2. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/6/2002 6:40:23 PM
3. Cellar Door - 9/6/2002 7:53:00 PM
Goerge W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter should be sent to Iraq immediately. Their mission? To kill Saddam Hussein.
Should be a snap.
4. joezan - 9/6/2002 9:48:50 PM
Well, I feel as if I've just bought a new house, and my schlumpy neighbors from down the road have already been here, drinking up all my beer and farting on my new couch.
Nevertheless, what better way to start a thread about Iraq than with a couple of photos of the man that Iraq is all about?
The one link I've added so far - Tales of the Tyrant - is an excellent Atlantic piece that looks into the weird world of the man himself. As the author, Mark Bowden, asks:
What does Saddam Hussein see in himself that no one else in the world seems to see? The answer is perhaps best revealed by the intimate details of the Iraqi leader's daily life.
Much of it is stuff most of us already knew, or have heard dribs and drabs of. But context is everything, and in the present context, one has to ask himself after reading the article whether Saddam hasn't expected something like this for a very long time.
5. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:11:37 PM
Imbecile to Issue Ultimatum TO THE WORLD!
How bout a big FUCK YOU.
Who the hell does this guy think he is anyway?
Mutha fucka can't even speak.
6. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:12:14 PM
Yo Zan...what IS your name?
7. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:21:43 PM
8. robertjayb - 9/6/2002 11:26:56 PM
The big Push: Man workin' hard, closing the deals...(NYTimes)
"President Bush spoke with world leaders in back-to-back phone calls that lasted 30 minutes altogether."
Thirty minutes! A man with true grit. Good job he does all that running. 
...steely gaze, firm grip. Whatta guy...
9. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:37:14 PM
And they told him to go fuck Bevo
10. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:40:48 PM
And they told him to go fuck Bevo
11. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:57:54 PM
And they told him to go fuck Bevo...
The War to Make Bush Believable and Stop From Laughing At Him:
FAQ's
1. I have heard Jexster refer frequently to Bevo. What in the hell is he talking about?
UT's legendary mascot is named Bevo. A true Texas longhorn tradition present during all UT games under the protection of the Silver Spurs.
This is what Bevo looks like. 
2. I have heard Our Maximum Leader say that Saddam Hussein "crawfishes". What in the hell is he talking about?
Its hard to say what that blithering idiot had in mind. That is why the whole world is laughing at him.
Crawfish walk backwards, a description more aptly applied to Bush, not Saddam.
This is what a crawfish looks like. To eat it you firstt separate the tail from the body. Then you suck the slime out of the head 
12. jexster - 9/7/2002 12:02:07 AM
JUST WAR
IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - EWTN
2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. [Cf. Vatican II, Guadium et spes 78, 5]
13. Cellar Door - 9/7/2002 12:04:55 AM
Saddam Bad
Bush Good
(repeat ad infinitum)
14. jexster - 9/7/2002 12:09:13 AM
Fall 2002
Pax Christi USA
Iraq Peace Pledge/Iraq Pledge of Resistance
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God. (Matthew 5:9)
15. jexster - 9/7/2002 12:21:41 AM
Good Cllr I see you've gotten your hands on a copy of "Self-Hypnosis For the Brain Dead: Analgesic for Those In Agony of Thought - Republican National Committee"
16. ronski - 9/7/2002 12:22:09 AM
When neighbors fart on your new couch, at least there's Febreze.
When the JexsterBorg engulfs a new thread, there's no hope of removing the stench.
17. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/7/2002 8:31:03 AM
18. joezan - 9/7/2002 9:33:48 AM
Here is a link to the WP article jex linked up-thread, minus caps, underlines, exclamation points and swear words.
It seems as though GW may have found a way to at least make it look like he's going to play along, which is at first disconcerting (to me).
The dominant view within the administration is that the time for inspections has passed and that ultimately Hussein, who has barred inspectors since 1998, will have to be forcibly deposed. But White House officials have been persuaded that working through the United Nations, for the moment at least, is advisable and may ultimately facilitate military action.
But reading between the lines, I believe he has actually trumped the euros, UN, etc; in effect, he's saying Ok - inspections before invasion...BUT...we're gonna go whole-hog - on MY terms. (Knowing full well, of course, that Saddam will never agree to anything beyond the original terms - if he agrees to anything at all).
And when Saddam refuses, GW can say "See - we tried going the inspections route."
19. jexster - 9/7/2002 9:53:28 AM
He's lost Z...he can't even put together a coherent sentence.
GWB is a geopoltical incompetent. His decision apparatus is out of control. Because he hasn't the temperament, experience or intellect to match the strong personalities of his decision making team, the decision process has become an anarchy where the power to decide has now moved from inside the administration to newspapers, pundits, and other domestic and foreign political leaders. That is the end stage of a bureaucratic political disaster, and this is a bureaucratic political bumble that is without precedent in US history.
He stumbled consistently and repeatedly. He is lost.
That is why this:
PRESIDENT BUSH and Tony Blair ran into a wall of international opposition to their proposed military action against Iraq yesterday, after world leaders from Paris to Moscow and Beijing urged them to shelve their plans.
Wall of Opposition Meets Ball of Confusion
20. jexster - 9/7/2002 9:55:39 AM
The problem is he doesn't have "his" terms. We saw this happen in a far lower stakes, far less pressured environment last Spring when Powell convinced him to get tough on the middle east. That wasn't the Sharon/Kristol agenda and they took care of "his terms" in short order. Now Powell has struck back. But there are more players in the game now....
21. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:16:43 AM
- Ultimata are for adversaries not allies
= You cannot convince anyone that you are serious about inspections or Saddam's threat when everyone knows cause you have told them
22. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:22:01 AM
Pigshit lookin for a pretext - Any wonder those nations allegedly "at risk" oppose the effort to "save them?
No wonder at all not one bit.
Moussa said Arab states were seeking a diplomatic solution and had already helped bring Iraqi and U.N. officials together.
The ministerial resolutions on Iraq also called for lifting U.N. sanctions, an "interlinked and scheduled implementation of all the requirements of the Security Council resolutions," and a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.
Speaking to reporters on his way out, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri accused Israel of possessing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and other weapons.
Moussa accused the world community of double standards, complaining that while it insisted Iraq obey U.N. resolutions, it failed to measure Israel by the same yardstick concerning its occupation of Palestinian territory.
23. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:24:14 AM
24. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:30:21 AM Domestically, whipping up a froth of fear from what remains of 9-1-1 torments is all that backstops Bush's adventure (outside the usual suspects on thee lunatic fringe - we know you're out there).....that support ebbs with each passing day and will totally crumble once the invasion begins.... 25. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:33:48 AM Lunatic Fringe 26. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:52:16 AM The Politics and Process of Policy Making 101 - Today's Lesson - Spin Don't Stop Spun - Out of Control 27. jexster - 9/7/2002 10:52:58 AM An eye for an eye 28. jexster - 9/7/2002 11:09:17 AM Crawfish Walk Backwards - Blair to Push Coercive Inspection Compromise - Daily Telegraph 29. jexster - 9/7/2002 11:36:34 AM 30. Cellar Door - 9/7/2002 11:38:13 AM 31. jexster - 9/7/2002 1:07:49 PM If you're going to moderate a thread Z-legion, have the balls to set a current email address. 32. jexster - 9/7/2002 1:09:07 PM --- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- 33. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2002 1:16:33 PM Re Message # 12: I liked Bush's description of Saddam as "crawfishing". 34. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2002 1:17:11 PM Jex, your toys are screwing up another thread. 35. jexster - 9/7/2002 1:23:36 PM 36. RustlerPike - 9/7/2002 1:26:49 PM Jexs: 37. Cellar Door - 9/7/2002 1:29:40 PM That's the whine of a right-winger losing an argument. 38. jexster - 9/7/2002 2:16:38 PM Why thank you RP, didn't know you cared and since you asked: 39. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/7/2002 6:40:45 PM Impressive resume, good Jexter. 40. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:16:52 PM I am a noted moral theologian whose arguments are now being advanced by a Jewess and US Senator 41. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:28:02 PM [From the link in the butterbar]: 42. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:29:20 PM [...continued] 43. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:41:24 PM The man the US is expected to deal with: 44. joezan - 9/7/2002 10:42:16 PM Saddam was silent for a moment, drawing thoughtfully on his cigar. 45. concerned - 9/8/2002 1:54:28 AM Damme! Jexster, Al Qaeda acolyte, sounds just like Sodamn Insane. 46. concerned - 9/8/2002 3:47:24 AM Saddam weapons are 'a very real threat to Britain', warns Tony Blair 47. concerned - 9/8/2002 3:50:42 AM 48. concerned - 9/8/2002 3:56:15 AM CellDoor's mantra: 49. concerned - 9/8/2002 4:07:15 AM Is another war with Saddam inevitable? 50. concerned - 9/8/2002 4:08:26 AM 'Course, that would piss off the 'hate Bush', 'love Saddam' Lefties no end. 51. wonkers2 - 9/8/2002 7:51:49 AM I'm not aware of any Saddam supporters in the U.S., lefty or righty. Plenty of both question Bush's ill-considered shift from our tried and true deter/contain policy which worked for fifty years against real enemies to one of pre-emptive first strikes against little pissant countries like Iraq. One of these days somebody will write the inside story of how that occurred, i.e, how the speechwriter, fed by Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, et al, stuck the words in front of the little monkey and got him to read them out loud in public. Somehow, it seems to me, it should take a little more than that to change our central defense policy. 52. robertjayb - 9/8/2002 1:28:46 PM Bushies crawfishing on assertions about Iraq...(MSNBC) 53. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 1:36:05 PM When one man shouted that he was innocent, Saddam shouted back, "Itla! Itla!" "Get out! Get out!" (Weeks later, after secret trials, Saddam had the mouths of the accused taped shut so that they could utter no troublesome last words before their firing squads.) When all of the sixty "traitors" had been removed, Saddam again took the podium and wiped tears from his eyes as he repeated the names of those who had betrayed him. 54. Cellar Door - 9/8/2002 1:49:12 PM Outside of enjoying his performance in South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut I have never had anything positive to say about Saddam Hussein. 55. robertjayb - 9/8/2002 3:32:56 PM WHITE HOUSE ADMITS ERROR 56. robertjayb - 9/8/2002 3:41:10 PM Loud assertions are not evidence, particularly when they are false... 57. Cellar Door - 9/8/2002 4:30:53 PM Time to hit the video store again! 58. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 8:55:44 PM Well, like I said, Sharon's spokesman told me the war was scheduled for January-February. I believe he said something about elections in November making an earlier date impossible. 59. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 8:55:49 PM Well, like I said, Sharon's spokesman told me the war was scheduled for January-February. I believe he said something about elections in November making an earlier date impossible. 60. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 8:56:50 PM I figured I'd say that twice, in case you didn't hear me the first time. 61. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:17:28 PM 62. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:27:20 PM ÇáÕÍÇÝ 63. jexster - 9/8/2002 9:28:09 PM LONDON, Sept. 6 — As a child, Lois Greenough spent nights in air-raid shelters, a raincoat thrown over her pajamas, during the Battle of Britain in World War II. At 68, she has seen enough of wartime aggression to know that she does not want to be on the side of the aggressor. 64. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:30:11 PM Translation for those not as multilinginial as the good doctor: 65. jexster - 9/8/2002 9:33:03 PM Tony Blair and President George W Bush have agreed to topple Saddam Hussein by military means even if the United Nations does not pass a Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. 66. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:39:16 PM A third open letter from Saddam Hussein to the peoples of the United States, Western peoples and governments. 67. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:39:37 PM 68. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:39:57 PM 69. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:40:13 PM 70. jexster - 9/8/2002 9:42:36 PM SCOTT RITTER, a former American arms inspector, told the Iraqi parliament yesterday that President Bush was “on the verge of making an historical mistake” in threatening to depose Saddam Hussein. 71. judithathome - 9/8/2002 9:45:42 PM Well, he's going to be charged with being a traitor. Hope he likes living over there...I'd bet he's not allowed nack in this country. 72. judithathome - 9/8/2002 9:46:23 PM nack=back...must be reading too much XTC. 73. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:49:22 PM 74. joezan - 9/8/2002 9:49:45 PM Hey Doc...you keep a collection of Saddam fashion photo links, or what? 76. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:50:03 PM Error -2147217900 :[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Cannot insert the value NULL into column 'post_text', table 'themote.dbo.post'; column does not allow nulls. INSERT fails. 77. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:51:22 PM The good doctor shall try to scan such a portraiture to oblige your polite request. 78. joezan - 9/8/2002 9:57:27 PM Judith: 79. jexster - 9/8/2002 9:58:59 PM Americans increasingly doubt that their government has done enough to protect them against terrorist attacks and are convinced, despite misgivings, that there will be a war against Iraq, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows. Majorities do not want war without Congressional and allied support first and a clear explanation from President Bush ( news - web sites). 80. joezan - 9/8/2002 9:59:30 PM ...In fact, look for Ritter to be making many more such appearances in the coming months - make hay while the sun shines, you know? 81. joezan - 9/8/2002 10:05:29 PM XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUNDAY SEPT 08, 2002 19:58:02 ET XXXXX 82. joezan - 9/8/2002 10:06:12 PM Lampsos claims Saddam uses an herbal relaxation mask to try to reduce wrinkles, dyes his hair 83. joezan - 9/8/2002 10:08:38 PM Whiskey on the rocks? 84. ronski - 9/8/2002 10:10:19 PM Charming. 85. joezan - 9/8/2002 10:15:05 PM Well, like I keep on saying - Iraq is just the first on the list (second, if you count Afghanistan).) 86. jexster - 9/8/2002 10:16:11 PM JAH - Traitor to what? To the War to Make Bush Believable? 87. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 11:08:12 PM And more good and noble Jesters, by god! 88. jexster - 9/8/2002 11:20:44 PM Ritter's been on Saddam's payroll for quite some time - 89. jexster - 9/8/2002 11:32:47 PM Message # 81 90. jexster - 9/8/2002 11:59:25 PM Redneck Let's Fly Yet Another Nasty Green Loogie Out of Pickup Window 91. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:12:45 AM Just war theory is probably the most influential perspective on the ethics of war and peace. Though many of its themes were of Platonic origin, the Just War Theory's first exponent was St. Augustine of Hippo in the Fifth Century. Eight hundred years later, St. Thomas Acquinas further systematized the concept. Hugo Grotius, was the foremost exponent among the "secular" philosophers. 92. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:14:41 AM From "Catholic Teaching on Peace and War" (Diocese of Austin) 93. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:17:13 AM In the Second Vatican Council document “Pastoral Constitution in the Modern World” (Gaudium et Spes), the bishops of the whole Church wrote the following: 94. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:21:11 AM In the Second Vatican Council document “Pastoral Constitution in the Modern World” (Gaudium et Spes), the bishops of the whole Church wrote the following: 95. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:21:46 AM All those who enter the military service in loyalty to their country should look upon themselves as the custodians of the security and freedom of their fellow countrymen; and when they carry out their duty properly, they are contributing to the maintenance of peace.” (No. 79) 96. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:22:38 AM Proportionality: in the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property; 97. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:25:47 AM The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good.” 98. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:50:33 AM My letter to DiFi "barely coherent email missives" (by the way Zan do you know what "missive" means or did you think that redundancies make you sound "intelligent"?) 99. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:52:03 AM 100. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:55:29 AM Please note that Bush's promise to "consult" with the UN and Congress is insufficient. You must not be a party to any consultation without a sure and certain committment that the Administration will seek not only congressional approval but Security Council sanction for any Bush schemes to enforce UN resolutions. 101. jexster - 9/9/2002 2:06:52 AM We'll close with a vocabulary exercise... 102. jexster - 9/9/2002 2:14:22 AM 9Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ He replied, ‘My name is Legion; for we are many.’ 10He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12and the unclean spirits begged him, ‘Send us into the swine; let us enter them.’ 13So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea 103. jexster - 9/9/2002 3:06:08 AM Is Zinni "on Sadaam's Payroll", Numbnuts? 104. concerned - 9/9/2002 3:21:23 AM The Times Online: Iraq Must Be Dealt With 105. jexster - 9/9/2002 3:53:41 AM Proponents of this adventure cannot, have not, and will not be able to muster other than the flimiest, most transparent justifications for their misbegotten course. 106. concerned - 9/9/2002 4:20:30 AM What would it take to change your mind, Jex? A Democrat president? 107. jexster - 9/9/2002 7:42:00 AM That would help...but we might start with more modest approach...an elected one.. 108. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:09:22 AM For the record, I do not rule out coercive options. I think deposited b4 in RP's urinal my "plan" for Iraq. 109. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 11:19:05 AM MWO says: 110. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 11:19:39 AM But as NBC reports, and the Washington Post confirms, the U.N. report in question emphatically did NOT say what Bush claimed it did. 111. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 11:20:07 AM Sources in London tell MWO that Prime Minister Blair, who fell for the ruse, has been "very embarrassed" by the incident. 112. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 11:20:20 AM 113. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:09:47 PM - the threatened damage must be lasting, grave, and certain; 114. jexster - 9/9/2002 12:14:19 PM Cllr...I am happy to see you speakin out against bullshit that piles up daily outta the Office of Strategery...this really smells 115. jexster - 9/9/2002 7:30:24 PM OpEd: Europe's choices IHT 116. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:13:28 PM "If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So [the Clinton administration's Operation Desert Fox, or massive four-day bombing of Iraq] is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world." 117. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:14:22 PM "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction....If Saddam defies the world, and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people; and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future." 118. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:19:01 PM So the question is, did Bill & Al solve the problem forever by bombing Iraq for four days in 1998? That is, in 1998, which was seven years after the Gulf War and with the inspector program in place, Bill & Al thought Saddam was so close to getting WMD that they couldn't even wait until after Ramadan to bomb him. 119. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:19:34 PM International Institute for Strategic Studies 120. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:35:31 PM Not quite right there Ed...perhaps you should read the report again... 121. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:35:45 PM 122. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:40:29 PM So the question is, did Bill & Al solve the problem forever by bombing Iraq for four days in 1998? 123. jexster - 9/9/2002 8:45:13 PM The Bushies have been talking "threat" so loud and so long without anything new to back up this sudden discovery, that its almost like they are talking to themselves...in fact talking themselves into war... 124. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 8:53:12 PM Not quite right there Ed...perhaps you should read the report again... 125. RustlerPike - 9/9/2002 9:00:06 PM Jexster is right. You shouldn't go to war against Saddam unless there is absolute proof that he possesses WMD and that they work. 126. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 9:05:35 PM 1. What is the problem? 127. ronski - 9/9/2002 9:17:20 PM Pike is right. None of this inventing of grievances, like Sudetenland and Danzig. 128. Cellar Door - 9/9/2002 9:42:09 PM "If impeachment made it impossible for Clinton to do his job protecting the national security of the United States, he should have resigned. In contrast, he insisted it was not affecting his ability to do his job, and he in fact carried out several military operations with the timing suspect because of how they appeared to be attempts to distract from impeachment." 129. Edmund Dantes - 9/9/2002 10:06:36 PM Competence requires resignation for fear of "suspect timing." 130. joezan - 9/9/2002 11:43:14 PM 1. missive: A written message; a letter 131. Cellar Door - 9/10/2002 12:48:06 AM "Again, no. I have and have never had any real interest in Whitewater" 132. Cellar Door - 9/10/2002 12:49:43 AM "at least not as much interest as you have in the driving record of the "FIRST LADY" when she was a 17 year old." 133. concerned - 9/10/2002 1:14:12 AM More bad news for Jexster: Jacques Chirac moving toward removing Iraqi Madman dictator 134. concerned - 9/10/2002 1:25:18 AM excerpted: 135. RustlerPike - 9/10/2002 2:17:39 AM Joe: 136. concerned - 9/10/2002 2:23:22 AM Who says nationalism is RW? There's more cases in point on the Left. 137. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 6:14:31 AM Intriguingly, Chirac's position has not been reported today in France. 138. wonkers2 - 9/10/2002 8:43:12 AM There are two very long front page articles on the 9/11 attack and al Qaida in today's NYT. 139. Wombat - 9/10/2002 8:59:11 AM Chirac has provided Bush with the methodology for bringing Europe and reluctant allies behind him, and giving a move against Iraq both the cause and the legitimacy it currently lacks. Bush would be an idiot not to follow that path, even if the delay means that he will reap no short-term political benefit. 140. wonkers2 - 9/10/2002 10:23:33 AM 141. wonkers2 - 9/10/2002 10:24:57 AM I missed Chirac's methodology for bringing our allies along. What does he suggest? 142. Marc-Albert - 9/10/2002 10:42:54 AM "Chirac has provided Bush with the methodology for bringing Europe and reluctant allies behind him" 143. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 10:50:37 AM Scoop : 144. joezan - 9/10/2002 10:53:22 AM ...and then, CHECKMATE. 145. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 11:02:12 AM I believe that several European nations might end up on board if there were to be a Security Council mandate. They really have little choice. If the US is going to go ahead anyway, as it appears... well, it's Europe which is left with handling the mess. Kurdish refugees can walk to France or Germany if they have to. 146. PelleNilsson - 9/10/2002 11:28:12 AM I still find it difficult to believe that Jordan will take part in an attack. However, the news of unusually heavy US/British bomb raids in western Iraq last week takes on new significance. There is a military airfield there at a place called H3 (a pumping station on the defunct Iraq-Jordan pipeline) which could serve as a bridgehead for the US. 147. Wombat - 9/10/2002 12:01:59 PM If Iraq refuses to accept the Security Council's ultimatum on inspections, then any attack would not be preemptive, but in response to a violation of a UN resolution (Iraq has been in violation of them since the Gulf War ended, but never mind...) 148. jexster - 9/10/2002 12:24:52 PM It remains to be seen whether T. Friedman's Declaration of the PantyWaist's Victory over the Forces of Krustified Klownish KhickenHawk Darkness is correct or premature. 149. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:14:00 PM He came to office largely ignorant of foreign affairs. His team split immediately—and deeply—after his Inauguration into two fiercely divided camps, and is already scarred by the pitched battles between the conservative wing, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, and the pragmatists under Secretary of State Colin Powell 150. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/10/2002 1:22:20 PM 151. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:24:12 PM Zan is such pathetic Old Glorified Moron... 152. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:25:27 PM Bush By the Balls 153. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:26:08 PM What a fear mongering clown...total loss of control...pathetic 154. jexster - 9/10/2002 1:49:07 PM 155. jexster - 9/10/2002 2:19:51 PM Since learning from Zan that the 1600 year old Catholic Moral Teaching on Just War is "wacky lefty", I decided to investigate what if anything might be more mainstream, anything thing besides "Saddam uses viagra" 156. jexster - 9/10/2002 2:23:56 PM As BoyBlunder takes the stage...ask yourselves... 157. robertjayb - 9/10/2002 2:38:15 PM 158. OhioSTOPAS - 9/10/2002 3:07:05 PM I don't know. While good, I think Prime Minister Blair's speech could have been improved with a few colloquialisms. 159. ronski - 9/10/2002 4:09:41 PM Of course there are crawfish (crayfish) in England. 160. wonkers2 - 9/10/2002 6:09:45 PM Jex, Are you sure "Satan's Filthy Little Secret" is a parody? Tampons are probably illegal as well as immoral in a bunch of countries. I can remember when selling condoms was illegal in Connecticut thanks to the power of the Roman Catholic church. 161. jexster - 9/10/2002 8:55:25 PM Speaking of JoeZ, Satan, and tampons... 162. jexster - 9/10/2002 9:44:59 PM 163. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2002 2:34:48 AM From The Economist: 164. concerned - 9/11/2002 2:46:33 AM Btw, the Rice quite is an excellent thread header blurb. 165. concerned - 9/11/2002 2:46:41 AM Btw, the Rice quote is an excellent thread header blurb. 166. concerned - 9/11/2002 2:53:02 AM Joe - could you please delete 164 and this post? TIA. 167. jexster - 9/11/2002 12:11:00 PM WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 ? Senior intelligence officials acknowledged today that the government had not compiled an updated, cross-agency assessment of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capacities, although the Bush administration is pressing for a quick statement of support for military action against Saddam Hussein. 168. jexster - 9/11/2002 12:11:29 PM the Rice quite is an excellent thread header blurb. 169. jexster - 9/11/2002 12:20:07 PM [C] AIRO, Sept. 10 — Anger at the United States, embedded in the belief that the Bush administration lends unstinting support to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, is at an unparalleled high across the Arab world, according to analysts and diplomats in the region. 170. jexster - 9/11/2002 12:22:01 PM They talked bitterly of the United States behaving like an 18th-century imperial power with policies based on racism and gunpowder. The main difference between the United States today and the marauding forces of Genghis Khan was that Washington was able to project its power all over the globe, said one person who was interviewed who insisted on anonymity. 171. RustlerPike - 9/11/2002 2:45:09 PM Pelle: 172. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2002 2:58:52 PM No, it's incurable. But it's good for you. 173. JJBiener - 9/11/2002 3:05:30 PM Pike - There must be some kind of pill you can take when you start feeling European - isn't there? 174. Wombat - 9/11/2002 3:07:49 PM And remember, the enema of my enema is my friend. 175. jonesatlaw - 9/11/2002 3:15:54 PM Lets see, we contain Stalin, and all the other Soviets for half a century with the threat of a overwhelming strategic counter strike. We know that they have sophisticated ICBMs, with some of them MIRV'd. All with heavy throw weights, sufficient to compensate for their poorer accuracy compared to American missles. They also have balistic missle subs with hulls which allow them to dive deeper than our subs, patrolling off our coasts. 176. thoughtful - 9/11/2002 3:17:19 PM From the New Yorker: 177. thoughtful - 9/11/2002 3:17:59 PM toy check 178. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2002 4:13:13 PM 179. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:09:26 PM 180. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:11:08 PM E-mail missive is redundant Joey 181. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:15:15 PM and BTW case I never mentioned it I know all about how Senators & Congressthings deal with email missives as well as letter missives...having read/answered a few myself back in the days when they used green eyeshades and quills to answer letter missives...we didn't have email missives back then... 182. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:24:22 PM Message # 133 183. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:29:01 PM it's Bush and Blair on one side and all the others on the other side. Which is slightly different. 184. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:29:46 PM Do you need any help understanding that? 185. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:36:43 PM Congressional Democrats said yesterday that classified briefings by President Bush's top advisers have failed to make a compelling case for quick military action against Iraq, and several leaders said Congress should wait until after the November elections before voting to authorize a strike against Saddam Hussein's regime. 186. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:38:18 PM "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." --- Condoleezza Rice 187. jexster - 9/11/2002 9:51:20 PM In a letter to Bush yesterday, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard G. Lugar ( R-Ind.) wrote: "There is not consensus on many critical questions" about the use of force in Iraq. 188. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:01:09 PM 189. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:09:30 PM Since only TD seems to believe that this UN gambit that Chirac is pressing is real (not even Chirac believes otherwise)..the rest of can appreciate this from the DailyT 190. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:11:26 PM The only real question about international support for the War to Make Bush Believable is not how many allies the Boy Blunder will gain, but whether he will lose the only real ally he has. I am not talking about the Izzies. I am talking about Blair. 191. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:18:33 PM Marc-Albert.. 192. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:49:55 PM L'etendard sanglant est levee 193. jexster - 9/11/2002 10:55:50 PM One British official insisted, however, that Mr Powell was still "in the driving seat", because Mr Bush had "bought the Powell-Blair line" that it was essential to go to the United Nations before unleashing war on Saddam Hussein. 194. jexster - 9/11/2002 11:07:14 PM April 19 2002 195. Edmund Dantes - 9/11/2002 11:11:04 PM By my count jexster made 84 out of the first 194 posts in this thread, including the 16 posts in a row prior to this. 196. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2002 11:24:37 PM From another site: 197. ronski - 9/11/2002 11:41:10 PM Nobody with an ounce of brains has ever suggested the Islamists hate our cell phones. 198. ronski - 9/11/2002 11:45:23 PM Eddie, 199. joezan - 9/12/2002 12:22:58 AM My very thoughts, people. 200. concerned - 9/12/2002 12:27:06 AM Re. 188 - 201. concerned - 9/12/2002 12:29:14 AM Pelle: 202. sakonige - 9/12/2002 1:24:12 AM I'll post replies to Jexster if that will make you feel better. 203. sakonige - 9/12/2002 1:25:04 AM He's about the only contributor to this site I read anymore, anyway. 204. concerned - 9/12/2002 1:34:15 AM Re. 202 - 205. alistairconnor - 9/12/2002 4:28:43 AM No, Jex, the French position does seem to be shifting significantly. Alain Juppé broke a taboo this morning, saying stern things to the effect that "we" must be prepared to take coercive action against Saddam... He's clearly Chirac's pilot fish on this. I have a feeling that the propaganda machine is going to kick in shortly, just like for Gulf War I, using the 9/11 emotion to legitimize Gulf War II. 206. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:01:22 AM
ASHINGTON, Sept. 6 — President Bush called the leaders of Russia, China and France today to seek their support as he tried to build an international coalition against Saddam Hussein, but he appeared, in his initial approaches, to have made little headway in convincing them that the need for action was urgent.
Advertisement
Soon after his talk with Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, the Kremlin spokesman said Mr. Putin had expressed "serious doubts that there are grounds for the use of force in connection with Iraq from the standpoint of international law or from a political standpoint."
France's president, Jacques Chirac, insisted anew that any military action had to come with the approval of the United Nations. Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, said after meeting with Mr. Chirac that "it would be unwise to attack Iraq now."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/international/middleeast/07PREX.html target=New>Dazed & Confused
George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world.
Bush has no choice. He will invade Iraq. He has made clear the Middle East crisis will not deter him from this. Quite the opposite. And we shall all live with the consequences
Lunatic Fringe
I know you're out there
You're in hiding
And you hold your meetings
We can hear you coming
We know what you're after
We're wise to you this time
We won't let you kill the laughter
Lunatic Fringe
In the twilight's last gleaming
This is open season
But you won't get too far
We know you've got to blame someone
For your own confusion
But we're on guard this time
Against your final solution
We can hear you coming
(We can hear you coming)
No you're not going to win this time
We can hear the footsteps
(We can hear the footsteps)
Way out along the walkway
Lunatic Fringe
We know you're out there
But in these new dark ages
There will still be light
An eye for an eye
Well, before you go under
Can you feel the resistance
Can you feel the...thunder
Hypothesis: Message # 19
Key Republican Busts Bush's Balls
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of a key intelligence committee in the U.S. Congress said on Saturday that the United States must deal with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) like a malignant cancer.
"The long history of Saddam's activities puts us very much on alert that we have to deal with him. And it's a little bit like a cancer. When you know you've got a malignancy, it's better to get at it sooner rather than later," said Rep. Porter Goss, the influential chairman of the House of Representatives Select Intelligence Committee.
In a transcript of CNN's Novak Hunt & Shields program, Goss, a Florida Republican, said he did not know "the full extent" of Iraq's development of nuclear weapons.
"We know that efforts are being made, but I'm going to have to leave it to the president of the United States to go into the levels that he wishes to discuss ... publicly," he said.
Well, before you go under
Can you feel the resistance
Can you feel the...thunder
History has called us, George W. Bush likes to say, but what if history has already moved on?
As a senior Bush adviser bluntly declared earlier this year: 'The way to win international acceptance is to win. That's called diplomacy: winning.' If other countries get restive, U.S. officials say, who cares? Even ganged up, they will be weaker than the U.S. alone...A presidency based on moral principles requires consistency, and Bush has not always displayed it. He calls for democracy in Iraq and Palestine-but not in such U.S.-friendly autocracies as Saudi Arabia. He is an avowed free-trader, but he has boosted domestic farm subsidies and protectionist tariffs on foreign steel... Many of these Republicans were surprised in January when Bush's strategist Karl Rove said the g.o.p. will make the President's 'handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece' of its plan to win back the Senate and keep the House in November...No man who lost the popular vote can ignore his re-election (sic) for very long..."
History Moves On - Bush Stumbles Along - Wag the Puppy (Time Magazine)
Catholic Teaching on Peace and War - Diocese of AUSTIN http://www.austindiocese.org/Sept11/war-and-peace_1.htm
Pax Christi USA http://www.paxchristiusa.org/
Pax Christi International http://www.paxchristi.net/body_index.html
The Presiding Bishop's statement
on military action against Iraq - Episcopal Church News Service
Why Bush will go to war on Iraq By Immanuel Wallerstein
April 19 2002 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/18/1019020682608.html
The Eagle Has Crash Landed - Immanuel Wallerstein - Foreign Policy Magazine http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/wallerstein.html
From Defense & The National Interest
Is Egypt in Play & Why is it the Prize? August 16, 2002 http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c457.htm
Werther Report: Is Preemption a Nuclear Schlieffen Plan? July 20, 2002 Comment: #453 http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c453.htm
The Guardian - Special Report on Iraq http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/0,2759,423009,00.html
(reason: 554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to zanfo58@yahoo.com cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. - mta562.mail.yahoo.com)
JoeZ - Permanent & fatal errors, brain disabled, balls discontinued
But in the same sentence he saed Saddam has "wheedled out of agreements". When has Saddam ever "wheedled"? I assume the President meant "WEASELED out . . ."
Lunatic Fringe - Red Ryder - MIDI
Are you, like, even partly employed?
I am a full time student:
Econ 311- Econ Stats I
Public Administration 720 - Microeconomics
Econ 505 - Public Finance
Econ 535 - Urban Economics
I am a partime lawyer - Sole practitioner with one current dispute against one of the top 10 SF law firms
I am a noted moral theologian whose arguments are now being advanced by a Jewess and US Senator
I am an incisive political commentator who correctly predicted, among other things, the current BumbleFuck From DC
And when I have time, I maintain a casual e-mail relationship with a retired planning adjutant to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff; demolish any and all arguments advanced on behalf of the War to Make Bush Believable; exorcise JoeZan’s legion; give Ronski gas - all with a delightful multi-media environment
And you RP?
Sit on a hillside breaking wind; play with your GoyToy; keep careful books of account for your 15 minutes of fame and grouse about how women have castrated you.
I miss anything?
Lifetime learning, tis the motto of yours truly.
(Yawn)
Jex advances every wacked out lefty theory here in The Mote - some admittedly rather...original (ahem), touches them up some, and then copies them into barely coherent email missives which he then spends part of his 18 hours a day of playtime sending off to any and every elected official in America.
One Senator happens to say something jex had also said (as if these guys ever read their email), and jex promotes himself to Senior Advisor.
BTW, all - sorry if my lack of email addy has inconvenienced anyone - I'm getting it fixed with Ms.No as I type.
On July 18, 1979, he invited all the members of the Revolutionary Command Council and hundreds of other party leaders to a conference hall in Baghdad. He had a video camera running in the back of the hall to record the event for posterity. Wearing his military uniform, he walked slowly to the lectern and stood behind two microphones, gesturing with a big cigar. His body and broad face seemed weighted down with sadness. There had been a betrayal, he said. A Syrian plot. There were traitors among them. Then Saddam took a seat, and Muhyi Abd al-Hussein Mashhadi, the secretary-general of the Command Council, appeared from behind a curtain to confess his own involvement in the putsch. He had been secretly arrested and tortured days before; now he spilled out dates, times, and places where the plotters had met. Then he started naming names. As he fingered members of the audience one by one, armed guards grabbed the accused and escorted them from the hall.
When one man shouted that he was innocent, Saddam shouted back, "Itla! Itla!"—"Get out! Get out!" (Weeks later, after secret trials, Saddam had the mouths of the accused taped shut so that they could utter no troublesome last words before their firing squads.) When all of the sixty "traitors" had been removed, Saddam again took the podium and wiped tears from his eyes as he repeated the names of those who had betrayed him. Some in the audience, too, were crying—perhaps out of fear. This chilling performance had the desired effect. Everyone in the hall now understood exactly how things would work in Iraq from that day forward. The audience rose and began clapping, first in small groups and finally as one. The session ended with cheers and laughter. The remaining "leaders"—about 300 in all—left the hall shaken, grateful to have avoided the fate of their colleagues, and certain that one man now controlled the destiny of their entire nation. Videotapes of the purge were circulated throughout the country.
...Together Saddam and al-Ali had a meeting with the new Foreign Minister of Iran. Four years earlier Saddam had made a surprise concession to the soon-to-be-deposed Shah, reaching an agreement on navigation in the Shatt-al-Arab, a sixty-mile strait formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers as they flow into the Persian Gulf. Both countries had long claimed the strait. In 1979...relations between the two countries were again strained, and the waters of the Shatt-al-Arab were a potential flash point. Both countries still claimed ownership of two small islands in the strait, which were then controlled by Iran.
But al-Ali was surprised by the tone of the discussions in Cuba. The Iranian representatives were especially agreeable, and Saddam seemed to be in an excellent mood. After the meeting al-Ali strolled with Saddam in a garden outside the meeting hall. They sat on a bench as Saddam lit a big cigar.
"Well, Salah, I see you are thinking of something," Saddam said. "What are you thinking about?" "I am thinking about the meeting we just had, Mr. President. I am very happy. I'm very happy that these small problems will be solved. I'm so happy that they took advantage of this chance to meet with you and not one of your ministers, because with you being here we can avoid another problem with them. We are neighbors. We are poor people. We don't need another war. We need to rebuild our countries, not tear them down."
"Salah, how long have you been a diplomat now?" he asked.
"About ten years."
"Do you realize, Salah, how much you have changed?"
"How, Mr. President?"
"How should we solve our problems with Iran? Iran took our lands. They are controlling the Shatt-al-Arab, our big river. How can meetings and discussions solve a problem like this? Do you know why they decided to meet with us here, Salah? They are weak is why they are talking with us. If they were strong there would be no need to talk. So this gives us an opportunity, an opportunity that only comes along once in a century. We have an opportunity here to recapture our territories and regain control of our river."
That was when al-Ali realized that Saddam had just been playing with the Iranians, and that Iraq was going to go to war. Saddam had no interest in diplomacy. To him, statecraft was just a game whose object was to outmaneuver one's enemies. Someone like al-Ali was there to maintain a pretense, to help size up the situation, to look for openings, and to lull foes into a false sense of security. Within a year the Iran-Iraq war began.
It ended horrifically, eight years later, with hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqis dead. To a visitor in Baghdad the year after the war ended, it seemed that every other man on the street was missing a limb. The country had been devastated. The war had cost Iraq billions. Saddam claimed to have regained control of the Shatt-al-Arab. Despite the huge losses, he was giddy with victory. By 1987 his army, swelled by compulsory service and modern Western armaments, was the fourth largest in the world. He had an arsenal of Scud missiles, a sophisticated nuclear-weapons program under way, and deadly chemical and biological weapons in development. He immediately began planning more conquest.
How many 9/11's or worse would it take for the likes of Jexster to get off his 'hate Bush' schtick? More than is humanly conscionable, that's for sure.
An Islamic Stalin with plenty of US Lefty supporters.
Sodamn good asshole.
Bush bad.
'Course he's always said that...so what else is new?
it'd be a very good thing worthy of much praise if GWB could transition Iraq to a Democracy without a full scale conflict, of course.
Seeking to build a case Saturday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, President Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.
Oh my goodness! Mistakes were made. What a shame that these things happen. But it's only war and peace we're talking about here. Not S.E.X.
I saw that video.
And connie is well aware of this.
A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. “What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report,” (i.e., we're making it up) the official told NBC News’ Norah O’Donnell.
...a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush’s and Blair’s assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem.
The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company, he said. 
򋂊 8/9/2002
ÇÓÊÞÈá ÇáÓíÏ ÒíÏ ÇáÑÝÇÚí ÑÆíÓ ãÌáÓ ÇáÇÚíÇä ÇáÇÑÏäí Ýí ÚãÇä Çáíæã ÇáÓíÏ ãÍãÏ ÓÚíÏ ÇáÕÍÇÝ æÒíÑ ÇáÇÚáÇã .
æÍãá ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÑÝÇÚí ÎáÇá ÇáãÞÇÈáÉ ÇáÓíÏ ãÍãÏ ÓÚíÏ ÇáÕÍÇÝ ÊÍíÇÊå Çáì ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÑÆíÓ ÕÏÇã ÍÓíä .. ãÚÑÈÇ Úä ÍÈå æÇÍÊÑÇãå æÊÞÏíÑå áÓíÇÏÊå æÇáÔÚÈ ÇáÚÑÇÞí ÇáÚÙíã .
æÞÏã ÇáÓíÏ ÇáæÒíÑ ÔÑÍÇ Íæá ÇáÊåÏíÏÇÊ ÇáÚÏæÇäíÉ ÇáÇãÑíßíÉ ÖÏ ÇáÚÑÇÞ æãæÞÝ ÇáÚÑÇÞ ãä åÐå ÇáÊåÏíÏÇÊ æÓíÇÓÉ ÇáÊÝÑÏ ÇáÇãÑíßí æÇáäÙÑÉ ÇáãÌÊÒÃÉ Çáì ÇáÞÑÇÑÇÊ ÇáÏæáíÉ æÇáÇäÊÞÇÆíÉ Ýí ÇáÊÚÇãá ãÚåÇ .
æÇæÖÍ Çä ÇãÑíßÇ áÇ ÊÓÊåÏÝ ÇáÚÑÇÞ áæÍÏå æÇäãÇ ÇáÇãÉ ÇáÚÑÈíÉ ÇÌãÚ .. ãÄßÏÇ ÑÛÈÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ ãæÇÕáÉ ÇáÍæÇÑ ãÚ ÇáÇãã ÇáãÊÍÏÉ ÑÛã ÇáãÍÇæáÇÊ ÇáÇãÑíßíÉ ÇáåÇÏÝÉ Çáì ÇÝÔÇáå ãÔÏÏÇ Úáì ÇåãíÉ ÇáÍæÇÑ ãä ÇÌá ÇáÊæÕá Çáì Íá áßá ÇáÞÖÇíÇ ÇáãÚáÞÉ .
æíÐßÑ Çä ÇáÓíÏ ãÍãÏ ÓÚíÏ ÇáÕÍÇÝ ßÇä ÞÏ æÕá Çáì ÚãÇä íæã ÇáÌãÚÉ ÇáãÇÖí Úáì ÑÃÓ æÝÏ ÇÚáÇãí áÍÖæÑ ÝÚÇáíÇÊ ÇáÇÓÈæÚ ÇáËÞÇÝí ÇáÚÑÇÞí ÇáÊí ÈÏÃÊ Çáíæã æÊÓÊãÑ ÓÊÉ ÇíÇã.
"If Tony Blair wants to go to war, he should go himself, and not send any troops in,"
Like many Britons, Ms. Greenough by turns feels puzzled, outraged and fearful of the consequences of Britain's growing importance in President Bush's anti-Iraq plans. She feels that events have spun quickly out of control, that Mr. Blair has overstepped his mandate and that Britain is in danger of joining a conflict its people do not support.
Opposition Growing to Blair Stand on Iraq
Why Iraq Rejects Stupid US Sanctions?
President Saddam Hussein has said: "In brief, the U.S plan is an implicit or explicit admission that the embargo, which the evildoers have imposed in the misbelief of placing Iraq under the category of those obeying orders, has failed to achieve its intended political target.
At a Cabinet meeting on May 21, 2001, President Hussein said, "we will reject the so-called smart sanctions, which are more stupid than their predecessors, just as we did when rejecting all that could encroach upon Iraq's dignity, honour, independence and the meanings it has fought for throughout history."
The President described the plan as "a kick of a dying mule which we should beware of, but it will miss its target, God willing."
Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz said at a meeting with the Arab ambassadors accredited to Iraq on May 21, 2001, "the United States, having realized that the embargo is falling apart, has resorted to the smart sanctions ploy with the specific aim of regaining control of the region's affairs and imposing its will at the expense of the interests of all parties and friends dealing with Iraq.
At a meeting with editors-in-chief of local newspapers and media on May 23, 2001, Tariq Aziz said, "the so-called smart sanctions are more stupid than the sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990. All that has been said to the effect that the plan will ease Iraqi people's suffering, is a sheer lie. In all its attempts, the U.S administration has one aim in mind, to deny Iraq access to many equipment and items that may contribute to the country's advancement and sustain local industry."
Aziz also said, "the U.S draft will not take effect for two reasons, Iraq's will and rejective stand on the one hand, and its regional, Arab and international position with all its political and economic elements. Besides
The decision, taken at a summit at Camp David, the presidential retreat 60 miles from Washington, commits Britain to an almost certain war that could be launched before Christmas
Daily Telegraph
Mr Ritter called on Iraq to prove that it was no longer capable of producing weapons of mass destruction by opening itself to inspections.
In what appeared to be a propaganda coup for Saddam,Mr Ritter, who resigned from the United Nations weapons inspection team in 1998, told the Iraqi deputies that it was his own Government that was bringing the world to the brink of disaster, not theirs. “My country seems to be on the verge of making an historical mistake set forth on a policy of unilateral intervention that runs contrary to the letter and intent of the UN Charter”.
He said: “The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my Government has not, to date, been backed by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for September 11 attacks on the United States.“Bush and Blair are gearing up to go to war on Iraq based on unsubstantiated allegations that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration itself has said repeatedly that, while they call for the return of inspectors, this will not prevent them from continuing to seek regime change in Iraq. So my timing is designed precisely to expose the hypocrisy of the Bush position.”
During the nearly seven years that the UN was permitted to conduct inspections, Iraq had been certified as being disarmed to a 90-95 per cent level, he said. Mr Ritter, who served in the US Marines during the 1991 Gulf War, headed visits to several sensitive sites in Iraq that led to tense stand-offs with the Iraqi authorities.
”
Times of London
Personally, I like the Saddam in fedora, overcoat, and big fat cigar shots - looks like he should be the Mayor of New York.
You got any like that?
in insert_post
executing EXEC ins_post 150, 999, 'Dr.XavierTColtrane', NULL
Ritter's been on Saddam's payroll for quite some time -which, when you think about it, is Saddam's real pr coup.
In any case, if he hasn't been charged by now, it ain't gonna happen.
...of course, Mr. Ritter's status as a free agent will necessarily change once hostilities have increased sufficiently.
One year after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon ( news - web sites), about half of the public said the Bush administration did not have a clear plan to fight terrorism, and nearly as many said they felt somewhat uneasy and not safe from another terrorist attack.
A quarter of the public, but a third of those in the Northeast, said they feared an attack in their area. One American in 10 said the administration had made "a lot of progress" in eliminating terrorist threats from nations besides Afghanistan ( news - web sites).
The survey portrayed a hesitant nation with a sense of inevitability and little of the eager combativeness that surrounded the reaction to the bombing of terrorist targets in Afghanistan last year. A large majority said it expected the American forces to "end up fighting against Iraq."
One-fourth said Iraq presented such a grave threat that the United States should act now, while two-thirds said the nation needed to wait for support from its allies 
Nyt 
ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE: SADDAM SEX, USES VIAGRA, SAYS MISTRESS
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein needs help in the bedroom, ABC NEWS is set to report in an
exclusive interview with his alleged mistress.
The Dictator of Baghdad may not be all the man he's cracked up to be, reporter Claire Shipman
will reveal -- he uses Viagra for sex sessions!
The provocative interview is to be aired nationally this week.
Shipman traveled to a safe house in the hills of Lebanon for the big
exclusive with Parisoula Lampsos.
Lampsos says she saw Hussein on almost a daily basis for years and is
able to provide unique insight into what the dictator was saying,
thinking and feeling behind closed doors.
Not to mention his physical prowess in bed.
Claire Shipman goes where few network reporters have gone before -- and
zeros in on Saddam's sexual appetites.
On Saddam's use of Viagra:
LAMPSOS:
He took sometime.
SHIPMAN:
He took Viagra.
LAMPSOS:
Yeah, sometimes, yes.
SHIPMAN:
And did it help? Did he think it helped him?
LAMPSOS:
Yes, of course...
SHIPMAN:
Was he affectionate?
LAMPSOS:
Yeah. He was tender, he was warm, he was nice.
SHIPMAN:
Did he force you to have sex with him?
LAMPSOS:
Saddam, he don't need to force anybody. Because...you are afraid, you are afraid to say no....
I was with him because I was afraid of him...
SHIPMAN:
What is Saddam Hussein's favorite drink?
LAMPSOS:
Whiskey...on the rocks with ice.
and likes to wear suits by Pierre Cardin.
Lampsos now wears a veil to disguise herself on the street because she fears retribution for
telling her story, which will air Thursday on ABC's PRIMETIME [10 PM ET/9 PM CT].
shipman's interview is more than Sex Journalism.
Lampsos, 54, who left Iraq a year ago, not only offers stories of the Iraqi dictator's personal
life that she says few others know, but tells of his alleged effort to have his oldest son
killed, his take on President George W. Bush, his extreme vanity and love of American films and
music.
Lampsos tells Shipman how Saddam's favorite movie is the GODFATHER. And his favorite song is
"Strangers in the Night."
SHIPMAN:
He likes Frank Sinatra?
LAMPSOS:
Yeah
SHIPMAN:
And would he play it, would he dance to that?
LAMPSOS:
Sometimes.
Lampsos says Saddam swims almost every day, drinks milk and honey in the morning and his
favorite food for dinner is fresh gazelle. She says he raises and nurtures the gazelles -- and
then handpicks each one to be slaughtered for his meal.
Hussein met Osama bin Laden on two occasions and gave money to the al Qaeda leader in 1996,
Lampos explains to the cameras.
Frank Sinatra?
Fedoras with long overcoats?
Maybe he is planning on running for Mayor of New York?
Expressing pleasure at meeting the man who made Kurdish children watch their mothers die and Kurdish mothers watch their children die hideous deaths from biological warfare.
Let's hear it for Arab solidarity!
The man is a patriot for speaking Truth to Power. More than a little controversial & confrontational in his approach, but the substance of his remarks is beyond reproach.
When the bodybags start coming home; when we're stuck for 10-20 years running Iraq behind some puppet facade; when it costs us $100 billion for the War for Little Napoleon's Big Mouth; when we've lost all influence in the Middle East; when the conservative ME regimes fall to a frenzy of Muslim radicalism; when Muslim countries balk at providing the intelligence and police work that we need to fight the REAL WAR on TERRORISM, and when we taste the first hellish fruit of the brave new world of pre-emptive war -
We'll be wishing that there were more Scott Ritters; James Bakers; Brent Scowcroft's, and Chuck Hagels.
Iraq is not paying Ritter. Ritter has testified twice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If he literally was "on Saddam's payroll", he would have had to register as an agent of a foreign government in order to lobby Congress and testify.
Fucking illuminating.
Jex advances every wacked out lefty theory here in The Mote - some admittedly rather...original (ahem), touches them up some, and then copies them into barely coherent email missives which he then spends part of his 18 hours a day of playtime sending off to any and every elected official in America.
One Senator happens to say something jex had also said (as if these guys ever read their email), and jex promotes himself to Senior Advisor.
Must have had a special on instant ad hominem mix at Walmart this weekend.
The Christian Doctrine of Just War, "a wacko lefty idea" is it? To a fundamentalist, it probably is.
Time for a few lessons I see.
Many of the rules developed by the just war tradition have since been codified into contemporary international laws governing armed conflict, such as The Hague and Geneva Conventions. The tradition has thus been doubly influential, dominating both moral and legal discourse surrounding war.
Oct. 12, 2001
The foundation of Catholic Social Teaching is the sanctity of human life. This principle guided the earliest followers of Jesus to a position of pacifism, or rejection of violence, as a means for resolving conflict. By the fourth century, Christianity was no longer persecuted, but was the official religion of the Roman Empire, an empire that was now crumbling. In the face of the aggressive attacks of the Vandals on his community, St. Augustine of Hippo articulated a theology that developed into what is known as the “just war” theory, or conditions under which Christians would be justified in taking up arms.
What St. Augustine began was continued and refined by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. His just war principles could be summarized as:
“war must be declared by the authority of the state;
there must be a just cause; the intention must be just;
war must be the last resort;
only right means may be employed in the conduct of war;
there must be a reasonable hope of victory;
the good to be achieved must outweigh the evils of war.”
(from What Are They Saying about Peace and War, by Thomas A Shannon, Paulist Press, 1983)
“War of course, has not ceased to be part of the human scene. As long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. State leaders and all who share the burdens of public administration have the duty to defend the interests of their people and to conduct such grave matters with a deep sense of responsibility. However, it is one thing to wage a war of self-defense; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties.
All those who enter the military service in loyalty to their country should look upon themselves as the custodians of the security and freedom of their fellow countrymen; and when they carry out their duty properly, they are contributing to the maintenance of peace.” (No. 79)
“War of course, has not ceased to be part of the human scene. As long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. State leaders and all who share the burdens of public administration have the duty to defend the interests of their people and to conduct such grave matters with a deep sense of responsibility. However, it is one thing to wage a war of self-defense; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” addresses the issues of peace and war in articles 2302-2317. Specifically in article 2309, the Catechism outlines “the strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force… At one and the same time:
The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain;
All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
There must be serious prospects of success;
The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluation of this condition.
Right Intention: even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden.” (The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace)
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” addresses the issues of peace and war in articles 2302-2317. Specifically in article 2309, the Catechism outlines “the strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force… At one and the same time:
Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved;
Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
These criteria (jus ad bellum), taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force. Second, the just war tradition seeks also to curb the violence of war through restraint on armed combat between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards (jus in bello) for the conduct of armed conflict:
Noncombatant Immunity: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians; (The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace - Natl Conference of Catholic Bishops
These criteria (jus ad bellum), taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force. Second, the just war tradition seeks also to curb the violence of war through restraint on armed combat between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards (jus in bello) for the conduct of armed conflict.
Dear Senator Feinstein:
In recent weeks, several prominent Republicans, among them Brent Scowcroft, your colleague Dick Armey, Lawrence Eagleburger, and James Baker have boldly and decisively spoken out against Bush plans to invade Iraq. Over that same period, prominent Democrats have remained embarrasingly silent. As a Democrat and constituent I am ashamed, and I am angry.
Over the next days and weeks, you will be meeting the President and leading House deliberations. I urge you in the strongest terms to speak out; to put Bush his proof, and to examine justifications that have thus far amounted to nothing more than deceptiive pretexts for a gravely immoral adventurism.
The consequences for the US and the world should Bush's schemes remain unchecked are grave indeed. Perhaps you read Immanuel Wallerstein's OpEd in Los Angeles Times last April. His opening parapaph has, in the event, turn out to be eerily prophetic:
"George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world."
No citizen, no representative can have anything to do with any unprovoked, preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation unless the following criteria met. In no case, has the Bush admistration advanced a justification for war that comes close to satisfying a single one.
The criteria are for just war are:
- the threatened damage must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- the prospects of success must be significant;
- the use of arms must not produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated, and
- the decision for war must be made by legitimate authority, in this case, both the United States Congress and the Security Council of the United Nations.
As the decision for war is yours, so too the responsibity for its consequences.
Thank you very much.
"Barely coherent" you say? "Wacko left theory" you say? "On Saddam's payroll" you say?
Turns out you don't SAY much of anything Zan.
1. missive: A written message; a letter
2. redundant: 1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous. 2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases
And my deepest apologies for the Moral Theologian to DiFi remark. I am so insensitive at times. That bit of self-deprecating sarcasm flew from the keyboard, right over JoeZ's head. Arms flailing, sputum spewing, Joe it was so humiliating.
So for abusive cruelty towards the mentally infirm...definitions for JoeZ..
Sarcasm:1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. 2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
self-deprecating: Tending to undervalue oneself and one's abilities
Moron: 1. A stupid person; a dolt.
2. Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education.
And I promise you Joey...No more sarcasm....[Moron]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Middle East envoy retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni urged caution on Sunday in dealing with Iraq, saying the potential impact of military action on Israel, relationships with key allies and the war on terrorism had to be carefully weighed.
"We've got enough wolves on the sled to shoot; let's not be popping some off in the woodline if we don't need to, unless we're absolutely sure it's necessary," Zinni added.
Zinni warned that a military strike could further complicate the stalled efforts to end Israeli-Palestinian violence and could distract attention and drain resources from the business of ensuring stability in Afghanistan ( news - web sites).
The United States should also weigh carefully the possible impact of its action on relationships with regional allies and on a struggle between conservatives and reformers in Iran.
"When you commit this nation to military action, do it right. Make sure we understand the effects not only here at home, but over there," Zinni said, adding that articulating a cogent case for intervention was also vital for the U.S. soldiers who would risk their lives in such a mission.
"There's a hell of a good reason why generals are cautious ... Politicians make mistakes, soldiers pay for those mistakes with their blood,"
And Scott Ritter should get the Medal of Freedom for discharging his patriotic duty with such vigor and courage.
Pigshit in search of a pretext, crackpot Zan, gas mask and musket at the ready, prepares to meet Jesus in the air (a profound Pauline passage that the Teletubby Killin Zan-Talibans made profane).
Zinni makes a prudential-geopolitical case against the War to Believe in Bush. I have spent some time on the Just War Theory lately, and will spend more. I intend to set the facts against the Just War doctrine requirements in detail.
It is also useful to examine the decision for war, and the decision whether and how to oppose it once hostilities have begun, through other models such as international law, international politics and economics, domestic issues, and military tactics/strategy.
What is striking how dismally the ChickenHawk case fares on careful examination under ANY of these paradigms. No matter the decisional frame, the choice for war or against is rarely clear. This is the exception that proves the rule.
If you doubt this, test the arguments yourselves and see. The next time you hear Bush or Cheney or read your favorite commentator or listen to a Sunday Talking Head Hour, sift through what is being said, measure against rigorous criteria of any stripe.
If you wonder at the public's overwhelming and growing doubts, if you cannot quite understand why it is that the vast majority here and abroad do not believe that Bush has offered sufficient justification, well the answer is really quite simple - this is pigshit in search of a pretext.
