BS: Why I support Disarming America

Subject: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Ewan McVicar
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:35 AM

Well - it's obvious really.

No need to say more.



Peace to all,

Ewan

Subject: RE: Why I support Disarming America
From: Dead Horse
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:37 AM

O.K. Now go back to sleep.

Subject: RE: Why I support Disarming America
From: smallpiper
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:48 AM

I think he has a point!

Subject: RE: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 08:37 AM

Disarmming Amercia: what a lovely ,frilly , flowery little froc of a far left fantasy this is. "No more need be said " ; Yrah, if you live in Micheal Jackson's "Neverland". Guess being fondled os better than facing up to the realities of the war making animus that has long existed before there there ever was an America.
Get real ,will you please?
Who calls for the simultaneous diarming of Beijing?
Think Taiwan should disarm first and then Beijing will miraculously just ask Tawain to reunite with the China motherland on Berijing's terms. Ask the Tibetians about Beijing's terms. They were mostly non-violent. That's why the "real Dalai lama is in still in exile for the last 50 years.
Who then calls for the disarming of NATO then?
Who calls for North Korea's disarming or would you suggest South Korea should just disarm and offer flowers to the N.Korean millitary along the non man's parralel?
Care to call for the unilateral disarmming of either Pakistan or India .
How about Isreal . How about Hamas , PLO ,Mujahadeen , Al-Queida.
How about either the Columbian & now Mexican Drug Lords
or the Marxist guerillas ( Whom remembers "Shinning Path" in the Peruvian equivalent of the Golden Triangle of Heroin drug lords "still' in South East Asia.

Sorry to burst your Waco Jacko bubble there, Ewan , but the 21st century just does not allow for such a bucolic luxury entertaining the notion that all the world needs now is for the USA to disarm.

Create a vacuum , take a viable cop off the beat ( and please don't suggest the UN as their sitting on their hands during the Bosnian attrocities "alone" was a shameful attrocity in of itself )
and those whom recognize no law but the law of the jungle will always take advantage. That's the way of the world. Deal with it and save the fantasies for a song.

Subject: RE: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 08:45 AM

I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?"

Now I know why.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?"

Now I know why.

Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people.

On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.

On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.

I will not be manipulated.

I will not pretend to understand.

I will not forget.

I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.

I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president."

I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."

And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."

I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.

I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.

I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration.

I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.

I will not be influenced by so called,"antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of expression to chant anti-American obscenities.

I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines.

I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality.

I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?

There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!"

I will force myself to:


-hear the weeping
-feel the helplessness
-imagine the terror
-sense the panic
-smell the burning flesh
- experience the loss
- remember the hatred.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?"

Now I know.

We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.

-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)
Not as lean, Not as mean, But still a Marine.

Subject: RE: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,cookieless paddymac
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 08:59 AM

Semper Fi, Gunny!

Subject: RE: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Ernest C
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:07 AM

Suggestions like that of the original poster who may or not be Ewan McVicar show an appalling lack of understanding of world history.   

While it is possible that the U.S. course in this particular situation may not be the best option available, suggesting such a thing has got to be one of the most ignorant, stupid suggestions imaginable.

Words fail me.

Subject: RE: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:24 AM

To GUEST Ed Evans:

It's really a shame I did not also see in your list of "I will nots"

I will not forget that Pres.Bush ,senior and his advisors utterly failed his military in "stopping" them from going on to Baghdad and "finishing the job" , even though clear victory was at hand, and has thus borught to where we are right now; namely putting far more of our brave boys and far,far more billion$ of precious miltary materiale ( not to mention our entire economy ) at risk and "in harm's way".
I will not forget the moral vistory handed over to "1st wave " of Islamist terorists by the "Reagan administration" when their poor military preparation allowed the mass murdxer of 240 of your fellow marines "in their beds" and then Reagan "turned tail" ,packed up and diserted Lebanon without a single effective response. ( Pleasedon't refer to that pathetic little sideshow in Granada as anything less than a dodge ).

I will thus not tolerate the message that this utter failure of the Reagan admin sent a clear message to the 1st wave of growing Islamist terrorist regimes that all you have to do is bloody America's nose and they will retreat.

I will not tolerate that the Reagan admin supported Saddam Hussein so long as he warred against Iran only to face this obscene case of extreme "blowback " now in 2003 , that we supported , supplied , and trained up to deadly efficiency the Mujahadeen to turn back the Soviets only to abbandon them when that job was done and thus letting loose the forces that
lead to the Taliban rule in Afghnistan and , ultimately 9/11.

I share your passion for being the effective watch on the guard ,but your selective nightblidness to "direct" involvement ( and outright blunders) of the Reagan/Bush admins clearly seting the stage for all of these current dawn-of-war crises really blows a lot of your credability. Your heart's in the right place ,but to totally ignore the core causes of these 21st century catastrophe's waiting to happen means your head is as blinded by the bushwah of your own "idelogically correct" preference as is the far left's.

( Remember Reagan's bold-fsacelie to the american public that "We will "not" do deals with terrorists and then remember Iran-Contra. Keep it real or keep it quiet )

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:40 AM

Taliesn, don't you read? Did you never listened to a word Norman Schwarzkopf said about the last gulf war? Try reading his book and you will learn (to your absolute astonishment) that the resistance to defeating Saddam came from the military. Two reasons in particular: the slaughter of youngsters trapped in their trucks and tanks on the "turkey-shoot" road back to Basra was having a bad effect on US troops who were losing the stomach for it; and Schwarzkopf did not want to find himself, or anyone else, doing a McArthur in Iraq for the next 10-15 years. (That would have been necessary to prevent Turkey, Syria and Iran filling the vacuum.)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:52 AM

(quote)
"Did you never listened to a word Norman Schwarzkopf said about the last gulf war? "

Well ,Fionn, as a matter of fact I have and if you were at all aware of Schwarzkppf's very first "televised" interview right after the victory ( I beleive with David Frost, but I'll have to review my videotape of it ) he clearly said he wanted to go right on to Baghdad , but was told not by by the Bush admin ( with Colin Powell as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the military as one advocate ). Well ol' Stormin' Norman was immediately called into the woodshed by Bush ,Nat.Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft,
Sect.of Defense Dick Cheney among others ) to "get with the official line" on why the Bush admin elected to "stop" the military from "finishing the job" when it would've been far easier and less perilous than it is now ;including MacArthuresque "nation building".
Schwarzkopf's book was published "after" this "official line" was made clear to stormin' Norman.
So ,yeah Fionn, I "do read". I also pay attention to "follow-up of what ket witnesses and anylysts of history say and do and then "cross-reference".
Try it sometime. You might actually learn something yourself, M'dear. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 12:01 PM

Taliesn, Guest,... the veins are standing out on your forehead, and you are gnashing your teeth so loudly that I can hear em over all the navy jets flying around here... Your diatribes are incredibly partial and insuficiently researched, and betrays your fidelity... maybe part of the problem is that you have taken an indefensible stand...

It of course is a forgone conclusion that America will not let go of the 'death grip' it has on the world with it's "military industrial complex"... But it may be possible for the US military to focus on primarily humanitarian service, and less on the 'covert imperialistic' endeavors... and 'the peaceful place' that we should be working towards will be more possible when we stop using force (or threat of force), and start using common sense incentives, like job skills, clean water, complete economic independence, and no war machine dependence whatsoever.

Think outside the war machine, Give prosperity real meaning... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 12:54 PM

Canadians to Lead Weapons Inspection of U.S.
A coalition of Canadian peace groups announced in November their intention to send an international team of volunteer weapons inspectors into the United States. The coalition, Rooting Out Evil, is recruiting inspectors through their Web site, www.rootingoutevil.org. "Our action has been inspired by none other than George W. Bush," said Christy Ferguson, a spokesperson for the group. "The Bush Administration has repeatedly declared that the most dangerous rogue nations are those that: 1) have massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; 2) ignore due process at the United Nations; 3) refuse to sign and honor international treaties; and 4) have come to power through illegitimate means." Rooting Out Evil includes Greenpeace Canada, the Centre for Social Justice, and the Toronto Committee Against War and Sanctions on Iraq.


http://www.rootingoutevil.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 03:21 PM

(quote)
"Taliesn, Guest,... the veins are standing out on your forehead, and you are gnashing your teeth so loudly that I can hear em over all the navy jets flying around here... "

My but you have an over-active imagination. Not to worry. "Tis charming in its own quaint way I s'pose. I just don't let half-the-story bushwah get by unchallenged which you are obviousy content to do since you've apparently offered zero so far as addressing any of the cause/effect issues either of us raised.

(quote)
"Your diatribes are incredibly partial and insuficiently researched, and betrays your fidelity... "

Oh, just because "you" say so. Care to offer some genuine cases in point to back up what otherwise sounds like so much pablum of a dispenbsation with nothing to back it up but your "opinion". All readers here can make up there own minds what that's worth short of some sound substantiations.

"...maybe part of the problem is that you have taken an indefensible stand... "

Oh really? Exactly what part of either of my posts do you find so very "indefensible"? Please don't suggest that you believe that just by your saying so hardly makes it so, there, Sparky.

Bother to make youre case or is this issue so cut & dried in your world that it's above the effort..
Prove you really care or are you just another side-liner content upon reading from the plackards others are carrying; Pro or Con.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM

Tsk, tsk. Boys, boys, boys. Control your tempers now, or you'll be sent to your rooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 04:28 PM

(quote)
"Tsk, tsk. Boys, boys, boys. Control your tempers now, or you'll be sent to your rooms. "

How very patronizing of you to avoid genuine honest debate with just me , not "just us boys", but with me and the points I have clearly made and you csan't even be bothered to address directly.
I guess the selective ignorance of dodging an honest oppurtunity to make your case on a public forum is the favored sport of armchair moralists.
Tsk ,tsk. You're not even worth the bother of the effort for disdain.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Mark Clark
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 04:59 PM

I've always wondered why the German people didn't stop Hitler instead of supporting him in his mad rush to recreate the world in his own insane image…   now I know why.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,dumbfounded
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 05:11 PM

I'm still amazed that I actually SAW the following sentence from someone who wants to be taken seriously discussing ANYTHING.

"Taliesn, don't you read? Did you never listened to a word Norman Schwarzkopf said.."

I rarely act like a pedant, but there are limits, and you both are trying to seem pretty profound.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:02 PM

I saw a sign yesterday in a little rally "for our troops"...

"I'd rather be the wife of a dead sailor, the the wife of a coward."

Sorry I can't be more agreeable, Taliesn... but you really seem to be on the "warpath", and consequently, you are difficult for me to reason with. From my perspective, peace is not just an option... it is a prerequisite for a responsible world-wide coalition... which is, IMHO, the best solution for the perpetual middle east crisis. I do not discuss the particulars with you of war strategy and preemption, because to me, they are all wrong minded. For me, diplomacy and common ground... peace and prosperity... the 'ordinary' people of all countries... and encouraging Saddam to comply... have nothing to gain from war. Like I said, ...sorry. ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:06 PM

oops... should read;

"I'd rather be the wife of a dead sailor, than the wife of a coward."

ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:14 PM

Well, danged. Heck of a mess in here!

As fir my own recollections of the winding down of the Gulf War (which officially it wasn't since Congress didn't declare it) was pretty much the same as Tal's.

But I have a slightly different spin on events. Sure the days of bombing fleeing Iraqis, many of them in passenger cars and not tanks, was a PR nightmare. The main objective of liberating (for lack of a better word) Kuwait was firmly in hand eyt the killing on the "Highway of Death" continued in an almost vengeful manner and there was pressure on Bush to *quit*.

Now, let's look at another aspect of the motivation for not going into Bagdad. First, there was the same delimma that now exists in that what had looked like a victorious mission could have become tarnished in an urban warfare setting. But probably more important is the relationship that the US had had with Saddam. The US had been his allie, had armed him aginst the Iranians and thought they knew him welll enough to "contain" him. There is also the very real possibility that the US had given him a quiet nod to go into Kuwait by not making much of a stink about it when they first learned of his plans, much like they hadn't made much of a stink about his gassing of the Kurds.

Everyone has that 20/20 hindsight but, to be fair, I think these factors needs at least some consideration.

But as fir Ronnie Reagan turning tail in Lebanon, I agree 100%.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Mark Clark
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:38 PM

I love the RootingOutEvil site. Thanks GUEST.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:50 PM

You are veddy velcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 07:24 PM

I'm proud to "respectfully" differ a tad here and a tucj there with y'all , but here goes.

(quote)
"Now, let's look at another aspect of the motivation for not going into Bagdad. First, there was the same delimma that now exists in that what had looked like a victorious mission could have become tarnished in an urban warfare setting. "

Correct me if I'm wrong, here, Rev, but , best as I can recollect ,
there was no conventional wisdom consensus for or against "urban warfare" because what the real world reason term leaves that collective bad taste was a direct result of the debacle in Somalia....which didn't happen until the election year of 1992...and the unmentioned reason Papa Bush initiated that so-called "humanitarian millitary mission" in an election year was to avoid like the plague what was already burning wild in Bosnia which we had to ultimately go into to clean anyway and much to Clinton ,and "not" the UN's or the EU's credit .
There never would have been an election called that ultimately outse Milosevic had not the military "cop on the beat" not been a serious factor. Same with Saddam.

(quote)
"But probably more important is the relationship that the US had had with Saddam. The US had been his allie, had armed him aginst the Iranians and thought they knew him welll enough to "contain" him."

We both agree on the abyssmal arrogance of that stupidity seeing as how this exact reason didn't stop bush from rounding up Noriega in Panama. Remember "that" police action after Bush's dirty hands relationship sponsoring him during the Contra build-up and the prepping for another Viet Nam in Central America that was finally successfully derailed ?( ofcourse it led to the covert ops that were finally exposed in the Iran-Contra debacle.)

(quote)
"There is also the very real possibility that the US had given him a quiet nod to go into Kuwait by not making much of a stink about it when they first learned of his plans, ..."

Again ,Rev.Bobert ,we are on the same page. I well remember the actual cpongressional hearings on precisely that subject becasue the womna ,one April glasby ,was the one representing the Bushites that met with Saddam and was the key witness answering questions at that hearing. I know this because I can ,again ,back it up with the v-tape I did of C-Span's covering this hearing.
And ,Yes, the Bushites did give her the messgae to give Saddam that the U.S. took no position on his plans. Thus greenlighting the Kuwait invasion by saying they have no opinion.
The extra mile you have yet to go with this has to do with my intuition at the time that with this great big multi-trillion$ budget-busting Reagan military had just won the cold War with the USSR's collapse and didn't have a justification anymore for its obscene largesse. I still believe Saddam was perfect foil for showing a public starting to wonder where all their money went and question why they had to. Remember too that what would prove to be the $500 billion bailout of the Savings & Loan debacle was also in the headlines.

My issue with the Rhymer is his simplistic lumping together of my opinions with that of the Marine whom I was clearly "challenging" on his points. Also his failure to quote what I had said that was "indefensible" such as naming all of the other nations that should disarm. I don't thin it a stretch to imagine what N.Korea would do if South Korea disarmmed and just chanted "Give Peace a Chance" in Korean on the demilitarized zone nor would Beijing act any less diplomatically about reclaiming Taiwan should they completely disarm.
The point I was making was look what peaceful civil disobedience got the Tibetians.
till i see some well-chosen words addressing 'these" realities as well I guess I'll still have to take issue with the "Blame America Firsters".
You know i take a back seat to "no one" criticizing the obscenities of our miltiary industrial complex ; but to pretend all would be fine with the world if it were unilaterally dismantled have "ye" to make their case with me.
And in all of this I "still" say where is the Islamic equivalent to a Mahama Gandhi.
Clearly sitting on one's hands in the face of evil is no answer either. Even the great Gandhi's solution of separation of Muslim's and Indian's hasn't solved the fundamental animosities between them had America never been created.

I guess consider me in the " Let the Nation's clean of the Sin of War ast the First Stone " camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 07:29 PM

Why would anyone NOT blame the US first, when the US is to blame, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 08:43 PM

Don't forget that Saddamn gassed Iranians as well as Kurds, Bobert. Most commentators do gloss over it, perhaps because that was done while the US was actively working to ensure that he won that spat. (And Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.)

Tal, I might have to stand corrected, especially as the estimable Bobert seems to remember it your way, but I'd be interested to see any references you could give concerning Sshwarzkopf's Damascene conversion. I'll be sorry if you're right, as I always thought he was a better guy than Powell by miles.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 09:02 PM

But don't forget the US government has a long tradition of gassing and radiating it's civilian and military population too, Fionn.

So that claim, so often made as if the US were on some high moral ground on WMD, is pretty damn disingenuous.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 09:18 PM

OK! I give, Taliesn... I conceed to you that... You are doing something very worthy and valuable in taking it point by point with each of us! You are doing something I couldn't do well, and I'll admit it... It is hard to read sometimes... When you validate bits and peices of government policies I fundimentally disagree with, I react initially to what seems like a loss of faith... oops! More power to ya, but maybe keep the dander down... OK? ttr (laughing at giving the advise I need... ;^))

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Troll
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 09:40 PM

We created Saddam. It's now up to us to remove him.
And please remember that the Gulf War was a UN backed action. The US did not go in unilaterally and for that reason did not go on and take Baghdad. The UN mandate covered only the liberation of Kuwait.
Regardless of whose fault it is, we are now faced with a situation where our national security is threatened by terrorist activity and friendly and/or controlable nations in the Middle East are vital to the peace and security of everyone.
I don't think that anyone would deny that our treatment of Germany and Japan following WWII enabeled them to become the industrial titans that they are today. It has never been our policy to go in, kick ass, and just leave. Nor will it be this time. That mistakes were made in the past is clear. Mistakes will be made in the future. Hopefully we will be able to overcome them and arrive at an ultimately peaceful conclusion.
And remember that hindsight is a perfect science. We ALL know what should have been done.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:01 PM

I have to take issue with your statement that "friendly and/or controllable nations in the Middle East are vital to the peace and security of everyone." Being controlled by the U.S. is not in any way vital to the peace or security of the people of those nations. What you seem to be saying is that it is morally acceptable, or even required, that we control other nations for our own benefit. That's generally called imperialism, and since I imagine you wouldn't like it happening to you, you shouldn't call for it to be enacted on others. While "it has never been our policy to go in, kick ass, and just leave," we have often stayed for our gain, rather than that of the inhabitants of the country, which I do not find to be a moral policy. It seems that this would be the case in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:43 PM

Troll's description of US responsibility:
"We created Saddam. It's now up to us to remove him."
I'm intrigued by the revelations that accompany this statement for me. ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Louie Roy
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:47 AM

We should take up a collection and send Guest Ewan McVicar over to Iraq so he could be with his friends.He sure as hell don't belong in this country.He talks like a coward act like a coward or maybe even one of the terriost that we are trying to round up,and if there ever was a thread that should have been pulled from the get go it was this one.Louie Roy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:52 AM

Thank you Ewan. Sometimes it takes the eyes of those who stand at a distance to show us what we don't care/dare to see up close.
Thank God the majority of nations (& mostly France, Germany, Russia & China) are trying to reign us in.


Will we're not forgetting


I will not forget how we did nothing while on December 23, 1915 the German Government filed at Constantinople a protest against the Turkish treatment of Armenians. We latter had the correct term for this mistreatment. Genocide.


I will not forget how we did nothing while in Kosovo we watched the Bosnian Serbs in what we dubbed a civil war, commit genocide, it was ethnic cleansing of Muslims. The same international court that tried some of these cases is in the mists of an attempt by the US to close the court down because it not longer has a function (are we planning ahead?), while many of the architects of this horror are still lounging about.


I will not forget how we watched 800,000 Hutu refugees in only a few months cleansed (again Genocide dubbed Civil War) by Tutsis in Rwanda, Uganda & all the US would do is make a demand to the UN to pull all their peace-keeping forces out of Uganda. These same Tutsis are now returning to Uganda.


I will not forget how it took the US so long to try to help the world stop the Jewish genocide by the Nazi's & denied refugee status to many who sought protection on our shores while aiding some of the monsters freedom to flee.


I will not forget the killing fields & Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge & how they went unheeded for so long by the US knowing that the genocide of 2 million was in full swing.


Where was the US, where were the eyes & hearts of the world. If we had made any kind of move the world would have joined us. In the 40's we had an international court so genocide would never occur again. We have failed to stop it, bigtime & we seem to be the next offender. History will tell the shame as it will again. Don't forget, we did suppy Iraq with all the tools of mass destuction to finish of the Kerds, we failed but we never say die.


Even if we did nothing that's shame enough we could have done something. Will you do nothing again or will you help to prevent it. Will you listen to the same excuses that we heard & were fed in the past or will you decide what's right & what's not, don't go about "Just Following Orders". It is the duty of every American to make sure it's government does not overpower it's own citizens as well as any others. "By the people & for the people" means nothing in today's US. We could be doing such good but we're pushing war. We just offered Africa a shocking amount for aids, do we look to wave that in front of the same nations who we are looking for support from. We are offering a staggering amount to Turkey for the use of their land base. This built up to war seems to be financed on the shoulders of the working class & the poor. It's these folks that'll fight & die while their families at home are struggling to make ends meat (it's the youngest soldiers that fade the fastest, the old are luckier they really do just die) . We're trying to buy off the world while the offer's out there. Who's to stop us if we can't stop ourselves?


