliday: Thank you. I'm pleased to be with you.

CNN Moderator: David Welch, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, points out that the oil-for-food program produces billion of resources "that can be used to address humanitarian concerns of the Iraqi people." David Cortright, president of the Fourth Freedom Forum and co-author of "The Sanctions Decade," says that the responsibility for the humanitarian situation lies with the Iraqi regime's "malicious, diabolical strategy" to gain international sympathy.

Why should the U.S. or the international community bear the brunt of the blame for Iraq's humanitarian crisis when Saddam Hussein refused to accept the oil-for-food deal until the worst of the humanitarian crisis had passed?

Denis Halliday: Since the oil-for-food program began at the end of '96, Iraq has pumped and sold some 35 billion dollars worth of oil. Of that money, the U.N. has taken 35 percent off the gross amount. To date, Iraq has received food and medicines equivalent to some 10 billion dollars over the four-year period.

You might ask: Where is the rest of the money? Ten billion dollars over four years divided by 22 million people, believe me, is not adequate funding to feed and provide medical care for the Iraqi people. In addition, it falls very much short in dealing with the damage of the Gulf War bombing by the U.S. and with other sectors of Iraq which were damaged by the war, such as agriculture, health care and education.

One of the reasons the U.S. is blamed for the humanitarian crisis is because politics have been used within the Security Council to block expenditure of oil revenues to meet the basic needs of the Iraqi people. The Iraqis rejected the first offers for oil-for-food until 1995, when calorific intake had fallen below 1,000 calories per day. They did so acknowledging that they were giving up their sovereignty over oil resources, but they did so in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

CNN Moderator: Iraq has insisted that the oil-for-food program be converted to euros rather than dollars, an act that is costing Iraq several hundred million dollars a year in income. Why shouldn't Saddam Hussein have to answer for taking so much money away from the humanitarian needs of his people?

Denis Halliday: I think converting from U.S. dollars to euros was simply a political gesture. If there is any loss of revenue, it seems to me a waste. Nevertheless, due to U.N. controls, Iraq has an unspent balance in United Nations' accounts of some 6 to 10 million dollars. Therefore, money is not the first problem; it's the ability to spend it properly. That's the problem Iraq faces. And the Security Council is playing politics with the humanitarian crisis.

CNN Moderator: In the program, David Cortright also expressed the opinion that, "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Iraqi regime has little or no concern for the suffering of its own people. It has actually consciously manipulated and allowed that suffering to take place in order to gain the sympathy of people in the West and other countries in order to have sanctions lifted."

Why should we lift the sanctions when Iraq has done little to comply with the ceasefire terms he agreed to on April 6, 1991?

Denis Halliday: The history of the Baath Party in the 1970s and 1980s shows huge investments in the well being of the Iraqi people. Billions of oil dollars were spent in health care and education. To my mind, it is Western propaganda to say now that Baghdad does not care about its children. The fact is, it's the U.S. that is in control of the Iraqi economy. And the fact is that politics are being played, both in Baghdad and in Washington, at the cost of the Iraqi people.

CNN Moderator: Wasn't Iraq having serious economic problems prior to the U.N. sanctions because of its eight-year war against Iran?

Denis Halliday: Yes. After the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq owed some 30 billion dollars to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. That was one of the issues between Kuwait and Baghdad. Iraq wanted to increase the price of oil in order to pay back its debts and to rebuild the country. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were flooding the world market with cheap oil and, at the same time, demanding Iraqi repayment. That set off the crisis that tragically and illegally led to the invasion of Kuwait.

Question from the chat room: What is the Baath Party doing now for the Iraqi people?

Denis Halliday: The Baath Party -- as led by President Saddam Hussein, of course -- handles the entire oil-for-food program. That means they do the contracting; they do the handling and processing of, for example, wheat into flour; and they handle distribution of these foodstuffs in the country. According to my current successor in Baghdad, who is an expert on the world food program, Baghdad does an extremely efficient job of food distribution.

Comment from the chat room: We get the impression that Saddam would rather see his people suffer than open his weapons development sites for inspection.

Denis Halliday: I realize that is the impression that's been given in the West, in the United Nations, but the fact is that in Iraq today, many younger people are angry with Saddam Hussein because they feel he has compromised too often under pressure from the United Nations and the United States. They're angry because they feel the honor and the dignity and the sovereignty of Iraq have been compromised.

There is more to any country than food and medicines; it's much more complex than that. We have to accept that the Iraqis are a very proud, ancient Arab people and, despite the suffering and facilitated by the economic sanctions, they continue to support the government in Baghdad.

Question from the chat room: Aren't you concerned that by lifting sanctions now, you could give Saddam Hussein a major political victory and increase his prestige among the Iraqi people?

Denis Halliday: Yes, undoubtedly, he will claim a victory and, of course, he will also undoubtedly stay in power. If one considers the alternative, using UNICEF data, some 4-5,000 children are dying unnecessarily each month. I don't believe loss of face on the part of Washington or London is important if we can save the lives of the Iraqi people. I think we should do that, regardless of a victory or not a victory for Baghdad.

CNN Moderator: If the economic conditions are so dire and if Saddam Hussein is concerned about his people, especially the children, why won't he comply with the weapons inspection regulations and other terms of the sanctions?

Denis Halliday: At the moment, there only is one issue and that is the issue of weapons of mass destruction. According to some of the experts, including Scott Ritter, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction capability today. Even Hans Blix, who is the chairman of UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission), which replaced UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission), has said that he does not believe that Iraq has redeveloped weapons of mass destruction.

I believe that today we see a huge demonization of Iraq, an exaggeration of Iraq's threat "to the neighborhood" and a huge capacity for military aggression amongst the neighbors of Iraq. Today, in fact, it is Iraq that is disarmed and surrounded by countries, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which are heavily armed by Europe and North America. This is not a situation that encourages Baghdad to cooperate. And it is further compounded by Washington's decision to finance the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein himself.

Question from the chat room: Do Iraqis not see that Saddam compromised their integrity in the world with the invasion of Kuwait?

Denis Halliday: I think many Iraqi people are very conscious of the high price that Iraq has paid for the invasion of Kuwait. Every day, they see children in their neighborhood die or fall sick. Nevertheless, by attacking their head of state, the United Nations and the United States have strengthened their support for the president. That's what happens with an embargo; it tends to work completely upside-down, so to speak.

Question from the chat room: Can we be assured that assistance would go to the children, given Saddam Hussein's history?

Denis Halliday: I don't believe it's a matter of assistance. I believe that if the economy was restored to Iraqi management, the Baath Party would continue its policies of investing in health care, education, good water systems, electric power and employment.

Before the war, all Iraqi children were given breakfast and lunch in the school system. So, the fact is that we, the United Nations of the West, have demolished the human rights of the Iraqi children. There's no history of the Baath Party not meeting the basic human rights of Iraqi children. In summary, I think we have no basis to be suspicious of Baghdad's approach to its own children.

Question from the chat room: If you don't support sanctions against Iraq, what would you support?

Denis Halliday: What I support, as simply as possible, is to reopen a dialogue with Baghdad, as President Clinton has successfully done with North Korea. Secondly, we should maintain the embargo on weapons of mass destruction, not only for Iraq, but also for all the countries of the Middle East. Thirdly, we should end the economic sanctions and, fourthly, work with Iraq on rebuilding its infrastructure and its economy for the well being of its people.

I should add that Iraq has its own obligations to meet. They must correct their own human rights violations. They must resolve their differences with the Kurdish minority and they must rebuild their relationships with countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Comment from the chat room: All they have to do is allow inspectors in; end of problem.

Denis Halliday: I believe that if that were true, Baghdad would be very much inclined to do that, but it's not true. As I said already, Washington has passed legislation financing the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. The question to the person who made that statement is: Can you really expect cooperation from a man that you are committed to overthrow?

CNN Moderator: In the program, you state that, "We cannot have the United Nations, the guardian of well-being, sustaining a regime of embargo or sanctions against a people that impacts only on the people, not on the government." You go so far as to call the sanctions genocide. However, can we have the United Nations rewarding a nation with financial aid after what many consider genocidal action against the Kurds and others?

Denis Halliday: That's a good question. But I think one needs to correct the impression of aid or assistance to Iraq because there is no assistance to Iraq. The government of Iraq finances everything Iraq receives under the oil-for-food program.

Secondly, we have a United Nations today that is governed by a Charter. Articles 1 and 2 of that Charter require that the sovereignty of member states be respected and that the United Nations work towards the well being of the people of the world. However, with the embargo in Iraq, we have a United Nations whose decisions in the Security Council have led to the deaths of possibly more than one million people in ten years. Now that is a tragedy. And that begins to meet some of the definitions of the United Nations Convention on Genocide.

Comment from the chat room: Saddam has NEVER cooperated. Let him and his country reap what they have sown.

Denis Halliday: First of all, Iraq cooperated successfully with UNSCOM for many years and, as we saw on the CNN film, hundreds of thousands of tons of weapons were destroyed. Secondly, Iraq has cooperated effectively on oil-for-food. Thirdly, Iraq has accepted a new border with Kuwait. And lastly, no matter what we may think of President Saddam Hussein, nothing justifies killing the children of Iraq; nothing.

CNN Moderator: Couldn't Saddam Hussein be charged with human rights violations for the way he has treated the Kurds and other Iraqi citizens? Isn't he guilty of humanitarian violations?

Denis Halliday: Under the new International Criminal Court, which President Clinton reluctantly signed just recently, there is a requirement that individuals, including heads of state, be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and that would include gross violations of human rights.

Now we have seen violations of human rights against the Kurds, against the Kuwaitis, against the Jews in the Second World War, against the Africans under slavery and against the Native Americans. And there are many other terrible examples in recent history. In the Gulf War itself, we saw breaches of international law by the United States and its allies. We saw the use of depleted uranium, which is in breach of the Geneva Conventions.

What I'm saying is that both sides of this conflict and many conflicts are guilty. If we can accept that, then I think we would see many military leaders, heads of state, facing prosecution.

CNN Moderator: Thank you for joining us today, Denis Halliday.

Denis Halliday: Thank you. I hope this was helpful to those of you who had issues to raise.

Denis Halliday joined the Gulf War Chat via telephone from New York City. CNN.com provided a typist. The above is an edited transcript of the chat, which took place on Tuesday, January 16, 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 01:58 PM

Holy moley, Nicole!!

Thanks for posting that -- it completely changes the picture Bush is tring to paint.

The simplest solution to the whole situation, in that light would be to abandon sanctions and allow Iraq's economy to be self-defining; continue to insist on unconstrained inspections regarding WMD; and put the nation of Iraq on notice that violations of international law will immediately result in internationally-based disciplinary action.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 02:13 PM

One thing struck me there (among others) "Iraq has insisted that the oil-for-food program be converted to euros rather than dollars, an act that is costing Iraq several hundred million dollars a year in income. "

Why should changing money from dollars to euros cost anything anyway? What financial enterprise in the USA or wherever is stealing that money? (Because that is what it amounts to.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 02:50 PM

Thank you, Nicole, for providing those links that point out specifically what Saddam is SUPPOSED to do. Neither of those sources report WHAT he is doing.

If you are relying on the three Congressmen who just returned from Iraq for your information on how the Iraqi people feel about Saddam, well, I just don't know what to tell you. You cannot be naieve enough to believe that they were given unfettered access to the citizens of Iraq do you? I note that you have no comment about that portion of my post. I cannot imagine why. After all NPR is the darling of folks who share your POV of things political.

Most of you keep insisting on getting "more information" from the administration. Were they to supply it you wouldn't believe it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 03:07 PM

Doug:

The difference between conclusions and hard data is the critical issue here. Not "information".

Have you been provided with hard data other than the opinions and conclusions offered by Senor Hemp? I mean, Mister Pie-Higher Bush?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 03:44 PM

Amos: Nope.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 04:37 PM

I take it that "nope" includes Mr Bush. (And Mr Blair for thta matter.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 06:34 PM

So it seems to break down to a matter of opinion. Is a matter of opinion enough to make one willing to consign tens if not hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis to the slaughter?

Not good enough for me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Oct 02 - 07:15 PM

OF course Bush vetoed the war crimes treaty. You don't hand a stick to someone who likely to beat you with it.

If death row inmates wrote the laws they would do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 12:19 AM

Uh, Don, that's what I have been trying to point out. I do not believe that anyone on the Mudcat has the information that is available to the administration. If they do, then one would have to wonder even more about the competency of our Intelligence Agencies. Anyone who feels that the general population should be privvy to the same information that the president and his closest advisors is privvy to is simply whistling Dixie (to insert a slight inference to a musical reference).

We have OPINIONS! That's all they are! We agree with the information we hear, see, or read and probably believe whatever is closest to what we personally believe. Nicole, you, Bobert, Amos, and others (including those on my side) find something on the Internet, or in a newspaper, or hear something on TV or the radio, that supports what we "think" and we glom on to it. It is FACT, because it supports our point of view.

Then there are those who consider themselves above it all. It matters not what the Administration says, what their own government's Administration or their leaders say, they KNOW better. Well, it's still opinion, in my opinion, and one person's opinion is as good as another (IMO).

Most of you believe the Bush Administrations sucks. Ok. I accept that! But there is a very small minority on the Mudcat that thinks that it doesn't. So?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 12:59 AM

DougR:

Excellent progress. Opinion versus opinion. Quite right.

Certainly nothing to get het up about, right?

I mean, we're mature people and we know opinions are liukely to differ and we don't let that over-ride our basic esteem for each other, correct? We certainly aren't going to start mortal name-calling over it, 'cuz, well, we're men and women of the world.

As for throwing stones, or resorting to violence over it, why, it would be madness.

I guess....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 07:31 AM

I imagine that the information that the Russians have, for example, it comparable to that which the US administration has. (And if you'll recall, the head of the CIA doesn't appear to think that an attack on Iraq is a good idea.)

I gather there is a fair amount of support inside the USA for the idea of an attack on Iraq by the USA regardless of the UN. But there is precious little in the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 09:17 AM

I am fairly sure that the information the Russians have is a damn sight better informed - their contacts in Iraq are a better. The crowd who have been silent so far as making comment or appearing in print are Mossad, Israels intelligence service - their contacts in the region are usually the best. Downstream of them will be the Americans who will receive anything the Israelis turn up.

Rhetoric aside - nobody thinks that an attack on Iraq is a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 10:32 AM

Speaking of opinions, Doug. Bush is of the opinion that the Iraqis hate Saddam more than they hate the idea of being attacked by the US. His handlers keep making references of mass defections. I would go so far as to say, that Bush is betting on it. There is a referendum being held today in Iraq where Saddam may get an unprecidented 100% approval, which would indeed send a message to Bush and Co. that their defection assumptions should not be chizzeled in stone.

Now I'll be the first to admit that Iraq has Katherine and Jeb beat out on manipulating elections but it is important to keep in mind, be it 90% or 100%, I don't think a war plan based heavily on the enemy quitting is too well thought out. Like I've said before and reserve the right to repeat. Any member of Bush's "axis of evil" who digs in rather than rolling over has the potential of beating the US in an urban war unless the US is willing to absolutely destroy entire cities, which would be an insane decision...

Iraq has allready signaled how it will respond to an invasion and has been preparing it's people for such with it's own PR campaigns so for you drum beaters, beware of what you ask for...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 11:03 AM

I am really interested to see what Bush's warrior crowd will do in response to the slaughter of 2,000 innocent men and women in Bali, Indonesia on Sunday. The Indonesia government affirms that this is evidence of al-Quaeda organizations in Indonesia.

Of course, Indonesia is less oil-rich, but otherwise it seems we have a more overt and equally vicious opponent in place than even the dreaded Hussein!! What ever will Bush&Co do???

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 11:39 AM

The Bali business couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the US Government supported one of the most vicious dictatorships in the world in Indonesia for over half a century, could it? Or is Al-Quaeda now to be held responsible for everything nasty on the face of the earth? Puh-leeze!

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 11:43 AM

You're right, Doug, much of it is this is opinion. But I also note that you have yet to forward one single, substantiated fact. You have faith in the Bush government.

Know what? Governments LIE. They lie when they think it's for the good of the people and the lie when they are cruel and despotic -- usually the motivations are somewhere in between. It's the nature of government and has been true at least since the Greeks. Blindly believing anything any government tells you is foolhardy. Our Founding Fathers knew this -- that's why our government has review after review after review, finally leading up to the civic responsibility of the voters.

If you think something is true only because the government says so, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

But the Bush administration has failed to convinced other countries of this folly. On one hand we have the Bush administration, and on the other hand we have every other intelligence gathering country in the world. Why? Because they don't have any evidence to present, only suppositions.

Madeline Albright, when asked about the deaths of 5,000 children a month in Iraq due to the sanctions merely stated, "We think the price is worth it."

I'm sorry, but I don't think the slaughtering of children, civilians, or the deaths of American servicepeople is "worth it" when all there are are suppositions. If the Administration can bring FACT to the table that shows that Saddam is a greater threat than the lives that will be lost in a war, then it might be worth considering. But there isn't any FACT coming out the administration, because they *don't have any.* Instead they pass off theories and suppositions and old information as truth, when half of it is lies and the other half is mere rhetoric.

Sorry, I don't have "faith." Not when lives are at stake.

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

Well spoken, again and as usual. I concur with your sentiments, while still scanning the information horizon for hard data to support Bush's rabidity.

"Exactly why is it you are foaming at the mouth, Mister Resident?"

"That's how we make the pie higher where I come from...."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 01:10 PM

I do not know of any American president who has displayed more eagerness to go to war that George W. Bush. Now, Doug, try to grasp this: I don't care whether it's Bush, Gore, Nader, or Mother Theresa who wants to go to war this badly; I don't care if it's a Republican, a Democrat, a Green, or any party you care to name, this sort of pit-bull aggressiveness is not something I care to see in any human being. It is totally unconscionable in an American president.

Rather than acting on intelligence that he doesn't care to share with the American public, Bush is ignoring the advice and reservations of many members of the military. He is also ignoring warnings by the CIA that an attack on Iraq would not prevent but would guarantee terrorist attacks on the United States (he was angry because of the report itself, and he was furious that the report was made public—so what else does he want to keep hidden?). He is ignoring the reports of weapons inspectors who have been on the scene and who say that Saddam's weaponry is nowhere near as dangerous as Bush claims. He continues to assert Saddam's involvement with 9/11, but has failed to make a convincing connection (if he had one, don't you think he would trumpet it loudly to the world?). He is ignoring the Constitution, and while he's at it, with his Patriot Act and Homeland Security legislation, he is undercutting the Bill of Rights and endangering the very legal and moral foundations upon which this country was built.

Granted, it is a matter of opinion—but—it is an opinion held by much of the world, and by an increasingly large number of Americans, that Bush's desire to go to war with Iraq has much to do with attempting to divert attention from a failed domestic policy in which the economy is a mess, unemployment is on the increase, unchecked corporate greed, corruption, and wholesale thievery have become matters for daily headlines, and already inadequate social, health, and welfare programs are being gutted further still (e.g., his push to turn the Social Security system over to the mercies of Wall Street). German Justice Minister Herta Dauebler-Gmelin said as much, and her remarks caused such a stir that she was forced to resign, not because what she said was untrue, but because she was undiplomatic enough to say it. Also, Bush's desire for a regime change in Iraq has more to do with the fact that Saddam's keister is firmly planted over forty percent of the world's oil reserves that it does with any threat that Saddam might pose or any concern Bush might feel for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

If indeed Saddam Hussein poses a threat to the United States and/or the rest of the world, then let whatever preventive action deemed necessary be undertaken by a coalition of nations who agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat, and let it be undertaken with the approval of the United Nations. For the United States to launch a preemptive attack against any country, including Iraq, is illegal, immoral, unethical, unconstitutional—and un-American.

It should come as no surprise to you that I don't like George W. Bush. But if it were Al Gore instead of George Bush, I would be just as strongly opposed. It is the intent that is wrong. Not the man per se.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 01:33 PM

[[[[[[[[[[applause]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 03:18 PM

Some good posts there, starting with Doug and moving on to the rest of you...it is true that people just naturally are attracted to information that jibes with their already established viewpoints, and
EVERYONE operates at least partly on faith in forming their opinions.

Be that as it may, it is pretty plain to virtually the whole world that Iraq is no serious danger to the USA, and that for one country to openly devote itself to "regime change" in another country is blatant aggression and should be considered in violation of international law. But hell, Poland started World War II by attacking a German radio station, remember? (ludicrous Nazi propaganda which was believed by most Germans at the time...a fake Polish attack was arranged by the Germans, using some unfortunate expendable prisoners who were dressed up as Polish soldiers and conveniently shot) So why shouldn't certain loyal Americans believe that Iraq is a threat to the whole world? If Bush wants his war badly enough, I'm sure he will find a way to arrange it. That's what great powers do, they find a way, any way that works.

I see that no one has the nerve to start a Part Nine of this discussion... ;-)

- LH

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

Not an issue of nerve, LH -- it is a necessity superseded by advanced technology as discussed in a recent thread about the upgrade. You can load only the last 50 or so posts by clicking on the starred bumber next to the thread title -- the thread automagically gets divided into manageable sections. So "Part xx" of long discussions is no longer needed.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 05:02 PM

Oh, my...well, what won't they come up with next! These young whippersnappers with all their newfangled notions. This means there will never be a part Nine. How sad. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 07:01 PM

Come on, Amos, go fir it. Just pretend that we're still drivin' the Model A and go for it.