Hell The Baron of the Bunk-port wouldn't have screwed this up either...and last I heard, he was still a card-carrying Republican , though Billy Kristol, General Secty of the Conintern, is, I understand, trying remedy that little problem.
No TD, as one who supported GWI (against REAL lefties not the demons in Zan's feeble mind), the equities were balanced. Judging the debate back then as dispassionately as possible, as one might judge a Moot Court or forensic competition, neither side of the GWI debate enjoyed such a commanding and compelling advantage. Starkly stated, Rose presented a far stronger case against the Kosovo War than any ChickenHawk has articulated thus far and likely ever will.
Never in US history, other than I guess the Spanish American War, have war proponents advanced such an inconsisent, fear filled, emotionally overwrought, factually insupportable, logically infirm, morally damnable, more transparently pretextual arguments nor done so with such appalling political ineptitude.
Mind you, this is an analytical hypothesis, an exerise in comparative history, as "objective" as any history can be, yet nonetheless convincing and I think readily established. In Just War theory for instance, the measures are specific and the value premises are clear. The hypothesis: We never done seen shit like this befo - not who had the better argument.
briefly
- Deploy 50,000 or so troops, plus air, and an armored division less than 100,000 costs shared somehow.
- UN inspectors back by a time certain
- If refused or if Blix and Co determine substantial interference with mission then
- Coercive inspections....we take Basra, set up a base hold their oil hostage US/Brit/allies just take Blix's Boys wherever the fuck they want to go.
Trouble is Bush cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. He has only one thing in mind. There aren't alternative policy choices in play only con jobs that fool no one, not even Zan fer chrissakes! There aren't any policy choices because Bush in steady hemmoraghe has lost all control of his internal political processes. And its all a vicious circle for political impotence makes policy less potent which in turn..and so on.
Boy Americans sure were on to somethin when we didn't elect that numbskull.
The George W. Bush Administration is today embroiled in what may be the greatest scandal yet in its brief history -- successfully getting support from Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair for an imminent attack of Iraq on the basis of a blatantly phony reading of intelligence photographs and of an old report from U.N. atomic energy agency.
"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said, brandishing the photos in front of the British leader, and claiming that the 1998 U.N. report said that Saddam Hussein was six months away from building nuclear weapons.
Blair fell for it.
As for the photos, there was and is, contrary to news reports, no specific building that caused any concern, according to the U.N. agency that released the pictures. Although the photos -- taken by a commercial enterprise -- show new construction, there is NO evidence that it is related to new nuclear-related operations in Iraq.
In preparations for Bush's September 12 speech to the U.N., the Administration appears to have taken a leaf from the Cuban missile crisis forty years ago, when Ambassador Adlai Stevenson provided incontrovertible proof from intelligence photographs that the Soviets had placed nuclear weapons in Cuba.
But Stevenson's photos were authentic, undoctored, and clear proof.
The Bush photos have no clear proof of anything. The Bushies are just making it up!
In Washington, expert observers pointed out that the shill bears the fingerprints of Vice President Dick Cheney. Last month, Cheney delivered a hawkish speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, charging that only an attack on Iraq right now would rid the world of the Hussein menace. Now, say observers, Cheney and his supporters may be trying to find whatever evidence they can, and skew it if necessary, to back up his case.
"Look, Dick Cheney cooked the books when he was head of Halliburton," one expert, who declined to be identified for this article, said. "Now he's cooking the photos on Iraq. Looks like Cheney's work."
The scandal is all the more worrisome because it confuses the legitimate concerns about Hussein. There is no question that the Iraqi leader possesses some weapons of mass destruction, which he has deployed in the past. But trying to sway world opinion about Hussein with phony reports and trumped-up "evidence" only makes the search for the terrible truth about Hussein more difficult -- and only makes the world, as well as the American people, more wary than ever of the secretive, mendacity-prone Bush team.
Instead of George W. Bush's Cuban Missile Crisis, it's beginning to look like his Gulf of Tonkin -- a phony pretext for going to war right away. The precedent is disastrous.
In Washington, veteran observers have suggested that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might now have no choice but to investigate this incident thoroughly -- to get to the bottom of how and why the Bush Administration used doctored reports and misleading photographic evidence to try and push its case.
Not since the Vietnam era has any White House created such a huge credibility gap as the George W. Bush Administration has. But whereas it took the country -- and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee --several years before they woke up to the official lying about Vietnam, the truth about the Bush Administration's lying has begun to be exposed before the first shot is fired.
Capitol Hill veterans tell MWO that Senator Joe Biden is, or at least ought to be, outraged at this shocker. Not only does it affect the current crisis over Iraq -- it badly compromises the credibility of the United States on all issues of global concern
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ( news - web sites) said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition
The Problem CondoGirl
Is that for the first time in its history, a moron with a Napoleon complex is about to plunge this country into war because of another's bad thoughts...
a war to pre-empt an attack with weapons Sadaam doesn't have;
that he may never get;
that he cannot effectively deliver;
that even if he were to get the weapons and the delivery system, he could not use without assuring national incineration;
all in country that is patrolled by US/Brit warplanes; whose economy is near collapse, that can't afford to replace treads on its tanks;
to preempt a threat that those nation said to be most at risk do not support;
Led by a nest of chickenhawks who keep changing their bullshit.
The problem condogirl is that you are a good argument against affirmative action
Why when walk around campus these days to I get this funny feelin a song pops in my head "Look What's happnin on the street gotta revolution, got to revolution?" (at least when brain not otherwise occupied with purty boys)
Is it my second childhood, some midlife menopausal mess?
One of them acid flashbacks They used to warn us about b4 we "liberated" Them?
PARIS The United States has talked itself into a war with Iraq
SALMAN PAK, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq allowed Western reporters on Monday to accompany former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter to a facility allegedly used for training "terrorists
"This is the place that is going to cause a war. This is the site that the Bush administration is citing as a proof that the Iraqi government has a connection with (Osama bin Laden ( news -web sites)'s) al Qaeda," Ritter said.
"There are those who are affiliated with the Bush administration who continue to perpetrate a lie. You don't go to war based on a lie," Scott Ritter
Fairly says it all wouldn't you agree Joe-Bob-Boy
Al Gore, 1998
Bill Clinton, explaining Operation Desert Fox (which happened to occur on the eve of the impeachment vote, December 16, 1998)
Now it's five years since that and we haven't had any inspections at all.
Any chance Saddam might be back in business?
The International Center for Strategic Studies thinks so.
Now we're going to launch an unprovoked aggressive war not because of a threat but because of a desire?
So the question is next pretext?
Lets put some lipstick on this pig
LONDON, Sept. 9 — Saddam Hussein has substantial stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and the capacity to expand production of them on short notice, but Iraq will be unable to build a nuclear weapon for years unless it obtains radioactive material on the black market, a leading security affairs research organization said today.
The group, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which is based in London, said that while there remained many doubts about the quantities and capabilities of Mr. Hussein's war matériel, there was no question that his government's priority was developing weapons of mass destruction.
"War, sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded but not eliminated Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long-range missile capacity, nor removed Baghdad's enduring interest in developing these capabilities," John Chipman, the institute director, said at a news conference.
NyT
ISS
Disregard for the moment the accuracy of the President's implication that Josef Stalin was less bloodthirsty than today's crop of tyrants, or that his possession of a nuclear arsenal was somehow more benign in comparison. We may even pass over, with no more than an embarrassed cough, the notion that hundreds of nuclear weapons, the largest land army in the world, and the industrial base of half Eurasia in the possession of a man who murdered 20 million of his countrymen was somehow less a threat to U.S. national existence than fugitives in caves and safe houses, an Iraqi mafioso whose own national airspace is closely patrolled by U.S. military aircraft, or a lunatic on the northern half of the Korean peninsula whose citizens vary their starvation diet of grass and tree bark with U.S. food aid.
Wrong question.
Right questions
1. What is the problem?
2. Does it justify pre-emptive war
3. Should Clinton have followed up the bombing with, as I suggested then, what is now being called the "coercive inspection option"
4. Could he have done so in 1999 while the Reapers were busy impeaching him and Slobo was busy with mass murder in Kosovo?
5. Could he have done so to strains of wag the dog in 2000?
6. And back full circle, so what?
Cut the crap...
Sadaam is less of a threat today than he was in 1991 and MORE of a threat, thanks to Bush bungling today than he was a year ago.
And in any event less a threat to peace than the 1/2 wit in chief.
You disagree that the report indicates a belief that Saddam is back in business?
I refer you to
In conclusion, war, sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded, but not eliminated Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capacities, nor have they removed Baghdad’s enduring interest in developing these capacities. The retention of WMD capacities by Iraq is self-evidently the core objective of the regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim....A reasonable net assessment is that Iraq has no nuclear weapons but could build one quickly if it acquired sufficient fissile material. It has extensive biological weapons capabilities and a smaller chemical weapons stockpile....Sooner or later, it seems likely that the current Iraqi regime will eventually achieve its objectives.
Just what do you think the report says?
But just one little mushroom cloud over Herzliya and that guy is toast. Just one, you hear me?
An aggressive, militaristic, antidemocratic regime bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
2. Does it justify pre-emptive war
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, and many Democratic senators thought so in late 1998.
3. Should Clinton have followed up the bombing with, as I suggested then, what is now being called the "coercive inspection option"
Whatever Bubba should have, would have, or could have done are all certainly the "wrong question" now.
4. Could he have done so in 1999 while the Reapers were busy impeaching him and Slobo was busy with mass murder in Kosovo?
Again, the failure of Clinton to pursue this or that policy in 1999 is irrelevant to helping us make a decision today. In actuality, however, Saddam Hussein has killed more people and represents a greater threat to American interests than Milosevic ever did. If impeachment made it impossible for Clinton to do his job protecting the national security of the United States, he should have resigned. In contrast, he insisted it was not affecting his ability to do his job, and he in fact carried out several military operations with the timing suspect because of how they appeared to be attempts to distract from impeachment.
5. Could he have done so to strains of wag the dog in 2000?
Eh...what happened in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997? (Oh yeah, Bill was busy getting his rocks off.) In any case, you're crawfishing away from the "wrong question" because you don't want to answer it. You're explaining why Bubba didn't finish the job in 1998, rather than why he thought it was imperative to take (practically) unilateral action in 1998 when inspectors were in the country, but five years later without inspections we should just sit tight.
We want to see Israelis and Americans incinerated first, and the living envy the dead, before we even think of removing Saddam.
International norms require this.
Not to mention the New York Times.
This statement takes my breath away! Competence requires resignation for fear of "suspect timing."
Face it, if Clinton had a cure for AIDS you would have said "he's just doing it to draw attention away from Whitewater!"
You people are FUCKING PATHETIC!
No. You were capable of copying and pasting the quotation. Demonstrate that you're also capable of reading and responding to what it actually said, rather than an imaginary statement against which you'd prefer to argue.
Being unable to do one's job is by definition incompetence.
If Clinton had a cure for AIDS you would have said "he's just doing it to draw attention away from Whitewater!"
Again, no. I have and have never had any real interest in Whitewater--at least not as much interest as you have in the driving record of the "FIRST LADY" when she was a 17 year old.
My preference in the context of this topic especially is to discuss Iraq, not Whitewater or Monica or Clinton's dick or whether he's gay or whatever else you wish to drag out of the closet.
To that end, I repeat: "Why did leading Democrats think it was imperative to take (practically) unilateral action in 1998 when inspectors were in the country, but five years later without inspections we should just sit tight?"
2. redundant: 1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
Email missive, bonehead, is not only perfectly proper English -in this and most cases for the purpose of distinguishing said missive from the traditional hard-copy - it is also quite a common phrase. Google it - 22,000 entries.
And as for your just war preaching...listen - I'll gladly admit to being a rabid hawk on Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi, and any number of other sovereign countries that mean us no good but simply haven't figured out yet how to screw us good. I admit it: I want them blasted just on GPs. But I have a long, long way to go before I even approach the level of damn-the-just-war bloodthirst you displayed during Clinton's Balkan adventures, or the maniacal glee you ejaculated all over this fine forum at every "Slerb" death, be it intentional or collateral.
Just War, my ass.
So bite me, jasper.
By the way - how about that Condo, huh?: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
LIAR!
Ah yes, cold-blooded murder as a "youthful indiscretion."
Downing Street suggested that Mr Blair's case had been strengthened by the publication of a detailed report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a leading think-tank in London.
The institute said that Iraq had almost certainly stepped up its weapons programme since expelling UN inspectors four years ago.
It confirmed that Iraq could be only months from building a nuclear bomb if it could smuggle in weapons-grade material. Alternatively, it could take several years to make its own such material.
If Saddam is militarily deposed in the near future, it appears that Jexster's wish for an Iraqi caused nuclear incident will be stymied.
Jexster may have gloated over Serb deaths, but he did not gloat over them in a right-wing fascistic-nationalistic Neanderthal fashion, but rather in an intellectual way. The spittle was dripping to the left and it was refined.
In any case, Chirac is all gesticulation and no substance. What he says is of little practical consequence.
The first is a detailed description of the origin and evolution over two years of the 9/11 plot and its principal participants and their links to Osama bin Laden. Several of the planners and directors of the operation are still on the loose and presumably capable of mounting more attacks.
The second article assesses the current location and strength of Al Qaida. It reports that after fleeing Afghanistan Al Qaida remains scattered throughout south Asia and the Middle East, "creating a terrorist diaspora of deep concern to American counterterrorist officials. After trying to set up a base in Pakistan Al Qaida operatives are returning to Afghanistan and may have been responsible for the recent assassination attempt on Karzai and the car bombing in Kabul last Thursday. The returning Al Qaida thus pose a serious threat to the Karzai government. On the positive side, financial support for al Qaida has diminished post-9/11. Some backers have said they didn't sign up for anything like 9-11, according to U.S. intelligence sources.
My conclusions from reading the articles are (1) Yes, there continues to be a serious terrorism threat against the U.S., domestically and around the world; (2)The principal threat is from the remains of the Osama bin Laden organization, not from Iraq; (3) Stabilizing Afghanistan and rooting out the remaining and returning al Qaida there remains a formidable task; (4) Despite the Bush-Cheney PR campaign there is little evidence linking Iraq to link 9-11; and (4) It therefore makes little sense to distract our focus from the principal threat (Al Qaida) by attacking Iraq before the task we began in Afghanistan after 9-11 is completed and while the Israeli-Palestine hostilities continue.
Whatever your take on Iraq, the articles provide a wealth of fascinating detail on 9-11 and Al Qaida.
Not really. Chancelor Shroeder's opposition to a preemptive attack against Iraq is is not likely to change even if the French "methodology" (a UN imprimatur) is adopted.
The French position is rather transparent. France remains a military as well as a diplomatic midget... unless it gets the Security Council involved, where par hasard it still enjoys a veto quite incommensurable to its weight in the real world. For 21st century France, the UN Security Council is about all it's left to her to play grosspolitik.
Maybe the Shroeder government position would be closer to the French "methodology" if Germany also had veto privilege on the Security Council...
That said, I don't think that the non involvement of the UN constitutes the main objection around the World to a preemptive attack. Rather, it's skepticisism regarding the seriousness of the threat posed by Hussein.
Furthermore, this time around, a Security Council imprimatur will not allow to build up a "coalition" like last time. France, Canada, Germany etc have already said they won't supply any troops or money. Therefore, the US, the terrorist target par excellence, will be on its own with or without a UN backing. Since it will be doing all the fighting and dying the US may as well avoid the UN quagmire.
U.S. forces have been quietly filtering into Iraq for more than three months. To date, American and Turkish special forces have gained control of 15% of Iraqi soil - mostly in the north where they are poised at a point 20 kilometers from Iraq's two most northern oil cities of Mosul and Kirkuk together with pro-American Kurdish and Turkman paramilitary groups.
(...)
Since August 5, the way for an American advance into Iraq is also clear from the south. Therefore, the general contours of the next US-UK move take shape.
A combined U.S.-Turkish force, backed by local tribal groups, will complete the capture of northern Iraq and its oil cities.
The combined U.S.-Jordanian force will advance on Baghdad and Tikrit.
The heavy military and armoured units massed on the Kuwait-Iraq frontier will advance north in two heads - one forking off to the east and heading for Basra, while the other makes for Shiite towns of Najef and Karbala on the Baghdad highway.
If the former, then enter the Great Gray Lady of DC Thinque Tanques...
Two recent articles merit attention. CAVEAT-The views expressed are those of the Brookings Institution, and not necessarily those of Cmndr. BabaJex who happens to think they are full of shit in some important respects but one hell of an improvement over the regnant lunatics in the Bush BumbleFuck Administration.
Getting Serious About Iraq "Survival", Autumn 2002
Philip H. Gordon, Senior Fellow and Director, Center on the United States and France
Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
Martin S. Indyk, Senior Fellow and Director, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
The Iraq Ulitmatum Slate, September 9, 2002
Is it Time or is it Jex, JoeZ? 
Quoting CondoRice's Mushroom Cloud crap..
Or maybe he's not so dumb...maybe he is laughing the most of the rest of the world.
If Bibi, BillyK and Arik Can Do It,
Why Not PantyWaist and Portugal????
Crash and burn
WASHINGTON (AP) - Portugal's prime minister cautioned President Bush ( news - web sites) Tuesday against acting alone on Iraq, as the White House press secretary said the United States would help bring "stability and peace" if Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) were toppled.
AP Photo
Reuters Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
Cheney: Risk of Inaction Too Great
(AP Video)
Blair And Bush Have 'Shared Determination'
(Reuters)
9/11
Special Coverage
News, features,
photos and more.
Go there now.
Sitting down with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barosso, Bush warned of "the dire possibilities that outlaw regimes will develop weapons of mass destruction and (link) with terrorist organizations, or use them on their own against countries that love freedom, countries such as Portugal."
Iraq Calls on Arabs to Confront U.S.
Tue Sep 10,11:40 AM ET
By SELCAN HACAOGLU, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - In Iraq's most belligerent remarks in the current standoff with Washington, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan urged all Arabs on Tuesday to confront the United States, its people and its property by any means.
The comments stopped short of explicitly calling on Arabs to attack Americans but underlined Iraq's drive to sway world — and particularly Middle Eastern — opinion behind it against U.S. threats of a possible strike to oust Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites).
His comments came as Saudi Arabia joined European countries on Tuesday in saying Washington should work through the United Nations ( news - web sites) to contain any possible Iraqi threat.
It's not Schröder and I on one side, and Bush and Blair on the other; it's Bush and Blair on one side and all the others on the other side Jacques Chirac
The results of my research into the strange netherworld of the chickenfried crackpot
Tampons: Satan's Filthy Little Secret
- Is this but the latest in a long string of manufactured armadillo shit?
if not then remember the Gospel According to Gen Zinni -> The Moron still must deal with ALQ and stop manufacturing crap about threats from Iraq
Although there aren't (I don't think) any crawfish in England, I think Blair could get his point across by calling Saddam Hussein a "googly-bowling chucker."
'Don't worry. We've got a plan. We purposefully let the Iraq issue stay in no-man's-land for a while. But we know what we're doing.' That's what senior people at the White House tell me," the Reverend Lou Sheldon, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, informs me while we're waiting for sandwiches. (It pays to favor the Capitol Hill deli fancied by a leader of the religious right.) "I sure hope so," he adds.
Boy Blunder at the UN: The Charade b4 the Crusade
EMINENT Americans visiting Europe recently often seem to find themselves in a state of bewilderment, almost as if they had stumbled into some sort of parallel universe. “We in America think of September 11th as an event that changed the world,” says Bill Kristol, editor of the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, “but the Europeans seem to regard it as an event that changed America.” Robert Kagan, author of a much-applauded article on the gulf between Europe and America, comments that “American policymakers find it hard to believe, but leading officials in Europe worry more about how the US might mishandle the problem of Iraq—by undertaking unilateral or extra-legal military action—than they worry about Iraq itself.”
The Economist concludes that these observations are "broadly accurate", an assessment I would agree with.
But European opinion can be swayed, I think, if the US, the UK and France introduces a toughly worded ultimatum in the Security Council (Chirac seemed to open up for that possibility the other day). It will not matter very much if it is ultimately vetoed by Russia. Europeans know that Russia plays its own murky games in the region.
Next Pretext Please
The resolve of President Bush to use force against Iraq, they say, compounds the antagonism, which is expressed with particularly unvarnished dismay in Egypt and neighboring Jordan, Washington's crucial Arab allies.
More than in previous bouts of anti-Americanism in the region, the anger permeates all strata of society, especially among the educated, and is tinged, people acknowledge, with disillusionment at their own long-entrenched American-backed leadership
Find that Pretext, Send in the Boy Blunder 
There must be some kind of pill you can take when you start feeling European - isn't there?
Yes, a strong laxative. If that doesn't work try an enema.
But Sadam Hussein, who had NO ICBMs, has a relatively small number of IRBMs with a reach no father than the middle east, and who has never delivered a nuclear or chemical weapon with one, we can't contain? We have aircraft flying armed reconaisance over two thirds of his country's airspace, a embargo against military imports [which is less effective than we would like, I would grant you] in the no fly zones there are opposition groups in the wings waiting to slit Hussein's throat given the chance, and this guy we can't contain?
Hussein must go, but many of the reasons to get rid of him, would be reasons to get rid of some of our allies. Hussein is a ruthless dictator who abuses women, and minorities. He has no respect for human rights, or of the rights of neigbboring countries. He has invaded his neighbors more than once, starting wider wars. But then again, we can say the same thing about Syria, and Egypt.
. One side maintains that war is necessary because it is the only way to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear and biological "weapons of mass destruction" and then using them, either directly or, more likely, by supplying them to undeterrable terrorists. And it argues that the toppling of the Iraqi regime would precipitate a cascade of democratization throughout the Arab and Muslim world, beginning with Iran and Syria but eventually encompassing Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and a future Palestinian state as well. The other side argues that war, no matter how victorious in the first instance, could end by making the region and the world more dangerous than before. It would risk the collapse of the delicate but ongoing global system of anti-terror police work and information sharing; the overthrow of acceptable regimes in an arc stretching from Jordan to Pakistan, which already possesses a nuclear arsenal; the widening of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the enthronement of preëmption as a prerogative of power, not only in the Middle East but also in places like the Hindu Kush and the straits of Taiwan; and a long and expensive occupation of Iraq that diverts vast quantities of American resources, military and otherwise, into a nation-building enterprise that might succeed mainly in provoking, and providing targets for, new terrorism.
letter missive is redundant Joey...
Those who write on shit house walls
Roll their shit in little balls
those who read these lines of wit
eat those little balls of shit.
from a bathroom wall graffitti missive
God TD day late, dollar short ... again?!?!?!
That's been Chirac's position for at least 6 months or more.
Why don't you read what he said instead of what a hawk brit newspaper said he said?
EXCERPTS
Interview With Jacques Chirac - New York Times
MONDAY(!) 09.09.02
A It's not Schröder and I on one side, and Bush and Blair on the other; it's Bush and Blair on one side and all the others on the other side. Which is slightly different. And as far as I know the European Union clearly stated that it was against any unilateral action. . . . Jacques Chirac
And refer also to our corn pone crackpot cum moderator's post missive and to the same effect Bush At the UN: Charade Before the Crusade
Get it?
Got it?
Good!
Now get this...
Senior Bush administration officials have given Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons as the main argument that the United States must act now to oust President Hussein, before the Iraqi leader acquires nuclear arms and alters the strategic balance in the Persian Gulf.
But the administration has not yet prepared what is called a national intelligence estimate, the intelligence community's most definitive written judgment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The document contains the coordinated intelligence assessments from the Pentagon, State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and other government entities and any significant dissenting views
Be happy to send you an email missive
"I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq" that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution, said Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee. "I did not hear anything today that was different about [Hussein's] capabilities," save a few "embellishments."
You hidin somethin from U.S. TD, or is this all just pigshit in search of pretext, peut etre?
I realize the pressing national interest of killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and maybe a thousand or so young US servicemen in the War to Make Bush Believable, but this nuke talk is causing Ronski to break out in hives.
what a sad & sick bunch
Which of course is why Bush wants to steamroller this War for Believability through the congress b4 the election...cause afterwards, when the defense assessment is finished, it will be clear that this is all a charade...
Or does anyone think that postponing the crusades a month would jeopardize anything?
L'Irak appelle à frapper ses "agresseurs"
Tandis que Washington intensifie ses manœuvres diplomatiques, le président Saddam Hussein poursuit sa politique du tout ou rien. Estimant avoir été dépouillé des armes de destruction massive, il considère que l'ONU doit lever ses sanctions vis-à-vis de l'Irak.
Mireille Mathieu, La Dame d'Avignon, chante La Marseillaise, TomasD'asshole [MP3]
Before a shot had been fired, Colin Powell lost his battle
Que veut cette horde d'esclaves
De traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés?
Français, pour nous, ah! quel outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter?
Liberte, liberte cherie...Combats avec tes défenseurs!
The view from down under...
Bush Imperils World Peace & Democracy 
A War Record Littered with Lies
It is difficult to know whether this was partly wishful thinking or unadulterated spin
I dunno the Brit official but I know TDaschole....
George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world.
"Don't worry. We've got a plan. We purposefully let the Iraq issue stay in no-man's-land for a while. But we know what we're doing, That's what senior people at the White House tell me....I sure hope so," the Reverend Lou Sheldon, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition
"One year later, and people still think we were attacked because Osama was jealous of our cellphones. To me, this is like the dickhead popular kid in high school who thought everybody hated him because he's sexy and has a nice car. No Bif, we hate you because you beat us up and stole our lunch money in Junior High."
(Kyria Abrahams)
They love our technology, and have used it extensively. They have the weird idea that they can marry modern technology with benighted, dark-ages theocracy.
And no Americans beat up any Arabs and stole their lunch money, that I know of.
I think it is probably hopeless.
Jexster's mental problem, some sort of uncontrolled or inadequately medicated mania, will probably destroy this site. Who the hell wishes to wade through all these gobs of crap he throws up?
A shame.
Here's a novel idea, jex: You post an idea or two, then wait for someone to reply. I know what you're thinking - No one ever replies to my Mote missives - they just make fun of me. So I make up for quality with quantity.
But that's just stinkin' thinkin', jex.
I'm sure everyone will agree, if instead of posting barely coherent faux headline after faux headline, complete with links and html screw-ups, if you took the time - the two fucking hours, for instance, that it took you to post the mess above - if you just used that time to condense all this junk down to one or two focused posts, not only would you find that more people would seriously debate you, but you'd probably gain a lot more respect for yourself.
Let's give it a try, ok?
Jexster's kinda guy. Where's that photo where Saddam was grabbing some scared shitless kid's head during the gulf war?
There must be some kind of pill you can take when you start feeling European - isn't there?
A couple generations down the road, it'll be 'feeling Islamic' in Sweden.
sakonige -
You'd be doing jexster a favor if you posted to him regularly.
It looks to me as if Western European leaders have understood that it is impossible to hold Bush back, and that they will push for a UN mandate in order to try to contain the damage as far as possible.
Germany is the sticking point : Schröder is clearly not going along for the ride. He's up for re-election in ten days. He was generally considered to be heading for defeat, but that may be turning around -- talk of war may well help him, as German opinion is strongly against an intervention in Iraq, even with a UN mandate.
Message from William Parcher: "Thanks to your work we have isolated the bomb to the East Coast"
Scott Ritter on "Today"
207. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:03:00 AM
Annan to Bush - Keep Your Steer Shit in Texus - No Unilateral Action Agains Iraq
208. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:09:50 AM
Boy Blunder's Adventurism Sets Off 3-way Struggle for Northern Iraqi Oil
209. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:24:01 AM
Ritter kicks butt!
Q: "I recently interviewed Iraqi ambassador....who said there were no scud missiles, no chem/bio etc, are you saying you believe him"
Ritter: "Hell no. I don't believe what any Eye-raqi tells me"
210. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:26:45 AM
Preacher Man Bush last night..."the light shines in darkness"
Lection Sancti Evangeli secundum Moron
211. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:29:54 AM
Lectio...
Lectio Sancti Evangeli secundum Joannes ..The Last Gospel
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. 9The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. 12But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
212. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:32:33 AM
We shall see AC...my bet is that Chirac is "drawing the line in the sand" not for Saddam but for Blair
213. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:35:52 AM
Jexster's mental problem, some sort of uncontrolled or inadequately medicated mania, will probably destroy this site. Who the hell wishes to wade through all these gobs of crap he throws up?
We have narrowed the location of the bomb to the east coast, thanks to your work Ronski....
I've gotten used to ignoring them and I think, as a result, they've kind of given up on me. I think that's what it's like with all our dreams and our nightmares, Ronski, we've got to keep feeding them for them to stay alive
214. jexster - 9/12/2002 10:42:52 AM
AC - Further to the line in the sand point, Chirac, was asked about Cheney's unilateralist war mongering, and his answer "I don't care about M. Cheney...."
The point being, the point I have been making since spring 2000, the pwahnt made in Time magazine last week, and the point made in the concrete in the DailyT piece linked above is that "the Powell-blair line" is dead and that to think otherwise is wishful thinking...I think Jacques Chirac is far and away one of the shrewdest statesmen around, I think Jacques Chirac wasn't speaking to Bush, but to Blair.
215. joezan - 9/12/2002 11:00:13 AM
Have fun, jex.
In a few hours I am going to delete it all.
216. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:20:11 AM
You can do what you fuckin want you corn pone crackpot....
Like I rat's turd about what you do, what you think
217. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:23:10 AM
Shape of things to come...
SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Despite the ouster of the Taliban from power last November, the hard struggle to bring stability to Afghanistan continues, as shown by the car bombing in Kabul last week that killed 30 people and the assassination attempt against President Hamid Karzai in Kandahar the same day.
In recent weeks, the Bush administration has publicly warned that reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan are lagging because not enough money is being delivered for that effort. The administration has called on European nations to provide more funds to help Afghanistan recover from war.
At the same time, aid organizations and European officials have indicated that reconstruction is lagging because there's not enough security, and they have urged the United States to do more to provide it. The attacks in Kabul and Kandahar are evidence that Afghan reconstruction is faltering for lack of both security and money.
One Good Fuck Up Deserves A Bigger One: Afghanistan's Faltering Reconstruction
218. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:36:38 AM
Scott Ritter on CNN "Newsline" tonight 10pm eastern
219. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:59:22 AM
Yo Zan...here's a prime candidate for deletion..you crypto fascist fundie fuck...
Associated Press -
Entreaties from around the world to allow weapons inspectors to return clash with Iraq's concerns about how much scrutiny it should have to bear and when it will be released from crippling U.N. sanctions, Iraqi officials made clear in a series of interviews and statements this week.
Kemal Muhammad, director of the National Monitoring Commission that dealt with U.N. inspectors during the seven years they worked in Iraq before withdrawing in 1998, said Tuesday Iraq has fulfilled its responsibilities and wants to see action from the U.N. Security Council.
"We want to discuss the whole monitoring process, we want to talk about when the sanctions will be lifted," Muhammad said.
In Jordan Tuesday, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told reporters: "People are too preoccupied condemning the (looming) aggression and they have forgotten the issue of lifting the sanctions."
At the United Nations on Tuesday, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said there is no evidence from aerial photos or other sources that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or is trying to build them.
But Blix urged Iraq to allow U.N. inspectors to return to address questions that remain open and reiterated that if Baghdad cooperates fully with inspections he could recommend that the Security Council suspend sanctions within a year.
Blix said he was ready to negotiate on practical arrangements for resuming inspections to avoid conflicts that arose in the past.
220. Edmund Dantes - 9/12/2002 12:03:05 PM
Ummm...why exactly are the words of the Iraqi propagandists in bold? Is it some sort of startling announcement that they a) don't want to be inspected and b) want sanctions lifted?
221. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:21:37 PM
Only Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon and Kuwait's Sheikh Saad al-Abdulla al-Sab are supporting Bush in his war on Iraq. England is too far away to offer air bases, and the British public is overwhelmingly against the war. Sharon is now offering bases, but is so hated by the Arab world his involvement will fuel help to Iraq. Kuwait is offering its bases, but anti-Americanism is so rampant right now that there are regular protests in the streets. Worse yet, a new study shows that nearly 75% of the people - in the same country Bush Sr. "freed" from Saddam Hussein - view Osama Bin Laden as a "hero."
Delete Me
222. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2002 12:23:05 PM
I read the transcript in order to check a claim by a commentator on Swedish Radio that Bush has dropped the demand for a change of regime in Iraq. Yes, he has.
223. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:28:43 PM
He didn't mention it Pelle. That's not the same as "dropping it" which would be "crawfishing". On this side of the pond, we hear ulitmatum in the comments that Saddam has forfeited its right to exist...UN doesn't do what I say, I will act etc....its a charade b4 the crusade...
Poor Hans Blix
224. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:29:24 PM
From: Robert Wright
Subject: The Mindless Altruism of Unilateralism [delete me]
225. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:37:00 PM
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush said something[delete me] that, post-9/11, sounds prescient. He said the world's most powerful nation ran the risk of being seen as arrogant; he pledged that under his leadership America would become "a humble nation." Yet since he took office, America's reputation for arrogance—painstakingly built up over decades by countless American politicians, tourists, and crybaby tennis stars—has only grown. "Today," Michael Hirsh wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, "Washington's main message to the world seems to be, Take dictation."
226. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2002 12:44:14 PM
"UN doesn't do what I say ... etc" means in this context "if China and Russia don't do what I say".
Also check out marj's Message # 331 in thread 143 in the I&P thread for an interesting observation (and my comment in the following post).
227. jexster - 9/12/2002 12:57:29 PM
Last April, Colin Powell dragged the Boy Blunder into the Rose Garden where Our Leader demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli Troops from the West Bank....
If you want to know what Bush's REAL position is Pelle, don't listen to the Swedish chattering class, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder - don't read Thomas Friedman, listen to the Rev. Lou Shelton, the Traditional Values Coalition, Ariel Sharon & drop all for
Who's Next?
The Saddam skeptics should tell us: Which American city are they willing to bet that they're right?
by Richard Lessner
09/11/2002 12:00:00
The Weakly Standard pulls the strings...
Answer to the question: Crawford, Texus
228. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:04:13 PM
But let's face it: As much as many Bush advisers would like to skip an inspections ultimatum and just cut to the regime change, invading Iraq won't in any event be politically doable if Saddam Hussein unconditionally readmits U.N. inspectors. So, Bush might as well, all along, have cast his war plans as being on behalf of the U.N.-mandated weapons inspections, and thus on behalf of international law. Instead, by insisting on regime change regardless of the regime's future behavior, and casting the war as part of a new doctrine of pre-emptive invasion, Bush has cast America as an international outlaw.
This sort of public-relations blunder is not what you'd expect from a man who promised to give America a worldwide reputation for humility. It's what you'd expect from someone who hasn't truly grasped how the growing importance of world opinion has recast the logic of international cooperation
Its what you'd expect of a moron and a moron's cornucopia of corn pone crackpots....
Delete me.
229. Edmund Dantes - 9/12/2002 1:06:42 PM
Re the Kuwait poll:
The oil-rich state has a foreign population of some 1.4 million people and 870,300 Kuwaitis. The poll did not say how many respondents were Kuwaitis.
Nor, of course, do we know anything at all about the polling methods.
You can have "an opinion poll published in Kuwait's al-Rai al-Aam daily"; I'll take the support of the Kuwaiti government and the use of American military bases there.
230. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:13:27 PM
THOUSANDS of Germans clapped and chanted their approval in the northern port of Lübeck as Gerhard Schröder took his campaign against the Iraq war to the people
Schröder's anti-war stance puts him ahead of the pack [delete me]
This after reportedly trailing his CD opponent for months and screwing up badly in Deutschland's first ever TV debate.
231. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:14:35 PM
Guess Germans don't read the Weakly Standard or even know who Lovely Lou Shelton is
232. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2002 1:27:59 PM
jexster
In your eagerness to vilify Bush you have lost whatever capacity you once had for political analysis, just as you did in your eagerness to glorify Clinton during the Kosovo war.
I don't need you to tell me what to make of international political events including speeches by the US President. Please don't address me again until you have my express permission to do so.
233. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:39:45 PM
Daschle Still Has Questions on Bush's Iraq Plans
Thu Sep 12,12:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle on Thursday commended President Bush ( news - web sites) for making "a very strong presentation" to the United Nations ( news - web sites), but said a number of questions still must be answered before the U.S. Congress voted to back military action against Iraq.
9/11
Special Coverage
News, features,
photos and more.
Go there now.
The South Dakota Democrat said he was encouraged Bush was reaching out to the international community as he argued that Iraq was an outlaw nation that threatens the world.
"I think the president made a very strong presentation today," Daschle said.
He said he expected Congress before it adjourns will vote on a resolution backing use of force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites), but added that it was premature to set a timetable. Many lawmakers first want to see the reaction of the international community before authorizing use of U.S. military force, he said.
"I don't think anyone is committed to a course of action legislatively or militarily at this point," Daschle said.
Daschle said Congress needs to know how much backing Bush gets from the international community, the risks and costs of a military strike, how that action would affect the overall war on terrorism, and what plans there are for replacing Saddam.
234. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:40:16 PM
Pelle -
Don't go away mad.
235. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:43:29 PM
I was right about Kosovo...politically militarily morally
I am right about Bush...politically, militarily, morally.
So pay attention Pelle and you might learn something for a change
236. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:44:54 PM
Sorry for addressing you again...again
237. jexster - 9/12/2002 1:57:04 PM
And one of the things I am correct about Pelle and one of the many things you need to learn about international political relations concerns the implications of the willy-nilly Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive murder which I also have discussed at length and which is just cause for villification because it is not only immoral but downright dangerous. Its not Sweden that Bush imperils most...its my country....
"There is a possibility that India could take a lead from this theory of pre-emption"- Pervez Bushsharraf Pakistan Wants No Part in an Attack on Iraq
Is Pre-emption a Nuclear Schlieffen Plan?
238. jexster - 9/12/2002 2:03:02 PM
"What kind of friendship is it that does not permit disagreement over the existential question of war and peace?It cannot be that a friend demands something and we immediately have to do as we are told: that’s subordination and that’s not my thing, not my thing at all" G. Schroeder
Subordination is not MY thing either Pelle...oops there I go again.
239. jexster - 9/12/2002 2:39:44 PM
Last April, Colin Powell dragged the Boy Blunder into the Rose Garden where Our Leader demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli Troops from the West Bank....
If you want to know what Bush's REAL position is Pelle, don't listen to the Swedish chattering class, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder - don't read Thomas Friedman, listen to the Rev. Lou Shelton, the Traditional Values Coalition, Ariel Sharon & drop all f...
And as if on cue, Bibi on CNN right now pushing the ChickenHawk unilateralist line - REGIME CHANGE NOW
Watch the Moron jump.
240. joezan - 9/12/2002 2:41:28 PM
jasper:
betty has her own blog. How difficult can it be?
241. jexster - 9/12/2002 7:02:50 PM
There was nothing new in President Bush's speech today to the United Nations General Assembly. No new evidence that Iraq's nuclear program is close to producing a bomb; no new proof that Iraq is closely connected to terrorists who have attacked or might attack the United States; no new explanation of why, in the face of our ability to annihilate the Iraqi regime, that regime would use a nuclear weapon against us if it had one....By itself, Bush's case has never made sense. The pretext on which he initially justified war with Iraq—a link between the Iraqi regime and the Sept. 11 plot—has collapsed. Bush has followed that up with countless other insincere arguments. "Al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq," Bush charged today, ignoring the fact that according to his own aides, al-Qaida terrorists have scattered to many other Muslim countries in similar numbers. In Iraq, children are tortured "in the presence of their parents," Bush complained, as though the torture of children in other countries in the absence of their parents were less atrocious.
Bush's most compelling indictment of Iraq—the danger posed by its nuclear program—has never been substantiated.
If you think that an American invasion of Iraq is unwise and that the world would be better off with unfettered U.N. weapons inspections backed by the serious threat of force, you're probably right. But if you get what you want, thank Bush.
Appease This
Bush's useful war lust.
By William Saletan
242. jexster - 9/12/2002 7:03:00 PM
Those who are hung up, for what ever reason, on how much I say, or on how I say what I say, would do well to get the fuck over it and pay more attention to what I say.
And what I say is that today's speech was a charade; that Cheney-Rummy-Bibi-Lou Sheldon-Ariel Sharon have won the day, that all will follow the pattern that Bush followed when Bibi 'n Billy K cut Boy Blunder's right nutt off and fed it to Sharon; and that its going to be hell to pay for America and the world now that the same process is being repeated on the other testicle.
You many not like that I said it or how I said it but I said it and will happily give thanks to Bush's misguided war lust and acknowledge my misreading of the strength of PantyWaist Powell if Bush crawfishes his way out of the cul de sac his big mouth, bigger incompetence, and ChickenHawks got him into...
But don't hold your breath...
Joey...be sure and tune into CNN Nighline for Scott Ritter tonight....I'll need a full report as I am headed to class
243. sakonige - 9/12/2002 8:39:29 PM
Those who are hung up, for what ever reason, on how much I say, or on how I say what I say, would do well to get the fuck over it and pay more attention to what I say.
I don't know why you waste your talents here. You're too quick, too smart, and way too funny for this little gathering.
244. ronski - 9/12/2002 9:06:46 PM
Perfect. Jexster, who cheered the death of Serbs as long as a Democrat president was killing them, finds as his most ardent (only?) supporter the character who posted that no one will care about the death of thousands of middle-class Americans in the 9/11 attacks.
245. ronski - 9/12/2002 9:11:19 PM
And jexster continues to display illusions of grandeur. (I mean, there are pills available for this sort of thing.)
No one objects to the volume of postings when they have something to say. Pincher, PE, and others sometimes post at length, but they are worth reading whether you agree with them or not.
246. ronski - 9/12/2002 9:31:02 PM
As for Message # 213, the East Coast may indeed be the spot. I don't actually live on the coast, exactly, and I don't work in Manhattan, the presumed target, but I do have plans to see Freda Payne and Darlene Love in the City Tuesday night, and would hate to have those plans wrecked. (And yes, the show is called "Love and Payne.")
The East Coast is the target, but only if there is only one bomb. San Francisco is an excellent choice for a second, transported across the Pacific.
But, of course, fears of a dirty bomb or small nuke actually being set off in America are a sheer fantasy.
247. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:25:40 PM
Yo Zan you corn pone crackpot you....out of your "Christian" charity help me out of my confusion
Bush Names Hussein Public Enemy No. 1
I thought that we were fightin the nasty fucks of 9-1-1.
I thought that OBL was PE #1...least that's what they told us.
Help us wacky lefties of the incoherent e-mail missives
Oh and did ya hear Mullah Omar...better get your family gas masks ready...he comin to get your silly ass
248. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:26:23 PM
Does Peter Son of Nothing still need lessons?
I am here
249. jexster - 9/12/2002 11:40:19 PM
Here's a novel idea, jex: You post an idea or two, then wait for someone to reply. I know what you're thinking - No one ever replies to my Mote missives - they just make fun of me. So I make up for quality with quantity.
Here's an idea Z .... try answering even 1 of my posts on its substance....
But you haven't the fuckin balls much less the brains have you now?
I am waiting...
Oh BTW how was Scott Ritter tonight?
There's a somethin you might sink your teeth into....
Yeah right...better stick to Saddam uses viagra
Oh yeah who ordered UNSCOM out of Iraq?
Shove your suggestions up your fuckin ass freak fundie piece of crap
250. concerned - 9/13/2002 2:20:06 AM
It looks to me as if Western European leaders have understood that it is impossible to hold Bush back, and that they will push for a UN mandate in order to try to contain the damage as far as possible.
The 'damage' being no UN Mandate, I presume?
251. concerned - 9/13/2002 2:26:24 AM
I don't know why you waste your talents here. You're too quick, too smart, and way too funny for this little gathering.
How sweet. Make that quick, smart and prolific. Btw, approximately 35 out of the last 50 posts in this thread were by jexster. He's a man with a mission.
252. concerned - 9/13/2002 3:27:31 AM
Well, if the US is going to throw Saddam out, we should do it expeditiously (and preferably after the November elections, as I posted several months ago). Delivering Iraq from Saddam is certainly a good thing; however, there is the potential for a negative economic impact on the US which will increase if the conflict drags on, plus some potential for political fallout against the Bush administration exists. Finally, once Saddam is gone, I hope the US/UN has both a practical plan for bringing a representative government to Iraq and the commitment to carry it out.
253. concerned - 9/13/2002 3:38:25 AM
Re. 252 -
This post presumes the explicit use of overwhelming American military force, btw.
254. concerned - 9/13/2002 3:38:30 AM
Re. 252 -
This post presumes the explicit use of overwhelming American military force, btw.
255. concerned - 9/13/2002 3:38:56 AM
Oops. Itchy trigger finger:)
256. joezan - 9/13/2002 8:07:54 AM
Message # 242:
Those who are hung up, for what ever reason, on how much I say, or on how I say what I say, would do well to get the fuck over it and pay more attention to what I say.
You're just not getting it, jasper...
And what I say is that today's speech was a charade; that
Cheney-Rummy-Bibi-Lou Sheldon-Ariel Sharon have won the day, that all will follow the pattern that Bush followed when Bibi 'n Billy K cut Boy Blunder's right nutt off and fed it to Sharon; and that its going to be hell to pay for America and the world now that the same process is being repeated on the other testicle.
You many not like that I said it or how I said it but I said it and will happily give thanks to Bush's misguided war lust and acknowledge my misreading of the strength of PantyWaist Powell if Bush crawfishes his way out of the cul de sac his big mouth, bigger incompetence, and ChickenHawks got him into...
...See---it's when we do pay attention that whatever veil of sanity you possess is stripped...whatever logic you might be disguising ceases to be of any interest.
257. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 10:53:06 AM
258. Edmund Dantes - 9/13/2002 11:18:59 AM
Besides the bloody knife, maybe you could draw a moustache on him for good measure. A long, curly one that turns up at the end. And then a goatee and some horns.
Wizzo, you know a man with your Photoshop talent could probably get a nice job in the online porn industry creating fake celebrity nudes.
259. jexster - 9/13/2002 1:05:42 PM
September 13, 2002 260. Edmund Dantes - 9/13/2002 1:09:41 PM Why he is not susceptible to the same treatment that was used against Stalin, who was also evil and dangerous and cheated. 261. Edmund Dantes - 9/13/2002 1:10:06 PM
International: Bush Names Hussein Public Enemy No. 1
President Bush has formally changed the face of America's primary enemy from Osama bin Laden, whereabouts unknown, to Saddam Hussein, an old nemesis.
President Bush yesterday offered an eloquent, forceful and overdue call for the U.N. to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
Just one problem: He cited no evidence of any immediate threat, no reason that invading Iraq is any more urgent today than it was in, say, 2000, when Mr. Bush as a candidate huffed and puffed about Saddam but never shared with voters any plans for an invasion.
For months there have been hints about intelligence that the administration supposedly has gathered about an imminent Iraqi threat and about links to terrorism. So it was deflating to hear again that Saddam is a monster whose regime tortures children in front of parents. All true — as it was a decade ago....
Wag the Dog
"The fundamental question is left unanswered: Why initiating war against Saddam is better than the next option, which is deterring and containing him. You could agree that this is an evil guy — he is evil — who defied the U.N. resolutions — he did — and still ask why he is not susceptible to the same treatment that was used against Stalin, who was also evil and dangerous and cheated." Graham T. Allison, author The Essence of Decision
Containing Stalin was not without cost (in human lives and misery, as well as treasure), nor was it easy. Moreover, we were already in the situation of having fewer options.
Next question.
262. Edmund Dantes - 9/13/2002 1:12:32 PM
Maybe you like for your posts to look like a clown wrote them, Jasper, but kindly contain the seltzer water and pancake makeup within the confines of your own ejaculations.
263. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 3:04:42 PM
The dick-minded Dickhead has spoken!
What's the matter, Miz has your limp brain got ya down--or is it other flaccid parts?
264. Al D - 9/13/2002 3:42:08 PM
Now the writer of the above claims to be an adult, but can any consider that a message from an intelligent, rational adult.
265. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 4:36:01 PM
From a lurker:
Minute of Silence Followed By Several Minutes of Loud Braying About War
09/11/2002 New York, New York -- President George Bush observed a moment of silence today, in honor of victims of the September 11th terrorist attack.
He then followed the silence with several minutes of braying concerning vengeance, the war on terror, war with the non-democratic dictator of Iraq, friendship with the non-democratic dictator of Saudi Arabia, and how meter readers looking into your living room in search of terrorist cells is what American freedom is all about. He called for halting the Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction, threatening to use American weapons of mass destruction as a last - make that first resort.
Bush wrapped up his braying by wrapping himself in a flag, defecating in his hands, tossing the feces at effigies of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, thumping his chest, brachiating across the stage scaffolding, performing social grooming on Donald Rumsfeld and attempting to mount his lovely, somber wife Laura. His advances were rebuffed and he sulked off in search of a banana.
(c) The Rev. Shayne Dark, correspondent, FSCCBN (Fat Seal Clubbing Canadian Bastard Network)
266. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 4:38:36 PM
Al FYI: To brachiate is walk like a monkey.
267. joezan - 9/13/2002 8:29:49 PM
FSCCBN (Fat Seal Clubbing Canadian Bastard Network)
Sign me up!
268. joezan - 9/13/2002 8:41:57 PM
Anyway, despite jasper's many impassioned pleas for sanity - for a halt to the wardrum-beating - for sainthood for Scott Ritter - for the de-nutting of our President, here and in hundreds of barely more coherent email missives to thousands of elected officials...despite, even, wearing the same genuine WizardOfWhimsy teeshirt for a week straight ---- despite this herculean effort, it looks like it is now All Aboard the Baghdad Express.
GW has played the UN and Saddam like fiddles. Congress may now stall and wring their hands all they want - it's a done deal.
269. joezan - 9/13/2002 8:53:27 PM
I mean, with two cards showing, he just called the UN, raised them a few billion, and then got them to force the bluffing Iraqis into showing their meager hand.
Brilliant.
270. joezan - 9/13/2002 9:05:13 PM
But what I really want to know is, what is this country coming to when three guys can't joke around, in public yet, on 9-11, about being involved in a terrorist plot to blow up more American stuff, just because they happen to be of Arab descent?
I am just SOOOO worried about the erosion of my personal liberties.
Really.
I am.
271. joezan - 9/13/2002 9:06:26 PM
272. sakonige - 9/13/2002 9:57:04 PM
#270
No. The question is, where is your country going to when people wearing Muslim clothing are convicted of being terrorists on a waitresses word when they happen stop in a coffee shop on the way to school? Do you stupid assholes really want all Muslims to hate you as much as you hate them? You'll probably get what you are asking for.
273. jexster - 9/13/2002 9:57:42 PM
The papers in this collection grew out of discussions held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from late April to late July of this year. The discussions included top regional and military experts, former inspectors with dozens of man-years' experience in Iraq, and individuals with intimate knowledge of the diplomatic situation at the United Nations.
New Approach: Coercive Inspections
By Jessica T. Mathews, Pres. Carnegie Inst
Hardly a "new approach" as I suggested same 12/98 and again a few days back....
But Carnegie did send me to the Air Force Academy in 1972 for an Intl Politics Seminar for bright boys...
Fuck you pelle
274. joezan - 9/13/2002 10:05:29 PM
Uh - they were let go, Syko.
The entire thing was a perfectly reasonable response to their little "joke". Now, they ought to receive a bill from the State of Florida for all the trouble they caused.
275. Al D - 9/13/2002 10:12:52 PM
sakonige
If they were southern rednecks talking about going on over to the Indian village to off a few red skins, would you alert the police?
You are off the mark when you talk of them being convicted of being terrorists on a waitresses(sic) word when they happen stop in a coffee shop on the way to school?
276. joezan - 9/13/2002 10:17:03 PM
This map of the Mideast (thanks to JJ, whose link in I&P I copied) will most likely be coming in handy pretty soon.
Just click on the name of the country you'd like to examine more closely from the wider, regional map.
The link is also at the top of this page.
277. jexster - 9/13/2002 10:42:20 PM
"As Bush demanded action from the United Nations against Iraq, a US emissary was lobbying for support in Russia, the one member of the UN Security Council that might block approval for the use of force. John Bolton, the Undersecretary of State, was officially in Moscow to discuss non-proliferation, but officials said privately that Iraq was at the top of his agenda. A Russian veto would force the United States and Britain to reconsider their plans to oust President Saddam Hussein or to wage a lone military campaign against Iraq...Economic factors [BRIBES] will be a key argument, with a promise that Russia will be offered big contracts in the rebuilding of a postwar Iraq at the top of the list of incentives. The Soviet Union was largely responsible for the development of Iraq's military and industrial infrastructure and Russian firms would be well placed to help to modernise it once Saddam has gone."
Times of London
Ditto
The Los Angeles Times - Bush Backing on Iraq? Let's Make a Deal
Allies: Behind-the-scenes talks get underway to see which inducements might sway nations
278. joezan - 9/13/2002 11:36:56 PM
Like we couldn't see that coming from a mile away when the Bush Admin expressed "shock - SHOCK, I tell you!, at Putin's plans to go rebel hunting in Chechnya.
"Ok, Pooty-poot - this is really gonna cost us, but alright - you can kill all the Islamists you want in Chechnya, and we'll even make sure you get the $6b the Iraqis owe you, but you gotta promise to mind your own beeswax when we go into Iraq. We got a deal?"
279. joezan - 9/13/2002 11:39:26 PM
All aboard the Baghdad Express - first stop, Moscow.
Next stop, Jordan.
280. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2002 11:43:30 PM
281. joezan - 9/14/2002 8:46:30 AM
Duh...
282. joezan - 9/14/2002 9:48:28 AM
Howard Fineman gets it:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 Alexey Lavrov is a
shrewd operator. He couldn't have survived for
eight years as Russia?s ambassador to the United
Nations any other way. And something he told
me the other day in New York gave me further
evidence that behind George W. Bush's rootin'
tootin' go-it-alone bluster there has long been a
plan to collect allies for war with Iraq...
...I was in New York the other day for a luncheon in
honor of the victims and heroes of Sept. 11. Lavrov was a
guest, and I asked him what he thought Bush was up to at
the United Nations. He was surprisingly upbeat. He said he
thought the president and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
had agreed at Camp David late last Saturday to seek some
sort of U.N. ultimatum-style resolution giving Saddam one
last clear chance to avoid obliteration. The resolution would
be handled in the Security Council, Lavrov said, led by
Britain and France...
283. joezan - 9/14/2002 9:51:44 AM
...Lavrov didn?t like the idea, popular in Washington, of
insisting on what officials refer to as "coercive inspectors."
"Too dangerous for everyone involved," Lavrov said, and,
in any case, the Iraqis wouldn't go for them (which may be
just what Bush wants.) The Russians, who want oil -and
money the Iraqis owe them - might well be willing to
accept the one last-chance idea; Americans would want
tough language limiting the deadline of the ultimatum and
insisting that the wording contain language authorizing the
United States to take enforcement action if Saddam says
"no." The point is that this canny Russian made it sound as if
backroom talks were already under way, or soon would be
- and he was speaking before Bush's U.N. speech.
284. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:08:22 AM
MOSCOW, Sept. 13 -- Russia refused to budge today in its opposition to an attack against Iraq, arguing that President Bush has yet to exhaust all options for a political solution even as it insisted on the right to attack a neighbor accused of sheltering terrorists.
Russia Still Opposed to Iraq Attack
PootyPoot Wants Free Hand in to Deal with Georgia
The tiblisi one Zan not Atlanta.
285. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:09:27 AM
Joke at the UN...unilateralism - Bush goes it alone
multilateralism Bush goes to the UN and goes it alone
286. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:11:37 AM
Bush's radio address refers to Iraq as "growing danger" not imminent, not grave...
In no Colin Powell quotes over the last day or so have I seen an reference to threat to regional security.
287. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:14:07 AM
So if I wanted to sell some war to Arabs, I would offer it as precedent for future action against that other Middle E state that violates UN resolutions.
The one that actually HAS WMD.
288. joezan - 9/14/2002 10:18:32 AM
Oh? Then maybe Mr. Powell needs to read Ha'aretz:
Iraq has stepped up its attempts to move weapons and financial aid to the Palestinian Authority areas, in an effort to resume terror attacks against Israel. Baghdad's plan is to refocus international attention on the Israeli-Arab conflict and hope for a second front in case of a U.S. attack against Baghdad.
The defense establishment has spotted new signs of attempted Iraqi weapons smuggling to the West Bank and Gaza, including from Jordan. The Iraqi-backed Arab Liberation Front yesterday held a rally in Gaza where financial grants from Saddam Hussein were handed out to 32 families of Palestinian dead. The rally included an appearance by Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who called for "unity in the ranks of the resistance," and drew a connection between Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation and the U.S. threats to strike at Iraq.
289. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:19:11 AM
To his admirers, Scott Ritter -- who turned up in Baghdad last week to blast the Bush administration's war plans before Iraq's parliament -- is something of a modern-day Daniel Ellsberg, who serves his country patriotically by protesting a government policy he considers misguided and immoral. {YES!!!]
To his detractors, Ritter is a shill for Saddam Hussein -- a deeper-voiced Tokyo Rose. Ritter "is a paid spokesman now for Iraq. The traitor bastard should be shot," one critic of the former U.N. weapons inspector fumed on the online forum Paratrooper.com.
SF Chron 9/14
290. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:22:23 AM
I wanna be an airborne ranger
Live on blood and guts and danger
I wanna go to Vietam
I wanna kill some Viet Cong
291. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:25:11 AM
Q: Won't Iraqis dance on the streets of Baghdad if the U.S. topples Saddam?
