BS: US & British war plans blocked

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 05:17 PM

Actually, Claymore, I thought the treaty that was negoitiated between the US and NK during the Clinton administration was signed in 1994, but I may be confusing that with a treaty that was igned where NK agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for help with other technologies and oil form the US so that NK could produce electricty for its people. As has been reported recently, the US started reniging on its end of the agreement under the current administration and in the "Axis of Evil" speech sent out a clear message that NK was on the list of nations to get "whacked".

What I can't understand is when the president of the world's only super power stands u8p before the entire world and pretty much tells the ent9ire world that you are on the "to-be-whacked" list that this same president gets real angry when he finds these countries scurrying around trying to find ways to defend themselves? Hmmmmmm?
It's kinda like a guy has a big gun and wants to mug you but he knows you have a small gun so he demands that you give him your small gun? Like I said, hmmmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:36 PM

A little reality, folks...

1. North Korea has been upgrading it's nuclear capability for the past three years, right after Clinton signed the non-proliferation treaty with them. They just got caught at it several weeks ago. Bushes "Axis of Evil" speech has absolutely nothing to do with it, (ain't facts a bitch). It was at that point that they sought to use an explaination that would work with the ignorant twits in the world, (and apparently they were right) (ain't facts a bitch).

2. France has never been a dependable member of NATO, since De Gaulles "Force de Frappe" (sp? with no apology to the frogs). France is one of the very few nations trading with the North Koreans, and has sent them much of the outside help in constructing nuclear facilities, as they did with the Iraqis. Which is why the term "French moral stance" on any issue except Champagne is by definition, oxymoron.

3. And of course we know the German stance on mass killings...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:31 PM

Dont think we should do like Viet Nam, if we are going, lets go all the way all at once, and end it.

Was it two million killed in Vietnam? Ninety percent of them or more civilians.

How many would "going all the way" have meant?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:18 PM

You mean like the incubator baby story, Don?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:10 PM

Sorcha, this is not casting aspersions on your brother; he's undoubtedly just passing on what he's been told. But I'm an old fart and I remember a lot of the stories that were going around about all the gratuitious horrors and atrocities the Japanese and the Germans were doing during World War II. People told them with almost pathological relish and glee, only to be further embellished by the next person to tell them. Later, most of these stories were established as untrue. It has an awfully familiar tone. This sort of thing comes under the heading of "unofficial propaganda," the whole point of which is to add fuel to the kind of hatred people who are hell-bent on going to war like to see stirred up. Granted, Saddam and his spawn are about the nastiest pieces of work one is about to find, but without a bit of verification, I'm kinda skeptical of stories like this.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: diesel
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 03:49 PM

I reckon there is no difference between a conspiracy and doing buisness. Either side of the same coin. Except Buisness is the end where paper and records are kept, procedures and rights of redress exist. Conspiracy is getting the exact same ends without the hassle - just the nod and wink - and plausible deniability.

rgds

Diesel

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Sorcha
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 03:27 PM

I really don't know what to think, just got this from my brother, career Army, Mech. Cavalry:

I know you dont agree, but where would we be if we kept ignoring
Hitler? Maybe we should just walk away and let him invade Kosovo, Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iran, etc, but in the long run the "bad news dont get
better with age"! Kathy's(brother's wife) brother was stationed there and has told us
things the locals know of that the world doesnt. Euday, son of Saddam,
raped the newly wed wife of one of his Army Captains and then threw her off
the balcony to land dead at the husbands feet. Eudays brother cruises the
streets grabbing girls he wants to rape, one of which he raped then smeared
with dog food and threw (alive) into a pen of dogs he had starved so he
could watch them eat her! These people CANT fight back, they have no means.
I believe there are many, many, people who would rise up against him if they
had a champion. CNN isnt interested in those people, even if they werent
afraid to be interviewed. If we could assasinate him it would be better
than a war, but since he knows his life aint worth a shit, he hides. Dont
think we should do like Viet Nam, if we are going, lets go all the way all
at once, and end it. Oh, well......