Hey, it will load a little faster and make Little Hawk happy and make me happy.

Go fir it!

Go fir it!

Go fir it!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 07:48 PM

C'mon guys -- this electric starter thingy isn't that hard to learn, and it won't break your arm like the old crankers do. Just click on the little bold blue number with the star, next to the thread name, and you'll get a choice of manageable segments -- just go to the last one to get the current yap. OK?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 07:56 PM

Here's the place for good old-fashioned computerism - http://www.dejavu.org/

But what's really handy with the upgrade is that with the preview you can check your links go to the right places.

I think the focus of this thread might have shifted on, in the aftermath of the Bali atrocity, and that this thread - "Massacre in Bali" might in effect be Part Nine.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 08:03 PM

Excuse my sorry Wes Ginny butt, but just what the HECK are you guys talkin' about???

So I like go back to the beginning of this thread and click on the blue number with the satr and still end up waiting for 180+ posts to load. Am I retarded, or what. (PLEASE say, ahhh, "what". Please.)

I gotta be missin' somethin' here.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 08:35 PM

You click on the blue star on the forum page (theb one with all tey threads), and up comes the first 50 posts, but upmthe top there is a (1) and a (2) and so forth - and when you click on each one, up come the appropriate set of 50 posts.

If it doesn't work, there's some problem to take up on the Help page (click the Help button atbteh topright of the page.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 08:46 PM

Well, danged! Why'd no one tell this ol' hillbilly this in the first place so I didn't have to comin'---yet again-- on hands and knees beggin' fir help? Nevermind. I get it. Thanks, McGrath...

Bobert

Ahhh, Amos: Nevermind starting a new thread. You'll never beleive what McGrath just taught me...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 02 - 11:03 PM

Tole yer and I tole yer, Bobert. But believe me? Nahhh -- you hadda go to a Ninglish Perfesser before you'd believe it. Hayull, boy, yore Wes Ginny Butt just one of them there acadeeemishuns in sheep's clothing is whut!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 06:10 AM

Hi Bobert,

You appear to set great store by Saddam's election returns, completely ignoring the fact that in Iraq you have to vote, or have a damn good reason for not voting, otherwise you tend to have to undergo a fairly strenuous interview to establish your political affiliations.

Now having ignored what happenned during Desert Storm with the bulk of his armed forces (i.e. the ones who surrendered in droves) lets take a look at the troops who can be assessed as the ones who will remain loyal.

Republican Guard:
Considered the elite element of Iraq's conventional armed forces. Currently made up of 7 Divisions, highly mechanised not best suited for urban warfare.

Special Republican Guard:
A special para-military unit specifically tasked with personal security for Iraq's President and for internal security. Numbers currently estimated at 26,000, organised into 17 Battalions. They are exclusively recruited from Saddam Hussein's tribal group within Iraq.

Fedayeen Saddam:
30,000 to 40,000 strong, another para-military group used for internal security and anti-smuggling patrols and operations.

Taking those three units Bobert, two of them (SRG & FS) are used to ensure the "good behaviour" of the Iraqi population and suppression of any dissident elements. While you may contend that they will fight, I do not believe that they can fight on the assumption that the general population will support them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 07:14 AM

Meanwhjuile "Al Qaida" get on on with carrying out their terrorist attacks, and rejoice at the prospect of Saddam being overthrown. (My enemy's enemy is by no means always my friend...)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 08:40 AM

Teribus:

You're thinking on the high tech side. You really don't need much to conduct effective urban warfare except rifles, a few granades and a civilian population to use as shields. Ain't rocket science here, my friend.

Okay, imagine hundreds of Columbine High Schools except instead of a couple kids with rifles, now ya have a hundred or so in an apartment building and ya' have two choices: use you WMD in the apartment building or try to remove the bad guys surgically. The first option is tried and true but the PR is real lousy. The second option is lots of civilians killed and lots of body bags coming home in the C-5.

And now we learn that Bush doesn't even want advice from too many military people but has talked tactics with Newt Gingrich. Hmmmmmmm?

Bad enough going into a war that could be avoided but even worse with poor planning and no end game vision except setting up a "democracy" in a country where we should be more concerned about the folks from the north taking their ounce of revenge.

Heck, we don't hardly have democracy here at home for that matter...

Nevermind...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:01 AM

Where it would make a much bigger difference!! At least we are used to the idea!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:07 AM

What if...

We *liberate* Iraq, install democracy and then they vote for Sadaam Hussain...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:12 AM

Bobert,

I appreciate it isn't rocket science and you are perfectly correct in saying that "You really don't need much to conduct effective urban warfare". Yes you need rifles, a few hand-grenades, possibly some car bombs, but more important than any of these, you need to have the whole-hearted support of the civilian population.

Oh! you reckon that they can be used as shields. Right then Bobert, I've got a better analogy for you, imagine a re-shoot of "The Magnificent Seven", except in this version you have Yul Bryner and the rest of the boys holed up in the Mexican village but when the "bad guys" come into town, instead of helping Yul and the boys, the villagers are telling the opposition where Yul and the boys are posted and how to get round them. Bit of a difference, Hmmmmmmmm?

As far as I know from this side of the Atlantic at present:

1. There is no war.

2. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government have not been bombarded with ultimatims, unreasonable or otherwise.

3. Diplomatic efforts on the parts of all involved are still in progress.

Sorry, I forgot - "HE'S A-GOIN' TO DO IT!!, HE'S A-GOIN' TO DO IT!!, HE'S A-GOIN TO DO IT REGARDLESS!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 12:23 PM

Maybe he won't go to war. I don'think that man Bush is that good an actor, but after all, it's what he's always done for a living, so maybe he is pretty good at it after all, and it's all a bluff.

Once again I post tha quote from Putin, who isn't my favourite politician, but what he says here makes a lot more sense than all that talk about "thwareting" inspections:

"There may be a difference of perspective about weapons of mass destruction, there is one certain way to find out and that is to let the inspectors back in to do their job."

I'm hoping the bombs in Bali might have woken up enough people to the real priorities to make a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 02:07 PM

You have to admit, Bobert, Saddam ran a good race! Otherwise that other guy ...what's his name ...might have won.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 02:27 PM

Teribus:

Do you think it is unreasonable to interpret Bush's intention as going to war against Saddam? I mean considering his motivating for carte blanche permission to unleash the military at will, his insistence on doing so either with or without the UN, and his characterization of Saddam as not only "evil" but ALSO "the man who tried to kill my Dad...."? Seems to me Bush's six-shooter is already clearing leather.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 03:21 PM

Teribus:

So let me get this right. You're gonna send in Yul Bryner and the other six of the "Magnificent Seven". Great plan, Pal. Can I choose the other six?

I don't think you have thought through your urban warfare scenerio too well. Like, who do you think are gonna have all the rifles and grenades? The civilians? Right. Hahahah... No, of course they are not. And just how do you think the "Magnificent Seven" are gonna:

a.) Get close enough to the civilians in the apartment buildings with out getting seriously shot up, and

b.) in doing so also shoot up a bunch of civilians accidently trying to get close enough to the apartment building to...

c.) knock on the door and ask the civilians to turn over the bad guys?

I would suggets that you revisit the last 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" and get back to me with a revised plan...

And as fir Bush, hey, look until millions of folks satrted writing and emailing their Congressmen, Bush had all but given the orders. Then after the American people and the rest of world spoke up, he had to backtrack, which to him just meant a longer check-list of things to do before he could have *his* war and now he's kinda busy with the checklist. But make no bones about it, if this war gets stopped it will because of the massave resistence movement here and abroad that get's in Junior's way...

And you can take that to the bank.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 05:44 PM

Bobert: I hope you are sitting by your TV tonight so you can see how the Iraqi election comes out. I'm biting my nails with suspense. I think old Saddam will pull it off though, don't you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 06:30 PM

That's a safe bet, Doug, but so what? Dictators often hold bogus elections...some with the approval of the USA and some without. The fact that they are in any case dictators is not the part that truly concerns the American government, but rather how well and how willingly they cooperate with America's strategic and financial agendas.

It's exactly like the days of the big city gangster mobs out there. He who cooperates is a friend of the Boss, he who doesn't is a target. Don't forget that the Boss also does nice things now and then, like providing Christmas turkeys for poor widows or something like that, but if you ain't got the Boss on your side you can figure to be pushin' up daises or wearin' cement overshoes in pretty short order...

None of this brouhaha has anything whatsoever to do with "democracy" or freedom or the pretense of either one. It has to do with realpolitik...which is money, resources, voter support, maintaining a propaganda image, markets, and guns. The other stuff is window dressing for the poor saps who still believe there's a Santa Claus in Washington and a tooth fairy at the Pentagon...or the other poor saps who believe that blowing themselves up and becoming "martyrs" will secure them a place in heaven. Equally out of touch in either case, I'd say.

The people I feel much in common with are the ordinary folks on both sides who want nothing else but to live a quiet, peaceful, and productive life, and not hurt people who happen to be different in some way from themselves. I believe those people constitute the majority of humanity, but they have precious few representatives speaking out for them in the halls of power.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 07:03 PM

I've met the tooth fairy at the Pentagon, LH. He is very concerned to know how you found out, and wonders what it would take to keep his secret safe with you.,..


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 07:24 PM

"Secure them a place in heaven," AND 71 VIRGINS, L.H.! Don't forget the virgins! I kind of wonder what they promise the girls. Hmmm I guess there COULD be 71 male virgins too though. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 08:40 PM

I don't think male virgins are as motivating to girls as vice-versa, Doug. Well, maybe to Republican girls, I guess....:>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:32 PM

LOL! Nice humour there, guys...both of you. I don't think the Muslim faith has devoted a whole lot of time in promising afterlife benefits to females, Doug, but I may be wrong. Seems to me that if you look into the traditional teachings of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (three branches of the same sour lemon tree) that you will find not much said on behalf of women most of the time (although Jesus was an exception in that regard, and he drew some heavy criticism for it from various of his contemporaries).

Now who the hell would want 71 virgins anyway? I certainly wouldn't. Sounds more like purgatory than paradise to me... Only a society where men and women are separated from each other in a very unnatural fashion could dream up such a silly notion, as far as I'm concerned.

And I would do my best to avoid that particular tooth fairy, Amos...he's got very sharp teeth.

Y'know, with this new thread-dividing software the old "Killing the Thread" one would be quite manageable...remember it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:46 PM

I have no idea if this is true or not, but someone was telling me that the "seventy-one virgins" thing is actually a mistranslation from earlier text. The passage, my informant claims, deals with a long list of goodies offered in Paradise, and that specific section is really talking about an unlimited supply of sweet raisins!

"I killed a bunch of people and blew my own ass off for THESE!!????"

Life can be a bitch sometimes. I guess death ain't much better.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 11:06 PM

But Don! You are not aware that the English word for raisins in Arabic is virgins? Plump, juicy raisins, I think.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 04:36 AM

We now get the news that the vote for Hussein was 100%, not just close to but perfect with 100% (perfect) voting.

Issat Ibrahim, vice-chairman of the revolutionary command at a press conference: "This is an outstanding manifestation of democracy, superior to all other forms of democracy".

A big congratulation from

Wolfgang

for being able to keep a straight face while saying this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 06:18 AM

Bobert you are missing the point in my analogy - complete role reversal:

The magnificent seven = The loyal RG, SRG & FS troops you say will have the backing of the Iraq people in your urban warfare scenario. What I am saying is that they won't. It was fairly clearly demonstrated in Kabul how highly regarded the Taliban were - that was another prediction where the sceptics believed that troops would get bogged down in bitter urban fighting - it didn't happen there it won't happen in Baghdad. My analogy to a well known movie does mean that I would take anything produced by Hollywood to reflect what would happen in real life. I would rather draw on recent events and personal experience from my time in the forces.

Amos,

I think that all the American administration has done is to make clear that they have all options open. In the end it will come down to a compromise solution in the Security Council and your President has ensured that America goes into those discussions with some means by which that compromise can be reached.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 07:36 AM

Whether they like Saddam or loathe Saddam won't make too much difference when the bombs and the missiles are coming in, especially given the preference shown in recent wars for the bombers to stay at very high altitudes.

I take it your view, Teribus, is that there probably won't be a war, but if there is one, it won't be as hard for the USA (and anyone allies) to win as some people think.

My view is that it is still possible there may not be a war, but that if it comes it will involve a lot more dead on both sides than Afghanistan did, and that the outcome is likely to be a military victory in Iraq, but with consequences elsewhere (and very likely inside Iraq as well), which will be very helpful to "Al Qaida". (And I put "Al Qaida" in quotes because I doubt very much if there is what is really involved is a centralised organisation with a normal command structure.)

In Afghanistan things were made a lot easier by the existence of the Northern Alliance in the field already, who did pretty well all the actual ground fighting. One thing to keep in mind is that among the most enthusiastic opponents of Saddam will be those who want an "Islamic" republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 08:26 AM

Kevin,

I think that America will go the UNSC and a compromise solution on a new resolution will be negotiated. This will put the weapons inspection teams back into Iraq under terms that will allow them to do their job. In this case I do not believe there will be a war.

Should the work of the inspection teams suffer interference, any action taken will be taken under the auspices of the United Nations, not by America acting unilaterally. Practically all the states that America needs for supporting a "go it alone" approach have been quite clear that they would only assist if backing from the UN exists. I have always contended that without that support any military intervention in Iraq would be extremely difficult if not impossible.

What ever happens in Iraq, it will only affect Al-Qaeda to the extent that one potential place of refuge will be denied them. I also believe that as a direct result of the bombing in Bali that another area potentially viewed as a safe haven is being closed down. They may continue to operate but at a very reduced level. In the 1970's extreme left wing factions such as Bader-Meinhoff, the Red Army Faction and November 17th were successfully countered in Europe. They totally collapsed with the disintegration of the former USSR. Al-Qaeda will suffer the same fate.

Should military intervention be necessary a great deal of thought must be put into what happens in Iraq. One suggestion has been a UN mandated administration. A phrase used to describe assistance to Afghanistan post-Taliban, was "hearts and minds", if properly conducted this is very effective but it takes a lot of time, money and effort. Unfortunately the Americans have never been very good at it because they have never fully understood it. For a UN administered Iraq to work, the UN must draw on moderate muslim member states to front the effort. The western democracies would have to supply financial and technical aid to rebuild the country - the same is true for Afghanistan, its early days there yet, but, if reports are true, progress is being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 08:42 AM

Teribus:

I never said that Saddam is going to have universal support from the civilians but be there as supposrters or hostages, it doesn't change the fact that they will be used as shields and pawns. Do you really think they are armed. You must have them confused with my neighborhood where everyone has a gun. No, quite the opposite. The folks with the guns will be the RG amd SRG, not the mabn on the street that you think is going to rise up against Saddam like the Northern Alliance did in Afganistan. Like I say, you are discounting the real risks here and need to revisit your position...

If Saddam is pushed into a corner he wil do anything to survive and if it means hiding in tghe midddle of Bagdad, than so be it and if his men think that either the Americans are going to kill them or after the war, the Kurds, then yopu don't think they'll fight? You had better pray that Bush's huffin and puffin works because your take on Bagdad being a piece of cake is, in my opinion, ill thought out.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 09:01 AM

It's all speculation. "Maybe there won't be a war", or "probably there won't be a war" - whatever happens, there is no way of deciding between those two views. And if there is a war it is likely that it will be claimed on the one hand that this is done on behalf of the UN, and on the other hand that it is done without the backing of the UN.

I doubt if safe havens are particularly important for an "organisation" made up of disparate cells. The analogy has been made with restaurant chains based on franchises. You get the Al Qaida franchise by carrying out a successful bombing or assassination. No need for a central command at all. What matters is having people who are ready to form those cells; and the important thing for ending terrorism is for that supply to dry up.

Anything which tends to increase the number of recruits to terror cells makes future terrorism more likely, regardless of what happens to governments like Saddam's.

I think the political changes in Eastern Europe had very little to do with the end of Baader-Meinhof and so forth. Cultural changes in the West took away whatever base they had in the West, and that was what mattered.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 09:17 AM

Bobert,

I am not, nor have I ever said that it would be a piece of cake. If as you say the RG, SRG and FS hole up in downtown Baghdad and try to lure US forces into an urban scrap, lets just consider what is involved. By the way I have never assumed that the general population are armed - Iraq's views on gun control are a damn sight more responsible than those that exist in America today. But that apart:

1. The elements that can be assumed to be loyal to Saddam Hussein have to be fed and resupplied - By whom?

2. To be effective they have to be able to move about, they can't just sit there.

3. While the general population are not armed, there will be other forces in the city who are armed, e.g. regular army, police.

4. It's not only Saddam who will want to survive, the Ba'ath Party will want to survive and if that means ditching SH they will do so without hesitation.

5. Where is SH going to hide? Where is he going to feel safe among his own population. Remember this is guy who has created his own two layered personal guard just to protect himself from his own people.

Yes there will be casualties but not as many as you seem to imagine. This will be no Stalingrad, because the battle doesn't actually have to be fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 09:54 AM

Kevin, you say that, "I doubt if safe havens are particularly important for an "organisation" made up of disparate cells." and that Al-Qaeda has, "No need for a central command at all."

What about:

1. Training?

2. Finance?

3. Procurement?

4. Planning?

Doesn't work if everybody just bimbles about doing their own thing, particularly if the world and its dog is aware of the potential threat and is watching for it. For it to be effective it has to be organised.

Out of interest - What were the cultural changes in the west that caused the demise of the groups mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 10:33 AM

Like I have said in earlier posts, Teribus, there is always the option of starving out Saddam and his folks. Only problem with that is you can bet that the first to starve will be the civilians. Starving a million folks to get to 100,000 is gonna create one heck of a PR headache.

And where is SH gonna hide. Well, he'll be like Waldo in Bagdad. You can bet on that. You seem to loose sight of the fact that he has the guns and with them the power over the folks in Bagdad. Couple that with an American invasion, I think you're gonna find a whole lot more Iraqis that are not going to volunteer to be the mythical poster boy of folks taking to the streets with American flags telling Bush just how happy they are to be attacked.

You brush this a more grave scenerio aside, Teribus, like it can't happen. Well, I'll guarentee you that such a scenerio is the Pentagon's worst fear. Why do you think there has been so much bickering in military over the last month? Why is it that Bush and Rumsfield are distancing themselves from lots of folks in the Defense Department. Why is it that Bush has even talked with Newt Gingrich about stratregies. This ain't Desert Storm. This is more like Viet Nam.

You can ignore these realities as long as you like but, should the huffing and puffing fail to blow SH's house down, remember what I have warned of.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:58 AM

Teribus: I think you are right on.

Bobert, if the population, and particularly the military becomes hungry enough, we won't need to worry too much about Saddam. He will be taken care of.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 12:27 PM

A starving populace makes damn poor resistance fighters. A fact that the administration (and the previous well) know quite well, or we wouldn't be spending millions every year to clothe and feed the Iraqi resistance already. I see that you think it reasonable to let the civilian populace die of starvation, Doug. So much for the Geneva Convention.

The resistance groups that exist in Iraq really aren't strong enough to be our ground cannon-fodder like the Northern Alliance was in Afghanistan. We'll use them, but they won't be significant enough to take the brunt of the casualties, and we'll still need ground troops.

Ever military man I have ever spoken to views urban warfare as a nightmare scenario. Dangerous, deadly, and extremely stressful. Some folks seem to view it as a video game where the almighty American soldier can take out a few hundred bad guys befor having to reload. American soldiers will come home in body bags, and lots of them.

Although the Iraq election was a joke, they still had an incredibly envious voter turnout, especially considering their votes had no weight other than a symbolic one. The percentage means nothing -- the fact that they showed up does. What does that tell you about Saddam's support inside Iraq when it comes to facing America?

Wonder what the voter turnout will be like in America this November?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:08 PM

I offer no opinion on this; it's just a question to speculate about:
Who does the average Iraqi citizen regard as the biggest threat to his or her well-being, Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:12 PM

I am sure they prefer the devil they know to the Great Satan they don't, Don.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:18 PM

Nicole, the voter turn-out was given with exactly 100% as well today. Still impressed?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:25 PM

Seriously I doubt if any of those things you mention, Teribus, are serious bottlenecks. If you're running a regular army with state-of-the art equipment you need all that stuff. September 11 just needed a few airline tickets, and some boxcutters, and in this instance a few people with a minimal amount of flight training, which had been supplied by commercial organisations.

Finance? Traditionally that's been largely stuff like bank robberies and protection money. The analogy is more with the Mafia than with a regular army. Self financing.
Training is done as and when it is needed, and can effectively be invisible when you are dealing with maybe half a dozen people at a time. "Safe Havens" might be helpful, but they aren't really needed.

The essential thing is a reservoir of sympathisers in the wider community.