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:55 AM

Noting the post prior to mine above. If you knew Ewan at all you'd respect him, not only for the size of his balls, but for willingness to state the ugly truth. Me again. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 06:46 AM

Having read down through the above some points just for clarification:

1. Iraq did not win the Iran-Iraq war. If anything they lost it in stalemate. Saddam initiated the conflict and singularly failed to attain any of the objectives set. The reason countries such as US, France, Russia, etc., came to Saddam's assistance was to ensure that Iraq did not suffer defeat - it would have meant the disintegration of Iraq.

2. Neither the US or UK put Saddam in power - that he did himself way back in 1978.

3. From Barry's Post:

"I will not forget how we did nothing while on December 23, 1915 the German Government filed at Constantinople a protest against the Turkish treatment of Armenians. We latter had the correct term for this mistreatment. Genocide."

Who's we paleface? - if that date is correct UK, France & Russia were at war with Turkey at the time - what more could we possibly have done?

"I will not forget how we did nothing while in Kosovo we watched the Bosnian Serbs in what we dubbed a civil war, commit genocide, it was ethnic cleansing of Muslims."

Bosnian Serbs in Kosovo?? Think you have your conflicts mixed up. Bosnia was where the UN did get involved - something to do with safe havens that were anything but - Same old UN apathy, result an extremely embarassing F**k Up - embarassing for the world community as a whole, not just the US.

Kosovo was where the UN couldn't decide what to do, Russia was going to use its veto, so NATO went in without UN backing - same crowd of Peace Campaigners, predicting horror and doom - the difference in results between Bosnia and Kosovo were as chalk to cheese. I bet if you ask either of the groups subject to ethnic cleansing in those two conflicts they will tell you what they would rather have seen happen.

"I will not forget how we watched 800,000 Hutu refugees in only a few months cleansed (again Genocide dubbed Civil War) by Tutsis in Rwanda, Uganda & all the US would do is make a demand to the UN to pull all their peace-keeping forces out of Uganda. These same Tutsis are now returning to Uganda."

Rwanda is a country in its own right - it is not part of Uganda. The UN has something in its charter about not being allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of member states. They can only intervene when requested to do so by the government of the country. Having gone in, and they go in in a peace-keeping role, they do not go in to solve the problem, they go in to halt the fighting and to get the various factions involved round a table for talks aimed at resolving the issues those factions see as points of conflict.

Cambodia - Pol Pot et al, UN saw that as an internal civil war - US could have acted unilaterally - that wouldn't have been too popular considering the circumstances.

"Don't forget, we did suppy Iraq with all the tools of mass destuction to finish of the Kerds,"

No you didn't.

By all means disarm America - I reckon you would need the briefest of heartbeats to realise that you had just made the biggest mistake imaginable.

The thread was started according to Barry above by "ugly truth quotin'" Ewan "Balls" (Barry doesn't mention whether or not we should amazed at their size for being huge or tiny) McVicar who asked:

"Why I support Disarming America"

Which he expanded upon with:

"Well - it's obvious really.

No need to say more.



Peace to all,

Ewan"

And I think that just about tells all. - PRAT

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 10:19 AM

(quote)
"More power to ya, but maybe keep the dander down... OK?"

Point well taken. My apologies for allowing a full moon's influence to get the upper hand on in my passion for intellectual honesty in a debate which is why I have a tendency to lose it over simplistic"wave of the hand" dismissals without backing up one's case.
I call to task both the far right AND the far left when they dodge facts "inconvinient" to their points. Both sides will bullshit if it will gain targetted ground.
I respect intellectual honesty and I practice what I preach .
When I'm wrong because when I "am" mis-informed I am grateful to have learned something more that I didn't know.

That's the whole point to debate to my mind : to learn atleast the 3 sides of an argument in order to learn and not just to espouse any "ideologically correct" scripting from an armchair or a beerhall. That's intellectual "laziness" and sincerely seeking the entire arguement is as good a working definition of a passionate "independent" as any.

Passionately independent policing ideological correctness whatever stripe it may brandish.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Peg
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 10:19 AM

well said, Barry!

You bring to our attention that which today's war-mongers seem to quickly forget or de-emphasize...that in the past there have been far worse situations in which we chose to do little or nothing. This underscores the selfish and greedy motivation which lies at the heart of the rush to war against Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 10:38 AM

"My apologies for allowing a full moon's influence to get the upper hand on in my passion for intellectual honesty in a debate which is why I have a tendency to lose it over simplistic "wave of the hand" dismissals without backing up one's case."

Ah Taliesen, about that intellectual honesty/backing up one's case thing...the full moon was February 16th. So now that we know your intellectually honesty and ability to back one's case is suspect, how about you cool down and back off.   The moon cycle is not responsible for you ranting, you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:37 AM

Because I am an idiot.

Idiot

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:58 AM

Seems disarming Bush is appropriate tho...

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:41 PM

(quote)
"Ah Taliesen, about that intellectual honesty/backing up one's case thing...the full moon was February 16th. So now that we know your intellectually honesty and ability to back one's case is suspect, ...."

Oh puh-lease. Now one has to contend with the "cosmologically correct " as an excuse for their lilliputian point presuming to be pedantic.
Go take a good soak ,will ya?
I was just using a creative allusion to describe the vehemence of my repsonse. If that's all you manage to work from in ordr to presume to enter a sincere debate you're like a little wanna-be street-waif all agape and blurting out anything just to be a part of the grown-ups discussion.
Go play in the dustbins of history and be a good little joey.



how about you cool down and back off.   The moon cycle is not responsible for you ranting, you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:00 PM

You've just illustrated the point again there, Taliesen. You need to settle your "vehemence" down, stop your name calling, stop your temper tantrums, and stick to the discussion at hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:04 PM

Peg,

"You bring to our attention that which today's war-mongers seem to quickly forget or de-emphasize...that in the past there have been far worse situations in which we chose to do little or nothing. This underscores the selfish and greedy motivation which lies at the heart of the rush to war against Iraq."

Most of the incidents referred to in the past were handled at some stage by the UN, or completely ignored by the UN - which is big on words and very, very limited on action - that is if they can ever actually rouse themselves from their nigh on terminal apathy.

The one instance he does raise - Kosovo - where NATO took "unilateral" action without the backing of the UN was successful in saving life, and brought down Slobodan Milosevic - currently on trial for crimes against humanity in the Hague. The "Peace Protesters" were out in their thousands on that occasion just as they are now. The French were dragging their heels like crazy then, just as they are now. Had those protesters and France been heeded then ethnic Albanian muslems would have continued being butchered in their thousands and Milosevic would still be in power. That was something that responsible leadership from heads of state within the NATO alliance could not afford to ignore - The "Peace Protesters" could though on the premise that "I'm all right Jack - pull up the ladder", and "Isn't it lovely haven't we done our good deed for humanity" - Aye bloody right ask any Albanian from Kosovo who managed, against incredible hardship, to survive that period what their take on that would be - I'm fairly certain of their answer.

As far as your last sentence goes:

"This underscores the selfish and greedy motivation which lies at the heart of the rush to war against Iraq."

BOLLOCKS - complete and utter, unmitigated - BOLLOCKS

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:06 PM

Seems to be a lot more heat than light in this thread.

The real danger to world peace.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:10 PM

Teribus, how stupid do you think we are? Do you actually expect someone to believe this claim that money, greed, and power have nothing to do with war in general, and this war in particular?

Are you suggesting that armaments dealers like Alliant, Lockheed, et al aren't going to be engaging in some routine war profiteering? That the oil companies who made a killing in profits during the Gulf War I, aren't going to--no, make that aren't already making a killing with Gulf War II?

Gimmee a break.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:17 PM

(quote)
"Seems disarming Bush is appropriate tho... "

I agree on that point and made continually made that point with various debating colleagues and friends the day after the 2000 election. just the fact that Papa bush's Secetary of Defense, Dick Cheney ,was the vice Pres. informed me that this automatically meant another obscene build-up of the military and I warned that we Americans would rue the day we let this crowd "back" into the White House armmed with practically a one-party Congress.
It was pre-ordained that since Baby Bush has proven he hasn't clue one about the economy the only way to try to draw attention away from the pathogen of re-ginning-up the "supply-sider" ideology of the profligrate budgets of the Reagan 80's ,would be to just play Uncle Sugar with equally obscene tax cuts while simultanously ginning-up the military spending again.
PapoaBush failed miserably to "enforce" a full clean sweep of Baghdad back when it was entirely justified and paid for by those that most benefitted from this military action; mostly Europe & Japan.
The fact that we are here again is incontravertable proof that it should have been done back then.

As far as this intinerant remark by one Barry Finn
(quote)
"
Thank God the majority of nations (& mostly France, Germany, Russia & China) are trying to reign us in.

Thnak God for Russia ?...: who is far more worried about securing its contracts and billion$ in payment arrears with the present Saddam regime and whom is one of the key sources of illicit rogue nuclear technology to terrorist "customers".)
...and China ?: who has one of the still worst human rights violations record on the planet if just to its sheer breadth . Ask any Tibetan, fool. Nuclear armmed and multi-million manned People's Red Army ruled China who has publically announced to the world that they do "not" recognize the the 12 mile limit but seek to enforce a 100 mile limit to what it considers "its" sovereign seas ( i'm sure the other Asian-Pacific nations would like to have something to say on that when China has built up its Navy of surface and sub-surface "enforcers. Will help in finally swalloing Taiwan as well . China who has supplied Pakistan with key nuclear components to make it a nuclear state barely under Musharif's coop-de-tat engineered leadership.

If that's the level quality of your far-sightedness you're also a prime candidate to join Waco Jacko in his "Neverland" bubbleworld.

It's amazing how people run to embrace selective ignorance in favor of ideologically correct views. I still say let the nation without the sin of ar cast the first stone.
France? Germany?
Wouldn't you like to find pout how many technology ciontracts "they'" have and continue to service with (addam ( It was France the supplied the Osirac Nuke Plant in Iraq that Isreal "pre-emptively bombed out of commision before it was finished 10 years before the Gilf War. We all know how famous Germany still is for manufacturing and purification in chemical production. business with Iraq pays , don't it ?
.Russia? China?
Just what kinda drugs are you on?

Wait until the EU military industraial complex gets into full throttle.They'll be the "first" to lead us all into the Armageddon that supposed to play out because they still get "most" of their oil from the MidEast let alone their need to rise to empire status and some cultiish dream of realizing a dream of Euro-supremacy.
Wait for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:25 PM

Good one, Barry.

Not sure that Teribus has all that much reason to be so smug about "our" response to Turkey in respect of the Armenians. Most countries, even now, have yet to acknowledge that outrage - the killing of more than a million people and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands more - as the genocide it clearly was. France is one of the few honourable exceptions, and I think possibly Canada too.