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 08:53 PM

There will only ever be one Little Hawk, diesel (in this lifetime, anyway), but maybe you'll make a wonderful contribution in your own particular style.

P.S. Can anyone tell me this... what's the difference between a "conspiracy" and "doing business"? I must confess, I'm beginning to get a bit confused about that.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: diesel
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 08:28 PM

K.I.S.

Keeping it simple !

works for me ...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:34 PM

Geeze, diesel, I'm glad you can't! That's all we need around here. Another L.H.! *BG*

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: diesel
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:23 PM

CarolC asks or wonders if paranoia is setting in ?? No - it's not CarolC, but that doesn't say there is no reason not to be afraid. Will staged attacks happen - especially against countries whose minds need twisting to get behind the war - I suppose we could ask the French - they've had an oil tanker attacked off the African coast last year, or another one sank recently off the bay of Biscay - both French and Spanish coasts got a bit of that one.
As conspiracies go - one wonders just WHO setup the 9/11 attack. And if it was Ossama-Bin-Laden - then why not put the Iraqi resources against him... unless it's convenient to forget that it was ordinary jet airliners that were used as weapons of mass destruction !

A lot of people do not support a war without reason - so if Bush/Blair have the proof or reason - why not publish, or at this stage would anybody believe them....in case it was 'manufactured'

Little hawk - I wish I could write as you do -

Rgds to all - Diesel

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:01 PM

Good point, Swan. We don't seem to have statesmen any more, or if there are some, they ain't talkin'.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Roughyed
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 06:19 PM

There are three groups of people telling us it's a good idea to attack Iraq. They are saying 'Trust us we're spies', 'Trust us we're journalists' and 'Trust us we're politicians'. Yeah, right.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 03:24 PM

Why on earth should we "have faith" in our governments?

It might well be that for various reasons we might like our governments rather better than some others, even when we don't particularly like them.

But "having faith" isn't about whether we like them or think they are less evil than their opponents, it surely means we believe that they can be relied on to tell us the truth when telling us a lie would be more convenient. We don't need to know much history to be aware that our politicians are in fact pretty liable to twist the truth when it suits them. Think Clinton, for example, just as an indication this isn't a party political point.

Possibly Powell, not being quite a politician all the way through, may even believe what Doug quoted him as saying there. I don't think you'd get very good odds on it actually working out like that from any sensible bookie.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 03:04 PM

After having killed a couple hundred thousand Iraqis first. You're a real dreamer, Doug.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 02:56 PM

It never ceases to amaze me that sane folks here on the mudcat have more faith in a regime such as that in North Korea, or Saddam, than they have in their own govenment. Kendall, they don't have to have a reason! North Korea might do it because they can. And the type explosive they would lob across the pond would not be the same type ineffective firecrackers the Japanese used in WW2.

Ebbie: this whole Iraq thing is NOT about oil. It's about a monster who wants nuclear weapons to play with. The U. S., through Secretary of State Colin Powell has already made it plain to the world that when Saddam is deposed and the allies are in control of the Iraqi oil, the profits will be used for humanitarian efforts in Iraq. God knows after Saddam, and a war, they are going to need help.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 01:15 PM

GUEST,sorefingers, all of the things you are saying about Saddam can also be said about the many totalitarian dictators that the US props up when it is deemed expedient to do so. Why don't we stop propping up homicidal maniacs altogether? (Remember, Saddam was our ally when he was killing Iranians for us.) Maybe then, people in other countries will be a lot less interested in killing innocent Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 12:48 PM

Why do you approach this question with no even one reference to the many bombings of US interests and murders of innocent US citizens over the past 20 something years?, not to mention the 9-11 attacks which forced the USA to respond.

Even if Bush lost the election some other person would be in the WH now and have to deal with this.