A: He's more popular than any time since the Gulf War. Saddam has cynically manipulated the economic sanctions against the Iraqi people for his own political gain, transferring blame away from himself to the United States .. .
The Iraqis, who have suffered egregiously, don't like Saddam, but they have rallied around him and his regime because they hate us more. We may be able to generate support for an invasion among some of the Shiites and some of the Kurds, but to get to Baghdad you must penetrate the "Sunni Triangle." Sunnis will not rise up against Saddam -- ever. They will fight tooth and nail.
292. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:25:23 AM
Q: Is there a chemical or biological agent that Iraqis had, or may have, that keeps you up at night?
A: The most dangerous thing Iraq could have ever had was a nuclear weapon. The nuclear weapon Iraq was trying to build was not deliverable by bomb or ballistic missile. It was a large, bulky device that they hoped to bury and set off to let the world know they had a nuclear weapon. They never achieved that.
As for biological weapons, Iraq never perfected the means to aerosolize anthrax. They never perfected the means to turn it into a dry powder. What they produced was crude. The only way an Iraqi biological agent would kill you is if it landed on your head.
With chemical weapons they don't have the ability to produce precise, mist sprays to deliver a deadly agent over a wide area. Am I sleeping well? You're darned right I am.
Q: During your trip to Iraq did you see things that horrified you?
A: Yeah, but it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. It was how Saddam Hussein brutally represses his people. The most horrific thing I saw was the children's prison in downtown Baghdad. Probably 200 kids from toddlers to 12 year olds. The stench was unreal -- urine, feces, vomit, sweat. The kids were howling and dying of thirst. We threw water in there, but the Iraqis probably took the water out afterward. They were the kids of political prisoners.
293. joezan - 9/14/2002 10:31:26 AM
Well, see - now I'm convinced: Saddam must be left in power.
294. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:54:04 AM
Don't worry JoeZ..he will.
Candor is so little prized in Washington that you want to shake the hand of anyone who dares commit it. So cheers to Andrew Card, the president's chief of staff, for telling The Times's Elisabeth Bumiller the real reason that his boss withheld his full-frontal move on Saddam Hussein until September: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Mr. Card has taken some heat for talking about a war in which many may die as if it were the rollout of a new S.U.V. But he wasn't lying, and history has already proved him right. This campaign has been so well timed and executed that the new product already owns the market. The unofficial motto of the 9/11 anniversary may have been "Never forget," but by 9/12, if not before, the war on Al Qaeda was already fading from memory as the world was invited to test-drive the war on Iraq.
Never Forget What?
295. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:54:43 AM
Ronski -
Mr. Parcher needs to see you.
296. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:57:00 AM
`Saddam is evil' is not enough. A number of people are evil, and some are even our friends. `Saddam has weapons of mass destruction' is not enough. A number of countries do. What the people need now is hard data that demonstrate conclusively that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction which he is readying to use on the people of the U.S. or the people of the West." Peggy Noonan of all people.
297. jexster - 9/14/2002 11:05:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Joker: How can you shoot women and children?
Door Gunner: Easy... you don't lead 'em so much.
[laughs]
Door Gunner: Ain't war hell?!
298. jexster - 9/14/2002 11:10:12 AM
What we have been getting instead is the one thing worse than no data — false data. For months, administration officials have been trying to implicate Iraq in 9/11 with the story of an alleged April 2001 meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta and a Saddam spy. But the C.I.A. can find no evidence of this, and the 21-page fact sheet the U.S. released with the president's speech mentions no Saddam-9/11 link at all.
As for nuclear arms, last weekend in his appearance with Tony Blair the president referred to a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report that said Iraq was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon, adding "I don't know what more evidence we need." Plenty more, as it happens, because an agency spokesman says no such report exists. This is why those who most want to believe Mr. Bush, from a conservative G.O.P. Senate leader like Don Nickles to our allies, keep saying (in Mr. Nickles's words), "You're not giving us enough."
It's this high-handedness that echoes the run-up to Vietnam.
299. jexster - 9/14/2002 11:11:24 AM
ARTICLE 5 - THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not kill.[54]
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment."
But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.[55]
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
300. jexster - 9/14/2002 1:48:18 PM
For those whose interest in the topic may range deeper than conjuring fancied slights to their fancied international political expert bona fides, for those whose interest may run deeper than just how many dune coons can I kill today, and indeed for the butterbar if our moderator would be so gracious.... 
Sixty page document prepared by the Carnegie Endowment downloadable in full (60 pp. pdf) or by articles
Contents
A New Approach: Coercive Inspections by Jessica T. Mathews
1. A Military Framework for Coercive Inspections by Charles G. Boyd
2. Intelligence Support for Weapons Inspectors in Iraq by Rolf Ekeus
3. Multilateral Support for a New Regime by Joseph Cirincione
4. Persuading Saddam without Destabilizing the Gulf by Patrick Clawson
5. Calculations of Iraq's Neighbors by Shibley Telhami
6. The Russian Elite and Iraq: An Unexpected Picture by Rose Gottemoeller
7. The UNSCOM Record by Stephen Black
8. The IAEA Iraq Action Team Record: Activities and Findings by Garry B. Dillon
9. New Inspections in Iraq: What Can Be Achieved? by Terence Taylor
10. Establishing Noncompliance Standards by David Albright
11. Tracking Iraqi Procurement by Fouad El-Khatib
12. The Legal Basis for UN Weapons Inspections by David Cortright
301. jexster - 9/14/2002 2:59:54 PM
There exists an intrinsic connection between the common good on the one hand and the structure and function of public authority on the other. The moral order, which needs public authority in order to promote the common good in human society, requires also that the authority be effective in attaining that end Pope John XXIII
Lies My President Told Me
It's mid-September during alleged wartime. Do you know where your government is?
302. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:32:56 PM
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. First, I'm honored to be able to meet with my colleagues from Central Africa. The Secretary of State and I look forward to a very frank and constructive dialogue about how to continue our common pursuit against terror, and how we will work together to promote prosperity. I look forward to constructive dialogue. So thank you all for coming.
Before we begin our discussion, let me answer a few questions. Are the interpreters working right now? They are? Yours isn't working, okay. Before we begin our dialogue, I'll take three questions from the American press corps, starting with Mr. Fournier, who writes for the Associated Press.
Q Thank you, sir. Knowing what you know about Saddam, what are the odds that he's going to meet all your demands and avoid confrontation?
THE PRESIDENT: I am highly doubtful that he'll meet our demands. I hope he does, but I'm highly doubtful. The reason I'm doubtful is he's had 11 years to meet the demands. For 11 long years he has basically told the United Nations and the world he doesn't care. And so, therefore, I am doubtful, but nevertheless, made the decision to move forward to work with the world community. And I hope the world community knows that we're extremely serious about what I said yesterday, and we expect quick resolution to the issue. And that's starting with quick action on a resolution.
Q Yes, sir, how soon are you expecting the resolution from the United Nations? In a week, month, days?
THE PRESIDENT: As soon as possible.
303. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:34:48 PM
US News
George W. Bush, in his September 12 speech, like Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his years as ambassador, did the United Nations the favor of taking it seriously. "We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk," Bush said. Today the "standards of human dignity shared by all" and the "system of security defended by all" are "challenged" by an "outlaw regime," "exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront." Bush then recounted how Iraq's aggression against Kuwait was condemned by the U.N. "To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's
dictator accepted a series of commitments." Then, in 13 fact-filled paragraphs, Bush described how Saddam Hussein had failed to keep those commitments. His words are reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt's recital of Japan's perfidy on Dec. 8, 1941– repetitive, even a bit boring. But the point is made. We are talking about evil people doing evil things.
304. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:36:58 PM
America must not hesitate
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes couldn't be higher. Someday, some way I guarantee you he will use his arsenal."
With the drumbeat of war against Iraq coming out of Washington these days, one might think that these were the words of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or General Tommy Franks. However, these words were not spoken by any member of the Bush administration; rather this quote is attributed to former President Bill Clinton. Clinton was giving a speech on Feb. 17, 1998, and made the case for military action against Iraq. Clinton's words came just weeks after the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, which was co-sponsored by Senator Tom Daschle and about a dozen other Democrats. The Senate resolution urged Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
305. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:41:30 PM
World Warns Iraq to Obey UN or Face the Music
Relieved that the United States was not launching war on Iraq immediately, world leaders have welcomed Bush's call for the United Nations to force Baghdad to comply with its will.
"We share fully the deep concerns over Iraq's defiance and over its weapons of mass destruction," Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller, whose country is current EU president, said after separate talks with Powell and Ivanov.
"We put great value on the decision of President Bush to address the problem of Iraq multilaterally," he said, adding that Iraq could no longer waste time on weapons inspections.
306. jexster - 9/14/2002 3:42:55 PM
The Carnegie Link will also refer you to a real video panel discussion held on Thursday to discuss the New Approach publication.
On the panel Ambassador Rolf Ekeus – Chairman, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute & Former Executive Chairman, UNSCOM
307. jexster - 9/14/2002 3:45:58 PM
Lotsa talk about multilateral approaches none about unilateral regime change esp from Per Stig who is Standin Tall B4 The Lofty Mast of Bullcrap
308. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 3:59:49 PM
Straw tells U.N. to stamp authority on Iraq
> Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has urged the United Nations to take decisive action against Iraq for defying its authority or risk being reduced to an impotent talking-shop....
> "Saddam Hussein has persistently mocked the authority of this United Nations," Straw declared. "So those of us who believe in an active international community cannot stand by and do nothing while Iraq continues to defy the U.N."
309. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 4:02:35 PM
The United States has reserved a total of 20 air corridors across the Atlantic Ocean in the past 24 hours, some of them with access to Portugal's Lajes airbase on the Azores islands where an US air force unit is stationed, the Portuguese weekly Expresso reported Saturday.
Quoting air controllers in the Azores, Expresso said that the United States normally only has four corridors.
"There can only be one reason for this step, the transport of large quantities of light materiel that can only be transported by plane, as well as military personnel, to the Gulf region," said the weekly citing military experts.
310. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 4:04:42 PM
Iraq has developed toxic gas strike aircraft
[E]ngineers working for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein have changed old Russian-made MiG-23 fighters into drones that can release deadly biological and chemical substances.
311. jexster - 9/14/2002 4:04:55 PM
As I am typing this the first Stop the War Demo - about 1000 marchers - is parading outside my apartment window...
See ya
312. jexster - 9/14/2002 4:37:29 PM
My first Anti-war march in 32 years
OK so it was only 5 blocks up Laguna to Jefferson Square but I am sporting a spiffy new button
WANTED TERROR MURDER
OSAMA BUSH LADEN
with an appropriately decorated Mullah Moron
and 3 nice bumperstickers
"Bush Lost"
"GWB Serial Killer"
And my special favorite
FUCK BUSH!!!
Major marches set for 9/28, 10/26
for more info... 
313. jexster - 9/14/2002 5:07:49 PM
AMB. EKEUS: (Off mike) – it’s only part of the speech but the president stated that from ’91 to ’95 nothing was accomplished on the BW field until the defection and you know the defection of officer Hussein Kamal, the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, who also happened to be at that when he defected being the director of all the weapons of mass destruction programs. However, whatever happened was that already in February UNSCOM presented its suspicions about the biological program. We had been working hard from the first day, didn’t find anything until we started a systematic assessment of all, what we call, capable facilities – every lab, hospital, university was visited and we also – fortunately the new scientific development in the field of gene development, we could start to also make new assessment of test materials picked up in various sites in Iraq. 314. jexster - 9/14/2002 5:08:25 PM Hussein Kamal had practically nothing to add because he didn’t know much about these things. It’s like with the CEO of General Motors. I don’t think he can explain much what is under the hood – (laughter) -- you know, of one of his fancy cars.
In April, therefore – in April ’95 I presented an official and public Security Council report to the Security Council, which is in the public domain, not in secret. It is there and there I outlined that Iraq had a massive biological weapons program. I pointed already to the big production facility at Hakam.
On the 10th of August Hussein Kamal defected to Jordan. I had the opportunity to debrief him very thoroughly, but it is very clear – it’s obvious that his defection was probably the opposite. What happened was that he was blamed for spilling or allowing the main secret of the biological weapons to be detected. The inspectors’ success – it was major success of science, of systematic assessment, of the material balance philosophy I outlined and very, very good development of science at that time, the development of new technologies in this field, which cracked the case.
Of course after that in autumn ’95, Iraq itself added to what had been detected. It added especially details about its research program, which was also dealing with viruses and so on, which were of course created the – certain new additional dimension. But I don’t believe that our biologists ever managed to find that. And to conclude that story anyhow, the facility was defined, the program was defined, the big al Hakam facility was destroyed on the leadership of Terry Taylor, who happens to sit down front. I’m very happy to see him. He was in charge and he had, I could tell you, a very reckless approach to that. I don’t think even the toilets were allowed to stand up. Everything should be crushed thoroughly and there was nothing left.
So with that story, I’m sorry to counter the president on this case, but I don’t intend to go against his speech in general. That’s just on this point. I think it’s significant because it shows that biological inspection system, which many say is not possible -- showed it was possible. It was possible to detect.
Scott Ritter made the same point on CNN...but he's on Saddam's payroll.
315. Edmund Dantes - 9/14/2002 9:04:04 PM
One guy who missed Jasper's peace march
"The cave was completely erased from the ground and became nothing."
316. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:13:52 PM
As Shroeder Surges on Anti-Bush War Sentiment, Stoiber Plays the Dune Coon Card
317. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:14:50 PM
Message # 315 Babble.
318. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:27:42 PM
Can the Bush administration be for one minute aware of the solidarity and sympathy capital it has wasted?... People here are more afraid of George Bush than of Saddam Hussein. Jacques Chriac
319. jexster - 9/14/2002 10:37:38 PM
SCOTT RITTER:
Time's Person of the Week
"The unkindest challenge to Bush's plans to take out Saddam Hussein this week came from erstwhile true-blue American hero Scott Ritter. Familiar to Americans as the rock-jawed Marine intelligence officer who stood up to Saddam's bullies in 1998 while serving with the UN inspection team... Ritter was back on America's TV screens this week, but with a dramatically different message: Bush had no proof of any new weapons of mass destruction threat emanating from Iraq, Ritter says, and he was lying to the American people to get them to go to war. Once a favorite guest of hawkish Republicans who regularly invited him to testify at congressional committees about the dangers of turning a blind eye to Iraq's weapons programs, this week Ritter was instead addressing the Iraqi legislature, decrying his own country's claims - and warning that readmitting inspectors was the only way to avoid a war."
320. joezan - 9/14/2002 10:47:44 PM
Funny you should mention the peace march, jasper.
I'm in the middle of forming my own peace group. And if all goes well we will have our inaugural march sometime in early November, in Ann Arbor - just about the time all the other peace groups will be kicking into high gear.
Look for us - we are called Peace in Our Time, On Our Terms.
Catchy, doncha think?
BTW - that Iraq report is in the butterbar, per your request.
321. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:13:23 AM
I think the quote in Message # 292 is reason enough to go to war on Saddam and murder him.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a piece of shit.
322. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:23:56 AM
What was Qatar given in order to cooperate with the war? Joe? Anyone? I understand there's quite a lot of ordinance being poured into that country as we post.
323. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:30:05 AM
OK, who's badder?
1)
2) 
324. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:34:16 AM
If I were Bush's advisor I would tell him to say what I said in #321. To talk about those dying children.
325. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:40:32 AM
Jexster, I swear to God, if you can read that description - from a source you think is impeccable - and still not support this war, you are not a leftie, but a cunt. A total cunt. A jerk, a piece of shit.
Sorry to pollute your thread like this, Joe, but descriptions of sadism, especially towards children, make me real angry.
Just take your mask off, Jexster. I swear to God, if you don't come out and say that a war against a man who does that to children is an imperative, I'm not letting you post in my thread any more.
I think anyone who tries to exert influence - even in the form of posts to a small webs forum and letters to congressmen that nobody reads - to prevent or delay the liberation of those children is a criminal and I won't give you any space on which to perpetrate your crime.
326. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 1:54:46 AM
Michael Oren: "Where is the Outrage?
Admiral Yamamoto, commander of the Pearl Harbor attack, later lamented that Japan had "awakened a sleeping giant." His prophecy proved entirely accurate. Today, we look back on America's recovery from that catastrophe with overwhelming awe and pride. It will be interesting to see, then, how posterity judges the aftermath of September 11. Questions may well be raised about America's failure to respond to terror more vigorously, and its preference for mourning over vengeance.
Why, historians might ask, were young people so reluctant to enlist? Why would the president entertain the leaders of the country that supplied most of the perpetrators of - and the funding for - the murder of 3,000 Americans?
One conclusion, however, is already indisputable.
Had it responded to Pearl Harbor as it did to September 11, the US would not have won World War II, and conversely, only by displaying the same selflessness, unity, and determination they showed 60 years ago, can Americans now triumph over terror. History rarely repeats itself, but for freedom's sake, Americans must assure that it does.
327. robertjayb - 9/15/2002 2:26:00 PM
328. ElliottRW - 9/15/2002 6:46:36 PM
robertjayb,
Your cartoon, while delightful, is asking my browser for a cookie. Just thought you might like to know.
329. joezan - 9/15/2002 7:29:10 PM
Can you imagine being an Iraqi General right now? Especially one who was around for the Gulf War?
If I were Saddam, I'd be real worried.
330. Edmund Dantes - 9/15/2002 8:06:38 PM
331. jexster - 9/15/2002 8:47:33 PM
332. jexster - 9/15/2002 10:18:14 PM
Bush Briefings "a Joke", Nothing Not Already in Media [Wpost]
Iraq's WMD Arsenal: Deadly But Limited
Many well-meaning political figures have made the mistake that Senator James Inhofe made on Meet the Press on August 18: "Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction -- I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn't have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen."
In fact, U.S. intelligence agencies do not believe that Iraq has a nuclear weapon, or that the country is near developing either a nuclear weapon or a long-range missile.
Effective policy must be governed by facts, not fears. Step one is to disaggregate the now over-used catch phrase "weapons of mass destruction" that includes nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. All are not equal in threat. The possession or use of a chemical weapon that could kill dozens is not as dangerous as the possession or use of a nuclear weapon that could kill millions.
333. jexster - 9/15/2002 10:18:25 PM
Conclusion
There is no evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon or will soon have one, unless Saddam is able to get fissile material from some other nation. The greatest threat from a weapon of mass destruction would be from the delivery of a biological agent, probably by non-missile means, that is, by truck or ship or possibly small aircraft. However, it is unclear what such an attack would accomplish and why Saddam would attempt such an attack. If the attack were covert and the assailants unknown, there would be no glory or gain for Iraq; if Iraq were known as the source of the attack-or even suspected as the source-there would undoubtedly be an overwhelming and devastating counter-attack that would eliminate the Iraqi leadership. While there may be thousands of chemical-tipped rockets and bombs still in Iraq, these are primarily short-range weapons. If delivered, dozens or hundreds would die, but not significantly more than would die from conventional military assaults or terrorist attacks on critical infrastructures.
Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that would complicate any military actions, but it is not clear that these capabilities are rapidly increasing in the absence of UN inspections. The administration-and other nations-should disclose their detailed threat assessments as soon as possible to permit an informed public debate on the threats from Iraq and their urgency.
>
334. joezan - 9/15/2002 10:22:04 PM
We're past all that, jex.
Get yer head out of the sand - the gauntlet has been thrown down.
335. ronski - 9/16/2002 10:28:53 AM
Iraq "Will Have Nuclear Bomb in Months"
336. ronski - 9/16/2002 10:31:31 AM
337. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:20:22 PM
JERUSALEM, Sept. 15 — For Israel, which was struck by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles during the Persian Gulf war, the countdown to a possible new one poses two fundamental challenges — to prepare for a new Iraqi attack, and to decide whether to retaliate.
The possibility that Saddam Hussein will lash out at Israel with biological, chemical or radiological weapons has led to intensive preparations, under way for some time now, accompanied by daily reassurances from the government that the country is ready.
The newspaper Haaretz, citing Western intelligence analysts, reported today that Iraq had prepared a number of longer-range Soviet-made aircraft for one-way, suicide missions to drop "dirty bombs," weapons that scatter radioactive debris.
338. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:30:25 PM
No "we" aren't "past all that" Z...you on the other hand have never reached "that" so you cannot be past it...
For one thing, if you are correct, and I think you are, that Bush's speech to the UN was a charade, it affects both the morality of fighting the war, the Christian's duty to resist that war, and the military strategy for fighting it.
If, likewise, I am right that this is not nor has it ever a war about WMD, evidence that establishes the pretext for pig shit, also establishes the culpability of those who press the lie, and ignorance of those who believe it.
But if, on the other hand, my hunch is wrong, and the UN is in play, then too will be the Coercive Inspection Option (first appearance - the Fray/Slate in a post by yours truly) and the post is quite relevant.
More importantly, if the UN Coercive Inspection Option, urged by J Baker in yesterday's WPost, is in play as it will be if only to expose the charade, then of course, that article, which you read among the 60 page Carnegie Endowment document on the subject (being a conscientitious moderator), keys the rationale for such an approach.
339. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:43:24 PM
Message # 336OH BOY! Two Al Q ops with "a connection to Iraq"!!!
Stop the fuckin presses, load up the Borg Blog. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, in Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the US.
That's one helluva causus belli there.
Let's review the bidding re: pretexts for pig shit:
- 9-11 Rumsfeld orders Irak Attak planning to begin
- Nov.-Jan 01-02 - Powell instigates Operation Embarrass the Imbeciles - sends Woolsey on feckless chase for OBL links
- March-9/11/02 - Bush regime fails to present any credible case that Saddam poses a nuclear or CBW threat or indeed threat in any other form
- 9.12 to present - Bush regime changes rationale to "War to Enforce UN resolutions", itself a patent crock, for UN Resolution 687 is "self-enforcing" the Council having decided in 1991 that the remedy for non-compliance would be sanctions, and amended (re-adopted) same just a few months ago
340. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:52:46 PM
Message # 335 A more detailed report appeared in the Times of London but be that as it may, its rank speculation and suspect as well.
- Dr Hamza gave evidence on Iraq's nuke capability before Senator Joe Biden’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Iraq in Washington last August but never mentioned this new "threat".
- The Carnegie Endowment interviewed Dr. Hamza in connection with the section of its new book on proliferation
dealing with Irak:
341. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:53:30 PM
Nuclear Weapon Capability
Iraq ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1969, pledging not to manufacture nuclear weapons and agreeing to place all its nuclear materials and facilities under safeguards. Soon thereafter, Iraq began violating its NPT obligations by secretly pursuing a nuclear weapon program. The program was centered around the Osiraq research reactor purchased from France in 1976, which was capable of irradiating uranium to produce significant quantities of plutonium. Saddam Hussein planned to slowly extract enough plutonium for a bomb. Israel's preemptive strike on the reactor in June 1981 did not end Iraq's program, but expanded it.
Iraqi defector and former nuclear weapons director Khadir Hamza says, "Israel made a mistake." The bombing ended the plutonium effort but began a new program to produce highly-enriched uranium. "At the beginning we had approximately five hundred people working, which increased to seven thousand working after the Israeli bombing. The secret program became a much larger and ambitious program."1
The program was substantial, but plagued with problems. Still, Iraq may have been only a few years away from producing enough highly-enriched uranium for a bomb at the time of the Gulf War. After the war, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors supervised the destruction of most of the nuclear weapon program facilities and removed all weapon-usable nuclear material from Iraq. In 1998, the IAEA reaffirmed that there were no indications that Iraq had achieved its objective of producing nuclear weapons, nor were there indications that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had otherwise acquired such material.
342. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:53:41 PM
It also reported that there were no indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance and that the IAEA had removed all weapon-usable nuclear material (research reactor fuel) from Iraq.2
Still, Iraq may have secretly reconstructed some nuclear capabilities. Some experts believe Saddam may have a workable design for a weapon, but no official report claims that he yet has the material to put in it. CIA officials told the Senate in March 2002, that Iraq, unconstrained, would need several years to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon.3
343. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:57:52 PM
The CIA also knows Dr. Hamza...
Which raises the ultimate, credibility undermining fact - that despite all these efforts of the Bush regime to jin up excuses for all this war frenzy, the National Defense Estimate re: Iraq has not been updated since the final year of the Last President of the US's administration.
344. jexster - 9/16/2002 12:59:13 PM
And thanks JoeZ for putting the Carnegie link up there even though we are "past all that"...slick REAL Player video of the panel discussion of bush's speech also available at that site.
345. jexster - 9/16/2002 1:00:59 PM
All that in 1/2 an hour!
I am FUCKIN GOOD, right Pelle?
346. jexster - 9/16/2002 1:02:36 PM
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
347. jexster - 9/16/2002 1:44:03 PM
RE: Shifting Sands or Diplomatic Strategem?
Connect the dots:
348. jexster - 9/16/2002 3:33:43 PM
The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy
Way back when, in Doc Freedenberg's National Security Decision Making Grad Seminar, we read Alexander George and T. Schelling extensively. Somehow or other I saved my copy of Alexander George's seminal work "The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy" since updated in a post Cold War release circa mid 1990's.
I dug it out. Judge for yourselves the merits of the unilateralist "regime change" approach of the ChickenHawks.
In brief summary, the central task of coercive diplomacy is to “create in the opponent the expectation of costs of sufficient magnitude to erode his motivation to continue what he is doing.”. Clear communication and inducements are both critical in helping to convey that message.
349. jexster - 9/16/2002 3:34:14 PM
350. jexster - 9/16/2002 4:01:09 PM
"the urge tp take preventive action- to do something, anything- can lead to ill-considered policies that lack any strategic sense" Stedman, S (1995) "Alchemy for a New World Order" Foreign Policy
351. concerned - 9/16/2002 5:30:42 PM
337 - 350
all jexster, all the time.
352. jexster - 9/16/2002 6:21:26 PM
Yeah you right.
353. jexster - 9/16/2002 6:42:06 PM
Saddam goes mano a moron and KICKS ASS!
NO WAR ASSHOLES!
Iraq agrees to unconditional inspector return.
354. betty - 9/16/2002 6:48:21 PM
toys?
355. jexster - 9/16/2002 6:50:00 PM
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
356. betty - 9/16/2002 6:50:33 PM
357. joezan - 9/16/2002 7:04:21 PM
HAHAHAHAHA!
Man, only jexster could make Iraq's humiliation into some sort of right-wing loss.
Face it, dirtbag - Bush snookered these s.o.b.s, called Saddam's bluff...called Kofi's bluff...called Schroeder's bluff...called your bluff, and made you all look the fools you are.
358. joezan - 9/16/2002 7:08:10 PM
Annan credited Bush late Monday.
"I believe the president's speech galvanized the international community," Annan said.
359. Edmund Dantes - 9/16/2002 7:24:32 PM
NO WAR ASSHOLES!
Read your own posts sometime, Jasper. To wit:
"The central task of coercive diplomacy is to 'create in the opponent the expectation of costs of sufficient magnitude to erode his motivation to continue what he is doing.'"
I think we've just seen textbook coercive diplomacy. Of course Saddam is going to shake, bake, rattle, and roll when the rubber hits the road, but mark the first set down as firmly in the big Dubya's column.
360. joezan - 9/16/2002 7:46:44 PM
George W. Bush, Statesman.
Got a certain ring to it, don't it?
361. jexster - 9/16/2002 7:58:06 PM
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq agreed on Monday to allow the unconditional return of U.N. arms inspectors amid an intense lobbying campaign by Washington which was backed up by the threat of U.S.-led military action.
Reuters Photo
Reuters
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
Bush Continues Urging U.N. on Iraq
(AP Video)
Security Council To Pressure Iraq
(Reuters)
Expanded Business Section!
Check new areas for:
Economy, Earnings, Markets and more...
Business News
"I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying their decision to allow the return of the inspectors without conditions," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ( news - web sites) told reporters after receiving a letter from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri.
"We reached satisfactory results and there is good news," Sabri told reporters after handing the letter over. "The secretary-general ... will announce the good news to you."
362. jexster - 9/16/2002 8:00:07 PM
Thank James Baker, Chuck Hagel, Anthony Zinni, PantyWaist Powell, and above all Jacques Chrirac, Hosni Mubarak, and Tony Blair...
But wait....we haven't heard from the REAL power - the Likud, Liberty Univ and the Weakly Standard...
hold on...
363. jexster - 9/16/2002 8:02:11 PM
The Moron King's at a loss for words (and a pretext for the pigshit)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House reacted skeptically on Monday to an Iraqi offer to allow the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors and said it would maintain its efforts to seek Iraqi disarmament through the U.N. Security Council.
Expanded Business Section!
Check new areas for:
Economy, Earnings, Markets and more...
Business News
"We've made it very clear that we are not in the business of negotiating with Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites)," said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. "We are working with the U.N. Security Council to determine the most effective way to reach our goal
364. jexster - 9/16/2002 8:02:54 PM
Scott Ritter - Man of the Year & Congressional Medal of Freedom!
365. jexster - 9/16/2002 8:03:59 PM
Saddam just gave GWB a fuckin wedgie!
366. jexster - 9/16/2002 10:09:09 PM
CNN BREAKING NEWS
"SADDAM CALLS BUSH BLUFF
Eat shit.
Don't send a Moron to do a Clinton job
367. Al D - 9/16/2002 11:06:52 PM
I am not one who has been beating the war drums, but nothing jexster has to say would sway me. Of course, I have given up reading any of his posts longer than 2 or 3 lines. I would like to read on the Mote some rational thoughts on both sides of the case. What are the options in dealing with Hussain? Would containment such as we used with USSR, ie., MAD work with Iraq? My fear with that would be that the threat Saddam poses is not direct but indirect. While OBL wanted to bring his forces to rescue Kuait does not insure that he and his henchmen would not accept Saddam's weapons and act as delivery men.
368. OhioSTOPAS - 9/17/2002 6:13:49 AM
Iraq's offer to permit UN inspections is good news. While it remains to be seen how meaningful the inspections will be, Bush's war talk is achieving positive results.
I hope that the statements of displeasure from the White House are only made to keep the pressure on, and not what the administration actually believes. ("The crafty bastard thinks he'll avoid an invasion by AGREEING TO OUR DEMANDS? We're not falling for that!")
369. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 7:34:25 AM
I hope Jasper's hysteria in reaction to Iraq's capitulation have removed any lingering doubts as to whether he's as mad as a tea party in a cuckoo's nest.
370. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 9:37:39 AM
Well, at least he isn't a witless hairsplitting bore. 
371. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:03:53 AM
> witless hairsplitting bore
Both you and he qualify on two of the three.
372. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:05:23 AM
Bush says its all a ploy....
speaking of ploys MORON
373. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:05:29 AM
And to say "at least he's not" is hair-splitting, so that checks off the third as well.
374. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:10:06 AM
the letter only deals with Weapons Inspectors we have to talk about those "other" resolutions
Pigshit, pretext
Well Spike if you wanna go murder Saddam you Israelites go do it...
You are good aT murder
375. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 10:10:19 AM
Go chase an ambulance, weasel!
376. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:12:46 AM
"we we're really serious about WMD inspections, we have our marching orders from RP's Likud boys"
Pigshit: "Where's my next pretext?"
377. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:20:31 AM
Pigshit!
Sooooey!!!
378. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:22:22 AM
You sure have a purty mouth, Wizzo.
379. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:40:19 AM
Gotta have our war...what would you call it EddieTheEcho?
How bout Bevo Pies
380. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:40:49 AM
and the right word is "potty" mouth
381. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:42:16 AM
And the best word for this?
I think the quote in Message # 292 is reason enough to go to war on Saddam and murder him.
Why how bout MURDER!
382. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:44:59 AM
A story in last week's Times may shed light on that question [of pigshit & pretext and wag the dogshit] It concerned another company that sold a division, then declared that its employees had "resigned," allowing it to confiscate their pensions. Yet this company did exactly the opposite when its former C.E.O. resigned, changing the terms of his contract so that he could claim full retirement benefits; the company took an $8.5 million charge against earnings to reflect the cost of its parting gift to this one individual. Only the little people get shafted.
The other company is named Halliburton. The object of its generosity was Dick Cheney. Krugman, NyT
383. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:50:52 AM
International Security:Changing Targets", Freedman (1998),Foreign Poliy, Spring, 1998 384. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:51:14 AM We're past all that, jex. 385. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:52:29 AM
"[Axis of Evil BevoShit] can also encourage practitioners to emphasize the unprincipled character of opponents. Selling the "threat" may involve demonizing local political forces and the ideologies they represent. This tactic may produce rationales that work well as morality plays but are less than helpful in preparing interventionist forces for complex and multifaceted situations"
They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. 3He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; 4for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. 5Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones. 6When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; 7and he shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.’ 8For he had said to him, ‘Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!’ 9Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ He replied, ‘My name is Legion; for we are many.’ 10He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12and the unclean spirits begged him, ‘Send us into the swine; let us enter them.’ 13So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.
Get yer head out of the sand - the gauntlet has been thrown down
Word UP
PIGSHIT
Now boys Our WarLord is in it deep thanks to the RATFUCK SAD - aM so let's go out there and put some lipstick on this pig
386. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:57:19 AM
"This is not a matter of inspections," the White House said in a statement.
387. jexster - 9/17/2002 11:03:17 AM
Now ask yourselves "what might the White Palace have said if they REALLY were serious about inspections but doubted Sad - am?"
How bout
"We welcome the overwhelming response of our Arab and Euro friends in helping to restore the integrity of the UN and bring an end to the WMD threat in EyeRak. Given his track record however, we must insist on coercive inspections as James Baker recommended"
And go on in private to detail coercive inspection program along the lines that the Carnegie Endowment suggests.
That's if they REALLY were concerned about WMD which, as I have said repeatedly, is not the case at all....
388. jexster - 9/17/2002 11:39:20 AM
389. jexster - 9/17/2002 1:43:03 PM
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - With Secretary of State Colin Powell ( news - web sites) at his side, Russia's foreign minister said on Tuesday that no new U.N. Security Council resolution was needed following Iraq's offer to allow in weapons inspectors.
390. jexster - 9/17/2002 1:45:41 PM
CNN: Congressional sources are telling CNN that the Bush administration KNEW before 9-1-1 a great deal more about the threat to the US than it told the American people....
Am I surprised?
Are YOU surprised Zster?
391. Al D - 9/17/2002 2:50:38 PM
Edmond
At least he is now posting cartoons with some content, not just silly pictures on the level of a 9 year old.
If Saddam stalls and the U.N. abets him in his stalling tactics, the end result might be a serious movement within the U.S. to label the U.N. an inefective debating society and threaten to withdraw.
392. joezan - 9/17/2002 2:52:56 PM
Geez, Al - PLEASE don't give Jex any more conspiracy theories to imagine.
393. PelleNilsson - 9/17/2002 3:32:44 PM
If Saddam stalls and the U.N. abets him in his stalling tactics, the end result might be a serious movement within the U.S. to label the U.N. an inefective debating society and threaten to withdraw.
I have little hope to be able to penetrate petrified minds, but it needs to be said. The UN as such has nothing to do with current events. It provides the office space, that's all.
394. concerned - 9/17/2002 3:33:57 PM
Turns out that Iraq's 'unconditional' arms inspection offer is anything but. The 'offer' applies only to 'military installations' which obviously leaves out Saddam's palaces and all other governmental and private (if there is really such a thing in Iraq) sites where WMDs can be stored, and probably will be, given the well known cowardly Islamic propensity to use their women and children as human shields.
Additionally, since the 'unconditional' offer is clearly a farce, on the face of it, Saddam will be left free to hamstring it further with all manner of further qualifications calculated only to make his dictatorship look good while stymieing any effective weapons inspections. In short, Saddam's 'offer' is little but a public relations ploy.
395. jexster - 9/17/2002 3:40:26 PM
Fuck that gimme a fucking break if you think its a "ploy" call his bluff fer chrissakes but don't give me that crap...
the shit is gettin REAL deep...
396. jexster - 9/17/2002 3:42:42 PM
You go peddle that crap to some half wit TD..not me...
How about some HONESTY from you cum stained dress crackpots...just say what you REALLY mean and not tell us about WMD's UN Resolutions, nuclear bombs under Ronski's bed, big threats from Irak...
what a manifest crock!
397. jexster - 9/17/2002 3:48:07 PM
Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan
(Filed: 28/04/2002)
THE leading Israeli historian Martin van Creveld predicts that a US attack on Iraq or a terrorist strike at home could trigger a massive mobilisation to clear the occupied territories of their two million Arabs
Sharon plans to annex half the West Bank, says coalition ally
By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem and David Wastell in Washington
TD - you are a corn pone crackpot if ever one there was...take that pathetic spin back to the boonies where you MIGHT find someone who will belive it!
398. jexster - 9/17/2002 3:50:20 PM
There isn't much nice I have to say about Freeper.com but at least, from my experience, they are honest on this point..some of 'em at any rate...
My most recent foray produced more than one defender of the War to Make Bush Believable who right up front admitted to naked aggression and imperialist murder..the only one around here to be honest is Rustler
399. concerned - 9/17/2002 3:51:02 PM
jexster -
Better have your meds adjusted. You neglected to indicate what the latter part of your post is in reference to.
400. concerned - 9/17/2002 3:53:20 PM
I meant what I posted, no more and no less. Saddam is showing that he is completely untrustworthy - his offer should never have included the term 'unconditional' since that is a total misrepresentation of what he is actually offering, and I pointed out why this is the case.
401. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:03:17 PM
You pointed out NOTHING....what you pointed out was how flimsy the pretext of last Thursday's big speech really was; what REAL agenda is and always has been, and incredibly stupid you are.
Usually your shit is at least good for a laugh..
You fell short of your low standard... 
402. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:05:28 PM
reprint from AP thread...TDaschole you have underdone yourself
Now ask yourselves "what might the White Palace have said if they REALLY were serious about inspections but doubted Sad - am?"
How bout
"We welcome the overwhelming response of our Arab and Euro friends in helping to restore the integrity of the UN and bring an end to the WMD threat in EyeRak. Given his track record however, we must insist on coercive inspections as James Baker recommended"
And go on in private to detail coercive inspection program along the lines that the Carnegie Endowment suggests.
That's if they REALLY were concerned about WMD which, as I have said repeatedly, is not the case at all....
403. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:06:30 PM
Dishonest little twit that's all you are now..used to be a dishonest little clown...
404. PelleNilsson - 9/17/2002 4:06:50 PM
This should be in Promoting the Mote but don't we have the most impressive freak show on the net? -- jex&con -- nightly performances --¨free of charge -- outrageous performances for your stunned amusement -- yes it's really true! -- but only in the Mote!
405. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:10:22 PM
Don't be surprised if there is at least 1 veto out of France, Russia, China
Hans Blix is on his way to Baghdad to discuss details of the UNCONDITIONAL OFFER..
406. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:11:12 PM
Air Patrols Shift Targets in Iraq, Clearing the Way for Any Attack
By ERIC SCHMITT
American and British warplanes patrolling Iraq's no-flight zones have over the last two months shifted tactics to bombing major air defense sites in those areas.
407. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:16:07 PM
FWIW -
I'd prefer to see Saddam taken down by indigenous agencies rather than having the US go do it. But it seems quite unlikely that this'll happen. Jexster seems to be totally unconcerned about the damage this dictator has wreaked on his own people and his neighbors in the past, not to mention his support of international terrorism and any future threat, including nuclear, he may pose.
408. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:17:35 PM
Pelle -
Then there's you, devotee of mean little swipes.
409. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:22:50 PM
I have had it with your bigoted bullshit TD, and now you are liar to boot:
Dear Secretary-General,
I have the honor to refer to the series of discussions held between Your Excellency and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States.
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations ( news - web sites) weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded, by this decision, to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, as well as those of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction. This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally importantly, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of sanctions imposed in Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687(1991). T this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.
410. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:22:55 PM
In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all Member States of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and article (II) of the Charter of the United Nations.
I would be grateful if you would bring this letter to the attention of the Security Council members.
Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General the assurances of my highest consideration.
Dr. Naji Sabri
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Iraq
411. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:23:52 PM
I think there is very little that Pelle could point to that I have posted regarding Iraq which any reasonable person could object to.
412. jexster - 9/17/2002 4:24:06 PM
TD is making up shit that even BUSH hasn't got the chutzpah to invent
413. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:26:48 PM
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations ( news - web sites) weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.
This letter merely says that weapons inspectors will be allowed to return to Iraq. It says nothing specific about whether they will be allowed to perform inspections, or where, of course.
414. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:31:44 PM
The letter says Iraq is only ready to 'discuss' the resumption of inspections. That's a long way from allowing the unconditional inspections that Iraq claims it is offering.
I can see that the right apple polisher would have no trouble at all shining little Jexie on.
415. ronski - 9/17/2002 4:34:18 PM
It must be pointed out here that Iraq has not agreed unconditionally to let inspectors back into the country.
They have agreed to talk about letting inspectors back in unconditionally, except that their letter also said they wanted to talk about lifting sanctions, which sounds a bit like a condition in and of itself.
But it may simply be impossible for any inspectors, under any conditions or lack thereof, to assure that there has been total (or near total) compliance with the UN orders to destroy WMD, since the Iraqis have had years to hide things.
It is one thing for a party acting in good faith to invite inspectors in to prove that they have obeyed such an order, and another for a lying psycho to do so, and so I have little doubt that there will be war.
As for Al's question about containing Iraq, vis a vis the Soviets, the policy with the latter was based on MAD. It does not make sense to the Bush Administration to wait until Iraq gets to even the tiniest fraction of the nuclear strength of the USSR. Especially since there remains the fear of nukes and other WMDs being smuggled out of Iraq and into the U.S., or stolen or lost and falling into al Qaeda's hands. (Pakistan and the former USSR present enough of a problem with nukes.)
No doubt there are other reasons to dump Saddam, and we all know what they are. Oil, which has guided U.S. and British foreign policy for a very long time, and another reason: the attractiveness of a West-friendly, democratic state in the middle of all those authoritarian, unfriendly or untrustworthy regimes.
But the best-laid plans do gang aft agley.
416. ronski - 9/17/2002 4:38:32 PM
Key words: "ready to discuss the practical arrangements."
417. concerned - 9/17/2002 4:39:01 PM
Access to oil is not a significant justification to dump Saddam. Iraq, at most, would produce 2-3% of the world's oil in a competitive market. Even SA produces only about 10%, as a comparison.
418. ronski - 9/17/2002 4:41:28 PM
concerned,
Think new pipelines, in the region. It is not just a question of Iraq, but Iraq's relationship with and proximity to other oil-producing states, especially to the north.
419. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 4:44:48 PM
It must be pointed out here that Iraq has not agreed unconditionally to let inspectors back into the country.
It provides a fig leaf, however, for those who never wanted any pressure on Iraq to begin with. There's not much difference in veracity between Iraq's promise it has no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's promise to allow unimpeded inspections. That is, those who accept the former at face value are the same rubes who will accept--or even gleefully latch onto--the latter.
420. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 4:45:57 PM
421. concerned - 9/17/2002 5:30:39 PM
Saddam can be likened to Lucy teeing a football to Jexster's Charlie Brown.
422. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 5:48:06 PM
From an observant poster in TT:
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
[From William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar]
423. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 5:48:37 PM
Toys
424. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 5:51:45 PM
The coach didn't issue Jasper the new playbook:
The debate in Congress over whether to support military action in Iraq won't be derailed by Saddam Hussein's decision to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to return, with a vote on an Iraq resolution coming "well before the election," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Tuesday.
Daschle and other congressional leaders planned to meet with President Bush at the White House Wednesday morning to discuss what the Iraq resolution should say.
"We've got to put pressure upon the Iraqis not only to open their borders, but to destroy their weapons," said Daschle, D-S.D.
AP
425. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 6:01:31 PM
Wizzo, I think you've been pantsed.
Patriotism, I suspect, is too new a word to have been used by Shakespeare. Loyalty to a monarch is seldom referred to as patriotism; you need a nation-state for that.
Moreover, the clangy cliches and mixed metaphors ("drums of war", "fever pitch", "double-edged sword") don't sound like Shakespeare to me.
426. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 6:02:45 PM
Perhaps your "observant" poster on TT provided Act, Scene, and Line numbers?
427. concerned - 9/17/2002 6:43:31 PM
428. jexster - 9/17/2002 6:51:15 PM
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraq's top arms experts agreed on Tuesday to meet in 10 days in Vienna on practical arrangements for the return of the inspectors, an Iraqi official announced.
Reuters Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
U.S. Decries Iraq Inspections Offer
(AP Video)
China Welcomes Iraqi Decision
(AP Video)
European MPs Seek Peaceful Solution To Iraq Crisis
(Reuters Video)
Expanded Business Section!
Check new areas for:
Economy, Earnings, Markets and more...
Business News
The two sides met briefly at U.N. headquarters in what Iraqi officials called "preliminary talks" to discuss logistic issues on offices, flights, escorts and other planning, according to Saeed Hasan, an Iraqi Foreign Ministry diplomat and his country's former U.N. ambassador.
The United States, which wants a "regime change" in Baghdad, has threatened military action and is pressing the 15-member U.N. Security Council to give arms inspectors new and stronger powers before they return to Baghdad.
No I love the TRUTH...and the truth is that when Bush said he did give a rat's ass about inspections he wanted a regime change he meant it..
"Beware being tricked by Iraq" is just another way of saying in answer to his question BUSH's demand last week, that IRAQ UNCONDITIONALLY accept UN Resolution 687, Bush is afraid of YES for an answer
So TD can spin all he wants to....he isn't fooling anyone and worse he isn't being honest - not honest with himself
not honest with YOU
429. jexster - 9/17/2002 6:53:30 PM
Bush cannot justify this war ...this war is illegitimate, this war is therefore murder and everyone who dies in it be they combatant, be they civilian, Iraqi or other..will have been each murdered by Bush
and TD and his ilk will have blood on their hands
430. jexster - 9/17/2002 6:58:08 PM
Richard Perle said it...."This is a war to make Bush believable"
Its not about AlQaeda
Its not about Ay-rabs
Its not about Islamist extremism
Its not about Iraqi threats to neighbor
Its not about Iraqi threats to the US homeland
Its not about the integrity of the UN
Its about George W.
Immanuel Wallerstein was right folks...dead fuckin right
431. jexster - 9/17/2002 6:59:58 PM
Why Bush will go to war on Iraq 432. jexster - 9/17/2002 7:00:15 PM
By Immanuel Wallerstein
April 19 2002
George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world.
A war against Iraq will destroy many lives immediately, both Iraqi and American.
Invading Iraq will lead to a degree of turmoil in the Arab-Islamic world hitherto unimagined. Other Arab leaders don't like Saddam Hussein one bit, but their populations won't stand for what they will inevitably feel is an unprovoked attack on an Arab state, leaving leaders with little choice but to be swept along in the turmoil or drown.
Defying UN resolutions or other international decrees has been commonplace for the past 50 years. The US refused to defer to a 1986 World Court decision condemning US actions in Nicaragua. And Bush has made amply clear he will not honour any treaty should he think it dangerous to US interests. Israel has, of course, been defying UN resolutions for more than 30 years, and is doing so again as I write. And the record of other UN members is not much better. So Saddam has been defying quite explicit UN resolutions. What's new?
US hawks believe that only the use of force - very significant force - will restore America's unquestioned hegemony in the world. It is no doubt true that the use of overwhelming force can establish hegemony, as happened with the US in 1945. But US hegemony is not what it once was.
Bush's incredibly high approval ratings reflect his being a "war president". The minute he becomes a peace-time president, he will be in grave trouble - all the more so because of failed wartime promises.
So, Bush has no choice. He will invade Iraq. He has made clear the Middle East crisis will not deter him from this. Quite the opposite. And we shall all live with the consequences.
433. jexster - 9/17/2002 7:00:42 PM
Wag the fuckin dog all ya want.
Stop pullin my dick.
434. jexster - 9/17/2002 7:11:52 PM
I have... chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which
ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth
living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace for all time... The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." John F. Kennedy
GWB is, even this very moment, giving lie to those words
Welcome to the peace of the grave, the security of the slave.....
FUCK YOU TD
435. joezan - 9/17/2002 7:20:14 PM
From the Evening Standard link above:
...But today it emerged that the offer only applied to military bases - which could let Saddam hide chemical and biological arms stockpiles elsewhere.
The disclosure that restrictions were, after all, attached to Saddam's offer was made by the London ambassador of the Arab League which brokered the deal in the first place.
Ali Muhsen Hamid claimed Iraq was being sincere, but he stipulated that civilian sites would not be available to the inspectors. "We support anywhere, any military site (for inspections), but not as some people have suggested for inspections against hospitals, against schools."
Hospitals are among key sites for inspections because of evidence that Saddam uses health laboratories to manufacture viruses for biological weapons.
Now, what is so hard to understand about any military site...but not as some people have suggested for inspections against hospitals, against schools.
Do you see any ambiguity here, jasper.
Does this read as "unconditional" to your fevered mind?
436. joezan - 9/17/2002 7:30:49 PM
..add question marks where appropriate, jasper.
437. joezan - 9/17/2002 7:32:17 PM
We want peace in our time too, jasper - just like JFK --- but we want it on our terms.
438. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:05:03 PM
Peace of the Grave, Security of the Slave, Morality of the Depraved
First he stole your franchise, now he's stealing your birthright...
Toronto Sun: Latest Bush Lie Exposed
Widening the non-war: Rumsfeld adds targets in 'no fly' enforcement [Boston Globe
'Bush now has to refuse to take yes for an answer'[Toronto Star]
m>MURDER for Profit
Looking for 2/3 of US to Support Him - Bloody Boy Blunder Fails (NyT)
BEFORE He was Appointed Resident, a Right-Wing Think Tank Gave Bush a Blueprint for Iraq 'Regime Change' and 'Global Pax Americana'; China also Spotlighted for 'Regime Change'
Bush Pistol Whips the UN over Iraq, While Taking Aim at Congress [Mary McGrory]
Karl Rove's Grand Strategery - mary McGrory
439. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:06:30 PM
Once "Concerned" used to be a bloody bigot and clown
Now he's just a fuckin bloody bigot.
440. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:07:02 PM
The least we should demand is a bloody bigot with brains
441. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:25:39 PM
From the Center for Defense and the National Interest, a website of Pentagon and CIA strategic planners...
September 14, 2002
Comment:: #458
Werther Report II - GWB & The War Scare 2002: Baking the Scary Soufflé Betty Crocker Style
III. The Men From JINSA And CSP
"Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger, a group that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel. Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power.
Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. .
442. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:27:30 PM
PLEASE don't give Jex any more conspiracy theories to imagine
Name ONE cracker.
443. jexster - 9/17/2002 9:28:44 PM
If this is a conspiracy, fuck it isn't much of one...since I have been correct from the fuckin beginning...
Now go get your gasmask on freak...meet Jaysus in the air..
Bloody fuck
444. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:06:53 PM
And WHO is Martin van Creveld that ole Jexie refered to in Message # 397...Jexie claims he is the leading authority on Israeli Military history...Jexie says he's an Israeli...I bet he's some "conspiracy theorist"
And you probably believe this a war about WMD or whatever the pretext du jour is...
YOu'd be wrong..you'd be like TD...
Wake the fuck up!
1 The Transformation of War -- by Martin L. Van Creveld, et al
2. The Sword and the Olive: A Critical History of the Israeli Defense Force -- by Martin Van Creveld
3. The Rise and Decline of the State
by Martin van Creveld
4.Technology and War: From 2000 B.C. to the Present
by Martin van Creveld,
5. Men, Women & War
by Martin Van Creveld, Martin L. Van Creveld (Hardcover - May 2002)
6 The Art of War: War and Military Thought (History of Warfare)
by Martin Van Creveld, John Keegan (Editor)
445. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:10:52 PM
Following a week-long fast by Catholic activists in Cleveland, the US Catholic Bishops declared their opposition to Bush's invasion of Iraq. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S. bishops' conference said the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" limits the just-war criterion of "just cause" to "cases in which the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations is lasting, grave and certain." He said the moral credibility of force depends on legitimate authority and, as such, "decisions of such gravity require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our own nation, and some form of international sanction, preferably by the U.N. Security Council." We congratulate the Bishops for taking a stand on the most important moral issue facing the nation this fall. Now where are all the "pro-life" Catholics like Henry Hyde and Rick Santorum?
US Catholic Bishops Oppose Bush's Invasion of Iraq
446. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:14:06 PM
Every death Zan...every Iraqi, ever US soldier, every Israeli....
is a murder
How many deaths make an ordinary murderer a mass murderer?
Now share with us if you will your views on aborting a six celled fetus
447. joezan - 9/17/2002 10:15:57 PM
Well, good jasper - then I will personally recommend to Krusty and Da Moron that Bishop Gregory not be required to fight in Iraq.
Prof. Osman, huh?
Sounds like an Ayrab - no wonder you're licking his butt.
448. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:18:09 PM
six celled fetus
No such thing, Jasper. First, they divide, so it would be four-celled or eight-celled--not six. Second, it's called an embryo at that stage, not a fetus.
Don't you have some homework to do?
You know how you get a brown nose?
From sniffing a poopstain!
449. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:23:20 PM
Boy Eddie, you got me there...
Fuckin mental giant you are?
Say you wouldn't happen to know the lunatic Ace of Waste would ya?
450. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:23:40 PM
It's not about the meds.
It's not about the viral load.
It's not about eating runny shit.
It's not about being a shut-in perpetual student.
It's not about posting nonstop more than everyone else on the Mote put together.
It's about Jasper's unrequited love for the Big Dubya.
Obsession...smell the madness.
451. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:23:53 PM
Make it for the Ace....
I'll make the Ace my dessert
452. jexster - 9/17/2002 10:24:55 PM
The Presiding Bishop's statement on military action against Iraq
Sheesh I thought we were rid of that tired bitch.
Welcome to hell asswipe
453. Edmund Dantes - 9/17/2002 10:31:58 PM
Jumping jehosophat but let me tell you I put the kwanza on some Freeper Da$$holes the other day who was trying to sell that Bushit and Halliburton Cheney pig.
Trouble is they didn't put any lipstick on it!
I have a link here somewhere that references a report my high school statistics teacher did about the lateral trade theory and how it relates to Sun Yat Sen, that old squinty-eyed fucker.
Der Juden will pay, Spike!
Hells bells you forgot tell that skull-fucking Ariel Sharon the word, didn't ya?
454. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/2002 11:29:11 PM
Is Miserable, drunk or just extra glum tonight? 
455. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:51:26 AM
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - As U.N. weapons inspectors moved ahead with plans to return to Iraq, the United States and Russia clashed on Tuesday over whether to take Baghdad at its word or impose a new ultimatum. "We have seen this game before," said a skeptical Colin Powell ( news - web sites).
The secretary of state reaffirmed Washington's call for a tough anti-Iraq resolution by the U.N. Security Council, despite Iraq's sudden about-face on inspections.
But Russia's foreign minister said he saw no immediate need for new U.N. demands if the inspectors are quickly dispatched. He was backed up by Arab leaders, Moscow's traditional allies. The "logic of war" may now be replaced by "the logic of peace," said one.
The 15-member Security Council majority decided, despite a U.S. request for more time, to quickly schedule a meeting, possibly Wednesday, with chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to discuss renewed inspections.
Hans Blix stands tall b4 the lofty mast....he ain't even a Dane - fuckin Swede but a damn good man.
456. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:04:30 AM
The events of 9/11 have an obvious and immediate connection to the origin of the pre-emption doctrine.
But why, if that is the case, do proponents of the doctrine show a bored indifference to the hunt for Al Qaeda operatives and focus obsessively on Iraq? Why, indeed, did the criminal actions of a few hundred shadowy terrorists become the impetus for a complete change in U.S. military doctrine - a change that has grand strategic as well as strategic implications?
I think there are two principal causes of this doctrinal change: one immediate and tactical, the other more fundamental.
The doctrine of pre-emption policy did not spring full-blown in President Bush's June speech; it was prefigured in the writings of several Beltway illuminati, such as Ken Adelman, whose last known government service was to preside over a security scandal at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. More than a month before the President's speech, Adelman wrote that "While 'self-determination' marked the nub of U.S. foreign policy in the 1920s and 1930s, 'unilateral surrender' in the 1940s, and 'containment' in the decades since, 'pre-emption' became our foreign policy guidepost after 9/11." [The Right Questions, Ken Adelman, 25 April 2002]
457. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:06:21 AM
Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy was even more emphatic in his endorsement of pre-emption: "You will in fact see acts of pre-emption. That not only deserves the support of the American people, but commends it," ["Can the U.S. be first to attack enemy?" The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 30 March 2002]. The same article states that former CIA Director R. James Woolsey has also called for pre-emptive action against Iraq.
Predictably, William Kristol and Robert Kagan of the Weekly Standard not only argue for a pre-emptive military attack on Iraq, but charge that administration officials (and particularly the military officers who serve the administration) have been too timid in carrying out such a policy ["Going Wobbly: Is the President Backing Away From Regime Change in Iraq? by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, The Weekly Standard, 3 June 2002].
Cui Bono?
What all these gentlemen have in common, apart from their unrelenting enthusiasm for placing someone else's son in the line of fire, is their passionate support of Israel. Indeed, since Ariel Sharon became prime minister; their writings have brimmed with strident and indignant apologias for Israel. Is it pure coincidence that they persistently advocate the full military might of the United States be unleashed against whichever country - Iraq preeminently, but also Iran and recently Syria and Libya - that Israel happens to dislike? "Let's you and him fight" seems to be the Leitmotiv of these Beltway Sun Tzu's.
DNI Net #453
458. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:17:49 AM
Werther II
Conclusion: A Predatory Elite
Frank Kofsky has performed a useful service by stripping away the accretion of myth that has veiled the opening stage of the cold war. But the pathologies he found in embryo have metastasized.