Why does it matter? Well for one thing, the indifference of the international community allowed Hitler to reassure his chums about his 'Final Solution' by saying: "Who now remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?" (Soon we'll be able to say "Who now remembers the Zimbabweans?")

Small point, but I think you got your Hutus and Tutsis wrong way round, Barry. Surprised Teribus didn't notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:28 PM

Taliesen, now you are name calling, etc. here. What is with you anyway? Are you incapable of holding a normal conversation without resorting to such rude, offensive, childish tactics?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:50 PM

Who was it said, he who would have peace must be prepared for war?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: JedMarum
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:06 PM

... we could just surrender

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Flotsam
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 03:01 PM

Divine being, save us from those who would not do the right thing because there is no precedent.

Divine being, spare us from those who would crucify the messenger rather than the perpetrator.

Divine being, protect us from those who would deny the another's basic human rights rather than risk offending the sensibilities of a despot.

I wonder if those posting in this string would be so willing to participate in an anti-establishment diatribe if the regime being criticized were Saddam's and the author's address was Baghdad?

"I got mine (liberty), you get your own!"

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Ewan McVicar
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 03:37 PM

I deliberately posted this message wondering how much patronising superiority I could uncover. I am tempted to answer ignorant insult with insult, but the ignorant insult themselves with no help from the rest.

I used to live in the US, but that was then. I don't know any of my many friends there who think the current war hysteria is justified.
America is a wonderful coutry. That does not make its current leadership infallibly right in its imperial actions and values.

The way it waves its weapons of mass destruction about makes it advisable to consider disarming it. But not in isolation, of course. Bring the boys all home alive.

Clearly I am stupid to think that Bush supporters can think of anything but world domination - but convince themselves of course that they are being world saviours.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 05:23 PM

If they didn't view Bush's actions in a light similar to that, they wouldn't support him.

Flotsam-Try this: "Divine being, save us from those who are too convinced of their own righteousness to see reason, and who would sacrifice countless lives for their own benefit and goals."

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 09:24 PM

Hi Teribus, I didn't know that what I posted warranted such a personal assualt. Shame on you. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:24 AM

Barry,

My apologies, no personal attack was not my intention.

The Turkish genocide occurred during the First World War - there was no international body at that time to intervene - even if there had been they would have been powerless to prevent it happening. Do you disagree with any of that?

With regard to the recent events in the former Yugosalvia and in Rwanda - the events you called our attention to - the facts presented were completely wrong.

The reference to the holocaust - again these events happened in the lead up to, and during, the Second World War - a ruthless dictator had been bought off by those whose desire for peace completely outweighed their moral responsibility to mankind, he honestly thought that he would get away with it because the international body of the day stood back and failed to act - just as the UN would like to do now.

In Cambodia, there was no way in the world that the US could act. They had just disengaged themselves from the Vietnam War and no administration in its right mind would ever have tried to sell the prospect of intervention to Congress or to the American people. The UN couldn't act because of its Charter

Everyone on this planet has a right to an opinion on any subject under the sun, they also, I fervently believe, have a right to express that opinion without fear. The only additional point I would make is that in forming their opinion and in expressing it - they have a responsibility to get their facts right - otherwise it only serves to dilute the force of the points trying to be made.

Again my apologies, no personal attack intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Ewan McVicar
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 03:39 AM

Since posting I have tried hard to think of wars that definitely did more good than harm.

I came up with World War Two.

That was it.

It seems clear that ever since the collapse of Soviet Russia, the Wstern international war machine has been in search of foes to justify its existance and budget, and on occasion manages to manufacture an enemty acceptable to the mass media. We have to see sense and dismantle the machine, while making a new international 'policing' body / structure that has the new technology to STOP wars rather than START new ones.

Anyone who thinks this is beyond the mental capacity and human ingenuity of the human race is talking us down. Just like anyone who calls themself a Christian and does not say 'We shall not kill' / 'Love your neighbour' / and 'Turn the other cheek' has not got around to reading the book of the film.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:27 AM

Who was it said, he who would have peace must be prepared for war?

Often cited in Latin as Si vis pacem, para bellum. However, nobody actually has written these words. The closest hit, however, is Vegetius, a Roman writer. He has written in the third book of his Epitoma Rei Militaris: Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:47 AM

Guest 24.02.03 / 01:10

You ask, "Teribus, how stupid do you think we are?"

You are a "we"??? As I haven't the faintest notion who "you" are I haven't got a clue how stupid you are - enlighten me.

"Do you actually expect someone to believe this claim that money, greed, and power have nothing to do with war in general, and this war in particular?"

The first part of that sentence I would tend to agree with, although I believe that it would be more accurate say that in general wars are about control of resources, protection of resources and trade - in other words "looking after the nations interests" - all of which draw in the factors you mention and are applicable to all combatants - not just the "evil capitalists" in the West.

As to this one (i.e. war) in particular? - Well lets take a look at that in relation to money, greed and power.

MONEY: USA & UK

Should they achieve what you see as their desired goal - a war with Iraq - what do they stand to gain by it?

Oh! yes, the oil fields of Iraq, which only accounted for one-seventeenth of the world market before 1991 and it's lack of production since then has gone largely unnoticed. Now if this was part of some "cunning plan" and this great plum was going to fall into the hands of the "evil American oil barons" - can you explain why they are investing so heavily in four of the largest pipeline contracts in the history of the oil industry to get oil and gas from Russia and Azerbiajan?? - Russia by the way is the largest producer of oil in the world and also has the greatest known reserves.

Also, if oil was the driver - why didn't America seize the Southern Iraqi oil-fields in 1991? Why didn't the Americans rob Kuwait of it's oil at that same time?

Doesn't seem to hold water to me, and it most certainly is not the way the oil industry works.

Now what is the flip side for these two countries:

At present, bringing the UN to its senses and keeping up the pressure on Saddam it is costing these particular parties a fortune.

Should Saddam continue to play the game he has played so well for 12 years and a war is fought - The USA will win it, of that I have no doubt - but what will they have won exactly? The cost of rebuilding an entire country - sure they could use Iraq's oil revenues to do that, and would that be a bad thing? Saddam would have spent it on other things. Price of oil once the war starts will drop and drop even further once the war is over - that is what happened the last time.

Now in relation to the money side of things if the US and UK get "their" war would there be any benefit to the people of Iraq - There would the victorious allies have to rebuild the country after having rid it of Saddam's dictatorship and reign of terror. Introduce a democratic process that has been sadly lacking in Iraq since its inception and guanteeing that people could get on with their lives in peace and prosperity - that is roughly what happened the last time the US did this sort of thing in Germany and Japan - It is in its infancy in Afghanistan at the moment but both the US and the EU are in there for the long haul.


MONEY: France; Russia; China

Now they don't want a war - and that apparently makes them "good guys" to many who post in this forum. Apart from going home at night cossetted by a warm rosy glow, what, from a money point of view, do they get out of it?

Their current stand is barely costing them the price of a state banquet. France long ago learned that talk was exceptionally cheap.

Oh! yes, the Iraqi oil fields - two of the above have massive interests in the Iraqi oil fields and are already owed millions by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq at present operates under the onerous burden of UN sanctions, which all three of the above have completely ignored. Saddam's 500-odd agencies and companies dotted round the world pay $10 on the $1 to buy in proscribed goods - All three of the above make good profit that way - that is why you will never hear them talking about removing UN sanctions.

They have always been Saddam's biggest supplier of armaments so they are traditionally protecting their trade.

Now in relation to the money side of things, if France, Russia and China get what they want would there be any benefit to the people of Iraq? -

Well Saddam would remain in power of course, he has to so that that particular trio get paid what he owes them, UN sanctions would remain in place, because that is in their interests too. So the Iraqi people would gain nothing bar continued murder, repression and terror for decades to come. Or more correctly, until such time as Saddam does have nuclear weapons, supplied by the trio above, and he takes another crack at Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. That's when the Iraqi people will get their war and that war will be a damn sight bloodier than anything that could happen in the next few weeks - they will lose that war too, but there might well be not too much left to re-build at the end of it.

Don't know about you, but, I know which one I'd go for if I was Joe Bloggs in down-town Baghdad.

GREED: USA & UK
You have plenty but you want even more - that the sort of thing?
Can't see what either would gain by trying to swallow Iraq - apart from severe indigestion. Most aspects relating to greed are covered by money and the same would apply to the other three (France; Russia; China).

POWER: USA & UK
The USA is currently the most powerful nation on earth so I can only see that they would gain a stronger influence in the region - how would that influence be used? Would they then go on to conquer the other states of the region - No don't think so. Would they use the fact that the new boys on the block in Baghdad would not support Palestinian Terrorist organisations to assist in bringing some form of dialogue back to the middle-east peace process - that is a more likely possibility. As far as the UK goes on this one - we've been there, done that, picked up the T-shirt and have a fund of ripping yarns from days of Empire - so I think we can pass on the Power aspects of the situation.

POWER: France; Russia;China
Both France and Russia too have had their time in the spotlight, both want to get back into it like you would not believe. Both are prepared to sacrifice the credibility of the UN to achieve it. France is prepared to destroy NATO for it, and Russia is only too willing to assist in that end.

That leaves China? - while the USA IS, de facto, the most powerful nation on earth at present, China has, and always has had, the POTENTIAL to be the the most powerful nation on earth and is the last bastion of communism. In all of this China has taken a bit of a back seat, I don't think China is about to mount its bid for world supremacy just yet so I don't think they are driven by prospects of enhanced power.   


"Are you suggesting that armaments dealers like Alliant, Lockheed, et al aren't going to be engaging in some routine war profiteering?"

Note that you do not mention any of the arms suppliers from the other other - I suppose you incled them in your "et al". Your contention is not shared by business analysts

"That the oil companies who made a killing in profits during the Gulf War I, aren't going to--no, make that aren't already making a killing with Gulf War II?"

The killing is always made in the lead up to hostilities that is what happened last time. When the war started oil prices fell and then slumped completely in the aftermath - So TALK of war is good for the oil companies - both American and Russian.

Gimmee a break. YES PLEASE DO!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:48 AM

Ewan, as an American wholly opposed to both the perpetual war (on terrorism now) and the amping up of the specific war on Iraq that has gone on now for over a decade, I couldn't agree with you more.

I am guardedly optimistic that the global outpouring of anti-war sentiments in recent weeks will result in people educating themselves to the point where they can change the paradigm in thinking to exactly what you said: using the international body that already exists to prevent wars, and intervene to stop them. We must change our thinking to the point where we all agree that the international body must be responsible for global policing, not the US/UK alliance or NATO.

International disarmament of the current and former super-powers must once again rise to the top of the international relations agenda. The three most recent presidents have done nothing for disarmament. Nothing. And Bush is arrogantly and brazenly abbrogating the treaties the US has already signed. Nothing is being done to stop India from testing missiles, to stop Pakistan from testing nuclear weapons, or to bring North Korea into the world community. Nothing.