As for Baader-Meinhof and so forth, they weren't organised and sent out by the Russians or whatever, they grew out of a particular post-hippy culture / new left culture in West Europe. Why that culture changed and stopped producing people like the very small number of people who were involved is an interesting question, but not one I'm going to try to give answers to. I don't think it had too much to do with what was happening in Eastern Europe either way. However it seems to me that they never really had a big enough reservoir of sympathisers, largely because their methods alienated the people who might have provided that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: ballpienhammer
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:34 PM

Bush just signed the bill which gives him the authority, to use force,
if he wants to. Perhaps just some more sabre-rattling? Do martyrs have a sense of fear?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:41 PM

Naw, 100% doesn't impress me. Now 110%...that would impress me. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:51 PM

HE woulda got 110% but he needed the money for uranium....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:01 PM

It is interesting for me to read about Baader-Meinhof here. I think McGrath is completely right with the analysis of the deeper reasons for the end of that group ('gang' was the official German PC term).

On the surface, however, like the timing of the end (why now and not two years later) the end of the GDR had a minor influence.

1990: the end of the GDR
1992: the Kinkel initiative in which Kinkel offered freedom for some of them for the end of violence (I guess the end of the GDR gave the West-German government the inner strength to make that offer at that particular time)
1992: renouncing violence by the RAF in response to Kinkel
March 1998: official end of the RAF 'today we end this project...the result (of our fight) is our harshest critic...the unification of the Bundesrepublik and the GDR required a new and international liberation project...(To try do do so in the 90s) turned out to be unrealistic'

But despite their rhetoric mentioning the GDR, the deep reason for their demise has been hit by McGrath. Teribus might have a minor point re the actual timing of what was unavoidable anyway.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:17 PM

Well - speaking as one who has done his bit in Democratic Elections I know how hard it can be to get voters to attend a Polling station. Now I can only think that SH is so loved that each and every one of the Iraqui electorate was so impressed they all spontaneously went and voted. Or was the certainty of retribution for not voting a more motivating factor ? In which case I have my doubts about any amature reading of public oppinion in Iraq.

Remember, as we have seen in Florida, its not the votes that count - but who counts the votes.

And In case you'all have forgotten, or mislaid the file - here is a blicky to HM Governments "Iraq dossier" *Pdf download hit the bottom middle link on the index page.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:26 PM

Not to change the subject too much, but in today's Washington Post there ia a long article about the mistrust between Rumsfield and lots of folks accross the Potomac in the Pentegon. According to the article Rumsfield has found a few *yes men* and doesn't want to hear the concernes of folks that don't agree with him... Hmmmmmmmm?

"Things are more fouled up [at the Pentagon] than I've ever seen them" said one former defense official sympathetic with Rumsfield... Washington Post, 10/16... Hmmmmmmm? Wonder how those who are not sympathetic with Rumsfield think?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:49 PM

Disgruntled employees. Big deal. Ever know a leader who made decisions EVERYBODY agreed with Bobert? Hmmmmmm? Other than Saddam of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:56 PM

But when the disgruntled employees are the people who know more about it than The Leader... Well, of course, that often does happen. And firms go bust.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 05:05 PM

Oh, and Rick, on Bush's rhetoric. That type of approach does not appeal to me either. I don't think Bush is a good communicator, though I do believe he is getting much better at reading his speeches. He must be doing something or saying something, though, that appeals to many people as his poll figures remain at an all time high. Not on the Mudcat, of course. We may forget, sometimes, that the Mudcat community is only a small part of the Universe (as important as it might be).

DougR (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 05:09 PM

True enough. So is the USA of course, though it's a little bit bigger.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:23 AM

And quite a bit stronger. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 06:00 AM

Things are really getting serious now....

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021017/4/dbz5c.html

Prince Andrew jostled by Iraqis
Prince Andrew has been jostled by an Iraqi delegation which was buying arms at a trade fair in Jordan.

The Prince was at the Sofex exhibition in Amman this week to support British companies.

But the royal visitor was forced to look in the opposite direction when 10 Iraqi representatives carried out a "strategic jostle" into the Prince's party.

The BBC said an aide of Prince Andrew told him: "It's the Iraqis, Sir."

The Prince replied: "God, the Iraqis" - and looked quickly in the opposite direction.

Prince Andrew's equerry Major Rob Olney told Today that the Prince was not at the fair to meet the Iraqi delegation, adding: "He's here to promote British investment and trade here in the Middle East."

Defence Minister Lord Bach, who was also there, said British sellers at the fair were not targeting Iraqi delegates.

He added: "Anyone can come and look, but I think looking won't help them very much. There is a United Nations resolution that embargoes defence exports to Iraq.

"We have close relations with many of the Arab states and I am delighted that we do.

"They are a force for stability in this troubled region. Many of them are moving towards democracy in their own way, in their own time."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:31 PM

That's it!! Now they've gone too far!! DOesn't this qualify? Can I nuke 'em under the NATO charter?? Pleeeze?

Georgie Pie

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:48 PM

Heard on the news this morning that North Korea has just admitted that they have a nuclear program, have had for some years, and don't give a particular hoot who knows it or who does or doesn't like it. They also have a missile program: at least intermediate range ballistic missiles, and perhaps longer range. Everybody's fully aware that they've been testing them (firing them out over the Pacific). This particularly bugged the Japanese.

It seems to me that North Korea might just constitute a bigger threat than Iraq. What now, George?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:18 PM

I checked a bit further on this. I'm posting a rather lengthy article rather that just a link, because the nature of the Seattle Times web site is such that the article will disappear tomorrow. So here's the whole thing.

This really puts the cat among the pigeons. . . .

Don Firth

WASHINGTON — The North Korean government has acknowledged for the first time that it has been secretly developing nuclear weapons for years in violation of international agreements, Bush administration officials said last night.

A North Korean diplomat also made a vague reference to having "more powerful" weapons as well, U.S. officials said. Some analysts took that to mean biological or chemical weapons.

The Bush administration was stunned by the admission during U.S. talks this month in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital. Yesterday the administration dispatched envoys to the region to talk with U.S. allies.

North Korea also told the U.S. it was terminating an agreement under which it had agreed to freeze its plutonium weapons program in exchange for the construction of civilian nuclear power reactors by the international community and a 20-year supply of heating oil while construction was under way.

The agreement, negotiated under President Clinton, averted what might have been an armed conflict with the United States over North Korea's moves toward reprocessing plutonium into nuclear weapons fuel.

The surprise disclosure poses another serious challenge to President Bush's foreign-policy team, which is grappling with an unstable Afghanistan, the resurgence of suspected al-Qaida terrorist attacks from Kuwait to Yemen and Indonesia, and the prospect of war with Iraq, which it also suspects of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The administration yesterday called on North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to halt the weapons project and began consultations with Congress about what to do next, officials said.

Some Bush aides, particularly at the Pentagon, and some Republicans in Congress had viewed the 1994 agreement with suspicion and charged North Korea with violating it by refusing to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Shortly after Bush took office, he repudiated efforts by Clinton in the waning days of his term to strike a deal with North Korea on its export of ballistic missiles and other issues. The U.S. stance deeply embarrassed South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung, who has pursued a "sunshine policy" of diplomacy with the North.

In 1994, intelligence estimates said that North Korea had produced enough plutonium to make one or two bombs. That assessment still stands, according to administration officials.

In 1998, in response to intelligence reports that North Korea had been digging a massive underground facility in Kumchang-ri believed to contain a nuclear weapons development site, the United States sent a team of inspectors to see if it was cheating on the agreement to abandon a nuclear-weapons program. The team found nothing but an empty cave.

Administration officials last night offered mixed assessments of the implications of North Korea's announcement, with some predicting it could lead to a military confrontation on the Korean peninsula and others saying it could signal a bid by North Korea to create an opening to the United States.

One high-ranking official reported that some administration leaders believe "we should go to war tomorrow." He added, however, that President Bush has been "very calm, cool and collected. He doesn't need another crisis." [Emphasis mine—DF]

Bush in January called North Korea a member of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and Iran.

Yet the announcement by the North Korean government came amid a string of surprising moves by Kim, long criticized for peddling dangerous weapons and oppressing an impoverished population. In recent weeks, the Pyongyang government has apologized for a naval battle with South Korea on June 29 and for the abduction of Japanese citizens in the 1970s.

After the overtures to South Korea and Japan, the U.S. sent Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly to Pyongyang on Oct. 3 to revive contacts.

Here's what happened, according to U.S. officials:

Kelly's delegation met with North Korean officials on a wide range of issues, including demands that North Korea cease development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles and other threatening behavior.

When the U.S. team confronted the North Koreans with undisclosed evidence of a nuclear program, this one based on enriched uranium, the North Koreans initially denied the accusation, calling it a "fabrication" designed to pressure leader Kim Jong Il's regime.

But the following day, a more senior official, First Foreign Minister Kang Sok Joo, met with the U.S. delegation. U.S. officials said Kang told them: "We have a nuclear weapons program and more."

The Americans said they did not know why the North Koreans, considered masters of stonewalling, had decided to confess.

"The last meeting we had was with Kang Sok Joo, and Secretary Kelly told him in the sternest terms that this was most unwelcome," an official said. As to the North Korean reaction, "I would not describe it as apologetic," the official said. "Kang Sok Joo was assertive, aggressive about it."

Kelly and his delegation departed Pyongyang as soon as they could and flew to Seoul, where they informed South Korea's President Kim, who has vigorously sought to develop ties with North Korea.

They then flew on to Tokyo, where they informed Japanese authorities. There was no reaction from Tokyo, but South Korean officials called on the North to abide by their commitments to freeze their nuclear programs.

The South Korean government was planning an emergency Cabinet meeting today.

It was unclear why the North Koreans had embarked on a uranium-based weapons program, rather than using the plutonium stockpiles they are believed to have. Uranium-based weapons are easier to produce and require a less sophisticated design. Because the first U.S. uranium-based nuclear bombs were dropped in 1945, there is a wealth of publicly available material about how to make them, weapons experts said.

However, crude uranium bombs are big and heavy, so it was unclear whether the North Koreans would have the technical capability to mount them onto their Roh Dong ballistic missiles, which are believed to have a range long enough to hit Alaska.

Despite the North Korean announcement, the administration says it does not know the full extent of North Korea's nuclear capabilities, nor do experts know what Kang meant when he referred to more powerful weapons. Last night, they said they assume he meant weapons of mass destruction, which typically include biological and chemical weapons.

Administration officials say they hope for a peaceful resolution. But the situation confronts the administration with a significant problem as it contemplates going to war with Iraq. The suspicion that Iraq continues to hoard chemical and biological weapons is cited by the Bush administration as grounds to threaten that nation with an invasion. By that logic, North Korea — which the CIA says has one or two nuclear bombs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles — might be a more apt target than Iraq.

But any U.S. military action could provoke the North Koreans to attack South Korea, where 37,000 U.S. troops are based.

For now, the Bush administration is suspending its offer to engage North Korea — a pledge of an economic and political opening in return for reductions in North Korea's military posture and policies of weapons proliferation, along with an improvement in humanitarian conditions at home.

The North Korean admission comes at an awkward time for both South Korea and Japan, which despite the reservations of the Bush administration have tried to accelerate their plans to improve ties with the isolated North.

On Tuesday, five Japanese citizens abducted by North Korean agents nearly a quarter-century ago returned to Tokyo for an emotional homecoming "reunion" with their families. The visit was one tangible result of an unprecedented summit held last month between Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and North Korean leader Kim Jong.

Japan — the only nation ever attacked with nuclear bombs — is scheduled to host talks this month with North Korean officials in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on further steps toward normalizing relations. Today it said those talks are still on.

Since a historic meeting between the North's Kim Jong Il and the South's Kim Dae Jung in June 2000, North Korea has received large amounts of international aid, signed a deal with the South to reopen a railroad and announced tentative free-market reforms, all of which could be jeopardized by failure to live up to its agreements.

Compiled from The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Knight Ridder Newspapers and The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:24 PM

Sweet muthah. So what now, Georgie -- ya gonna invade N. Korea AND Baghdad AND .... ?

Tough spot you walked your way into. Maybe you could invite Saddam in on your side against the N. Koreans, kinda like Russia fighting the Germans, huh?


What the hey -- war's a game everyone can play!!

Sheeesh!!

Thanks for the bad news, Don -- better to have it on the table, I reckon. ANyone remember how to build a bomb shelter???


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:28 PM

DougR A friendly word of advice. Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 04:23 PM

Well, danged! I gotta break rank here fir just a minute and say how glad I am that Junior hasn't cranked up his huffin'-n-puffin' routine in regards to North Korea. And I would hope he's learned by having his own cowboy butt painted into a corner on Iraq that if you're gonna call someone out, be careful, because they might just take you up on it.

Yeah, I'm not ready to promote Junior to *educatable*, but I believe the boy is at least *trainable*. Now if he can just keep the other two Stooges queit here, there is a chance for some quiet diplomacy and progress.

Oh, BTW, I think this may prove that Junior knows Saddam doesn't have a nuclear weapon. I mean, N. Korea comes out and say it has one and Junior's being quiet. Real easy to bark at someone when you know what the have or don't have,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 06:31 PM

You know, GUEST, I rarely pay much attention to what GUESTS post, even more rarely reply to them, but in this instance I think you may be right.

That's -30-

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 07:21 PM

North Korea with nukes ?

Come back MacArthur, all is forgiven.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 07:35 PM

I just wish I could watch all this from a distance. Say, Arcturus Four.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 08:31 PM

Lemme know if it happens, Don.

DougR, you may not like arguing with people who are idiots -- but at least we here who speak under our own names give you a reliable sense of continuity. I think there is nothing so "idiotic" as making vilifications from an anonymous handle.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 10:25 PM

Amos: My apologies to one and all who believe, when guest referred to idiots he/she was referring to him/her, because I do not think those who do not believe the way I do here on the Mudcat are idiots. I just believe there is little more to be said from my POV. It's all been said.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 03:41 AM

Kevin,

"September 11 just needed a few airline tickets, and some boxcutters, and in this instance a few people with a minimal amount of flight training, which had been supplied by commercial organisations."

It was 18 months to two years in the planning Kevin.

"Finance? Traditionally that's been largely stuff like bank robberies and protection money. The analogy is more with the Mafia than with a regular army. Self financing."

Go this route Kevin and you will set off at least four trip-wires that I can think of, think of the interfaces required to make this work and keep it secret. One of the reasons those involved with September 11th pulled it off was because the finance they were using was "clean". Back tracks subsequent to 11th September have made this even more difficult to achieve.

"Training is done as and when it is needed, and can effectively be invisible when you are dealing with maybe half a dozen people at a time. "Safe Havens" might be helpful, but they aren't really needed."

Really Kevin! Amazing! love to know how someone can be effectively invisible while learning the bomb makers trade. Guess people never needed those training camps in Libya, Lebanon and Afghanistan - perhaps they were more social clubs than anything else.

"The essential thing is a reservoir of sympathisers in the wider community."

Oddly enough Kevin for the operations you predict that Al-Qaeda will embark upon, using your "invisible seperate cell" philosophy, the reservoir of sympathisers in the wider community hinder rather than help as they constitute the most serious security risk (Best example of this that I know of was Northern Ireland - I am not talking about informers, purely observation and inadvertant slips by the reservoir of sympathisers in the wider community).

From what you say above you seriously under-rate the work done by various counter-terrorist organisations - You shouldn't, certainly the potential terrorists don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:19 PM

There is always a basic mindset and agenda underlying what any given person says in an argument, and it's usually fairly clear to those who strongly agree or disagree with him. What is most enlightening is uncovering one's own basic agenda, re-examining it in the light of experience...and seeing if it is (1) positive and (2) useful. If not, time to change the agenda.

This is much more challenging than hurling abuse and derision at the differing agendas of others or calling them "idiots".

But it's not nearly so gratifying to the ego, is it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:49 PM

I'm sure there are difficulties and complications which make the life of a terrorist far from simple, fortunately. But there's nothing insuperable in that checklist Teribus came up with. The basic technology and skills involved in that kind of thing are in truth pretty basic, and level of resources needed are very low compared to what is needed to keep a conventional armed force operational.

The most important element in any terrorist campaign is personnel. The most important element in any counter-terrorist campaign is finding ways of cutting off the supply of volunteers. The most disastrous thing which a counter-terrorist campaign can do is to behave in a way that increases the supply and motivation of volunteers.

The bottom line is, anyone who thinks that, by depriving terrorists of the backing of some friendly government, you can guarantee to shut them down, is being extremely optimistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 06:24 PM

Apparently Bush has agreed to language in the resolution now up for UN approval that would be more acceptable to Russia and France. This means that he's giving a little to made the deal work.
I believe that's called smart, diplomatic bargaining.
Amazing.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 06:46 PM

Like I said, the boy is "trainable". But the good money is still the reality that Bush wants *his war* so bad he's gonna getr it. Yeah, millions of US voters have taken the time and courage to tell Bush "No", so he's just had to accept a longer *check list*.

The conditions that he wants Iraq to meet related to inspections are very unreasonable, that actually may require Iraq to accept US troops on their soil. Well, Saddam may not be the brightest bulb either but he knows of the Trojan Horse.

But it's nice that Bush has had to reload, so to speak. It gives the anit-war folks more time to mobilize and who knows, by the time Bush has a check mark next to everythin on the list, the anit-war movement may grow to 1972 levels and that would make it real hard for Junior to get his war...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 07:07 PM

Bobert, all he has to do is wait till more of you ordinary people get killed en mass and then you can vote him out for his negligence eh?
Cant win can he?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 07:16 PM

Yeah, GUEST, like I'm real worried that Saddam is gonna kill me. See, that's the kind of argument that just isn't getting too many folks attention anymore. It's become old and tired. Milliona and millions of folks see thru it. It's like a bad song that gets too much air play.

See, GUEST, I'm not saying "do nothing" but I am saying do something that is bold, out of the box, is inclusive and carries mankind a little further down the road. And war ain't it. And millions have figured it out all ready and we're just waiting for the pack of the pack to catch up....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 02:18 PM

So, Bobert? You would invite Saddam to the White House for tea and cookies? Perhaps ask him what it would take for the U. S. to make him happy? Tell him to go ahead and make his nukes if that's what he wants because you are confident he will never use them? Hmmmm. Follow Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton's pattern for creating the situation we have in NK?

And you are glad for the wait, huh? I'm sure Saddam is too! It gives him more time to produce more WMD, maybe even THE bomb!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 02:25 PM

Well, Doug, you seem pretty sure that nukes are on his agenda.

Is this a characterization of his plan that you inherited whole-cloth from our oratorical Leader, or from hard facts somewhere?

If the latter, please share. Have I missed sompn?

If the former, you're suggesting we launch massive man-killing machinery based on the oratory of someone you wouldn't really want to buy a used car from? Or a used judiciary?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 03:36 PM

Nope, Amos, I have not proof Bush is right. You got proof he's wrong? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 05:18 PM

Well, Doug, yeah to the 'tea and cookies". They're less dangerous and far less expensive. But not in the White House but at a neutral site with some other major players there too so that some other issues could be discussed. That would seem like a *reasonable* and *prohuman* first step. And ya' know what, Bush would instantly go from the guy the worlds hates to the guy much admired by the world.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 06:21 PM

Naw, Bobert. I seriously doubt it. You folks would probably bitch about the brand of tea he brewed or something.

Whatever happend to you taking over the office Bobert? You had a Cabinet forming and all that stuff but I haven't read anything about it in the newspaper! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 06:30 PM

Well, Junior doesn't like sharing. I tried to get in the White House to begin working on some of these problems that he's been sweeping under tha carpet, and he had a couple of real tough looking cops keep me out. Can you believe that, Dougie? Well, Hard to be President when the other side doesn't play nice. Hey, don't believe me, just ask Al Gore. He'll etll ya...

I'm beginning to think that Junior plans on keeping the White House for himself until he's old and gray.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 02:57 AM

Well, I don't know about that, Bobert, but I hope he's there for awhile. Say eight years. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 10:09 AM

God save us one and all.

I'll tell you this much -- if Mister Bill and his Wild Tool were swept back into ofice tomorrrow the maerket would be turning around and heading for 9000 again within 72 hours, IMHO.

All this gunslinging is good for gunslingers and their suppliers, but I do not think it is good for other parts of business.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 10:18 AM

D'ja see that Saddam has now emptied all his prisons? General amnesty for all prisoners; murderers only on condition of agreement by victim's families, and theives have to work out a pay-back plan. Everyone getting out of jail free.

This man has a bizarre sense of public relations, I must say. Dramatic, but in the sort of 2-dimensional way of a Babar storybook.

He may be stocking up on cannon fodder. Or maybe he wants the real estate? Or is he trying to show how big-hearted he is? Win sympathy? Thumb his nose at Bushie? Maybe Bushie could do something similar here to celebrate staying in the White House thanks to the unanimous surge of amazing apathy on the part of the American people...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 12:11 PM

Nice of you to include the IMOH Amos.
:>)
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 01:33 PM

He let the prisoners out? Interesting. Saddam is a most unusual fellow, and that's for sure.

By the way, I read in an article a few days ago about a recent celebration in Baghdad which resulted in the deaths of 17 people (and injuries to many more) by stray bullets fired into the air which came down here and there in the city and hit people. This was a whole lot of bullets. It turns out, according to this article, that there are an enormous number of Iraquis, many civilians included, who have kalashnikovs and other automatic weapons in their possession. When they are in a celebratory mood they fire them into the air, which is a tradition going way back with Arabic peoples, by the way.

So...the thing that struck me was this. With all those ordinary Iraquis packing modern firepower...and with Bush being so hopeful that some ordinary Iraqui will shoot Saddam for him...ummm...