Saddam is a homicidal maniac, not merely foreigners but even his OWN FAMILY. The man is unsafe even for his own countrymen. Put it this way in London he would be target practice for the Police sniper unit.

The man also happens to have control of an army, what is left of it, and he is full of threats.

It is not that he should be defeated, disarmed and see the firing squad that executes him - hopefully Iraqis, but that it should be done asap and to hell with the UN if it stands in the way.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 12:09 PM

Sorry McGrath. I meand the government of Britain, not the British people.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 12:04 PM

No way is "Britain" gung-ho for war. Last opinion poll I saw had 68% thinking that it wouldn't be justified, and that's not counting the don't knows.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 09:13 AM

Oops. That last Jack the Sailor post was from me.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 09:11 AM

Look at which countries are the most gung-ho about war with Iraq, Ebbie. The US, Israel, and Britain. The governments of the US and Israel have an expansionist agenda in the Middle East. They want to dominate the region. Iraq is just a stepping stone. I'm not sure about Britain's motives. Maybe they're just hungry for a piece of the pie.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 02:29 AM

Washington Post/ January 24, 2003
Thomas W. Lippman Editorial

4th PPG
Even a perfunctory acquaintance with the realities of the global oil market would indicate that the "oil war" theory does not stand up to analysis. As an imagined rationale it doesn't square with the facts; and in the unlikely event that it actually does factor into the administration's thinking, it is a specious argument that cannot justify sending American forces into combat.

Last PPG
As the U.S. military buildup around Iraq's perimeter accelerates, the Bush administration is obliged to make a persuasive case for war. It should also make clear what its motives are not.

Lippman makes a good case for his view. I'd like to hear other Mudcatters' views on it.

Question: If it's not oil Bush is so gung ho about going to war for, what is it? I don't believe for a moment that he's pursuing it in the interests of foreseeable national security- if it were he'd be going after NK. Vengefulness? Cowboy posturing? Just full of himself? 'Now, daddy, you'll be able to sleep nights'-ness?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 03 - 08:18 PM

...I'd predict an apparent attack on some American forces or vessel, or possibly an assassination attempt, for example on an arms inspector, to be taken as an indication of non-cooperation. ...Jan 24th.

'Knife-wielding man threatened UN inspectors'Jan 25th.

Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 08:29 PM

North Korea launch a nuke at Los Angles? What the hell for?
Remember when the Japanese lobbed a few shells on California, the balloon bombs, the invasion of the Alutian Islands? it didn't amount to a cane hole in a cow turd. We have the means to make a parking lot out of Iraq or N. Korea. Can either Saddam or Kim be whacky enough to launch a serious attack on us? I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 06:15 PM

"...the leaders of Russia and China had some connection with reality, and had seen the devastating effects that war had on their country. The present leadership of North Korea has not."

In the insane context of international politics there is nothing in the least irrational about what North Korea has done in this crisis. (As for "the devastating effects that war had on their country," that just a very strange thing to say in the light of the history of Korea.)

If Saddam Hussein really had nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction at his disposal there is no doubt that he would make sure that everyone knew that, and there would be no question of Iraq being attacked.

The only question now seems to be, what pretext will be used to initiate the war. I'd predict an apparent attack on some American forces or vessel, or possibly an assassination attempt for example on an arms inspector, to be taken as an indication of non-cooperation. But it might merely be a judgement announced in Washington and London that in their view (even in the view of nobody else) the Iraqis have failed to comply with the requirements laid down in the last UN resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 05:59 PM

re: 'axis of evil' the term was oddly enough coined by Bush's
Canadian speech writer David Frum, (son of the broadcaster Barbara Frum) he was asked to write a speech justifying a war.
Initially he used the term axis of hatred (which later got changed to evil) and since an axis has to have more than one point in order to be an axis it was decided to add Iran. N. Korea was added later for good measure.
Not only was Europe surprised by this term so was much of Congress.
- the irony, is that while Iraq is threatened with war if it doesnt
fess up on its production of wmd's North Korea is told that the US has no intentions of invading it EVen as it thumbs its nose at the rest of the world by kicking out the inspectors and vowing to make its own missiles. (which no doubts leaves some in the US state dept.
regretting the axis of evil speech).