But nothing will change until the people of the world's democracies start to demand change from their political leaders, and demand that the necessary resources and political support be put into the international bodies that already exist to do the job of global policing to prevent and stop wars, rather than bullying the world into starting new ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Not In My Name
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:01 AM

Having ploughed through this thread to see if I could get some information, the conclusion I've come to is that everyone would have had a sensible debate but the abusive, vituperative and generally aggressive contributions from Taliesn.

I've come across similar contributions from the same tag in other threads - same effect! It's for all the world as if Taliesn can't discuss the issue without needing to bully others.

Lest other's are put off, the thread is quite informative if you just skip T's contributions.

Just for the record, even getting the US to stop increasing its armaments would be an excellent start. Establishing a non-expansionist foreign policy, recognising other nations' legitimate trade interests, respecting human rights around the world, ending bullying embargoes, would all also be laudable aims for a globally-responsible US government.

The reason the US government gets such bad press is because it does quite a lot of bad things in the name of the US people. The recent coup that put George Bush Jr in power means that we have a war-mongering government that doesn't even respect the laws of its own country. No wonder the rest of the world is growing more and more sceptical.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:09 AM

US spending for the military budget is at a record high, and US spending on foreign development (ie peaceful) aid, including support to the UN, is at an historic low.

Doesn't take much brains to figure out that the military and security industies stand to make obscenely huge profits for decades to come, when these are the budget priorities of the last four US presidents, including the most popular Democratic president since FDR.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:42 AM

With a little bit more brains than the bare minimum, even you could figure out the truth.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:52 AM

Old guy, The simple truth is EVERY COUNTRY IN EUROPE HAS COME OUT AGAINST THE WAR.
I refer you to all of the opinions polls, not to some of the European
Governments who bend the knee to the mighty US when the economic gun is put to their heads.
Who was the US historian who said that all of the US Presidents were war criminals?, you can shortly add Bush to the list, you see, this war is easy, who in the US will worry abour a few dead Arabs?. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:03 AM

"...who in the US will worry abour a few dead Arabs?. Ard Mhacha."

I don't know about in the US, Ard Mhacha, but obviously you don't. I know it might have been some time ago but I'd hazard a guess that you didn't care about a few dead Kosovars either???

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 11:08 AM

Guest of 25.02.03 - 07:48 AM

Spoken like a man with no responsibilities whatsoever. Fortunatley for your fellow countrymen and those in other lands our leaders are not so irresponsible.

I too am guardedly optimistic that the global outpouring of anti-war sentiments in recent weeks will result in - absolutely nothing, apart from giving Saddam a bit of hope and something to show his people by way of propaganda on his state television.

So you espouse the disarmament of America, and the former super-powers, so that we resort to,"..using the international body that already exists to prevent wars, and intervene to stop them." - Can you tell me exactly how the international body that already exists is going to do that?? Without large numbers of cohesive, well trained, well equipped forces at its disposal the efforts of that international body that already exists would be powerless to prevent wars, and intervene to stop them.

The current Secretary General of that international body that already exists, prior to taking up his present job, was the representative of that international body that already exists with special responsibility for UN operations in Rwanda and in Bosnia - both astounding successes - would you agree - I certainly wouldn't.

If you wish to change your, ".. thinking to the point where we all agree that the international body must be responsible for global policing," - All I can say to that is that the world will have an extremely apathetic, ineffective and inefficient policeman - going on his track record and performance todate.

"International disarmament of the current and former super-powers must once again rise to the top of the international relations agenda." I can think of far more pressing needs that could be addressed that would be attainable and more effective in the benefit of mankind in general.

"Nothing is being done to stop India from testing missiles, to stop Pakistan from testing nuclear weapons, or to bring North Korea into the world community. Nothing." - Follow your line of thinking and a damn sight less could ever be done - At least as things stand at the moment neither of the three countries you mention would dare try and use those weapons.

"But nothing will change until the people of the world's democracies start to demand change from their political leaders, and demand that the necessary resources and political support be put into the international bodies that already exist to do the job of global policing to prevent and stop wars, rather than bullying the world into starting new ones."

What resources? what political support? You have disarmed the very people that the world has turned to previously in time of crisis, so what are you going to do - when you learn the truth that political support will not avert conflict.

And I would rather tend to think that there would be quite a large number, who should have been getting on with their lives, in Rwanda and Bosnia, who wish that somebody in the world had been around to bully that international body that already exists into more forceful and vigorous action on their behalf a few years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Flotsam
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 11:57 AM

I wonder, Ewan, which of those entreaties you found exuding "patronising superiority"? At the risk of falling into the same trap of making sweeping generalizations, as you seem wont, we must all live according to some kind of moral ethic. While an individual's code of conduct may, and does, differ from another's, if it isn't "superior" then they are either a hypocrite or pathological or both. If moral imperatives exist, living a life in concert with them seems logical.

If you set about fishing for someone to express courage of their conviction(s), congratulations on your catch. Your description of it as being "patronising" says more about your own prejudice than anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Ewan McVicar
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:10 PM

Flotsam, thanks for that excellent example of patronising superiority in action. I would take your views on 'the courage of your convictions' more seriously if you were a person with a name rather than a piece of driftwood.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,flotsam
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 02:20 PM

Ewan, likewise for skewering the messenger rather than the message. Would that similar responses in this dialogue were the exception and not the rule. Alas, apparently the voice is more important than the song.

At the risk of being accused of "patronising" objectification, insults and name calling are the last bastion of the intellectually stunted. Though useful practice for anti-intellectual, would-be dictators.

Evidently everyone has a right to their point of view, as long as it yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 03:17 PM

Am I really the first to comment about the double meaning of the thread title? The other meaning could lead those who support America disarming other nations to say yes to the implicit question. YES, I support a disarming America.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 03:36 PM

Duh, I forgot.

Dummy going along with the crowd.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Pedant
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 03:49 PM

Perhaps if Talisien could spell correctly it would help us understand his contorted logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Lundy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 04:44 PM

Wolfgang, that's the kind of outside-of-the-box thinking the world sorely needs! Just like the Second Amendment's right to bear arms...I personally would prefer orangutan cheeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Ewan McVicar
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 05:13 PM

Flotsam, I see you feel that I am being insulting - but that you are being reasonable.
That is indeed the problem with this kind of discussion. Everybody is right, in their opinion, about their opinions.
I posted the initial vague message to see what responses I would get, and to see who got the point I was making. I got a lot of information. A sincere thank you to all who contributed. I have learned a good deal about people's opinions and viewpoints. Difference of opinion is what makes horse races, as Pete Seeger said. Would that it did not make wars. I'd rather be a live coward than any kind of killer.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:36 PM

And why would India, Pakistan and N Korea not dare use their nuclear weapons, Teribus? Anything to do with deterrance perhaps? Yet we are all supposed to tremble in terror at the military might of Iraq, which by any reckoning is hugely depleted and lacks any nuclear capacity. On top of which Iraqi communications and services infrastructure is in hopeless nick (not least because the US and UK having been bombing the country at will for years.

What part of the UN Charter prevented involvement in Cambodia, and did it have anything to do with not interfering in the interal affairs of a sovereign state?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:43 PM

India and Pakistan might very well use them, on each other. They have come fairly close to war several times in the last few years, and the situation isn't resolved by any means.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:13 PM

Mutually assured destruction, deterrence, "disarmament" through military annihilation of a perceived enemy...all are tactics of madmen, not reasonable human beings. There is nothing ethically or morally superior about men who choose the above paths working for the Pentagon, to the those men who who chose to fly airliners into buildings.

Teribus, it seems you can only see conflict resolution through a jaded, narrow, militarist lens. I pity you.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:55 PM

When you are threatened by madmen, it is not madness to defend yourself. Deterrence is a better policy than isolationism, when you know that if not deterred, your opponents wil threaten you. Violence solves many problems, not least of which is other violence. This is not to say that it is the only solution, or often the best solution, but there are circumstances when it is the only thing that will work. I would like to know, GUEST of 9:13, what your solution would have been to an expansionist, nuclear-armed USSR.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Troll
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:24 PM

Ewan, so you'd rather be a live coward than any kind of killer? And what if it was your little girl who was about to be raped and your ONLY alternative was to kill her attacker. What then? And please don't try to mealy-mouth your way out with some I'd-figure-out-a-way bilge.
Just, would you kill to save her, or would you let it happen.

troll

It's better to be a live Jackel than a dead Lion. But it's even better to be a live Lion. And it's usually easier.
                         The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:44 PM

He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.

The word "coward" is nothing more than a ploy to try to get your opponent to fight on your terms. Wrong!

In almost any type of martial art, the object is for the one in defense to have control. Not vice-versa.

Prideful and stupid people loose 90% of the time...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Troll
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 11:11 PM

Very nice Bobert, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with my post. Possibly you will provide enlightenment.
Or not.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 11:24 PM

Well, Troll, in this imperfect world of ours, with you only scenerio being to kill, I'd suugest that there are many variables to be taken into account other than inate protection and the real possibility that your plan will fail, costing you not only your daughter's life, but yours.

Let's say, for th purpose of disussion, that the rapist also has a knife that you are not aware of. You step in, Your daughter is now dead and the rapist is gonna get you, too.

Simplistic answers for defense are not always that cut and dried.

But when one uses intellect over emotion the chances of *defense* are enhanced. Don't believe me. Ask any sansai with a little age and wisdom...

Pride and ignorance can get a man into heap of trouble...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 12:15 AM

Bobert, the person with the initiative is always in control. Also, I have to disagree with the live jackal/dead lion idea. Life has some purpose beyond simply living, and you can't fulfill that if you never take risks. Better to be a lion and risk death than to be a jackal and make life meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: DougR
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:54 AM

Right, Bobert, reason with the deranged guy bent on raping your daughger. You bet.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Ewan McVicar
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 03:45 AM

I apologise to all for the overly patronising tone of my last mailing. It niggled at me all last night. A problem of composing on line with not enough time for reflection.
As for the the extreme situation posed about my little girl being raped, and my only option being to kill the rapist. What do I have available to kill him with? My teeth? My shirt ripped up and quickly made into a garotte? How long will it take him to die and why will he not yield before death if I loosen my grip on him, just a little?
I am trying to understand how I do it, and with what. Please help me understand. Is it happening in my kitchen and I have a row of knives to hand, and know exactly where to press the blade into the flesh? And he has not noticed these knives, of course.
Or to put it another way, if you want to bandy these absurd situations about, give us the examples that illustrate. How many almost rapists of little girls were killed in the act by fathers in the last five years?
As opposed to the number of little girls killed in wars in the world in the last five years.
Get real. I did not say I would not kill, I said I would rather be called names than kill. I would rather be treated with the contempt some of the contributors to this thread have treated me with - multiplied a thousand fold - than kill. I am unsure if I could kill even given motive, opportunity and the right weapon to hand, but human nature being what is I expect there are situations where it could happen. If I had a gun in my belt the chances would increase of course, but that is illegal in this country.
I would rather be a coward and called a coward, anyway, than be a big macho guy who fights till he wins. He who fights and runs away, lives. Once we are dead we are of little use to anyone. [Apologies to those for whom the afterlife is important.] In the Second World War I could not I think have been a conscientious objector, the war needed to be fought, but I would have ben a non-combatant supporting those who felt able to kill.
Which reminds me of the gay First World War conscientious objector who was asked what he would do if he saw a German soldier raping his sister. His reply was, "I would endeavour to interpose myself between them."