The crony capitalists who back the current war policy have economic interests wildly at odds with those of the average American citizen. Their operatives in the government no longer bluff about war and pull back from the brink but deliberately plot aggressive war and delight in the attention and power their leaks give them. They have become a reckless, predatory elite.
"Imperialism is a depraved choice of national life, imposed by self-seeking interests which appeal to the lusts of quantitative acquisition and of forceful domination surviving in a nation from early centuries of animal struggle for existence . . . It is the besetting sin of all successful States, and the penalty is unalterable in the order of nature." [11]
The author of that passage, J.A. Hobson, consistent with the views of Gibbon, Spengler, and Toynbee, believed imperialism automatically begets its own penalty, one that is "unalterable in the order of nature." Our elites, who worship something called "American exceptionalism," believe otherwise.
These predatory elites are now rolling dice in a game that risks other people's money and spills other people's blood.
* Werther is the pen name of a Northern Virginia-based defense analyst.
** Kofsky, F. Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948 (Palgrave Macmillan, February 1995).
459. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:28:37 AM
Occam's Razor
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
460. jexster - 9/18/2002 3:32:27 AM
461. jexster - 9/18/2002 11:15:37 AM
Although actually I shouldn't be so harsh, some people think Ace & I are if not one in the same, then evil twins separated a birth. 462. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 12:30:07 PM Hey Wizzo, what'd you find out about Caesar? 463. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 12:47:10 PM I, too, am sceptical about the alleged Shakespeare cite in Message # 422. 464. joezan - 9/18/2002 12:51:19 PM Wiz' sources are all to be viewed with skepticism. 465. ronski - 9/18/2002 1:00:10 PM The quote is not Shakespeare, and it probably isn't Caesar's either. Not even Sid Caesar's. 466. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:03:34 PM Eat your words, Jozey. To begin with, Wiz was quoting from a poster in TableTalk but sorry to inform you, the quote is indeed from Julius Ceasar and has been used by people as disparate as Theodore Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler. 467. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:04:31 PM Ronski, I guess Google and the several sites it cited are all incorrect, then? 468. TabouliJones - 9/18/2002 1:08:32 PM Here is the full text of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. I tried a "find" within my I.E. browser window on various key words in the quoted passage (patriotism, drums, etc.) and came up empty. So, I don't think that is a quote from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. 469. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:13:09 PM Put the first two sentences into Google with quote marks. It will give enough cites to satisfy any of you; you needn't take MY word for it, heaven forbid. 470. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:14:38 PM I suppose it is possible for Teddy Roosevelt and Adolph Hiter to give incorrect cites in their speeches and mumerous others, too, but judge for yourself. 471. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:16:25 PM There are several cites on the Web referring to it as Julius Caesar, some even saying via Shakespeare. But I've searched the text of the play, and it's not in there. 472. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:16:34 PM judith: 473. TabouliJones - 9/18/2002 1:19:21 PM I searched on the opening phrase in yahoo. The quotation in question is, indeed, quoted often, and generally said to be "attributed to Julius Caesar." It doesn't appear to be from Shakespeare's play, however. 474. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:25:51 PM Joezan, you are such a fool. Yes, I do know how to Google and I never said it was from Shakespeare and NEITHER DID THE QUOTE in Wiz's post. You and Edmund and Pelle and others jumped on the Shakespeare bandwagon. If you could read, you'd see I said "Julius Ceasar" and had I meant the play, I'd have said Julius Ceasar. 475. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:26:39 PM Thank you, Tabouli. 476. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:31:01 PM If you could read, you'd see I said "Julius Ceasar" and had I meant the play, I'd have said Julius Ceasar. 477. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:34:48 PM Joezan, don't make a bigger fool of yourself than usual. I know what I meant and what I read...nowhere did it say Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. 478. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:36:30 PM And you know damned good and well that had Pseudo or Ace or anyone more in line with your thinking had linked that quote, you wouldn't have one shred of skepticism over it. 479. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:37:16 PM 422. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/17/02 5:48:06 PM 480. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:38:10 PM NEITHER DID THE QUOTE in Wiz's post. 481. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:38:11 PM arf! 482. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:40:09 PM Fine. The other cites said only Julius Ceasar and so did I. 483. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:41:52 PM Oh yeah, I can admit I was wrong but I see it is more fun for you guys to act like I'm the biggest fool around here so have your fun, guys, You deserve each other. 484. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:42:17 PM Did you even go back to the original post Wiz made? I did... 485. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:43:23 PM What makes it so much fun is that you "geniuses" are always raising a shitstorm about the President's alleged gaffes. 486. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:44:55 PM Where did Caesar say it? Not secondary sources. Where did he say it? 487. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:45:53 PM I stand by the rest of my posts, however. 488. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:49:26 PM Joezan, you are the host of this thread and it seems to be your intention to have only those who agree with you on it. That is fine but it doesn't make for much discussion. Since you've set that standard, I hope you enjoy haivng a gang of parrots around because that's all you'll end up with. 489. joezan - 9/18/2002 1:51:41 PM ...an observant poster in TT: 490. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 1:53:23 PM it seems to be your intention to have only those who agree with you on it 491. judithathome - 9/18/2002 1:54:41 PM I don't give a fig what you do on this thread. 492. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:01:55 PM Understanding the Predatory Elite...don't take my word for it...take theirs. 493. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:02:36 PM Always nice to know that SOMEONE cares eh Eddie? 494. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:06:02 PM We care a lot 495. jexster - 9/18/2002 2:17:31 PM Bluff Called: 496. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 2:21:53 PM A final word on the now infamous quote. 497. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 2:22:26 PM Now if I could only post a pixelated jpeg of the graph... 498. ronski - 9/18/2002 2:26:05 PM I think it very, if uncharacteristically, fair of jexster to provide us with a source which includes a sublink to Democrats for Regime Change (who are not to be confused with the "Draft Hillary 2004 Committee"). 499. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 2:27:37 PM I'm surprised that the US did not anticipate Iraq's move (which was not at all surprising) and did not have a pre-packed strategy to deal with it. 500. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 2:32:38 PM What's your problem Edmund? 501. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 2:37:44 PM The U.S. strategy remains the same. We'll work within the UN as long as the UN does its job; if not, we'll take matters into our own hands. 502. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 2:38:53 PM (And if you could trust his word that he has no weapons, you wouldn't need inspectors.) 503. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 2:40:29 PM That's not how you post a graph, Jasper style. 504. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 3:18:33 PM Edmund 505. Cellar Door - 9/18/2002 3:27:40 PM Cellar's new bumpersticker suggestion: 506. ronski - 9/18/2002 3:31:25 PM What, I don't get any credit for that one? 507. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 3:52:02 PM Not sure what you mean, Pelle. UN in this context equals permanent members of the Security Council. 508. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:03:10 PM His Miserableness, the quintessential quibbler, strikes again! 509. judithathome - 9/18/2002 4:08:23 PM Pelle: Please read this quote which I have pasted from a list of different people who have used it: 510. judithathome - 9/18/2002 4:11:34 PM This is site: 511. judithathome - 9/18/2002 4:15:00 PM And to correct what I described as a page on which was listed people who have used the quote, that was incorrect. That page is the instance in which Hitler used it; I can provide the Roosevelt page if you insist. 512. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 4:15:35 PM Edmund 513. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 4:29:41 PM Hitler said the quote above it, genius. The page also has Hitler's first name misspelled, BTW. And note this little tidbit about the Kissinger "quotation": 514. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2002 4:30:15 PM My dear Judith 515. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:31:36 PM Here ya go joe . . . 516. judithathome - 9/18/2002 4:36:00 PM Okay, fine. I am so glad you people are always right. 517. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:38:19 PM 518. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 4:38:36 PM If the Russians want to clear out Chechen camps in Georgia, realistically the US isn't going to stop it in any event. 519. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:39:54 PM 520. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 4:40:42 PM 521. Cellar Door - 9/18/2002 4:47:35 PM We'll be fighting in the streets 522. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 4:57:14 PM Good to see Wizzo has gone back to cartoons. That way we know from the start we're not to take his posts as serious. 523. alistairconnor - 9/18/2002 5:01:40 PM Message # 497 524. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/18/2002 5:06:58 PM Sure thing, Councillor Whiplash--now read Alistair's numbers and go shit in your desk drawer. 525. jexster - 9/18/2002 5:49:48 PM Is Sybil causing problems again? 526. jexster - 9/18/2002 5:57:38 PM Amour sacré de la Patrie 527. jexster - 9/18/2002 6:07:08 PM Damn Sad-am GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE 528. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 6:20:58 PM claims Dantès. 529. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 6:22:22 PM Further, people will say they're against a bad alternative until they're actually faced with it. If asked, "Should we get UN approval," they think yeah, let's. But should the UN actually not approve many will say "Fuck the UN." 530. alistairconnor - 9/18/2002 6:27:52 PM Well, the question also says only if the United Nations supports that action, not if the UN is neutral or waffles around and doesn't do anything. And 46% agreed with that. 531. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 6:31:09 PM The only greater betrayal will be if it turns out, upon inspection, that Iraq is not still building weapons of mass destruction and has no nuclear capability after all. 532. alistairconnor - 9/18/2002 6:32:03 PM Message # 529 On the other hand, what you seem to be saying is that once the US has ground troops engaged, the majority in the US will support it. 533. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 6:35:05 PM It's ground troops and a hypothetical UN position. Let the UN actually oppose us (which they won't), and see what the poll results say. 534. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:06:40 PM Poll numbers look like shit without UN support.... 535. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:30:04 PM 536. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:33:28 PM PROJECT ON DEFENSE ALTERNATIVES 537. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:36:28 PM Joezan, you are the host of this thread and it seems to be your intention to have only those who agree with you on it. That is fine but it doesn't make for much discussion. Since you've set that standard, I hope you enjoy haivng a gang of parrots around because that's all you'll end up with 538. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:44:27 PM 539. jexster - 9/18/2002 7:46:23 PM But this ain't Jeopardy Jex, what's the question? 540. jexster - 9/18/2002 8:27:43 PM "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed [and] there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the UN's mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the US could conceivably still be an occupying power in bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome." The First Earl of The Bunkport 541. jexster - 9/18/2002 8:38:52 PM Iraq Nuke Leaks: Another Crock of BushShit 542. jexster - 9/18/2002 8:40:40 PM Bush is trying to hotbox this because he knows that if he doesn't do it now, hearings will expose the fraud. 543. jexster - 9/18/2002 9:22:17 PM Republican candidates are beating the war drums just as support for invading Iraq is dissipating. Whereas a Gallup Poll last November revealed 74 percent in favor of a ground invasion of Iraq and 20 percent opposed, this August the percentage of those in favor plummeted to 53, with 41 percent opposed -- roughly the same margin that existed before September 11. 544. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:19:44 PM If anyone knows nukes, its the folks at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - an outfit founded by Albert Einstein. 545. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:19:51 PM She probably knows more than the American Federation of Scientists and UNSCOM, who said in 1997: 546. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:26:19 PM We've heard from Jasper's expert, Linda, the online bulletin editor. Now let's hear from Saddam's bombmaker, back in 1999, lest Linda and Jumpingjack Jasper think it's a Bush "leak": 547. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:29:49 PM After the 8 August 1995 defection of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel Majid, son-in-law to Saddam Hussein, and former director of weapon procurement, Iraq revealed that during the Gulf conflict in 1990-91, it had initiated a crash development program to manufacture a single nuclear weapon using highly enriched uranium fuel intended for its internationally safeguarded Tammuz test reactor. The plan was to complete the atomic bomb during the spring of 1991. Unirradiated and low-irradiated fuel was actually unloaded and some fuel elements later turned over to UN inspectors show signs of tampering. Iraq had 12.3 kg or 93% U-235, and 33.1 kg of 80% U-235 available that was unirradiated or had low radiation levels and could have been easily processed. With the start of hostilities in January these plans were aborted. 548. Edmund Dantes - 9/18/2002 10:30:53 PM That's what happens when you "trust Saddam at his word." 549. joezan - 9/18/2002 10:35:05 PM Jasper, are you still on the "Saddam agrees to unconditional inspections" kick? 550. Al D - 9/18/2002 11:14:59 PM If the U.S. has proof of Saddam being close to an A-bomb, it will share that infornmation with the only real ally we have in Europe, Briton. Liberals would praise Blair to the heavens were he speaking against what Bush plans to do. As much as I admire the French people, at least all the wonderful, helpful ones I met the month I was there, I give not a tinker's dam for their governments's view. As to the Germans...what I feel is best left unsaid. 551. Wombat - 9/19/2002 10:25:13 AM The inspection regime that I want to see would feature an air strike on any installation that the Iraqis refuse to allow inspectors into, preferably within minutes of said refusal. 552. jexster - 9/19/2002 10:56:22 AM First came the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists now 553. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:00:59 AM BOAS 554. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:02:18 AM 555. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:02:21 AM 556. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:03:22 AM Mysteriously, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Meet the Press that he could not comment on what the administration knows, only on what had appeared in the Times—in other words, he would discuss only a selective, agreed-upon leak. He then asserted that the administration knew of only one attempted purchase of aluminum tubes because, he said, “we intercepted” that shipment. And if, he said, one shipment had been intercepted, how many others might have gotten through? 557. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:04:19 AM 558. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:08:05 AM Not all of us, just so they get enough people scared, add a few wack jobs to the corn pone "christian" crowd and LET'S ROLL 559. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:09:22 AM Pick up those sagging poll numbers with the blood of US servicemen and women... 560. ronski - 9/19/2002 11:17:16 AM To this end, perhaps. 561. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:32:27 AM You can't understand today's Iraq debate without understanding Karl Rove's view of the nation's political crossroads and the longer-term struggle between Democrats and Republicans to achieve a new governing majority. If you're convinced that Iraq is purely about national security, read no further. If you want to understand the full picture, let's go to the heart of darkness. 562. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:33:04 AM 563. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:41:51 AM Posts 553-557 are regurgitation of the exact same material in post 541, just at greater length--and greater violation of copyright. This material was rebutted and shown to be factually inaccurate in posts 544-545. 564. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:42:29 AM UN to Upset Bush War with One Year Iraq Deadline 565. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:42:44 AM First came the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists now 566. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:43:10 AM What you don't like Eddie is fact...so sue me you silly fuck 567. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:43:54 AM whine all you want little boy.... 568. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:46:35 AM David Albright has written extensively about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in the past. 569. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:47:02 AM From 1995: 570. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:47:57 AM "According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent" 571. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:48:22 AM And from just last year: 572. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:50:23 AM should not be interpreted as suggesting that Iraq will not be a serious proliferation threat in the future. If sanctions are removed, the international community will face a formidable challenge to insure that Iraq does not revive its nuclear effort. 573. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:50:48 AM So your man Albright (whose agenda is pretty clear if you read enough of his articles: lots of longterm employment for weapons inspectors in Iraq and all kinds of other places), says Saddam can't be trusted, Jasper. 574. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:54:19 AM Be honest...this isn't about WMD....not about threats to neighbors (they think BUSH is the greater threat)...hardly about the UN's integrity as we are even now finding out...this is about the wacko schemes of a bunch of ultra militarists civilians in the Pentagon with no military experience, marginal sanity, and loud mouth con man from West Texas who opened his mouth too quickly, lost control of internal decision making becuase he's too stupid to control those he appointed, and its about what Richard Perle said it was about....about making Bush believable after he's been shooting his mouth off for a year 575. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:56:08 AM Be honest, you'd suck Saddam off in a heartbeat. 576. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:56:22 AM Not my man Albright Ace, I don't know the guy... 577. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:58:05 AM "is not" "is" 578. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:59:09 AM he needs a war..he can do it all by himself..and so he's gonna get it...the rest is bullshit 579. ronski - 9/19/2002 11:59:18 AM jexster, 580. jexster - 9/19/2002 11:59:30 AM not all of us are retarded 581. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:02:51 PM You hate Bush so much you have to pretend he's worse than Saddam, so much that you think Saddam is actually an injured party 582. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:03:12 PM and I loathe him 583. ronski - 9/19/2002 12:05:46 PM 584. PelleNilsson - 9/19/2002 12:10:19 PM Well, Jexster, your sloppy, uncritical handling of your sources, allowing Edmund to pulverize you again and again, doesn't make you into an asset for the anti-war movement, quite the contrary. 585. PelleNilsson - 9/19/2002 12:12:19 PM By the way, there is a poster, who has not been around for some time, DrLohrM, who maintains that all Mongolian ponies are called Edmund. I think this is important to know. 586. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:16:14 PM Well Pelle I don't quite think that Eddie pulverized anything...all he did was say that David Albright contributes to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. 587. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:18:44 PM BTW - I thought we weren't on speaking terms? 588. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:19:45 PM Report on Sept. 14–16 ANSWER EMERGENCY ACTIONS to STOP the WAR*** 589. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:23:49 PM Ronski - I believe everything I post here and anywhere else...when I am joking its obvious except perhaps to Zan...I am not REALLY a noted moral theologian... 590. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:45:52 PM Well, if we can plug into Iraq's power grid or send Saddam a lamp with a bug in it, we'll be in business 591. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:47:18 PM send Saddam a lamp with a bug in it 592. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:52:47 PM The report of the IAEA director general to the Security 593. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:53:18 PM Ronski - Do you still believe that Saddam is going to put a nuke under your bed? 594. Wombat - 9/19/2002 12:53:25 PM Jex is turning this thread into a spam and flame-fest, which is a pity. 595. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:54:22 PM Preceding from Carnegie Endowment "IAEA Iraq Action Team Record" - see butterbar link 596. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:55:37 PM Yes you are correct on both points Wombat except the definition of spam 597. Wombat - 9/19/2002 12:58:59 PM One suspects that if this was taking place during the Clinton Administration, you would be cheerleading as heartily as you are now condemning. 598. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/19/2002 12:59:09 PM 599. jexster - 9/19/2002 12:59:36 PM In case you've forgotten Wombat, Slobo chased half a million or so Kosovars onto the Macedonian plain at the point of tank barrels....the only credible evidence that anything similar will or even MIGHT happen in or about the neighborhood of Iraq, involves Sharon as previously noted in links 600. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:00:56 PM You can suspect all you like Wombat..... 601. Wombat - 9/19/2002 1:02:57 PM Jex: 602. Wombat - 9/19/2002 1:04:45 PM Has Milosevic bombarded Iranian and Israeli cities with ballistic missiles? 603. Wombat - 9/19/2002 1:12:58 PM Don't get me wrong, however. In the absence of new information on Saddam's capabilities, I have strong suspicions about the Bush Administration's rationale for moving Iraq to the front burner; their preparation of the country and the world for this has been sloppy, unconvincing and ass-backward; and based on their handling of post-Taliban Afghanistan, I have no confidence whatsoever that they are equipped to handle the aftermath of a successful campaign against Saddam, without making the situation more unstable and more dangerous than it already is. 604. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:13:30 PM Refighting the Iran/Iraq war? What's Iran's position now? 605. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:17:35 PM I only flame Wombat, in answer to flame or to flim flam, something I rarely encounter with you Wombat...thank God. 606. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:19:22 PM 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: 607. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:23:06 PM there must be serious prospects of success; 608. Wombat - 9/19/2002 1:23:29 PM With respect, Jex, the "Just War" theory has been violated almost uniformly in recent history, including GW1 and Kosovo. 609. ronski - 9/19/2002 1:29:52 PM jexster, 610. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:43:08 PM "believe there is a serious threat to the US from wmd being smuggled into this country. Anyone who thinks that scenario is an impossible fantasy is an idiot. 611. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:49:48 PM As numerous other "idiots" have pointed out, as I have pointed out 612. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:52:31 PM I am not a doctor nor an atomic scientist but I think you are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and should stop listening to William Parcher 613. ronski - 9/19/2002 1:57:15 PM jexster, 614. jexster - 9/19/2002 1:57:21 PM Gulf of Tonkin Resolution 2002 615. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:05:04 PM The point, which you miss or ignore, is that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is an extremely dangerous proposition for America's safety, and especially so if that development takes place in a country run by a U.S.-hating psycho, a country that may be even more unstable in the hands of a Baathist successor to Saddam, hence the reasonable attractiveness of regime change there now, dicated by the UN if possible, by the US and UK alone, if necessary 616. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:07:28 PM Don't bother telling me what I believe, Ronski...I'll do that 617. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:14:33 PM George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist. So why isn't he listening to the leaders of his church? Jim Winkler, staff executive of the United Methodist Church's advocacy and action agency, calls Bush's warmongering "unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals" and says that there is "an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack". He calls on all United Methodists to speak out against an unprovoked attack. The Methodist, Episcopal and Catholic Churches and the Church of England are now on record against Bush's War 618. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:19:32 PM Wombat...the just war theory was not violated in either case, though an argument can be made that it was as I have conceded.... 619. jexster - 9/19/2002 2:22:48 PM BTW as I must take my leave, David Albright is not only a contributor to the Bulletin of ATomic Scientists, he is also a contributor to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Iraq: A New Approach" with Ambassador Ekeus et al 620. Wombat - 9/19/2002 2:35:11 PM Jex: 621. jexster - 9/19/2002 3:55:15 PM Hell Wombat the world would be a better place with Bush...one could "speculate" about beautiful and happy future for Iraq under a US occupation that would make stalin blush...but what one cannot do is cast a credible argument that pre-emptive agression against Iraq is just.... 622. jexster - 9/19/2002 3:56:00 PM 623. jexster - 9/19/2002 3:59:20 PM Speaking of prescience and sharing etc... 624. jexster - 9/19/2002 4:02:37 PM We'll pick this up later...I go play Gen Chuikov Close Combat III..I am in Stalingrad.... 625. Wombat - 9/19/2002 4:09:20 PM Yes Jex, I read the piece you are sharing. It was written before Bush went to the UN. 626. jexster - 9/19/2002 4:26:45 PM USA Today reports that Bush "is expanding on and in some cases contradicting U.S. intelligence reports in making the case for an invasion of Iraq, interviews with administration and intelligence officials indicate. Administration officials accuse Iraq of having ties to al-Qaeda terrorists and of amassing weapons of mass destruction despite uncertain and sometimes contrary intelligence on these issues, according to officials. In some cases, top administration officials disagree outright with what the CIA and other intelligence agencies report. For example, they repeat accounts of al-Qaeda members seeking refuge in Iraq and of terrorist operatives meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials, even though U.S. intelligence reports raise doubts about such links. On Iraqi weapons programs, administration officials draw the most pessimistic conclusions from ambiguous evidence." 627. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 5:54:40 PM I am an idiot... 628. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 5:56:20 PM Jexster, your sloppy, uncritical handling of your sources...doesn't make you into an asset for the anti-war movement, quite the contrary. 629. jexster - 9/19/2002 7:00:13 PM Given the volume he posts, even if most of those posts appear multiple times, how could he possibly be anything but sloppy and uncritical? 630. jexster - 9/19/2002 7:06:25 PM "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism." Richard Perle, August 2002 631. jexster - 9/19/2002 7:11:56 PM HEADLINE: Inspectors will be admitted to any facilities: Iraqi ambassador 632. joezan - 9/19/2002 8:46:13 PM 1) That is not what Iraq agreed to - let's see it in writing. 633. joezan - 9/19/2002 8:47:40 PM Anyway - is it just me, or did Dubya die his hair? 634. Cellar Door - 9/19/2002 8:55:07 PM Just his pubic hair. 635. joezan - 9/19/2002 9:06:17 PM Well I guess you'd know. 636. jexster - 9/19/2002 10:16:43 PM Last week's charade proved even shorter lived than even I thought, as the UN security council is poised to call Bush's bluff and that right soon. Since per the latest polls, only 39% support unilateral war...you figger it out.... 637. jexster - 9/19/2002 10:18:39 PM Respect for the UN... 638. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/19/2002 11:09:15 PM 639. Edmund Dantes - 9/19/2002 11:24:05 PM Loyalty of Iraq's elite in doubt 640. joezan - 9/19/2002 11:30:34 PM That's ok, ED. 641. joezan - 9/19/2002 11:34:22 PM ...Jasper and Tareq - they'll hold our guys off while the Feddayyeen sneak up from behind, armed with their deadly tongue scissors and portable guillotines. 642. Cellar Door - 9/19/2002 11:41:39 PM As timely as ever --perhaps more so. 643. Edmund Dantes - 9/20/2002 8:25:07 AM Unconditional conditions 644. Marc-Albert - 9/20/2002 8:32:42 AM Saddam's Bombmaker: Khidhir Hamza, former Head of Iraq's Nuclear Armament Program until he fled to the West in 1994. 645. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/20/2002 11:13:57 AM 646. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/20/2002 11:18:39 AM 647. jexster - 9/20/2002 11:27:36 AM 648. jexster - 9/20/2002 12:50:55 PM 649. jexster - 9/20/2002 12:59:59 PM President Bush's request to Congress yesterday for authorization to invade Iraq marked the broadest request for military authority by any White House since President Lyndon B. Johnson won approval of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in1964, legal scholars said 650. jexster - 9/20/2002 1:01:25 PM U.S. Naval Institute: The Secret Side of the Tonkin Gulf Incident 651. jexster - 9/20/2002 1:46:47 PM TONY BLAIR has highlighted differences with the US over Iraq by refusing to endorse the Bush Administration’s objective of “regime change” in Baghdad. 652. jexster - 9/20/2002 2:16:09 PM An illuminating contrast 653. jexster - 9/20/2002 2:17:01 PM corn pone crackpots 654. jexster - 9/20/2002 2:17:25 PM toys 655. jexster - 9/20/2002 2:48:39 PM "Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used." - Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, Germany's justice minister 656. robertjayb - 9/20/2002 3:48:37 PM 657. Edmund Dantes - 9/20/2002 5:29:21 PM Perhaps we should create a "cartoon" thread.... 658. Cellar Door - 9/20/2002 5:37:58 PM Annan clearly doesn't want the UN treated like Arafat's compound. 659. Cellar Door - 9/20/2002 5:38:17 PM Though that might still happen. 660. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:40:11 PM The Honorable George W. Bush 661. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:40:46 PM We believe Iraq is a different case. Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of September 11th or of an imminent attack of a grave nature. 662. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:41:48 PM 663. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:42:46 PM Legitimate authority. The moral credibility of the use of military force also depends heavily on whether there is legitimate authority for using force to topple the Iraqi government. In our judgment, decisions of such gravity require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our nation, and some form of international sanction, preferably by the UN Security Council. That is why your decision to seek congressional and United Nations approval is so important. With the Holy See, we would be deeply skeptical about unilateral uses of military force, particularly given the troubling precedents involved. 664. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:43:37 PM b>Probability of success and proportionality. The use of force must have "serious prospects for success" and "must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" (Catechism, #2309). War against Iraq could have unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability elsewhere in the Middle East. Would preventive or preemptive force succeed in thwarting serious threats or, instead, provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent? How would another war in Iraq impact the civilian population, in the short- and long-term? How many more innocent people would suffer and die, or be left without homes, without basic necessities, without work? Would the United States and the international community commit to the arduous, long-term task of ensuring a just peace or would a post-Saddam Iraq continue to be plagued by civil conflict and repression, and continue to serve as a destabilizing force in the region? Would the use of military force lead to wider conflict and instability? Would war against Iraq detract from our responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and undermine the broader coalition against terrorism? 665. jexster - 9/20/2002 9:43:49 PM 666. joezan - 9/20/2002 10:02:02 PM I think we've all heard it by now, jex: The Catholic Church feels Bush's proposed preemptive war against Iraq violates its Just War protocols. 667. judithathome - 9/21/2002 12:59:53 AM Nice #, Joey. 668. concerned - 9/21/2002 2:39:36 AM re. 659 - 669. jexster - 9/22/2002 6:34:49 AM If the Security Council passes a resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq fails to comply with inspections, the US and its allies invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, how then would this violate just war theory? 670. jexster - 9/22/2002 7:32:40 AM 671. jexster - 9/22/2002 7:35:28 AM To a commercial contract litigator, that's a scandalous EVIL indeed! Frankly, it hadn't even occured to me that I had fallen into the occupational vice -exalting form over substance. 672. joezan - 9/22/2002 7:40:51 AM Jex: 673. jexster - 9/22/2002 8:24:57 AM U.N. Hunt for Iraqi Weapons Could Take Time-Experts 674. jexster - 9/22/2002 8:29:06 AM My sperm's in the gutter, my love in the sink...Jethro Tull 675. jexster - 9/22/2002 8:37:56 AM Lesson time....moral home schoolin for Zan... 676. jexster - 9/22/2002 8:49:31 AM This is NOT a protocol. 680. joezan - 9/22/2002 9:37:01 AM Posts 677-679 were deleted - they are repeated repeats. 681. joezan - 9/22/2002 9:37:56 AM ...spamming... 682. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 10:10:06 AM A TRUE Patriot speaks. 683. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 11:09:54 AM 684. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 11:47:38 AM Msg 682: A TRUE Patriot speaks. 685. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:52:08 AM Fuck you Zan... 686. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 11:53:40 AM Byrd per the link: "Back in August, the president had no plans.... Then all of a sudden this country is going to war." 687. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:57:50 AM OK I will admit that Byrd is no patriot. 688. jexster - 9/22/2002 12:11:12 PM And because its Sunday and I am off to Mass, 689. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 12:25:01 PM The world's most serious threat to Peace is the Bush mob. 690. jexster - 9/22/2002 12:46:54 PM Ed's post from the Guardian was interesting and for some reason sounded just plausible enough to believe with nothing more than a blind attribution behind it. It just rang true. 691. jexster - 9/22/2002 12:50:55 PM "Back in August, the president had no plans.... Then all of a sudden this country is going to war." 692. jexster - 9/22/2002 1:12:54 PM A wide ranging yet informative OpEd in the Guardian, a pre-publication of an article written for an upcoming issue of a Brit FP journal... 693. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 1:52:01 PM Fester, go right ahead and post your usual spastic colon of Nexis links that don't have any apparent point to them except to give your posting button release. Proving a negative isn't too easy, especial when the March link above proves the positive: that Bush & company were already focusing their sights on Iraq in March. From the link-- 694. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 2:47:45 PM Robert "White Nigger" Byrd 695. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2002 2:50:05 PM Mr. Miserable™ always evades the unmistakable truth with bullying vituperates—Gee, who should that remind us of? 696. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/22/2002 2:58:26 PM Refute this quote Quibbler: 697. joezan - 9/22/2002 3:34:07 PM Mark Twain was senile by 1910. 698. joezan - 9/22/2002 3:37:15 PM BTW - it's just hilarious that you gibronis have yourselves convinced ED is Ace. 699. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 3:44:20 PM Why, Wizzo, I thought you only flamed in response to flames. To tell truth, however, I don't think your mind even cogitates in any linear fashion, so you'd best stick to silly pictures and (trying) to quote others. 700. joezan - 9/22/2002 3:48:11 PM One regime change down, one to go (...for now, anyway): 701. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 3:53:16 PM Re your quotation from Mark Twain's character "Satan": Twain served in the Civil War, which you may or may not characterize as a "just war." 702. Edmund Dantes - 9/22/2002 3:53:43 PM "he thinks..." 703. ronski - 9/22/2002 4:59:20 PM Byrd isn't much better on the subject of gays than he was on blacks, btw. 704. ronski - 9/22/2002 5:01:20 PM joezan, 705. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 8:49:21 PM BTW - it's just hilarious that you gibronis have yourselves convinced ED is Ace. 706. joezan - 9/22/2002 9:52:21 PM Ronski: 707. jexster - 9/22/2002 10:19:18 PM Shroeder, Shroeder Uber Moron 708. jexster - 9/22/2002 10:52:07 PM Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has informed the Bush administration that he plans to strike back if Iraq attacks Israel... Mr. Sharon's statements, made privately to senior American officials in recent weeks, represent a major shift in Israeli thinking since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when 39 Iraqi Scud missiles struck without any Israeli response... Mr. Sharon's position has significant implications for the Pentagon, which fears that an Israeli entry would stir up Arab public opinion and make it harder for the Pentagon to maintain cooperation from the Arab states where Washington hopes to base American forces... 'If something happens, we will have to solidify our deterrence,' the official continued. 'We think that everybody has to understand that it is not an easy task to try and challenge Israel from a military point of view.'" 709. ronski - 9/22/2002 11:01:26 PM joezan, 710. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:02:43 PM "Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-WV, said... Bush's plans to invade Iraq are a conscious effort to distract public attention from growing problems at home... 'Are politicians talking about the domestic situation, the stock market, weaknesses in the economy, jobs that are being lost, housing problems? No... Congress will be putting itself on the sidelines... Nothing would please this resident more than having such a blank check handed to him.' Byrd said his belief in the Constitution will prevent him from voting for Bush's war resolution. 'But I am finding that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration'... 'Instead of using the forum of the UN... to offer evidence and proof of his claims, the resident basically told the nations of the world that you are either with me, or against me,' 'I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers,' Byrd said. 'This is the worst kind of election-year politics.'" 711. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:05:00 PM You want me to flambe your fag ass along with Zan the Fundie Freak... 712. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:05:04 PM You want me to flambe your fag ass along with Zan the Fundie Freak... 713. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:17:43 PM Have you asked yourself what happened to our Gulf War vets? Why isn't Bush surrounding himself with vets from Desert Storm in photo-ops designed to make his case for the invasion of Iraq? Perhaps because close to 10,000 Gulf War vets have died, not on the battlefield but here at home, from a syndrome the US government (Pentagon and VA) refuses to fully recognize. By report, experts have said hundreds of thousands of American troops were exposed to biological and chemical weapons on the battlefield in Iraq. These vets have been shamelessly treated AND forgotten, coming home after war only to face a projected illness or even death, most in VA hospitals. I seem to recall Bush touting the fact after the war that there was minimal loss of life. That's simply not the case is it? 714. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:21:24 PM b>Bush Wants War - And Changes His Demands When Iraq Says Yes 715. jexster - 9/22/2002 11:27:23 PM 716. ronski - 9/23/2002 4:42:49 PM 717. joezan - 9/23/2002 4:58:31 PM Molly Ivins is a drunk. 718. concerned - 9/23/2002 6:02:14 PM 719. concerned - 9/23/2002 6:18:24 PM From WSJ's 'Best of the Web' Today': 720. Cellar Door - 9/23/2002 9:19:27 PM 721. joezan - 9/23/2002 10:30:22 PM Well, he didn't write a letter, but former Joint Chiefs Chairman John Shalikashvili - remember him? --- appointed by Clinton? - said today that he fully supports a war against Iraq. Said President Bush is doing the right thing. 722. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 1:19:04 AM Well if he did he's an idiot. 723. thoughtful - 9/24/2002 11:21:45 AM The Day After on the importance of thinking through what happens after the easy part of eliminating Saddam: 724. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 11:58:23 AM Peggy Noonan Opposes Bush Doctrine!!!! 725. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:39:21 PM Royal Hissy Fit 726. joezan - 9/24/2002 1:42:43 PM Well, so far it's gotten Schroeder to fire two ministers. I figure we shine them on a few more weeks, we might get some movement on his Iraq stance. 727. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:43:26 PM And Now a Message from the President-Elect of the United States 728. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:44:24 PM You figured wrong Joey - but hey why mess up a perfect record! 729. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:45:18 PM mandate 730. jexster - 9/24/2002 1:57:25 PM |: Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue, 731. PelleNilsson - 9/24/2002 2:18:20 PM I think we should be bloody glad that the Germans have adopted a pacifist stance ever since the end of WWII. 732. jexster - 9/24/2002 2:41:36 PM AJAF, Iraq — As soon as American troops are rolling through Saddam Hussein's palaces, the odds are that this holy Shiite city 100 miles south of Baghdad will erupt in a fury of killing, torture, rape and chaos. 733. thoughtful - 9/24/2002 3:09:16 PM Jex...did you see #723 above? Guess not. 734. jexster - 9/24/2002 3:10:39 PM JoeZ - Don't fret Shroeder, Bush is going to have a hard time just keeping Blair... 735. jexster - 9/24/2002 3:12:23 PM Got me thougtful...I saw "need to think" just lost control! 736. thoughtful - 9/24/2002 3:46:47 PM Calm down...not good for your blood pressure. 737. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 4:45:33 PM 738. concerned - 9/24/2002 4:50:56 PM Good news for CD. At the very least, the Brits are behind the US all the way on Iraq, so no fear of the US 'going it alone'. Wonder why Gallup polls were not phrased that way before the Kosovo debacle when the WH Rapist did nothing, NOTHING, to get UN or Congressional approval. 739. concerned - 9/24/2002 4:52:45 PM So, Celldoor, by default, believes in the superiority of Republican statesmanship, by the implicitly higher standard he expects from the political right, i.e. adults. 740. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 4:58:54 PM Where did you get such a demented idea? 741. concerned - 9/24/2002 5:00:08 PM Just pushing the envelope a little, there. 742. concerned - 9/24/2002 5:02:20 PM I like to flip certain assertions around and see what lurks on the other side:) 743. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2002 5:06:26 PM Bottom Door is becoming truly desperate if he thinks that poll is anything but good news for Bush & Co. Which do voters think is more important in the upcoming election? 744. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 6:05:58 PM The Count of Mount-'em-with-Ciscois becoming truly desperate if he thinks that poll is anything but bad news for Bush & Co. 745. concerned - 9/24/2002 6:35:04 PM 746. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 6:46:44 PM Gallup Poll Reflects Failed Bush Leadership 747. ronski - 9/24/2002 6:52:52 PM Being of half-German descent I have on more than one occasion defended the German national character against excessive assaults, but I have to say I kind of agree with Pelle in Message # 731. (And the same could be said of the Japanese.) 748. ronski - 9/24/2002 6:59:40 PM As for the Gallup Poll, it is not bad news for Bush. It is pretty clear that if the U.N. balks at supporting a U.S. invasion, the majority of the American people will be behind the campaign after Bush exlpains how it was necessary to bypass the U.N. 749. joezan - 9/24/2002 7:11:49 PM The Count of Mount-'em-with-Ciscois becoming truly desperate if he thinks that poll is anything but bad 750. joezan - 9/24/2002 7:16:49 PM X-post w/ronski. 751. concerned - 9/24/2002 7:38:21 PM Re. 747 - 752. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2002 8:16:09 PM The majority of Americans do not trust Bush with the power he is asking Congress to approve. 753. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2002 8:20:31 PM I just hope Basement Door, Al "Peace Train" Gore, Jasper, and all the rest keep thinking they're representing the prevailing American viewpoint on this issue, and that it's the best point for the Democrats to build an election campaign around. 754. ronski - 9/24/2002 8:25:23 PM Could we see a poll asking whether Al Gore's speech was the first salvo in his campaign for the 2004 nomination or a principled analysis of the options facing the American people regarding Iraq? 755. ronski - 9/24/2002 8:28:07 PM Eddie, 756. ronski - 9/24/2002 8:28:27 PM I mean, now that the German elections are over. 757. Edmund Dantes - 9/24/2002 8:32:21 PM If Gore continues with this he won't even be nominated. 758. ronski - 9/24/2002 8:47:56 PM Eddie, 759. joezan - 9/24/2002 9:55:54 PM Well, Gore is positioning himself for something. Exactly what is anyone's guess. 760. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:17:47 PM I agree with ya there Z...the dems ARE a bit spineless and in fact I have said as much. Didn't I post this before? 761. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:18:53 PM I think there's fly in the pigshit. Bush will have HUGE problem if he has to go it alone, if the UN refuses to give him a pretext for war. Likewise, even if the UN does pass a strong resolution, his wag the dog strategy which isn't working for him anyway will most certainly backfire when UN inspectors hit the ground in EyeRak. 762. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:21:45 PM Looks like we have another rogue state defying the UN. This one I hear tell actually HAS nuclear weapons. Looks like Bush has found his next war. 763. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:32:12 PM You remember the Homeland Security Bill dontch Zan? 764. jexster - 9/24/2002 11:49:28 PM Bush's scheme du jour was brought to mind just today while reading a discussion of political economy in my Public Finance text. In political economic parlance, this a classic case of "double peaked" preference, "agenda manipulation", and issue "cycling". 765. jexster - 9/25/2002 12:09:57 AM Three weeks left in the Congressional session. 766. jexster - 9/25/2002 12:15:03 AM I believe that Iraq has agreed to unconditional inspections Z.... 767. jexster - 9/25/2002 12:18:54 AM Message # 760 768. jexster - 9/25/2002 12:24:32 AM My bitch. 769. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:05:42 AM Polls, polls who's got a pole? 770. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:20:51 AM Politics 771. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:21:29 AM Double peaked preference 772. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:57:10 AM Woof Woof Git Yo Hand Off Mah Dick Bitch 773. joezan - 9/25/2002 8:48:39 AM HAHAHA! 774. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 9:15:55 AM Congressional opposition to Iraq resolution crumbling 775. joezan - 9/25/2002 9:27:47 AM Louder War Talk, and Muffled Dissent 776. joezan - 9/25/2002 9:56:54 AM Come again, Al? 777. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 10:07:39 AM Of course there's no such thing as EVIL. 778. ronski - 9/25/2002 11:17:49 AM Jexster: Didn't I post this before? 779. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 11:33:33 AM He posts the same material twice in the same post. (See #761.) 780. ronski - 9/25/2002 11:41:52 AM Gore's Big Effort to Distinguish Himself 781. joezan - 9/25/2002 1:30:46 PM OOOh, Ronski - that's a keeper: 782. joezan - 9/25/2002 1:31:00 PM And, again, this sentence is a lie. The men who "implemented" the "coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans" are not at large. They are dead; they died in the act of murder, on Sept. 11. Gore can look this up. In truth, the "vast majority" of the men who "sponsored" and "planned" the crime are dead also, or in prison, or on the run. The inmates at Guantanamo Bay, and the hunted survivors of Tora Bora, and the terrorist cell members arrested nearly every week, and the thousands of incarcerated or fugitive Taliban, might disagree as to whether they have been located, apprehended, punished or neutralized. 783. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 1:46:51 PM Michael Kelly's head is so far up Bush's ass it will never see daylight again. 784. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 1:47:18 PM Al Gore is an upstanding American. 785. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 1:48:02 PM In the immortal words of Pogo: "We have met the enemy and He is Us." 786. joezan - 9/25/2002 1:55:12 PM Michael Kelly's head is so far up Bush's ass it will never see daylight again. 787. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:56:38 PM OK Zan steal my line...you need all the help you can get 788. jexster - 9/25/2002 1:58:40 PM 789. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2002 1:59:24 PM Well, I oppose an attack on Iraq because of the manifold potential unintended consequences but it does look as a done deal. Bush will get his resolution from congress, perhaps narrowed down a bit but still sufficient for the purpose at hand. The results of the Gallup poll jexster accounted for upthread showed that 69% of Americans will support a military intervention if Congress gives its blessing. UN support would add another 10% but that's neither here or there. 790. joezan - 9/25/2002 2:01:34 PM Daschole has no shame. 791. jexster - 9/25/2002 2:12:33 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle on Wednesday accused President Bush ( news - web sites) of seeking to politicize the debate over war with Iraq and demanded that he apologize for implying that Democrats were not interested in the security of the American people. 792. jexster - 9/25/2002 2:35:56 PM 793. jexster - 9/25/2002 2:43:57 PM Rep. Sam Farr, D- Monterey: "My emails (Email missives) are running 500 to 1 against" the Bush War. 794. ronski - 9/25/2002 2:44:51 PM Pelle, 795. jexster - 9/25/2002 2:47:17 PM Rumsfeld spoke at a news conference yesterday and said again that Bush had made no decision whether to attak Irak. 796. jexster - 9/25/2002 3:05:52 PM NO MORE BRATWURST! 797. ronski - 9/25/2002 3:13:21 PM We can do without bratwurst. 798. jexster - 9/25/2002 3:15:14 PM Pelle... 799. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2002 3:20:05 PM Ronski Message # 794 800. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 3:21:46 PM On C-SPAN, Talk of War Gets Awfully Belligerent 801. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 3:22:05 PM As moderator Connie Brod sat by helplessly, Filner challenged: "Hatred of America? . . . Are you accusing me?" 802. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 3:23:17 PM Gee C-Span is getting to en just like The Mote! 803. alistairconnor - 9/25/2002 4:23:24 PM Message # 789 Pelle, only 37% of Americans support invading Iraq if the UN opposes it. 804. joezan - 9/25/2002 5:02:43 PM What rot. Yeah - a new era in world history, if your world history goes back only a very few decades. 805. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 5:13:18 PM The UN won't oppose it. 806. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 5:20:55 PM What happens if the UN refuses to pass a new resolution as the US has asked? 807. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 5:24:29 PM "Domestically, the majority of Americans are going to say "screw the UN." 808. jexster - 9/25/2002 5:58:51 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Majority Leader Tom Daschle demanded an apology on Wednesday from President Bush ( news - web sites) for saying the Democratic-led U.S. Senate "is not interested in the security of the American people," arguing that this "outrageous" remark politicized a possible war with Iraq. 809. jexster - 9/25/2002 6:00:47 PM That's nice Daschle but not good enuf 810. jexster - 9/25/2002 6:08:20 PM 811. jexster - 9/25/2002 6:15:31 PM Well gag me with a spoon Zan 812. ronski - 9/25/2002 6:30:45 PM Since so many people are repeating themselves here, I will too, and I haven't even eaten dinner yet. 813. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 6:42:23 PM No it wasn't ronski. 814. alistairconnor - 9/25/2002 7:34:53 PM Message # 806If the UN turns Bush down and Bush is serious, then the UN is toast because American unilateralism will toss it in the dustbin with the League of Nations. 815. alistairconnor - 9/25/2002 7:41:32 PM So let's assume Bush goes ahead with his war. The Security Council will not approve it. Obviously, it won't be the first time time the US intervenes without UN sanction -- viz. Latin america -- but it's outside the traditional direct sphere of interest of the US. 816. ronski - 9/25/2002 8:44:15 PM Cellar, 817. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:10:43 PM Oh God...memory lane....Gen Bubbles I was there too. And you won't see "the same pattern here". 818. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:10:57 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A day after the Federal Reserve ( news - web sites) expressed worry over "heightened geopolitical risks" to the U.S. economy, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on Wednesday said the question of war with Iraq should not be decided on economic terms. 819. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:13:29 PM I am listening right now to the lead story on CBS News - the WarLord's rant against Congressional Democrats for not loving the country.... 820. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:29:02 PM Oh and BTW, Vietnam was NEVER called a police action, at least not by the LBJ or Kennedy Administrations. Korea was a "police action" and the term was deliberately avoided in Vietnam for that reason. 821. ronski - 9/25/2002 9:31:49 PM alistair, 822. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:51:36 PM "Americans want the U.S. to wait and build an international coalition, and follow the recommendations of the UN, even though they are not sure the U.N. can make a difference. They want the Congress to ask even more questions about military actions - and most now say it's okay to criticize the president's military decisions. And, contrary to the Administration's arguments, many feel that a new war with Iraq would not lessen the threat of terrorism against the U.S. - if anything, it might increase that threat. There is broad public support for getting Congress involved in the current debate about how to deal with Iraq. Twice as many Americans think members of Congress haven't asked enough questions about Bush's policy towards Iraq as think they've asked too many. Many Americans want Congress to take its time on this issue: just over half think Congress should wait until the UN has acted, rather than rush to judgment." CBS News 823. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:53:50 PM Message # 821 824. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:55:48 PM "The chickenhawks were in full-swoop mode. Flying low over Washington, making their loud squawking sounds, calling their fellow Americans out to war. George W. Bush (Texas Air National Guard, term abbreviated) was calling on Congress to 'use all means,' including a massive military assault, to remove Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq. Dick Cheney (Vietnam draft deferment, 'had other priorities') was up in Vermont, talking belligerently with that state's Air National Guard... No, there's not a real military-service record in the bunch. Just a group of guys who've learned to talk tough. Real military men have always understood: War is hell. War is best avoided. War is what you do when your very way of life is threatened - and you've tried everything, everything else. They know this because they've been to war... It's always the armchair generals who are the most gung-ho. And is Washington ever in the grip of armchair generals!" 825. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:56:39 PM Three retired four-star American generals said that attacking Iraq without a UN resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, energize recruiting for Al Qaeda and undermine America's long-term diplomatic and economic interests. 'We must continue to persuade the other members of the Security Council of the correctness of our position, and we must not be too quick to take no for an answer,' Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee... 'What's the sense of urgency here, and how soon would we need to act unilaterally?' said General [Wesley] Clark, an Army officer who commanded allied forces in the 1999 Kosovo air war. 'So far as any of the information has been presented, there is nothing that indicates that in the immediate, next hours, next days, that there's going to be nuclear-tipped missiles put on launch pads to go against our forces or our allies in the region.'" 826. jexster - 9/25/2002 9:57:56 PM American research companies, with the approval of two previous presidential administrations, provided Iraq biological cultures that could be used for biological weapons, according to testimony to a U.S. Senate committee eight years ago. West Nile Virus, E. coli, anthrax and botulism were among the potentially fatal biological cultures that a U.S. company sent under U.S. Commerce Department licenses after 1985, [under Reagan-Bush]... The Commerce Department under the first Bush administration also authorized eight shipments of cultures that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention later classified as having 'biological warfare significance.' Between 1985 and 1989, the Senate testimony shows, Iraq received at least 72 U.S. shipments of clones, germs and chemicals ranging from substances that could destroy wheat crops, give children and animals the bone-deforming disease rickets, to a nerve gas rated a million times more lethal than Sarin." 827. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:00:05 PM Based upon the hard evidence I have seen, I do not believe the administration has yet made a compelling case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind we could win such a war and dispose of Saddam Hussein. The question that continues to nag, however, is 'what then?'" 828. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:01:21 PM OR this - "Rhetoric Over Iraq We'll See How the President's Plans are dividing the country." Channel 7 News At 11 829. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:04:15 PM Shit J Edgar Hoover would have had a file on me by now.. 830. joezan - 9/25/2002 10:11:46 PM Comparing the (potential) war in Iraq to Vietnam is an exercise in idiocy. 831. joezan - 9/25/2002 10:12:40 PM ...jasper will still be home painting his protest signs when the last bomb drops. 832. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:21:24 PM "Bush is like the guy who reserves a hotel room and then asks you to the prom." 833. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:27:06 PM A world in which, Gore should've added, where any such a nation can launch a war if it perceives the slightest threat to its oil or its VP's pallid ego or its bass-fishin' boat collection, its squealing faux-virgin beer-bootleggin' blonde daughters or its father's megawealthy cadre of crusted rich white corporate lizards who bought Shrub his office in the first place, in obvious exchange for ramrodded legislation that would finally eliminate them gol-durn national forests once and for all. 834. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:30:51 PM Yes I know Morford can't spell syncophantic either...but it is funny anyway....I think I should send him an e-mail missive eh Joey? 835. ronski - 9/25/2002 10:31:55 PM jexster, 836. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:36:21 PM "squealing faux-virgin beer-bootleggin' blonde daughters" 837. jexster - 9/25/2002 10:46:45 PM The suspicion will not die that the Bush administration turned to Iraq for relief from a sharp decline in its domestic political prospects. The news had been dominated for months by corporate scandals and the fall of the stock market, and the November elections were shaping up as a referendum on the Republican's handling of domestic social and economic issues. Investigative reporters had turned their attention to Dick Cheney's role at Halliburton and George W. Bush's sale of his Harken Energy shares just before the stock collapsed. 838. joezan - 9/25/2002 10:56:18 PM BTW - I take back that comment I made about "websites jasper won't even visit", or whatever it was I said. 839. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:25:05 PM Ronski Came from Planet Claire... 840. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:26:30 PM Ahhhahhhahhahh Ronksi, not since Ernst Rhoem and the good days of the ESS AHHH have we witnessed such a combination of instinct for the dick and instinct of the herd. 841. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:29:26 PM Corporal Squeak - don't even think of goin there.... 842. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2002 11:34:01 PM Ok just steal my line, bitches. 843. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:38:00 PM A horse is horse of course of course 844. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:40:38 PM 845. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:45:40 PM 846. jexster - 9/25/2002 11:58:22 PM There is a very real possibility that American deaths could exceed 1,000 in number, and several thousand deaths cannot be ruled out. To count on easy victory, as many American proponents of war seem to do, is not only unsupported by the available evidence and by the methodologies of combat prediction. It's also an irresponsible basis on which to plan military strategy in any future war against Saddam Hussein. 847. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:02:15 AM Thank you for the nice note and the reference. Urban warfare is indeed grim. Since WWII, we have only had to do it twice, when the Marines captured Seoul in Sept. 1950 during the Korean war and again when the Marines liberated Hue during the Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968. Both caused terrible casualties and I personally lost five good friends between the two actions. Hopefully that will be avoided if we go into Iraq. Here is an excerpt on a strategy for Iraq from an OPED I just submitted to the Washington Post. I don't know yet whether they plan on publishing it. 848. Wombat - 9/26/2002 8:56:47 AM Jexter--of course--ignores most of what Traynor says in his message. 849. judithathome - 9/26/2002 9:11:56 AM Do we know for sure that the populace will welcome us with open arms? I mean, I know there must be some who will but do we actually have any idea if it is a majority or not? 850. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2002 9:34:22 AM Why don't you leave Joe out of it, Judy, since you don't care what he posts? There you go again, worrying your little head about things that just don't interest you. 851. judithathome - 9/26/2002 9:39:25 AM Why don't just answer my question instead of attacking me personally? 852. Wombat - 9/26/2002 9:42:00 AM If Iraq's military--and Saddam's regime crumbles quickly, we will be welcomed by most Iraqis. If we are committed to rebuilding and rehabiliting Iraq, the welcome will be even more heartfelt. 853. judithathome - 9/26/2002 9:46:47 AM Wombat, do you think there are competent people ready to take over the government; I would think Saddam would have liquadated most who might oppose him by now. I'm sure if there ARE people in the wings, we won't hear about them til after the fact, though, in case making them known would put a target on their backs. 854. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2002 9:53:03 AM Why don't just answer my question instead of attacking me personally? 855. judithathome - 9/26/2002 9:56:22 AM More personal attacks, just your speed. 856. joezan - 9/26/2002 9:58:28 AM Nation-building in Iraq will be easier - by two or three orders of magnitude - than it will be in Afghanistan, or just about anywhere else for that matter. 857. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2002 10:04:01 AM Well, the chihuahua shouldn't yelp so loudly when it finally receives a well-deserved kick for its constant yapping and nipping. 858. Wombat - 9/26/2002 10:04:51 AM Judith: 859. joezan - 9/26/2002 10:05:33 AM arf! 860. judithathome - 9/26/2002 10:20:32 AM Thank you, Wombat. 861. Cellar Door - 9/26/2002 10:37:03 AM 862. Wombat - 9/26/2002 10:49:39 AM I wouldn't count on getting much oil out of Iraq for at least a couple of years. I would think that among the first things to be demolished should we invade Iraq would be oil wells, pumps and pipelines. 863. judithathome - 9/26/2002 10:53:07 AM Didn't he do that to several wells in Kuwait at the end of the Gulf War? I guess that's a boon to companies who are in the business of repairing oil rigs, however. 864. Wombat - 9/26/2002 10:57:12 AM Iraqi forces wrecked dozens--if not hundreds--of Kuwaiti oil wells. 865. joezan - 9/26/2002 11:02:00 AM ...and once the Iraqis were kicked out, Kuwait was up to pre-invasion production within just a couple of months. 866. Cellar Door - 9/26/2002 11:53:11 AM Has your SUV rolled over yet, joe? 867. joezan - 9/26/2002 12:22:39 PM Well, there's a substantive, on-topic post. 868. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:24:30 PM JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A former U.N. arms chief expressed fears Thursday Israel might be pushed into using its nuclear arsenal in a war with Iraq, but Israel vowed it would take only "proper actions" if it were hit by nonconventional weapons or suffered casualties. 869. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 12:28:25 PM "My deepest fear in that context, if that occurs and the war escalates, is that Israel will use its nuclear weapons," Butler said. "If that happens, the world would have been changed beyond recognition, and I would fear that if that happens the state of Israel would cease to exist." 870. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:31:03 PM The Bush administration's push to win quick approval of a U.N. Security Council resolution against Iraq has bogged down because of haggling within the administration and allies, including the British, over its language, administration officials and diplomats said yesterday. 871. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:39:55 PM "The administration has stated that if I had understood the context in which the president made those remarks -- the remarks that Senate Democrats are not concerned about national security -- that I probably would not have been so critical," Daschle said. "Mr. President, what context is there that legitimizes an accusation of that kind? I don't care whether you are talking about homeland security, I don't think you can talk about Iraq, you can't talk about war, you can't talk about any context that justifies a political comment like that. This is politicization, pure and simple." 872. jexster - 9/26/2002 12:43:59 PM DOHA, Qatar, Sept. 20 — For more than a year, the lively television newsroom of Al Jazeera, filled with journalists from the Arab world and backed by Qatar, a little-known American ally in the Middle East, has caused angst in the Bush administration. In the event of a war against Iraq, it may be in a position to cause more. 873. jexster - 9/26/2002 1:09:15 PM "The sudden depths to which relations between the Bush administration and Europe's most important nation have plunged this week are a remarkable testament to the way that the rightwing Republican government in Washington now does things. But this is not a traditional American administration. It believes, according to the new White House national security strategy document it published at the weekend, that this is a world where there is just 'a single sustainable model for national success.' And that model is certainly not the German one. What is striking about the former German justice minister's famous remarks is not how ill-judged they were, but how restrained.... the point that Daubler-Gmelin actually made was not such an unreasonable one. Bush, she argued, 'wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used.' And Bismarck too, she might have added." 874. jexster - 9/26/2002 2:08:23 PM According To Plan -- But Whose Plan ? 875. joezan - 9/26/2002 2:10:55 PM More wishful thinking from jasper, I see. 876. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 4:41:39 PM 877. concerned - 9/26/2002 7:06:52 PM Post war Hashemite Jordan/Iraq - a place where 'Palestinians' can roam 878. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 10:20:37 PM Joe: 879. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 10:25:28 PM Another thought: 880. joezan - 9/26/2002 10:33:52 PM Pike, you're a genius. 881. RustlerPike - 9/27/2002 12:39:06 AM joe: 882. RustlerPike - 9/27/2002 12:49:09 AM So when's the war, Joe? 883. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 8:34:32 AM Only Saddam Hussein, and any would-be emulators, need fear George Bush's foreign policy 884. joezan - 9/27/2002 8:37:15 AM Pike: 885. alistairconnor - 9/27/2002 8:56:54 AM Sounds like Cruise has rather less smarts than the missiles of the same name. 886. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 9:22:39 AM Well, I don't care what Cruise or Spielberg thinks about the war either. But: 887. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 9:43:08 AM "Well, I don't care what Cruise or Spielberg thinks about the war either" 888. joezan - 9/27/2002 10:32:12 AM (If you're ever looking for cellardweller, just mention Tom Cruise). 889. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 10:39:49 AM Don't mind me. 890. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 10:53:55 AM LIAR! DELUSIONAL! 891. PelleNilsson - 9/27/2002 10:57:28 AM Cellar 892. concerned - 9/27/2002 11:09:28 AM Re. 885 - 893. concerned - 9/27/2002 11:13:36 AM As for AC's dismissal of Spielberg's mental faculties, I am just hurt. Especially considering how much of his ideological cohort's intellectual horizons were defined by his movies. 894. concerned - 9/27/2002 11:17:08 AM Not to mention Jerry Lewis and Walt Disney. 895. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 11:49:33 AM Walt Disney was the only Hollywood filmmaker who came to greet Leni Riefenstahl when she came to town. 896. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 12:43:22 PM Hey, what's wrong with caring what actors and directors think about Iraq? 897. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 12:46:22 PM So what? 898. concerned - 9/27/2002 12:46:44 PM Now, there's a real brain trust. Meat and wood. 899. concerned - 9/27/2002 12:49:05 PM Hopefully, Bore didn't leave out Chelsea Clowntoon and Amy Cahtuh, either. 900. Cellar Door - 9/27/2002 2:31:11 PM How those Bush twins doing, connie? Still getting carded, or do they have their own private goon squad to keep them happily soused? 901. jexster - 9/27/2002 2:56:45 PM For the butter bar The Urban Operations Journal 902. joezan - 9/27/2002 3:09:07 PM I will add those later this evening. 903. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2002 3:58:17 PM God (Bubba) to Moses (Jasper): Been a change in the game plan... 904. concerned - 9/27/2002 5:05:43 PM Hate to see ol' jexster eat all those words he wrote these last few months. He might just die from swelling of the brain pan, like that little girl did, from ingesting all that low content, high bulk verbiage. 905. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:10:06 PM "I am a man of peace. I want inspections to work." 906. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:10:12 PM "I am a man of peace. I want inspections to work." 907. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:10:33 PM So what? 908. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:13:15 PM When queried about the stupendous breadth of Gulf of Tonkin II, PantyWaist Powell aka "gamma girl" lamely replied, "Well, just because we've asked you to pass this Resolution doesn't mean that we're going to fight." 909. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:13:19 PM When queried about the stupendous breadth of Gulf of Tonkin II, PantyWaist Powell aka "gamma girl" lamely replied, "Well, just because we've asked you to pass this Resolution doesn't mean that we're going to fight." 910. jexster - 9/27/2002 9:14:21 PM hiccups from laughing so hard at Message # 904 and the whinny that preceded it. 911. joezan - 9/27/2002 9:27:03 PM Yeah, right. 912. jexster - 9/27/2002 11:00:27 PM I should be among the supporters of an invasion of Iraq. A decade ago, after Iraq seized Kuwait, I agreed with the decision to go to war and wrote in The New Republic, at the start of the conflict, that allied forces should go all the way to Baghdad. My view was that Saddam Hussein had forfeited the legitimacy of his regime, and, having resolved not to let his aggression stand, we ought to deny him any chance for revenge. When the first President Bush called off our attack, I was bitterly disappointed. 913. jexster - 9/27/2002 11:00:39 PM 914. jexster - 9/28/2002 12:14:01 AM Frankfurter-Allegemiene Weekly is the only English language German paper I know of that is available on the net. 915. jexster - 9/28/2002 12:32:20 AM BTW, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's only article on the subject "German Businesss Fears Fallout from German-US Tension" 916. jexster - 9/28/2002 12:51:46 AM Ten, Twenty Years Dodging Snipers, Hundreds of Billions of Dollars? 917. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:18:37 AM Saddam Hussein's regime "is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents," Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August, adding, "These are not weapons designed for the purpose of defending Iraq. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale." Billed by the White House as laying out the case for military action against Iraq, the speech employed the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" eight times. George W. Bush also regularly uses "weapons of mass destruction" as a collective term for chemical, biological, and atomic arms. In his 2002 State of the Union address, for example, the president stated that the United States would not "permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons," citing chemical, biological, and atomic arms as equal concerns. 918. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:19:34 AM 919. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:20:17 AM Then there are atomic and nuclear devices--utterly, unmistakably "weapons of mass destruction."... The locations of his atomic-weapons facilities are known. Invasion or not, they can be destroyed, preventing him from inflicting mass death upon the innocent. 920. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:23:16 AM Kennedy is right...time to slow this madness down...write your MP. 921. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:23:43 AM toys 922. jexster - 9/28/2002 3:30:59 AM "These are not weapons designed for the purpose of defending Iraq. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale." 923. jexster - 9/28/2002 6:50:17 AM Daschle's Ire Over GOP Tactics May Toughen Posture on Iraq 924. jexster - 9/28/2002 7:21:01 AM Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich) is drafting language that would require Bush to work with the United Nations to send weapons inspectors back to Iraq and forgo unilateral military action. "The line will be drawn over whether we take a go-it-alone approach," said Levin. 925. joezan - 9/28/2002 9:17:20 AM Daschle said he still feels slighted by Bush's remark Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate doesn't care about national security because it opposes his vision of a new Department of Homeland Security. 926. joezan - 9/28/2002 9:32:56 AM 927. jexster - 9/28/2002 9:56:40 AM Spiritually Deaf 928. jexster - 9/28/2002 10:00:02 AM And then there is that composte heap of branches pruned from the True Vine, that crackpot hotchpot of counterfeit Christians, manichean & other heretics, phillistines, luddities, bigots, and know-nothings known as Fundamentalists. 929. jexster - 9/28/2002 10:05:11 AM This borders very closely on treason. Whether or not one believes enough evidence exists that Saddam has WMD, Congressmen visiting a country which they are (supposedly) actively engaged in debate whether or not to send American troops to invade, is disgusting. 930. jexster - 9/28/2002 10:10:14 AM Don't go to Iraq to see for yourself...take Bush's word for it... 931. jexster - 9/28/2002 10:23:36 AM "Jexter--of course--ignores most of what Traynor says in his message." 932. jexster - 9/28/2002 10:29:36 AM "McDermott, accompanied by fellow Democrats David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California, said: "We want every diplomatic effort made to resolve this without war, which should be the last option." 933. jexster - 9/28/2002 10:41:07 AM What A Difference a Couple of Week's Makes 934. jexster - 9/28/2002 10:44:08 AM Mile wide, inch deep...better close down Al Jazeera, and quarantine the rest of the media like they did in Afghanistan.... 935. jexster - 9/28/2002 10:50:09 AM his version of President Bush's remarks were meant to be taken by faithful demobots as righteous indignation that President Bush would dare question the positions of "patriots" such as himself and Daniel Inoue on the question of Iraq. Any attempt to present them as such exposes Daschole for the lying opportunist he is, 936. PelleNilsson - 9/28/2002 11:33:19 AM Out of the 35 latest posts 29 are by jexster. Something has to be done to rescue this thread, maybe this forum, the purpose of which is for the participants to discuss sundry issues. Those discussions can be calm or violent, polite or nasty, but they should be discussions reflecting the views of the participants, not raving monologues reflecting the views of others. 937. jexster - 9/28/2002 12:15:41 PM you may do as you will Pelle...I will do as I have been....I have, as always posted only that which is germane to the thread topic. Opinion pieces unless otherwise noted do express my views and quite often do so in terms that I have previously used. 938. Cellar Door - 9/28/2002 2:05:05 PM See the original before Dubbya begins production on the remake. 939. Cellar Door - 9/28/2002 2:53:36 PM 940. RustlerPike - 9/28/2002 9:51:42 PM 941. jexster - 9/28/2002 10:14:44 PM Wombat - 942. joezan - 9/28/2002 10:21:42 PM Given that the United States is repeatedly said to be a religious country...it is interesting how little has been made of the declarations by so many Christian leaders and ethicists that the Bush Administration's proposed war against Iraq is unjust and immoral. 943. concerned - 9/29/2002 12:59:48 AM 944. jexster - 9/29/2002 12:56:34 PM CALL ON ME ME ME ME!! 945. jexster - 9/29/2002 12:58:02 PM Manipulation...damn...if that's a cause for war, there's a Death Gurney in Hunstville Tejas 946. jexster - 9/29/2002 1:00:55 PM Our Big Sister - A Bit More Advanced (12%) than We - But We'll Get There - RULE BRITTANIA 947. Cellar Door - 9/29/2002 1:07:27 PM Whoops! Guess we overestimated, hunh? 948. jexster - 9/29/2002 1:17:35 PM The debate on Bush's war plans, however, is not about whether Iraq should have the bomb. At best, it's about a particular policy for preventing that development. The policy includes war, the way the Bush administration has prepared for war, its fuzzy plans for what to do after the war and the doctrine it posits to justify war. From where I sit -- in Jerusalem, on the slopes of a hill that looks out over the occupied West Bank and the mountains of Jordan in the haze beyond -- each piece of that policy deserves questioning. In the end, the Bush policy may well create greater dangers for Israel than those it claims to eliminate. Gershom Gorenberg is the author of The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount 949. jexster - 9/29/2002 1:21:35 PM That is the very kind of debate that Bush does not want the Congress to have, yet it is the very debate we are having here and the very debate that is occuring around the country. 950. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 4:12:13 PM Gore! Hunh...good God, y'all...what is he good for? 951. Cellar Door - 9/29/2002 8:28:05 PM Even the Moonie Times can't hide the fact that Bush is a FUCKING LIAR!!!!! 952. jexster - 9/29/2002 8:45:04 PM "Filthy Liar" is the proper term Cellar...right Joey? 953. jexster - 9/29/2002 8:45:58 PM Chuck Hagel - Saddamite & Traitor 954. Cellar Door - 9/29/2002 8:52:16 PM His real motives are obvious. 955. jexster - 9/29/2002 9:05:30 PM The White Palace has REPEATEDLY said that no personal grudge was behind the puscht for the War to Make Bush Believable... 956. jexster - 9/29/2002 9:55:24 PM 957. jexster - 9/29/2002 11:03:55 PM "Its the world against Bush and Blair" J Chirac 958. concerned - 9/30/2002 1:32:16 PM WP blast from the past: 'U.S. Says It Collected Iraq Intelligence Via UNSCOM' 959. jexster - 9/30/2002 2:03:12 PM Wombat - 960. jexster - 9/30/2002 2:03:56 PM Duh tell us something we don't know TDaschole 961. jexster - 9/30/2002 2:09:20 PM With something like 70% of Americans and 80% of Britons opposing cowboy killin to make Bush believable and/or satisfy his grudge against Sad-am, gonna more than that, more than Rummy's video show, more than in fact anything that the Boy Blunder and Warlord has managed to come up with over the past year. 962. concerned - 9/30/2002 2:09:22 PM rejexst - 963. jexster - 9/30/2002 2:11:28 PM that's a REAL stretch... 964. concerned - 9/30/2002 2:13:25 PM Re. 963 - 965. jexster - 9/30/2002 5:47:48 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fighting a war with Iraq could cost the United States between $6 billion and $9 billion a month, with preparing for a conflict and winding down after it adding another $14 billion to $20 billion to the total, congressional budget analysts said on Monday. 966. jexster - 9/30/2002 8:46:59 PM Oh I get it now....Rummyu releases two year old gun camera videos because he wants to show us that SAD-am can't be trusted not Bush. 967. robertjayb - 9/30/2002 9:35:13 PM Oopsie! Nevermind. 968. Al D - 9/30/2002 10:32:55 PM Are they any on the Mote who believe that Saddam would use WMD against our forces if we went to war with Iraq? I would most like to here what anti-war people think. jexster, don't feel you must respond, but if you do, make it short. 969. jexster - 9/30/2002 11:15:57 PM Al - yes 970. joezan - 9/30/2002 11:22:58 PM Of course, the above is another reason not to go after Saddam - "GOOD HEAVENS...we can't invade Iraq just because we think he might have WMD! What if he uses them on US???? 971. jexster - 10/1/2002 12:03:59 AM Saddam Hussein appeared poised last night to agree to resumed UN arms inspections in Iraq, in a deft move that looks likely to complicate Washington's resolve to unseat him. 972. jexster - 10/1/2002 12:05:10 AM gimmee a Daisy Cutter any day ...i love the smell of napalm in the morning..smells like like Victory 973. jexster - 10/1/2002 12:10:35 AM I shouldn't be so unequivocal...there are two condition under which a nation may wage aggressiv war under little known provision of Article 57 of the UN Charter, appearing in fine print 974. jexster - 10/1/2002 12:25:49 AM Support Fading For Bush War in UK 975. jexster - 10/1/2002 11:20:59 AM Blair, Party Cut A Deal on Iraq
WASHINGTON
The trap is sprung. The name of the game is containment.