-I agree with Jack the Sailor,
with respect to the old argument of deterrence that some others make,-
deterrence really works only if there are two major nuclear superpowers and if you know who nuked you. (what if a US city suddenly gets hit with a nuclear bomb - who are you going to attack?
if you dont know whos responsible.) (everyone? the russians for good measure, or maybe just the middle east.)
its extremely destabilizing for the rest of the world to have too many
'rogue'nuclear states.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 04:17 PM

Wow, Little Hawk! You're really cookin' today!

I was born ten years before the U. S. got into World War II, and I remember the war pretty vividly, from being a juvenile news-junkie, and particularly from the visual images in Life Magazine, which was sort of the Forties' equivalent of television film coverage. So as a student, I had a lot of interest in the things that led up to the war. William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was high on my read-and-re-read list, along with several other history books. Ever since Bush pulled his socks up after 9/11 (the best thing that could have happened to him, considering the way he wound up in office), I have been very aware of the ominous parallels between Germany in the Thirties and the Bush's actions in the two-thousand-and-oughts. You've outlined my concerns pretty clearly.

God help us all!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 02:47 PM

That depends, Jack. Major wars occur when aggressive empires expand onto other people's turf or strategic interests in a way that is finally unacceptable. Japan's expansion into China and Indochina led finally to a great war between the Japanese Empire and an America/Britain/Holland/China alliance. The Japanese simply had gone too far.

Looking at it the other way, FDR's moves to cut off Japanese access to oil and steel in 1941 became finally unacceptable to Japan...which caused Japan to attack in December '41. America had gone too far, from the Japanese point of view.

Hitler's moves into the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland became finally unacceptable to western Europe, which led to a British and French declaration of war on Germany, much to Hitler's surprise. He had absolutely no wish to fight England, in particular.

America and Britain are presently moving to take over vital strategic areas all over the world, mostly connected to oil. Their first stroke was in Afghanistan, aimed at the Caspian oil fields, and the opium crop in Afghanistan. Their next stroke is aimed at the 2nd biggest oil deposits in the world, underneath Iraq. There is also an attempt underway to destabilize and take over Venezuela (which sits atop the world's 5th largest oil reserves) from within, and topple a democratically elected government that, oddly enough, is supported by the poor people, and opposed by the middle class and the wealthy (imagine that! how very odd!).

This is all being done basically as an Anglo-American effort, and it treads directly upon the strategic interests of Russia, China, France, Germany, the rest of Europe and Asia, and most of the world's smaller nations and their people.

Everyone was afraid to fight Hitler in 1939, because they figured he was far better armed and better prepared (and in the air and psychologically, he was)...but...they had finally had enough.

I am suggesting that a time will come when too many strategic interests are threatened, and Russia, China, and many others will have finally had enough. It can happen. And it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone fires off all their nukes either. Wars can happen by measured stages and on isolated battlefields here and there.

The US economy is a one-armed tiger, and a very sick one at this point. Take a look in the stores. Where are the world's goods made now? They are made in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. The USA is tops in just one thing...high tech weaponry. China has the capability to match that expertise in, I'd say, 3 to 5 years if they devoted all resources they could toward that end. If they feel they must, then they will.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 11:59 PM

Bush is not evil, there is no great conspiracy, only Great Stupidity. Bush had nothing to gain by putting North Korea in his Axis of Evil speech. It didn't take an "A" student to realize it would destabilize East Asia. Unfortunately Shrub was a "C" student. He doesn't listen to his advisors who aren't oil execs.

The title of this thread has no basis in reality, Germany, France, China and Russia have all said, "Give the inspectors more time." and "Show us proof" this is far from "blocking".

