BS: US & British war plans blocked

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 09:44 AM

It's true enough, Carol that the leaders of eight countries have put their names to a letter saying that on the whole they are on the Bush side. The Uniteed Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Denmark from inside the EU, and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Of course, that's leaders. (Including that most peculiar and dodgy of leaders Berlusconi.) How far they carry their people with them is another matter, but what the hell, what matters is a name on a bit of paper.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 10:47 PM

It is very true that violence is the last resort of the desperate and the stupid.

And unfortunately, it's all too often the first resort.

I don't have all the nations, but apparently seven other New European nations have told Germany and France to go to hell with the wheels on.

Yeah, I keep hearing that from the people who are hungry for war with Iraq, but I have yet to hear or read the name of even one of them. I may disbelieve that one perhaps just a little bit less when they name the countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:40 PM

Claymore:

Not that you could care, but you might get a little further in advancing your ideas if you could delete the juvilnile name calling. It weakens your positions, unless of course, that is your intent.

But, hey, big guy. Of ourse it is your 1st Ammendment right to just go caling folks names, like "Bag of Puss", which in spite of my disagreements with Bush, wouldn't stengthen any of my posts, but detract from them.

And I didn't like Clinton either.

Peace starts in the heart, brother.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:38 PM

"Given a bit of effort"

QED

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:32 PM

Those are other points, Gareth. The point I was making was that it's a distortion to say "the nation" supports something just because the government does.

As for hanging, when they had a referendum in Ireland on changing the constitution to make sure the death penalty couldn't ever be sneaked back in, the vote was in favour of barring the death penalty for ever. Given a bit of effort maybe the other bits of the British Isles might catch up.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:14 PM

Errr, Kevin, 'Mass Observation' found that most people supported Chamberlin's actions over the Munich Agreement.

In the UK most oppinion Polls would support the reintroduction of the Death Penalty for Murder.

On this basis would you support Hanging, or "I have no further teritorial ambitions"/" I have in my hand a peace of paper ...." ???

Gareth - Tossing an explosive charge into the pool of debate !!

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:28 PM

Nations are not the same as governments. So far as the United Koingdom is concerned it is very clear that most people do not agree with Tony Blair and his government on this issue. He has admitted as much, saying that he was sure that people would come round to his way of thinking in time.

I suspect that the same would be true in many, if not in fact all, of the other European nations whose governments signed up to that letter.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:19 PM

McGrath: you failed to include an important tag to your paragraph I think: "in your opinion."

When I write something, what I write is intended to convey my opinion. Why else would I write it? (Leave aside irony, which in any case is just my opinion in fancy dress.)

But I think it is pretty generally agreed that the first responsibility for trying alleged war criminals lies with the countries from which they come. I believe this is an opinion held by the American Government, in principle.

It is only when Governments fail to do this, or are unable to do this, that the International War Crimes Tribunal comes into the picture. The United States has declined to allow this possibility, and has said that it is redundant since it can be relied on to carry out its duty in this matter, and can do it with less risk of miscarriages of justice.

And that is my opinion of the opinion of the United States and of the state of international opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 04:58 PM

Well it looks like other nations disagree with the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". I don't have all the nations, but apparently seven other New European nations have told Germany and France to go to hell with the wheels on. In their joint declaration they talked of the "American bravery, generosity, and farsightedness".

This occured at the same moment that the UN selected Libya to chair the UN Human Rights Commision and Iraq will chair the May 12-June 27 UN Disarmament Conference. Iran will co-chair. And peole wonder why we don't defer to the UN more.

And to the twits who wonder why we don't subscribe to the International Tribunal, they obviously haven't heard that the defense counsel for Slobodan Milosevic has requested the Tribunal to indict the Last Bag of Puss to Infect the White House for war crimes. Yes that's right, your old rapist-hero, Bill Clinton. And for a typicaly Clintonian offense: Failing to act to prevent the massacres in Bosnia.

And as Don Firth notes " I can go to through various Mudcat threads...put together quite a collection of posts in which several people say, in essence 'Bush said it, I believe, it and that settles it'. I don't know what you'd call that other than blind acceptance".