Well, something's a little odd about it, that's what I think. I wonder what the real mood of the people is over there? I suspect one would have to live there a while to find out, and I am not willing to volunteer to do so. I know one thing...when a country is under attack or threat of attack by foreign forces, people tend to "rally round the flag".

Bush's hopes for the "one bullet" solution may be a bit unrealistic. Then, of course, there are all those Saddam-lookalikes to stand in for him and take the shot.

Now...how would it be seen if people in some other country started making official announcements in their media openly encouraging American citizens to shoot President Bush? Think about it. Banditry is banditry...doesn't matter from where it emanates.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 02:44 PM

Bobert, Terrorists do not completely rely on state support to conduct their operations, but they do need some states to provide safe havens, and money laundering services. Saddam is one of the few states who supports Bin Laden with impunity; and is most probably the only place he would be safe to arrange his campaign in.

Work the rest out for yourself. If Bush doesn't destroy the infrastructure of support, then Saddam can supply biological, nuclear, chemical warfare supplies to the kind of terrorists who would "deliver" them in person. The people of Iraq are desperately in need of liberation from this dictator. The war is not aimed at them directly, but they stand to lose the most in any military action. The United Nations are proven impotent and unwilling to take action, they will not enforce anything, any action taken will be up to the USA in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 03:37 PM

Yeah, GUEST, you're right. Just go on over there, kill about 50,000 Iraqis and that certainly should teach those Saudi terrorists a lesson. Darned good thinking!

And just in case some of them Iraqis were thinkin' of gettin' into the terrorism game this'll teach em' fir sure.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 05:21 PM

Yes, Amos, Saddam is a real humanitarian. Just imagine, if a vote was taken, he probably would be the most popular person in Iraq even without holding guns to the heads of the voters. Provided the voters were former prisoners of course.

Guest: you are right, of course, but your message would be so much more credible were you to attach a name to "Guest."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 07:42 PM

I used to be a "name" I just got tired of the bullshit from this forum. I prefer to be a reviled Guest, than a reviled member Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 08:11 PM

Well, Guest, then that would only leave hotspots of terrorist activity like Florida to provide those "havens." The problem with rhetoric like claiming state support of terrorism based on the presence of terrorists neglects the fact that countries like the US and Germany are also "havens."

And the #1 arms dealer in the world is the good old US of A.

Let's go bomb the hell out of Florida! We won't mean to kill the citizens of Florida, of course, but they'll be "liberated" in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 08:18 PM

Hey, GUEST, Doug is not reviled and I can't think of too many folks, if any, in the rival camp that don't respect him.

Now GUEST's on the other hand? Well they are a different story. They lurk in the shadows and fire away much like the "sniper" in the D.C. area.

And lastly, GUEST, in the big scheme of things your side is winning big. You got your guy in the White House. You got your tax breaks. You're gonna get your war. You got your John Ashcrofts, your Dick Cheneys, your Condi Rices. You're probably gonna get your Senate in a couple of weeks because your Commander in Thief is playing Iraq and terrorism like a fine tuned violin and your voters are so preoccupied trying to make a living that they don't have time to realize that your guys are screwing them. Yeah, you got it all.

Yeah, at least Doug hangs in there and ya' don't hear him crying do you? And you won't!

Get over it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 08:37 PM

Bobert, Bush is not my guy, neither was Bush senior, Clinton was a joke, and please dont say MY side is winning. I dont want war anymore than you or anyone else does. But in the case of Iraq the first thing I said when Bush snr said enough, was "in ten fucking years we will have to go in and finish this". I also said that "it will seem like a victory in the eyes of other Arabs", that after facing off with 20+ nations he still commands a military force and his borders and government are intact. Unfortunately, I am in the line of fire during this mess. Enough said on my part, please carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 10:07 PM

Well, GUEST, you just go on over and get this thing finished off but ya' can leave my boney Wes Ginny butt behind, thank you. Saddam got set up the last time by the US's mixed messages to him and now the Iragis and a lot of Amercian kids are being set up.

Like you really believe that Saddam is a threat? Really? Like, for real?

No wonder you gotta wear that bag over your head. I would too if I believed a desperate politican who is more concerned about getting some more of his fraternity elected than tha lives of a lot of innocent people.

That blood will not be on my hands, GUEST, but I'm not too sure about yours...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 02:56 AM

Hi Bobert,

From one of your psots above you attribute the moderation in the language used in the draft resolution down entirely to the efforts of the anti-war movement?

Look back through some of mine Bobert - If there was one thing I have never doubted about this situation, it's been that all the TALK to date has been to ensure that the US Government can go into any discussions in a position to negotiate to get what it sees as being a workable solution. Weapons inspectors in, working to a new resolution that will deter any attempt at interference by the Iraqi authorities. So far your man has done a good job of getting a long way towards that goal. Following your advice and preferred course of action, Bobert, the Iraqi invitation to allow the return of the weapons inspectors would still be outstanding and the UN would still be sitting, "Thumbs in bums and minds in neutral".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 02:57 AM

Now Bobert, watch your blood pressure. You really think we are going to take the Senate back? Goody! However, Tom Daschle on the Fox Sunday News today hinted that the Republican Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chaffee, might become a turncoat and become a Democrat. He didn't say he would, but hinted that he might. So all may not be lost, my friend.

I just don't want you to max out. Keep in mind, as sincere as you are ...and I know you are, that a hundred years from now it won't matter much to us.

*BG*

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 10:40 AM

Beg to differ, there, Doug buddy. The world is in custody of those running it today and gets turned over at the changing of the watch; but 100 years from now, you are just as likely to be one of the recipients. You don't get to just jump off the old Wheel just 'cuz you're a little fed up.

Wish it were different, but I am pretty confident it ain't. I. M. H. O.! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 01:01 PM

The question still remains, what gives us the right, musch less the duty, to interfere with Iraq? Yes, we believe that they may be developing nuclear weapons. The United States is in possession of one of the world's largest nuclear arsenals, and has the capacity to deliver them to anywhere in the world. Does that mean that the rest of the world should pursue a policy of regime change for us? The United states has a longer history of offensive action than Iraq. We have, in the past year, deposed the government of a sovereign nation. Does this make us a threat to world security? Iraq has not made any direct threats to us, while the American government has already passed a resolution to allow us to engage our military forces into Iraq, without provocation. How can we justify our aggressive stance?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 03:39 PM

The fact, GUEST,Forum Lurker, is that we can't.

More and more I am convinced that the whole thing is for the purpose of buttressing up a shaky administration. It's also for the purpose of diverting everybody's attention to our "external enemy(s)" so the Bush administration can slip a lot of unpopular programs in under the radar while nobody's looking. Privatization of Social Security (turn it over to the mercies of Wall Street), attacks on Roe v. Wade (a woman's right to chose), reducing the powers of the SEC (in the aftermath of the Enron, etc. scandals!!), undercutting environmental laws (opening everything to for the exploitation of private corporations), and enough other stuff to just about turn your stomach!

Not to mention attempts to expand the power of the Executive Branch beyond what the Constitution permits, and the all-out assault on the Bill of Rights.

The biggest enemy is right here at home!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 04:32 PM

Don, my friend, where on earth do you come up with these wild ideas?

:>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 05:52 PM

Doug, I don't just read the headlines, I keep up on all the news.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 09:46 PM

Your right, Don, we got a lot of smoke and mirrors stuff going on right now while Junior tries to pay off those folks who bought his selection.

Ya' ever wonder why just about everything that he's trying to do favors those with the money? Sure, today just two weeks before the election, he gets up and says that drug companies shouldn't be allowed to use their smoke and mirrors to screw the working class but when you strip off the glitter from what he proposes, you have business as usual: 30 month patent protection for the wealthy phamacutical companies.

Then you look at privitization of Social Security? Hmmmmmm? "We're gonna fix this problem by putting a few leeches on it and allow them to such the blood. That ought to make it better..." Hmmmmmmmm?

Yeah, Don , you're right. This is a smoke screen to keep tghe real issues from surfacing. And it probably will work for the the 2002 election. And I *hope* it does. There are no gains without pains and it's time to bring on the pain. The repubs *unchecked* will destroy themselves in greed. There will come a time when the working class see them for what they are. Greedy! Not that the Dems are too much better mind you but at least they make the effort to make you think that you arn't gonna get another screwing from the ruling class...

So, as far as I'm concerned, vote Repub. The sooner that they can have their greedy way and not have Clinton to blame for their screw ups, the sooner that they will go by the wayside as a party that used to be part of a "two party system". Ha!

Now, what do ya' think of them apples, Dougie?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Tiger
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 10:25 PM

I sure am glad I haven't contributed to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 11:23 PM

Of interest, a lone voice standing out in a liberal English paper last month, now being circulated by email:

Just a word of background, for those of you who aren't familiar with
the UK's Daily Mirror. This is a notoriously left-wing daily that is
normally not supportive of the Colonials across the Atlantic.

SHAME ON YOU AMERICAN HATING LIBERALS
Tony Parsons
Daily Mirror September 11, 2002

ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting -- the
mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the
pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's
mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like
garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel, so
calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one
thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: the victims were
truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.

But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as
America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last
year. There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this
country - too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much
happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to
me. More than that, it turns my stomach.

America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We
are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a
century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as
their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly a year ago, thousands of
ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens
of countries - were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics.
Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on
the planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers,
somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives, and children, some
unborn.

And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to
blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul
or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti-
American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the
Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives
suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.

Remember, remember.

Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.

Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers.

Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive. Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember - and realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex...

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot.

That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already
being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of
9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A real war.

The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell," if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.

The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the
face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.

But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these
wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or
some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.

Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the
loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire
Department.

To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the orange center, oh mighty one!

Remember, remember, September 11.

One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.

No, do more than remember. Never forget.


This does not reflect my own views, in many places. But I think it is a voice woirth hearing.

Best regards,

Amos

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 12:31 AM

Just about says it all Amos. Nice piece of journalism, maybe there is hope yet...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Venthony
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 03:42 AM

Dear folks,

Sorry. I've been away and busy, and, Bob, I apologize for not sending you your book yet. Soon, I promise.

As for the proposed war, even as a good Republican, I can't work up much enthusiasm for it. I admit that the President is a little too out in front. If you're a leader, once in a while you have to look back and make sure somebody is following.

Even if Saddam nukes us (the U.S., that is), I think we should just make like John Wayne and take the first punch (horrible as it may be) then rally whatever is left -- which will be a lot -- and kick some serious Iraqi butt.

And after -- after all that needless destruction and loss of life, and turning of Iraq into a whole in the sand -- we should go on record, once and for all, and declare the U.N. an empty, hollow and utterly corrupt shell of hypocrites, vipers and whited tombs. The WE should nuke IT.

Best wishes for dry ammunition,
Tony

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 09:38 AM

Tony:

Spoken like a good Republican, uncowed, unashamed, and uncivilized.

Good think you had your tongue in your cheek, I reckon!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 11:20 AM

That Georgie musta learned tap dancing from his Dad. Today he is saying that what he meant by "regime change" wasn't knocking out Saddam, just changing his behaviour! "Well, it's a change, isn't it??"

Wodda furless leader!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 11:43 AM

Amos, it's one of those essential skills if you're going to be a politician. It's called "weasel thinking."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 01:53 PM

You folks bitch when Bush rattles the sabre, then you bitch because he puts it back in the sheath. Somehow I don't think there is ANY pleasing you folks. :>)

Amos: thanks for posting that article. I hope Bobert, L.H., and other America blamers will read it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 02:02 PM

As for bitching on both sides, the thing is there is a consistent thread of weaselry in the man that is part of his political way of being. I bitch about him because I consider him a self-serving opportunist. I know 'em when I see 'em cuz I have that teeshirt already. But I outgrew it a good long way before I got to be his age. But then, I didn't have the advantages of his education. :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 03:21 PM

Oh its the thread that never ends
it just goes on and on my friends
Some people started posting to it
not knowing what it was, but now
they keep on posting to it, simply
just because, it is the thread that
never ends.........

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 08:10 PM

Well, actually, Doug, you have a point. We have been a tad unfair. We should always be happy to applaud Mr. Bush when his turn with the family brain cell comes around and he actually uses it. Weasel thinking is pandemic in the political world, and if it allows him to maintain a modicum of dignity as he backs out of what he suddenly realizes was a lousy idea, then so be it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 10:34 PM

Why is America so envied? Because its 5% of the earth's population consumes 35% of the resources. Because it has the biggest and badest military. That's about it...

Lets keep this in some perspective here and not get into this *my-car-has-more-flag-decals-than-yours*spitting contest. George Walker Bush's folks out spent Al Gore's folks with lawyers 5 to 1 and sent into Florida paid goon squads to end democracy. Then George Walker Bush tunrned his back on the Middle East and let what progress that many administrations, including his father's, slip into never never land. And then 9/11.

And so like we were supposed to be surprised. Now we learn that the George Walker Busg administration might have known that 9/11 was going to occur but did nothing!

This ain't the USA that folks around the world respect. Quite the opposite, indeed.

Hey, I love the USA, but I ain't too wild about this guy. You crybaby Clinton haters had nothin on him except he got laid. Big deal. Your guy is gonna get a lot of folks killed. A lot!

And so, no, I ain't too proud of the "restraint". What restraint, for that matter? Yeah, exactly what target have we not hit?

This article is bull****.

500,000 of his countrymen showed up three weeks ago in London to say "We don't see it that way, thank you" and another few hundred thousand will be back this Saturday.

This ain't about liberals or conservatives. Its about right and wrong. Its about a foriegn policy that is inclusive and comapssionate. Its about shutting up long enough to hear what the rest of the world thinks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 07:22 AM

No Bobert, it's about everyone shutting up so that all anyone can hear is what YOU think.
You have the right to your opinion. Thats all.
The article was not bullshit. It simply said some things that your contingent would rather people didn't hear and, in the main, it was all true.
Maybe you don't choose to interpret the facts that way, but the facts are indisputable. Only the interpretations differ.
England mustered 500,000 (you say) to rpotest the way the US and Britain were handeling things. Good for them! Where are the "millions of voters" that are against US policy in this country. When exactly did they march on Washington to protest. Enlighten me. I must have missed that newscast.
Here in Japan, the interest is more on the North Korean kidnappings and the NK nuclear program. Perhaps you can put it all in perspective.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 08:40 AM

troll:

Don't go lookin' for any credible reports in the US media about the protest because you won't find them. The US media is owned by the ruling class and is not this *liberal* monster that the conservatives have made it out to be.

Three weeks ago there was a demonstration in Washington, D.C. from Dupont Circle to Dick Cheney's house. There were at least 10,000 perople there and one paragraph on A-19 said a few hundred people had protested. Well, I was part of the "few hundred" that consumed 4 entire blocks, side walk to side walk and four lanes of road. That's four blocks. You can do the math.

Same *lack* of reporting was found through out the country, where demonstartions were heal in almost every major city in the US. This weekend there will be another mass demonstration in major cities but you probably won't hear much about them either. No different than Vietnam. It took 800,000 folks to march in the "Moritorium" to get any media notice.

And, yeah, those of us who beleive in a pro-human foriegn policy would like for the drum beaters to stop long enough for us to get a word in edgewise. All we get is a constant diet of woff, woff, woff with no relief.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 09:42 AM

Status:

1. Nobody at war with Iraq

2. P5 members of UNSC discussing final wording of new draft resolution

3. Inspectors getting ready to go back

Hmmmmmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 01:59 PM

I find it VERY strange that NO ONE reported the HUGE demonstrations that you say happened. It must all be part of that vast conspiracy that St. Hillary talked about.
Teribus, none of that matters. Bush used the "W" word. He's EVIL! EVIL I tell you!
BTW, are you familiar with the self-test for paranoia?
That's when you can't think of a single thing that's YOUR fault.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 07:50 PM

I've never heard that definition, troll. Very good.
Bobert does tend to get his blood pressure pumped up, and I have a theory that so much blood rushes to his head it affects his thinking. That's probably why he gets numbers mixed up and stuff like that.

You know, if Bush is such a warmonger, I wonder why he hasn't advocated invading North Korea too. He could have two wars going on at the same time!

DougR (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 08:08 PM

You know, it's funny you should say that Doug. I was thinking the same thing. Then the other day I heard some commentator -- a real chest-thumper, usually -- talk about how we shouldn't attack North Korea because they were more dangerous.

*ahem* Am I the only one that see the irony and hypocrasy in that statement?

Bush the Lesser DOES have two wars going if he attacks Iraq. Or at least some of us haven't forgotten the servicemen still risking their lives in Afghanistan.

On another topic, has anyone read the latest US proposal to the UN? It requires immediate action on weapons declaration and inspectors -- the time frame is pretty tight, but the desire to move quickly seems appropriate. But then it only gives the inspectors 60 days in Iraq to complete the inspection!

I don't get it. How can the inspectors possibly do a reasonably thorough job in that time frame? I know the White House is talking about how it would be most advantageous to attack at the beginning of the year... but they seem to be deliberately setting up a situation that won't do any good and won't get them the justification they need to attack. Nor does it get inspectors back in Iraq for the long term.

Any thoughts anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 08:22 PM

Well, Nicole, the military is still fueding among themselves. The Joint Cheifs of Staff are fuedin' with Rumsfield and the bottome line, according to the Washington Post, as if I believe too much of anything they say anymore, is that January is when Junior will have things in place to begin the invasion. I personally think that someone has made Junior realize that urban warfare is gonna mess with his approval ratings and wreck his chances of doing what his daddy couldn't do which is get re-selected. So, now the DOD is taking a little extra time trying to figure out how to win yet another unwinable war and so the inspectors provide Junior and Rumsfield a little more time.

Now, if Junior is smart (what got into me? he'll use the inspectors to back down before he gets a lot of folks seriously killed which will ceratinly get his cowboy butt back to the ranch in '04.... Where he belongs, I might add...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 10:48 PM

I see what you are saying, Bobert, but I don't see an angle that benefits anyone in the US OR the UN. If you are planning on attacking anyway and ignoring international law, you might as well do it now. Nor do I see how you could "spin" the war afterwards except outright lie about why the inspectors left or didn't find anything... and after the whole Incubator Baby fiasco, I'm gonna hope Negroponte or somebody is smarter than that.

If Iraq is hiding something, then a too short window of inspection would be bully for them. Personally, I doubt they have very much to hide, and if they do I *really* doubt Saddam is stupid or suicidal enough to use it offensively. (Bet your bottom dollar he uses it defensively, though.)

So where's the angle?   Inspectors in Iraq for only 60 days is useless as an inspection and doesn't forward the cause of a war, either. Nor does it prevent one, and it doesn't save anyone face, particularly the administration that's proposing it... I'm perplexed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 12:16 AM

Nicole: please don't confuse Bobert with logic. It gets him even more riled up, and I truly am concerned about his blood pressure (though he seems to be much more concerned with his bony butt).
:>)
As to the 60 days, I guess it is possible our government knows exactly (or suspects anyway) where the critical area are that need to be inspected. If so, it is conceivable it could be done in sixty days. Obviously if they find what they suspect to be true, the time frame could be extended.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 01:40 AM

Either that or that's when the little man behind the curtain leaps out with his guns blazing....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 02:58 AM

Nicole,

According to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Authority, Mohamed ElBaradei, interviewed on BBC last night, the timetable is as follows. The Iraqi's have thirty days to prepare for the arrival of the Inspection Teams (set them up with the facilities they need, etc) and prepare a declaration on the status of the WMD programmes. The sixty days you seem to think is their deadline to complete inspections does not exist. According to the DG, sixty days after arriving in Iraq the UNMOVIC Team has to present a PRELIMINARY Report that outlines their plan for inspections, statement with regard to degree of co-operation being experienced and a baseline verification wrt the Iraqi declaration. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei seems to think that the inspection teams will be there for a long time.

Your entire premise is based on the belief that the American Administration wants to attack with or without international backing. I have said it before, there's a world of difference in "planning" to do something and actually "executing" that plan.

Others have attributed the hawkish stance to the desire to "acquire" Iraq oilfields in order to pay off GWB's Presidential Campaign contributers and to pander to the oil lobby. Lets take a look at some of the other P5 members interests, unlike the United States and UK, they are principal trading partners with Iraq:

France: Armaments, nuclear technology (first Iraqi reactor was theirs), oil.

Russia: Armaments, nuclear technology, oil ( Iraq owes them something like 7 Billion dollars)

China: Armaments and guided missile technology.

Should anything happen in Iraq, particularly to the ruling Ba'ath Party all the above lose their contacts and competitive inside rail position, so if you are willing to believe the worst of your own President, then please don't ignore the more venal aspirations of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 03:47 AM

The biggest lie so far of the New Milennium---a quote from Jack Straw, British foreign secretary [he's the one sited directly under the Tail-that-Bush-wags, Blair, Britain's prime monster---and his position seems in keeping with his character--
"No one wants military action against Iraq". Oh????

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:12 AM

Boab,

In making that statement what makes you think that he is lying??