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 06:07 AM

Fionn,

Had you quoted what I was commenting on, then you would have seen that I was talking about the benefit of deterrence:

""International disarmament of the current and former super-powers must once again rise to the top of the international relations agenda." I can think of far more pressing needs that could be addressed that would be attainable and more effective in the benefit of mankind in general.

"Nothing is being done to stop India from testing missiles, to stop Pakistan from testing nuclear weapons, or to bring North Korea into the world community. Nothing." - Follow your line of thinking and a damn sight less could ever be done - At least as things stand at the moment neither of the three countries you mention would dare try and use those weapons."

Our GUEST wanted disarmament of the super-powers and former super-powers to take priority - thereby the deterrent factor disappears.


A couple of other points you raised:

"Yet we are all supposed to tremble in terror at the military might of Iraq, which by any reckoning is hugely depleted and lacks any nuclear capacity."

Iraq's military might has been depleted by around 40%, due to two wars of aggression fought against its neighbours (Iran and Kuwait). He doesn't lack any nuclear capacity for the want of trying - and he, I believe would use it.


"On top of which Iraqi communications and services infrastructure is in hopeless nick (not least because the US and UK having been bombing the country at will for years."

From CSIS:
"Iraq's infrastructure and combat engineering is now better than its combat forces. Iraq has been able to rebuild many of the shelters and facilities it lost during the Gulf War and much of the air force combat, command, control, communications, and intelligence/battlefield management system. This C4I/BM system included an extensive net of optical fibre communications net, a TFH 647 radio relay system, a TFH tropospheric communications system, and a large mix of radars supplied by the Soviet Union. Iraq has rebuilt most of its air bases damaged during the Gulf War, and a number of bases received only limited damage. This gives Iraq a network of some 25 major operating bases, many with extensive shelters and hardened facilities." From the Ukraine they have obtained modern radars, the optical fibre command net mentioned above is modern, and has highly survivabilty when subjected to attack.

Slightly different from the picture you seem to want to paint.

"What part of the UN Charter prevented involvement in Cambodia, and did it have anything to do with not interfering in the interal affairs of a sovereign state?" - Yes, the UN can only intervene at the request of the internationally recognized government.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 07:07 AM

It appears the hawks here are quite ignorant of the science and economics of militarism.

Some hawks here insist that military might acts as an absolute deterrence and keeps us safe. That argument is the same fallacious one used to justify the death penalty as a deterrence.

If deterrrence works so well in these circumstances, then how did 9/11 happen? Why do Palestinians throw stones at tanks, and send their youth to self-detonate and take as many people with them as they can? How did Saddam Hussein and every other despotic regime on the planet, get into power?

If violence and the threat of annihilation is so effective, why is there more violence in the world than at any time in history?

Gentlemen?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 07:47 AM

Guest 26.02.03 - 07:07,

"If violence and the threat of annihilation is so effective, why is there more violence in the world than at any time in history?"

Whose History are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 07:49 AM

The entire planet's history.

And your answer to the question, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 09:07 AM

Because there are more people. Per capita, violent death rates, frequency of wars, etc. are lower than they have been since the Pax Romana (which was itself established quite bloodily). Deterrence works against clear military threats. Terrorism can only be effectively combated with coordinated small scale efforts and very strong intelligence capabilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 04:14 PM

Forum Lurker:

That lion just becmae an accomplice to the killing of his or her own daughter.

*Defense* does not always have to *offensive*.

Might without wisdom does not serve mankind.

Timing and intellect is everything.

Retreat in military science or martial arts is many times tactical.

Lets not confuse intellegence with cowardace.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 04:24 PM

Really Forum Lurker? Less "per capita" violence since Pax Romana...I'd like to see your numbers and stats on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: wooddog
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 04:26 PM

bottomline: Bush has not given any real reason why America should attack Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:15 AM

Bobert-I have no idea how you get from killing a rapist to killing the rapist's victim, but I'm sure you have an explanation somewhere. Wisdom is knowing when and how to use force, not just refraining from it entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:28 AM

Forum Lurker: I doubt you will ever get Bobert to agree with that!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:33 AM

Guest 26.02.03 - 04:24PM

"Really Forum Lurker? Less "per capita" violence since Pax Romana...I'd like to see your numbers and stats on that."

Presumably the Same as Guest 26.02.03 - 07:07, who asked:

"If violence and the threat of annihilation is so effective, why is there more violence in the world than at any time in history?"

I think Forum Lurker could actually come up with some figures to support his contention - I don't believe that you could considering that your statement covers the history of the entire planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:26 PM

A letter from BBC Ceefax,
" Often due to desperation suicide bombers sacrifice their lives for a cause they sincerely believe in, this for no financial gain.

Military personnel follow orders without question and if required are ready to use absolutely any weapon, on any target, for any purpose.

This is done partially or totally for financial reward.
Who is more morally repugnant?".

Another reason for disarming the US. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 02:16 PM

Because soldiers should not, and are required not to, follow illegal orders. A soldier ordered to bomb a marketplace with no military targets in it should refuse. Suicide bombers almost invariably target defenseless civilians who are in no way responsible for any of their problems. Someone who accepts money to defend his country is morally superior to someone who massacres civilians out of misdirected rage for free.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 04:03 PM

Because I want to control all of the Arab world and the US won't let me.

SH

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 04:40 PM

Furum Lurker:

Your original scenerio was one of a rapist, not a killer. Now, that being all that one has to go on it is conceivable that an intervention could lead to the daughter's death. *Self defense* and the *defense* of others is a tricky question that involves two important concepts:

1. Only the minimal amount of force should be used in defense, and

2. Are there no other options.

In your case of the rapist, your actions might have easily led the *would be* rapist to become a *would be* killer. It's a tough call.

Now if your senerion had the offender a *would be* killer then that changes the scenerio completely.

Like Little Hawk, I may be a peaceful person but I undersatnd the principles of self defense and have been in a couple unfortunate situations in my life where I have had to use it. But I have also internalized the art of awareness and avoidence of such situations as most of us have thru experience, thank God...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 07:35 PM

I disagree, Bobert. First, you should use the minimum amount of force that has a high probability of succeeding. It is acceptable to use overkill if the alternative has a high risk of failure. Secondly, I consider rape as reprehensible an act, if not more so, than many murders, and have no more qualms about stopping it with lethal force if necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 08:01 PM

At the risk of your daughter's life, my friend? Come on, you are splitting hairs on the minimal force issue but if using lethal force against a rapist insures that your daughter will also die that's pretty danged hard to do.

I don't know what your background is but if you were to work where I used to work, the Richmond City Jail as the jailhouse teacher, I think yoy'd have a different perspective of using intellect over emotion to maximize not only your chances of survival but those around you.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Troll
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 08:22 PM

Military personnel accepting money to defend their country is not morally repugnant in any sense. Instead of having a standing militia consisting of every ablebodied man in the nation as does Switzerland, we -and most other countries - have military forces that protect the nation as a full-time job.
Naturally, they are paid. Even the Swiss pay their soldiers when they go on active duty for training.
The claim that the suicide bombers are somehow more moral than the professional soldier is ludicrous. The bombers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad know that their families will be well taken care of by their respective organizations and by such people as Saddam Hussein and possibly others who sent large gifts of cash to the families of the bombers.
As I see it, this is a totally bogus argument, made solely to cast aspersions on the men and women who put their lives on the line for their country. The money they receive is a pittance. Only a few years ago, it was so bad that army privates could qualify for food stamps.
BTW, the bombers don't just blow up civilians because they are frustrated. If that is the case, why don't they blow up military targets like jeeps and check-points. No, they blow up civilians because that makes more of an impact on the rest of the population. Their motives are highly political in nature and not military at all.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 09:20 PM

Bobert, you're changing the scenario again. If the guy's armed, then he's a threat to you and your family, and you kill him, rather than A)reasoning with him until he kills you all or B) running away and letting him rape and kill your daughter. If he's unarmed, he's not a threat to you, but he is a threat to your daughter, so you do what is necessary to eliminate that threat, which may include killing him. Pacifism is as much an emotional response as violence. The intellectual does what is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:38 PM

Just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:11 PM

Ard Mhacha:

"Often due to desperation suicide bombers sacrifice their lives for a cause they sincerely believe in, this for no financial gain."

The going rate - paid by, the people's darling - Saddam Hussein - is $25,000 - obviously no financial gain to the bomber himself, but as Troll pointed out his/her family will get the benefit, providing Hamas or who ever let them keep it, or even hand it over in the first place.

"Military personnel follow orders without question and if required are ready to use absolutely any weapon, on any target, for any purpose."

Massive generalisation, it depends on the circumstances - but normally rules of engagement are fairly strict.

"This is done partially or totally for financial reward.
Who is more morally repugnant"

Again as Troll says, they are paid to do a job, just like anybody else, with the exception that their job can at times mean that they must put themselves into danger so that the rest of us don't.

You ask, "Who is more morally repugnant?" - without a question of a doubt - the guy you failed to mention - the guy in Hamas, or whichever organisation, who sends the suicide bomber out.

In answer to Guest's,

"Why do Palestinians ......... send their youth to self-detonate and take as many people with them as they can?"

I would have thought that that was fairly obvious - because the Palestinians you are referring to are not daft enough to do it themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:20 PM

Ebbie:

Good point!

This one's like liquid mercury.

Outta here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Useful Idiot
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:29 PM

I believe in disarming America because when we are defenseless the terrorists will leave us along.

Any way I would rather be dead than live in a mean old country that protects itself.


Usefull Idiot

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Ewan McVicar
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:15 PM

It is of course correct to defend yourself.
But when you say that killing a few thousand people on the other side of the world is defending yourself, then your idea of how much of the world you own and have rights to is skewed, and in your own longer term interest the weapons should be taken away from you until you calm down and can analyse more clearly who you are and what your right to self defence can reasonably be considered to be, in this case by a jury of your international peers, acting not while under threat or in receipt of bribes from you.
Any police show will tell you that the first thing you do is disarm the suspect on your turf, then talk to them.
Please lay down your weapons, America and Great Britain, then we can talk. We know you will keep them within reach, ready to grab up whenever you choose - just like Saddam Hussein is doing to international condemnation. One rule for him, another for us.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 05:35 AM

Monthly Status Check:

1. There is no war.

2. The fourth (I think) of Bobert's deadlines for the kick-off has passed and gone.

3. The regime in Iraq continues to play games with the inspection process, completely ignoring the obligations it has agreed to under the terms of Resolution 1441 - No surprise there, they ignored all the others, so why should this one be any different.