Well Don, I have zero doubt that what you say is true, that you could collect "several people" who have in effect made such statements. And I have enough trust in your rationale and experience in the MudCat to have you belive me when I retort that were I to cut and paste quotes as you propose, I would have a Hell of lot more than "several" people, stating "(Fill in the name of your local Puss-Bag, Dictator, Wackoid, Communist Loser, or Anybody-But-Bush person) said it, I believe it and that settles it". A Hell of a lot more...

And the acceptance of such a non-critical thinking universe of characters, indicates a far blinder acceptance. They're like monkeys with a note in their mouths, they'll follow anybody...

And with the leaders of now a sizable coalition of nations standing up along side the President, the folks who state they believe Bush are in far better company then those twits who believed Clinton...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:33 PM

I read yesterday that Powell will show satelite photos of Iraqi's burying weapons in the desert. Surely they must know where those spots are and can send the UN inspectors there to find them and then everyone will know for sure. Exactly why don't they do that? That would be irrefutable proof and there would no longers be lingering questions as to their compliance with sanctions. Why don't they do that?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:09 PM

Troll:

www.cns.miis.edu/research/korea

Time magazine is like pablem. They write whatever the governemnt wants them to write. Keep in mind that during these years that they say Korea was going hot and heavy in developing a nuclear weapon (if that's what they really said...) one should keep in mind that IAEA inspectors were there and that the two reactors in Yongbyon would have had to be completed to produce enough plutonium (approx 5 kilos) for make a bomb.

The IAEA were on top of the situation and obnly after their ecent departure has NK blown a lot of smoke in trying to gey the US to regoniate a more comprehensive agreement to replace the *Agreed Framework) that was signed in 1994. It should also be noted that the US was to assist in the building of two light water reactors that produce electricity that the US did not do as agreed upon.

Now, whereas the CIA says the NK *probably* possesses one bomb their is no proff, other than NK's statement which many folks believe is just a ploy to get the US back on board.

Like Iraq, this administration, rather than diplomacy choozes to threaten folks so it's no wonder that NK says it has a bomb. Even if they do, which is doubtful, they have not conducted any tests of either a weapon or delivery system.

But you can be sure, the "axis of evil" speech definately but a nuclear program back on the front burner for a lot of folks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 11:58 AM

The hardest thing in the world is to get above physical force when you are yourself confronted with it. It is very true that violence is the last resort of the desperate and the stupid. Bush's dramatic assertions as to what Iraq has done/will do constituting a threat of physical violence and essentially particpating in the system of idea and logistics that led to the 9-11 murders is imopressive as hell until one asks for the facts. The intel picture is a mosaic of partial indications and interpretative assessments and that is understandable. But there is nothing partial or interpretative about the tens of thousands of American men and women currently standing by or en route to the Middle East prepared to follow the planes in.

I, too, deplore the quick enthusiasm for military force that Bush has demonstrated. I think it is pathetic. However, I also concede he is in a difficult position and has no idea how to get out of the situation he is in except by blasting, and somehow that overrides the costs in human misery he is signing up for. If I were in his shoes Iw ould also weant to be very sure that the potential catastrophe of Iraqi-supported terrorism never happened on my watch; I can understand his nervousness on the point.

But I believe if he had learned a little more about promoting humanism and a little less about pulling strings and working connections, he would be in a better position to deal with it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: TIA
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 09:53 AM

How about Ghandi driving the British from India armed largely with a spinning wheel?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,nice guest
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:47 AM

Doug: your last version of the question to nutty doesn't make sense to me. You want a story of armed conflict (weapons used against each other) resolved without war?

Anyway, if I understand the original intent of the question, how about: Cuban Missile Crisis?

dan

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:42 AM

Just as a fist fight is not the only option in a disagreement between adult persons...

We need some adult leadership out there right now.