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:49 AM

NicoleC, NK is more dangerous, not to us , but to our allies, Japan and South Korea. They can hit Tokyo with the missiles that they already have with conventional warheads certainly and possibly with nukes. We don't know if they have them or not.
They could completely annialate downtown Seoul in in I think the figure was 53 seconds, using the conventional artillery that they have massed along the DMZ.
Saddam does not yet have that kind of destructive capability but our government believes that he is working on it.
Just as a performer uses one songlist for a nursing home and a very different one for a fraternity smoker, so each situation must be handled differently.
There's no hypocracy or duplicity involved, just common sense.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 09:02 AM

Nicole: You're right to ask, "Why not now, when we're gonna do it anyway?" and I guess my answer was not clear. We have to wait because the DOD ain't ready yet and the American people and the allies have told Junior that they want a longer checklist to be completed before the war. It's just windown dressing. Yeah, if Saddam doesn't have anything more than what we all ready know he has, then lookin for what ain't there will certainly pose as a large challenge. Then Junior can come back and tell everyone that the reason they can't find the nukes is because Saddam is hiding stuff. yeah, they'll show pictures of some roadblock and woff, woff, woff over it showing us ten different camera angles of the roadblock and then he'll come on the TV during a Monday night football game and tell everyone that the US is gonna have to invade Iraq because of blah, blah, blah....

And the rest will be history. Including his chances of living any where but Texas in a couple of years...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 11:09 AM

Just back from a few days on holiday in France, not reading the newspapers or watching the news. Brilliant.

So I skimmed through this thread, which seems to be going round in circles.

But I liked that test for paranoia: That's when you can't think of a single thing that's YOUR fault.

And somehow that reminded me of the kind of reaction there seems to be when anybody suggests that the record of certain countries is less than perfect. Naming no names.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 12:07 PM

Aw come on, Kevin, you haven't been so reticent before! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 12:17 PM

Teribus,

Thanks for the input. Numerous news outlets are reporting the 60 day limit to inspections, and it just doesn't make sense. So I'm glad to hear it may be erroneous information.

Doug, I thought about that angle. But if our government KNEW where the weapons were, we'd take a few sat photos, and case closed -- hasn't happened. Or, in the case of a small bio factory or something that won't show up on a photo very well, wouldn't that evidence be part of the evidence presented to the other members of the Security Council -- the evidence they say isn't enough? We'd have to know for sure to be so cocky about 60 days being enough, and we obviously don't.

So either way, it doesn't make sense to limit the inspection time table. Even if we think we know where stuff is, we'd still want to leave ourselves more opportunity, not less.

But it looks like the 60 day thing is a product of the US media's imagination, and not the administration or the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 01:29 PM

Yes, it appears so Nicole.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 03:32 PM

Oh its the thread that never ends
it just goes on and on my friends
Some people started posting to it
not knowing what it was, but now
they keep on posting to it, simply
just because, it is the thread that
never ends.........

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: 53
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 03:50 PM

We need to kick Saddaam's ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:08 PM

53: That's a sure way to keep the thread going. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:12 PM

Well, here we go -- we all agree that Saddam is a complete jerk, right?

So let's call Saddam out! Busher the Lesser would get his butt kicked in no time, and Cheney has the weak heart, so how about Saddam and Colin go 10 rounds on pay-per-view boxing?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:27 PM

I'll take Colin in 4 rounds, Nicole.

Of course, both men will be taken stright to the hospital afterwards, to be treated for antrax that Saddam hides in his boxing glove.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:51 PM

Naming no names on the principle, if the cap fits, wear it.

But the paranoid response to any kind of criticism is pretty widely dispersed around the world. There's a quote that sums things up pretty well: "So far as criticism is concerned, we don't resent that - unless it is absolutely biased - as it usually is". The speaker? Prime Minister John Vorster of South Africa. The old apartheid South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 07:53 PM

How about notifying Bush and Saddam that we are going to settle this thing on the Mudcat, Nicloe? Me and Bobert in the ring with feather pillows! A fight to the finish! Winner take all (the oil in Iraq!)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:17 PM

Dang, old DougR getting downright creative and pacifistic here!! Ya reckon Bobert tuckered him out?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:23 PM

I've said it before, and I'll probably be saying it until I die... the "old single combat of champions" to resolve a battle/war is not a bad idea at all.

I take it back, I don't want Powell fighting Saddam -- I'm sure Powell'd win, but he might lose some brain cells in the procees, or be out of commission for a while afterwards.    Who else could it be...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 02:28 AM

Naw, Amos, I'm just kidding. Bobert would take me in the first thirty seconds. He'd never convince me he's right, of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:18 AM

Well, heck, Dougie. What did I win? Saddam's nuclear stockpile? I'd rather have one of his unmanned aircraft capable of traveling thousands of miles, if I have my choice, thank you... That would be a much cooler toy to play with. And a lot less dangerous...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 01:22 PM

How about that big sword he was waving around? That would look neat over the mantle. I tell ya, there's been a serious decline in personal leadership since the days of Lawrence of Arabia and Aouda Abu Tayi.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:34 PM

Oh its the thread that never ends
it just goes on and on my friends
Some people started posting to it
not knowing what it was, but now
they keep on posting to it, simply
just because, it is the thread that
never ends.........

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:46 PM

Oh, Guest, go suck yourself somewhere dark, eh?

It is true we have a possible record length, but we are talking about major-scale events, pal. Go away if you don't want to participate. Sheesh.

The DoD is rolling ahead with all due preparations, to be ready to unleash the dogs of war the minutwe Georgie says to. They are talking as though such an event is a foregone conclusion in SPITE of GWB's new and improved (It FLOATS!) definition of regime change. They're talking about their great precision and how only a few innocents will die of old SH doesn't immediately accept the whole mandate to unequivocally list and display everything asked for.

O, tempora!! O, mores!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:53 PM

Amos, it is simply going round in circles with nothing of any consequence being said. Another way of putting it "Mudshite at the Mudtwat cafe".. But please continue it amuses me so. BTW I cannot suck myself; unlike your ability to lick your own balls, I prefer human female company for that purpose. But hey, whatever turns your crank Amos... Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 07:15 PM

The idea of single combat was never meant to be used to settle major issues. It was a macho thing that was meant to add luster to the reputation of one of two noted warriors and was usually done prior to the actual battle. The champions would meet between the lines and fight it out. I suppose that an added advantage was the loss of confidence felt by the troops of the losing side.
Re. the circular nature of the thread and the various gibes and counter-gibes, lets try for a little origionality in our repartee. If you can't be origional, at least plagarize from descent sources.
One of my personal faves comes from Jennifer on WKRP Cincinnati; "Go suck wet dog fur."
God!, what imagery.
Another;" A pox on both your houses."

troll*****The last one is from "Romeo and Juliet."****

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 07:32 PM

"it is simply going round in circles with nothing of any consequence being said"

Well, hey, if CNN can do it, why shouldn't we? :>)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 04:05 AM

Bobert,

I have mentioned this in another thread, but earlier on you described your "Battle of Baghdad" scenario and what you saw as it's outcome.

I refer you to current events in a certain Moscow theatre - that is your "Battle of Baghdad" scenario in miniature.

Population of Baghdad - 3, 844, 642 (give or take a few)

Forces considered "loyal" to Sadam Hussein . 132,000 (give or take a few).

Should push ever come to shove, if I was one of the 132,000, taking into account recent activities that would appear on my CV and those of my colleagues - I'd be watching my back more than watching any enemy at the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 06:15 PM

Teribus:

First of all, do you do drugs? Jus funnin' with ya'..

But really, whats with the above post? It makes no sense. You equate an urban war in the streets of Bagdad where the US will be completely surrounded by, ahhhh, the other guys with a theater in Moscow where you have the exact opposite. You can do better than this. Maybe you were just tired of wrestlin' with LH, I don't know?...

But, okay, lets just assume that you weren't on drug or worn out and that we'll even *pretend* that the US troops are not completely surrounded by the enemy or folks who look like the enemy but act like the enemy because the enemy has guns to their heads. Okay, so each apartment building in Bagdad is just like the Moscow theater. I know this is a stretch but, hey, for the point of discussion I will let you have all of these imposssible scenerios.

Lets look at the Moscow theater numbers. Roughly 10% of the hostages died. Now if the hostages in Bagdad are the folks who look like the enemy but not the enemy, if the US does as well as the Suskies then you just killed close to 400,000 civilians. Add in the 132,000 enemy folks who are loyal to Saddam and figure they might as well fight to the death since they're gonna die anyway, you're up to over a half a million Iraqi folks killed... Hmmmmmm?

Here's my calling card. Think you need to get your PR folks on the phone.

Opps, Teribus, ol' bobert forgot the US losses. Well, lets see. They are gonna have to fight house to house, apartment by apartment. Their high tech stuff ain't gonna do 'em much good at all so, hey, whaddayathink? Well, we lost over 200 folks the last time but that was a high tech war. Since this one ain't I'll go with 20,000. But now if you think that's too high you can just plug in any number you want and add it to the 532,000 you've allready killed off and, well, there you have it....

I think maybe your PR firm will be needed a healthy retainer, my friend, *before* you fire the first shot, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 07:04 PM

Make that Ruskies, Teribus and not Suskies and more bad news. My Wes Ginny slide rule has refigured the percentage of civilian deaths in Moscow to 15" so you can throw in another 190,000 deaths...

But like who's counting? I mean once ya' get to half a million, whats another couple hundred thousand folks! Right, Ter?

Well, once your guys fire the first shot, you can bet that me the the Wes Ginny slide rule will be countin' and not forgettin', thank you...


Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 08:55 AM

The Mongols under Genghis Khan had a technique that was highly effective.
They would invest a city and offer them the chance to surrender. If they did not, the entire city would be destroyed and the inhabitants put to the sword. Subsequent cities usually gave up without a fight.
So how does this fit into the modern war scenario?
Easy. You come up to the first apartment building and announce via loudspeakers that the building will be destroyed if everyone inside doesn't come out at once. If they don't come out, Destroy the building completely, utterly.
Then go on to the next building. They aren't stupid. They'll get the idea real quick.
Bingo! No house-to-house fighting.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 11:29 AM

Uh-huh. And how would you describe a foreign force that entered your city and behaved in such a fashion, troll? Would you harbour a lengthy grievance against them, and find ways of retaliating against them at a later date? Most people would.

How can you even contemplate emulating Genghis Khan while claiming to represent...what? Democracy? Freedom?

Seems to me that your argument destroys any moral legitimacy your side could ever claim to have, and would really justify the whole world eventually turning on your side and destroying it...as was done to Nazi Germany in the end.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: 12String
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 12:40 PM

No one, but no one, has convinced me that our national interests are threatened by Saddam's regime. Opening up our ever-deminishing Federal lands for oil exploration and climbing into bed with oil producers and processors (Enron, Haliburton, etc.) have only produced less Federal lands and more criminal indictments (Arthur Andersen, Enron, and Halibrton (yet to come)). If that wasn't enough, we now want to go to war to ensure a steady supply of oil.

Don't get me wrong, if I truly felt that we were under imminent attack or truly threatened by his sale of "weapons of mass destruction" to terrorists, I'd be the first to enlist...of course, I did that in the late 60's - too old now, I guess.

We need a return to the Age of Reason.........let's put our government to work on what matters most, e.g., human suffering, the environment, and education. More money to the National Park System, less money for Defense...........sorry, I got sidetracked.   

Where's Woody?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 01:04 PM

12String, you're playing my song.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 02:05 PM

By the way, the method troll describes of subduing a people defending a city was in fact employed by the Spanish conquistadors under Cortez in defeating the Aztecs and destroying Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City). They couldn't dislodge the Aztecs any other way, so they tore down each building block by block until they had created a wasteland where once stood a magnificent metropolis.

Cortez and his soldiers and priests were among the most despicable and ruthless bands of plunderers in all history. About the only thing you can say in defence of them is that the Aztecs were equally ruthless and bloodthirsty.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 02:21 PM

Little Hawk, if you'll stop and think for a moment, you'll realize that Genghis' methods were quite humane for the time. After all, he destroyed one city with its inhabitants and got dozens of others to surrender with no loss of life on either side. I'm not advocating destroying the whole city of Bagdad, merely a few buildings. If we have to take them room by room, the people in them are going to die anyway.
Is it not MORE humane in the long run to let them see that we will destroy their buildings with no danger to ourselves but that if they will surrender, their homes will be spared as well as their lives?
The bogey of the house to house conquest of Bagdad with its accompanying loss of life simply doesn't have to be.
Saddam has threatened the destruction of our ally, Israel. I think that the defense of an ally is a fairly moral stance.
In 1989(I think it was) North Korea signed a non-proliferation pact. In 1994, when it was evident that they weren't living up to the terms of the agreement, Jimmy Carter brokered a deal which essentially bribed NK to give up nuclear research in return for two light water reactors. Bill Clinton signed off on it and it was a done deal. There was minimal inspection and NK went right on with its development program. They now have nuclear capability and can threaten our allies Japan and South Korea.
I, for one, do not wish to see Saddam Hussein in that same position and if the US doesn't insist on complete inspections WITH CONSEQUENCES we may wind up with a similar situation in the Middle East.
The nations of the world will do nothing unless they feel themselves threatened. After all, which countries went into Rwanda to stop the slaughter of the Tutsi by the Hutu? The Roma are being systematically persecuten in Eastern Europe. Where is the moral outrage from the world community?
Hitler threatened all of Europe. I hardly think that your analogy is apt.
I understand your antipathy for war and violence. I don't care for them myself and I've had a bit of experience in that area. But how do you get someone like Saddam to cooperate without the specter of overwhelming force if he does not.
I await your ideas.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 02:22 PM

LH, that's one of the great atrocities in human history. Not only did the conquistadors wipe out most of the Aztec and Inca peoples, but they set about systematically destroying everything, obliterating all traces of documentation and anything else having to do with their cultural heritage. Who knows what all was lost? And all because they considered them to be "heathens."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 03:44 PM

Well, troll, you never cease to amaze me. Sacrifical civilians? Hmmmmm? I think you're gonna have a big PR bill for that one, bnot to mention creating a lot of new folks willing to join up with Al Queda.

Second logistical problem. You plannin' on being the one with the bullhorn. What, do you think that Iraq is just going to roll over and play dead while you get the guy with the bullhorn to the apartment building? No, I would suggest that getting the bullhorn guy is going to be a tad trickeir than you make it sound since it's gonna involve a lot of the kind of urban fighting you're trying to avoid to get to your first apartment building...

Then again, maybe rather than an actual guy with a bullhorn, the US just goes ahead and bombs the apartment building. Hmmmmmm? Blowing up buildings? Seems like a familiar tactic but I can't quite put my finger on it... Oh, shoot, it was the Twin Towers, Bobert.

Ouch, troll, better plan on spending some more big bucks on PR, if there is enough money to buy the US out of that one...

I think that you and Teribus need to go back to the drawing board, my friend...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 04:49 PM

Ha! Ha! You mirror my thoughts, Bobert.

troll - Okay, here's why I differ with you on this one. You assume there is good reason for the USA to attack Iraq in the first place. I don't. You assume there are good reasons for the USA to consider Israel its ally. I don't.

I consider Israel to be a free agent, pursuing a really extraordinary apartheid type of policy, and dominating a significant area of the planet by maintaining an elite military force and by committing terrorism with that military force. (Israel is also, of course, suffering under terrorist attacks from people as malicious and unforgiving as themselves...but not as powerful. They and their Muslim enemies are mutually to blame for the situation. The West should support neither one of them in their acts of violence on each other.)

I consider Saddam to be another free agent, trying to dominate certain parts of the same area by somewhat similar means, but failing miserably, due to his own lack of realism, expertise, and various other factors.

I consider Iraq to be no danger at all to the USA. I consider them to be a minor danger to Israel, which could itself destroy Saddam's military without ANY help from the USA.

I consider both the Iraqui and the Israeli governments to be criminally irresponsible regimes. I see no particular reason for the USA to either befriend or attack either one of them...but simply do its best to restrain them from further criminal acts and not arm or help either one of them.

I don't believe the USA has plans to attack Iraq because of a desire to help or protect ANYONE. I believe that the USA has such plans because it wishes to make strategic gains. What exactly those gains are, I'm not sure...it could be a variety of reasons that are behind it, and many possible ones have already been discussed on this thread.

The reason you don't see much about persecution of the Roma on the news media (or about some wars in Africa) is probably this: the powers that be in the West (who own the news media) have decided that it is not particularly to their benefit in any way to use that story to work up a big public reaction...at this time. And the commercial advertisers who finance the media don't consider it a "sexy" story! If at some time that changes, then maybe we'll have a crisis over the Roma. If so, it will not be to benefit the Roma, but to further the plans of some very rich people and make them richer.

Our politicians and our media are practicing a game of smoke and mirrors with a hidden agenda. The game is designed to fool the public and get them to support actions which they would not support if they knew the whole story.

So, you take this effort against Iraq seriously, and I don't. I think it's a game with hidden objectives. It will hurt many innocent people, and for no good reason whatsoever.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 07:10 PM

Obviously you have never heard of armored vehicles, Bobert. This isn't a peaceful protest in Washington with police protection for the marchers. It's war. You don't send a man out with a bullhorn. You send the bullhorn out in a tank. You'd better stick to what you know.
LH, just who the hell do you think are going to be in those buildings that US troops will be fighting in from room to room? Do you really think that Saddam will move the civilian population out before he moves the Republican Guard in?
ALL political alliances are based on mutual self-interest. I thought that was general knowledge. Our alliance with Israel gives us a foothold in the Middle East, an area that is of great strategic importance to the US. Granted that need has lessened since the breakup of the USSR but the need is still there.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 07:50 PM

What, troll, M-79's which go back to the days of Vietnam will mess up your armored vehicles. Yeah, a danged granade launcher! Now, they are in ready supply. So are lots of other weapons that we gave Iraq to fight Iran with. Tell, ya what, troll, you can drive the armored vehicle thank you but I;ll take a pass.

Now, lets look at your "model" apartment building. Saddam is gonna have say a hundred of his guys in there living with the civilians. He ain't stupid enough to put all his guys in *military only* apartment buildings. He will use civilians as shields and You can fly your Apaches right down Bagdad Boulavard and sure you can shoot the crap out of a lot of folks with those Apaches and with your tanks but,like I've said before, in order to kill Saddam's 130,000 loyal fighters, you'll have to kill a half a miillion civilians...

Now that's bad, real bad...

Bobertr

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 08:09 PM

No war is good, OK? I'm simply giving a scenario under which a city battle could be fought.
As far as the grenade launcher is concerned, I'm well aware of what a "thump gun" can do. But if they are so effecitve against modern armor, why aren't the Palestinians using them more against the Israeli tanks, APC's and armored bulldozers? That would seem to me to be the logical thing to do.
Yeah, civilians will die. It happens in every war and it is sad. But how many will die if Saddam gains nuclear capability? Remembering that he has already used poison gas against his own people, do you really think he would balk at targeting Tel Aviv or any other city for that matter. A saddam capable of nuclear blackmail is a shuddersome thought.
I don't know about you, but one North Korea is about all I can handle at one time.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 10:38 PM

Okay, you think it's a necessary war and I don't. That's simple enough, isn't it? I imagine all different variety of people will be in the buildings if it comes to that, and I hope it doesn't.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 11:56 PM

Yeah, like I have pointed out before on many occasions, an *intellegent* president would cal for an "Emergency Middle East Peace Summit", us the PR follks to make peace fashionable, get everyone involved (without exception) and lock the danged doors until all the issues ahve been dealt with. Then, as follow up, lots of Americans will be in Iraq as partr of the settlement and can keep an eye out on Saddam. The Isreali/Palestinian issue will also be solved or at least some goals and time tables set. The problems that the Saudi's have with their more radical elements will be addressed. Yeah, bottom line, lts of stuff will be *talked* about. Beats the heck out of messy wars that just leave scars and resentments. AND, makes Junior look less stupid, to boot. What more could the US ask for?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 02:21 AM

How about a guarantee that all parties concerned would keep their word? Also, if you think that Saddam OR the Iraqi people would agree to foreign troops- especially Americans- on their soil, guess again.
It sounds great IF all parties concerned are reasonable but some of them aren't and no one knows just which ones will be unreasonalbe first.
For one thing, I don't believe that Saddam would (a) leave the country to attend a summit and (b) sit at a conference table with the Israelis.The same could apply to other countries.
It's a nice thought, Bobert, but, for the reasons I have named, I don't think it would stand a snowball in hells chance of working; not if you kept every PR firm in the country busy for the next twenty years.
I don't think the countries of the Middle East want peace on any terms that we and our allies could accept. I think they want us to get the hell out of the region entirely and let them do whatever they wish without hinderance from the rest of the world. Which would be fine except that it would lead to the destruction of our ally, the State of Israel and a probable nuclear war in the region.
Because, believe me, the Jews will not march meekly to their deaths this time. If their destruction is imminent, they will fire their missiles and take as many of the Arab states with them as they can. Those missiles are in place and targeted on the major cities of the Arab world.
We have to be there if only to try and prevent that from happening.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 02:22 AM

Bobert,

How many Middle East Peace Summits have there been. The only time any real advance was made came about as a result of the cessation of hostilities in 1973. The diplomatic effort and talks that followed only succeeded because they were conducted as bi-lateral talks between Israel and individual front line states.

The Saudis have proposed a peace plan that would appear to be acceptable and workable, the one thing that will prevent that plan working is the continuing stance of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party with regard to Israel. Iran also voices the same official line with regard to Israel, it funds Palestinian resistance but is not developing weapons to strike Israel direct, Iraq is - or so many believe.