4. No UNOHCHR representative presence in Iraq


With regard to point 3. above - Notice the timing of "major" concessions by Iraq, all have come within a forty-eight hour period prior to the inspectors reporting to the UN Security Council. Funny thing is that Hans Blix has cottoned on to it - previously, the concessions by the Iraqi regime were announced to forestall any possible political mileage the US & UK could make out of an adverse report. This time Hans Blix, leaked a draft report that was highly critical of the degree of co-operation he was receiving - result immediate Iraq concession - Well done Doctor you're learning.


Guest Ewan pleads;

"Please lay down your weapons, America and Great Britain, then we can talk."

About what exactly? Anything not covered in dialogue since the summer of 1991? There's been lots of talk Ewan - the only thing is that it hasn't got us anywhere with this particular regime - nor is it ever likely to.

"We know you will keep them within reach, ready to grab up whenever you choose - just like Saddam Hussein is doing to international condemnation. One rule for him, another for us."

This sentence of your post rather puzzled me - didn't you start this thread entitled "Why I support disarming America" ?? So, given that, where does the "We know you will keep them in easy reach, ready to grab up whenever you choose - " come from. You want America to disarm don't you? So there will be nothing close at hand, there will be nothing to grab up. According to the posts within this forum, the condemnation you speak of seems to be centred entirely on the US & UK entirely - The US & UK governments seem to be the only ones condeming the activities of the regime in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 08:48 AM

Yo T:

I am delighted to have my ETTBS (Estimated Time THe Bombing Starts) miscalculated. Might of fact, I'm not even going to throw another dart at the ETTBS dart board.

But you can bet that Bush is absolutely besides himself. I hear they're having to medicate the boy and give him *quiet time* evry day just to keep him at a low boil the rest of the time. Man, now I'm beginning to understand what his mother has said about him about how he was when he was a kid. Most adults outgrow the hissy fits and temper tantrums but not this spoiled frat boy...

Oh well...

Now, T, speaking of hissy fits and temper tantrums, I thing the US does not put itself in the best position for dialogue. No, when things don't go right forus we grab our guns and go huffin' n puffin' and then wonder why bad things happen. Like what happens to countries like Iraq and Afganistan that one day they are our friends ands the next day we're bombing them? Somewhere along the way we must be failing in our dialogue. Like maybe we're too buzy playing "critical parent" (transactional anaylsis) and not taking enought time playing "adult".

The adult *listens* and thereby keeps the communication open. The critical parent doesn't and the communication breaks down. The US is guilty of this. This has been the failings of one administartion after another in failed foriegn policies. Until the US can become a better listener, it will reap what it sows.

As I have pointed out many times, the US never gave the Saudi Proposal a chance. You think they did but, in reality, they very much didn't want any part of a plan that: 1. Was not in the interests of the military/industrialist complex and 2.was not *their idea*. If they had embraced the framework, we wouldn't be looking a using the ultimate failed foriegn policy today: War!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:05 AM

Teribus:

You sound like an intelligent, factual person. Can you state your opinions on the terrorist situation in the world and state what you think should be done about them? You might have some useful Ideas.

To others here: I don't see where vicious attacks on the powers that be and even each other serve any purpose except to escalate the animus between the prowar and antiwar camps.

Eventually this sort of thing leads to a war between the two factions and we all know we can't have a war.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:36 AM

Guardian Newspaper London,
" When America defeats its enemies,George Bush said in his speech on Iraq this week, it leaves not occupying armies but democracy and liberty, " There was a time" he went on," when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well they were wrong".
In fact it is Mr Bush who is wrong, Japanese men got the vote in 1925,not in 1945 as the President implied.
And German men won the vote as far back as 1849, albeit subject to a property qualification,at a time when Mr Bush`s country praticised legalised slavery.
Bearing in mind that the US only became a full democracy in 1965,, and Germany in 1946, there is a case for saying that Germans have at least as strong a democratic tradition as the US.
Whats more, there is no dispute who won the last German election, which is more than can be said about the means by which Mr Bush came to office.
A little historical humility would do the president no harm".

And world opinion is still against the Bush and Blair government. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:51 AM

Oldguy-the purpose of said "vicious attacks on the powers that be" is so that we realize and remember that, even should one support the war, Bush is going about it in illegal and unconstitutional ways, while Ashcroft is running the Bill of Rights through a paper shredder. Even if you support his political goals, I think that everyone needs to see that this is not the way to achieve them.

Teribus-I understand your frustration with Saddam's extremely limited compliance. I don't like it either. However, if Saddam makes concessions every time the inspectors are about to report, eventually he'll have conceded everything. If you think it'll take too long, the report frequency can always be increased.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:02 AM

Forum Lurker:

Ashcroft's actions were approved by Congress. Bitch at them or their constituents.

Terrorist cells are being exposed while people are complaining that
A: The government not doing enough to protact them.
B: The government is violating on personal rights.

I am personally concerned with the results, not the esoteric whimperings of insecure people about what might happen.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: DougR
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:35 AM

am: 1965? Uh, 'splain please. I remember 1965 very well but I don't recall the United States becoming a Democracy that year.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:40 AM

I too am concerned with results, which may include the violation of MY personal rights. I don't want my government to be able to search me or my property without probable cause, not because I'm worried that they'll pin something on me, but because it's an invasion of my privacy. I don't want them to be able to hold me without charges or evidence, because that very well may let them imprison me for something that I didn't do and no evidence suggests I did, simply because I'm inconvenient.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: DougR
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 03:00 AM

Not to worry, FL, I'll bet the FBI doesn't even know you exist!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:32 PM

DougR- Ard Mhacha is referring to the amendment which guaranteed the right to vote for all persons above the age of 18.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 03:18 PM

FL: You need to find a safe haven like the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 06:28 PM

Just because I disapprove of the way the country is headed doesn't mean I don't want to live here. Despite the sour turns it's taken, this is still one of the best countries in the world to live in. I just want it to STAY that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 09:36 PM

You know, FL, when we got Doug and Old Guy tellin' us that we got to "love it or leave it" they're running out of steam. That is
the equivalent to them just throwing up the "white flag" in total surrender.

Good work.

How pathetic. I expected more from them both.

Hey, Doug and OG, hit the treadmill and lay off the danged bad fats, will ya?

This ain't no hundred yard limp but a marathon....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 01:58 AM

am: "German men won the vote as far back as 1849"

Not strictly correct, Germany as a country did not exist until 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War. With the establishment of "Bismark's Reich" men in Germany got the vote. Had Germany existed as a country it would have been the Franco-German War.

Bobert:

"countries like Iraq and Afganistan that one day they are our friends ands the next day we're bombing them?"

The grounds for stating that "countries like Iraq and Afghanistan" are friends is pretty thin.

If I remember correctly:

Afghanistan - At the time, during the "cold war" years was occupied by Soviet Russia. It became Russia's Vietnam, America provided support for those in rebellion against the Soviet occupation, that was done more to embarass Russia than anything else. To say that America and Afghanistan were friendly states oversteps the mark by some considerable margin.

Iraq - Saddam Hussein initiated the Iran-Iraq war in the hope of gaining his objectives quickly. He hoped to take advantage of internal turmoil inside Iran. As it turned out the Iranians were more of a handful than Saddam bargained for. At one point it looked as though the Iraqi's might actually lose the war they started. At that point many countries, anxious about the spread of fundamentalist Islamic states, came to assist in supporting Iraq's war effort. They were not Iraq's friends, they were merely protecting their own interests within that region.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 06:32 AM

Hi Old Guy,

With regard to your question. Very busy at the moment, but hope to be able to respond later in the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Ewan McVicar
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:54 PM

To answer the specific question from Teribus, there is a word 'disarm' and another word 're-arm'. One does not preclude the other, in my definition. You will define each as suits you.
By the way, does the name Teribus indicate you are from Hawick?
In general, I will be out of reach of my computer for several days, telling traditional stories to kids in small rural schools in the Scottish West Highlands. Thank providence for such oportunities to renew my faith that humanity can improve as well as sink down. I'm sure this thread will not miss me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:22 AM

Bobert: I can't speak for the Old Guy, of course, but I just hate to see you so unhappy! Nothing about this country seems right, as far as you're concerned, so I just thougth you might find someplace like Iraq more to your liking! Heck, I'd miss you if you left, but I do think you deserve to be happy.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:18 AM

Dougie says "Nothing about this country seems right, as far as you're concerned..."

No, my friend, everything seems "right". But not correct.

Iz staying put fir now but have my good eye on the horizon just in case your guys call off democracy in '04.

Yo T:

You're correct, the Iraqis probably never were our friends. Just allies, when we *needed* them. Looking around the world today, other than Tony Balony Blair, we're seeing that we don't have many real friends.

But we did arm Iraq, and we did furnish them *intellegence*, and we did know of the gassing of the Kurds and still continued to do business with them with out so much as a peep, ahhh, when we *needed them*.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Mark Clark
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 01:02 PM

For some insight on how our country is viewed, check the link I posted over on the “is war legit?” thread.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:04 PM

For every body that thinks this country is great but it is turning bad:

This country is great now because we have not hesitated to go to war. Now we need to go to war again, Somehow war, this time, for the first time is bad. I don't get it. I have really tried to understand other peoples view points but I really don't get it.

Msybe it is beacuse I was sucking on a baby bottle during WW2 and I lived thru NK1 and dozens of other actions. This is another bump in the road of peace. The only thing that make this bump bigger is the fact that we got hit on our own soil.

We should have done it when the inspectors got thrown out of Iraq in 98.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:21 PM

Actually, Oldguy, we hesitated to go to war in both World Wars until we were directly threatened. In WWI, Wilhelm offered to pay the Mexicans to invade us, and we didn't actually get into the fighting in WWII until the "day that will live in infamy." In Korea and Vietnam, we got involved before we were threatened. Korea was a stalemate and Vietnam was a godawful mess. This war has nothing to do with us being "hit on our own soil." They're not even the same people. If we were going to oust Saddam, we should have done it in 1991, when it made sense, instead of manufacturing a crisis to clean up Daddy's mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:08 AM

Tell me what the current status would be if we did not engage in any of those wars you mentioned?

We would be calling each other comerade.

In 1991 the goal of the Alliance was to liberate Kuwait not get rid of Saddam Hussein and he was not linked to the terrorists that attacked our country.

If you have a solution, spit it out.