Contain the wild man, the leader with the messianic and relentless glint who is scaring the world.
Surround him, throw Lilliputian nets on him, tie him up with a lot of U.N. inspection demands, humor him long enough to stop him from using his weapons and blowing up the Middle East.
But this time, the object of the containment strategy is not Saddam Hussein, but George W. Bush, the president with real bombs, not the predator with plans to make them.
America's European and Arab allies now act more nervous about the cowboy in the Oval Office who likes to brag on America as "the greatest nation on the face of the Earth" than the thug in the Baghdad bunker.
Lemon Fizzes on the Banks of the Euphrates
Shakespeare didn't have him say that, did he?
Oops, pants agained. Can't put lipstick on that pig, aw shit.
You need to do a better job of blending Nolte and Dubya's hair.
This guy probably got his Shakespeare confused with his Nostrodamus.
But I suppose PE would know, if he strolled by here.
You might have found this for yourself if you had used Google but I'm sure even had you done so, you'd not admit the quote was properly attributed.
ARF, ARF, ARF!
Do you know how to Google, judy?
You're getting hits on various people's critiques of Shakespeare's work - you might have found this for yourself if you had any idea what you're talking about, and if you'd let those Manhattans alone till at least dinnertime.
grrrrr...arf,arf!
I'll leave you to your smug-little-bastard talk now, Joezy. Your Ace lust has gone to your pointed little head.
Pffftttttttt.....YEAH ------RIGHT!
You made the mistake in jumping to the conclusion it meant the play, not I. Did you even go back to the original post Wiz made? I did, obviously. You...who knows?
From an observant poster in TT:
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
[From William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar]
Wiz's post said, "[From William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar]"
Are you daft?
As for misquoting, I seem to recall you were the biggest "wheedle" and "crawfisher" around here.
Where did Caesar say it? Not secondary sources. Where did he say it?
Don't point to other discussion boards on the net saying Caesar said it. There are some written works by Caesar. Is it in one of them?
Of course, Caesar wouldn't have spoken English, but the word patriotism is a relatively recent coinage--post Shakespeare.
I am mistaken in one part of my claim, that Wiz's post didn't say Shakespeare. Sorry. I stand by the rest of my posts, however.
You did? Didn't improve your memory, though, did it?
I frankly don't care anymore where or if he said it at all. You have sucked all interest out of any of it for me.
I was wrong, okay? I admitted it. Get over yourselves. Rush over and tell Ace all about it; I'm sure you'll gain a ton of favor with him.
Well, that's nice, judith. But no one took issue with the rest of your posts.
Boy - that was some observant poster!
What was he observing, Monty Python?
Like Jasper and Wiz.
Should we count the number of anti-Bush posts on this thread versus pro-Bush?
Is this another post you're willing to stand behind?
Wanh, wanh, wanh.
The New American Imperium -
Statement of Principles (6/1997)
I ALWAYS give a fig about AcieWasie.....kissus fatman
We care a lot
We care a lot about disasters, fires, floods and killer bees
about Los Angeles falling in the sea
about starvation and the food that Live Aid bought
about disease, baby, Rock Hudson, Rock Yeah!
We care a lot
We care a lot
We care a lot about the gamblers and the pushers and the freaks
about the people who live off the street
about the welfare of all the boys and girls
about you people cause we're out to save the world
Yeah!
(chorus) And it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it!
We care a lot about the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines
about the NY, SF, and LAPD
about you people, about your guns
about the wars you're fighting
gee, that looks like fun
We care a lot about the Cabbage Patch, The Smurfs, and DMC
about Madonna and we cop for Mr.T
about the little things, the bigger things we top
about you people, yeah, you bet we care a lot
(chorus) And it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it....
Security Councilrefuses to raise the ante on Iraq
Sad - am Puts Boy Blunder in Bind
Not to mention what he did to my good buddy TD!
Sorry bout dat Thomas
the quote is indeed from Julius Ceasar and has been used by people as disparate as Theodore Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler.
Of course it wasn't used by Hitler and Roosewelt. The "connection" is that their names appear on the same html-page as the quote and thus turn up in the Google search.
Public Supports Bush Positions on U.N. Involvement in Iraq
President Bush's job approval rating is now at 70%, marking the first time since late July that it has been at that level or higher.
Would you favor or oppose sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq? 
The UN is itself in the box because it's left saying now that "No additional resolutions are necessary because existing resolutions already cover the situation." Fine, when we act, we'll be acting under existing resolutions (as Clinton claimed during Desert Fox). When we keep up the pressure and make it clear that the Iraq offer is insufficient, the UN may even decide to pass a new resolution to placate us.
As I already posted, the obvious fallacy of thinking this offer changes anything is not realizing that if you can't trust Saddam's word that he has no weapons, you can't trust his word that he'll allow unimpeded access, either.
Like this: 
In this context, what exactly do you mean by "the UN"?
REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME!
If it becomes necessary, Bush will do what Clinton did in 1998: take military action to enforce existing UN resolutions (which the UN has now emphasized are still in force).
Prove the quotes on this page are false, Edmond Asswipe and instead of trying to undermine the poster, try to address the f**king issues--especially the ones these quotes imply with regard to the WimpChimp.
Adolph Hitler, My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
Julius Caesar.
Now I know you may know all of Shakespeare but I doubt you know every single speech made by Hitler. Though I certainly could be wrong and am not ashamed to admit it when I am.
Masters Of War
So let us talk about the SC and the permanent members instead of the nebulous "the UN". From the US perspective, the UK is on board. France will probably come along after the mandatory posturing. China can be persuaded to abstain and nobody could care less. This leaves Russia which will exact a price for going along. My hunch is that the price will involve Georgia.
Former Sec'y of State Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.
Yep, sounds like a reliable page to me.
This is exactly the page I referred to. Go back and look at it. It is a collection of warlike sayings. There is a quote from Adolph Hitler, My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933. Following that, is the quote from Julius Caesar. There is no connection between the Hitler and Caesar quotes except that they are on the same web page. Contrary to your claim there is absolutely no indication that Hitler used the Caesar quote. And in 1933 it would anyhow had been extraordinarily stupid of him to do so. 
If they have in mind something more than that, we can make things difficult for them, but we probably can't stop that either.
What we really have to do to get the Russians on board is sweeten the Iraq situation itself for them. They plainly don't want an American-installed government there that shuts them out compared with the current privileges they enjoy.
We should be so lucky that all they ask for is a free-hand with Chechen rebels in Georgia. 
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
(Chorus)
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
(Chorus)
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
(Chorus)
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss...
Public Supports Bush Positions on U.N. Involvement in Iraq, claims Dantès.
Well, let's see : blowhard Bush has been ranting about a regime change, with or without UN approval. The US public says :
* the United States should send ground troops to Iraq only if the United Nations supports that action,
46%
* the United States should send ground troops to Iraq even if the United Nations opposes that action,
37%
* the United States should not send ground troops to Iraq at all
14%
So, let's see : a phenomenal 37% of the US Public Supports Bush Positions on U.N. Involvement in Iraq.
I can't leave you for a second young lady!
Curses Batman! Boy Blunder Foiled Again
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs
Now we know just how vicious Saddam Hussein can be. Agreeing to unconditional United Nations inspections at a time when our president had his heart set on war is just the sort of mean-spirited treachery that one can expect from this modern-day Hitler.
The only greater betrayal will be if it turns out, upon inspection, that Iraq is not still building weapons of mass destruction and has no nuclear capability after all.
(with an assist from Rummy)
Eddie, I won't tell if you don't.
"After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments... Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of 'dual use' equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for 'video surveillance applications'; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of 'bacteria/fungi/protozoa' to the IAEC [which] could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax... The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds."
Now all we have to worry about is that Big Mowf TDaschole.
Actually, that's the headline on the story.
Well, let's see : blowhard Bush has been ranting about a regime change, with or without UN approval.
Apparently you don't read too closely, because the statistics you cite are about sending ground troops, not about regime change. So they're pretty irrelevant to the point you're trying to make
In any case, part of the breakdown has to do with the wording. Given three choices, many people want to be moderate and take the middle. The fact remains that 83 percent of Americans according to the poll favor committing American ground troops to Iraq. That's not just military action, that's ground troops--muddy boots and all that entails. You'd be lucky to get 83 percent of Frenchies supporting ground troops in defense of Belgium. Hell, maybe not even Paris.
Not to mention that the question says "if the UN opposes"--not if the UN is neutral or waffles around and doesn't do anything. Eighty percent also think the UN hasn't been tough enough.
Along with the 14% who oppose ground troops in any case, that gives you 60% who oppose sending in ground troops without UN approval.
Given destruction of WMD is essential for Iraq to have economic sanctions lifted, it's highly unlikely they would keep inspectors out "on principle" while sanctions go on and on.
Your position is entirely stupid, anyway. You hate Bush so much you have to pretend he's worse than Saddam, so much that you think Saddam is actually an injured party.
Clown.
And you're probably right.
Initially, at least.
Despite the insane lefty contigent that's so over-represented at the Mote, if forced to choose between their president and the UN, Americans are going to choose 70 percent approval rating Bush versus 80 percent "not tough enough" UN.
Why do you think Daschle's even coming on board? Because he can read poll numbers.
The Economic Costs
of Going to War with Iraq 
Charles Knight
Attak Irak: How the War to Make Bush Believable Stacks Up Against Guidelines for Preemptive Counterproliferation USAF
Center on Counterproliferation.
Its a dirty job Judith but someone's gotta do it...80 flab asses and all
The Answer is NO & Blunder Boy Hasn't Got a Clue
From that Wacky Lefty Publication
The Financial Times
Dumb if he do, dumb if don't, damned either way...
The 1990-91 Gulf War, short as it was, toppled the U.S. into a severe recession that took years to recover from. Now even Bush-minion Lawrence Lindsey is admitting that the cost of a war will be $100-200 BILLION - a hit the U.S. cannot afford, despite the blatherings of rightwing wacko Paul O'Neill. Economic experts overseas say the current war is a far bigger risk to the US and global economy than 1991. The Fed now has less room for manuvering, while the objective of the war - a total regime change in Iraq - has the potential for unforetold disasters. In short, this war will cost Americans dearly, and not just in lives.
"Taking everything into account war with Iraq would almost inevitably mean a double-dip recession for the US," says Stephen Roach, economist at Morgan Stanley.
"The question is whether this is a price the US is willing to pay for its strategic objectives."
If anyone knows nukes, its the folks at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - an outfit founded by Albert Einstein. And they say that the evidence Bush is using to "prove" Saddam is near nukes actually proves just the opposite. The whole leaky case, they point out, is based on the alleged interception of a shipment of aluminum tubes to Iraq, a possible nuke component. The BOAS drily cautions, "Just a little tip for those assigned to leak additional new 'evidence' of a stepped-up Iraqi nuclear threat: The tubing in centrifuges is not nearly as hard to acquire or assemble as the mechanisms that allow them to spin at rapid speeds; getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard. Also, leakers, please note: Should you want to claim that an Iraqi cascade is already in operation, such a facility uses as much energy as a fairly large city; it could be detected by its heat signature alone."
This regimes runs on snake oil and wack jobs.
Hello Eddie!
Moreover, the profile of those who favor war versus those who oppose it increasingly resembles the electoral breakdown of the mid-1990s. The opponents are disproportionately women, minorities, senior citizens, the college-educated and residents of the Northeast, Midwest and Far West. The administration's core supporters are rural, white, male, southern Republicans without a college diploma. That's not a good recipe for building a national consensus and may not help the Republicans in November. Here, based on materials specially provided by polling organizations, is a rundown of who is opposing and who is supporting the administration's rush to war in Iraq.
Why Bush is Febrile with War Fever
The Poll Numbers..the Poll Numbers..the Poll Numbers He Never Looks At
Back to your sewer Eddie
Ha, ha, ha. Einstein's not alive, so if he did found it (which he didn't), that wouldn't have a whole lot to do with its operation today. The co-founders were Eugene I. Rabinowitch and Hyman Goldsmith. As for knowing "their stuff," the article is by Linda Rothstein, "editor." What are her credentials--other than being able to post stories on the Internet? Do you have any evidence showing she's even ever seen a nuclear weapon?
Well, we do have her "story":
Iraq had been using two methods: One program involved building giant “calutrons,” a clumsy technology the United States had abandoned in the 1940s. For decades that technology had been considered so primitive and inefficient that it was unlikely ever to be copied....It’s hard to say what an Iraqi success with this method would have meant....
Strange, but Linda doesn't mention that this was the technology used to build the bomb at Hiroshima. Despite your belief in her vast knowledge, she's also wrong that calutron use was abandoned by the U.S in the 1940s. Of course Oak Ridge National Laboratory isn't the authority Linda is on nukes. I can tell by the highly technical language she uses: "getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard."
Iraq was planning to build a 1,000-machine production cascade at Taji. Based on performance achieved by the Iraqis with their prototype centrifuge, IAEA estimated the potential output of a 1,000 centrifuge cascade at about ten kilograms of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium annually.
Note: 1,000 (not "thousands"). She can talk about "heat signatures" all she wants, but we know of other nations who have kept their weapons a "deniable" secret for years (South Africa, for one). Further, according to this report from Princeton about how to monitor for nuclear activity, she's again, well, wrong. You don't look for a heat signature with centrifuges:
Gaseous diffusion, aerodynamic, and electromagnetic separation plants are quite inefficient and release a large amount of heat. This might be detected by satellite observation or perhaps measurement of the temperature increase of a river if cooling water is dumped there. Centrifuge plants are much more energy efficient, but they place unusual loads on the electric power system. In particular, the centrifuges operate at high speed and require conversion of the line frequency to much higher frequency. The converters reflect a distinct signal back into the line that can be detected. Finally,under some conditions, the distinct noise generated by centrifuges might be detected and recognized.
Well, if we can plug into Iraq's power grid or send Saddam a lamp with a bug in it, we'll be in business, but doesn't sound like satellites are going to detect heat signatures for his centrifuges, despite Linda's assertion that they suck electrical juice like a city.
Mr. HAMZA: Look at the size of the program--will tell you. You have a couple of hundred in the biological, a few hundred in the chemical and 12,000 in the nuclear. What does--what does that tell you?
ROSE: Twelve thousand in nuclear?
Mr. HAMZA: Yes. Yeah.
ROSE: Today?
Mr. HAMZA: Yeah.
ROSE: Twelve thousand people ...
Mr. HAMZA: Yep. Yep. Increased.
ROSE: ... involved in the development of ...
Mr. HAMZA: Yeah, about 5,000 after the war--new appointments.
...
Mr. HAMZA: [M]y estimate would have been within six months-- probably two to six months.
ROSE: CIA thought you were at least 10 years away.
Mr. HAMZA: Yeah, right.
ROSE: How could they be so wrong?
Mr. HAMZA: I don't think, at the time, they cared enough or put enough resources to find out about the program. I don't think they knew enough about the program then to--to really evaluate it.
ROSE: US government officials now concede that before the Gulf War, they dangerously miscalculated the extent of Iraq's nuclear program. And the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA--the group responsible for nuclear inspections in Iraq since 1970--admits it missed the bomb program altogether before the war.
....
Mr. HAMZA: Yes. Unless they remove him, he'll get the bomb, one way or the other. One thing about Saddam: He's constant. He never changes. What he wants is what he wants. And he keeps at it till he gets it. His enemy--he never forgive an enemy. He never give up a project. He never give up a plan. He has the capability. He can--he can do. He's a can-do guy.
Early in 1996, the former Lt. Gen. Majid returned to Iraq under a personal guarantee of safety from Saddam Hussein. He was murdered two days later.
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Listen doofis - the guy that negotiated the agreement with the UN said afterward that "unconditional" means that military sites can be inspected - but no schools, hospitals, or presidential palaces - some of his favorite hiding places.
This is not, under any circumstances, "unconditional", jasper.
A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.
The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.
The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.
"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."
Tonkin Gulf Resolution 2002:
Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Institute for Science & Int'l Security Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program
Wag the dog..hot box the Congress...off we go...
You Call That Evidence?
The Bush administration has begun to produce what it calls evidence to support its claim that Iraq is moving very near a nuclear weapon capability. But a story in Sunday’s New York Times (September 8, 2002), especially as elaborated by administration officials on Sunday talk shows, actually suggests just the opposite—that Iraq is not as close as it was before the Gulf War.
In a front-page story, Times reporters Michael Gordon and Judith Miller write that they were told by administration officials that Iraq has been trying to buy specially designed aluminum tubes to be used to fabricate gas centrifuges in which to produce weapon-grade uranium.
How does that compare to what we know about the state of Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991?
After the Gulf War, U.N. Special Commission inspectors discovered that although Iraq had spent billions of dollars over nearly two decades, its efforts to produce weapon-grade uranium had basically come up empty.
Iraq had been using two methods: One program involved building giant “calutrons,” a clumsy technology the United States had abandoned in the 1940s. For decades that technology had been considered so primitive and inefficient that it was unlikely ever to be copied; everything anyone could want to know about it was available in the open literature. It’s hard to say what an Iraqi success with this method would have meant, but in any case, the calutrons were destroyed.
The second method—and certainly the modern method of choice—was to build a “cascade” of centrifuges to separate the fissile constituents of uranium from the non-fissile. A cascade consists of thousands of centrifuges, all of which must be able to withstand spinning at extraordinarily high speed.
Inspectors discovered that although the Iraqis had brought in centrifuge experts from Germany and purchased specialty steel from German and Swiss companies, they had spoiled most of the material—failing to shape it properly or otherwise maltreating it. Essentially, the Iraqi centrifuge program was a failure. And if the Iraqis were to depend on producing weapon material through the centrifuge process—rather than trying to obtain it on the black market—experts say it would probably take five or six years.
Now we are expected to believe that Iraq is closer to a nuclear weapon capability because it is starting all over again! Admittedly, this time Iraq is trying to get different materials with which to construct the centrifuges—and perhaps they hope to save time by getting it preformed as tubes.
Inspectors discovered that although the Iraqis had brought in centrifuge experts from Germany and purchased specialty steel from German and Swiss companies, they had spoiled most of the material—failing to shape it properly or otherwise maltreating it. Essentially, the Iraqi centrifuge program was a failure. And if the Iraqis were to depend on producing weapon material through the centrifuge process—rather than trying to obtain it on the black market—experts say it would probably take five or six years.
Now we are expected to believe that Iraq is closer to a nuclear weapon capability because it is starting all over again! Admittedly, this time Iraq is trying to get different materials with which to construct the centrifuges—and perhaps they hope to save time by getting it preformed as tubes.
These comments, of course, raise more questions than they answer. First, just who is the “we” Cheney refers to? The U.S. government? An ally? In any case, it is someone who has no name. This story certainly leaves the rest of us wondering if anyone has made an effort to find out anything about the possible supplier or suppliers, because of their potential violation of treaties forbidding the export of weapons-usable industrial items.
Things got murkier after Condoleezza Rice’s appearance on CNN’s Late Edition. Although her discussion of the issue was more general, her remarks were more in line with the Times story; she said “we” knew about a series of shipments of tubes.
How strange is a story in which one official argues the case of a single shipment while others say there have been a number of shipments, yet no one expresses any interest in the source? Are the same unnamed but all-knowing “we” not at all interested in asking alleged suppliers what they think they’re doing, or bringing any pressure on them to cut it out? And why hasn’t anyone in the media been able to tease out a single bit of independent, corroborating information?
(And just a little tip for those assigned to leak additional new “evidence” of a stepped-up Iraqi nuclear threat: The tubing in centrifuges is not nearly as hard to acquire or assemble as the mechanisms that allow them to spin at rapid speeds; getting that stuff right, and getting thousands of centrifuges working in concert, is really hard. Also, leakers, please note: Should you want to claim that an Iraqi cascade is already in operation, such a facility uses as much energy as a fairly large city; it could be detected by its heat signature alone. [The previous sentence is incorrect, and should not have been included. Separating uranium by a gaseous diffusion method, not the centrifuge enrichment process, uses large quantities of electricity. I apologize for the error. —L.R.])
The aluminum tubing story—and others to come—may be taken at face value by an insufficiently skeptical press, but the decision to go to war is simply too important to let the administration “wing it” in presenting its rationale.
As Jon Stewart of the Daily Show asked recently about the administration’s attitude toward the American public, “Do they think we’re retarded?”
To where, to what end, they haven't a clue...
Neither do they have a justification for pre-emptive aggression.
Which is why we are having a war scare.
War: Karl Rove's ultimate wedge issue 
If Jasper continues to repost his same inaccurate blather over and over, I'll feel entitled to do the same with my responses.
Once again, you err. According to his bio, David Albright is a contributing editor to the Bulletin, so you're not quoting a different "outfit" in your new source.
"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons...
Of course not. If it was possible to know everything about Iraq's program without inspectors, we wouldn't need inspectors. Idiot. It's a clue. We also have Iraq's past record and the fact they haven't allowed inspectors in for four years. We have the testimony of Iraq defectors.
We have David Albright.
From September 1991:
"The high-stakes shell game Iraq has played with its clandestine nuclear program is coming to an end. While not all information has been gathered by a U.N. Special Commission responsible for finding and eliminating Iraq's nuclear weapons capabilities, officials involved in the effort are confident here will be no surprises as great as those of the last few months-especially the revelation that Iraq may have been as close as a few years from possession of nuclear weapons."
"Has Iraq Finally Come Clean?" Notice that this was after David was sure there'd be no "new suprises."
The past four-plus years have been frustrating for Western nuclear sleuths who have tried to get the whole story of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The Iraqis have cooperated at times, especially when backed into a corner. But in general, they have stalled, obfuscated, covered up, and even lied about the extent of the program....
All of this information suggests that, had the Gulf War not intervened, Iraq could have assembled a small nuclear arsenal composed of relatively crude enriched-uranium implosion-type weapons within a few years, perhaps by 1996. It seems likely that Iraq would have used gas centrifuges to produce the weapon-grade uranium, not its electromagnetic isotope separators or "calutrons" as inspectors first believed....
Regardless of the slow pace of its nuclear weapons program, Iraq had progressed far enough by January 1991 that it could rapidly reconstitute its program if the international community relaxes its guard....
The fact that the Iraqi nuclear weapons program was making only slow progress before the war or during the crash program should not be interpreted as suggesting that Iraq will not be a serious proliferation threat in the future. If sanctions are removed, the international community will face a formidable challenge to insure that Iraq does not revive its nuclear effort.
Do they think we're retarded?
"One must recognize that sanctions alone cannot prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons, nor can sanctions lead to a workable strategy if Iraq succeeds in acquiring such weapons. Absent Iraqi cooperation in allowing inspections to resume, it is prudent to assume that something untoward is going on in Iraq. Iraqi claims to the contrary are not credible if left untested, given Saddam Hussein's track record. The mere possession of nuclear weapons by Iraq would have disastrous regional and global effects, inevitably drawing the United States into military confrontation."
in the future...may somehow..maybe somedday....remove sanctions...
So what exactly is your point? That there never WAS any threat either "imminent" "gathering" or "grave"? That Bush was lying when just a week ago he claimed to want UN resolutions enforced? The resolutions with the sanctions in them?
Put that in Tariq Aziz's cigar and smoke it.
By the way, why aren't you familiar with all these articles by Dave--they were published in the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists?
I do know that there is substantial doubt that what Bush is telling us is not true
I know that Bush is trying a bums rush to prevent us finding out what is true
Also know that there is no reason, no threat to international or regional security that warrants war any time soon, and also know that the Bushies have not produced and cannot produce a scintilla of evidence to the contrary
Be honest. You don't actually believe most of the stuff you post here, do you?
And isn't it about time you followed Daschle's lead, gave up on the Iraq thing, and started focusing on the economy again?
The elections are only a few weeks away.
If it makes you feel better: BUSH IS NOT WORSE THAN SAD-am...he's smarter, he's got more balls, but to me Saddam is basically like Bedbug Eddy from the Pope of Greenwich Village writ large
Makes no difference...Saddam is not an imminent threat to the peace, GWB is
And he is dishonest, he immoral, and he is the US President.
He did nothing to refute their charges, which incidentally were two different criticisms on the same issue.
As for his repetition about Dr. Hamza, you haven't been following the discussion, for if you had, you will note that the CIA, the ISS, the Carnegie Endowment (including Amb Ekeus) who all have interviewed Hamza, do not support his conclusion.
And my point, since I am not an atomic scientist, and have no first hand knowledge of the facts, indeed only third fourth fifth hand knowledge, my point is this...that there is sufficient doubt, nay overwhelming doubt that Iraq has will soon have much less be able to deliver any nuclear weapons anywhere
But at any rate, I've told Eddie this several days ago...
The Bush administration apparently wants to silence Albright, and the Bush Administration has not updated the National Defense Intelligence Estimate for two years now....a fact I also pointed out some days ago...
NDIE's contain dissenting views...in case you didn't know or remember from my prior posts on this subject...
Between September 14 and 16, thousands demonstrated against a new U.S. war on Iraq, in Emergency Actions called by the A.N.S.W.E.R.
(Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) Coalition. Protests took place in Washington D.C., San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Luis
Obispo, Seattle, Fresno and other cities.
In Washington DC, over 100 protesters arrived at 8 am to picket outside of the hotel where over 100 military contractors were buying and selling their latest weapons of mass destruction and Donald Rumsfeld was set to be their honored guest.
On the West Coast, 3,000 marched in San Francisco, 2,000 in Los Angeles, and many more in other cities.
The Emergency Actions were initiated as part of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s campaign to Stop the War on Iraq Before it Starts, which will culminate with the National March in Washington DC and joint action
in San Francisco, set for October 26, which will be a massive national mobilization.
Now THERE's a idea, Ace. That can be done too, or at least I had an electrician do just that in disproving a defendant's allegations about manufacturing operations in a case last year.
But that requires inspections
"This is not about inspections" -WH 9/17/02
Its not about Iraqi nukes.
Its not about VX gas
Its not about threats to neighbors
Its not about the plight of the Kurds
Its not about the plight of the Iraqi people.
Its about what Richard Perle SAID it was about.
Not a good idea...as you saw on the Sopranoes.
Bada Bing
Council on October 8, 1997, (S/1997/779) provides a comprehensive summary of the IAEA activities and findings regarding the investigation, destruction, removal, and rendering harmless of significant components of Iraq’s clandestine nuclear weapons program.
In this report the IAEA concluded, inter alia, that its mandated activities had resulted in a coherent picture of Iraq’s program; that there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing a nuclear
weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.
These conclusions were recorded in conjunction with the recognition that some uncertainty is inevitable in any countrywide technical verification process that seeks to ensure the absence of readily concealable items or activities. At the time of reporting, it was the IAEA view that the few remaining uncertainties did not detract from its ability to implement effectively its plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification (OMV) of Iraq’s compliance with its undertaking not to acquire or develop
nuclear weapons or weapons-usable nuclear materials or their related activities and facilities. It was also the IAEA view that the investigation of the remaining uncertainties, or any other matter that may come to light, was provided for and could be accomplished within the scope of the OMV plan. Nothing arose to change these views from
October 1997 to December 1998.
Everything that has been reported "to have arisen" since 1998, when the inspectors left is based on leaked information, partial information, information of disputed integrity, information that can be verified, supplemented, or contradicted by inspections.
"this is not about inspections"
Incidentally, Saddam is far worse than Milosevic. 
or you can deal with what's in front of you...
Flame fest you say?
That's flame... but I shall hold my fire..
How many people did Saddam chase out of their homes in Iraq before and after the Gulf War?
Has Milosevic gassed anyone? Has Milosevic started two major wars that led to at least a million casualties, many of them civilians?
Gulf War I? UN Resolution 657, 1287.
nuff said about that...wouldn't want to "spam" or "flame"
Arming the Arms Inspectors - Carnegie OpEd, NyT & my view since 1998
You are correct to be suspicious...as for my view of two evils and how to deal with them, and more specifically whether resort to war is required now v. Kosovo, my position again has always been transparent, oft stated, and oft scoffed at and it has nothing whatever to do with who is in power for if it did I would not have supported either GWI or the War on the Talibees as I did, and in each case, my view turns on
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
For the United States, the costs of such a war include the death of soldiers, economic losses caused by the effect of soaring oil prices on a fragile stock market, the need to post tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for many years, lingering resentment among allies whose cooperation we need and the near certainty of creating legions of new terrorists who hate America. For the United Nations, the result would be a terrible defeat, an admission of weakness and of its inability to impose its writ on a villain. For the world as a whole, the costs will include the deaths of innocent Iraqis, increased repression in Arab states coping with domestic political anger and possibly chaos in the region.
That is the short list. Mathews OpEd
Further if the UN determines as is likely a mechanism for enforcement of its resolutions that Bush rejects in favor of war, any claim that he may have to legitimacy vanishes and every death in my view becomes a murder.
Though you don't deserve a response, I will give you one anyway.
I believe there is a serious threat to the US from wmd being smuggled into this country. Anyone who thinks that scenario is an impossible fantasy is an idiot.
While it could be argued that Saddam himself would not be particularly interested in handing such weapons over to Islamist suicide cells, since, as theocrats, such groups don't much care for Baathist secularism and might use said weapons against Baghdad, not all suicde bombers are driven by religious reasons, witness some of the Palestinian kids who vaporize themselves and blow faces off Jews in Israel.
Frankly, I don't think any Arab country (or Iran), as presently governed, should be permitted to develop the bomb. And certainly not Iraq.
I have not suddenly been spooked by Bush's advisors into worrying about this matter. I have been concerned about nukes being smuggled into this country for a couple of decades, back when our current president wasn't sober.
As I have posted before, Sen. Lugar and others raised this issue a very long time ago.
After 9/11, we are finally beginning to take it seriously. Sorry you're not on board yet.
But it doesn't fit your agenda, which has nothing to do with the antiwar movement, but everything to do with the Democrat Party.
I am an idiot..
Not even Cheney is claiming a threat to the US yet you persist in this nonsense.
But I am not alone in my idiocy I assure you.
I think you are a paranoid
So there/
At bottom it requires me to believe that you are rational and Hussein isn't!
Which of course undermines the hawk argument that Saddam only responds to a credible threat of destruction which if correct means he is rational and you aren't
FLAME
Yes, you are an idiot then. Or else you don't bother to read posts before responding to them.
I have not claimed that Saddam has packed a nuke into a container headed to New York. I don't think he has them yet, and I'm not sure he himself would ever try to do such a thing, though I would not put it past him.
And if you are saying that Dick Cheney has not said that Saddam is about to smuggle a bomb into New York, you are correct.
But if you are suggesting that Senators Warner and Schumer do not have a bill to dramatically increase radiation detection at America's ports so as to intercept a possible nuclear device someday, you are not correct.
The point, which you miss or ignore, is that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is an extremely dangerous proposition for America's safety, and especially so if that development takes place in a country run by a U.S.-hating psycho, a country that may be even more unstable in the hands of a Baathist successor to Saddam, hence the reasonable attractiveness of regime change there now, dicated by the UN if possible, by the US and UK alone, if necessary.
The threat of nuclear weapons and other wmd being used against the US is entirely real.
But, probably, in the end, you're just a fool.
Operative language:
``all means he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions (on disarmament), defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and restore international peace and security in the region.''
I neither miss nor ignore the problemsee Message # 604, I just don't overstate it to the point of paranoia, I don't believe Saddam is psychotic and I believe that the evidence and indeed the very premise of those who argue so strenuously for war now flatly contradicts it
I believe that Saddam would like a bomb...I believe he would like an arsenal such as the US has...I believe taht there is no nation state in the middle east that believes as you do, not even Israel
I believe that there exists a morally sound, and prudentially wise alternative to deal with a real problem
I believe that you are frenzied to the point of being irrational
I do not believe that any member state of the UN has the authority to enforce UN resolutions on their own motion...I don't believe that Eygpt or Syria had that right in 1973, don't believe the US/Britain have that right now...
I believe that last week's UN speech was a charade
I believe everything I say
...
A Message from the United Methodist "Idiots"
And the reason is this - in both cases the threat was "grave and imminent" in both cases, all means short of war were exhausted, in neither case did the use of force unleash disorders more grave than that sought to be remedied
In this case, no substantial argument exists on these points and none has been made
Furthermore, even if I WAS wrong then, and assuming for the sake of arugument I was wrong in my evaluation, no one around here at least has challenged my evaluation of just war now for indeed they cannot and the US Conference of Catholic bishops just a few days ago confirmed my judgment correct...a sermon I have been preaching for weeks.
So you have the criteria I use...have at it
David Albright
President, Institute for Science and
International Security
Cooperated with IAEA Iraq
Action Team from 1992 to 1997
If the Security Council passes a resolution authorizing the use of force if Iraq fails to comply with inspections, the US and its allies invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, how then would this violate just war theory? US doctrine has been to minimize civilian casualties, Saddam's military will most likely crumple quickly--indeed the only likely high casualty event would be Saddam using what WMD he has, either against the invading forces or against Israel. One could argue that even in a divided and conflict prone Iraq, Iraqis would benefit from no longer being ruled by Saddam.
That's Bush keeps changing the argument for it and why when all said and done around here, we hear nothing much from Ace other than "you hate bush so much you like Saddam more" and more unholy garbage than the 100 degree temperatures in SF will permit me to deal with now...
Pigshit looks for pretext..keep lookin
Charismatic Schröder turns the tide
By Roger Boyes
All the signs are that the Chancellor’s Social Democrats, lagging a hopeless 7 per cent behind early this summer, will emerge as the strongest party on Sunday evening
I shared with Allistair my hunch that Chirac had Blair in his sights when giving his interview to the NyT....
My hunch is lookin good
Have I ever shared this with you Wombat?
hheheheheehe
George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world.
A war against Iraq will destroy many lives immediately, both Iraqi and American.
Invading Iraq will lead to a degree of turmoil in the Arab-Islamic world hitherto unimagined.
How has America become trapped in such a disastrous cul-de-sac?
Bush promised the American people a "war on terrorism" that "we will certainly win". So far, all he's produced is the downfall of the weak and impoverished Taliban. He hasn't captured Osama bin Laden. Pakistan is shaky. Saudi Arabia is pulling away. If he doesn't invade Iraq, he will look foolish where it matters to him most - in the eyes of American voters.
Bush's incredibly high approval ratings reflect his being a "war president". The minute he becomes a peace-time president, he will be in grave trouble - all the more so because of failed wartime promises.
So, Bush has no choice. He will invade Iraq. He has made clear the Middle East crisis will not deter him from this. Quite the opposite. And we shall all live with the consequences.
Bernard Trainor to Jexster...
Urban warfare is indeed grim. Since WWII, we have only had to do it twice, when the Marines captured Seoul in Sept. 1950 during the Korean war and again when the Marines liberated Hue during the Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968. Both caused terrible casualties and I personally lost five good friends between the two actions.
Wish me luck Wombat
Semper Fi
You did not answer my question, though. Given the conditions stated above (UN resolution, Iraqi failure to allow unfettered inspection, a quick war, even without a stable post Saddam Iraq), your use of the just war argument against overthrowing Saddam is arguably wrong.
USA Today
Even those "most pessimistic conclusions from ambiguous evidence" are modest by comparison with Ronski's pathetic rascism and paranoia....
No shit.
But I am not alone in my idiocy I assure you.
Never had any doubts.
Given the volume he posts, even if most of those posts appear multiple times, how could he possibly be anything but sloppy and uncritical?
Is that a question or just more cum stained dress drivel?
That wasn't a question.
"this isn't about inspections" White House Press Office 9/17
"You can take the country into a war pretty fast but you can't get out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are." Sen Chuck Hagel
Wombat..didn't mean to give short shrift to your Message # 620 for it is the first attempt at a "just war" justification around here. I have copied an will respond when the fog nears the coast again.
Now Ace can continue to offer himself in sacrifice to my proof that the current frenzy is a politically motivated dupe, pigshit in search of pretext, but we really don't need you Ace to do that...Bush has done an excellent job as I have chronicled for you several times and will do so again...
Keep the corn pone crack pot slime jobs coming...I get bored with substance...and you are the best of the cum stained dress bunch that I have seen....
BODY:
MOSCOW, Sept. 19 (Xinhua) --Iraqi Ambassador to Russia Abbas Khalaf said Thursday that the Iraqi government would allow weapons inspectors from the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to any facilities they would wish to visit.
"I state with all responsibility that international inspectors will be provided with free access to all facilities they request to visit. We expect international inspectors to work honestly and count on interaction with them," Khalaf said in an interview published in Thursday's Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper.
"Iraq has no nuclear program as such, and all nuclear research in Iraq has been phased out," the ambassador stressed.
Go for it ...
But this isn't about weapons inspections, its not about Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda, its not about the integrity of the UN, its not even about the boogey man under pitiable Ronski's bed.
2) We expect international inspectors to work honestly and count on interaction with them. Uh-huh...no sub-text there.
3) Iraq has no nuclear program as such, and all nuclear research in Iraq has been phased out.
None there either.
They can put all the lipstick they want on this pig - it ain't flyin'.
But seriously - doesn't his hair look darker?
For those who believed that this adventure had anything to do with anything other than Bush's poll numbers and credibilty,
"The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism"
He's damned if he does, and we are all fucked WHEN, not if he does.
What does he think we're all retards?
What about Pelle, dowager empress of the Mote....I think you have some reading to catch up on, international politics lesson...
Smarmy fuck 
Elite forces from Iraq's Republican Guard may not be called upon to protect Saddam Hussein in the event of an American attack - for fear that they might turn against him.
The Iraqi leader is determined to keep his crack troops out of Baghdad where their tanks and heavy weaponry could be used to overthrow the regime rather than defend it, the Guardian has learned.
Jasper'll be there to defend him.
I liked this:
In addition, there is the Saddam Fedayyeen, a thug militia run by President Saddam's elder son, Udai, which specialises in internal repression - such as cutting off tongues and beheading prostitutes.
"Dr Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations agency charged with disarming Iraq, was due to brief the Security Council on his discussions with the Iraqis on Tuesday night when, according to diplomats, Iraqi officials failed to provide guarantees that inspectors would be able to work freely. Dr Blix is said to have presented the Iraqis with a detailed list of demands for logistical support once the inspectors started work.
"But the Iraqi officials declined to offer any answers, saying that they had to check with Baghdad."
"Iraq will have 3 nuclear bombs by 2005" 
National Network to
End The War
Against Iraq
Gulf of Tonkin II
The Prime Minister told a German newspaper that the British Government’s aim was to deal with Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, as it emerged that Britain and the US are seeking an early test of Iraq’s apparent offer to allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors.
Chirac Had His Sights Set on Blair
When he said, "its the world against Bush."
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Serious Moral Questions
with the REAL seat of power in the Bush foreign policy mish mash...
Falwell's Liberty University - Dept. of International Relations: KILL! KILL! KILL! 
Hail Bush:
A new Roman empire
September 20 2002 - Sydney Morning Herald
They came, they saw, they conquered. Now the United States dominates the world. With the rise of the New Age Roman empire, how long before the fall?
The word of the hour is empire. As the United States marches to war, no other label quite seems to capture the scope of American power or the scale of its ambition. "Sole superpower" is accurate enough, but seems oddly modest. "Hyperpower" might appeal to the French; "hegemon" is favoured by academics. But empire is the big one, the gorilla of geopolitical designations - and suddenly the US is bearing its name.
Of course, enemies of the US have shaken their fist at its "imperialism" for decades: they are doing it again now, as Washington wages a global "war against terror" and braces itself for a campaign aimed at "regime change" in a foreign, sovereign state. What is more surprising, and much newer, is that the notion of a US empire has suddenly become a live debate inside the US. And not just among Europhile liberals either, but across the range - from left to right. 
Annan bows
In a week when the Bush administration called Iraq the "greatest threat to the world" and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein insisted that he had no weapons of mass destruction, the Security Council is left to ferret out some form of truth. It's at this pivotal moment that could be the difference between peace and war that Annan is stepping back into the shadows.
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
At its meeting last week, the 60-member Administrative Committee the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops asked me to write you about the situation in Iraq. We welcome your efforts to focus the world's attention on the need to address Iraq's repression and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in defiance of the United Nations. The Committee met before your speech at the United Nations, but I thought it was important that I express our serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq.
A year ago, my predecessor Bishop Joseph Fiorenza wrote you about the U.S. response to the horrific attacks we commemorated last week. He told you then that, in our judgment, the use of force against Afghanistan could be justified, if it were carried out in accord with just war norms and as one part of a much broader, mostly non-military effort to deal with terrorism.
The United States and the international community have two grave moral obligations: to protect the common good against any Iraqi threats to peace and to do so in a way that conforms with fundamental moral norms. We have no illusions about the behavior or intentions of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi leadership must cease its internal repression, end its threats to its neighbors, stop any support for terrorism, abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and comply with UN resolutions. Mobilizing the nations of the world to recognize and address Iraq's threat to peace and stability through new UN action and common commitment to ensure that Iraq abides by its commitments is a legitimate and necessary alternative to the unilateral use of military force. Your decision to seek UN action is welcome, but other questions of ends and means must also be answered.
There are no easy answers. People of good will may apply ethical principles and come to different prudential judgments, depending upon their assessment of the facts at hand and other issues. We conclude, based on the facts that are known to us, that a preemptive, unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time. We fear that resort to force, under these circumstances, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. Of particular concern are the traditional just war criteria of just cause, right authority, probability of success, proportionality and noncombatant immunity.
Just cause. What is the casus belli for a military attack on Iraq? The Catechism of the Catholic Church, reflecting widely accepted moral and legal limits on why military force may be used, limits just cause to cases in which "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain." (#2309) Is there clear and adequate evidence of a direct connection between Iraq and the attacks of September 11th or clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature? Is it wise to dramatically expand traditional moral and legal limits on just cause to include preventive or preemptive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Should not a distinction be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government"s existence?
Norms governing the conduct of war. While we recognize improved capability and serious efforts to avoid directly targeting civilians in war, the use of massive military force to remove the current government of Iraq could have incalculable consequences for a civilian population that has suffered so much from war, repression, and a debilitating embargo.
We raise these troubling questions to contribute to the vital national debate about ends and means, risks and choices reflecting our responsibilities as pastors and teachers. Our assessment of these questions leads us to urge you to pursue actively alternatives to war. We hope you will persist in the very frustrating and difficult challenges of building broad international support for a new, more constructive and effective approach to press the Iraqi government to live up to its international obligations. This approach could include continued diplomatic efforts aimed, in part, at resuming rigorous, meaningful inspections; effective enforcement of the military embargo; maintenance of political sanctions and much more carefully-focused economic sanctions which do not threaten the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians; non-military support for those in Iraq who offer genuine democratic alternatives; and other legitimate ways to contain and deter aggressive Iraqi actions.
We respectfully urge you to step back from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that conforms with traditional moral limits on the use of military force.
Sincerely yours,
Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory
Bishop of Belleville
President
Whoop-dee-doo.
Not in the US.
Yes but the argument is closer. On the one hand, we will have met the jurisdictional test by going to the Security Council for authorization and would be acting under some color of authority against a threat to international order albeit it causally attentuated.
Second, the War to Make Bush Believable creates dangerous a precedent which violates the imminent threat requirement of the just war theory not to mention the UN Charter. Third, when as here all steps to avoid war have not been made; where success in terms of continuing regional disruption, declining US influence in the world, political strife and bloodshed both in Iraq and elsewhere in the region; and most importantly, the imminence test is not met, the question of how the US fights is not relevant.
The war is morally illicit and from a Christian point of view, tantamount to murder. The same sort of reasoning applies to individual claims of self-defense. You cannot walk up to someone who killed your sister 10 years ago and shoot him. If you do, your homicide is not justifiable.
Neither a UN sanction nor a Congressional sanction makes ano otherwise illicit killing licit. The Economist, wacko wing of their editorial board, made much the same point in their editorial supporting the war. Opting as their SOLE justification the "he gassed his own people and Iran 15 years ago", the Economist first dismissed this argument as hyper legalistic. Being a lawyer, I must admit to having been rather taken with the point that UN blessing could somehow make the immoral moral. Why hells bells, break a contract?
The war, the justifications for it, the diplomacy that precedes ut, the geopolitical thinking that underpins it, the development of strategy and tactics to fight it, the absence of any will or plan or competence to deal with the aftermath, all of it is a disaster, not in the making but in the unfolding.