For the sake of discussion, lets go down the road you suggest.

1. America concedes that no new UN resolution is required and the weapons inspectors return to Iraq on exactly the same terms as before.

2. Their initial report should then be presented to the UNSC at the beginning of March 2003.

3. Should the Iraq authorities hinder the efforts of the inspection teams within that period, then the weapons inspectors are withdrawn and the UNSC return to the table to discuss the matter - what has changed? what will they know then that they do not already know now?

4. The debate will no doubt go round in circles for months, during which time Saddam Hussein will appear to look more and more the victor, having successfully faced down the United Nations and the USA.

5. As the UN inspection teams did not find anything, Iraq, quite rightly, will call for an end to UN sanctions. What arguement can anyone put forward for denying that motion?

6. With sanctions gone, no weapons inspectors in place, SH can proceed with whatever programme he wants. Iran will re-arm in order to protect itself, the position of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will be increasingly threatened. The UN having proved itself as toothless as its predecessor can be totally ignored. Who then will act? and on what mandate?

7. Israel will come under more pressure, as will the governments of the front line Arab states. America will be able to support Israel, but will not be able to do anything about the situation elsewhere in the region. Because by this time Iraq, the leader of the Arab world, will be too strong to be intimidated by the threat of force. You then may have all the Middle East Peace Summits that you want - they will not accomplish anything, because the man driving the position from the Arab side of the table is only interested in a Middle East that does not contain an Israeli state.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 06:12 AM

Teribus. You are wasting your energy trying to educate Bobert, he isnt listening...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 06:26 AM

The Nazis tried it troll's way too. Didn't work for them.

Look at it another way - that was what the hi-jackers of September 11th did as well. People turn into their enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:59 AM

Hitler made the destruction of Stalingrad a personal thing. If he could destroy Stalins name-city he thought that he would destroy the Russians will to resist. He was wrong. The winter and over-extended supply lines did his effort in.
At Leningrad, the dogged defense of the citizens coupled with the difficult terrain surrounding Leningrad finally lost the battle for Hitler.
I assume that that's what you were talking about, Kevin and I'm afraid I can't agree with you. These are different times and the equipment and tactics are not the same.
As far as comparing the hi-jackers of September 11 to what MAY be required in a declared war... I had thought better of you but I guess that any comparrison - no matter how unjust-is allowable to make your point.
The end justifies the means.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 09:07 AM

GUEST is absolutely right, teribus, In the words of John Lennon I "won't listen to minds that hate".

And no, there has never been an "Emergency Middle East Summit" where the US pulls out all the PR stops that's it has pulled out to sell yours and Juniors war.

You folks are the ones who won't listen to new ideas. You folks are the ones that dismiss *possibilities* in the favor of repeating failed policies. You folks are the *students of war* because it is comfortable for you. You folks are the ones who enevitably will be partly responsible for the deaths from the upcoming war because you didn't open your minds long enough to explore any other options.

Well, that blood will not be on my hands, nor will it be on the hands of millions of folks who, like me, see possibilities where you all see only impossibilities.

I'd guarentee in Jesus, or Mohammed, of Jimmy Carter, or Paul Wellstone, or Jimmy Carter, et al, were sitting in the White House we'd be getting a different story.

And I'd guarentee you that if the US had a foriegn policy that was driven by greed, a foriegn policy that was inclusive, a foriegn policy that put peaceful coexhisitence as its priority, that we's have lots of Americnas in Iraq, and Iran, and in Cuba, and in North Korea and every other place that troll and Teribus have on their *hit wish list*.

It comes down to whats most important. Stealing folks resources or payin' for them. Henry Kissinger said it all about stealing when he said something along the lines of "Oil can not be left to the Arabs to control". Well, if one follows that logic, which is based on stealing folks stuff then I guess there is no other way to do it than to blow up some of their folks. Armed robbery! I'd rather trade them food and things that the US can produce that will enhance their lives so that we won't have to worry about the future Osomas, thank you..

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 10:06 AM

Bobert,

If any new ideas were forthcoming I would be only too happy to consider them - so far there have been none - heard a great deal of noise about how GWB "stole" the last election, heard a whole load of belly-aching about how bad things are domestically in the US.

What you imagine are ideas, boils down to unrealistic claptrap, airy-fairy notions without foundation, reason or substance - and that you propose to put forward as a solution for solving one of the most complex problems facing the world today.

As I personally do not hate anyone, the relevance of the John Lennon quote escapes me. And Bobert your comment , "If Jesus, or Mohammed, of Jimmy Carter, or Paul Wellstone, or Jimmy Carter (Were there two of them??), et al, were sitting in the White House we'd be getting a different story." - well Bobert - They ain't, nor are they likely to be within the foreseeable future - Al Gore isn't going to be there either - get used to it. The guy in the hot seat at the moment is doing a pretty good job so far.

America "steals" it's oil???? News to me and the rest of the world Bobert - please provide details. As far as I am aware oil is sold by the barrel (price normally expressed in US$) depending on grade and on which market it is sold.

It's your war Bobert ("He's a-goin'to do it!!!, etc, etc.) - Well Bobert - He ain't done anything yet - HAS HE???

As for the impassioned:

"And I'd guarentee you that if the US had a foriegn policy that was (NOT) driven by greed (WONDERFUL), a foriegn policy that was inclusive (THEY NORMALLY ARE, IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO), a foriegn policy that put peaceful coexhisitence as its priority (MASTERFUL - THE WORLD HAS BEEN SAVED FROM THE RAVAGES OF WORLD WAR SINCE 1945), that we'(D) have lots of Americnas in Iraq, and Iran, and in Cuba, and in North Korea and every other place that troll and Teribus have on their *hit wish list*."

Tell me Bobert, what would all these Americnas (?) be doing in all these places?? Why would they be there??? If memory serves me correctly, there used to be Americans in Iran and Cuba, but they were asked to leave. What makes you think that they would be welcomed back with open arms now?

Speaking for myself I do not have a "hit wish list" (Don't think Troll has one either, his posts, and the thoughts contained therein, tend to be based on logic and a sense of reality)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 03:20 PM

Teribus, Troll: Hear, hear!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 07:37 PM

Like I've said over and over. You guys wouldn't know a new idea if it knocked on your door wearing nuthin but pasties. You're too steeped in the past to look toward anything but it. Doesn't it get a pain trying to stear mankind into the future with your focua so locked onto the rear view mirror?

Yeah, its been a long, long time since Americans were welcome in Iraq, Iran or Cuba. But there was a time when we were welcome and then weren't and then were... We swapped alliances faster than a bus station whore swapped glances at potential Johns. Iran, Iraq, no, Iran, no, Iraq... I am suggesting that we have become so distrustfull by out actions which have been to either divide and conquear or to protect the flow of oil into the US, that it is the the US the needs a facelifting. The old crap ain't workin'.

Oh sure, we can go blow up some folks and manipulate the survivors into standing before cameras like monkeys telling the world just how great we are (ahhh, for not killing that particular monkey...)but you can bet that in doing so you are gonna get another generation of Osamas, but you drum beaters don't qutie get that...

No, the US has never done what I have suggested. Never! Nor will it! Why? Because it doesn't play too well with the John Wayne, redneck, testostrone driven way that the US like to *rule* its subjects rather than *lead*. Problem is that rulers are resented.

And thieves and thugs are resented and the ruling regime in D.C. is comprised of both. You don't want to hear about you guy stealing the anything? Tough! Then he ought to quit and give back what was strolen. Heck, thats the way it is in a land of laws. The thievs ain't sposed to be able to keep the booty. Do I want Al Gore to be president? Well, not particularly btu *he did win*, like it or not.

But back to Junior's *war*. Ahh, Teribus, the "Moscow Model" that you plan on unleashing in Bagdad is looking even worse. Seems that the good guys killed off about 20% of the civilians. Now you're up to about 800,000 dead Iraqi civilian deaths to explain...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:02 PM

I'm curious how many of you who are advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians to achieve political ends were upset when American civilians were slaughtered to achieve political ends on April 19, 1995 or September 11, 2001?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:38 PM

You won't get a direct answer on that one, Nicole, and you can take that to thge bank. But darned good question!

Oh yeah, the teri-trolls will say, "War is Hell" then they'll go right back to beating their drums.... Hmmmmmm?

But darned good question and I'd like a straight answer to it my own self....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 06:41 AM

Bobert,

Thanks for the continued stream of pure waffle and vague generalisation - no concrete ideas, no suggested means to any realistic solutions.

By the way don't worry about creating lots more Osama's - there are already enough of them and none of them require any justification for their actions. They are against you because you live the life you do - with new and improved methods of communication and free access to uncensored information, the way of life they hold so dear and by which they control the people they regard as their power base, is threatened, so they vilify what they see as the source of that threat and direct their "warriors" against it - they have no goals, they have no aims.

The model by the way Bobert only held good in so much that you had a group of people out-numbered by 17 to 1, in a confined area. The bulk of the number do not want to be there and have no particular affinity with armed men holding them (remember your assessment was that the RG, SRG & FS personnel would treat the population of Baghdad as "shields" or hostages). Your prediction was of countless thousands of US "boys" coming home in C-5's in body bags - how many casualties did the Russian Security Forces suffer Bobert.

Now the variances to the model. The hostages are not inside one building but a number of buildings, the population out-number the RG, SRG & FS personnel, not by 17:1 but by 30:1. To fight they will have to keep one eye on their hostages and the other on the troops coming in. That reduces their effectiveness to fifty percent without a shot being fired. They also have to sleep and eat. I don't think all that many will want to die, either hostages or Saddam's lads - they didn't last time, the same was true in Kabul and Khandahar, and these were Osama's proteges. Oh yeah, "We wish for death, as you wish for life" - they've yet to prove it in any way shape or form as an armed force confronted with an armed force - its a great deal easier against soft targets.

Now NicoleC's good question Bobert - not so good really:

"I'm curious how many of you who are advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians to achieve political ends were upset when American civilians were slaughtered to achieve political ends on April 19, 1995 or September 11, 2001?"

Point 1
No-one is advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi's are being offered every opportunity to ensure that that does not happen - all they have to do is comply with what they signed up to do back in 1991.

Point 2
The attainment of what political ends were being sought on 19th April 1995 and on 11th September 2001?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 06:56 AM

A mute point, but no-one is targeting Iraqi civilians directly. US armed forces and their allies will attack legitimate military targets only. Yes, some civilians will become casualties because they are directly used as sheilds or from proximity to military targets; but they will not be turned into weapons to acheive political gains. Unfortunately, non of this will change Boberts convoluted brain because he is a. Inacpable of rational thought, and b. dont confuse him with facts his mind is already made up.

Teribus. A well thought, and nicely put debate. Sometimes one finds a gem amongst the coal which makes reading these threads worthwhile at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:27 AM

"a declared war..." I thought that the idea of actually declaring war (except as a metaphor) was considered terribly old hat.

Not that I can see that a formal declaration of war makes much difference when it comes to the morality of saying "We will kill every single one of you until you stop doing what we don't want and do what we want - starting with all the people in this plane/building/city, to show that we mean what we say."

That's terrorism. To quote the definition in the dictionary I've just taken off my shelf: "Method of government by inspiring terror by acts of brutality and savagery".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 08:22 AM

Yes, peace is a "convoluted" concept for folks with out the proper wiring upgrades, GUEST and teri-trolls.

If you will go back, I have outlined the components of the "Emergency Middle East Peace Summit" so there is no reason, becuase someone has not followed this thread to keep bringing up the rear.

And the suggestions that I have made are "concrete" in their nature and very much achievable in a post 9/11 world. Some folks here think that the world politics just stay in thye hampster's wheel and and the only thing they can see is more inside of the wheel ahead of them. Yeah, they write one *position paper* after another but bottom line... these are all more of the same. Other than "Bobert's doesn't have any ideas" which is plainly a falsehood or "Bobert's ideas won't work" they have very little elese to say that is based squarely on a focus in the rear view mirror.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 08:55 AM

Bobert' I have given reasons why I think your ideas won't work. Your refutations have consisted of Ad Hominem attacks. Nowhere have you addressed the points -negative though you deem them- that I have made in refutation of your ideas.
You seem to think that, because your "cause is just and God is on your side", that any disagreement automatically denotes a severely lessened mental capacity. You may attack and villify me personally until hell freezes over and it will not add one iota of legitimacy to your position.
If I cannot come up with what I consider to be good arguments to refute what I disagree with, I hope that I have enough sense to keep my mouth shut.
I choose not to engage in personal attack; it serves no good purpose, converts no one, lowers the general level of the discussion, and lessens my standing in the world of ideas.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 11:16 AM

We cannot assume that the Iraqi people will rise up against Saddam, or even that they will not fight as hard as the military. To use the tired example of Stalingrad, the civilians fought for Stalin, a dictator as bad or worse as Hussein, because they would rather deal with him than the invading dictator. Teribus, you say that "the Iraqis" are being given every chance to comply; if you hold them all responsible for the refusal, then they will all fight to support that decision. The fact is that we still have no proof that Saddam has or is developing nuclear weapons or intends to use them. The United States has engaged in an offensive war within the last year, though we did not bother to declare it; Hussein has not taken any military action against his neighbors in a decade, and never against America. We will be the aggressors if we initiate this "regime change", and we need to be sure of our motivations before we do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 12:30 PM

From Bobert Productions

The Emergency Middle East Peace Summit

Basic Scipt Notes:

"I'll go on record once again of saying that if I were the President, I'd have called for an Emergency Middle East Peace Summit, used that drum beating PR money on pursuading full participation and more PR money to get leaders to feel like they were part of something historic and not adjorn the danged thing until there was an inclusive comprehensive plan in place, which involved UN inspectors and peace keepers."

That was Bobert's proposal - Kinda sounds good doesn't it? Cosy, so simple, guaranteed not to fail!! never been tried before???. Well not according to Bobert (Oslo, Camp David and a few more besides, never really happened).

Who do we invite Bobert?
More important who is likely to come?
Who is going to stay once they all know the full list of attendees?

The Prospective Attendees/Delegates:

Group 1 - Front Line States
a) Israel
b) Egypt
c) Palestinian Authority
d) Jordan
e) Syria
f) Lebanon

Group 2 - States Associated
a) Libya
b) Iraq
c) Iran
d) Saudi Arabia
e) Turkey
f) Kuwait
g) Bahrain
h) Qatar
i) Doha
j) Dubai
k) Sharjah
l) Oman
m) Yemen

Group 3 - The Ethnics
a) Armenians
b) Kurds (Turkish, Iraqi & Iranian)
c) Iraqi Shi'ites
d) Lebanese Falangists
e) Palestinians outwith Gaza & the West bank

Group 4 - UNSC Permanent Members
a) France
b) Russia
c) China
d) United States of America
e) United Kingdom

Location:
To be advised - maybe Norway - they liked it there the last time - but weather tends to be a bit iffy and Norway is busy with the Tamil Tigers at the moment.

Protocol:

1. Who is going to Chair this Summit? - must be aceptable to all - No Bobert America could not fulfil this role - question of impartiality.

2. Who is going to sit next whom? - should take about a couple of years to work that out.

3. Who sets the agenda and order of business?

4. Who acts as mediator?


Possible Agenda Items:

1. Recognition of the Sovereignty of the State of Israel

2. Recognition of the Sovereignty of a seperate Palestinian State

3. Removal of Post 1967 Israeli Settlements from the Occupied Territories

4. Withdrawal of Israel from the Golan Heights

5. Withdrawal of Syrian Forces from the Lebanon

6. Riparian Rights vis-a-vis Israel and Lebanon; Israel and Jordan; Israel and Syria; Turkey and Iraq.

7. Abandonment of support for Terrorist Organisations

8. Human Rights issues throughout the region on a country by country basis, guaranteeing the rights of ethnic/religious groups within each country, and the right by referenda for the establishment of independent states or homelands if desired by those religious or ethnic groups.

9. Declaration renouncing development and use of weapons of mass destruction.

10. Creation of a non-aggression/mutual defence pact between all countries in the region.

11. Recognition of all international water-ways.

Obviously there could be more, the above list is by no means comprehensive - but there are no real "show-stoppers" there are there Bobert?. After they've decided who sits where, Bobert - it would be all done and dusted in a fore-noon - luncheon anyone??.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 12:59 PM

"I choose not to engage in personal attack; it serves no good purpose, converts no one, lowers the general level of the discussion, and lessens my standing in the world of ideas."

Well, that post did read a little bit like a personal attack. But I agree wholly with the point you make there. That kind of thing is a bit like tipping up the chessboard instead of making the next move. Or getting your opponent to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 01:25 PM

"Point 1
No-one is advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi's are being offered every opportunity to ensure that that does not happen - all they have to do is comply with what they signed up to do back in 1991."

Because making suggestions like blowing up an apartment building that may (or may not) be harboring combatants is, indeed, advocating the slaughter of civilian Iraqis for political gain. You can wrap in in rhetoric, but it is a choice to deliberately kill civilians in order to kill combatants.

While the military always talks about minimizing civilian casualties -- and may even mean it -- choosing to attack a country is choosing to kill civilians.

Imagine the horror that Americans would feel if we engaged in war with Iraq, and Iraq detonated a nuclear or biological device in Washington DC. How quickly we would scream about the innocents slaughtered. Yet, they would simply respond that they were inadvertant casualities of war -- they were only seeking to destroy the military targets in Washington DC, i.e. the government.

"Point 2
The attainment of what political ends were being sought on 19th April 1995 and on 11th September 2001?"

We'll ignore McVeigh for a moment.

9/11 had everything to do with political motives. In choosing to commit the act of destroying American buildings, the Al Qaida were attacking what they perceived as a threat -- US domination of Muslim countries, and American citizens and tax-payers who support military presence there. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it has the same moral and ethical ramifications as the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq when we KNOW that non-combatants will die by the thousands, just as they did in the Gulf War and in Afghanistan.

People who support attacking Iraq may feel that their cause is just and morally superior. The Israelis think so, when they destroy the homes of families with military tanks. Hamas thinks so, when they send young men with bombs strapped to their bodies to kill families on buses. Al Qaida thought so, when they sent men to fly planes into buildings.

Justifying war because "we are right and they are wrong" only serves to perpetuate war.

And while you may believe your cause is just -- how does that make you (or us) morally superior to someone like Al Qaidi who also believes that their cause is just?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 01:44 PM

Teribus, A friendly word of advice. Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience....They are not interested in debate, they merely wish to beat you into submission. This is the thread that never ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 01:45 PM

Hi there, Guest Forum Lurker,

If I may take your points and questions in order:

"We cannot assume that the Iraqi people will rise up against Saddam, or even that they will not fight as hard as the military."

In prospect you could well be correct. But in the light of past events the situation could be evaluated as follows:
The Americans have been financing and assisting dissaffected groups within Iraq and in neighbouring countries. My best bet would be that a group within the Ba'ath Party will get rid of Saddam Hussein, and that requires no uprising on the part of the people. Saddam Hussein sets great store by remaining in power - so does the Ba'ath Party. The Iraqi military did not fight hard the last time, the aerial bombardment they were subjected to completely shattered their morale. I do not believe that they will stand this time - If there is a this time. They could dissappear into the civilian population but if they do that they will be doing so to desert - the bulk of Saddam's forces are conscripts and don't really want to be there in the first place. In doing that they cede the countryside to the UN forces as long as there is clear understanding that this a "hearts and minds" operation, support for Saddam Hussein will diminish, more rapidly in some places than in others. The RG, SRG & FS units are different, they have received preferential treatment, while the general populace and regular army have suffered. The SRG and FS are internal security units whose principal duties are to protect Saddam Hussein from his own people, I do not believe that there is any love lost between the men in those units and the population they have terrorised for the last ten years.

"To use the tired example of Stalingrad, the civilians fought for Stalin, a dictator as bad or worse as Hussein, because they would rather deal with him than the invading dictator."

This is not the same type of conflict, in Moscow, Leningrad and in Stalingrad, there were no civilians - everybody served - but they were not fighting for Stalin - even the Communists were not naive enough to try and make the population believe that - their rallying cry in those days was "Rodina!!" - For Mother Russia, not for Communism, not for Stalin.

"Teribus, you say that "the Iraqis" are being given every chance to comply; if you hold them all responsible for the refusal, then they will all fight to support that decision."

In saying the Iraqis, I meant the Iraqi Authorities, I apologise for my phraseology.

"The fact is that we still have no proof that Saddam has or is developing nuclear weapons or intends to use them."

What we do know is that the Iraqi Government did not fully comply with the UNSC Resolutions resulting from negotiations at the end of "Desert Storm". The UNSCOM inspections were hindered and that a deception programme was undertaken by the Iraqi Authorities. From their reports, from reports of defectors, from aerial and satellite photography signs of activity and reconstruction work is evident at sites formerly associated with Iraq's WMD programme. Since 1958 Iraq has embarked on hostile expansionist campaigns on four occassions. Saddam Hussein has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel. All of which does not constitute proof - but it would be irresponsible to ignore those factors in making any assessment of the situation.

