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