Is it any wonder then that Bush is now giving us all the bum's rush now?
To paraphrase Chuck Hagel, its easier to start a war than fight or finish it, easier still if he can short circuit debate and inquiry.
From Bush's point of view, three weeks is one damn sight better than three months. For the rest of us...
US doctrine has been to minimize civilian casualties, Saddam's military will most likely crumple quickly--indeed the only likely high casualty event would be Saddam using what WMD he has, either against the invading forces or against Israel. One could argue that even in a divided and conflict prone Iraq, Iraqis would benefit from no longer being ruled by Saddam.
A somewhat different objection to your application of just war theory here.
Yes, the number of casualties US (some say 1000) and Iraqi (8-ten times that) SHOULD not be large relative to say Vietnam but most likely the Iraq war will account for the second largest casualty toll since Korea. There were I think about 20,000 civilian deaths in GWI. Furthermore, if there is any significant urban fighting (more than a day or two), even these "light" casualty predictions that the Hawks are spinning, are out the window.
The just war theory does NOT justify killings to "liberate" a sovereign nation's "suffering people" ceteris paribus for obvious reasons both moral and prudential (Cuba, in answer to the Bay of Pigs invasion, today landed 10,000 troops in Mobile to liberate Alabama blacks from George Wallace and Bull Conner etc.)
On the same basis, we must also reject as immaterial the 'Flowers of Democracy' pretext of the ChickenHawks and Zan's "Onward Christian Soldiers Kill Sand Niggers" moral(!) theology of the so-called "Christian" right.
There's not enough lipstick for this pig. Each week or two brings a new "justification" to replace the prior weeks worn out and descredited offering.
It's 4:30am in SF.
Do you know where your mind is?
Sun Sep 22, 7:47 AM ET
By Richard Waddington
Strategery for Spastic Policy Makers, Staledated & Bored Cold Warriors Cum Chicken Hawks and Morons
Case in point...now Bush is bitching about the time it will take to catch up with all the home chemistry sets that can be used to make VX gas that can't be delivered anywhere. We CAN discover what if any progress Sad-am has make with nukes..but that was LAST WEEK's war scare.
Back to "he gassed his own people" 15 years ago.
GENEVA (Reuters) - U.N. inspectors could take a long time to turn up hard evidence of any Iraqi germ or chemical warfare programs because the trail may be cold, experts warn.
"You may get lucky. But it is more likely to be painstaking detective work. Like investigating a murder, it could take a long time," said one Geneva-based arms expert who asked not to be named.
The United States demands quick United Nations ( news - web sites) action to enforce, militarily if necessary, its resolutions ordering Iraq to destroy suspected biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
Baghdad denies it has such weapons and in a bid to ward off any U.S.-led attack, it has offered to allow the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors, barred since 1998.
Saturday, however, Iraq said the return would have to be on terms it said it had agreed with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ( news - web sites), without spelling out what they were.
The offer has been welcomed by Russia which said that getting the inspectors back is the top priority because it should be easy to determine whether or not the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) is hiding anything.
Arms experts, however, say it is not that simple and that while a nuclear weapons program might be quickly detectable, biological and chemical arms pose a big challenge
My mind...now where did I put the damn thing..ya know I usually put it in my right front pocket when not in use..
Shit.
But first a vocabulary lesson...
Protocol - 1a. The forms of ceremony and etiquette observed by diplomats and heads of state. b. A code of correct conduct: safety protocols; academic protocol.
It is a moral teaching of the Majesterium of the Roman Catholic Church that has, as previously been pointed out to you, been a central tenet of Christian moral theology since St. Augustine of Hippo; is the single most influential philosophical model for dealing with the ethical issues of war
The fifth commandment is not a protocol. The injunction Jesus Christ added to it, is not a protocol.
THIS IS NOT a protocol, for Catholics it is a moral imperative to consider deliberately. The USCCB did a fine job but its an easy call. If only Bush were Catholic or even a good Methodist!
I have not restricted your posting here thus far, jex. But we have all by now read the Just War "teachings", and I suspect anyone who pays any attention to you can now recite them verbatim.
Please refrain from spammimg this thread.
(Not that joe, J.J. et. al. care to listen)
Yesiree, politics surely makes strange bed buddies. Now Robert Byrd is a "true patriot."
The ex-KKer Robert Byrd who:
The Democrats are welcome to supporters like that.
If you think I am going to let you get away with a cheap shot without leveling a full, fair, and on point answering blast, you best think again. I refer to your Message # 666.
Now if Cllr or Al D or Ace posted that message I probably would not have reposted the authority. As far as I can tell, none of them is a confessional Christian, and Cllr... But you on the other hand claim to be a practicing "Christian" fundamentalist. Now I don't really care what religion you practice or that you are a fundamentalist. Its the fundie claim that its half baked collection of distortions, heresies, intolerance, and cracker racism is Christian!
But even then, I could hold my tongue. Your religion is your business until you make it mine. And that's what you did in Message # 666. That's not the first time either. You've done it a number of times in a number of contexts and every time you do, you will be answered and again and again.
From July Bush rallies US for strike on Iraq
June
March
Byrd's senility or drunkenness must be flaring up again.
And neither is the Southern Fried Chicken Block of the GOP which is where all the bigots went the niggers got the vote.
Poof! The world's most serious threat to peace gone, and blow for democracy as bonus. Two minutes
Fair time for fundies...
No adjectives needed to help this along...Its self-trivializes without any help from me. Note the differences between this and Abp Gregory's letter above:
US Baptist group backs ousting Saddam by force
Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Friday September 20, 2002
The Guardian
After months of critical comment from church leaders across the world and in the US, the Bush administration has at last won the support of one religious group for its Iraq policy.
The 16 million-strong Southern Baptist Convention, the fundamentalist Bible Christians of the southern states, has backed the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein's regime by force.
Richard Land, president of the convention's ethics and religious liberty commission, said: "It would be a strategic and sizable blow to terrorism to remove [Saddam's] Hitleresque administration from power. It would suggest to Iranians, Saudis and Syrians that they too could have such a government of the people, by the people and for the people."
He added: "The US should not sit idly by waiting for her allies in Europe to indicate their support ... no offence intended but we have had to extricate the Europeans from conflagrations of their own making twice in the last century."
Not fly spec of Christian belief in any of that far right spew and not a little bit of nativist crapola
But rang true with what?
Today's Washington Post covered the same topic - the latest war plan (ver. 29.12) in the saga "Bush Bumbles to Baghdad".
A marine corps intelligence analyst is adamant "We must hit the RG hard and fast"
This is all of a piece with the ChickenHawk party line - Iraq threatens world peace, but their army can only threaten to fold and go home. So they push the defection line, which also sounds plausible and hopeful, so I belived that. Then I read, a comment from Anthony Cordesman "we've heard predictions of mass defections repeatedly going back to the Iran Iraq War (a seriously brutal war) and they never pan out.
So now shoud we target the RG because if we don't they'll turn Marines into ground burger in bloody urban war or should we not target them because they will lead a place coup?
Could it be that the ChickenHawks are truly clueless, that they have repeated their fact-starved rhetoric so often they've convinced themselves, worse that we have heard it so often that even we forget that its not real?
Bullshit answers the echo of Bullshit...
I have Lexis Ace....what say I go do a search and just post the summary pages search "Bush" "no decision" "no plan" "War w/2 iraq" (summer months)
What do you bet....150 hits...300...what do you think Ole Joey would do if I posted just the articles summaries?
Bryd is indeed senile but damned if he isn't right too
A few excerpts of note
WMD a Pretext: ChickenHawks Won't Stop at Baghdad
"Despite Iraq's sudden invitation to renew UN weapons inspections, American hardliners will keep up the pressure for war. Regime change might be achieved under cover of disarming Baghdad. But without a serious debate on the objectives of force, there will be no opportunity to consider what could go wrong or how to handle the competing interests.
New order
A determined stance in the face of regional criticism of administration policy, whether toward Palestine or Iraq, is intrinsic to the US war agenda. The so-called hawks championing the cause of regime change in Iraq have made it clear that they have more than the government in Baghdad in their sights.
The neo-conservative wing of the Bush administration is looking for a new regional order, where liberal-capitalist, democratic governments aligned with the United States will replace theocratic, dictatorial and otherwise antithetical regimes. It is claimed that forcing such change in Baghdad will send a message to Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh and Cairo that they will face the censure, if not the intervention, of the US unless they fall into line. The outcome, the hawks claim, will not only serve the US national interest but also promote international peace and security more generally.
Dr Rosemary Hollis is Head of the Middle East Programme at Chatham House
In a move which reveals advanced US plans for the next phase of its war on terror, Government departments are considering the plans ahead of Vice-President Dick Cheney's meeting with the Prime Minister tomorrow....
British troops would be part of a 250,000-strong ground force to invade Iraq in an operation similar to Desert Storm in 1991.
The second option is one where smaller special forces units would support opposition forces within Iraq, like the tactic used in Afghanistan, where the Northern Alliance was backed with air strikes and logistical support in its battle to overthrow the Taliban.
The third option - thought to be preferred by the Foreign Office - is one of 'aggressive containment'. Under this plan, air strikes against Iraq would be intensified if Saddam did not agree to a comprehensive inspections agreement.
Senile segregationist and true patriot Robert "White Nigger" Byrd: "Back in August, the president had no plans...."
My, my, Ace. Aren't we PC all of a sudden! 
Victory of the Loud Little Handful by Mark Twain
"The loud little handful - as usual - will shout for the war. The pulpit will - warily and cautiously - object... at first. The great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it."
Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the antiwar audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men...
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger" (1910)
What morons.
always evades the unmistakable truth with bullying vituperates
Hardly. One "unmitakable truth" was that Robert Byrd was a "true patriot." Well, I ask, does a true patriot make the statements of Sen. Byrd in 684? In particular, does a "true patriot" say: "I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"?
That's true patriotism in your book, eh?
Now, the other point (besides whether Mr. Byrd's opinions ought to be valued), is whether his facts can be trusted. That's the other "unmistakeable truth." What factual, verifiable statements did Mr. Byrd make?
"The [political] polls are dropping..."
That's not precisely true, not according to Gallup.
"Back in August, the president had no plans..."
As demonstrated several times above, this isn't true either.
So in matters of fact, Mr. Byrd is inaccurate and in matters of opinion he has a history of being, umm, behind the curve, to put it politely.
One way or the other, Twain is likely more ignorant of contemporary political events and the current situation in Iraq than both Robert Byrd and you. For this and other reasons, it would do little good to ask him if the thinks his quotation is applicable.
What regime change? The Greens put them over the top, or so it appears for now.
Is this a Mote version of "What's My Line?"
FABULOUS! I get to play Arlene Francis.
"Is it Ann Coulter, John?"
Yeah - I jumped the gun...the candidates' comments -especially Schroeder's "..nothing to be depressed about yet", or something like that - led me to believe he was toast.
Oh well. So Saddam retains one ally - no biggie.
<Das Lied Der Deutschland
See what I mean JAH...the Crackpot Corn Pone SuperPatriot get all old glorified with his love country and hatred of dune coons and
Shroeder is now a Saddamite...
>
1. Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält,
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt -
|: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt. :|
Shroeder Rides Wave Anti-Moronism to Smashing Win
Its the world against Bush & Blair J Chirac, M. Le President
Israel Just Says NO to Bush - Again
Sharon Plans to Drive Palestinians into the Desert
Not actual links, actual headlines:
Bush: Attack on Arafat Compound "Not Helpful"
Confusion as White House shifts its policy on Middle East
Powell and Bush drift apart on Middle East
Author Toby Harnden
Bush warns Israel to restrain tanks
Author Alan Philps
DATE: 10 May 2002
Sharon to take hard line with Bush
Author Inigo Gilmore
DATE: 05 May 2002
George W. Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. I. Wallerstein
I have this vague feeling that jexster is repeating himself.
Is it just me?
Our Debt to Sharon - Sen Byrd Just Says NO to Moron WarLord
What a pair...Bubble n Squeak
What a pair...Bubble n Squeak
Colonel David Hackworth, U.S. Army, Retired, exposes their plight and the political implications of the VA stonewalling so that the casualty statistics don't undermine Bush and his "noisy platoon of war hawks."
``It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way"
A. Zinni USMC-ret (Saddamite)
Molly Ivins writes "Don't you just hate it when the bad guys agree to do what we want them to? If that's not a good reason to go in and take out Saddam, name one. But our Fearless Leader, not one to be deterred from war merely by getting what he wants, promptly moved the goalposts and issued a new list of demands Iraq must meet... This is not a debate, it's Bush in his 'You're either with us or against us' mode - [and] there's no evidence the administration has thought past Step One... The most unpleasant and unhelpful aspect of this 'debate' is the implication that anyone who expresses serious doubts about this venture is unpatriotic - and it often comes from the same people who spent eight years eaten alive with Clinton hatred. Being patriotic doesn't mean agreeing with the government. The most fundamental American right is to not agree with the government and to raise hell about it."
Ain't War Hell
Molly Ivins - Saddamite
Does she actually think anyone believes Iraq has agreed to unconditional inspections?
No.
But she has every reason to believe the wretchedly dishonest faithful will parrot her besotted, er...writing (see above).
'The German Way'
As we noted last week, there is one point of commonality between the militaristic Germany of the 1930s and the pacifistic Germany of the 2000s: Both are siding against the free world with a fascist dictator, albeit in this case not their own. As if to underscore our point, the Times of London reported before the election that "German neo-Nazis, including the former head of the far-Right Republican Party, Franz Schönhuber, are coming out in support of the Chancellor for having adopted 'the German way' in defying the United States.
Once again, as during the Third Reich, German nationalism draws Left and Right together to support a totalitarian autocrat and to spit in the face of the free world.
More broadly, if the United States brings democracy to Iraq, it will mean seizing power from the 17 percent Sunni minority who dominate the army and government and giving it to the 60 percent Shiite majority. The upshot could be greater influence for Iran, a fellow Shiite country with close ties to Iraq's Shiite cities.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini spent 13 years in exile here in Najaf, and many top Iranian ayatollahs stayed for shorter periods. Iranian hard-liners are probably salivating at the thought of America naïvely creating a Shiite Iraq so that the two countries could pool their nuclear resources and build the bomb together.
ERLIN, Sept. 23 — Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who won narrow re-election on Sunday in part by opposing an American war in Iraq, tried today to patch up relations with Washington, but President Bush broke with protocol and refrained from making the customary congratulatory telephone call to the German leader.
In Warsaw for a meeting of NATO defense ministers, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that he would not meet his German counterpart, Peter Struck. Mr. Rumsfeld was blunt about the Schröder campaign.
Pwease Don' Go Away Mad:
Bush Spurns German Effort to Mend Relations
From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of the solidarity among all of us as Americans and solidarity between our country and our allies.
In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of good will and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world. That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do.
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang. :|
Not to mention Deutche maenner!
The Shiite Muslims who make up 60 percent of Iraq — but who have never held power — will rampage through the narrow streets here. Remembering the whispers from the bazaar about how Saddam's minions burned the beard off the face of a great Shiite leader named Muhammad Bakr al-Sadr, then raped and killed his sister in front of him, and finally executed him by driving nails through his head, the rebels will tear apart anyone associated with the ruling Baath Party.
In one Shiite city after another, expect battles between rebels and army units, periodic calls for an Iranian-style theocracy, and perhaps a drift toward civil war. For the last few days, I've been traveling in these Shiite cities — Karbala, Najaf and Basra — and the tension in the bazaars is thicker than the dust behind the donkey carts.
So before we rush into Iraq, we need to think through what we will do the morning after Saddam is toppled....
"Thinking"?!?!
Ruh-roh We Are in Deep Shit Now
"The document is a damp squib. It really consists of a reworking of information that was already public. It seems more like a PR stunt than a serious attempt to bring new information forward. Tony Blair will have to do better than this if he wants to convince the British public to go to war."
Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
"It does not produce any convincing evidence, or any 'killer fact', that says that Saddam Hussein has to be taken out straight away. What it does do is produce very convincing evidence that the weapons inspectors have to be pushed back into Iraq very quickly ... It is a very clever document. Everybody expected it to outline the case for war on Iraq, but it doesn't even attempt to do that."
Major Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies
"This dossier will require close scrutiny. At first glance, this dossier does not appear to show clear evidence of an immediate and imminent threat from Iraq. Nothing in this document should divert us from dealing with these matters through the United Nations."
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell
"An awful lot of the material we are being shown at the moment has been around for a very long time. Military intervention has got to be avoided at all costs, especially a unilateral one. If Iraq poses a direct threat and is about to attack one of its neighbours with weapons of mass destruction, then the whole game changes, but at the moment that is certainly not the case. A lot of people feel we are being almost inevitably drawn into war without the UN course being pursued."
Mark Seddon, a leftwing member of Labour's National Executive Committee
(That's why I make it a practice to never read the Wall St Journal editorial page at breakfast.)
That's a pretty big shift from an issue that might favor Democrats to one more likely to favor Republicans.
Good heavens, but 37 percent of Americans support our sending ground troops to Iraq even if Congress opposes it!
In contrast, only 47 percent favored groundtroops in Kosovo even after airstrikes had begun and with full NATO cooperation.
Try reading less selectively, dear.
I know it makes your head hurt, but there's always Tylenol. 
Kahil from the Arab News 9/21/02 - The Wahhabi Lobby pitches in to help their German Watermelon Coalition allies. 
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammed Amin el-Hussaini while in exile in Nazi Germany and a friend.
Will the real Hitler please stand up?
Americans Do Not Trust Bush -Reject Proposed Resolution
There is no good news for Bush in the latest Gallup poll. None.
Bush has failed to sell his preemptive unilateral strikes doctrine. Only 38% approve of "going it alone" in Iraq. The Democrats have succeeded in convincing Americans there should be congressional and UN approval for action. The majority of Americans do not trust Bush with the power he is asking Congress to approve. Why? It goes to a fundamental mistrust of the Bush regime, which has demonstrated its eagerness to abuse its ill-gotten power every day since stealing the election in 2000.
When are the Media Whores going to catch up to the American people and stop reporting lies and propaganda about Bush "leadership"? Bush has failed to convince the people he can be trusted on Iraq, even after weeks of his lapdog media whores beating the war drums relentlessly and sneering about an alleged Democratic political predicament. The American people instead support the reasoned, moral, intelligent, and responsible course put forth by the man they elected to the US presidency, Al Gore.
But the Bush Administration will continue to give Shroeder the cold shoulder for a long time, as they reasonably argue that the Schroeder campaign did step over the line.
Why? Because the poll shows that Americans understand that inspections cannot succeed.
If the U.N. insists on inspections that cannot work, Americans will abandon their sentimental, collect-money-for-UNICEF-children-on-Halloween feelings about the United Nations, and agree to roll.
news for Bush & Co.
Uh...virtually every single pundit I've heard/seen/read - from loopy left to rabid right - agrees on one thing wrt Iraq (and in the broader context of foreign -v- domestic issues in national elections): If the question of whether or not to attack Iraq is still an issue at election time, the R's are at a distinct advantage.
Why do you think Dashole, Gephardt and Co. took a 180º, from their straight Demobot line of "We need to ask questions - to debate the justifications, the consequences, blabbedy-blah-blah-blah...", to "OK - let's hurry up and vote to bomb the bastard!", all in the twinkling of an eye?
Because, with over 2/3 of Americans favoring war against Iraq, they want the issue of whether or not to do it gone by November.
This is not even news, Cellar. You've really gotta stick to cinema and picking on "Sully" - politics just ain't your thang.
As inexcusable as the Japanese actions were during WWII, their atrocities were less comprehensive than that of the Nazis, and Japan's ideology at the time did not emphasize explicit racism to the extent the National Socialists did.
Well, the poll doesn't answer that question. Here's how the Gallup Poll question reads: "Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- vote to give President Bush unlimited authority to use military action against Iraq whenever he feels it is necessary?"
Heck, even I might answer "no" to that question. Had Gallup instead said, "Do you think Congress should--or should not--vote to give President Bush authority to "use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region," the numbers, I suspect, would be different.
The Democrats have succeeded in convincing Americans there should be congressional and UN approval for action.
Hah! The Democrats haven't been saying enough to convince anyone of anything.
Bush has failed to convince the people he can be trusted on Iraq
The Gallup Poll on 9/2 (even before Bush spoke to the UN or Congress) showed Americans approved of what he was doing on Iraq 64 to 34.
They'll be in for a Michael Dukakis-style shellacking. Daschle has so far been a little more astute.
I know how I would answer, and I doubt I'd be in the minority.
If Gore continues with this he won't even be nominated.
Ronski, I posted the same thing over at "The Perfect World."
The only upside I can see for him (because he could have avoided stepping in it entirely, much more so than Daschle) is that it telegraphs his intentions re 2004 and shows himself as still in the fray.
You are no doubt right and that is what motivated him.
I'm just wondering why he chose San Francisco, when Berkeley is right next door.
He must be thinking about tacking towards the center in the general election.
Maybe he's the Demo's trial balloon...you know - saying the words the gutless worms long to speak, but dare not? Then, see how it comes out in the wash.
Someone suggested in another forum that he's engaging in an extremely cynical strategy: If we attack and it goes well, he won't have a snowball's chance in hell in 2004. But if we end up not attacking...or if we do and it doesn't go well, he's set. He'll be the lone voice that cried out in the wilderness.
That's starting to make more and more sense, the longer I think about it.
Be that as it may, I think that folks like Cellar - well-meaning, peace-loving, good Democrats (yeah, yeah - I know, Cellar) are in denial about their heroes up on the Hill.
They're spineless, and "da moron" has played them like a harp.
"Dear Rep. Pelosi:
In recent weeks, several prominent Republicans, among them Brent Scowcroft, your colleague Dick Armey, Lawrence Eagleburger, and James Baker have boldly and decisively spoken out against Bush plans to invade Iraq. Over that same period, prominent Democrats have remained embarrasingly silent. As a Democrat and constituent I am ashamed, and I am angry."
Sorry I didn't save my e-mail missive[sic} to Gephardt. You would have loved my line about his "profile in cowardice".
Yea Bush pullled REAL smooth move alright. Wag the Dog, Wave the flag weeks before an Electon where he stand a good chance of losing control of both Houses of Congress or was it so smart after all?
We are talking severe mental handicap here. On the one hand, he has distracted attention from corruption, fiscal irresponsiblity, social security, health care costs, the economy. On every domestic issue of importance to the voters this fall, the Democrats have solid leads. Smooth move ex-lax!
But hold the phone. As Bill Schneider pointed out just today, Bush hasn't changed the underlying electoral dynamic which continues to favor the Democrats, albeit narrowly. What's more, if Schneider's analysis is correct, it appears that the Moron may have stepped into some of that pigshit that has been pilin up over to the White Palace lately. Bush has energized anti-war forces around the country are getting seriously motivated and getting traction. Schneider sees no benefit and a big downside as this is working for Democrats in several key races.
There isn't any sustainable support for this war especially if the US has to "go it alone" or begin bombing with inspectors on the ground. As no lesser GOP light than Mitch McConnel put it, Bush cannot get a resolution if forced to wait until after the election. I have said this as well and Bush all but admitted for nearly every day he's "demanding" action now.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure he's going to get action now. At least I wouldn't bet the lower 40 on it.
Desperate times JoeZ deserve desperate measures and Bush is certainly desperate.
This doesn't help much either does it:
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Israel defied a U.N. Security Council demand Tuesday to end its six-day siege of Yasser Arafat ( news - web sites)'s devastated West Bank headquarters, and nine Palestinians were killed in an Israeli strike against alleged munitions factories and other targets in Gaza City
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Israel defied a U.N. Security Council demand Tuesday to end its six-day siege of Yasser Arafat ( news - web sites)'s devastated West Bank headquarters, and nine Palestinians were killed in an Israeli strike against alleged munitions factories and other targets in Gaza City
Maybe you remember too back three-four months ago Bush's DEMAND that Congress pass the bill before 9-1-1 and how the pundits proclaimed oh my this must pass by then and how all the big chees Republican and Democratic Senators and Congressmen trotted out to the nearest microphone "Oh sure we'll pass the LONG before then."
There is real good chance it will pass before NEXT September.
Want to know more?
No?
Where's Prof Slack...he'd appreciate it.
Nice weather for a fillibuster don't you think?
Ole Robt Bryd used to do a really entertaining fillbuster 25-30 years ago. Bet he'd be a hoot now that he's "senile"
Its not too hard. Its in black and white.
I also believe that Bush doesn't want you to believe that which is in black and white.
I also believe that the LAST thing that Bush wants is a UN resolution tough or not.
Yo Sybil Bitch
Range of Support for U.S. Military Action Against Iraq
Favor/
Oppose
%
%
In general
57
38
If other countries participate in invading Iraq
79
18
If the United Nations supports invading Iraq
79
19
If Congress supports invading Iraq
69
28
If the United States has to invade Iraq alone
38
59
If the United Nations opposes invading Iraq
37
58
If Congress opposes invading Iraq
37
59
From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of the solidarity among all of us as Americans and solidarity between our country and our allies.
Surplus...squander..alone..afraid
How many times do you think Bush can wag the dog's dick b4 it bites him?
Arab/Muslim World Strongly Opposes
Potential U.S. attack of Iraq - Zogby
A U.S. attack on Iraq is strongly opposed by 10 international nations, results from the Zogby International 10-nation “Impressions of America” poll reveal.
Results show all ten nations are in great opposition to a potential U.S. attack on Iraq. In strongest opposition are Iran (1% favorable, 76% unfavorable), Egypt (3% favorable, 84% unfavorable), Indonesia (3% favorable, 94% unfavorable) and Lebanon (7% favorable, 84% unfavorable). Also in opposition are Saudi Arabia (11% favorable, 80% unfavorable), Kuwait (13% favorable, 61% unfavorable), and the UAE (10% favorable, 60% unfavorable), along with France (13% favorable, 62% unfavorable), Venezuela (17% favorable, 21% unfavorable) and Pakistan (26% favorable, 51% unfavorable).
All ten nations also give the U.S. extremely negative ratings for its policy toward Iraq. Among the most negative are Iran (0% excellent/good, 95% so-so/poor), Lebanon (4% excellent/good, 90% so-so/poor), Egypt (4% excellent/good, 83% so-so/poor) and Indonesia (7% excellent/good, 80% so-so/poor).....
Gore Iraq Speech Could Galvanize Anti-War Forces
Tue Sep 24, 2:02 PM ET
By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fierce attack on President Bush ( news - web sites)'s Iraq policy issued by former Vice President Al Gore ( news - web sites) could help galvanize U.S. opposition to a new Gulf war ( news - web sites) while serving as a launching pad for Gore's probable 2004 presidential campaign, analysts said on Tuesday.
Reuters Photo
In a speech in San Francisco, the defeated 2000 Democratic presidential nominee on Monday laid out a scathing critique of Bush's Iraq policy.
Pollster John Zogby said Gore's message was "very well timed."
"Gore stepped in just as it appeared that pro-war sentiment would go virtually unchallenged in Congress and in the country," Zogby said. "There will be an anti-war movement that grows out of this."
In President's Speeches, Iraq Dominates, Economy Fades
Fadin fast too
Stocks Slump, Dow at 4-Year Low
Too bad ole Sad-am ain't on the ballot.
Al Gore - rekindling the spirit of George McGovern (minus the personality).
HoooooBOY - I can hardly wait!
[M]any Democrats concede that they have little leverage to make major changes in the resolution, such as a bigger role for the United Nations in the confrontation with Iraq. The president is "going to get whatever he wants," said a senior House Democratic strategist.
...Daschle said he shares many of his colleagues' concerns, especially the detrimental effect an attack could have on the broader war on terrorism. He said he has encouraged them to vote their conscience. "I think under these circumstances that it is in spite of our grave concerns that we give the benefit of the doubt to the president," Daschle said in an interview.
"Yep --- you young'uns go right ahead and vote your conscience. Me? I'm keeping my damn job."
Mr. Gore's remarks also reflect a change in his own stance. In a February speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he said that the war on terrorism would require a "final reckoning" with Saddam. He also said: "As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name."
Well here we go again with this silly talk of "Evil". Will these right wing religious nuts never learn that there is simply NO SUCH THING AS "EVIL"???
There are only "pro-Democratic forces working within --" (insert name of country)
A rhetorical question if I ever saw one.
Gore uttered his first big lie in the second paragraph of the speech when he informed the audience that his main concern was with "those who attacked us on Sept. 11, and who have thus far gotten away with it." Who have thus far gotten away with it. The government of Gore's country has led a coalition of nations in war against al Qaeda, "those who attacked us on Sept. 11"; has destroyed al Qaeda's central organization and much of its physical assets; has destroyed the Taliban, which had made Afghanistan a state home for al Qaeda; has bombed the forces of al Qaeda from one end of Afghanistan to the other; has killed at least hundreds of terrorists and their allies; and has imprisoned hundreds more and is hunting down the rest around the world. All this while Gore, apparently, slept.
Well, perhaps Gore was talking loosely. No. He made clear in the next sentence this was a considered indictment: "The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the coldblooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized." If there is a more reprehensible piece of bloody-shirt-waving in American political history than this attempt by a man on the sidelines to position himself as the hero of 3,000 unavenged dead, I am not aware of it.
Probably the purest example of the Gore style -- equal parts mendacity, viciousness and smarm -- occurred when Gore expressed his concern (his deep, heartfelt concern) over "the doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration." And then added: "I have not raised those doubts, but many have."
What a moment! What a speech! What a man! What a disgrace.
As usual when Demobots can't argue facts they resort to cheap insults.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, angrily accused President Bush today of using the Iraq issue for political fodder and said he should apologize.
"That is wrong," Mr. Daschle declared on the Senate floor. "We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death."
And a return favor
Woof Woof Hands off Da Dick Bitch
So, the thing is probably inevitable. Let's get it over with.
While engaged in the absolute height of political cynicism and opportunism, he accuses Bush.
Man, I'm telling you now - November is looking sweeter and sweeter.
AP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
U.S. Hails Blair's Case Against Iraq
(AP Video)
"That is wrong," Daschle said in an impassioned speech on the Senate floor. "We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death."
"You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people" because they are Democrats, Daschle said. "That is outrageous. Outrageous."
Sen. Daniel Inouye ( news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, who lost an arm in World War II, also spoke on the Senate floor: "It grieves me when my president makes statements that would divide this nation," he said.
Daschle cited a string of actions by the administration including a comment by Bush that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people."
Al Gore Makes Bush Cry
Former Veep's trenchant slurred speech causes President furious bout of confused blinking, sniffles
War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense . . . the nation in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war...The State is intimately connected with war, for it is the organization of the collective community when it acts in a political manner, and to act in a political manner towards a rival group has meant, throughout all history - war." [A War Diary by Randolph Bourne, September 1917]
Too bad Sad-am ain't on the ballot Z
Most seem to think it will start, in earnest, right after New Year's, to have the thing finished while the weather there is still cool.
Now of course that's a lie isn't it?
But if its not, why the fuck is the Congress considering a resolution approving something that doesn't exist?
WASHINGTON — They rule their world ruthlessly and insolently, deciding who will get a cold shoulder, who will get locked out of the power clique and who will get withering glares until they grovel and obey the arbitrary dictates of the leaders.
We could be talking about the middle-school alpha girls, smug cheerleaders with names like Darcy, Brittany and Whitney.
But, no, we're talking about the ostensibly mature and seasoned leaders of the Western world, a slender former cheerleader named W. and his high-hatting clique — Condi, Rummy and Cheney.
I used to think the Bush hawks suffered from testosterone poisoning, always throwing sharp elbows and cartoonishly chesty my-way-or-the-highway talk around the world, when a less belligerent tone would be classier and more effective.
But now we have the spectacle of the 70-year-old Rummy acting like a 16-year-old Heather, vixen-slapping those lower in the global hierarchy, trying to dominate and silence the beta countries with less money and fewer designer weapons
Speakin of little girls...
Where's Sybil?
Where's mah bitch?
Where's my wo-man?
Weisswurst is much better, anyway.
Great minds think alike...you were there first
Mo Dowd:
"In their eagerness to apply adolescent torture methods, Bush hawks seem to have forgotten history: Do we really want to punish the Germans for being pacifists? Once those guys get rolling in the other direction, they don't really know how to put the brakes on."
I was here first
Mo Dowd:
"Mr. Struck offered more German troops for Afghanistan and Mr. Fischer apologized to Colin Powell, the administration's gamma girl,"
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das deutsche Vaterland!
Yes, that's my understanding too. And Saddam's tactics will be to while away this window of opportunity (for the US) by prevarications and procrastinations over the inspections issue.
You are right about the Weisswurst.
By Lloyd Grove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 25, 2002; Page C03
C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" segment started out yesterday morning as typically sedate -- two members of Congress soberly dispensing wisdom about the threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But then Bob Filner, a five-term Democrat from California, said something that made South Carolina freshman Republican Joe Wilson go nuclear.
Filner, who opposes unilateral U.S. military action, suggested that in the 1980s, when U.S. officials sided with Iraq in its war against Iran, Saddam Hussein obtained biological and chemical weapons technology from the United States. "We gave it to him," Filner asserted.
"That is wrong. That's made up," Wilson fired back. "I can't believe you would say something like that."
When Filner calmly held his ground, advising Wilson to read newspaper reports and other documentation, the Republican erupted: "This hatred of America by some people is just outrageous. And you need to get over that."
"Yes!" Wilson shouted. For good measure, over the next minute Wilson accused Filner of harboring "hatred of America" four more times, of being "hateful" three times and of being "viscerally anti-American" once. Filner responded, "This is not worth replying to," and Brod finally regained control of the discussion by taking viewer phone calls.
"After the show ended, I told him, 'That was over the line,' " Filner told us later. "He started arguing with me and the aide who was with him said, 'Congressman, we better go.' "
Shortly after the broadcast, Filner encountered a Republican colleague who had seen the fireworks. "If that guy had said that to me, I would have punched him out," Filner quoted the Republican as saying. He refused to identify his sympathizer. "Listen, I was one of the first Freedom Riders in Mississippi in the early 1960s," Filner told us. "I've been beaten up and thrown in jail by better people than Joe Wilson."
Wilson wouldn't get on the phone with us but did send a written statement in which he defended his position that Filner is all wet. But he added: "If I said something in the heat of the debate that was taken as critical of the congressman's patriotism or commitment to this country, I apologize. As a 28-year member of the Army National Guard, I take these accusations very personally."
The UN will oppose it. Practically every nation on earth, with the possible exception of the UK, will oppose it.
If it's a done deal, then we're really entering a new era of world history. Let's hope it's a short one.
How long have world leaders been waiting for the blessing of the UN before going to war in your history books, Alistair?
And the idea that a nation ignoring the UN represents a new era in history is laughable. Ask Saddam Hussein.
Domestically, the majority of Americans are going to say "screw the UN."
Now let's assume Bush has been totally serious until now. (There is, after all, the possibility Bush is just doing a great job of bluffing, which Saddam's behavior until now indicates is what Saddam believes. Bush could be pursuing a Clintonesque strategy of threaten force, act like you really mean it, and maybe you won't have to use it.)
If the UN turns Bush down and Bush is serious, then the UN is toast because American unilateralism will toss it in the dustbin with the League of Nations. The UN doesn't want to be toast, so they have to try to accommodate Bush.
Dream on, Countess, dream on!
Reuters Photo
Daschle Condemns Bush Iraq Rhetoric
(AP Video)
Daschle's Democratic colleagues, many of whom have complained that they were being stampeded by Bush into approving the use of force against Iraq, gathered on the Senate floor during the speech and reached out to shake his hand afterward.
"We ought not to politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about life and death," Daschle said in his speech, his voice thick with emotion.
The way you burn some Bush is like Sharon burns Bush...
You JUST SAY NO to Bush...
Bush is a con man...Bush is faux texan...just kickem in the spot where the balls used to be
Text: Excerpts From Daschle's Speech on Iraq Debate
Video
But W. was, like, enjoying his hissy fit
Gnarly, if Dowd can steal my material, dad gummit so can you
Americans will listen to a well-crafted speech delivered by Bush as to why we had to act without the UN's blessing and conclude the UN is wrong here, worthy institution that it may be (remember UNICEF and Hallowe'en), and then fall in line in support of American troops rolling into Baghdad.
Trust me. I know my countrymen. The Vietnam War was pretty popular at the outset.
(But frankly, I think the UN will go along with the US and UK, so as not to lose relevance.)
You're too young to know that.
America was told it was a "Police Action" -- meaning it was of limited duration. Then like Topsey it "just grew." Yeah, right.
Anti-war sentiment was unpopular at first. Then it "just grew' too. Nixon ran on a platform that declared he was going to end the war.
Instead he expanded it into Laos, Thailand and Cambodia.
Fortunately we lost.
But not before thousands of Viernamese were killed
(Cellar ahs had it up to here with accounts of the war that deal only with American casualties and write the Vietnamese people out of their own history. )
Yes, this is what I mean by a new era in history. You got it in the end.
You seem to underestimate the extent to which the US is making a fool of itself (or rather, the extent to which Bush is making a fool of the US) -- make an ultimatum, get UN support, then make up a new one when the first one is acceded to. That's shonky diplomacy.
Sure, the UN will want to save face and keep the US on board if possible. But that doesn't change the fact that the strategic interests of Russia, China and France (since it's the Security Council I assume we're talking about) are far from being identical with those of the US, and none of them will be particularly keen a US puppet government in Irak (best possible outcome of an invasion), let alone the long-term turmoil and jihad which are the more likely outcomes.
So we've got a new doctrine : the US intervenes anywhere it damn likes, any time, in defense of its vital interests (in this case, not to put too fine a point on it, the viscous black stuff in the ground.)
I'm the same age as you. Despite the adage that if you remember the sixties, you weren't there, I was there, and I remember it. I also was a conscientious objector, as I have posted before, which should give you an idea of how involved I was with what was going on.
You are wrong to suggest the war was not popular at its outset. And of course it was a police action (not even that) at first, and of course it grew. It began with advisors, then military advisors, then small numbers of troops, and so on. And the opposition to it grew as well.
But in the mid to late sixties the war was supported by the majority of Americans. In fact, it wasn't until a while after Cronkite bailed out that majority support began to wain.
You will see the same pattern here, in this war. People will rally behind the troops. And the war -- the removal of Saddam part -- will take only weeks.
You won't see the same pattern here, in part because of Vietnam.
There was one person, one Senator who voted against the War in Vietnam. This time there will be more. At this time, and the numbers will change, but right now, about 40% of the US public supports this War. People are already calling it BUSH's war, not OUR war, not MY war, BUSH's war.
There was no opposition to the Vietnam war from the time the first advisors went in until about 1965. There will be far more than that on day 2.
"There's no price at which we think about giving up freedom because we can't afford it," O'Neill said at a press conference here to discuss the domestic economy.
"Freedom is the most important framework idea for our society and, therefore, it shouldn't be thought of as an economic question, at all. Period," O'Neill said.
Nothin ever like that - not even in Gulf of Tonkin I.
Immanuel Wallerstein is right.
See one war affects the other...never the same pattern always variations
You have correctly summed up the Bush Doctrine, which, as Dan Savage (radical gay writer and activist) summed up as, If we think you're coming after us next week, we're going to bomb your ass flat tomorrow, or words to that effect.
Oil is a part of it. And I am not so naive as to believe domestic politics do not play a part. But mostly it is (1) an aggressive view that America has been under assault because it has shown weakness against a pattern of attacks and (2) the desire, in large part genuine, to export democracy and western liberal (in the widest sense) values to parts of the world that could benefit from them.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captive's need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Never Saw Anything Like This in 1965 - Newsday
Or this
Or This - Buffalo News
Or This - Jack Kemp
mmmm....second thought
God damn traitor...I love Jaysus...see Mr. Ashcroft it was all a big Joke I really love AmuriKa
First - there is no North and South Iraq. (Well, I guess if you want to nit-pick there is - but we already control both, with a little swath in the middle under Saddam's control).
Second - there is no Soviet Union around to supply Iraq with weapons, etc., as there was in VN. It will be a simple matter of attrition from day one.
Third - geographically, VN was a guerilla's paradise - thick jungle, mountains, etc.
Fourth - those same features facilitated not only the movement of men, but of equipment. The Iraqis couldn't move anything last time without us blasting it. Now, after 11 years of extremely detailed surveillance, and again totally lacking any air cover to move under, their ability to move equipment is even more compromised.
Fifth - we demoralized them last time. No matter what Saddam says, his people don't want to fuck with us again.
This war - if it comes - will be extremely short work.
Bend over Joey here it comes again
Bush is a "likable niddering sycophantic imbecile who couldn't screw in a lightbulb without Cheney, much less spell 'niddering' or 'sycophantic,'" Mark Morford.
niddering though I'll have to remember that one...
Your stupidity and ignorance are breathtaking, and your political judgment and prognostication skills non-existent.
It was two senators who opposed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, dummy.
Where's my bitch?
Then, like magic, these questions disappeared from the headlines as the administration refocused the nation's attention on war with Iraq. No new information about Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and no actions taken by Iraq seem to have precipitated this shift. The Iraqi regime has not changed since early in the Bush administration, when its great priority was building a missile defense shield, nor even since the 2000 election, when Bush said he would emphasize "humility" in foreign policy and opposed nation building.
A Reckless Rush to War
Damned I have NEVER seen pre-war shit like this Ronski..what planet RU from anyway????
Apparently, jasper will dredge up and post any old anti-Bush drool he finds out in LoopyLeftyLand.
The Bush administration is threatening to attack Iraq and has been doing so for many months now. But it is hard, even after the president's U.N. speech, to see the point of the threat. It might be intended to deter the Iraqis from developing weapons of mass destruction, but it seems more likely to speed up the work they are already doing--especially since George W. Bush has repeatedly insisted that his goal is not just to stop weapons development but also to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. It might be intended to rally support for the war to come, but so far it has had exactly the opposite effect, giving every country in the world (and every former general in the U.S. Army) a chance to say no--a chance that many of them have eagerly seized.
INSPECTORS YES, WAR NO.
No Strikes - TNR
Ahhhahhhahhahh
She came from Planet Claire
I knew she came from there
She drove a Plymouth Satellite
Faster than the speed of light
Planet Claire has pink air
All The trees are red
No one ever dies there
No one has a head
Ahhhahhhahhahh
Some say she's from Mars
Or one of the seven stars
That shine after 3:30 in the morning
Well she isn't
She came from Planet Claire
She came from Planet Claire
She came from Planet Claire
Ahhhahhhahhahh
ROCK LOBSTER
B-52’S
Shit I may have to dig out my Senior Seminar paper on Vo Nyugen Giap, Mao Tse-Tung - NVA Strategy and Tactics in Vietnam
But keep your hands off Gephard's dick and your fingers out of Tom's Daschole.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -Chronic bedwetter arrested for failure to pay Internet surcharges
AP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow
My home movies
X-Ray of my ulcerated brainpan
A shut-in prone to incontinence was incarcerated Wednesday and being held on $100 bail after it was discovered he had run up more than $56,000 in unpaid access fees to his Internet Service Provider. Police were withholding his identity pending notification of his mother, but witnesses said the man claimed to be very close to "der Uber Hund Clinton" and that arresting officers could "eat my runny shit, fucking Juden Sharonistas."
And no one can talk to a horse of course
Of course unless of course that horse is the famous Mister Ed 
1968 Tet Offensive and Gen. Vo Nyugen Giap
She drove a Plymouth satellite...
Joey, my point, since you missed it, is that this ISN't yo daddy's war nor the one that King Georgie went AWOL on. 
Message for Gen. Bubbles and Corp. Squeak From M. O'Hanlon -Brookings
By concentrating air power on the Iraqi military in the field, and not on Iraq's infrastructure as was the case in the Gulf war, civilian casualties would be minimized. However, it would probably force retreating military units loyal to Saddam Hussein to fall back on the cities, where American power would be less effective. Fighting in cities is a nasty business accompanied by terrible casualties all around to say nothing of the destruction wrought. This may be Saddam's plan as there are reports that the Iraqis are digging trenches and erecting fortifications around urban centers. But, historically, when a regime's army is defeated in the field and loses control of the countryside cities don't long hold out. This was the Chinese communist experience in 1949 when it defeated Chiang Kai-shek. When it becomes clear to Iraqi troops holed up in Baghdad that defeat is in! evitable, defections and surrender become more likely. This is particularly true if the populace welcomes the attackers as was the case in Afghanistan.
Gen. Bernard Trainor, USMC-ret, Council on Foreign Relations
E-mail missive to Jasper
I know Joezan thinks all people in the world would welcome an American rescue but I suspect he is wrong; some like their existance, deprived though it may be of VCRs and SUVS and democracy.
And BTW, you don't know that he thinks that. I doubt he does.
That said, there will be some Baath loyalists who will hold out to the last and try to disrupt whatever occupation regime and reconstruction efforts that take place.
Given the recent history of this administration's nation-building efforts, I am much more optimistic about the initial welcome than how long it will end up lasting.
You weren't saying anything "personal" about Joe, were you, sweetpea? Can't take the heat, go fetch me a beer from the kitchen.
The vast majority of Iraqis will welcome the departure of Saddam. Even an intellectual sloth like you ought to realize that without asking me to educate you.
I was basing my remarks about Joezan on his past statements. It isn't something for which he should be ashamed...and I'm sure he isn't. The fact you feel the need to take up for him is much more insulting than anything I said. He is completely capable of snarking on me himself.
Remember - Iraq has lots of oil. Once Saddam is out and sanctions have been lifted, and with oil production up to former levels, and the revenues not going to a military budget out of all proportion to the country's means, Iraq will very quickly be on track - either under UN, US, or regional supervision -to become at least a better provider to its own people and a better neighbor to the region, than it was before Saddam.
ED:
Ignore judy - she is merely nipping at my ankles, as is the wont of a chihuahua. It really doesn't bother me, toothless as the attacks are.
That's a tricky issue. I doubt that Iraqi exile leaders--assuming that they can agree on a single leader--have legitimacy, and will lack power once in Iraq.
I am sure that there is opposition to Saddam within the military and/or the Republican Guard, particularly if they sense that he is leading them to destruction. The question for us then is whether we would accept someone whose only merit is that they were the first to jump off the sinking ship, regardless of how much blood he may have on his hands? Would we accept a high-ranking Baath Party operative for the same reason?
If the Bush administration is serious about building a democratic post-Saddam Iraq--of which I am highly skeptical--they have two historical models they can use: the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII. Both involved lengthy US occupation and pro-consular US rule, and some compromises on purging the ranks of the previous regimes and on shaping the historiographical "myths" of the postwar countries.
Another option would be to have the reconstruction and rehabilitation take place under the auspices of the United Nations, with the United States providing the bulk of economic aid and expertise; again recognizing that this would entail a long-term commitment of financial and manpower resources.
U.S. demands for tough, new U.N. Security Council action against Iraq suffered a serious blow when Russian President Vladimir Putin ( news - web sites) called for a solution to the crisis using existing U.N. resolutions.
The United States and Britain are pushing for a new U.N. resolution that would include uncompromising language spelling out that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) would face serious consequences if he failed to allow weapons inspectors to proceed with their work unhindered.
The Bush administration, laying ground for a possible new conflict with Baghdad, has asked Israel in private talks to exercise the same restraint as during the 1991 Gulf War ( news - web sites) when it did not retaliate against attacks by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles.
Former chief U.N. arms inspector Richard Butler, addressing a business conference in Hong Kong, said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ( news - web sites) had indicated Israel would not be restrained if attacked by Iraq.
"My deepest fear in that context, if that occurs and the war escalates, is that Israel will use its nuclear weapons," Butler said. "If that happens, the world would have been changed beyond recognition, and I would fear that if that happens the state of Israel would cease to exist."
Apparently Mr. Butler thinks our nukes are aimed at Tel Aviv.
And THESE Imbeciles Want to Fight a War?
Besides wag the dog; besides the fact that he couldn't get Congress to approved AFTER the ELections, Bush is pushing now because, as we have repeatedly witnessed, he can't even keep his own regime together.
War without end. Amen.
Bush's comments about the Senate infuriated Daschle, aides said, because several fellow Democrats have criticized him for working closely with the president on a bipartisan war resolution. Bush's comments make it look like "he's getting played for a fool," said one Senate Democrat.
"We ought not politicize this war," Daschle said in his morning speech. "We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death." With Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), a wounded World War II veteran, sitting behind him, he added: "You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous. Outrageous."
Daschle said Bush's political strategy has become increasingly clear only in recent days. It started with news reports earlier this summer that Republican Party pollster Matthew Dowd and Rove were telling fellow Republicans that talk of war favors them in the elections. Daschle said he grew more disturbed as he saw Vice President Cheney talking about Iraq at a fundraiser in Kansas this week.
In the Interest of Democracy, Let's Shut Em Down
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Moron....
Into the Valley of Death Rides The King Moron - Intervention Magazine
After one year in Afghanistan, are U.S. troops close to winning the war or is Al Qaeda about to release a devastating death trap?
A Slate piece on Scott Ritter.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Do you think the techies can find a way to make all posts by jasper shrink to postage stamp size?
Since this is the Iraq thread, have you considered making the top and bottom thirds of the thread into no-fly zones for jasper's bombers?
This would mean that any post by jasper would disappear until it reached the middle third of all the posts in the thread. In other words, if it were post number 2000, it would totally disappear until there were 3000 posts in the thread.
Then, when there were 6000 posts, it would (o, joy!) disappear again.
How would I work that?
I donno. Don't you have, like, five techies who work for you? I was promised a crew of personal techies when I got my thread, except they have been delayed at the airport for technical reasons.
Or so arky tells me.
Not exactly sure, but apparently sooner than we may think:
"If Bush, as I believe, has reliable information on the fact that Saddam Hussein is making weapons of mass destruction, I cannot not support the policies of his government," Spielberg said.
The director added that those policies were "solid and rooted in reality".
Cruise also spoke out in support of the US president.
"Personally, I don't have all the information President Bush has," said the star. "But I believe Saddam has committed many crimes against humanity and his own people."
Now, you define "bravery" in Hollywood in whatever way suits you - this is a brave move, imo. Especially coming, as it does, a day after the Empress Babs gave "Gebhardt" his marching orders on "Sadam".
Why would anyone care about what he thinks on this subject, when he admits himself that he knows nothing in particular about it?
As for Spielberg: He believes (in) his president, which is touching... but doesn't say much about his intelligence either.
1) Their opinions are certainly as valid as Bottom Door's, JudyNobody'sHome, Jasper's, and the columnists' such as ex-film critic Frank Rich we're invited to read here every day.
2) It does, as Joe says, represent an independence of opinion from the predominant Hollywood groupthink, which is a positive step.
3) Since Hollywood is a major financial supporter of the Democratic Party, it's relevant politically.
LIAR!
"Well, I don't care what Cruise or Spielberg thinks about the war either"
DELUSIONAL!
Hate to break up the reactionary circle jerk that The Mote has become.
Eh? Was that really worthy of the uppercase exclamation-mark treatment?
I DON'T EVEN GO TO TOM CRUISE MOVIES!!!
Why would I lie about it?
Not everyone's world revolves around Hollywood and glomming onto the glitterati.
We will always have jexster, though.
But, AC, Cruise's previously stated fear of the US government should already have been enough to recommend his obviously very high LIQ (Liberal 'Intelligence' Quotient) to your approbation.
Mr. Gore's advisers described his speech as a genuine expression of sentiment about an issue with which he has long been closely identified, rather than an attempt to position himself for the 2004 presidential election. He wrote it after consulting a fairly far-flung group of advisers that included Rob Reiner, the actor and filmmaker.
NY Times
And has anybody looked in Noelle Bush's shoe lately?
Modern Urban Battles
Excerpt from the MAWTS-1
MOUT ACE Manual
Ex-42 says both that Saddam does have a weapons program and that the UN should give the US an additional resolution authorizing force.
Uuuurrp!
Ours is Not to Reason Why
The Fatuous Hypocrisy of Bush's Case for War
Ours is Not to Reason Why
The Fatuous Hypocrisy of Bush's Case for War
You're not at the porn site now, jex - you can use both hands.
Eleven years later, I have no doubt that Saddam is a menace, but the circumstances are different today. Then, Iraq violated the sovereignty of another state, and our response affirmed the framework of international law and security. Now, we would be violating Iraq's sovereignty without clear provocation, undertaking a preemptive war that is itself a destabilizing threat to international security.
Then, we had overwhelming international support; now, we face overwhelming opposition. ,
Now, engaged in a struggle against terrorist networks, we have an urgent need for cooperation in the Middle East and Europe...
Still, if some things were different, I could imagine supporting a war on Iraq -- and so, I suspect, could a good many other liberals.
If the Bush administration had proceeded differently -- if it had established a legal basis for military action, perhaps by working through the United Nations; if it had built allied support; if it had genuinely pursued alternatives to forcible "regime change" --war might have emerged, by general agreement here and abroad, as a necessary final resort.
The administration is belatedly trying to do some of these things, but its unseemly haste to reach a foreordained result raises doubts about its bona fides.
No Choice but War?
Boy Blunder's Big Bumble - a policy making bungled and inept unequaled in at least 100 years US history.
"The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on
terrorism." Richard Perle
doubts about its bona fides READ FILTY LIAR JoeZ
"I am a man of peace. I want inspections to work." Imbecile and WarLord of Crawford
I was looking over the post election issue, as I had the pre-election ones to see whether this center-right mag had anything much to say of Shroeder's Bush Bashing.....Damn little...FA has an economic hard on for Shroeder, which isn't surprising given Germany's post-WWI & II mindset/experience and Shroeder's horrid record in that regard.
So I went to Der Spiegel, no english language available, but from what I can understand from the article's lead:
Gerhard Schröders Opposition zum Irak-Feldzug hat durchaus Anhänger in Amerika. Die Kriegsgegner melden sich zunehmend zu Wort. Meinungsumfragen zufolge ist der Durchschnittsamerikaner nicht so kriegslüstern wie seine Regierung
Some surprise that American public followed Shroder's Iraq line so closely and the observation, no doubt correct, that the US public is less bellicose and less enthusiastic for Bush War than the administration.
aaah German Bidniss -Arms by Krupp
- Zyclon B by IG Farben
More like twenty years of Big Talk, 20 minutes of action...then off to the next war I suppose.
Afghanistan Imperiled
by AHMED RASHID
"The notion that the incipient pummeling of Baghdad will usher in an Islamic Enlightenment is laughable." Joe Klein
Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
here are mounting fears in Afghanistan that President George W. Bush's war against Iraq will seriously compromise further attempts by the US-led Western alliance to stabilize Afghanistan--even as the US Defense Department appears to be finally acknowledging its failures in helping to rebuild the country.
Almost a year after the defeat of the Taliban, President Hamid Karzai's government is weaker than it was a few months ago, ethnic and political rivalries plague the country, the military power of the warlords has increased and there is a new wave of anti-Americanism from the Pashtun tribes in the east and south, who feel alienated and victimized both by the Kabul government and US forces.
Indeed, during the last year, politicians, pundits, and the media (including The New Republic) have used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" as a constant shorthand for chemical, biological, and atomic arms. As of this writing, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" had appeared in The New York Times in some 250 articles over the past month alone.
Their lethal potential is emphatically not equivalent. Chemical weapons are dangerous, to be sure, but not "weapons of mass destruction" in any meaningful sense. In actual use, chemical arms have proven less deadly than regular bombs, bullets, and artillery shells. Since the gassing of the trenches in World War I and the Holocaust a generation later, people have been terrified by the thought of death by gas--partly because chemical agents are invisible, partly because we visualize ghastly, helpless choking rather than vanishing in the flash of an explosion.
But pound for pound, chemical weapons are less lethal than conventional explosives and more difficult for an attacker or terrorist to use. It's also hard to see what the moral distinction is between being killed by gas and being blown up. Modern artillery shells create horrific scenes of carnage, and yet we don't view them as weapons of "mass destruction," though firing them into an unsuspecting city could readily produce more deaths than gas.
Similarly, biological weapons are widely viewed with dread, though in actual use they have rarely done great harm.
Deliberate, systematic distribution of weapons-grade anthrax in the United States in 2001 killed five people--terrible, but hardly "mass destruction" compared to the jet-fuel explosions that killed 3,000 on September 11 and the conventional bomb that killed 168 in Oklahoma City in 1995. Because actual attempts to use bioweapons have been few, it's hard to be sure; but it may well be that, like chemical weapons, biological agents will prove less dangerous than conventional arms, as well as more difficult for armies or terrorists to use.
What, exactly, are we waiting for?
TNR
Its not ABOUT WMD.
So what exactly IS it about?
- bringing democracy to the Middle East?
- world peace?
-regional security?
- US security !?!?!?!
- Poppy's revenge?
- elder son rivalry with father?
- take the Saud out of Arabia?
- Egypt the prize?
- raising a Texas steer shit curtain over new satellites in the Middle East?
- Taking the heat off of Sharon?
- Taking the domestic political heat off of Bush?
- a Napoleon complex?
- a military industrial complex?
- meetin Jaysus in the air off the banks of the Jordan in Fundie Fun Gas Masks?
Or is Bush just a Moron?
Filthy liar eh Z?
President Bush faces a new obstacle to building strong bipartisan backing for his strategy to confront Iraq and dismantle its deadly weapons program: Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle.
Daschle, once a strong if unlikely advocate of granting Bush the right to strike Saddam Hussein unilaterally, has grown increasingly distrustful of the president's political motives and effort to win the backing of most Democrats, according to lawmakers and aides.
Daschle said he still feels slighted by Bush's remark Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate doesn't care about national security because it opposes his vision of a new Department of Homeland Security. And Daschle openly wonders to colleagues if Bush is springing a political trap by virtually daring Democrats to oppose his version of the proposed war resolution so close to the Nov. 5 elections.