"The United States has engaged in an offensive war within the last year, though we did not bother to declare it;"

The offensive war you refer to; I take to mean the war in Afghanistan, although it could just as well refer to the war against terrorism. Once the link between the events of 11th September, 2001 and Al-Qaeda was established, the Taliban Government in Afghanistan were asked to hand over Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda personnel in Afghanistan, they were given numerous opportunities to do this and they refused. The legitimacy of the Taliban Regime was in dispute and the United States of America assisted the Northern Alliance opposition - there was no American invasion of Afghanistan.

"Hussein has not taken any military action against his neighbors in a decade, and never against America."

I mentioned four occassions on which Iraq has threatened its neighbours since 1958, they were in 1961, 1980 and 1991. As you state Iraq has not taken any military action against its neighbours in a decade, purely because Saddam Hussein has been denied the opportunity to do so, having been successfully expelled from Kuwait. Due to his non-compliance with the requirements stated in the UNSC resoultions and interference with the UNSCOM inspection teams, sanctions were imposed. This meant that Saddam Hussein could not make good the Iraqi losses in conventional military hardwear it is all too obvious - but development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons can be hidden, we've just had a very good instance of this in North Korea. If Saddam Hussein is only interested in defending his country, why are there good indications of rocket engine testing facilities that are larger than any Iraq has had before.

While Iraq has never taken military action against America, Saddam Hussein has threatened American allies and interests in the region.

"We will be the aggressors if we initiate this "regime change", and we need to be sure of our motivations before we do so."

What transpires, at the moment, is entirely in the hands of the Iraqi Government and the Ba'ath Party. They have made very clear statements regard their not having any WMD in Iraq. They invited the UNMOVIC Teams to return to the country unconditionally, stating that the personnel comprising those teams may carry out their inspections without let or hinderance enjoying the full co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities and military - lets see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 04:26 PM

So let the inspectors back in, and stop playing silly buggers. Anyone who tries to stop them going in is no friend of anyone, whether he's an Iraqi dictator, or a White House resident.

"Thwart Off!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:07 PM

Bobert, I'm getting a bit concerned for you! Teribus and Troll are a bit difficult to handle, aren't they? :>) You come up with all these creative ideas, and they keep picking them apart. Give me a hmmmmmmm, okay?

DougR (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:08 PM

There is no good solution to this unpleasant conflict, but kissing the feet of the aggressor is not any sort of answer. Tolerance is all very well but, like moderation, it can be taken to extremes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:20 PM

I expect Saddam is thinking the exact same thing. He's not the one threatening war, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:22 PM

kissing the feet of the aggressor is not any sort of answer

True enough. Of course, which one that would be, in the circumstances of a "premptive strike", is not a wholly straightforward matter to determine.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:57 PM

Well, Teribus, I'm so proud of you that, well, I'd..... (Ahhh, Bobert, you wouldn't really do that...) Okay, T, let just leave it that Iz mighty proud of you. I mean, yeah, nice bit of work you did up there. Must have taken you hours. And I love the out line form and the countries you included and even tghe Palestinians being included.

Now, gotta just ask one more favor. Have a little *faith*. Yeah, you say this peace stuff won't work but that's where we differ. You think that because of the Oslo agreements and the Camp David meetings between the Isrealis and the Palestinians didn't bring about the solutions we wanted that we ought to just throw up out hands in defeat.

Well, as you might have guessed. I don't. I think when we mix in the fact the the US is clearly the world's remaining Super power, with the post 9/11 mind set that the world is ready for the US to step forward be the catalyst in bringing about new solutions to old problems. This is where we differ. I think of peaceful solutions and you don't.

But, hey, you are part of the way there and I am very serious in praising the bulk of the work you put into your ealier post.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 06:53 PM

Yep, that's an impressive agenda. You ought to email that to the Secretary of State and tell him you started it for him.

You're right. Peace is hard. It requires work to happen. It requires the effort and cooperation of many countries. We're willing to spend $400 billion a year and have 100s of thousands of soldiers plus millions of workers laboring to prepare for war. Yet working for peace is... well, nobody's job. We scoff at the task.

Yet how many billions will we spend on a missile defense shield that all the experts say is unlikely to ever work, because we are willing to hope it MIGHT?

For location, I vote for Cyprus. It's middle eastern, but it's not, really... and Cyprus doesn't offend anyone (except Turkey, when they decide they want another piece of it.) Besides, the Cypriot economy could use a boost.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:20 PM

Uh, Nicole, the last two tests of the missle shield system were successful. The missles intercepted and destroyed the incoming target.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:24 PM

Yes, Doug. The last two tests also had homing devices in the incoming missiles.

If all of our enemies will just be so kind as to only send one missile at a time, with properly configured homing devices so the interceptor missiles can find them, then the missile shield works perfectly!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:49 PM

And if we could also get them snipers in the trunks of the Chevy Caprices to cooperate with homing devices, all would be well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 08:54 PM

And perhaps they will, Nicole, perhaps they will!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 04:49 AM

One group I ommitted from my list was:

Group 5 - Terrorist Organisations
a) Hamas
b) Hezbollah
c) Islamic Jihad
d) PFLP
e) PLP

An Addition to Group 3, would be Israeli Settlers.

Bobert's contention was that an Emergency Middle East Peace Summit would work by gathering the interested parties together and not adjourning the meeting until settlement had been achieved.

It could never happen of course in that way, the interests and aspirations of the various factions represented would not allow any settlement.

One way it could work is to break down the number of groups and settle their problems in forums where comprise is attainable without that compromise appearing, to one side or the other, as a "sell out" or defeat.

The heart of the problem in the middle east is the state of Israel. Originally, there was never meant to be one under the Sykes-Picot scheme of things, the Jews were to be granted land they could regard as a national homeland in the state of Palestine. Immigration was supposed to be gradual and controlled. In the aftermath of the Second World War, emotion overrode common-sense, the state of Israel was born out of a campaign of terrorism orchestrated by the immigrant organisations Stern Gang and Irgun. The massed immigration and the declaration of the creation of the state of Israel put that state in conflict with its neighbours. Through various wars and negotiations we have arrived at the situation existing today.

A set of basic principles must be established before any talks can take place to settle peace in the middle east.

First and foremost of those is recognition of the state of Israel, by ALL countries in the region, coupled with recognition of a Palestinian State on the part of Israel. Through bi-lateral talks Israel and its immediate neighbours were quite a long way down that road, so who else needs to be convinced?

a) Front line states of Lebanon and Syria, outstanding issues here are water rights and return of the Golan Heights. Settle those and support from Syria and Lebanon for Hamas and Hezbollah can be eliminated provided Israel gives its full support for a sovereign state of Palestine. The latter will require massive aid from the EU, America and the rest of the Arab world.

b) Non-front line Arab States, primarily Iraq, Iran and Libya. They have to recognise Israel as having the right to exist and they have to find a leadership and means of being able to declare that domestically and internationally. There are three stumbling blocks to this at present:

1. Iraq & Saddam Hussein;

The prospect of Iraq developing a WMD programme and the threat that that poses for the region, under Iraq's current leadership completely undermines any prospect of winning a peaceful settlement in the middle east. The establishment of whether or not Iraq has any WMD programme is being addressed now. It would also assist greatly if Saddam Hussein was replaced as Iraq's national leader, my own best candidate for the post would be Tarek Azziz, the Ba'ath party would remain in power, but with a far more rational leader. The only slight niggle in that is my own sneaking feeling that Tarek Azziz is the guy pulling Saddam's strings, that is countered by the fact that he also appears to be an extremely adept diplomat, capable of real statesmanship. He is also perceptive enough to be convinced of a better way, and pragmatic enough to adopt that course of action provided that his country benefits and prospers by it.


2. The reluctance by the countries identified above to renounce the use of terrorism and their willingness to fund terrorist organisations;

Get movement on the recognition of an independent state of Palestine and demonstrate concrete support from the international community and the above reluctance can be overcome.

3. The inability of the elected Palestinian Authority to exercise control over the militants;

Reconstruction of the state of Palestine will require massive aid and careful planning. This must come from the European Union, United states of America and from the Arab States comprising of Groups 1 and 2. The aid effort and reconstruction must be tangible and highly visible to demonstrate to all dissident groups that progress is being made with the help of the international community exclusively for the benefit of the Palestinian people. Displaced Palestinians must be given the choice to live in the new Palestine, or, in the countries where they have sought refuge as full citizens of those countries.   


c) Recognition of a Palestinian State has to sold to the Israeli's and the Israeli Settlers. The biggest stumbling block to the accomplishment of this objective is the settlements in occupied territory. This will be the hardest thing for any Israeli Government to sell to its own people, but a solution is not impossible, given a stark enough choice, based of the greatest good for the greatest number, the settlers will relocate back within Israel's borders.

Get that far down the road Bobert and then you could have your summit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 05:35 AM

Nicole,

I have never advocated as desireable the blowing up of any apartment blocks. When I said that:

"No-one is advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi's are being offered every opportunity to ensure that that does not happen - all they have to do is comply with what they signed up to do back in 1991."

I simply state the case that the Iraqi Government should comply with the UN resolutions and allow UN inspection teams to verify beyond doubt to the international community that Iraq has complied with those resolutions.

In this the Iraqi Government would be a lot more convincing in their statements if they went to the UN and supported the new US resolution regarding the UNMOVIC Inspections. Instead, they have:

1. Issued an invitation to the UN to send inspection teams to Iraq without pre-conditions.

2. Made a declaration that they do not possess any WMD.

3. Introduced conditions governing the activities of the Inspection Teams on their return.

You said:

"We're willing to spend $400 billion a year and have 100s of thousands of soldiers plus millions of workers laboring to prepare for war."

The United States of America spends that on defence anyway - irrespective of Iraq.

The SDI programme you referred to is being pursued to defend your country against the likelyhood of a rogue attack - a one off. Doug drew your attention to recent successfull tests and you countered by mentioning that homing devices were fitted to the target missiles. There are a couple of good reasons for fitting those homing devices Nicole:

1. In taking on a ballistic missile target armed with a nuclear warhead you are faced with a heavy, dead weight target (parabolic ballistic trajectory). Extremely difficult to deflect, so you have to destroy it. That calls for a massive charge, or a number of smaller charges that succeed in breaking up the target warhead. To test whether or not the pattern of charges and size of charges is correct you must first set up a trial where you can guarantee interception - hence # 1 requirement for a homing device.

2. Simple test safety, if your anti-missile missile looks like it is being "seduced" by another target you can use the homing device to put it back on the right track, and if that fails you self destruct.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:51 AM

You know, T, that they Sauid Propoasl laid down the basics that you suggest. A "simultaneuos" recognition of Isreal's right to exist and the recognition of a Palestinian State. I agree with you that this would be a grand jesture and one that could open up avenues that would lead to a greater and more comprehensive "Summit" that you have outlined and I have been holding as an alternative to the huff-n-puff foriegn policy with which I have been most unhappy.

As for the regime change in Iraq, I would agree that if it were my *choice* to have Tarek Azziz, but I am suggesting that "regime changes" are not a productive goal to be put forth in trying to sell folks on the importance of their participation in the "Summit". Quite the contrary. I mean. like who's gonna show up thinking that Ari Fleisher's gonna try the "single bullet theory"?

I agree, that the "Summit" can't happen under today's climate of distrust but again will state that if Bush were to use a little more diplomacy and a little less sabre rattling that an Isreali/ Palestinian agreement is within reach. And with that featehr in Bush's cap, he could use that as a springboard toward the "Summit".

What bothers me the most is that when Bush came to Washington, he threw the baby out with the bath water. No matter what the Clinton Adminstration was trying to do, Bush just went about doing the opposite. In turning his back on the Middle East he set a climate for not only 9/11 but for the increased fighting between the Isrealis and the Palestinians. I guess that is why I don't hold much faith that he has the vision or wisdom to carry out a foriegn policy that is not fueled by militarism.

But, T, we are in agreement on a number of issues but perhaps not on the one that is most imporatant: Is man capabible of moving forward without blowing folks up?

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:35 AM

Bobert - Can Bush procede without blowing folks up? Well, I think he CAN, even if I don't think that's his desire -- and fortunately we seem to be somewhat moving in that direction. I'm sorry, I don't buy Teribus' theory that this is all just a deep strategy dreamed up by the Prez. Let's face it, the majority of Americans have seen through this latest gambit, despite huge amounts of PR thrown at the subject, and he'd be a bigger fool than he is to actually attack with so little support. I wouldn't put it past 'em to try another Incubator Baby lie to drum up support, tho.

I think a more relevant question is how much is Bush the Lesser interfering with the business at hand. Is he an idiot? Or is he a diversion?

T - I realize that we spend $400 billion a year on the military (er, that's what I was saying, actually.) My point was that we are willing to do so, but the money and time we invest into peace is pathetic. As ye sow, an ye shall reap.

I also know that homing devices and what-not are part of the development process. We're still a LONG way off from a successful system. (I do object to the press releases that talk about how well it's working, when it isn't, yet.) Some folks say it can't be done, but I think that eventually the owlies will get it. They just have to invent whole categories of new technology first. It'll take a bunch of money and a bunch of time.

But how much money and time is really being spent on preventing "rogue" nations from attcking us? IMO, chest-thumping and threatening to overthrow governments increases the risk, not decreases it. In Iraq, we are (well, were) treantening to oust Saddam if he didn't comply, and if he did comply... we were going to oust him anyway. As motivation, that stinks -- it seems designed to cause Iraq to refuse to cooperate so we can attack.

In short, it's counterproductive to threaten war in order to keep the peace. Someone mentioned "Red Dawn" in another thread -- in the script the White House is trying to get us to believe, the teenagers would have been celebrating in the streets at having been liberated instead of fighting back.

I have one more BIG item for your agenda. We can't address funding of terrorists without the US agreeing to cease funding terrorism. We call them "rebels," but in reality they perform terrorists acts using American training and American supplies. We can't achieve accord in the Middle East without ceasing to fund and train groups which try to overthrow the foreign governments at the negotiating table.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:45 AM

Ariel Sharon's coalition government has collapsed and Ben-Eliezer has resigned in a row over funding of the settlements.

Blick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:03 PM

In my post above, Bobert, I outline what has to happen before the various parties will simultaneously declare that Israel has a right to exist.

After everything that Saddam Hussein has said on the subject, and after everything that he has done, what do you think would make him change his mind with regard to Israel.

If you go through the list of countries and factions I've detailed as representing the "interested parties in the region. For each mark down what each wants, who relies on who for support, who trusts who, which regard which as rivals or enemies. You will deduce that collectively, there is precious little common ground among them.

Add to this, an Iraq armed with WMD, including a nuclear capability and your chance of ever achieving a peaceful settlement in the middle east dissappears. What you will have is a nuclear stand-off, and a return to a sort of regional cold war with the Arab nations lining up behind Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Since 11th September, 2001, I do not believe that any American Administration has looked so long and so hard at the middle east in an attempt to fathom a way through the mess, and get a real peace process underway.

The prospect of Iraq acquiring WMD required action to be taken. Your President called the United Nations attention to the potential danger and required it to act - It did, and results are forthcoming.

A new resolution is required, the designated Chairman of UNMOVIC agrees to that, and that it is pointless to send his teams to Iraq until their new mandate is clearly accepted.

The stance being taken by France, is viewed by some as being the voice of caution and moderation. It should always be remembered when assessing anything said by the French, that it is based on the premise, that what is right/beneficial for France, is right/beneficial for the world. France was the country who sold the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world the technology and components to build a nuclear reactor (the one the Israeli's took out before it could become operational)- what did they think Iraq was going to use it for? They are perfectly prepared to pour petrol on the fire in the hope that they will profit once the flames are extinguished.

Where we differ Bobert, is that I believe your President and his advisors have read the situation accurately and are acting accordingly in a responsible manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:04 PM

Missile defense. It helps if you're already on alert, you know what direction the missile is coming from, and when it's being fired. Under these conditions, the last several tests have been about 50% successful. And they've been working on this off and on since the late Fifties, ABM treaty or not. Your tax dollars at work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:24 PM

Nicole,

Regarding my theory, I have two questions for you.

1. After three and a half years inactivity, what, in your opinion, prompted the United Nations to act with regard to Iraq?

2. After succeeding in getting the UNSCOM inspection teams out of Iraq, what, in your opinion, prompted the Iraqi Government to issue their invitation to allow UNMOVIC inspection teams to return to complete the work of their predecessors?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:42 PM

T, I agree that one goal has been accomplished. However, I disagree in that I think that the actions taken to achieve that goal have cause more harm than good.

Once again, we're the evil Americans oppressing the world and crusading against Islam. Once again, we thumbed our nose at our allies and told them to kiss our feet or we'd take our ball and go home.

I don't really agree with that assessment, but there are plenty in other who countries who do. Our reputation has been further damaged, making it more difficult for ANY administration to achieve peaceful goals, and causing more people to hate American for our arrogance and hubris. The world isn't a safer place now, it's been made more dangerous.

Meanwhile, some very damaging legislation has been passed that erodes the foundations of our government. Now that Congress has (illegally) abdicated their Constitution responsibility of oversight, will Bush next threaten to make Congres "irrelevant" if they don't do what he wants?

The issue is far bigger than Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 01:16 PM

First of all, T, I do not have the time in my life to complete your assignemnt of taking each country on your list and writing reams and reams about relationships, difference and resources. Some folks here in the Catbox actually, ahhh, are still *working for a living*. Now, working for a living precludes taking on monumental term paper length responses. When I get retired, or what ever it is that you are that allows your hours and hours to write and write and write, then I'll consider your requests for long winded position papers.

However, you say that "Since 11th September, 2001, I do not believe that any American Administration has looked so long or so hard at the middle east inan attempt to fathom a way through the mess, and get a real peace process underway." Well, can't fault you in your logic since there hasn't been but the Bush adminstartion in power since Sept.11th, 2002. But compared to the hard work that both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton put into the Middle East, the Bush Administration looks like an administration that is, ahhh, how shall I say this, ahhh, *just watching*.

But then again, T, you did say that was your "belief" but I'd guarentee you that in the views of most folks on the planet who have been watching Bush's foriegn policy since he became President, you are in the minority. The Isreali/ Palestinian conflict has been a 8spectator sport* for Bush and the Iraqi/Saddam situation not much more than a smoke screen to cover up the undeniable fact that Bush has been asleep at the wheel on domestic issues.

Now, you believe that Saddam has nuckear capabilites? Hmmmmmmm? Do you really *believe* that? Do you really believe that not only does Saddam have these nuclear weapons but that he has unmanned aircraft capapble of delivering them on America's doorstep? Really, T? I really thought we were beyond the fabrication stage of the discussion and then just when it looks like we're making progress, you go and backslide. Well, maybe you didn't. Maybe I just assumed that you were beyond the Bush's PR noise but if you're not, then my apologies and we'll just have to go back to disagreeing...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 05:00 PM

Nicole: the power you are so concerned about that the congress gave Bush recently, was held by every president since Carter (including him). Read my lips. Have no fear. Bush will use it wisely.

Bobert: you are never satisfied. Teribus laid out a perfectly logical plan for establishing a climate that would be conducive to accomplishing EXACTLY what you want to accomplish. A super-dooper meeting! And what do you do? Plead that you have no time! A few threads back folks were appointing you president, with a cabinet of your choice and all the trimmings. If you are going to run things, you have to put aside your own needs such as working for a living, and save the world! Hmmmmmm? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 06:16 PM

Well, Dougie, I'll admit that T is a tough read. You're gonna need lots of time, patience, and NoDoz but my read on his most recent posts is that he is saying purdy much that none of this can work. That's what brought my "backslide" comment. Heck, you may have time to re-read T's letest "War and Peace" post and see oif that ain't what he's sayin'.

Heck, the boy (or girl...) writes so much that sometimes I just nod off while reading his treaties. Yep, got the scars on the forehead to prove it.

Bobert

I'll be back much later tonight or not at all, Dougie. Gotta cook dinner for the wife and then it's the Bullets (Wizzards, you know... ahhh, basketball) opening game tonight and it's on the TV...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:47 PM

Saddam orders agents to assassinate Iraqi opposition leaders

According to highly classified information received by British and
American intelligence officials in the past week, Saddam has issued a
presidential decree authorising the murder of leading members of the
Iraqi opposition "by any means necessary".

He is also said to have approached the Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi
- who is known to have a network of "sleeper" agents based in Britain
and Europe - to help him to target Iraqi dissidents.

Iraqi opposition groups are currently engaged in detailed negotiations
over what form a new government will take should Saddam be overthrown. A
conference of all the Iraqi groups is planned for Brussels later this
month. (Sunday Telegraph)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 05:04 PM

Interesting. You know, I'm not in favor of targetting dissidents, but:

We call them "opposition leaders," like it's just the political party that's not in power. If, say, a bunch of rabid, gun-toting guys in Iowa decided to plan to overthrow the US government, and they got, say, Canada, to arm and train them, and were holding international conferences on what they were gonna do...

... wouldn't we call them "traitors?"

And what would the US do in a similar situation?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:01 PM

According to highly classified information received by British and
American intelligence officials in the past week... He is also said to have... who is known to have...