The chemical and biological weapons are just an excuse, but if the Americans and British actually find them, post invasion, all will be forgiven. The US is the only significant military power right now. The end of the Cold War has made the U.N. security council obsolete. Its only useful purpose was to prevent WWIII. Be thankful that Bush is polite enough to consult others at all. The US has the military power to do what it pleases. There are no "allies" to stick up for this "Poland". There are only US voters and they'll have to wait 2 years to have their say.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 10:48 PM

It is the habit of out-of-control aggressors with great war plans to accuse someone else of their very own sins...thus rhetoric such as "the Axis of Evil" gets bandied about by Mr Bush. In recent history, only the Nazis had this much gall. The true Axis of Evil is located in Washington and London, and its special shock battalions (who will be sacrificed as soon as they are no longer needed by the Axis) are, I think, based in Israel...professional high-tech holy warriors and zealouts, prepared to do whatever severe policing and quick, deadly military strikes are required on their disorganized and rather pathetic neighbours on all sides, the Muslims in the Middle East.

To imagine that Saddam Hussein is capable of any real threat to the USA is as irrational as it was to imagine in 1939 that Poland was a real threat to Germany and East Prussia. And yet, Hitler was able to convince a majorityu of Germans that that was the case. He also made sure to arrange a phony "incident" of an attack on a German radio station just before the Panzers poured across Poland's borders, using Eastern European prisoners who were dressed in Polish uniforms and shot.

The situation is much the same now, only it's even more bizarre. The US government has repeatedly announced its deliberate intention to attack a small nation...a nation which it has already devastated once...a nation which would not have a chance against American weaponry...a nation which cannot fly airplanes in over half of its own airspace, but must submit to daily overflights and bombings by foreign aircraft of Britain and America...a nation which has been deliberately starved for over ten years by Britain and America...a nation which is accused of doing something "wrong" when it fires a missile at a foreign airplane in defense of its own airspace.

Since the USA is unable to prove much of anything except that Saddam Hussein doesn't like or trust America (I wonder why??!), they say that he must be prevented from developing into a threat in some unforseeable future. Amazing! Who, when under continuous threat and open attack from outside, does not have the absolute right to arm himself with weapons of any sort, including weapons of "mass destruction" and defend himself? Who?

How would the USA feel if 2/3 of its airspace were denied to its own airplanes, and if it were bombed on a daily basis by a foreign alliance, and if a foreign power was openly planning to attack it next with a fullscale invasion (having labelled it as a "rogue nation" to justify the action). How would the USA feel if foreign governments made statements to the effect that "one bullet" (aimed at their head of state) could "solve the problem"?

Where does America get the gall to think that it is "good" and other nations are "evil", when it is America that is openly planning to launch a preemptive strike on a country with 1/50th of America's military strength?

This is collosal gall. It is collosal hubris and arrogance. Or it's desperation... I wonder if the American economy is already so fatally crippled by the last 40 years of shipping civilian jobs overseas that this war is seen as the only way to keep the American people from noticing that their own ship of state is sinking under them?

If there is another terrorist attack, it will not be arranged by Mr Hussein...most certainly not! It will be arranged by the people who want this war, and must maintain some public support stateside in order to launch it.

Remember Osama Bin-What's-his-name? What a joke! They must think that people have an amazingly short attention span out there, the way the "bad guys" have their five or ten minutes of fame before the next excuse, the next "face", is trotted out for the North American press to obsess upon!

Afghanistan was America's "adventure in Spain" (see Germany's role in the Spanish Civil War...late 30's). Iraq, if the war goes ahead, will be America's "adventure in Poland". When Hitler attacked Poland in 1939 he had no conception that Britain and France would declare war on Germany over it. He thought they would merely grumble, and then swallow it as an accomplished fact. He was wrong.

Bush may also be wrong about his adventure in Iraq, and America and Britain may find themselves sliding into a growing regional and finally a global catastrophe.