Fist fights are illegal by the way, and so are pre-emptive strikes, also called wars of aggression. There's a good reason why both of them are illegal, if you stop to think about it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:14 AM

Doug .... I think you are deliberately missing the point that I am trying to make ........ the cold war proves that armed conflict is not the only option.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:36 AM

Bobert: your reply to Teribus indicates to me that you have no understanding at all of what the UN Resolution requires Iraq to do.

Nutty: The Cold War did not involve armed conflict between Russia and the United States. I'd welcome your informing us of any major conflict between countries that was not resolved by war. Maybe the losing side didn't like it much, but the loser seldom is able to dictate terms of capitulation.

McGrath: you failed to include an important tag to your paragraph I think: "in your opinion."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Troll
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 11:31 PM

Bobert, your reaction to my little challange was about what I expected.
Regarding NK and it's dramatic repudiation of the non-proliferation treaty, They also announced that they had been working on a nuclear program since 1994 when they signed the agreement that Jimmy Carter brokered. Basically, they had the rest of the Clinton administration to work on their nuclear program in peace while your taxes and mine supplied them with oil for fuel.
When Bush made his "Axis of Evil" speech the administration most likely had some idea of what was going on. It took Kim Jung-Il to repudiate the treaty. In the meantime, he had admitted to the world that his country was working on nukes.
You can blame Bush if you want to for his speech. So far events are proving him right.
Diesel, thanks for the comeback.
Regarding intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's. We may know that they have them but not know where they are. You don't get some shady character meeting you in a dark alley saying "Come! I have seen them! I will show you where they are hidden."
That only happens in the movies and Grade B ones at that.
You piece things together; a bit here, a bit there until a coherent picture begins to emerge. I saw a news report that said that the Iraqi scientists are refusing to talk to the inspectors unless an Iraqi official is present. I also heard on a radio report that word had gotten out that Iraqi scientists had been sent official Death Certificates.
To me, the implication is clear, talk and you are dead.
This all makes intelligence gathering difficult. In this weeks Time magazine there was mention of tons of biological and chemical agents that were discovered after the 1st Gulf War. They were s supposed to be destroyed by the Iraqis but the inspectors have been able to find no record of their destruction. Among the things mentioned were Anthrax, Sarin Gas and VX Gas, all very nasty stuff. So we have intelligence that the stuff is there, but we don't know where it is.
I repeat, just because we have intelligence of the weapons existance, it doesn't follow that we know its whereabouts.

troll

***BTW I can't quote chapter and verse on the Time article because I dropped it off at the Hospital when I was through with it. It shouldn't be too hard to verify though. Time Magazine is a fairly common publication.***

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:51 PM

An individual who regards himself or herself above the law is a criminal. A nation that regards itself above the law. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:49 PM

Doug ... I also forgot to say ..... The history of a war is always written from the point of view of the victor. I doubt if the innocent victims, on both sides in a war, would say that conflict was a very good way to settle things.

I also believe that the "cold war" was an example of how, when both sides have a similar capability, war actually becomes impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:38 PM

Doug .... I was referring to the debacle regarding Operation Tailwind but realise from your stance on other issues that you probably believe that those journalist were mischief makers who were speading malicious rumours.

I believe that there is likely to be more truth than lies in the story.

By the way ..... if you put "nerve gas"+"vietnam" into Google you get over 7000 hits.

I also found this book most interesting and relevant but then it was written by two Brits. A Higher Form of Killing

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:16 PM

I don't thing the U. S. will ever subject its citizens to a "World Court."

I believe Saddam sees it the same way; so did Milosevic. But of course the International War Crimes Tribunal only has jurisdiction in any case when a country refuses to treat alleged war crimes seriously, including putting the alleged perpetrators on trial in a verifiably fair manner.

And that is what should be expected of any civilised and democratic country.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 02:39 PM

Well, danged, Teribus. Im sure you cleared up the fact that the weapons inspectors indeed are not in Iraq to find hidden weapons. Don't make a lot of sense to me or probably 99% of the people in the world but if you say it then it has to be true.

So you know what the US has and oesn't have in the it's arsenal? I dought that. Seems every time they get a chance to blow up some folks they parade something out that the American people didn't know about.