"It's unfortunately very counterproductive to use the rhetoric the administration has been employing," Daschle said in an interview yesterday. "This has complicated things."
I am afraid, as much as I think of TDaschle, that he has only himself to blame. Unlike early suckers such as Kennedy and George Miller, he cannot plead ignorance of the fact that when it comes to dealings with GWB the rule is spare the rod, spoil the Moron (the corollary "give him an inch...) Tom Delay, Ariel Sharon, Trent Lott, John McCain, Tony Blair, even PantyWaist Powell as a negative pregnant of the premise, have shown this clearly.
GWB is a spoiled brat of miniscule intellect who due to a developmental disorder is an emotional pre-pubescent. Unless he fears you, he will screw you.
Meanwhile, in a Washington speech yesterday, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said unconditional U.N. inspections must be given time to work, and that a largely unilateral U.S. war "could worsen, not lessen, the threat of terrorism."
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) told reporters yesterday that some Democrats are "willing to do anything to try to prevent the president of the United States from having the basic authority he needs to deal with a dangerous threat to the American people, but Democrats need to be careful what they call for. They're liable to get it."
Trent is either being incoherent or elliptical either way it doesn't matter much.
Thank God that the demon-possessed Zan isn't typical, and Michigan can produce a Senator of some sanity and substance. Phil Hart would be proud. George Romney may rest in peace.
After what's-his-name, the SecEnergy with all the baby fat, I was beginning to wonder.
Daschole is as full of shit as you are, jex.
He doesn't feel "slighted" - he's a rank hack, and a bad actor to boot.
GWB never said "Democrat controlled Senate", and Daschole never said anything about the Dept. of Homeland Security - his version of President Bush's remarks were meant to be taken by faithful demobots as righteous indignation that President Bush would dare question the positions of "patriots" such as himself and Daniel Inoue on the question of Iraq. Any attempt to present them as such exposes Daschole for the lying opportunist he is, and you and every other minion of the Demoborg as either very stupid, uninformed, or outright hacks.
"Together, we can beat this President!(...Bush, that is)"
September 28, 2002 -- BAGHDAD - A U.S. lawmaker
visiting the Iraqi capital yesterday called for Washington to
exhaust every diplomatic effort before resorting to war with
President Saddam Hussein.
This borders very closely on treason. Whether or not one believes enough evidence exists that Saddam has WMD, Congressmen visiting a country which they are (supposedly) actively engaged in debate whether or not to send American troops to invade, is disgusting.
Here's your "sane" Michigan politician, jasper.
Or Morally Obtuse or Religious Hypocrites?
Given that the United States is repeatedly said to be a religious country ...it is interesting how little has been made of the declarations by so many Christian leaders and ethicists that the Bush Administration's proposed war against Iraq is unjust and immoral.
The administration was greatly bent out of shape by the very public refusal of the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, to support a war in Iraq. But for all its reputed piety, the White House shows no sign of concern about the moral objections swelling up from an imposing portion of American church leadership.
How many divisions does the Pope have, Stalin is supposed to have sneered. Karl Rove can much more reasonably ask, how many voters does the United Methodist Church have?
Or, for that matter, the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), the Orthodox Church in America, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and the United Church of Christ — to name some of the bodies whose top officers or other leaders have recently joined in questioning a war against Iraq?
Then there are the National Council of Churches, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and various bodies overseas like the World Council of Churches, the Anglican Consultative Council (leaders of 70 million Anglicans), the 133-church Lutheran World Federation, and, yes, the Vatican, too, along with the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, all criticizing a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
Something similar can be said of the more than 100 Christian ethicists who released a simple statement on Wednesday affirming a "moral presumption against a pre-emptive war with Iraq by the United States."
Religious Leaders' Voices Rise on Iraq:
Most Question U.S. Moves Toward War, but Evangelicals Embrace Bush Policy as Assault on Evil
The invasion of Afghanistan was swift, directed at likely perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and bolstered by emotional support from most Americans.
U.S. religious leaders debated such issues as whether centuries-old "just war" principles applied to high-tech air assaults against military targets that might house noncombatants. But most agreed it was necessary to attack Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the Taliban government harboring it.
No such consensus exists for the planned next stage of President Bush's war on terrorism -- a military assault to destroy Iraq's weaponmaking capabilities and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. And there has been more time for reflective thinking reminiscent of the debates preceding the Persian Gulf War, said Brian Grieves, director of peace and justice ministries for the Episcopal Church.
On Sept. 13, Catholic and Protestant bishops raised concerns about military action against Iraq in a meeting on the Middle East with Rice. They also left copies of statements from their respective denominations: the Rev. Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, representing 63 million Catholics; the [Rt.]Rev. Frank T. Griswold, presiding bishop & primate of the 2.8 million-member Episcopal Church (Catholic); and the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [NOT], with 5 million members.
Vietnam veterans all, but of course, treasonous to the Supercillious Smarmy Self-Righteous SuperPatriot...
Sand nigger Lovers and Saddamites and Traitors...
"Blessed are the peacemakers..." even and especially if they go again AFTER the War to Make Bush Believable starts
"I am a man of peace. I want inspections to work."
"The President's view of US-Iraq policy is not a personal matter"
No Wombat, I don't and I didn't...in fact Traynor was responding to an email missive of mine that included a brief discussion of Hue, Stalingrad, and Beruit urban warfare as well as to a question from me on the Post's recent On-line chat.
Traynor's comments are rather an implicit admission of what he knows to be true and what his former comrade in arms Gen. Hoar has made quite specific. The modern city is the equivalent of fortress in medieval times through the 17th Century. Traynor recommends a siege as I might were it not for the extra time and civilian suffering involved and were it not for the manifestly immorality, patent hypocrisy, and strategic absrdity of the adventure to begin with.
lement of time and the
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Moron...
JoeZ, Crypto-Nazi and Feldwebel, Limbaugh Legion "Proud Amurican" - sham patriot
Since the UN charade, without any significant, widely reported opposition with a Congressional opposition haunted consultant-created phantasms...US support for real-world war scenarios is dropping from the weak to the paltry...
Nitch McConnell was right. Bush couldn't get his GTII resolution after the Election and thus the bum's rush.
Let's Roll
A look at how different political groups feel about military action to end President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites)'s rule in Iraq, and what happens to that support if the United States attacks without allied backing. The source is a poll of 1,150 adults taken by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Sept. 12-16 with an error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, larger for subgroups.
Would you favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule?
Overall — 64 percent favor, but that drops to 33 percent if the United States must act without allies.
Republicans — 77 percent favor, dropping to 43 percent if no allies.
Democrats — 42 percent favor; 13 percent favor if no allies.
Independents — 65 percent favor; 38 percent favor if no allies.
Would you favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule, even if it meant that U.S. forces might suffer thousands of casualties?
Overall — 48 percent favor, but that drops to 25 percent if no allies.
Republicans — 66 percent favor; 20 percent favor if no allies.
Democrats — 35 percent favor; 13 percent favor if no allies.
Independents — 47 percent favor; 24 percent favor if no allies.
This from Feldwebel "November is going to be sweet" Squeak
the pissant doth parse too much methinks
I think, jexter, that virtually all members of the forum, irrespective of their political creed, have come to regard you as more of a burden than an asset.
You'd better mend your ways or I will suspend you.
Neither I am indifferent nor do I believe that I burden anyone's ability to express their views as they wish, their right as well as mine. That much is clear from the fact that even when I have not posted for as long as day or two there is little or no difference in participation here. Or take a look at the IP thread if you will for you'll find the same thing.
If anything, there would be less participation without my posts for more comments are sent my way than to any other by far.
I feel strongly about this issue and am uncommonly well informed on the topic. I do not shun those who disagree with me, I welcome them and only wish to make them uncomfortable. The more I can do that, the happier I am, so discuss away. I've given everyone more than enough with which to take issue and "discuss" to their hearts content and then some.
If I have something to say, I will say it in whatever form, in whatever length, on whatever day, I choose for I take what say very seriously indeed. 
I know - Antonio Banderas!
Further Trainor context etc...my question specifically referenced a prior answer of his about GWI...he had used a phrase to describe US combined arms tactics in a war of maneuver one those really cool, catchy and inspirational phrases that military strategists turn so well something like "war of terrifying speed and extreme violence" only better...damn I wish could recall...but in any event, I said that's all well and good for the Russian steppe or open desert about the German 6th Army's experience etc...
Stalingrad/Baghdad led to Hue, IDF Beruit and ultimately to General Hoar. Hoar had testified in July as he did last week:
Gen. John P. Hoar, who noted that Mr. Hussein appeared to be preparing for a defense of Baghdad. General Hoar said he feared a "nightmare scenario" of six Iraqi Republican Guard divisions and six additional tank divisions ringed by several thousand antiaircraft guns.
"The result would be high casualties on both sides, as well as in the civilian community," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "U.S. forces will certainly prevail, but at what cost? And at what cost as the rest of the world watches while we win and have military rounds exploding in densely populated Iraqi neighborhoods?" he asked
So swift GWI, US combined arms terrible swift swords none of it is terribly useful in urban warfare where tanks become infantry support primarly useful in fire suppression and blasting holes through buildings to clear lines of fire for infantry, where mortars are probably the single most effective weapon. So forget GWI, forget combined arms battle tactics, forget Iraq's half baked application of Soviet armed region tatical concepts, this is different what would he do, how might it shake out?
And so he said he would do all that he could to avoid it as did Army Group North at Leningrad and hope for the best...
Well jex, maybe people just don't give a shit. Maybe they figure, "Hey - these religious guys are always pissing and moaning about the evils of homosexuality and abortion, but gays keep having sex and women keep having abortions, and there are all kinds of laws to guarantee them their rights to do so. Do they give a shit what the Church says then? Oh no - then the Church is wrong, and it ought to stop getting into people's shit and trying to tell the government what to do."
But maybe they just figure, "Hey - who the fuck do these religious guys think they are, trying to tell the President what to do and what not to do? Don't they know we have separation of Church and State here?"
I know the answer
When we get rid of the BOTUS, the Buffoon of the US
NO BUSH WARS
NO DEATH
REGIME CHANGE NOW!!!!
"Pwease don't execute me Mister Daschole"
"A vast majority of the public opposes military action against Iraq unless there is clear sanction from the United Nations, one of the most comprehensive surveys of public opinion on the issue reveals.
Nearly three-quarters of people asked if they would support an attack on Saddam Hussein said it would require international agreement. Just 18 per cent would support unilateral action if a new UN resolution was not passed. "
And I fault my party, I fault Democrats every bit as much as I fault Bush, and more than fault Republicans in general because some very honest and honorable Republicans have stepped up to the plate. Scowcroft, Baker, Hagel, Zinni (I assume he is), these men have done their job and done it well.
''If the UN adopts the kind of resolution authorizing force to enforce the kind of inspections that they should have a resolution adopted for, then I believe this resolution should say: In the event the UN adopts a resolution authorizing member states to use force to enforce the inspections, I believe this resolution should say that under those circumstances we should authorize force to enforce that UN resolution.''
The Bush administration campaign for war against Iraq has been an extravaganza of disingenuousness. The arguments come and go. Allegations are taken up, held until discredited, and then replaced. All the entrances and exits are chronicled by leaks to the Washington Post. Two overarching concepts—"terrorism" and "weapons of mass destruction" (or "WMD" as the new national security document jauntily acronymizes)—are drained of whatever intellectual validity they may have had and put to work bridging huge gaps in evidence and logic.
The arguments have been so phony and so fleeting that it's hard to know what Bush's real motive is. Michael Kinsley
"I think it would be a mistake for the US to unilaterally invade Iraq."
He wants to impress the teenage Mexican whores that he so loves to fuck.
I don't want anyone to die to make Bush believable; to further imperialist fantasies of ChickenHawk draft dodgers or AWOL Morons; so little Georgie can work out his oedipal problems with Poppy, to bolster sagging approval ratings or even so that JoeZ can meet Jaysus in the air (although the last has SOME merit)
Do you?
Speaking in the marble grandeur of the United Nations earlier this month, President Bush reminded the hushed diplomats that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate "a former American president" in 1993. On Thursday night, at a Republican fundraising reception in Houston, Bush dropped the formality and called Hussein "a guy that tried to kill my dad."
The two phrases had starkly different impacts. Bush's charge in New York was part of a bill of particulars against Hussein that pollsters said was convincing enough to bolster Bush's drooping approval rating and increase public support for an invasion of Iraq. The raw comment about his father, however, was seen on Capitol Hill as evidence that the administration's march toward war with Iraq is motivated at least partly by a family grudge match.
Bush's Words Get US in Trouble - WPost
"The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism." Richard Perle, ChickenHawk
"Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad." Sen. Chuck Hagel, Vietnam Viet 2 Silver Stars
WASHINGTON — The Boy Emperor's head hurt.
All the oppressive obligations of statecraft were swimming through his brain like hungry koi.
He summoned the imperial war tutor to the oval throne.
"I'm confused, Wise Rummy," he confessed. "Is the war pre-emptive, preventive or preventable? Is Saddam fissile or fissible? What in creation is counterproliferation? Everything's moving so fast. It's a puzzlement. Why are we mad at Saddam?"
Because he wants to attack our country," the mandarin replied.
"Why?" the Boy pressed.
"Because we want to attack his country," the tutor said.
"Why?" The Boy was insatiable.
Why?
Boy Blunder - A Case of Arrested Development
Its never been about Bush. Chirac is sly as a fox. Chirac has always had his sights on Blair.
Talk of an Iraq War Riles Britons
LONDON -- Jeering President Bush and chanting "Not in our name!" tens of thousands of antiwar protesters tramped through central London on Saturday, massing in Hyde Park for a three-hour rally against what they see as the British and American governments' enthusiasm for a war with Iraq.
Aimed at stopping a conflict that has yet to start, the protest was a preemptive strike of its own by a peace movement angered at Prime Minister Tony Blair's support for the Bush administration against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Organizers said that more than 350,000 people--some shouting "Shame!" as they passed Blair's 10 Downing St. residence--marched from the demonstration's starting point near the Houses of Parliament.
Whose idea was it in the first place to take the scanners into Iraq which eventually resulted in the breakdown of UN inspections? Why, none other than Li'l Scottie Ritter.
My buddy Bernie Trainor's on MSNBC commenting on Rummy's Dog & Pony video war footage of Iraq taking pot shots in the No-fly zone.
Bernie of course made the point that we not expect such fun and games around Baghdad which raises the larger question of why Rummy has decided to put this shit show on the first place...
I guess he feels Blair flopped so bad last week that he's got to do something to refire the flagging blood lust...
Maybe the Morons are dumb enuf to buy it but even that is in doubt
Tell us something we didn't know 4 years ago even
I'm pointing out that part of the tenor of Ritter's self interested statements today wrt Iraq is based on his attempts to cover his ass wrt the UNSCOM monitoring equipment snafu.
That's my point
Thanks...
You people are REALLY gittin desperate, as well you should
No. What's a real stretch is to attach any credibility to those who are so blatantly anxious to accept Ritter's words today as purest gospel.
The Congressional Budget Office ( news - web sites) report comes as U.S. lawmakers debate President Bush ( news - web sites)'s recent request for authority to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites).
It is the latest in a series of war cost estimates, some ranging as high as $200 billion, which have garnered attention on Capitol Hill in light of growing U.S. budget woes.
The CBO said it could not assess how long any U.S. military action against Iraq would last and warned that any attempt to estimate its cost was, therefore, "highly uncertain."
But it said deploying U.S. forces to the Gulf region would likely cost between $9 billion and $13 billion and bringing them home after the conclusion of hostilities would add another $5 billion to $7 billion.
Fighting a war would cost $6 billion to $9 billion a month, while mounting a possible occupation of Iraq afterward would cost between $1 billion and $4 billion a month, it said.
Note well...the CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office is the source for these figures..
NOT OMB NOT the State Dept not the DoD...NOT the Office of the Resident ....
The reason, I suspect has less to do with innate ineptitude as much as it is evidence that the PantyWaist War with the ChickenHawks is very much alive and well and as such is itself evidence of innate ineptitude at the very top of that pile of shit we call our Executive for lack of a better term...
Desperate indeed
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- Atomic energy officials said Monday that a substance seized by police near the Syrian border was not weapons-grade uranium as Turkish officials first reported, according to the Anatolia news agency.
Atomic Energy Institute chief Guler Koksal said the material was harmless, containing zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese.
The announcement ended days of speculation that the substance might have been destined for neighboring Iraq, which the United States accuses of trying to smuggle in nuclear material for a secret weapons program.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush ( news - web sites) wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( news - web sites) sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites)'s biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus ( news - web sites).
The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.
Saddam set to let inspectors in
Iraq muddles US resolve with 'positive' talks in Vienna
First of all Joe one nation can't invade another because the other MIGHT use weapons that do not exist and that cannot be delivered even if they did exist.
As pointed out repeatedly, CBW are less usable and less destructive than a whole array of "conventional" weapons in the US arsenal.
1. If your Magic 8 Ball says Yes
2. If your imaginary friend whispers "Let's Roll" in your ear
Force Supported Only With U.N. Consent
Two GOP Senators Urge Iraq Coalition
Lugar, Hagel Ask Bush To Work With Allies
976. jexster - 10/1/2002 11:44:23 AM
Bush Rejects Lugar-Biden Compromise
977. jexster - 10/1/2002 2:46:16 PM
Iraq and Hans Blix Reach Agreement on Return of Inspectors
978. PelleNilsson - 10/1/2002 3:34:58 PM
The Iraqi representatives declared that Iraq accepts all rights of inspection provided for in all the relevant Security Council resolutions," Blix told reporters after the talks.
But what the US demands (rightly, in my opinion) is much more than what is provided for in "the relevant Security Council resolutions".
979. jexster - 10/1/2002 5:14:53 PM
UN Rebuffs Bush Attempts to Undermine Vienna Talks
What the US demands is contrary to specific provisions of UN resolutions.....but then again, it never WAS about UN resolutions or inspectors its always been about regime change and colonization (21st century style) 
Hans Blix Standin Tall...Loft Mast
Du Gamla, Du Fria
(Thou Ancient, Thou Free)
Du gamla, du fria
du fjällhöga nord
du tysta
du glädjerika sköna
Vi hälsa dig vänaste
land uppå jord
Din sol, din himmel
dina ängder gröna
(repeat previous two lines)
Du tronar på minnen
från fornstora da'r
Då ärat ditt namn
flög över jorden
jag vet att du är
och förblir vad du var
Ja, jag vill leva
jag vill dö i Norden
(repeat previous two lines)
980. robertjayb - 10/1/2002 5:18:35 PM
Commander Ari says, "Just shoot the fucker!"
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Commenting on the cost of a war in Iraq, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday it would be cheaper if Saddam Hussein simply were assassinated.
Fleischer was asked about a Congressional Budget Office estimate that fighting a full-scale war with Iraq would cost the United States as much as $9 billion a month.
``The president has not made any decisions about military action and what military option he might pursue,'' Fleischer said. ``And so, I think it's impossible to speculate.''
He also seemed to suggest that Saddam, the Iraqi president, could go into exile, another cheaper option than military action.
``I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that,'' Fleischer said. ``The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that.''
981. jexster - 10/1/2002 5:18:52 PM
982. jexster - 10/1/2002 5:19:46 PM
Its not "personal" is it robert?
Filthy liar eh JoeZ?
983. robertjayb - 10/1/2002 5:21:47 PM
No. It's just business.
984. wonkers2 - 10/1/2002 5:23:30 PM
Good news! An agreement has been reached in Vienna between the UN and Iraq for the resumption of inspections within two weeks. Blix says his inspectors will return unless ordered not to by the Security Council. The U.S., according to Wolf Blitzer, intends to block renewal of inspections without a new Security Council resolution. Too bad! If Bush were smart he'd declare a victory and take credit for the resumption of inspections.
985. wonkers2 - 10/1/2002 5:29:51 PM
Meanwhile the Dow is up 347 points on the news of the Vienna agreement and bargain hunting after last week's dismal drop.
986. judithathome - 10/1/2002 5:33:02 PM
Wonkers, you don't think we'll bomb with inspectors over there, do you?
987. robertjayb - 10/1/2002 6:06:02 PM
Powell is on the teevee saying the announced Geneva agreement is a non-starter. Insists on new and stronger resolutions on inspections.
988. robertjayb - 10/1/2002 6:08:29 PM
Oopsie!
Vienna agreement.
989. wonkers2 - 10/1/2002 6:12:01 PM
Judith, we are bombing nearly every day, already. There's no telling what Bush will do.
990. judithathome - 10/1/2002 6:19:51 PM
Oh I know we are bombing daily and they are shooting back. I just meant huge-building-shaking-and-structure-demolishing bombing.
991. jexster - 10/1/2002 6:23:16 PM
This is dangerous folks.
Sad-am is about to become Defender of the UN and establish the precedent for disarming nuclear tipped rogue states in the Middle East
Oy vey
992. jexster - 10/1/2002 6:47:41 PM
[After Gulf War I] the US was forced to begin itself in the Middle East a second game of "va banque". If it can bring about significant accord between Israel and the PLO, everyone will applaud. But this is a result that seems unlikely. If, in the coming years, we collapse into more wars in the Middle East, possibly now with nuclear weapons, the US will bear the brunt of the blame, its conservative Arab allies will collapse, and Europe will be called in to salvage a possibly unsalvageable situation. If all this happens, my not Saddam Hussein stll be around to crow? Wallertein, I (1994) "America and the World - Today, Yesterday and Tommorrow"
Va banque
Va moron
993. jexster - 10/1/2002 6:57:28 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell ( news - web sites) on Tuesday rejected the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq without a tough new resolution from the Security Council.
Powell said there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that "the United States will continue to pursue a new U.N. resolution."
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told reporters after two days of talks with Iraqi officials in Vienna that Iraq had agreed on the logistics of resuming inspections under U.N. Security Council rules. An Iraqi official said the inspectors could arrive in Baghdad in about two weeks.
Trouble for the gamma girl
The UN is firmly within its rights and resolutions to proceed and the US can do nothing to stop it. The resolutions are self-executing. The US has no veto whereas there are 3 possible vetoes awaiting any US resolution that would hamper the inspection effort...
Did I say "US ...hamper"
Damn
Va banque
994. ronski - 10/1/2002 7:57:22 PM
There is one sure way of stopping short the UN inspectors: the US going in with guns blazing, after warning the UN team to get out. I'm not recommending this, but it may happen if presidential sites and such are not inspected by the UN. Or, if the US believes there are buried and mobile sites the UN is not bothering to look for.
Stay tuned.
995. jexster - 10/1/2002 8:38:58 PM
That is a rather crude variant of the "coercive inspection" idea. Crude and contrary to UN resolutions which I believe exempt Presidential Palaces....Kinda like Cheney's records exempt from GAO inspectors????
:=0
Bush Exaggerates Threat -Brookings
996. joezan - 10/1/2002 10:18:02 PM
Meanwhile the Dow is up 347 points on the news of the Vienna agreement and bargain hunting after last week's dismal drop.
What bullshit.
The Dow was up over 300 before the "agreement" was ever announced.
Is there no end to the Saddam-worship around here?
997. Al D - 10/1/2002 10:51:39 PM
joezan
Of course you are right, but facts make no difference to some. There are experts here who seem to know exactly why the market goes down, and now why it goes up. I doubt they have a monetary interest, just cyber nonsense.
Of course the agreement reached today, which by the way goes to the Security Council, is a non-starter, just more game playing by Saddam.
An attempt by Saddam to assinate an American President is not important to the Liberals on the Mote, but the thought that a bullet for Saddam is outrageous. You see, Liberals support Saddam, but not Republican Presidentts.
998. Al D - 10/1/2002 10:56:03 PM
Over 50% of posts above are jexster's, spouting the same old same old. Can the Mote stand this, or will posters drift over to the Perfect World, not that one can't post on both. I post over there as stamper, but it isn't as much fun as the Mote. There are way too many topics, which is why I never liked TT.
999. arkymalarky - 10/1/2002 10:59:34 PM
Oh puhleeze. The complexity of world issues and broad ramifications of a unilateral US attack on Iraq under the present circumstances are just better understood by Liberals. I'm a liberal, and if I had the means I'd shoot the man myself (Saddam Hussein, that is).
1000. arkymalarky - 10/1/2002 11:01:01 PM
Al, it's predominately up to thread hosts to determine what stays or goes wrt their threads (outside violations of the ROE), but note Pelle's post above.
1001. robertjayb - 10/1/2002 11:11:17 PM
1000. arkymalarky - 10/1/02 10:01:01 PM
Well done , arky...
1002. Al D - 10/1/2002 11:21:17 PM
arkymalarky
Liberals understand nothing about anything. They follow a mantra until they grow up and get some sense. I no, I was stupid once myself.
I am still a bit obtuse about posting #'s.
1003. jexster - 10/2/2002 11:11:36 AM
That's OK Al...the Prez is obtuse about everything
Sad-am Flummoxes Boy Blunder
Curses Batman!
1004. jexster - 10/2/2002 11:15:19 AM
"The administration appears to view the inspections process as a path to war, while Iraq and other nations hope to use inspections to thwart war."
I am SOOOO confused I thought this joker said just a few days ago "I am a man of peace. I want inspections to work. I want to give peace a chance."
All he was sayin....was give peace a chance...
Filthy liar
1005. jexster - 10/2/2002 11:16:09 AM
But then I thought Sad-am was the filty liar or was it Gore?
1006. jexster - 10/2/2002 11:23:19 AM
While endorsing "regime change" and democracy in Iraq, the Bush administration is stumbling in its efforts to forge a cohesive opposition to Saddam Hussein.
My my...Boy Stumble - Boy Blunder - Man of Peace -WarLord?????
How embarrassing
1007. ronski - 10/2/2002 11:29:04 AM
Meanwhile the Dow is up 347 points on the news of the Vienna agreement...
More likely, as Neal Boortz surmized, the Dow soared in part upon learning of Torricelli's withdrawal and the greater chance that the GOP would hold onto the Senate.
1008. jexster - 10/2/2002 11:41:36 AM
Surprise Surprise Bush Has NO Plan for the Day After
1009. arkymalarky - 10/2/2002 5:07:55 PM
Thanks Robert.
I wouldn't touch #1002 with a hundred foot pole.
1010. Cellar Door - 10/2/2002 6:06:14 PM
1011. jexster - 10/2/2002 8:43:16 PM
Better with pictures....
Are we embarrassed yet?
Let's roll. 
1012. jexster - 10/2/2002 9:50:21 PM
The posters are going up around town....a picture of Osama - "I want YOU to invade Iraq"
Meanwhile, according to Le Monde, PantyWaist Powell's got his tit in a ringer - caught between the UN and Bush, between I-rak and a hard place.
Vive La France! Vive Le Vrai President!!!!
Washington récuse un régime d'inspection qui "n'a pas marché"
1013. jexster - 10/3/2002 2:06:52 PM
Iraq "crisis" SOLVED!!!!!
With Iraq's latest proposal - a duel between King Moron and Sad-am!
mano a moron in the desert...
NOW THERE's a just war!
1014. wonkers2 - 10/3/2002 3:47:23 PM
Wow! Great idea with the possibility of a double regime change.
1015. JJBiener - 10/3/2002 3:57:27 PM
Jex - But then I thought Sad-am was the filty liar or was it Gore?
Both, actually.
1016. jexster - 10/3/2002 4:15:19 PM
As mentioned here before, the Bush regime is deliberately withholding important intelligence information from the Congress. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq has not been updated in two years.
Con game, con men, pigshit in search of pretext:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham on Thursday accused the CIA ( news -web sites) of obstructionism for not producing intelligence reports on Iraq that the panel had requested.
As Congress considers its stance on President Bush ( news - web sites)'s threat to act against Iraq, the committee had asked for two national intelligence estimates on issues related to Iraq.
Those reports are compilations of views from different intelligence agencies, and include dissenting opinions.
One of the reports requested was an assessment of how Iraq's neighbors would react to a war on Baghdad. Graham would not describe the other, saying the topic was classified.
Sources confirmed a New York Times report that the panel had asked for a broad review of how the intelligence community's clandestine role against President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites)'s government would be coordinated with diplomatic and military actions the Bush administration was planning.
1017. jexster - 10/3/2002 7:05:09 PM
Scott Ritter Is Right
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Some United Nations ( news - web sites) inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the 1990s probably spied on behalf of their governments, a Swede who worked as an inspector said on Thursday.
"There were episodes you could sense were strange. One team member made too many copies of documents. Then there were those who went to their embassies at night although they were not really allowed to do so," Ake Sellstrom told Swedish public service SVT television news.
Sellstrom was employed by the U.N. weapons inspection organization UNSCOM led by American Scott Ritter, whom Baghdad repeatedly accused of spying. The inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in December 1998.
Bush War Stalled in UN
Vive La France!
1018. jexster - 10/3/2002 11:21:39 PM
1019. magoseph - 10/4/2002 8:01:30 AM
Why not solve the present problem with respect to inspections? The palaces have always been off-bounds to the inspectors. They are huge complexes, not only living quarters. Obviously, they contain the contraband. The simple solution to this problem is to destroy the palaces. Every day our aircraft are destroying Iraqi installations which we consider dangerous to our aircraft and interests. By removing the palaces as a bone of contention, significant progress could possibly be made.
So, tell me now why the palaces can't be destroyed now. The're in the countryside, aren't they?
1020. jexster - 10/4/2002 11:24:15 AM
But French officials continued today to insist on their strategy of two resolutions. Answering questions in the French Senate, Mr. de Villepin reiterated the view that France was "against unilateral preventive action" and believed that "using force can only be the last resort."
Before addressing the Senate, Mr. de Villepin met a group of senators in a closed-door session. Former Prime Minister Édouard Balladur, who attended the closed session, later quoted Mr. de Villepin as saying that while "certain modifications" were possible, they could clearly not include "automatic recourse to military steps, as far as the text of the first resolution is concerned."
Mr. Chirac said Wednesday after meeting with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany that both were "totally hostile" to the idea of a single resolution that would have automatic character. NyT
Mireille Mathieu
Das Lied Der Deutchen
1021. Cellar Door - 10/4/2002 12:38:58 PM
How about a nuanced discussion?
1022. concerned - 10/4/2002 12:40:37 PM
Re. 1019 -
Perhaps there is an issue with human hostages at the palaces.
1023. concerned - 10/4/2002 1:04:59 PM
Bad news for jexster - U.S. begins psychological warfare against Iraq
How dast the Bush Administration try to turn this into a cakewalk? Jexster wants corpses, preferably American, dammit!
1024. concerned - 10/4/2002 1:07:02 PM
Excerpt:
U.S. officials said the leaflets stemmed from an assessment by London and Washington that most of the Iraqi military is prepared to flee or surrender in any war to topple the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
1025. jexster - 10/4/2002 3:03:11 PM
whistling past the graveyard...
literally
1026. jexster - 10/4/2002 5:36:01 PM
Message # 1024
War Against Saddam's Regime: Winnable but No Cakewalk
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, October 2, 2002
Michael O'Hanlon -Brookings Institute
1027. jexster - 10/4/2002 7:36:43 PM
Wombat - an executive summary of O'Hanlon's testimony per our prior discussions
1028. jexster - 10/4/2002 7:37:04 PM
1029. jexster - 10/4/2002 7:37:28 PM
1030. wonkers2 - 10/4/2002 9:41:42 PM
According to the Lansing Journal, the U.S. supplied the anthrax, West Nile virus, etc, seed stock, in the early 90s, for Iraq's germ warfare program.
1031. joezan - 10/5/2002 12:33:21 AM
whistling past the graveyard...
literally
Oh please. In GW1, just about every Iraqi soldier who hadn't managed to get away or meet a sandy grave, surrendered to anyone he could.
What - are they more "determined" now?
Do they have better equipment?
Do they love Saddam even more than before?
They may hate the US more than before, but even a hate-filled Iraqi knows to get the hell out of Dodge when the bombs are falling all around and all he can do is fire his Kalashnikov into the sky.
1032. concerned - 10/5/2002 2:30:32 AM
Iraqi Kurds endorse peace deal, win US plaudits, at landmark meet
Sounds as if Iraqi Kurds should have no trouble with self rule or full autonomy once Saddam joins Osama in his good-bye tour.
1033. wonkers2 - 10/5/2002 9:20:03 AM
THE FIFTY-FIRST STATE?
Going to war with Iraq would mean shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power the moment victory was achieved. These would include running the economy, keeping domestic peace, and protecting Iraq's borders--and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades. Are we ready for this long-term relationship?
James Fallows, The Atlantic November
1034. Cellar Door - 10/5/2002 10:50:23 AM
1035. jexster - 10/5/2002 12:07:29 PM
MILAN (Reuters) - Waving banners and ringing church bells, thousands of Italians flocked to peace rallies across the country on Saturday to protest against a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq.
Reuters Photo
Anti-war groups said demonstrators in 100 cities from the financial hub of Milan to the tip of the Italian boot would participate in the protests.
Thousands of people were already streaming through the historic centers of Milan, Florence, Catania and Bergamo and thousands more were expected at a big evening rally in Rome and other cities, organizers said.
"Against the war without ifs or buts!!" one Milan banner declared as swarms of students took to the streets.
1036. jexster - 10/5/2002 12:09:54 PM
October 26: Stop the Attack on Iraq!
Internationally Coordinated De-Centralized Day of Mass Actions
A CALL TO THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT: Stop the war on Iraq before it starts!
International Action Center
International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
1037. jexster - 10/5/2002 12:14:38 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq - From their perch in Washington, President Bush and his advisers seem to have convinced themselves that an invasion will proceed easily because many Iraqis will dance in the streets to welcome American troops. That looks like a potentially catastrophic misreading of Iraq....
So if Saddam thinks the average Iraqi is going to miss him, he's deluding himself. But if President Bush thinks our invasion and occupation will go smoothly because Iraqis will welcome us, then he too is deluding himself.
Stones of Baghdad
1038. jexster - 10/5/2002 7:15:40 PM
Tony Blair's drive for Middle East peace talks has suffered an embarrassing setback at the hands of the US president, George Bush, only days after the prime minister flagged up his plan at the Labour party conference in Blackpool.
Mr Blair is pushing for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks, backed by an international conference, before the end the year. He has told colleagues that, with war looming in Iraq, he regards it as essential to deal with one of the main causes of Arab resentment against the west.
But the Guardian has learnt that Mr Bush has blocked the initiative and has made it clear to Mr Blair that he does not want such talks to be held in the near future.
MORON
1039. concerned - 10/6/2002 4:00:41 AM
Going to war with Iraq would mean shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power the moment victory was achieved. These would include running the economy, keeping domestic peace, and protecting Iraq's borders--and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades. Are we ready for this long-term relationship?
That's what the UN's for:)
1040. joezan - 10/6/2002 7:47:24 AM
Put up or shut up: Europe spends zip on defence and sneers at America’s ‘warmongering’. It’s not a pretty sight, says Mark Steyn:
Nelson Mandela says it’s the US and not Saddam Hussein who’s ‘the threat to world peace’. Canada’s transport minister, in his contribution to 11 September observances, regretted that the Soviet Union was no longer around to act as a check on American ‘bullying’. Sweden’s Goran Persson wants to build up the EU because it’s ‘one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to US world domination’. Sweden was famously relaxed about Nazi world domination and Soviet world domination, but sometimes there are threats so monstrous that even in Stockholm you have to get off the fence. In Germany Gerhard Schroeder is Chancellor today because his party successfully articulated the great menace that George W. Bush poses to the planet. Feel free to insert standard ‘arrogant cowboy’ imagery and other examples of rampant Texaphobia.
Let’s suppose for a moment that these fellows are right. The question then arises: So what are you going to do about it? Well, Mr Mandela’s country has been busy selling aluminium tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges to Saddam. The first secretary of the South African embassy in Jordan is serving as the local sales rep to Iraqi procurement agents. Thanks to these sterling efforts, they’re bringing significantly closer the day when the entire Middle East, much of Africa and even Europe will be under the Saddamite nuclear umbrella and thus safe from Bush’s aggression.
Way to go, Nelson!...
1041. joezan - 10/6/2002 7:56:56 AM
There?s something a little bewildering about an anti-war movement suddenly pining for the noble sacrifice of the poor bloody infantryman up to his neck in muck and bullets. But, if you honestly believe the Pentagon are long-range, high-tech, sissy-boy warmongers, let me say again: what are you going to do about it? The fact that the US is responsible for 40 per cent of the planet?s military spending pales in comparison to the really critical statistic: it?s responsible for almost 80 per cent of military research-and-development spending. The gap between America and its Nato ?allies? widens every day. Even when ground troops are involved, they won?t take up as much ground as they used to: as General James Jones of the US Marines puts it, ?The rifle company of the 21st century will be doing what the rifle battalion of the 20th century used to do? ? that?s about an 85 per cent lay-off. You think those reconnaissance drones high in the sky were mighty fancy? They?ve now got a five-pound computerised drone you can fit in your backpack. In Afghanistan, a handful of prototype robots assisted in the cave-by-cave search for al-Qa?eda nutters. We can only guess at the new toys the Great Satan will have in five years? time, but, whatever they are, I?ll bet my in-tray is still getting sneering missives: ?So now the bloody Yank poofters are using flying nuclear cheeseburgers launched from the Diego Garcia Burger King. Not exactly the Bengal Lancers, is it?
1042. joezan - 10/6/2002 7:57:23 AM
If Europeans don?t like this scenario, there?s only one way to do anything about it: get yourself back in the game. At the recent Nato meeting, Don Rumsfeld invited his colleagues to demonstrate their seriousness by setting up a Nato Rapid Reaction Force. He meant a real, actual Rapid Reaction Force, not a fictitious one like the EU?s. You?ll recall Louis Michel, the Belgian foreign minister, insisting late last year that the European Rapid Reaction Force ?must declare itself operational without such a declaration being based on any true capability?. As the Washington Post remarked, ?Apparently in Europe this works.? Asked to set up an actual operational Rapid Reaction Force, most Nato members bristled: the cost would divert valuable resources from social programmes and might mean they?d have to cut back on welfare payments to Islamic terrorists.
1043. alistairconnor - 10/6/2002 9:32:53 AM
That's what the UN's for:)
The UN sez: get fucked.
1044. ronski - 10/6/2002 11:15:27 AM
Still conflicting reports as to whether the explosion of the French tanker approaching Yemen was the result of a terrorist attack, but the French are saying the ship was rammed by a small fishing boat, a la the Cole.
Which would mean, if true, that the U.S. and Israel remain not the only targets of Islamofascists, and that Yemen is still a mess.
1045. jexster - 10/6/2002 11:37:56 AM
Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly Multiple Personality Disorder) 300.14
Last week's tune:
Everybody is talking about blagism
Shagism, dragism and madism
Ragism and tagism bob tailing
Thisism, thatism, ism, ism, ism
All we are saying
Is give peace a chance
All we are saying
Is give peace a chance
This week:
MANCHESTER, N.H., Oct. 5 — President Bush today offered a new argument for acting quickly against Iraq
Bush - Hussein Could Strike At Any Moment
1046. jexster - 10/6/2002 11:49:29 AM
Message # 998
ALzheimer's Association
1047. PelleNilsson - 10/6/2002 12:15:39 PM
That Mark Steyn sure uses a lot of question marks, doesn't he?
1048. jexster - 10/7/2002 10:37:27 AM
One of the most appealing thoughts about a possible war with Iraq is that it could help spread democracy, transforming a rotten political order in the Middle East. But more likely, such a war would render the Middle East more repressive and unstable than it is today. Democracy cannot be imposed through military force....
But Fascism Can: The Hidden Cost of War on Iraq
1049. concerned - 10/7/2002 11:32:53 AM
Following in the tradition of Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw.
1050. concerned - 10/7/2002 11:36:58 AM
Note Saddam's apparent cranial capacity - he's the stuff that Lefties and Totalitarians are made of, all right.
1051. jexster - 10/7/2002 12:16:37 PM
Good little crypto-Nazi taking cranial measurements.
1052. jexster - 10/7/2002 12:17:42 PM
The defining oddity of this war debate is its unseriousness. The arguments made by proponents of the war resolution are familiar and weak. Warner says Saddam Hussein might use nuclear weapons against American troops. In the next breath, he says Saddam had biological and chemical weapons last time but never used them. Several senators make a fuss about the meager presence of al-Qaida in Iraq. Several ask whether anyone doubts that terrorists would use Saddam's nukes against us if they got them. Nobody explains why Saddam would hand them over. The arguments on the other side are even more lame. Opponents want to wait for the United Nations to act, but they offer no reason to think it will do so. They warn of American isolation but never grapple with whether avoiding isolation is worth letting Saddam get nukes.
The debate, it seems, isn't really about whether to go to war. It's about what message the Senate should send to Iraq and the rest of the world by saying we will or won't go to war.
The Fake Debate
1053. concerned - 10/7/2002 12:18:49 PM
Re. 1050 -
Coming from the Mote's leading pro-fascist knuckle dragger, that's pretty deep.
1054. jexster - 10/7/2002 12:24:37 PM
In one of the debate's strangest moments, Warner tells his colleagues that they must pass a firm resolution against Saddam because "he has to be convinced that American and international resolve is real." Real? Here's the chief Republican sponsor of the resolution, declaring on television that senators should vote for it in order to make Saddam think their resolve is real. Do they think Saddam doesn't get congressional transcripts in Baghdad? If you were Saddam, and you saw U.S. senators telling each other they could avoid war by spooking you with a war resolution, how impressed would you be?
1055. jexster - 10/7/2002 12:25:35 PM
Message # 1053a Freudian slip apparently.
1056. concerned - 10/7/2002 12:32:05 PM
Oops. Erratum -
Re. 1051 -
Coming from the Mote's leading pro-fascist knuckle dragger, that's pretty deep.
I really need to get a keyboard w/o a broken space bar.
1057. jexster - 10/7/2002 12:37:16 PM
That's was the second of two...
Note Saddam's apparent cranial capacity
1058. jexster - 10/7/2002 12:37:40 PM
Now THAT is one messed up keyboard TD
1059. concerned - 10/7/2002 12:39:49 PM
I know. Note that I didn't identify the Iraqi in the photograph, who looks like Saddam's first cousin, IAC.
1060. concerned - 10/7/2002 12:45:47 PM
I figure that if someone like McDermott can say, with a straight face, that GWB is crowning himself 'Emperor of America', why should I be prevented from using some Leftist rhetorical devices?
1061. concerned - 10/7/2002 12:48:24 PM
In fact, if I was actually a RWinger, I wouldn't stoop that low;)
1062. jexster - 10/7/2002 2:23:05 PM
Fox WILL NOT CARRY BUSH's BIG SPEECH....Giants v. Braves more important
1063. jexster - 10/7/2002 2:24:30 PM
In fact NO MAJOR NETWORKS will carry
Anti-war rallies across U.S.
8,000 protesters in S.F. are part of resistance gaining momentum
We'd have had more were it not for the Castro St. Fair
1064. jexster - 10/7/2002 3:55:57 PM
Not by our will
and Not in our name
1065. stostosto - 10/7/2002 5:48:25 PM
It just occurred to me how small and weak a country Iraq really is. 23 million people, 40% of which under the age of 14. GDP per cap. is $2,500. (The US corresponding figure is $36,000). It's economy is barely functioning.
About one third of the population are sunni Muslims, the ethnic segment that Saddam hails from, that's about eight million people. The rest are shia Muslims (like the Iranians, and like the so-called "swamp Arabs" who revolted against Saddam in 1991), or Kurds who are ever rebellious and against whom Saddam conducted a cruel war in 1988 in which around 100,000 are said to have been killed. Since 1991, Iraq hasn't been able to take advance of its otherwise enormous oil wealth due to UN sanctions. Large parts of its infrastructure was destroyed during the Gulf War (I think I read somewhere that Iraq was exposed to a total explosive power from bombs during that one month that was larger than the total used in WWII). Since 1991, there have been no-fly zones in the northern and southern thirds of the country, and American and British fighters and bombers have attacked suspicious-looking plants and infrastructure at will. The UN weapons inspections, however imperfect, cannot but have uncovered important infrastructure for WMD production during the seven years they were in effect.
Saddam's Iraq has hardly any friends or allies in the region or beyond. It has attacked neighbours Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia - plus Israel.
>>>
1066. stostosto - 10/7/2002 5:48:59 PM
>>>
It does have a certain pull on business minded interests due to its huge oil prospects, and whatever oil it is allowed to export or sees fit to smuggle past the sanctions controls furnishes it with hard currency which presumably enables the regime to go shopping for WMD spare parts and other military equipment, subject to its ability to sidestep sanctions controls.
Still, all told, Saddam's regime and military wouldn't appear to be a very impressive adversay, or even very frightening to any of its neighbours. Which, on the other hand, very probably just animates Saddam's pursuit of nukes all the more. I don't know how likely it is that he'd be able to achieve them, though.
In any case, I would guess any US led war against him will be over quite quickly. Then comes the tricky part.
1067. stostosto - 10/7/2002 6:06:16 PM
Another thing is, what is the likelihood that events will unfold according to script? This prolonged state of seige that has been tightening around Iraq since Bush made his "axis-of-evil" address seems on a predictable slow motion track towards a war. But it has been so long under way now, and the end result has been so predictable for so long that it's somehow just not likely that it continues to move so strictly along the ruler. What are the odds that something snaps, one way or the other? Coup against Saddam, rebellions, Saddam rolls over, Saddam flees to Iran (his fellow axis-of-evil partners). I have a feeling that a war might be avoided after all.
Of course, there is also the nasty possibility that al-Qaeda -- or some other group -- will attack from an unexpected quarter and shift focus completely.
1068. jexster - 10/7/2002 6:12:26 PM
Yet another indication of what a national joke and disgrace Bush's war has become
CNN was featuring an excerpt of "Sen. Pete Domenici's" paen of praise to the Blundering WarLord...the caption said it was Pete, two announcers told us it was Pete....
It was Ted Stevens.
Be sure and catch the Boy Blunder's Latest From the Bully Pulpit...
If you can find a station that is carrying it
1069. wonkers2 - 10/7/2002 6:15:57 PM
Good news! CNN just cited a poll showing that Americans have more confidence in the way that the Democrats would handle Iraq than the Republicans. The margin was 53% to 40-something. Apparently the majority support going through the UN or other less warlike and unilateral options. You can fool some of the people some of the time....
1070. jexster - 10/7/2002 6:37:34 PM
"Bush to Say War Against Iraq Not Imminent"
OK so somebody please splain why congress is voting or WHAT they are voting on???
And if that's too tough, why is Barry Bonds hitting .217 for the NLDS?
And if that's too tough, why isn't Fox carrying the Boy Blunder's Big address?
GO GIGANTES!
1071. jexster - 10/7/2002 6:38:29 PM
Wonder whether Sad-am will be watching Green Bay v. Chicago or SF v. Atlanta or Hollywood Squares?