When major powers are so arrogant that they think they can openly plan the invasion and conquest of small countries anywhere and anytime they wish, just because they find it convenient, then those major powers sooner or later make themselves...international pariahs. And they force many other people finally to fight them.

The loyalty of conventional Americans to this so-called "War on Terrorism" is quite understandable to any student of German history between 1933 and 1945. Consider Adolf Galland (one of the great German fighter aces of WWII). He was a brave and intelligent man of very good character, as has been noted by both his fellow servicemen and the Allied pilots he flew against. He had grown up in Germany, was a military career officer, and had full faith in the German system and the German government and the Nazi high command. He never doubted that Germany's wars were justified, given the virulent propaganda he was daily exposed to. He loyally served that Nazi command from Spain in 1937 through the final collapse and surrender in 1945, and shot down scores of Allied aircraft. His belief in his government was not shaken until late on, when the war was irretrievably lost, and the growing madness or incompetence of his own top commanders (Hitler and Goering) was becoming painfully evident. By then, it was too late.

He was caught up in the grand illusion of country, flag, loyalty, and duty. So were millions of other Germans like him. And most of them were not stupid people by any means.

So it doesn't surprise me in the least that many Americans fall for this incredible line of BS that is spouted daily by the Bush administration. Nope. What will surprise me is if a majority of Americans see through it. Pretty well everyone else in the World has already seen through it (including the British population)...pretty well everyone except the Israelis. They are so convinced of their own historical "victimhood" at this point (while horrendously victimizing others) that I don't think anything will suffice to turn them from the disastrous course they have embarked upon. They are willing warriors for America, no matter what America does.

It was that very sense of "victimhood" that gave Hitler the rage to tap on in the German population in the 20's and 30's which allowed him to build first a party, then a government, then the World's greatest (at the time) military machine, and finally...utter catastrophe.

Do not be deluded by the fact that some of the people Bush points his finger at are dictators. Hitler fought against some dictators too, and it was just a case of the pot calling the kettle black, when the pot was itself blacker than midnight.

It's September 1939, folks. The Stukas are warming up on the runways, the Heinkels have their bombs ready and loaded, the Panzer divisions are poised on the indefensible borders, the Kriegsmarine is assembling off the coastal waters, the professional trained killers and the innocent young warriors of the World's greatest military power have been despatched to their initial launch zones. The rest of the World is expected to grimace, hold their noses, and stand aside while the big blitzkrieg does whatever the hell it pleases and smashes one more small country. And after that? Iran?

The only question is, will the rest of the World stand aside? Or will they stand up and say NO! Or will they fight? And if not now, when?

I regret to say that my country, Canada, will inevitably be drawn in by geographical factors to tacitly or actively support the new blitzkrieg, just as Finland was when it Allied itself with Germany in World War II, and will find itself allied with the great Anglo-American blitzkrieg machine, the New World Order, regardless of what its people say. We are a captive population. I kid you not. And no one has been able to figure out what to do about it, because our political system is presently unwilling to reflect the actual will of its people...just like Mr Blair's government is. That's why I say: we are a captive population. No democracy here...just the pretence of it. Just the memory of what once was.

The opposition to Mr Bush's planned war is tremendous in this country, but our government doesn't speak for its people.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 09:01 PM

Well, I find it intersting that the US response to France and Germany resisting Bush's madmanish thirst for war is to unveil their latest PR slogan as Paul Wuff-wuffowitz tonight took it out for a spin on national TV. Now, it's not Saddam's Weapon's of Mass Destrution but Saddam's Weapons of Mass *Terrorism*. What a juvenile joke. I am totaly embarassed by just how low this adminstarion will go to sell a war. Next thing ya know, they'll be hiring folks from TV wrestling or Roller Derby to handle the PR work...