Old Guy

Subject: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 04:19 AM

From Bobert,

"Yo T:

You're correct, the Iraqis probably never were our friends. Just allies, when we *needed* them."

Yo B:

I think the need was very much on the part of Iraq at that time - And the US were not the only ones to come in and help (French aircraft/ French pilots - we used to listen to them on the radio as they attacked the Iranian oil terminal on Kharg Island)

To illustrate the above:

"Despite the proximity of these ports to Iraq, the Iraqi navy did not play an important role in the operations. Instead, Baghdad used SUPER FRELON helicopters equipped with EXOCET missiles or MIRAGE F-1s and MiG-23s to hit its targets. Naval operations came to a halt, presumably because Iraq and Iran had lost many of their ships, by early 1981; the lull in the fighting lasted for two years.

In March 1984, the tanker war entered its second phase when Iraq initiated sustained naval operations in its self-declared 1,126-kilometer maritime exclusion zone, extending from the mouth of the Shatt al Arab to Iran's port of Bushehr. In 1981 Baghdad had attacked Iranian ports and oil complexes as well as neutral tankers and ships sailing to and from Iran; in 1984 Iraq expanded the so-called tanker war by using FRENCH SUPER-ETANDARD combat aircraft armed with EXOCET missiles.

In March 1984 an Iraqi SUPER ETENDARD fired an EXOCET missile at a Greek tanker south of Khark Island. Until the March assault, Iran had not intentionally attacked civilian ships in the Gulf. Neutral merchant ships became favorite targets, and the long-range SUPER-ETENDARDS flew sorties farther south. Seventy-one merchant ships were attacked in 1984 alone, compared with forty-eight in the first three years of the war. Iraq's motives in increasing the tempo included a desire to break the stalemate, presumably by cutting off Iran's oil exports and by thus forcing Tehran to the negotiating table. Repeated Iraqi efforts failed to put Iran's main oil exporting terminal at Khark Island out of commission, however."

The reason they failed to put Iran's main oil exporting terminal out of commission - came, quite cynically, down to job protection - the Mercenary pilots flying combat missions against Kharg knew that if they put Kharg out of business - they would be out of a job - the same bunch of jokers hit the Offshore Construction/Dive Support Vessel Pacific Constructor.

So please, if you are going to refer to aid given to the Iraqi's at that time - be factual - be accurate. Please don't attempt to portray American involvement as being on an equivalent scale as a second-coming-lend-lease programme, it wasn't - others did far more - that might not suit your arguement - but you can't have everything. Aid was given to Iraq by many countries - because that was perceived by many, both within the region and internationally, as being in everyone's best interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:39 AM

And another letter from the BBC`s Ceefax,
"The real reason for the Bush administrations drive to war against Iraq can be found in an organization based in Washington DC, called The Project for the New American Century.

Its aims are,"full spectrum dominance" and eventual "Liberation" of the Peoples Republic of China.

Who were the founding fathers of this project launched in 1997?,
None other than, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle".

Only the mind of a Poe could have conjured up this lot, they would be much more suited to the bottom of a Po. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:11 AM

Oldguy-I have never seen any evidence that the Vietnam or Korean wars stood between America and Russian dominion. In fact, I have never seen any evidence that those wars accomplished anything poitive at all. If you have such proof, I'm sure we'd all be glad to know that the lives of American servicemen and Vietnamese civilians weren't thrown away for nothing. Saddam still hasn't been linked to any terrorists, and it's still considered acceptable to oust someone who has RECENTLY launched an attack against you or an allied nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:13 PM

Forum Lurker: had there been no Korean war, that madman in North Korea today would be lord and master over all Korea. You think that would be good?

Had Lyndon Johnson allowed the military to win the war (as Barry Goldwater proposed in the 1960's)there would be a free government in Viet Nam as well as a free people.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 01:11 PM

As I recall from AP American History, the balance of forces between North and South Korea were about even, and the Chinese didn't start helping the North Koreans until we started assissting the South Koreans. I also seem to recall that the support in North Vietnam was for a communist government. I don't see how forcing representative democracy and capitalism on them would be any better than the Communists imposing communism on Douth Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 01:54 PM

The way I picture the NK war was NK invaded and over ran SK. The SK army had been beaten back to the tip of the peninsula when the US forces arrived. They drove the NKs back beyond their border and had them whipped. Ike told Macarthur to quit. He did not quit because he wanted to engage the Red Chinese. The drove the NKs to the border with China where upon China fought back and there was a bloody mess after that.

Nevertheless, the US liberated SK and if they hadn't the whole peninsula would be starving while the Military imposed nuclear blackmail on the rest of the world on a much larger scale than the NKs do now.

Iraq is a future NK if we don't deal with it now while we are able.
It could not be more obvious. The UN is not going to do it even while being prodded by the US. It is a ridiculous situation that is perpetuated by peaceniks.

As for the futility and failures of some wars, what is the total summation of them all? Communism is not the threat it once was and Americans are free to march around with signs and spout self defeating drivel if they wan to.

Go ahead and get it out of your system while the responsible people take care of the important things.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:35 PM

It might be another Vietnam, Oldguy. That's what I'm worried about. And I find it rather insulting that you think people protesting the war are being irresponsible. I think it's more irresponsible to promote a war that you'll never fight in than to protest it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:50 PM

No, T-eeser. This was more about the US using Iraq as our little *Iranian-butt-kickers*.

Then, there was "Ronald McDonald" Dumsfeld over there bringing *gifts* to Saddam and providing *intellegence* so that Saddam could gass Iranians... And, like I have pointed out on many occasions, Dumsey didn't say a danged thing to Saddam about gassin' the Kurds. Hmmmmm? Now it a big issue! Hmmmmmm? But back then Dumsy didn't give a tibnker's dam about it! Hmmmmmm?

Like what gives here, T?

The Saddam tells Dumsey that he's gonna take back a renigade providence, Kuwait, and Dumsey don't say nuthin' bad about it, so Saddam figgures everything is cool. Just like when Dumsey provided Saddam with not only the gas but the *intellegence* on where to drop it. But this time, Dumsey weren't so Dumb. Imoral? YeaH. Liar? Yes! Bach satbber? Well, sure.

The rest is history.

Hey, I'm no Saddam apologist!

But Donald Rumsfeld is a liein', back stabbin', dangerous man. The kind of guy that Adolf would have loved to have around. And look at the man! He even looks the part of a Hitler right hand man!

These are the facts. Yeah. try to mofve the debate into the center of *your* magnifying glass but these are the facts. You can explain them, rationize them any way you want. Yeah, you can balme Clinton for all this. I don't care, These are the facts.

Like Claymore says, "Facts are a bitch."

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: DougR
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:44 AM

Forum Lurker: well we are in agreement on one thing at least. It is much easier to oppose a war than to fight one.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:58 AM

But we mean different things when we say that, DougR. You mean that it is more praiseworthy to fight it than sit idly by and object; I mean that is is easier on those involved to prevent the war through opposition than to kill a lot of people needlessly. I would agree taht a larger and more intense skill set is necessary to be an effective soldier than an effective protestor, but that doesn't mean that they're in the right.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support Disarming America
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:11 AM

OK Bobert:

"Like Claymore says, "Facts are a bitch." - So lets take a look at some of the "facts" you mention:

"This was more about the US using Iraq as our little *Iranian-butt-kickers*."

Not so much a fact as your opinion - poorly informed at that - Because at the time Iraq was losing the war they started - that IS a fact. At the time Iraq was firmly on the defensive - both sides using chemical weapons to break up "human wave" attack tactics introduced due to loss of equipment, spare parts and adequately trained personnel.

"Then, there was "Ronald McDonald" Dumsfeld over there bringing *gifts* to Saddam and providing *intellegence* so that Saddam could gass Iranians..."

One observation, the name calling is infantile and tends to detract from the importance of points you may wish to put across - its the sort of thing that five year olds indulge in when they know they are losing an arguement. Now back to the "facts" - what position did Donald Rumsfeld hold in the US Administration at the time he was asked to meet Saddam Hussein? Please provide some form of documentary evidence to support your contention that Donald Rumsfeld was arranging for the transfer of intelligence information in order that Saddam Hussein could gas Iranians. By what authority was he actually empowered to do that?

"And, like I have pointed out on many occasions, Dumsey didn't say a danged thing to Saddam about gassin' the Kurds. Hmmmmm? Now it a big issue! Hmmmmmm? But back then Dumsy didn't give a tibnker's dam about it! Hmmmmmm?"

The fact Bobert was the news about the gas attack against the Kurds broke the day Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein.

"Like what gives here, T?

The Saddam tells Dumsey that he's gonna take back a renigade providence, Kuwait, and Dumsey don't say nuthin' bad about it, so Saddam figgures everything is cool."

This myth about the US "giving-Saddam-the green-light" over Saddam's planned invasion of Kuwait was competently exploded in this forum by Wolfgang, who supplied information with regard to dates, personalities and text relating to what was said. So, again Bobert, give us some documentary evidence to support your contention - you'll have a damn hard job doing it.

"Just like when Dumsey provided Saddam with not only the gas but the *intellegence* on where to drop it. But this time, Dumsey weren't so Dumb. Imoral? YeaH. Liar? Yes! Bach satbber? Well, sure.

The rest is history."

In fact, this is a re-hash of a point you made previously in your post - just because you repeat it often enough doesn't make it the truth, or any more factual. So again I will ask you - "What position did Donald Rumsfeld hold in the US Administration at that time?". In addition I will ask you, "What gas did Donald Rumsfeld supply to Iraq?"

"Hey, I'm no Saddam apologist!" - Well Bobert, you could've fooled me - you take absolutely everything the man says at face value as gospel truth - even after it has been proven that he has been lying - while denigrating and childishly insulting those who have been vindicated in taking the stance they have. I'll give you a couple of examples:

1. You steadfastly refuse to accept or acknowledge the fact that without the current US Administration taking the stance they did - There would be no UN weapons inspection teams in Iraq - Pity you can't bring yourself to do that, because everybody in the UN realises this as the truth (and a FACT).

2. Saddam has always said that he did not possess any WMD, no stocks of chemical/biological agents, no weapons delivery systems - You have clearly stated that you believed him - even after the weapons inspectors started turning up the hard-wear that proven that Saddam was lying. You then apologise for Saddam's lies by stating that he needs them because the US is bullying him.

"But Donald Rumsfeld is a liein', back stabbin', dangerous man. The kind of guy that Adolf would have loved to have around. And look at the man! He even looks the part of a Hitler right hand man!

These are the facts. Yeah. try to mofve the debate into the center of *your* magnifying glass but these are the facts. You can explain them, rationize them any way you want. Yeah, you can balme Clinton for all this. I don't care, These are the facts.

No Bobert, these are not the facts - They are simply your own highly biased, ill-informed, inaccurate, totally subjective opinions.