Now as for that arsenal. Word of the street that nuclear bombs will be used. Boy, that ought to set a good example to the other folks in the world that have them. Remember the good old days when the nuclear bomb was for deterance only. No more. Don't believe me? Stay tuned.

We allready know that depleted uranium weponry will be used in vast quantities. It has been credited with the 11 fold increase in cancer in the Iraqi citizens and also linked to Gulf War Syndrome. Oh, that's right, GWS doesn't exist. I forgot. Go tell the thousands of folks who have it that it's all in their head.

Yeah, T, you're dirty little war is going to be one that's going down in the books as one of the most un-necessary and aviodable in history but, heck, sure is going to be entertaining to you and a lot of other folks...

No matter how it turns out, it represents a complete failure on Bush's part to carry mankind a little further down the road.

And, Doug, just because in the past major conflicts between counties have resulted in war doesn't change my belief that mankind will one day get beyond it. Too bad it couldn't have happened on our watch.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 02:04 PM

I know you're just acting dumb DougR, and I know this because you're not dumb, you're actually quite intelligent. So I know that you know what I meant in my last post, and I know you know that your last response to me had nothing to do with what I said. Nice try though.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:59 PM

Sorry nutty, I forgot to comment on your not validating your statement about the U. S. using weapons of mass destruction in Viet Nam. Could you elaborate on that a bit?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:56 PM

nutty: I will be 73 in March. Perhaps you would point out one major confrontation between countries that was not settled by war? I can't think of any.

Carol C: I searched this thread pretty well and no where did I find that I called anyone a ass-hole.

Kevin: I don't thing the U. S. will ever subject it's citizens to a "World Court."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:27 PM

Now I'd just written a response here and the Mudcat crashed...

What do I think should be done about getting alleged war crimials and suchlike put on trial? Well the first thing is to avoid committing further war crimes in the course of trying to get hold of them.

Maybe start with the more accessible ones, like Kissinger and Pinochet. Putin would be a bit tricky, but he might well be ready to hand over a few of his old colleagues from Soviet times, in return for a consideration. Perhaps Sharon and Arafat could be persuaded to do a double act and surrender themselves to be tried together. It's too late for Galtieri, but I'm sure he has some colleguages to stand in the dock alongside Thatcher.

And anyone indited would have their travelling very limited, if they knew that the moment they stepped onto the territory of a country that had signed up to the International War Crimes Tribunal, they'd find themselves banged up and awaiting trial.

It wouldn't solve everything. There'd still be rogue states with rulers who had broken treaties and started wars and imprisoned people without trial and tortured prisoners. But they'd be on notice. Sooner or later if things changed and their people decided to rejoin the rest of the world...

As for that Shock and Awe stuff - you may think it's rubbish, and the Pentagon official who said it was rubbish might even have been saying what he actually thought; the question is, does Bush and his lads think it's rubbish too? And is it going to be tried out anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 09:10 AM

...and to operate a system of ongoing monitoring and verification to check Iraq's compliance with its obligations not to reacquire the same weapons prohibited to it by the Security Council.

I'd say finding hidden weapons would certainly be covered by this language. However, since the US has (according to the US government) so much intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, it would be inexcusable for the US government to not provide this information to the inspectors to assist them in finding these weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 06:02 AM

Good stuff, Maxine, right on the button.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:54 AM

Sorry Kevin, something I omitted to ask in my post above:

You say:

"Of course I'd like to see any bastard who makes war against other people and murders innocent people brought to trial. There are a lot of them around."

How would you propose to accomplish this?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:16 AM

Thanks for the link to the CBS Artile Kevin. I would tend to go along with the Pentagon personnel who describe the "Shock and Awe" approach as a "load of bull". No-one has ever won a war simply by bombing.

To date I have seen no plan that could possibly work without the active support and involvement of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. This is a position I have maintained since the start.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Maxine
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:16 AM

To be sung to the tune of" If you're happy and you know it"....