Give me a break.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 08:52 PM

In the case of Bush no ! In the case of Blair yes !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 08:49 PM

What I don't understand is don't other countries have the right to have weapons to protect themselves just as we do? I find it arrogant that we can have every and any kind of weapon of mass destruction known to man but don't think others should?? The illusion that we are a noble country is fading fast. Considering current circumstances if I were any other country in the world right now, I would not feel safe with the US having so many weapons of mass destruction,and a war-mongering leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 08:15 PM

When have the French Government, of any persusion, been concerned with justice, moral standards, or the like. It is only my personal view, but I suspect any political stance against war in the Middle East is more concerned with enabling the French to sell replacement weapons post war than any moral scrupples.

A little of the old "pot calling the kettle sooty", eh Gareth?. You think the US and Britain are motivated by moral scrupples rather than money? Surely you jest.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:49 PM

North Korea not familiar with war? Hmmm. It's hard to avoid that huge US Army stationed over the border in South Korea, or their still weak post-war economy. Or the land mines that continue to kill people. I'd say NK has a far better perception of the realities of war than the US does.

I can't imagine NK being suicidal enough to lob an unprovoked nuclear weapon at the US, but they might do so if they were attacked. Using nuclear weapons as a deterrent against attack has been around for 50-some odd years now... and obviously it works for a smaller, poorer country to prevent attack by a superior military force.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:29 PM

Kevin - I despair, the leaders of Russia and China had some connection with reality, and had seen the devastating effects that war had on thier country. The present leadership of North Korea has not. That is something to factor into decision making.

When have the French Government, of any persusion, been concerned with justice, moral standards, or the like. It is only my personal view, but I suspect any political stance against war in the Middle East is more concerned with enabling the French to sell replacement weapons post war than any moral scrupples. As we have seen time and time again in Palestine and elsewhere.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:13 PM

Why would North Korea want to bomb Los Angeles? The Russians never did, nor the Chinese, and they had a lot more bombs and far more effective ways of delivering them.

I suppose if America were to start an all out attack on Korea something might happen, but in spite of all that talk about "axis of evil" I can't quite see that happening.

An odd term axis - it implies two countries which are allied with each other, and at odds with everyone else. Can't see how it applies to three countries, two of which are desperately hostile to each other, and the third which has nothing at all in common with either of the others.

If you are looking for "two countries which are allied with each other, and at odds with everyone else" it strikes me that the USA and the UK are the best candidates for the term. I suppose Bush could try talking about an "axis of good" but I somehow think it wouldn't catch on.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:13 PM

DougR, the people who are hallucinating may be the ones who believe that North Korea or Iraq or any other country would not hesitate to hit a nuclear-capable country. Of course they would hesitate. It is what the entire cold war was predicated upon.

Any small country that sends a nuclear weapon against the US KNOWS that it would be hit back, promptly, decisively, and with less bomb slop-over damage on surrounding countries than itself is capable of. So only a madman who knows his power grip is irretrievably loosened would hit first, in order to take down everyone else with him. North Korea has not been suspected of such nefarious plans.

I've got to say- As closely as Hussein has been monitored the last five years, harassed by air in an enemy-set no fly zone, and all our intelligence gathering by satellite, I don't see how he would go about developing and amassing nuclear weaponry. Unless he has found a way to do without the distinctive nuclear reactors?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 06:48 PM

Which is exactly what Saddam is trying to do!

Iraq and North Korea are completely different situations. It makes sense to me to attempt to settle the N. Korea problem BECAUSE they have the bomb. Iraq should be settled by whatever means become necessary because the DON'T have the bomb yet.

And you are right, Nicole. It is not unlikely at all that North Korea could hit our west coast with a nuke. And anyone who believes that the leader of either country would hesitate to do it is, in my opinion, hallucinating.

Were North Korea to do so, you naysayers would be the first to pile on the president because he didn't attack N. Korea (oops. got carried away there for a second) ...you naysayers would be piling on Bush because he didn't call a high level conference to discuss it before they fired the missle.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 06:35 PM

Yep, Jed. Iraq didn't managed to shoot down a US plane or destroy a US tank during the last Gulf War, and their military is substantially weaker now.

