BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:34 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 01:29 PM

Yes, it appears so Nicole.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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?