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq
So to hell with the inspections,
Lets look tough for the elections
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq
If your mood is quite defected, bomb Iraq
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq

Just thought I'd share that one with you all!

Maxine

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:05 AM

Bobert, I asked you what Saddam and his buddies needed all the Atropin for. Your answer:

"With Bush having signaled his intention to *whack* folks a year ago in his stupid "axis of evil" speech, if I were Iraq, I would do everything I could to defend myself. Just as the US has done with smallpox and anthrax vaccines.

To do less would have been irresponsible on Saddam's part."

Exactly the point I was making Bobert - Neither the US or NATO have any NBC weapons - The US and UK believes very strongly that Saddam has. That explains the US moves wrt anthrax and smallpox. On the other hand, Saddam needs the Atropin to protect himself and his Ba'athist buddies from the stuff they know they have. As you yourself said simple and rational enough?

You then say:

"As to your other assertion that the inspector's are not in Iraq to try to find hidden weopons, I'd just ask what the heck are they there for?"

What I said was not purely my assertion. Here's what I got from the net regarding UNMOVIC

"UNMOVIC - United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission:

Some basic facts

The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was created through the adoption of Security Council resolution 1284 of 17 December 1999. UNMOVIC was to replace the former UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and continue with the latter's mandate to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological weapons and missiles with a range of more than 150 km), and to operate a system of ongoing monitoring and verification to check Iraq's compliance with its obligations not to reacquire the same weapons prohibited to it by the Security Council.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations appointed Dr. Hans Blix of Sweden to be the Commission's Executive Chairman. In addition, the Secretary-General appointed 16 individuals to serve on the College of Commissioners of UNMOVIC which provides advice and guidance to the Chairman in the execution of his duties. In conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, the Commission's staff are selected on the basis of securing the highest standard of efficiency, competence and integrity, taking into consideration the importance of recruiting staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible. The Commission's staff include weapons specialists, analysts, scientists, engineers and operational planners."

Note Bobert they are there to monitor and verify that Iraqi disarmament complies with conditions laid down by the UNSC, and to mount an inspection programme that verifies that those programmes once shut down are not reactivated.

UNMOVIC's staffing does not appear to include any "hide-and-seek" specialists.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:48 AM

DougR .... I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember these panic tactics first hand.

I remember coming out of a cinema (in the 60's) completely stunned by having watched a film called "The War Game" which was an ill disguised documentry on the effects of Nuclear War.

I consequently joined the Industrial Civil Defence and was trained how to construct fall out shelters, deal with radiation sickness and use a dosimeter. None of which would have been any use at all if a nuclear device had landed but it was the government hype of the time.

I consequently learned to be very suspicious of government hype.

The US v USSR situation cause even more stress .... the "BAY OF PIGS" incident taking things to the brink.

Ever since I have worked for peace ..... I do not believe that countries who seek a diplomatic way out of a situation are weak.

I don't believe that war ever solves anything.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 12:26 AM

DougR: there have been many posts from people with different opinions of the current government from you, who have praised the way our form of government was set up. That is what's right about America. Many of these people think that the constitution (a good thing) and our rights, liberties, and the other good things that this country are supposed to stand for (good things about the US), are being subverted and trampled upon by the current government. Putting words into other peoples mouths, especially snide ones like the ones you used is petty and small.

You said the following on another thread. I don't see you holding yourself to this standard on this thread.

Thomas: not a bad idea. People who do not agree with you are not necessarily ass-holes, ignorant, less than human, etc. They are just people with opinions.

Bobert and LH, maybe some members. I've met his family ;-)

(Just kidding!)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:32 PM

Carol C: prove me wrong.

Nutty: I thought you knew that wmd are used as deterrents. Quoting you: "It is said America used them in Viet Nam." Said by who? What evidence exists? Several Mudcatters were involved in that war. Perhaps they could shed some light on that subject.

So your solution, nutty, is for ALL countries to have wmd? You really think that makes sense?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:01 PM

No, I think under that circumstance Claymore would kill Bush. That's my guess. I've heard about Claymore some from a mutual acquaintance, and he's a hardheaded man (determined, I mean, not stupid).