Well, it could all be true enough. But equally it could all be a bunch of conveniantly times hooey. "Highly classified" means "you are going to have to take it on trust"; and there is no reason whatsoever to trust what these people say. After all, these were the guys who made up the story about babies being thrown out of incubators in the Kuwait occupation, which was later admitted to have been a complete fabrication.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:19 PM

But it sells newspapers McGrath...... Like the Hollywood mantra, who cares if its accurate and historically correct? The vast majority of the Dorks who pay to see it will never read a history book, or know the difference if they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:17 AM

According to an article in the Washington Post, Iraq very likely has a stock of smallpox virus. What does the Forum think should be done?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:54 AM

Well danged, troll, why didn't ya' tell us earlier? This cahnges everything. Excuse my boney Wes Ginny butt while I go on down to the recruiting office and sign up to go kill a bunch of folks... Opps, that was Dougie's line.

Ahhhh, lots of dangerous folks in the world. Just which one's are on your "A List" to be taken out and how you plan on doing the *taking out* without:

1. Gettin lots of folks, including civilians, killed?

2. Creatin' a generation of pissed off kids who will one day strap bombs on themselves and visit a theater near you?

3. Gettin bogged down in an endless war, jumping from one battlefield to the next?

4. Further subverting the foundation of the United Nations?

5. Sending out an undenbiable message to other countries that attacking their neighbors is perfectly acceptable?

And those are just for starters.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Trapper
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:57 PM

Just posted this on another thread, a new song I wrote as an allegory to this topic.

- Al

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:37 PM

Troll:a short answer to your question: I think the population should be inoculated against small pox. There are risks associated with that because a number of people are sure to die as a result of the inoculation (at least that's what I heard on NPR), but I think the risk of an epidemic is much worse.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:43 PM

Well said, Trapper...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:47 PM

The comparison in the two posts above from Bobert and DougR, in response to a question posed by Troll, speaks volumes.

From DougR - we get a sane and logical answer to the question.

From Bobert - we get the same old hysteria

Hmmmmmmm?

Visit an innoculation centre at a theater near you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:03 PM

I agree with you on principle, Doug, but one little problem: do we have six billion doses? If smallpox is used on American soldiers, it will be spread to the rest of the world. If we are genuinely worried that Hussein will use bioweapons if attacked, a reasonable fear, then we cannot risk attacking, regardless of our own immunity, if such an attack will reintroduce smallpox to the world. Our own intelligence agencies have said, and Mossad agrees, that Saddam will use WMD's if AND ONLY IF he is attacked. With that in mind, no argument yet presented can possibly justify U.S. military action.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:05 PM

Actually, I think mass vaccinations -- which we KNOW will cause deaths and injuries -- in response to a rumor of a possibility published in the Washington post is the "hysterical" reponse.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:28 PM

Well, T-Bird, you wanta see hysteria. Bring on your war and you'll get a real dose of hysteria, from the poor folks who get caught in the middle of the crossfire, the relatives of those who get killed which may indeed be folks we know and love. As fir now, no hysteria on my end. Concern? Yeah. Anxiety? Yeah. Anger? Yeah. But no hysteria, my friend. I'm a tad long in the tooth for panicing.

But I thought since numbered my concerns that I'd get at least a little more than name calling. Oh well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:49 PM

It seems to me that those who don't get a little hysterical about this whole thing must not have a very good grasp of the situation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:08 PM

Perhaps you are right, Nicole, but I think better safe than sorry. I, myself, am not hysterical, but I might become so were serveral cases of smallpox to break out somewhere around here.

A NPR program recently devoted a hour to this subject (the DR show). Evidently there is enough vaccine to cover everyone in the U. S. I dont' know what supplies are available in other countries.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:31 PM

Maybe we have a different definition of "hysteria", Don. To me it implies debilitating fear and panic. You know from what I have contributed to this thread that I am more than slightly p.o'd about Bush's war plans, but I still got my wits 'cause if I loose that then I'm not going to be of any value to the resistence movement.

But I know what you mean, my friend.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:46 PM

Last I heard, there was nowhere near enough vaccine for the US, but they were hoping they could dilute the dosage and were going to test that out. I guess they finished short-term tests; long term protection can't be tested yet. I wonder how long it takes smallpox to decay out of the environment? I diluted dosage would almost certainly be safer.

I disagree about the better safe than sorry comment though. We know with absolute certainty that a significant number of people will die from the vaccination itself. Vaccinations *aren't* safe, but most of the stuff we vaccinate for has a higher probability of death if you contract it. It's a calculated risk.

Without a credible threat of a small pox epidemic, a mass vaccination program is comdemning people to die for something it's extremely unlikely they'd get. Nor is smallpox necessarily deadly; the mortality rate used to be high in it's hey-day, but treatment is far better now.

I personally need a better reason to roll up my sleeve than a rumor. It seems more likely at this point one of the bio labs around town would accidentally release some. If we knew, for example, that Al Qaida was trying to smuggle some into the country... well, that's be a different story.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:06 PM

The article said that there were 4 countries that had stocks of live smallpox virus. There are, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, and France. The only one that was rated as "medium" in likelyhood was North Korea.
We already have good information from Russian scientists that Russia sold smallpox technology in the early 90's. There is other evidence as well. There is no smoking gun but the evidence suggests a high probability that Iraq has smallpox virus. The technology they were sold was for manufacturing the liquid form of the virus.
I am aware of the reports that say that Saddam won't use his WMD's unless he is attacked.
OK.
Who can gaurantee that this scenario will hold good for the foreseeable future? Saddam has pledged to destroy Israel. A good fast plague would do just that and it could be spread by means other than missles or bombs.
The figure I saw was 300 deaths if the whole country were innoculated. If someone else has different data, please correct my figures. I read the article in the Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese English-language newspaper. It was a reprint from the Washington Post.
As I said in my initial post, I'd like to know what others think about this news. I am assuming that it is credible.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:20 PM

I'm assuming when the Washington post reported there was a "possibility" they believed it.

There is also a possibility that I will win the Lottery Saturday. That doesn't mean I'm spending my millions yet. When I get to 4 numebrs in a row, then I'll get excited :)

Quote from an article about 1 month ago in USAToday:
"For every million immunized, one or two people will die from the vaccine, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Sunday. About half of those vaccinated for the first time suffer muscle aches or fever. Serious side effects were rare during mass vaccinations in the '60s, he said, and complications in people being revacci- nated were even rarer. It's estimated that 64% of today's workforce probably was vaccinated before 1972, when routine smallpox vaccination ceased.

But it's a different world today. Ronald Atlas, president of the microbiology society, said 20% to 25% of those who suffered reactions were people who had not been vaccinated, but caught the vaccine virus from recently immunized people. Today, with so many more cancer patients, people with HIV/AIDS and others with weakened immune systems, the number of serious side effects could be "much higher, by orders of magnitude.""

So we're talking about the deaths of hundreds, maybe even thousands. Anyone who has some types of thyroid diseases, diabetes, MS or other common illnesses are at higher risk. And vaccines are being implicated in many conditions that don't appear right away (like autism and immune disorders). Additionally, the brain infection that kills most people that die of the small pox vaccine can be debilitating.

The vaccination itself is a "live" vaccine, and can cause the spread of the smallpox virus. Not a problem in a control condition. But a mass innoculation would have people lined up to get jabbed. (I've been through one -- a measles epidemic. 30,000 people on campus vaccinated in 2 days. Nasty experience, and we all caught everyone else's colds.)

A mass innoculation would without a doubt reintroduce the disease to the world, causing the deaths of thousands more worldwide.

We stopped vaccinating for small pox because it was a very risky vaccine compared to the others, and the chances of catching it had dropped very low. Without a clear indication that we are at a substantial risk, it seems like the vaccine is the greater danger.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 11:12 PM

Delivering a feature address in Barbados yesterday, American economist and former CNN business reporter Stuart Varney was full of praise for the Bush administration.

He said there will be war with Iraq and this could be good news for Caribbean tourism.

According to the newspaper report, "He said the price war on gas would come to an end as prices plummeted after America gained control of the (Iraqi) oil... The American economy ...should show growth by a further four percent early next year if there was an attack on Iraq."

This is what most non-Americans have suspected all along as the real reason for the war, but to hear it put that brazenly was, to say the least, ...frightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 10:51 AM

Golly Gee, Richard-
You mean this war is about <>I>OIL?
and <>I>MAKING MONEY?

Troll, you forgot the FIFTH country with stocks of live smallpox virus- the United States. Don't kid yourself...

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:02 PM

Hello Greg. I reported what the story said. Nothing more.
Considering that smallpox kills about one in every three who contract the dangers of innoculation don't look so bad. Keeping in mind that it will take time to innoculate everyone (assuming the vaccine is available) and that it takes a certain amount of time before the vaccine is effective.
If a biological attack with smallpox does take place, it will come with no warning. So it behooves the US to gather as much intelligence as we can and try to assess the danger.
Possession of the virus is bad but it must be coupled with some sort of delivery system. This is part of what will be going on with the weapons inspections, if they can actually find the stuff that has already been manufactured and then hidden away.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:11 PM

As I recall the conversation on the NPR DR show, the man from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta used the 300 person figure Troll.

Everyone who served in the military in WW II and probably into the late sixties received the smallpox vaccine. You did not read of mass deaths from the vaccine then did you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:15 PM

And Nicole: I'm surprised to see you are taking the conservative view on vaccination. We all know that conservatives are opposed to change, right? And renewing the vaccination program would be just that. Change! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:54 PM

Which is why labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are bunk. Lately, the so-called conservatives are the ones trying to rewrite our Constitution, not the so-called "liberals."

You didn't hear about people dying of the smallpox vaccine when it was in wide use for the same reason you rarely hear about the kids that die (a couple dozen a year) from routine vaccinations -- the dangers of NOT getting those vaccine are worse.

Troll, the vaccine is effective almost immediately -- in fact, it can be used to treat the disease up to 4 days after exposure. A tricky concept; smallpox symptoms usually don't show up for 7-10 days.

I agree that smallpox is a biological weapon that should be closely monitored and inspected. INCLUDING the biological labs active in the US that are manufacturing -- er, "studying" it. Remember, the last death from small pox (in 1978) was from laboratory exposure. It's pervasive, easily spread, and very hard to kill. Unlike anthrax, an aerosol can of smallpox on a subway could actually be effective in starting a wide outbreak. If smallpox was revived in the wild, I'd probably be in the vaccine line real quick.

But I think any rumors (and it is a rumor, not a verified fact) about what Iraq does and does not have right now should be treated with skepticism while the US Government is spending millions in PR dollars to convince the American public how bad Iraq is.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 04:08 PM

By the way folks, GREAT discussion on Talk of the Nation today on smallpox. Their guests were both well informed and polite to each other. One of the guests was the author of "Devil in the Freezer." (BTW, both thought that mass vaccination, as of now, was a bad idea, because we lose immunity so quickly.)

One of the most interesting points, in light of this discussion, was that if Iraq has been pursuing smallpox as a biological weapons, there's a commonly known and not very difficult avenue to developing a vaccine-resistant form. In 1995, Iraq admitted that prior to 1990 they had been developing a genetically ehanced bioweapon program. (Must like the US and Soviet programs). They stopped because they needed to spend their limited funds on research that would have quicker payoffs.

I personally doubt that Iraq has since aquired the resources to continue that research... question is, given that this vaccine-resistant smallpox is supposed to be fairly easy... did they complete it prior ending/redirecting/stalling bio research.

Food for thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 04:56 PM

Niclole: "they needed to spend their limited funds on researh that would have a quicker payoff?" Like nuclear weapons?

It would seem that we should know within a reasonable time whether all of the second guessers, or Bush, is right about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. The Inspectors should be in Iraq pretty quickly now that ALL nations, including Syria, voted yea on the US/British proposed U.N. Resolution.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:00 PM

They didn't clarify, Doug, but I got the impression it was spending money on things likes guns and anti-aircraft missiles, not long-term research. Nuclear research would qualify as a long term thing that doesn't have a quick payoff.

Whether Iraq will accept the resolution or not... Since Iraq has already agreed to inspections priot to the passage, it may be a short and sweet wait. BUT -- although I may not think Saddam is suicidal, petty dictators and bullies have this habit of pointless defiance. If he thinks it will go bad for him either way, he'll probably put his back up against the wall and hide behind talk of Iraq's sovereignity being insulted.

I hope not. I would *SO* like to see this thing end peacefully. Of course, Saddam's advisors may take matters into their own hands is Saddam beces intractable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 10:18 PM

Debka.com an alternate source of propaganda

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 11:44 PM

"But I think any rumors (and it is a rumor, not a verified fact) about what Iraq does and does not have right now should be treated with skepticism while the US Government is spending millions in PR dollars to convince the American public how bad Iraq is."
Whistling in the dark and wishing won't make it so. If it is a rumor, it seems pretty well substantiated and some fairly well informed people (not just Americans) are taking it seriously.
I guess they feel that they can't afford NOT to.
When we were all immunized after WWII, I don't recall anyone dieing. I was pretty young at the time but I would have heard if anyone in my greatly extended family had died and I would remember it. We kids were not sheltered from death in those days and a lot of deaths all at once would have been a major topic of discussion, not only at home but in church as well.
Maybe the people of today just don't have as firm a grip on life.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:43 PM

Again, the issue is not so much whether he HAS is as whether he will USE it. Even without smallpox, biological weapons are extremely dangerous. Pneumonic plague, readily located and cultivated anywhere in the Eastern hemisphere, will kill 1 in 3 if it is antibiotic resistant (a procedure so simple it is done in high school biology), and there are dozens more just like it. What needs to be done is to avoid any reason to use them, namely, not to threaten war before an official response has been given to the U.N. resolution. Anything else is incredibly irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:36 PM

Forum Lurker: "Pneumonic plague." Now that's a new one on me. What is it? How does it affect one?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 01:45 PM

Most people have heard of "bubonic plague," but "pneumonic plague" is just as deadly. Bubonic plague is spread by fleabites, whereas pneumonic plague is spread as an aerosol, which makes it a better candidate as a biological weapon.

Bubonic Plague:

A contagious, often fatal epidemic disease caused by the bacterium, Yersinia pestis, transmitted from person to person or by the bite of fleas from an infected host, especially a rat, and characterized by chills, fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and the formation of buboes. (American Heritage Dictionary)
 Bacteria invade lymph nodes, which swell and are called Buboes
 Blood vessels break, causing internal bleeding
 Dried blood under the skin turns black, hence the name, "Black Death"
 Spread is slow from person-to-person
 Mortality is very high (up to 75%) in untreated cases
 Early treatment with antibiotics is very effective

Pneumonic Plague:

 Bacteria invade victim's lungs
 Lungs fill with frothy bloody liquid
 Spread is common from person-to-person

Further information HERE (requires Adobe Reader).

Respectfully submitted,

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 01:53 PM

Huge amount of information on pneumonic plague to be found on google.com.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:01 PM

Thanks Don. I think you supplied enough information for me. It doesn't sound good.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:45 PM

There's no reason to think Iraq is in any way capable of launching this kind of attack, which is by no means easy, or indeed has any motive for wanting to do so.

Maybe it's time to read The Story of Chicken Little. With the moral that, if you fill your heads with worrying about the wrong things, the things you ought to have been worried about are more likely to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 02:08 PM

Well, what should we be worried about, McGrath? Hussein has agreed to let inspectors in, though he denies that there is anything for them to find. If he has no motive to launch an attack, and Dubya doesn't give him one once the inspectors do find something, what ought we to worry about?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 02:18 PM

Bush's domestic policy? The Patriot Act? Homeland Security?

Scares me a bit. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 03:29 PM

An administration that thinks that war = peace?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:10 PM

Ah, but war might be the only thing that will eventually bring peace, Nicole. That's what brought peace with Germany and Japan isn't it? Peace is what has happend after every war, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:41 PM

Wrong, Dougie. Every war has brought another... and another ... and another...and another... and another... and another....and another... another...and another... and another... and another....and another... and ....

Get it? War only brings about the next one, my friend. Nothing more than just another war.

Where do you find the peace in any of it?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:46 PM

Does it? The Gulf War brought peace to Iraq, right? How about Korea... real peaceful, isn't it? Vietnam? Somalia? There's been so much success for all the wars fought by Israel, it's a real peace zone, isn't it?

Nor did WWI bring peace. Nor has thousand and thousands of years of constant warfare. With all that war, damn, you'd think we'd be awfully peaceful!

WWII might be the exception. Why the difference? WWII was followed by a massive campaign on the part of the US to wage peace -- to heal scars, rebuild economies, and re-establish friendly relations. Despite atrocities like the fire-bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and generations of young men dead, that plan to wage peace worked.

Maybe, just MAYBE we ought to try breaking thousand of years of tradition and try waging peace for a change, with the same passion and glory and effort with which we wage war. Mudcat is all up in arms about Veterans Day. But when was the last time the nation declared a holiday to celebrate the relief workers, medical staff and volunteers who risk their lives to wage peace by building infrastructure, healing disease and training people?

Guess there's no glory in dying of dysentary in a remote village trying to teach people how to dig better wells. Better drum up another war so another generation of young men can die on the battlefield gloriously for a cause that they have no say in and have rarely been told why the war is really being fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:17 AM

The difference Nicole was that the Allies insisted on the unconditional surrender on the part of the Axis powers, all the others you quoted were negotiated peace settlements, with the exception of Korea where only a ceasefire was negotiated. As you rightly point out what followed the end of hostilities in 1945 was the thing that ensured peace - pro-active engagement in the reconstruction of devastated countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:43 AM

But look at what the Allies did to achieve unconditional surrender in Japan. Is there really no better way to make peace than to devastate a nation so we can rebuild it? I would like to think that it may be possible to avoid the war entirely, and with Iraq letting the inspectors back in, there may be a chance.

P.S. I agree entirely with you, Don. Our president is not the most comforting figure. Have you heard about the Information Awareness Office? It's headed by Poindexter, a man who was heavily implicated (convicted but overturned) in the Iran Contra scandal and will soon be able to track all of your online information transfers, including posts like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:26 PM

I find it quite interesting that the "atrocities" mentioned my NicoleC in her last post were committed by the Allies. No mention (or thought?) of the Holocaust or the massacres of Slavic peoples by Germany. No mention of the Rape of Nanking and Shanghai, or Bataan.
Hmmmm

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:37 PM

Of course there were atrocities by the other side, no one said there weren't. However, I was speaking of the post-war actions of the victors. When you win, you get your revenge or justification by winning. When you lose, you just feel resentful you lost, and wait until you have another chance, perpetuating the cycle of war.

In the case of WWII, a concerted effort was made by the victors to make peace with the losers -- subverting the "we'll get them next time" syndrome.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 02 - 11:48 AM

You guys gotta getcha some of these. They're right on the mark.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 26 Dec 02 - 02:51 PM

It appears that Bush is not only witholding what he does or does not know about the arms status of Iraq in NBC categories. He is also being careful not to talk about all the American companies which aided Iraq in building whatever such capabilities it has.

At least, that is the implication of this report which I have no way to fact-check at the moment.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 02 - 06:39 PM

Yeah, Amos, I posted this on a different thread last week. A german newspaper got an "UNEDITED" disclosure and got the names of the US corporations who either have or still are in bed witrh Saddam. But now, as I understand, the US is *cleaning up* the copies being provided to the countries on the UN Security Council. Hmmmmmmmmm?

Man, wouldn't it be too bad (Yeah, right...) if Junior couln't have his war because he got caught tampering with the evidence. (Like what evidence, I ask. We're still waiting?) and had to go about doing presidential things, like running the country, rather than playing the world's bully.... Well, you wouldn't have to worry about '04 'cause you can bet that if Junior can't shoot his big gun then he ain't stickin' 'round...

Give me a break...

Peace thru RESISTENCE!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:15 AM

Sorry I missed it earlier, buddy.

Nothin' like a good war to make folks look better than they are....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:36 AM

It's a great game this - censor the text and than claim that there are omissions from what were in it in the first place that justify going to war, and everyone is supposed to take it on trust.

I'd trust George Bush about as far as I'd trust Saddam Hussein.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:55 AM

I think the witholds and the claimed omissions are different sets of data, KM, just to keep things fair. But I am inclined to support your position about trusting either of these clowns.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 02:11 PM

You may think that, and I may think that - but it's all guesswork and speculation. Interpreted by media more concerned to distort news ("spin") than to explain it.

There was a letter in the Guardian on Christmas Eve from someone with an interesting angle on all this, based on his having been in the German army in Stalingrad:

Listening to the call-to-war noises made by Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Straw, forcefully reminds me of the noises made by Hitler and Goebbels to justify their planned attacks on other countries. As I had been "educated" in the Hitler youth, I believed every word they were saying, as well as in their superior intelligence and honourable patriotic intentions.
However, about three years into the war, trudging back through the white hell after having lost the battle of Stalingrad, I began to wake up to the fact that my trust in my leaders had been betrayed. It was then, walking back through the regions our triumphant advance in the previous summer had laid waste, that I realised the unmeasurable crime we had committed against the ordinary Soviet people - and all for the sake of reaching the rich oilfields to the south-east on behalf of our masters.

There is still time to stop and think and remind our leaders of the consequences of war, which they themselves have never experienced.
Henry Metelmann
Godalming, Surrey

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 09:28 AM

Hi all,

Very interesting thread.

My view is simple (some might say simplisitic but that's a semantic call)

1. President Bush is Captain Ahab. Hussein is the white whale.

2. A caveat from Tom Lehrer:
"Anyone who surfs the net deserves all the misinformation they get."

3. If the US bombs Iraq, will the other Arab nations stand by and let that happen? Anyone care to promote WWIII.

Frank