On the other hand, it seems very probable that North Korea could hit the left coast of the US -- probably not very accurately, but LA is an awfully big target. Even if not, they could do us some serious damage. After being included in "axis of evil" speeches for months, is it any wonder North Korea felt threatened? You have to give the man some credit for seeing through Bush's bullying rhetoric to the heart of the matter -- the US isn't going to "pre-emptively attack" a nation that can blacken our eye. Bad for elections.

Meanwhile, now everyone else knows it to. Lesson learned: in order to prevent an attack by the US, arm yourself to the teeth, preferably with nuclear weapons. Ouch.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Jed.
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 06:26 PM

Iraq is an easy target compared to N. Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:23 PM

Funny you should mention North Korea DougR. This isn't about Clinton vs. Bush, and in fact has absolutely nothing to do with Clinton vs Bush or Democrats vs Republicans. You are also conveniently either ignoring or discounting the fact that the Clinton administration the North Koreans much closer to compliance and signing the non-proliferation treaties than either the Reagan or Bush I administration ever did.

What about North Korea, then? Why diplomacy there, but not in Iraq? Especially considering how much more volatile the region surrounding Iraq is, than the area surrounding Korea?

We KNOW North Korea has nuclear weapons, and is threatening to sell the technology to other countries right now. Why is a diplomatic solution good for one, but not the other, especially when the military thread from Iraq has been successfully contained for over a decade? Why the double standard?

Americans aren't stupid. One of the main reasons Americans are now questioning the Bush administration's march to war, is the double standard the Bush administration is applying to Korea and Iraq. Diplomacy for solving one crisis (where oil and Bush I's legacy aren't an issue), and war for the other.

If Bush goes against American opinion and goes to war against Iraq unilaterally, or in opposition to the UN, NATO, and other allies, I don't think you will see the usual "rally round the president in times of war" popularity the Bush administration is arrogantly expecting as a given. So, is it worth dividing the American people, the long standing allies of the US, the United Nations Security Council, and NATO, just to appease these madmen? Just when would you say it is time for Bush to pull back from the brink? Under what circumstances would you withhold support from the president for going to war against Iraq?

Or are you just another of the Bush lifers, who will support him unthinkingly and unblinkingly, no matter what he does?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:20 PM

What threat is North Korea to anyone (except the North Koreans)? Perhaps they've got a "nuclear deterrent" - why is that a big deal to countries which walked that tightrope for forty years?

At present there appears to be no convincing evidence whatsoever that Iraq has these weapons. All we have is assertions that, since the inspectors haven't found them, that just shows how well they must be concealed, and proves that the Iraqis are obstructing the inspectors.

Somebody appears to be planning to obstruct the inspectors all right.

But please noone go saying that "Britain" is proposing to go to war. Every poll shows that a sizeable majority are opposed to doing so. And the same goes for America it appears, so far as any go-it-alone war is concerned. The trouble is that the people don't control the Government. That is one thing our countries have in common with Iraq.

Hell, in England it isn't even necessary to have a vote in Parliament to start a war.

I imagine there will be some Gulf of Tonkin type incident to get the war under way.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:18 PM

Thanks GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:49 PM

Kat: "we'll see a better, safer day." Allowing Saddam to keep his biological, chemical weapons, and allowing him more time to build his nuclear bomb will make us more safe huh? Sure, let's make the same mistake with Saddam that Clinton did with North Korea. They are no threat now, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:48 PM

Yes, the above cite is the story I mentioned. I read about it in the Miami Herald & heard it on the TV news (can't remember which station though).

Here is a link to the Miami Herald story:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/5009677.htm

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:42 PM

UPI is reporting it here:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030123-011647-3434r

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:36 PM

Do you have a link to any information about that one, GUEST,SD?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:24 PM

CarolC, the current (and somewhat delayed, shall we say?) search of the Palm Springs home of a Saudi family "with possible links to the Sept 11th terrorists" comes to mind...