You're right, Claymore, that in most of those empires (not all of them) I would have been arrested...und taken behind ze buildink und schott! Ja!

I keep an eye on things around me, and if it looks likely to go that way where I live, I will go elsewhere, just as Marlene Dietrich and so many others did.

In the meantime, I'll continue using free speech as best I can, same as you. Here's hoping the would-be dictators among us never get their way.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:40 PM

Forget it, Don. If Bush walked into Claymore's house and told him to kill his family, he'd do it. He's a Marine and Marines just kill first and never get around to asking questions...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:10 PM

Not to belabor the point, Claymore, but I assume that when you say "But the blanket assertion that those who agree with the Bush Administration's stance are sitting back and letting others do the thinking is the stupidist thought so far evinced. The elitist thought that 'We are Thoughtful, They are Sheep' is beneath you." I presume you were referring to the paragraph in which I mention "those who sit back and accept anything and everything the government tells them."

Be that as it may, should you feel that my contention that there are those who believe everything the Bush Administration says without question is an exaggeration, I can go through various Mudcat threads, and by cutting and pasting, put together quite a collection of posts in which several people say, in essence "Bush said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" I don't know what you'd call that other than blind acceptance.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 09:34 PM

LH, I would only point out that in all of the other empire/countries you wrote of, you would have been arrested for merely expressing the views that you did. So until they come to get you, do write often.

And as for the WMD that nutty comments on, not all of them by any means were developed by the West. Japan was deeply into biological warfare. (I count Germany's race for the bomb as Western). Soviet Russia and her allies (including China) made NBC materials at an alarming rate. And for almost 58 years, despite threats to do so, no one has used them against an enemy, within or without, except Saddam... Think about that...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 08:53 PM

Precisely. Great empires always justify their ravages upon others by depicting those others as irredeemably evil. That picture is the empire's own dark reflection in the mirror of life, as it gazes out through its own hungry eyes at the world.

Empires both great and small are the enemies of common people everywhere. They are the killer, the murderer, the destroyer, armoured in righteous fury and desensitized by their own arrogance and their patriotic myths. They consume the world in the name of....liberty, progess, profit, justice, religion, race, God. They make of themselves a great false God (a demon, in fact) and then sacrifice millions to its wrath.

Great empires like Persia, Assyria, Greece, Rome, Czarist Russia, Holland, Spain, France, England, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the United States of America...and now the worldwide multi-national corporations, who are merely using the United States of America to wield the sword of mass destruction, not because of but in spite of its Constitution.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 08:30 PM

"For evil to triumph all that need triumph is for nothing to be done."

True enough. Or for the wrong thing to be done, and nothing to be done to avert it.

If I was an Iraqi I know I would loathe the government. I am also certain that I would see the war as a nightmare even worse, and I would have no expectations that, even if I survived, what would follow would be better.

It is only too likely that after hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, and the country littered with cancer-producing weapons such as "enriched uranium shells", there'll be a government in power just as corrupt and brutal towards its citizens, though maybe rather more willing to do what its told, at least so long as the occupying garrisons stay in place. Elsewhere new fundamentalist regimes in other countries in the region. Al Qaida in a much stronger position, with an enormous increase in the number of terrorist recruits.

Or maybe it'll work out a bit better. A shaky but stable and non-repressive regime building a shattered Iraq. Other repressive regimes in the area managing to put down the riots and stay in the driving seat. There'll still be the terrorist recruits and Al Qaida will have been significantly strengthened, but you can't have everything.

In the meantime though there's the actual war. Here is a CBS report on what is planned. Well worth reading it, and reading between the lines as well.

Up to 800 Cruise missiles in the first two days.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

One of the men who developed the plan, Harlan Ullman has an interesting comparison: "You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes."

Tacitus it was who put it best. "They made a desert, and they called it peace". He was talking of the complete destruction of Rome's defeated and helpless "rival", Cartage. Now that was a "triumph of evil" - or alternatively you could say a "Triumph of the Will."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:33 PM

Remember way back when the Cold War ended and people started saying the GOP et al wouldn't be happy until they found another "enemy?"

LH, as we have our own personal cycles, one wonders if the US has been entering its own Dark Night of the Soul. Certainly not what Washington, Jefferson etc. intended.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:16 PM

I find it really ironic that these "weapons of mass destruction"that Bush is so concerned about were all developed by the West.

What did Britain and America have in mind when they developed them?

They were certainly not intended to be used as deterrents but to be used in some theatre of war.

It is said that America used some of them in Vietnam.

As far as the development of Nuclear Weapons, we know from the cold war that peace was only maintained because both sides had them.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:08 PM

Unless that was written in a different language, I fail to see how.

Perhaps you would like to do a different take on your last paragraph above?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:01 PM

Err Hang Off Don. I dont interpret what Claymore said as a deliberate misinterpretation.

I have no respect for GWB, or his controllers - But for evil to triumph all it need is for nothing to be done.

It may be accurate to say that the driving force is the need to secure oil supplies for the USA oil companies - A question I will ask is what are the practicle alternatives ?? The Middle East in French hands ?? Fundamentalist Moslem hands ??? Baaathist Hands ??

How would those help the working class anywhere ???

I have no doubt that given any of the above alternative this valuble and finite resource would be used as a weapon, and a weapon of mass deconstruction.

No untill I am shewn proof to the contary I will support Tony Blair's line of critical support.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:35 PM

Typical of many of your other posts, Claymore, you distort what I said and then attack me for it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:25 PM

By the way, here is who is a major threat to the USA and its citizenry: the people who are running the USA. I think that they are going to get a whole lot of you killed quite soon if you let them. They've already done so, in fact. When it comes right down to it, your lives are no more important in the grand scheme than those of...Iraquis or Afghans.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:22 PM

What Little Hawk said, Teribus, et al.

I referred to this as "Boggie Man De Jour" a few months ago and it seems to fit. I mean, why no longer the concern about bin Laden. Might of fact, when was he last spoken of by the Bush administration? Hmmmmmm?.

Problem with Bush and CDo. is that they never met a war not worth starting. Just yesterday the US got into the largest fire fight in a year in Afganistan which just point to the fact that there are many problems on that front. Warloards now are control of 80% of the country. Al Queda and the Taliban are regrouping and the US has a "run-the-clock-out" stategy hoping that Afganistan doesn't blow up in their face before Bush can get his salesmen to clear out some of the resistence so he can crank up yet another war. Hmmmmmm?

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

And so last night, Bush carefully slips Iran into the mix as part of his overall paln for attacking Iran next. He seems to like to attack folks that he thinks he can beat. Problem is, that victory can not be accomplished from war. War just prolongs that day when either the US sits down at the table and talks with folks or the day that these folks will be setting off bombs in a theater near you...

This is an insane and suicidal foriegen policy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:02 PM

It's simple. You either believe Saddam is a major threat to the USA or you don't. I don't.

I think it's exactly the other way around, and I think Saddam is just a handy excuse for something the USA would be wanting to do in the Middle East, regardless of whether Saddam Hussein even existed or not.

He's just the latest Manuel Noriega, Muammar Quaddafi, Osama Bin-Laden figure, and America is using him as a symbol to manipulate the American public into supporting an aggressive policy in the Middle East. They used Osama to take Afghanistan, and they intend to use Saddam to take Iraq. America NEEDS Saddam. The worst thing he could do to Bush is announce his retirement, and go live in Singapore or China, or some such place. Then Bush would have to find a brand-new bogeyman to obsess about, and that would take a little time and trouble. It would be a whole new media hard sell campaign to get in gear.

America needs a "bad guy" to save the world from. Always. It has ever been so. If they can't find a real one, they just invent one. Then they smash up a country, kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of people, and DON'T generally get the "bad guy", but it doesn't matter...cos they DO get what they're really after...which is NOT him, but his country and all its resources. The "bad guy" is more often than not a former employee of America.

- LH