1072. jexster - 10/7/2002 11:31:18 PM
Support for Bush War Hits New Low in GB
Ousting Sad-am Illegal - British AG Advises Blair
1073. Cellar Door - 10/8/2002 4:11:37 PM
1074. Cellar Door - 10/8/2002 5:42:56 PM
1075. concerned - 10/8/2002 6:40:37 PM Bad news for jex - 1076. jexster - 10/8/2002 7:17:34 PM The Editors of The New Republic as most of you know have taken as hard a line on Iraq as any publication. 1077. jexster - 10/8/2002 7:17:39 PM The Editors of The New Republic as most of you know have taken as hard a line on Iraq as any publication. 1078. jexster - 10/8/2002 7:18:45 PM The markets were down yesterday, discounting Bush war. 1079. jexster - 10/8/2002 7:19:36 PM Even the New Republic is beginning to back off. 1080. jexster - 10/8/2002 11:23:32 PM Americans are enamored with our own goodness. We like to think of ourselves as peace-loving, law-abiding, virtuous—a model to the world. 1081. jexster - 10/8/2002 11:23:51 PM toys 1082. jexster - 10/8/2002 11:26:23 PM Message # 1033 1083. jexster - 10/8/2002 11:39:40 PM Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: ‘Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure... The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.'" 1084. joezan - 10/9/2002 9:17:42 AM MOSCOW — The government of President Vladimir Putin appears to be moving away from Baghdad and closer to support for a U.S.-led war against Iraq, Russian strategists say. 1085. concerned - 10/9/2002 11:16:32 AM Robert Fisk on Amnesia 1086. jexster - 10/9/2002 12:18:57 PM Seig Heil TDaschole! 1087. jexster - 10/9/2002 1:40:36 PM 1088. joezan - 10/9/2002 1:43:49 PM Oh yeah - Vito Cornholio the skinny guinea knows all about American politics. 1089. jexster - 10/9/2002 2:49:49 PM Apparently lots more than you... 1090. Cellar Door - 10/9/2002 3:03:55 PM 1091. concerned - 10/9/2002 4:37:25 PM RE. 1087 - 1092. ronski - 10/9/2002 8:17:44 PM There really is no point in participating in a thread where jexster shows up. 1093. Cellar Door - 10/9/2002 8:18:59 PM Oh don't be such a wuss. 1094. Cellar Door - 10/9/2002 8:19:33 PM If you think it's bad in here you should be over in CalGal's new place. Ace runs everything. 1095. Daniel Sickles - 10/9/2002 8:40:55 PM Ronski 1096. Cellar Door - 10/9/2002 9:49:13 PM >you may well post there and I do not know it 1097. Daniel Sickles - 10/9/2002 10:17:54 PM I don't know how the rest of my post contradicts that I'm unaware if ronski posts at The Perfect World, but I am unaware that he does. If he does, it is probably another reason I enjoy the site. If he does not, he should. 1098. jexster - 10/9/2002 10:19:50 PM Can't stand the heat Ronski...don't ask for it.... 1099. Daniel Sickles - 10/9/2002 10:36:13 PM Hola jexster. 1100. Cellar Door - 10/9/2002 11:10:29 PM "I am unaware that he does. 1101. jexster - 10/10/2002 12:36:23 AM Vaya Los Gigantes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1102. jexster - 10/10/2002 12:37:33 AM Delusional re-tard 1103. jexster - 10/10/2002 1:16:39 AM The government's hopes of achieving consensus for a pre-emptive war against Iraq were dealt a blow last night when the bishops of the Church of England significantly hardened their opposition. 1104. jexster - 10/10/2002 1:13:22 PM Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that the Bush administration seems unnecessarily rushed about taking on Iraq. He said he considers Saddam "deterrable and containable at this point." 1105. jexster - 10/10/2002 1:14:57 PM moral case closed 1106. joezan - 10/10/2002 2:59:21 PM 1107. joezan - 10/10/2002 11:47:07 PM Poll Sees Americans Taking Bush Line on Iraq: 1108. joezan - 10/10/2002 11:48:02 PM ...Come into the light. 1109. joezan - 10/10/2002 11:51:10 PM I think the Daschole Betrayal musta been the deal-breaker for the Frogs... 1110. joezan - 10/10/2002 11:52:32 PM ...deal maker... 1111. concerned - 10/11/2002 3:49:00 AM Let's see. House AND Senate approve the use of military force in Iraq. 85% of American people believe Insane needs to be deposed. 1112. joezan - 10/11/2002 9:59:13 AM Hmmmmmmnnnn.... 1113. Cellar Door - 10/11/2002 10:35:48 AM CNN did an on-line poll yesterday in which 65% of those who responded were against the war. 1114. Wombat - 10/11/2002 10:52:58 AM Recent polls have shown that the US public is broadly supportive of a war against Iraq, as long as the United States works in concert with its allies and the United Nations. Interestingly, this support drops considerably if the US goes it alone. 1115. concerned - 10/11/2002 11:02:29 AM Interestingly, this support drops considerably if the US goes it alone. 1116. Wombat - 10/11/2002 11:24:36 AM The only countries that have committed to going along with the United States without the imprimatur of a UN resolution are the UK (maybe not: Tony Blair has to do a lot of work on his own party), Kuwait, and maybe Qatar. Turkey is still uncertain, and without Turkey allowing basing and overflight of US forces (at minimum), a US attack would be severely handicapped (and the nascent Kurdish government in the North would be crushed). 1117. PincherMartin - 10/11/2002 11:33:28 AM Romania and Australia are also likely to support the Bush administration's tough line on Iraq, with or without the U.N. There are others as well. 1118. PincherMartin - 10/11/2002 11:34:29 AM I agree, however, that working through the U.N. for now is the best course. 1119. Wombat - 10/11/2002 11:38:33 AM Well, since the Romanians are on our side, Saddam can just pack it in. 1120. PincherMartin - 10/11/2002 12:04:31 PM The point is that there are numerous countries that will support a so-called "unilateral" action by the U.S. 1121. concerned - 10/11/2002 1:04:20 PM FWIW, I agree that UN Security Council support of whatever US action is taken in Iraq is to be preferred. 1122. Wombat - 10/11/2002 1:11:42 PM Pincher: 1123. Cellar Door - 10/11/2002 3:09:20 PM What about Chad and Upper Volta? 1124. wonkers2 - 10/11/2002 5:28:27 PM SENATE HONOR ROLL 1125. jexster - 10/11/2002 8:13:43 PM Frankenmuth Uber Alles! 1126. jexster - 10/11/2002 8:18:27 PM Iraq - Another Bush Swindle 1127. jexster - 10/12/2002 3:13:11 AM The Bush campaign for war against Iraq has been insulting to American citizens, not just because it has been dishonest, but because it has been unserious. A lie is insulting; an obvious lie is doubly insulting. 1128. jexster - 10/12/2002 3:28:59 AM Sorry PM, bases in Romania helped Hitler attack the Caucasus but won't be worth shit to Our Little Corporal as he blunders into Iraq. 1129. PincherMartin - 10/12/2002 7:14:45 AM As for international support, I'll take that bet. 1130. PincherMartin - 10/12/2002 7:22:13 AM Support shall be deemed as any open material or diplomatic assistance to the U.S. war effort against Iraq, which can mean anything from a vote, to bases, to allowing U.S. jets to use the airspace above the country. 1131. Daniel Sickles - 10/13/2002 9:58:42 AM I am happy to handle the bet. Jexster - name your amount and email me at slawyer@hotmail.com. I'll give you an address to send the money. Pincher already has the information for a transfer of funds. 1132. Cellar Door - 10/13/2002 12:41:59 PM 1133. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2002 1:16:03 PM The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. 1134. Cellar Door - 10/14/2002 11:43:57 AM 1135. Cellar Door - 10/14/2002 4:33:56 PM Our Fearless Leader has such an impressive military record, don't you think? 1136. PincherMartin - 10/15/2002 12:54:24 AM Well, my bet is still hanging out there waiting for the fearless Jexter to put his money where his mouth is. 1137. jexster - 10/15/2002 3:03:30 AM 1138. jexster - 10/15/2002 3:05:29 AM I'll put my dick where your mouth is... 1139. PincherMartin - 10/15/2002 3:20:23 AM Jexter -- 1140. jexster - 10/15/2002 3:20:44 AM From the Shot Heard Round the World to 1141. jexster - 10/15/2002 3:20:57 AM 1142. jexster - 10/15/2002 3:22:26 AM Fuckin Romanians... 1143. jexster - 10/15/2002 2:42:23 PM 1144. magoseph - 10/15/2002 4:38:37 PM Open in new window. 1145. jexster - 10/15/2002 9:44:22 PM 1146. PincherMartin - 10/15/2002 9:49:31 PM I liked you better, Jexter, when you were crying out for the blood of Serbs and the head of Milosevic. 1147. PincherMartin - 10/15/2002 9:50:07 PM The role you played then seemed more in tune with your true character. 1148. joezan - 10/15/2002 10:35:37 PM 1149. jexster - 10/16/2002 12:06:14 AM Power of fear JoeZ...you oughta know its one of your demons and you are legion 1150. jexster - 10/16/2002 12:07:44 AM 1151. jexster - 10/16/2002 12:09:14 AM No you didn't Pincher...that's when you learned to loathe me. 1152. jexster - 10/16/2002 12:12:23 AM I hope got this right, correct me if I am wrong please: 1153. jexster - 10/16/2002 12:15:55 AM From Defense and the National Interest 1154. PincherMartin - 10/16/2002 4:40:37 AM "There is no more unwavering supporter of the exercise of state power than I" 1155. PelleNilsson - 10/16/2002 10:38:22 AM 100% of the electorate voted. 1156. sakonige - 10/16/2002 10:48:01 AM It's pretty fucking mean spirited to begrudge those people even their solidarity in the face of annihilation. 1157. Wombat - 10/16/2002 10:56:54 AM Its pretty fucking naive to believe that this "solidarity" is due to anything other than fear of the consequences if they fail to express this "solidarity." 1158. sakonige - 10/16/2002 11:01:58 AM 1159. sakonige - 10/16/2002 11:03:26 AM the feeble dignity of their solidarity in the face of annihilation, it's all they've got. 1160. Wombat - 10/16/2002 11:06:56 AM It is clear that Sakonige has no conception of what Iraqi life under Saddam is like. 1161. sakonige - 10/16/2002 11:09:22 AM Message # 1160 1162. Edmund Dantes - 10/16/2002 11:21:13 AM Psycho's brain must resemble rotten Swiss cheese. 1163. Wombat - 10/16/2002 12:46:48 PM I imagine that most Iraqis either have or will be digging deep holes to hide in, should the fighting begin. The only part of Iraq that faces annihilation is Saddam's Baathist terror state infrastructure. Good riddance to that. 1164. JJBiener - 10/16/2002 12:49:45 PM In a preview of a debate on Wednesday, South Africa, head of the 130-member Non-Aligned Movement of developing nations, said the world should solve the Iraqi crisis without resorting to force. 1165. PelleNilsson - 10/16/2002 12:53:28 PM It's pretty fucking mean spirited to begrudge those people even their solidarity in the face of annihilation. 1166. Wombat - 10/16/2002 12:53:36 PM Containment and inspections did work. We need to be able to resume them, and to be able to strike hard and decisively if Iraq attempts to evade them. 1167. marjoribanks - 10/16/2002 12:55:17 PM Bipolar Biener, what the hell do you mean by "Saddam continues to arm and fund terrorists"? 1168. JJBiener - 10/16/2002 12:57:11 PM Sako - Those are human beings, waiting to be executed for the crime of being Iraqi. 1169. sakonige - 10/16/2002 12:59:44 PM Message # 1165 1170. JJBiener - 10/16/2002 1:00:33 PM Banks - what the hell do you mean by "Saddam continues to arm and fund terrorists"? 1171. marjoribanks - 10/16/2002 1:01:53 PM Should I even pick on Biener's absurd platitude-jammed nonsense, or does everyone accept from the first that it is all absurd: 1172. marjoribanks - 10/16/2002 1:05:22 PM Arms from Iraq have been going to Palestine? Let's see a cite, Biener. 1173. jexster - 10/16/2002 1:05:37 PM Worst Case: Iraqi War Goes Nuclear 1174. JJBiener - 10/16/2002 1:09:22 PM Wombat - Containment and inspections did work. 1175. sakonige - 10/16/2002 1:20:49 PM JJBiener - 1176. jexster - 10/16/2002 1:21:19 PM Caught in the Devil's Bargain 1177. PelleNilsson - 10/16/2002 1:28:08 PM jexster 1178. jexster - 10/16/2002 1:44:06 PM Its not a spurious argument, its prudent defense planning and as pointed out in the National Journal article, these are "worst case scenarios" but they are plausible nonethless. [Chaos Theory; Clauswitz's Fog of War] 1179. jexster - 10/16/2002 1:45:37 PM and as the article also points out the nuclear scenario is viewed as plausible by a broad spectrum of defense analysts including one from the pro-war, conservative American Heritage Foundation. 1180. jexster - 10/16/2002 1:48:25 PM But you have hit on something very important Pelle, and perhaps more significant than the "going nuclear scenario" and that is the double squawk of the Great American ChickenHawk which goes something like 1181. Wombat - 10/16/2002 1:54:03 PM JJ: 1182. jexster - 10/16/2002 1:59:19 PM We go in there without UN and Arab support, it is going to be hell to pay. And if you think that's far out, just read any number of reports about the IDF on the West Bank and Gaza and cube that. 1183. jexster - 10/16/2002 2:00:39 PM Wombat... 1184. Wombat - 10/16/2002 2:04:01 PM Jexter: 1185. jexster - 10/16/2002 2:05:48 PM X marks the despot 1186. JJBiener - 10/16/2002 2:08:08 PM Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan 1187. jexster - 10/16/2002 2:08:59 PM According to the "official line", Sharon is coming to Washington to learn what Bush is going to do to protect Israel. 1188. JJBiener - 10/16/2002 2:12:43 PM And if you think that's far out, just read any number of reports about the IDF on the West Bank and Gaza and cube that. 1189. Wombat - 10/16/2002 2:13:58 PM JJ: 1190. JJBiener - 10/16/2002 2:21:56 PM Wombat - The difference is that driving the Jews into the sea has been the stated policy of the Palestinians and at various times the policy of the Arab states which surround Israel. The difference is that on several occasions, those states have actually tried to implement this policy. 1191. Wombat - 10/16/2002 2:29:44 PM JJ: 1192. marjoribanks - 10/16/2002 2:50:36 PM But now let's list exactly what we really must forget if we are to support this madness. Most important of all, we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It's essential to forget this for three reasons. Firstly, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians – which is one of the reasons we are now supposed to go to war with him. 1193. marjoribanks - 10/16/2002 2:51:03 PM We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds – when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al –President Bush senior provided him with $500m in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons. 1194. marjoribanks - 10/16/2002 2:51:28 PM Fisk. 1195. JJBiener - 10/16/2002 3:23:46 PM Wombat - Palestinians live throughout Israel, not just in the West Bank and Gaza. They are full citizens. They own businesses. They work. They vote. They even hold public office including seats in the Knesset. 1196. jexster - 10/16/2002 3:39:01 PM Can George W. Bush be trusted as he further heats up the rhetoric on Iraq? 1197. jexster - 10/16/2002 3:41:11 PM Why doesn't Bush make it easy for himself? If he can show that Saddam has a working relationship with al Qaeda, he could do whatever he wants in Iraq, with or without the blessing of that pesky United Nations Security Council--especially if al Qaeda is stepping up operations, with attacks in Indonesia, Kuwait, Yemen, Morocco, Europe and elsewhere. Forget diddling around about weapons inspection or pretending to be motivated by the need to locate and disarm Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Bush could go straight to regime-change war--and he might be justified in doing so--if he could demonstrate that his claims about Saddam are accurate. If it turns out al Qaeda is blowing up nightclubs around the world and receiving current assistance from Iraq, Bush could resubmit to Congress the blank-check use-of-force resolution and receive unanimous backing--not just the three-quarters support it drew last week. Proof of an operational link between Saddam and bin Laden would blow away the modest-sized antiwar sentiment that now exists. The nation and the international community would unify underneath the White House's get-Saddam banner. Maybe such woolly-headed peaceniks as Bush I national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and retired generals Wesley Clark, Anthony Zinni, Joseph Hoar, and John Shalikashvili--who have all expressed skepticism about W's Gulf War sequel--would finally jump on board. 1198. jexster - 10/16/2002 3:41:39 PM as well as for our talking Horse... 1199. JJBiener - 10/16/2002 3:50:42 PM Why doesn't Bush make it easy for himself? 1200. jexster - 10/16/2002 3:55:32 PM How bout he can't. 1201. jexster - 10/16/2002 3:55:45 PM try again 1202. jexster - 10/16/2002 3:57:37 PM The fact is that it is precisely because Bush is NOT believable that is behind this: 1203. Wombat - 10/16/2002 5:18:26 PM JJ: 1204. jexster - 10/16/2002 5:52:42 PM The Fuehrerprinzip (Fuehrer Principle) 1205. wonkers2 - 10/16/2002 5:59:53 PM Memo to Israel's supporters: Just because there are anti-Semites who blame Israel for everything that is wrong does not mean that whatever Israel does is right, or in its self-interest, or just. The settlement policy Israel has been pursuing is going to lead to the demise of the Jewish state. No, settlements are not the reason for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but to think they do not exacerbate it, and are not locking Israel into a permanent occupation, is also dishonest. 1206. wonkers2 - 10/16/2002 6:02:38 PM joezan: The above post was intended for the Israel-Palestine thread. Fell free to switch it and save me from typing it over. Thanks. 1207. wonkers2 - 10/16/2002 6:06:03 PM Never mind. Marjoribanks already posted the same quote. Sorry! Feel free to delete this and the above two posts. 1208. jexster - 10/16/2002 9:12:30 PM The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless. ....at first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited, whereas the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. A general Middle Eastern conflagration and the collapse of more pro-Western Arab states would lose us the war against terrorism, doom untold thousands of Western civilians to death in coming decades, and plunge the world economy into depression. 1209. jexster - 10/16/2002 9:16:08 PM And the world KNOWS it even if none of the half-witted Moron Legion, Mote Brigade don't its because they aren't exactly the sharpest pencils in the box 1210. wonkers2 - 10/16/2002 11:58:41 PM Cheney is supremely arrogant, almost as arrogant as Perle and little smiley Bill. 1211. wonkers2 - 10/17/2002 12:00:30 AM [I'm not referring to Billy Crystal.] 1212. wonkers2 - 10/17/2002 12:19:46 AM COSTA RICA MOVES TOWARD INVASION OF U.S. 1213. wonkers2 - 10/17/2002 12:28:01 AM Costa rica also announced it would seek a U.N. resolution officially identifying the U.S. under Bush as a "rogue state," given its support for military dictatorships, its role as the world's leading arms trader, and Bush's recently announced doctrine of "preemption," under which the U.S. will attack any nation with whom it has a disagreement. While acknowledging that the U.S. would inevitably use its Security Council veto to scuttle such a move, a foreign ministry spokesperson said it was important to have the nations of the world on record in suport of Costa Rica befroe any military action is taken. Nonetheless, Pacheco has said that if the decision is made to invade the United States, Costa Rica would proceed with or without the support of its allies and the world community. 1214. wonkers2 - 10/17/2002 12:34:26 AM Costa Rican news magazine covers have also featured Bush in menacing close-ups, under titles such as "War-Before It's Too Late?" and "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Bush?" 1215. wonkers2 - 10/17/2002 12:39:32 AM The outcome of the debate between Picado's PLN and Pacheco's Social Christian Unity Party (PUSC) could determine whether the western himisphere is engulfed in war. PLN officials have charged that Pacheco is ratcheting up the war rhetoric to boost his sagging poll numbers as parialmentary elections approach, something Pacheco's aides vigorously deny. "The president doesn't use polls to make his decisions," said political advisor Corlo Rovero, under whose direction the PUSC has spent over a million dollars on polls this year. "Anyone who would dare even imply such a thing must really hate his country." 1216. pseudoerasmus - 10/17/2002 10:03:49 AM Biener, I posted a reply in the Israel-Palestine thread to one of your posts here. 1217. jexster - 10/17/2002 12:04:20 PM Pressure Building for Regime Change in UN 1218. jexster - 10/17/2002 12:07:02 PM 1219. jexster - 10/17/2002 12:11:27 PM Proving once again the Ariel Sharon axiom 1220. jexster - 10/17/2002 12:14:52 PM Turkey 'ready to use muscle' against Kurds 1221. jexster - 10/17/2002 12:17:45 PM Labour critics of Tony Blair's anti-terrorism strategy yesterday made common cause with the Liberal Democrats in warning the prime minister that the global coalition arraigned against al Qaida - and the Bali bombers - could "fracture" if Britain and the United States launch a unilateral attack on Iraq. 1222. jexster - 10/17/2002 12:20:01 PM America Fails to Woo Key Allies - Times of London 1223. jexster - 10/17/2002 12:34:13 PM You chickenhawks want blood... 1224. jexster - 10/17/2002 12:35:00 PM "The inspectors were kicked out 4 years ago." 1225. jexster - 10/17/2002 2:25:50 PM 1226. thoughtful - 10/17/2002 2:29:18 PM So when are we going into iraq...before or after election day? 1227. thoughtful - 10/17/2002 2:29:35 PM toys 1228. thoughtful - 10/17/2002 2:29:51 PM 1229. jexster - 10/17/2002 2:30:10 PM Aaah but never fear the hypocrites and cowards who are running this country have a ChickenHawk plan! 1230. thoughtful - 10/17/2002 2:30:16 PM why won't this clear? 1231. thoughtful - 10/17/2002 2:30:48 PM jexster.... pick up after yourself! 1232. jexster - 10/17/2002 2:32:51 PM This was brought out in the notorious paper on Saudi Arabia presented by Laurent Murawiec of the Rand Corporation to Richard Perle's Defense Policy Board. Murawiec advocated sending the Saudis an ultimatum demanding not only that their police force co-operate fully with US authorities, but also the suppression of public criticism of the US and Israel within Saudi Arabia -something that would be impossible for any Arab state. 1233. jexster - 10/17/2002 2:33:04 PM How intelligent men can believe that this will work, given the history of the past fifty years, is astonishing 1234. jexster - 10/17/2002 2:34:06 PM And the plan depends on YOU believing that swill about Saddam being a suicidal maniac who is going to nuke your grandma 1235. jexster - 10/17/2002 2:35:11 PM and if you also believe that you'll convert the jews and meet jaysus in the air...so much the better 1236. jexster - 10/17/2002 4:36:23 PM Carnegie experts argue that the increasingly popular idea in Washington that the US, by toppling Saddam Hussein, can rapidly democratize Iraq and unleash a democratic tsunami in the Middle East is a dangerous fantasy 1237. concerned - 10/18/2002 12:18:51 AM Jexster - The dangerous fantasies are in the minds of the Left. As demonstrated by the following: 1238. jexster - 10/18/2002 12:01:18 PM Sorry TD, UR just a Moron 1239. jexster - 10/18/2002 12:49:47 PM "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." --- Condoleezza Rice 1240. jexster - 10/18/2002 12:51:02 PM Ein volk, ein reich, ein Moron...seig heil TD 1241. concerned - 10/18/2002 12:59:21 PM Re. 1238 - 1242. jexster - 10/18/2002 1:37:47 PM No. 1243. jexster - 10/18/2002 1:38:43 PM 'cause I don't regularly "preview" posts? 1244. jexster - 10/18/2002 2:39:25 PM Raygun Bush made Sad-am what he is today...see how to undo the mess 1245. jexster - 10/18/2002 9:43:20 PM UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States has offered a compromise U.N. resolution that drops explicit authorization to use force against Iraq but still provides some international legal cover to attack Baghdad, according to excerpts from the U.S. draft. 1246. PincherMartin - 10/18/2002 11:00:12 PM The offer is still open, Jex. 1247. PincherMartin - 10/18/2002 11:05:26 PM We could also double up on whether Britain would join in a U.S.-led strike without the sanction of the U.N. 1248. jexster - 10/19/2002 11:29:21 AM For what? For Bush caving into the French...puhleeze 1249. jexster - 10/19/2002 11:29:53 AM We'll have all the allies we want if we abandon our neo-imperialist aims... 1250. jexster - 10/19/2002 11:31:15 AM 1251. jexster - 10/19/2002 11:33:10 AM The Ariel Sharon Theorem - Just Say No to Bush.... 1252. jexster - 10/19/2002 11:41:02 AM France is working hard to assure that the international law is respected and morality too 1253. jexster - 10/19/2002 11:54:54 AM 1254. jexster - 10/19/2002 11:54:58 AM 1255. jexster - 10/19/2002 12:03:03 PM Combat avec tes defenseurs! 1256. jexster - 10/19/2002 12:11:19 PM Aux Barricades!!! 1257. PincherMartin - 10/19/2002 12:37:09 PM I'm sorry, Jex. Between that flurry of links you sent, I didn't see one saying the check was in the mail. 1258. jexster - 10/19/2002 3:24:00 PM I mean you don't know shit....where's your fuckin support...hell where's your friggin war limp dick 1259. jexster - 10/19/2002 3:46:02 PM While there were signs yesterday that France may be prepared to accept the new, radically softened US draft, President Jacques Chirac reiterated his stance once again yesterday, saying the world must resist "temptations of adventure" and always make sure "the principle of legitimacy" is observed. 1260. PincherMartin - 10/20/2002 12:05:52 AM That's what I thought, Jexter. You're too afraid to back up what you say with anything but hot air and unread links. 1261. concerned - 10/20/2002 1:30:52 AM From the UK Telegraph 9/29/02: 1262. concerned - 10/20/2002 1:31:16 AM But then Al Gore rose from the dead to demonstrate that his political antennae are still as reliable as a 1948 TV with busted rabbit ears. Senate Democrats emerged from their hole to find their 2004 presidential frontrunner had dug them a brand new one. Remember Al? The first Android-American to run for President? The first candidate to win the popular vote without being popular? 1263. concerned - 10/20/2002 1:31:46 AM Poor Al: the smart bomb who's so smart and always bombs. With his usual brilliant instincts, he chose to discard his pro-war stance just as his party's senators were discarding their anti-war stance. Thus, the Democrats found themselves with the rare double problem of figuring out a way to spin both the obvious opportunism of their belated approval for the war and the obvious opportunism of Gore's belated opposition to it. 1264. concerned - 10/20/2002 1:32:15 AM The only real question was how long Daschle could keep this up before he cracked. On Wednesday, the South Dakotan choked up on the Senate floor and angrily demanded that Bush apologise to every Democratic veteran for implying the party was somehow soft on the war. 1265. concerned - 10/20/2002 1:32:31 AM I hasten to add that in gleefully mocking Gore's inept cynicism and Daschle's sob-sister routine I'm certainly not impugning the patriotism of the Democratic leadership. Few of us will forget the stirring words last week of Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, summing up the party's current position: "If the UN adopts the kind of resolution authorising force to enforce the kind of inspections that they should have a resolution adopted for, then I believe this resolution should say: in the event the UN adopts a resolution authorising member states to use force to enforce the inspections, I believe this resolution should say that under those circumstances we should authorise force to enforce that UN resolution." 1266. jexster - 10/20/2002 10:16:46 AM More Powerful Now Than B4 Bush Started Bumbling 1267. jexster - 10/20/2002 10:17:18 AM more politically powerful at home and abroad. 1268. jexster - 10/20/2002 10:18:35 AM Why are we bothering with military action in EyeRak when we have a real bomb and 250,000 troops in Korea just a few miles away from it???? 1269. jexster - 10/20/2002 10:19:02 AM Oh I know...we've a Moron in the House 1270. jexster - 10/20/2002 10:35:53 AM The Wrong War at the Wrong Time 1271. jexster - 10/20/2002 12:26:45 PM Here we go again...the Boy Blunders' Ball of Confusion... 1272. jexster - 10/20/2002 12:31:15 PM From the start of the Bush administration, the president's foreign policy advisers have debated whether diplomacy or confrontation should characterize their approach to Iraq and North Korea. 1273. jexster - 10/20/2002 12:58:43 PM Listen to the American hawks after a few glasses of wine, and you might be seduced into thinking that after overthrowing Saddam Hussein we're going to turn Iraq into a flourishing democracy. 1274. jexster - 10/20/2002 1:00:26 PM TD you are a pinhead. 1275. jexster - 10/20/2002 1:01:50 PM Just like the links with Al-Q; just like Cheney's brazen attempts to cook CIA intelligence reports; just like the "grave" threat from WMD...all a crock of shit. 1276. jexster - 10/20/2002 1:57:05 PM Go find yourself a war Pincher..then we talk about takin your money....storm Pyongyang or somethin.. 1277. jexster - 10/20/2002 10:41:02 PM Hey Wombat...I do hate to say "I told you so" 1278. PincherMartin - 10/21/2002 5:14:37 AM Jexter -- 1279. PincherMartin - 10/21/2002 5:15:23 AM It's clear that Jexter doesn't believe what he' shoveling. 1280. PincherMartin - 10/21/2002 5:15:36 AM ...he's... 1281. jexster - 10/21/2002 12:07:07 PM If you'll recall, I never accepted your loosey goosey definition of "support" and with good reason. 1282. jexster - 10/21/2002 12:09:39 PM Americans have, for the most part, a good opinion of Tony Blair. They think him a sensible man. So it is with a sense of puzzlement, if not dismay, that many of the 76% of Americans who did not vote for George Bush and oppose his Iraq war plans observe Blair's apparently unquestioning support for US policy. Blair's backing, they worry, makes Bush appear more credible. 1283. PincherMartin - 10/21/2002 12:18:44 PM Jexter -- 1284. wonkers2 - 10/21/2002 10:03:42 PM More Bush-shit exposed. Vaclav Havel has informed the U.S. that Czechoslovakia has no evidence that contact between Muhammad Atta and anyone from Iraq occurred in Czechoslovakia. Now the alleged link between Iraq, 9/11 and Al Qaida is down to "Some Al Qaida terrorists may have fled from Afghanistan to Iraq" and allegations that Iraq may have provided technical training to Al Qaida terrorists. 1285. quakeii - 10/22/2002 8:19:16 AM From the NYT a lead page one story by Sanger, "President Bush said today that the United States was trying diplomacy "one more time" to disarm Saddam Hussein "peacefully" and suggested that if the Iraqi leader complied with every United Nations mandate it would "signal the regime has changed."' 1286. concerned - 10/22/2002 12:41:33 PM Gee. Whatever happened to 'Give Peace a Chance'? 1287. Edmund Dantes - 10/22/2002 12:57:04 PM Bonkers is every bit as selectively dishonest in his posting as Thoughtless: 1288. thoughtful - 10/22/2002 2:12:44 PM Poor Edmund...can't make an argument without name calling. 1289. arkymalarky - 10/22/2002 6:11:07 PM Welcome to the Mote, quakeii! 1290. Edmund Dantes - 10/22/2002 7:40:38 PM Poor Thoughtless, reduced to finding links from kansascity.com that quote an unnamed White House source who spoke on the condition of anonymity...to rebut a report from the Grand Old Bitch New York Times. And even then Thoughtdrought's own article says, "The White House previously has declined to publicly back those who insist that the Prague meeting shows Iraq's hand in last fall's attacks." 1291. jexster - 10/22/2002 9:04:56 PM Bush fails to persuade with Iraq resolution 1292. jexster - 10/22/2002 11:31:07 PM Thoughtful and Wonkers are correct - the Bush Chickenhawks, from the moment the story broke, repeatedly, faithfully, consistently, referred to the Prague meeting peddled the Prague meeting in sworn testimony and in public statements. They vouched for the reliability of the intelligence, even though they knew it was snake oil, they peddled it, without qualification, without scruple. 1293. jexster - 10/22/2002 11:39:24 PM The Prague meeting that wasn't, the intel that was "convincing", was just a warm-up for these hucksters. 1294. jexster - 10/23/2002 12:26:36 AM Pincher.... 1295. jexster - 10/23/2002 12:36:41 AM There is a separate argument over Iraq's attempt to smuggle a consignment of specialized aluminium tubes, cited by President Bush as a sign that Iraq was building a gas centrifuge systém to create weapons-grade uranium. 1296. jexster - 10/23/2002 12:19:08 PM Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is now backing claims that Sept. 11 skyjacker Mohamed Atta secretly met five months earlier with an Iraqi agent in the Czech capital, a possible indication that President Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the terrorist attacks. 1297. jexster - 10/23/2002 12:23:45 PM and if two GOP congressional leaders and 70% of the US public believe that Evil Saddam is sponsoring Evil Osama and furnishing him with Sarin loaded UAV's that can strike US targets from caves in Afghanistan or that Osama is hold up in one of Sad-am's presidential palaces with the top "wacki iraqi" nuclear scientists tooling a case of aluminum nozzles then so much the better! 1298. jexster - 10/23/2002 12:25:51 PM At least Bush didn't lie about cum stains on Ann Coulter's dress. 1299. jexster - 10/23/2002 12:34:19 PM As it makes its case against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has for now dropped what had been one of the central arguments presented by supporters of a military campaign against Baghdad: Iraq's links to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. 1300. jexster - 10/23/2002 12:37:04 PM 1301. jexster - 10/23/2002 12:41:08 PM Eddie needs to watch that Strawman's right cross. Its wicked. Maybe next fight he should try the Mike Tyson ear bite. 1302. concerned - 10/23/2002 12:58:42 PM Axis of Evil Dept.,NK division: 1303. concerned - 10/23/2002 1:04:09 PM Or perhaps Hinchey simply believes his constituency in particular and Democrats in general are simply dumber than boxes of rocks. 1304. jexster - 10/23/2002 1:15:18 PM Lemme make simple enough so that even you can understand: 1305. concerned - 10/23/2002 1:21:22 PM Dat dar Moose-Sheriff the one knocking the heads of Moose-limbs together, jex? 1306. jexster - 10/23/2002 1:22:07 PM "North Korea has always wanted to pursue normalization with the United States, and however awkwardly, now they are bargaining," said Selig S. Harrison, director of the National Security Program at the Center for International Policy in Washington. "What they are saying is that they are prepared to negotiate an end to all nuclear activity and allow inspections, if we agree to two things: not to threaten them militarily and to pursue normalized relations." 1307. JJBiener - 10/23/2002 1:57:22 PM Jex - What is wrong with diplomacy when proffered an olive branch? 1308. jexster - 10/23/2002 2:04:54 PM Nothing at all. Diplomacy is to be preferred over pre-emptive war the more so when pre-emptive aggression encourages the very behavior it is supposed to discourage. 1309. Edmund Dantes - 10/23/2002 10:12:11 PM More Bush-shit exposed. Vaclav Havel has informed the U.S. that Czechoslovakia has no evidence that contact between Muhammad Atta and anyone from Iraq occurred in Czechoslovakia. 1310. Edmund Dantes - 10/23/2002 10:13:23 PM 1311. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 9:42:33 AM Little junior grade asshole lawyer with an unerring instinct for the capillaries, did you read your own link? 1312. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 10:28:34 AM Condolezza Rice's comment at the top of this thread is an example of Madison Avenue's contribution to Bush's mendacious campaign against Iraq--"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Rumsfeld spews out similar Bush-shit regularly. For example his recent comment to the effect that he was pretty sure that North Korea had a few nuclear weapons already. In my opinion, the President and the Secretary of Defense should be more careful about sticking to the actual facts avoiding Madison Avenue spins and massages. As Paul Krugman has pointed out about other topics, Bush's presidency has disseminated more half truths and told more lies than any administration since Nixon. 1313. JJBiener - 10/24/2002 11:19:34 AM Wonkers - Krugman is still a partisan hack an no administration has told more lies and half-truths than Clinton's. 1314. jexster - 10/24/2002 11:39:29 AM "Mention it"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1315. jexster - 10/24/2002 11:39:48 AM The October 26th Stop the War Against Iraq demonstration is going to be one of the biggest demonstrations we have had in San Francisco since the war on Iraq started eleven years ago. The International ANSWER coalition has received a tremendous response from people all over the United States who are sick of the Bush administration's and Congress' program of war, racism, and poverty. 1316. jexster - 10/24/2002 11:46:20 AM The President's Real Goal in Iraq 1317. jexster - 10/24/2002 12:29:22 PM ChickenHawks Press Efforts to Cook US Intelligence to Justify Empire 1318. jexster - 10/24/2002 12:33:18 PM The REAL War is between Powell the Generals the rest of the world and Bush's half baked collection of ultra-nationalist wingnuts aka the Grayte Texus ChickenHawks.... 1319. jexster - 10/24/2002 1:32:17 PM The Charade Before the Crusade 1320. jexster - 10/24/2002 1:45:40 PM US decision to go ahead anyway means that war may be considered a certainty. That in turn will face people like Blair with an agonising decision. It is no exaggeration to say that, given the state of British public and Labour party opinion, his support for US unilateral action could bring down his government. And much worse, in the longer term, the UN will have been perhaps fatally weakened. 1321. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 5:03:22 PM JJ, I'll grant you, Krugman is partisan, but he's a respected professor of economics, now at Princeton, before at MIT, not at all a hack. In his op-eds he doesn't pretend to present both sides of the issues. But what he says is backed by economic facts and clear reasoning. He isn't even a liberal economist, more mainstream. Here's a recent Krugman piece from the Sunday NYT Magazine. I would be interested in your comments on it. INCREASING INEQUALITY IN AMERICA 1322. concerned - 10/24/2002 5:12:17 PM Krugman - 'not at all' a hack?!? 1323. thoughtful - 10/24/2002 5:15:12 PM jexter, re 1296, that is in fact the article I linked to in #1288 from the LA Times which was reprinted in the KC paper, but poor edmund is either incapable of reading something as simple as a byline or perhaps hasn't been out of his cage long enough to have ever heard of the 2nd largest city in the U.S. Either would explain a lot about his continued inability to grasp the simple is/is not/do/do not "about-face" approach to facts and policy making that permeate the current administration. Though I suspect the latter more fully explains his familiarity with "shambling neuronless mounds", something seen in people who, when they find they have any brains at all, regardless of how small, will take them out and play with them. 1324. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 5:15:37 PM Krugman is obviously a partisan Democrat. He is also a middle-of-the road economist. I recognize that it's hard for your twisted but simplistic mind to grasp that the two, orthodox economist and partisan Democrat, are not incompatible. 1325. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 5:17:07 PM BTW, as I suggested to JJ, you might find Krugman's piece in last Sundays NYT Magazine interesting and not particularly partisan. 1326. concerned - 10/24/2002 5:21:12 PM Re. 1324 - 1327. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 5:24:14 PM Ha! You're okay. I have to keep reminding myself that Moters only go from good to excellent. 1328. concerned - 10/24/2002 5:25:10 PM Being a 'middle of the road' economist, unfortunately for your simplistic assumption, is no assurance that Krugman cannot and is not turning himself into a laughingstock of a partisan hack. 1329. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 5:26:00 PM So is JJ. He's quite congenial as long as he stays off politics and on music, sex and other sundry topics. 1330. concerned - 10/24/2002 5:26:46 PM Ok, I admit I at least play the part of a partisan hack here, too. 1331. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 5:28:16 PM He's becoming a hero in my partisan hack circles. 1332. jexster - 10/24/2002 7:18:48 PM Meet your New Chief of ChickenHawk Intelligence Cookery, Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Defense Policy 1333. jexster - 10/24/2002 7:19:12 PM Zogby's concern has been amply demonstrated by Feith's aggressive manipulation of US DOD policies, particularly US decisions to use of first strike nuclear weapons. Feith is not merely pro Israel, but he has actually excelled at producing Zionist propaganda. A search for Feith in Google will reveal his speeches and position papers on Zionism and Israel, which to some reflects the classic extremist Zionist position. It is fitting that Bush had selected Douglas Feith to head his supposedly now abandoned position as head of Department of Defense Disinformation Branch. 1334. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 7:33:35 PM I wonder why ando doesn't send in her resume? She'd be a natural, a Jewish counterpart Condi Rice. Might even raise the average IQ of the group. 1335. jexster - 10/24/2002 9:51:49 PM Meet Doug Feith, Minister of Propaganda, Schutzstaffel II 1336. jexster - 10/24/2002 9:52:45 PM 1337. jexster - 10/24/2002 9:56:58 PM Another irrelevancy is Garfinkle's digression about the oil lobby. Garfinkle laments its influence on US middle east policy. So do I. Both the Israel lobby and the oil lobby have warped policy in the middle east. American patriots, rather than siding with one lobby or the other, can reject both. 1338. jexster - 10/24/2002 10:01:21 PM 1339. arkymalarky - 10/24/2002 10:02:16 PM Ahem. 1340. arkymalarky - 10/24/2002 10:02:43 PM Ahem? 1341. arkymalarky - 10/24/2002 10:03:12 PM Maybe cough, hack choke? 1342. jexster - 10/24/2002 10:10:10 PM one two three four 1343. jexster - 10/24/2002 10:21:26 PM 1344. jexster - 10/24/2002 10:22:25 PM ain't no time to wonder why 1345. JJBiener - 10/25/2002 9:44:02 AM Wonkers - The Krugman piece in the NYT Magazine is one of his less partisan offerings. Even so he is using economics to justify a partisan position. While he generally uses sound data, I disagree with many of his conclusions. 1346. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/2002 9:58:18 AM "While he generally uses sound data, I disagree with many of his conclusions." 1347. marjoribanks - 10/25/2002 10:13:19 AM I re-read a New Yorker article about Zawahiri last night, the one published last month. 1348. RickNelson - 10/25/2002 10:28:01 AM Inshallah marj. 1349. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/2002 10:31:29 AM A reply to the above in International. 1350. jexster - 10/25/2002 12:29:16 PM A few days ago The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote an article explaining that for George W. Bush, "facts are malleable." Documenting "dubious, if not wrong" statements on a variety of subjects, from Iraq's military capability to the federal budget, the White House correspondent declared that Mr. Bush's "rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy." 1351. jexster - 10/25/2002 1:14:35 PM October 25, 2002 - A year after 9/11, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil, concludes a blue-ribbon panel led by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart-co-chairs of the now famous Commission on National Security that warned of such a terrorist attack three years ago. 1352. jexster - 10/25/2002 1:34:43 PM So, why exactly is Iraq different from North Korea? Both are founding members of President Bush's "axis of evil," and both deserve that honor. North Korea has now admitted to a nuclear weapons development program on about the same timeline as what we only suspect about Iraq. So, why are we barely complaining in one case and off to war in the other? 1353. jexster - 10/25/2002 1:35:14 PM [T]he basic and generally agreed plan is unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority, and this has been consistently advocated and worked on by the group of intellectuals close to Dick Cheney and Richard Perle since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. 1354. jexster - 10/25/2002 1:40:02 PM And THAT is why Doug Feith has formed a Special Propaganda & Intelligence Cookery Unit...that is why the Pentagon and the CIA are leaking like a sieve...that is why DIA and CIA analysts are screaming bloody murder at Defense and the National Interest...that is why Bush has lied about the Prague meeting, about nuclear weapons, about Al-Qaeda, about Saddam's UAV's that hit New York...that is why not one of the Bush "justifications" hold war and why they are ever-evolving... 1355. concerned - 10/25/2002 4:03:42 PM Kinsley says he 'begins' to see the truth? 1356. jexster - 10/25/2002 5:50:50 PM I said that. 1357. jexster - 10/27/2002 2:05:15 AM 1358. jexster - 10/28/2002 12:32:08 PM Fox to Moron: Chinga tu Madre,hijo de puta!!! 1359. jexster - 10/28/2002 12:44:48 PM Hey Pincher, hijo de puta, you know what chinga tu madre means? 1360. jexster - 10/28/2002 12:50:32 PM Turkey Grows More Worried Every Day About a U.S. Attack on Iraq 1361. jexster - 10/28/2002 3:14:00 PM Chirac Has Bush & Blair By The Balls 1362. jexster - 10/29/2002 12:15:28 PM First analysis courtesy Cmndr. Baba Jex 1363. jexster - 10/29/2002 12:26:43 PM This is a battle and—inside the bureaucracy, if not yet in Iraq—they are in full war posture. 1364. jexster - 10/30/2002 10:55:59 AM Mistrust of Bush Shapes Iraq Debate 1365. jexster - 10/30/2002 1:08:36 PM Los Angeles Times: Nations Believe Real Threat Is Bush 1366. concerned - 10/30/2002 3:18:06 PM Gee. Whatever happened to nuclear non-proliferation? 1367. JJBiener - 10/30/2002 3:21:34 PM Tommy - Whatever happened to nuclear non-proliferation? 1368. jexster - 10/30/2002 3:27:16 PM Gee. Whatever happened to nuclear non-proliferation? 1369. jexster - 10/30/2002 3:28:44 PM That's why we have a full fledged anti-war movement, largest in 30 years, even before we have a war. 1370. jexster - 10/30/2002 3:34:28 PM The Push for War 1371. jexster - 10/30/2002 5:42:13 PM Moronic Autism In Action 1372. jexster - 10/30/2002 5:43:07 PM *I will lead a mighty coalition.."we will finish the job"* 1373. concerned - 10/30/2002 6:37:00 PM Re. 1370 - 1374. pseudoerasmus - 10/30/2002 6:56:07 PM Anatol Lieven was a Financial Times correspondent, hardly a leftist rag; and he also defended Russian actions in the second Chechen War, another action not common to leftists. Concerned is just a fucking idiot. 1375. concerned - 10/30/2002 7:21:15 PM Re. 1374 - 1376. concerned - 10/30/2002 7:25:11 PM Here. I'm almost as bad as PE and Lieven here. Maybe Lieven just had a real fucking bad day when he wrote his POS about the US and Iraq. 1377. pseudoerasmus - 10/30/2002 8:10:26 PM I was not saying whether I agree or disagree with what Lieven said, or whether it was a good or bad article. 1378. madafaka - 10/30/2002 9:25:45 PM ~ Dear Mr. President Bush ~ 1379. jexster - 10/30/2002 9:45:42 PM Let's review the bidding shall we - 1380. concerned - 10/30/2002 11:26:52 PM Re. 1377 - 1381. concerned - 10/30/2002 11:33:51 PM My premise is that Lieven need only be ignorant of the subject and be afflicted with an unfounded sense of self importance to appropriate Leftist pap re. the US, of which I'm sure there is more than a sufficiency in Yurrup. 1382. concerned - 10/30/2002 11:38:22 PM And I do not weigh 400 lb. I run 270 - 280 and my waist is 14" smaller than my chest measurement, also. 1383. pseudoerasmus - 10/30/2002 11:43:09 PM So much of your weight is concentrated in your upper body, giving you giant, pendulous breasts and a blubbery surface on your back worthy of a walrus. 1384. thoughtful - 10/31/2002 8:47:34 AM good news, concerned weighs 270-280. Bad news, he's 5'5" tall. 1385. Wombat - 10/31/2002 9:52:52 AM Thoughtful: 1386. thoughtful - 10/31/2002 10:05:03 AM Wombat, all the points you've made about Saddam are all good reasons for containing him. I question if war is the only/best way to contain him, especially when one considers the aftermath. 1387. Wombat - 10/31/2002 10:19:12 AM Thoughtful: 1388. jexster - 10/31/2002 1:18:22 PM understand why Army doctrine describes city fighting as "primordial combat." 1389. jexster - 10/31/2002 1:20:40 PM If Bush invades iraq it will be a very dangerous situation in the Middle East, more so than it is now 1390. jexster - 10/31/2002 1:21:59 PM Which is why so many nations are concerned less about Saddam than they are of Bush 1391. PelleNilsson - 10/31/2002 1:38:06 PM I, too, support a military intervention. I didn't initially because I worried about a general conflagration in the ME and, in particular, about the security of Jordan. I thinks that in that respect the risk has decreased considerably. 1392. pseudoerasmus - 10/31/2002 1:43:47 PM Why is Thoughtful surprised that I should the war against Iraq? On Iraq I have always said "regime change" should have happened in 1991. For me the rationales for going to war are: (1) finishing what should have been accomplished in 1991; (2) the overthrow and reconstruction of Saddam Hussein is is a debt owed to the peoples of Iraq for the botched job of 1991 and the cruel, lethal sanctions regime imposed on them since 1991; (3) the permanent liberation of the Kurds and the Shiites; and (4) it would be an interesting experiment to see whether the US occupation administration would be able to fashion the Arab world's first democracy. (The chances are not great but there must always be a beginning for everything.) 1393. JJBiener - 10/31/2002 1:50:39 PM Wombat - Where we agree is that other means must be tried 1394. thoughtful - 10/31/2002 2:13:10 PM PseuE, I agree that the job should have been finished in 1991. But the fact that it wasn't isn't sufficient for me to justify attacking now. 1395. jexster - 10/31/2002 3:17:34 PM WASHINGTON – Picture the Lilliputians pulling ropes, tying knots, doing their best to restrain the giant Gulliver. As a historic vote on Iraq nears at the United Nations, some observers describe what is happening as a similarly Swiftian scene. 1396. jexster - 10/31/2002 3:20:19 PM 1397. jexster - 10/31/2002 3:20:50 PM 1398. Trouble - 10/31/2002 3:28:15 PM I'm looking forward to our winning the war. 1399. jexster - 10/31/2002 4:22:57 PM MOTE NEWSBREAK! 1400. jexster - 10/31/2002 4:25:31 PM 1401. Trouble - 10/31/2002 4:25:51 PM Old news. He's been saying that since Sept 12. His comparing the UN to the League of Nations if it didn't act really did the trick in changing foreign minds. 1402. jexster - 10/31/2002 4:27:13 PM I jess funin... 1403. Cellar Door - 10/31/2002 4:27:51 PM "I'm looking forward to our winning the war." 1404. Trouble - 10/31/2002 4:28:44 PM Absolutely. Your reputation reflects the mote's. 1405. jexster - 10/31/2002 4:29:06 PM But it raises a very serious question - since there is a direct correlation (above) between Bush's daily beating of the war drums and increasing opposition/decreasing support, what does he plan to do for an encore when he REALLY is about to launch the Greater Moronic Empire? 1406. jexster - 10/31/2002 4:30:35 PM The most expensive presidunce money ever bought was considerably overpriced 1407. concerned - 10/31/2002 5:09:06 PM Re. 1384- 1408. Cellar Door - 10/31/2002 5:11:15 PM Seriously. 1409. concerned - 10/31/2002 5:16:43 PM If Saddam does manage to obtain nuclear weapons it will be a very dangerous situation in the Middle East, more so than it is now. 1410. Trouble - 10/31/2002 5:21:18 PM Saddam and his sons already have "dirty" bombs, and want to use them. It's one of the reasons why America is taking them seriously. 1411. concerned - 10/31/2002 5:21:55 PM Re. 1386 - 1412. Trouble - 10/31/2002 5:24:57 PM Best allies in the world for freedom, those noble Jews. 1413. concerned - 10/31/2002 6:13:43 PM Regarding nuclear non proliferation: have Russia, China and France done much that is meaningful in the past to reduce the international spread of nuclear arms? If so, they're throwing any such policy away now wrt Iraq. 1414. Cellar Door - 10/31/2002 6:41:03 PM Why don't you run off and kill Saddam, connie? 1415. concerned - 10/31/2002 6:42:50 PM I'd say it takes one good Iraqi. 1416. Cellar Door - 10/31/2002 6:44:38 PM Our little brown brothers ? 1417. Cellar Door - 10/31/2002 6:46:00 PM 1418. concerned - 10/31/2002 6:49:22 PM I'm probably part Moorish, cllrdr. What does that do to your li'l racist house of cards? 1419. concerned - 10/31/2002 6:53:52 PM 1420. jexster - 10/31/2002 7:02:36 PM Part boorish did he say? 1421. concerned - 10/31/2002 7:04:54 PM excerpted: 1422. jexster - 10/31/2002 7:05:21 PM But my boorish bud, its not about UN resolutions - never has been... 1423. Trouble - 10/31/2002 7:06:44 PM Let's hope a lot of spies are getting through those border crossings, jexster. 1424. concerned - 10/31/2002 7:07:22 PM Sorry jex, but it is, if the UN doesn't care to marginalize itself. 1425. concerned - 10/31/2002 7:08:52 PM All this Leftist blather about wanting to create an 'US empire' is pure malarkey, of course, and should automatically be discounted. 1426. concerned - 10/31/2002 7:26:05 PM Let's see. Lefties are probably sacrificing the UN and their pet policy of nuclear nonproliferation in an attempted attack on the Bush Administration? 1428. Trouble - 10/31/2002 9:40:22 PM Totally uncalled for statement. Please remove it, moderator. 1429. joezan - 10/31/2002 10:17:14 PM The best friggin' idea I've seen since the WOT began: Chechen Terrorists to be Buried in Pigskin 1430. joezan - 10/31/2002 10:20:14 PM #1427 was deleted, btw. Totally un-called for and inappropriate. 1431. Trouble - 10/31/2002 10:33:59 PM Thank you. It's depressing how racist and sexist some Democrats can be. They belong in the cellar. 1432. jexster - 10/31/2002 10:55:18 PM A theme that Commander Baba Jex has elaborated here since March, 2001 is now a favorite of the Brookings Insitution... 1433. jexster - 10/31/2002 10:56:17 PM Its what happens when you have a president who believes that Turkey is what Mizz Laura fries up in a batch of chimichangas. 1434. jexster - 10/31/2002 10:56:44 PM My bad.... 1435. jexster - 10/31/2002 11:08:07 PM Message # 1385 1436. jexster - 10/31/2002 11:13:10 PM The most surprising thing about the Bush Administration's plan to invade Iraq is not that it is destructive of international order; or wicked, when we consider the role the US (and Britain) have played, and continue to play, in the Middle East; or opposed by the great majority of the international community; or seemingly contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism. It is all of these things, but they are of no great concern to the hardline nationalists in the Administration. This group has suffered at least a temporary check as a result of the British insistence on UN involvement, and Saddam Hussein's agreement to weapons inspections. They are, however, still determined on war - and their power within the Administration and in the US security policy world means that they are very likely to get their way. 1437. jexster - 10/31/2002 11:13:26 PM To understand the Administration's motivation, it is necessary to appreciate the breathtaking scope of the domestic and global ambitions which the dominant neo-conservative nationalists hope to further by means of war, and which go way beyond their publicly stated goals. There are of course different groups within this camp: some are more favourable to Israel, others less hostile to China; not all would support the most radical aspects of the programme. However, the basic and generally agreed plan is unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority, and this has been consistently advocated and worked on by the group of intellectuals close to Dick Cheney and Richard Perle since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s....the idea of pre-emptive defence, now official doctrine, takes this a leap further, much further than Powell would wish to go. In principle, it can be used to justify the destruction of any other state if it even seems that that state might in future be able to challenge the US. When these ideas were first aired by Paul Wolfowitz and others after the end of the Cold War, they met with general criticism, even from conservatives. Today, thanks to the ascendancy of the radical nationalists in the Administration and the effect of the 11 September attacks on the American psyche, they have a major influence on US policy. 1438. jexster - 10/31/2002 11:16:27 PM George W. Bush came to power very critical of the Clinton administration’s handling of world affairs. Bush and his advisors did not admit—but were undoubtedly aware—that Clinton’s path had been the path of every U.S. president since Gerald Ford, including that of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. It had even been the path of the current Bush administration before September 11. One only needs to look at how Bush handled the downing of the U.S. plane off China in April 2001 to see that prudence had been the name of the game. 1439. jexster - 10/31/2002 11:17:40 PM The New American Imperium..(aka The Greater Empire of Moronia 1440. jexster - 10/31/2002 11:19:48 PM Understand that, and you will understand why Bush is losing support domestically and has failed to mobilize support internationally... 1441. jexster - 10/31/2002 11:20:40 PM Wake up Wombat... 1442. Trouble - 10/31/2002 11:28:01 PM Someone needs an editor. Badly. 1443. Wombat - 11/1/2002 10:52:51 AM Jexter: 1444. jexster - 11/1/2002 12:14:06 PM Bush - Saddam's Most Powerful WMD 1445. jexster - 11/1/2002 2:02:24 PM If they'd realized that Bush would be so hell bent on nation and empire building, the GOP would certainly have supported Extermination of the Slerb Menace! 1446. jexster - 11/1/2002 2:03:24 PM Yes Wombat and referring to yourself in the third person proves it? 1447. jexster - 11/1/2002 2:03:55 PM Wake up Wombat... 1448. jexster - 11/1/2002 2:04:28 PM The royal "we" ... 1449. Wombat - 11/1/2002 2:06:02 PM Jex: 1450. Wombat - 11/1/2002 2:06:40 PM has not changed. 1451. jexster - 11/1/2002 2:12:08 PM Not only has the Wombat been suckered, sucking up the "banal" spin about the Evil Sad-am, he is rather stuck with the Carry the White Man's Burden fantasy of Democratic "liberation" and war on the cheap none of which has any foundation in fact..none...nada zip... 1452. Wombat - 11/1/2002 2:12:18 PM During that time, I also had extensive dealings with Iraqi students, and the "student" minders who monitored their activities. 1453. Wombat - 11/1/2002 2:17:44 PM The only "banality" about Saddam's evil is that found in the writings of Hannah Arendt on Eichmann. 1454. joezan - 11/1/2002 2:25:39 PM Well, you're no frigging Madeline Albright, Wombat - that much is obvious. 1455. jexster - 11/1/2002 2:34:06 PM Many are waking up, including, notably the NyT's T. Friedman, erstwhile advocate of Democratic Messianism, has been furiously backpeddaling and soft-peddaling his former nonsense on that score. 1456. jexster - 11/1/2002 2:36:06 PM 1457. Wombat - 11/1/2002 2:38:01 PM JoeZan: 1458. jexster - 11/1/2002 4:09:48 PM We thank you wombie 1459. jexster - 11/1/2002 4:10:17 PM Curses...damned again by the faintest of praise 1460. Cellar Door - 11/1/2002 11:24:52 PM 1461. wonkers2 - 11/2/2002 5:36:03 PM As is often the case, corporations are way ahead of the military and the rest of the government on social policy. I lost most of my respect for Colin Powell when he refused to support Clinton on the issue of gay service in the military. Harry Belafonte is basically correct calling Powell a "house nigger." The main reason Powell looks good now is by comparison to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of his neo-con, neo-imperialist warmongers. 1462. Cellar Door - 11/2/2002 5:43:09 PM Thanks for the link. That's a neat list to have. 1463. wonkers2 - 11/2/2002 5:46:51 PM If rosie sees it he may have trouble shopping! 1464. Cellar Door - 11/2/2002 6:28:45 PM Hah! 1465. jexster - 11/3/2002 7:17:40 PM No it doesn't, but the Iran-Iraq War made up a major part of my postgraduate research, and every characteristic that Saddam has exhibited recently have not changed since then. Can you say the same? 1466. Wombat - 11/4/2002 11:23:28 AM Jexter: 1467. jexster - 11/4/2002 12:41:35 PM Its not possible to morally make a case for a moral war to overthrow Saddam unless we have some facts and not banal propaganda such as 1468. Andonly - 11/4/2002 12:43:10 PM Why, there's an invisible line that separates us from the Ay-rabs, Wombat. 1469. jexster - 11/4/2002 12:43:56 PM Prof Telhami of the University of Maryland is on CNN right now...Kuwait will not join in the fight to build Bush's Empire. 1470. jexster - 11/4/2002 12:44:32 PM But of course, you know what's best for those savages 1471. jexster - 11/4/2002 12:48:29 PM Yes Ando there IS a racial component as I recognized at the time in response to E.Cartman's objections. 1472. jexster - 11/4/2002 12:50:30 PM NB - the response of the AFRICAN people to problems on that continent is exactly the opposite. They do not want an American Empire. They prefer regional enforcement, exactly the regional enforcement, proportional to the offense, that NATO exercised when Muslims were being cleansed. 1473. Wombat - 11/4/2002 1:07:44 PM During his time as President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein has done the following: 1474. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:08:54 PM PARIS -- As the Bush administration prepares for a possible military attack on Iraq that it describes as the next logical step in its war on terror, some of its strongest front-line allies in that war dispute Washington's allegations that the Baghdad regime has significant ties to Al Qaeda. 1475. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:09:33 PM The immediate goal is indeed to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. There is little real fear, however, that Saddam Hussein will give those weapons to terrorists to use against the United States - though a more genuine fear that he might conceivably do so in the case of Israel. Nor is there any serious prospect that he would use them himself in an unprovoked attack on the US or Israel, because immediate annihilation would follow. The banal propaganda portrayal of Saddam as a crazed and suicidal dictator plays well on the American street, but I don't believe that it is a view shared by the Administration. Rather, their intention is partly to retain an absolute certainty of being able to defend the Gulf against an Iraqi attack, but, more important, to retain for the US and Israel a free hand for intervention in the Middle East as a whole. - Anatol Lieven 1476. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:09:50 PM 1477. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:13:05 PM That would be a close call. In that case, arguments could be made either way on moral grounds, provided that the involvement weren't primarily the result of US coercion. 1478. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:14:28 PM The Baathist ideology, as you describe it, and 2 bucks will get you the double depth charge I am now enjoying from Momma Toby's Revolution Cafe 1479. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:17:32 PM Wombat you keep chasing your tail....suckin the spin, the banal propaganda prevents you from approaching the issue in real terms. 1480. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:19:50 PM And some folk say that I lack objectivity! 1481. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:23:26 PM Even in Britain, a loyal U.S. partner in the campaign against Iraq, it's hard to find anyone in the government making the case that Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime are close allies. In fact, European counter-terrorist veterans who are working with American counterparts worry that an attack on Iraq, especially a unilateral U.S. invasion, would worsen the threat of radical Islamic terrorism worldwide and impede their work. 1482. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:24:47 PM Shit those Euro cops are sounding like Al Gore....must be Demo-rats... 1483. Wombat - 11/4/2002 1:36:23 PM Jexter: 1484. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:53:10 PM Assuming for the sake of argument that your "facts" are correct and they aren't as they seem merely conclusions based on unstated fact, none of your "facts" justify or support on either prudential or moral grounds a war to topple Saddam 1485. jexster - 11/4/2002 1:54:42 PM and one other thing..."getting rid of Sad-am" is not the issue... 1486. Wombat - 11/4/2002 1:55:57 PM Jex: 1487. Wombat - 11/4/2002 1:57:58 PM Jex: 1488. jexster - 11/4/2002 2:31:31 PM You don't need a post-graduate seminar on Iraq/Iran war to know anything you listed in Message # 1473. Been known for years, widely known, widely published and NEVER until now a causus belli... 1489. PelleNilsson - 11/4/2002 2:53:23 PM It is sort of fun to watch Jexster's mental contortions as he tries to hide his hatred of Bush policies under a veil of moral righteousness while, at same time, he avoids any discussion of his awful war-mongering hysterics during the Kosovo war. 1490. jexster - 11/4/2002 3:12:48 PM While I may not have any pg seminars on the Iran-Iraq War under my belt, I had a few on decision-making; guerilla war and counterinsurgency strategy and tactics in the Vietnam War. 1491. jexster - 11/4/2002 3:14:27 PM At least in S. Vietnam we had an indigenous army supporting us and a not a few BAAAAD MF's of our own - Diem, Nyugen Kao Ki etc... 1492. Wombat - 11/4/2002 3:20:19 PM Talk about a subjective interpretation of history. For example, the columnist somehow omits that the Iraqi rebellion in 1941 sought to invite the Germans into the country. He also buys the Iraqi line completely in regard to the causes of the Gulf War. If that is what Jex is basing his "analysis" on, it is no wonder that he is tying himself into knots. 1493. Wombat - 11/4/2002 3:26:49 PM Jex: 1494. PelleNilsson - 11/4/2002 3:54:31 PM Regarding Jexster's "brief history of Iraq" by Eric Margolis. 1495. wonkers2 - 11/4/2002 7:07:11 PM Easy to do--there are so many cudgels against Bush, European and American, most of which he hands unawares to his critics. 1496. jexster - 11/4/2002 9:14:38 PM Reckless, immoral but, temporarily at least, politically useful to distract Americans from... 1497. jexster - 11/4/2002 9:15:41 PM That's really sharp Pelle.. 1498. jexster - 11/4/2002 9:18:02 PM You too Wombat....the point of the article is that Iraq is a hellish frankenstate.. 1499. Trouble - 11/4/2002 9:18:16 PM Six dead ObL terrorists destroyed in a car in Yemen by a CIA drone attack. 1500. jexster - 11/4/2002 9:20:16 PM Oh by the way, I am indeed amused to see you trying to slither out of the trap your yap has put you in..."disingenous Bush"..."Bush's rush to war"... and my very favorite 1501. jexster - 11/4/2002 9:38:15 PM All the best to you Wombat and your rag tag army of little Wombats as you march off to war with the Bush armies of xenophobes... 1502. joezan - 11/4/2002 10:10:06 PM Jexster's lost it. 1503. wonkers2 - 11/4/2002 11:22:56 PM joez,I thought you would be in inner-city Detroit by now, getting ready to scare the blacks away from the polls?? 1504. jexster - 11/4/2002 11:32:58 PM Tips - Strategy and Tactics for the 1st Wombat Div. 1505. jexster - 11/4/2002 11:44:10 PM What is your point in re Vietnam? 1506. jexster - 11/5/2002 12:01:35 AM Lastly afore bed - the immorality of pre-emptive war against Iraq is beyond dispute. This is the view of my church, the Catholic Church both US and the Vatican, the National & World Council of Churches. This is my view as articulated here numerous times. 1507. jexster - 11/5/2002 12:02:07 AM I have a prejudice against murder. 1508. Wombat - 11/5/2002 9:08:29 AM Jeez, Jexter: 1509. Wombat - 11/5/2002 9:33:54 AM Jexter: 1510. Wombat - 11/5/2002 9:41:39 AM "3. In Vietnam we had an indiginous army and some popular support. In Iraq we have NONE. Even the Bush Empire Builders can't spin one into existence." 1511. Wombat - 11/5/2002 9:55:33 AM "5. As a student of the Iran/Iraq War you are no doubt familiar with predictions then of a collapse of the Iraqi Army...that didn't happen...that's a fantasy now." 1512. Wombat - 11/5/2002 10:04:01 AM "7. This war, unlike the Vietnam war, has a major credibility gap and anti-war movement going in. Even the Bush administration remains divided. The intelligence services and the military are in open revolt." 1513. wonkers2 - 11/5/2002 1:15:22 PM Sharon was quoted this morning to the effect that the U.S. will have to take care of Iran after Saddam Hussein. I wonder if he's told Bush yet?? 1514. Wombat - 11/5/2002 1:21:56 PM Sharon wishes.... 1515. Wombat - 11/5/2002 1:57:46 PM Sharon wishes.... 1516. PelleNilsson - 11/5/2002 2:31:03 PM the immorality of pre-emptive war against Iraq is beyond dispute. This is the view of my church, the Catholic Church both US and the Vatican, the National & World Council of Churches. 1517. jexster - 11/5/2002 3:56:22 PM 1. Afghanistan 1518. jexster - 11/5/2002 4:00:02 PM Now to be fair, the unanimous view of the confessional churches both Catholic and Protestant is NOT the view held by the so-called "christian" fundamentalist churches. These folks do not subscribe to the just war doctrine. This gaggle of xenophobes, hatemongerers, apostates and heretics is Christian only by self-identification. This is the meet jaysus in the air crowd - the ones our blind little Wombat is marching off to empire with. 1519. Wombat - 11/5/2002 8:33:53 PM Pathetic and ignorant as ever, Jex. But don't let that stop you. 1520. Trouble - 11/5/2002 10:56:45 PM Looks like GWB is winning a lot of American political races for the GOP. Another worry for Sadam. 1521. wonkers2 - 11/5/2002 11:51:10 PM That's right we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. 1522. concerned - 11/7/2002 5:54:38 PM With the US and the UN Security Council reaching terms on an Iraq resolution, it seems that any potential invasion of Iraq will be put off for a while. Meanwhile, the US will hopefully be pursuing other avenues to depose Sodamn. 1523. Cellar Door - 11/8/2002 1:44:37 PM I hope you have a cum rag handy, cause you're gonna shoot a HOT MILKY LOAD when you see these pics! 1524. jexster - 11/8/2002 1:53:50 PM The Unbearable Costs of Empire 1525. jexster - 11/8/2002 1:56:17 PM James K. Galbraith is a professor of public affairs and government at the University of Texas at Austin's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and a senior scholar at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute. 1526. jexster - 11/8/2002 2:01:15 PM With the US and the UN Security Council reaching terms on an Iraq resolution, it seems that any potential invasion of Iraq will be put off for a while. Meanwhile, the US will hopefully be pursuing other avenues to depose Sodamn 1527. PelleNilsson - 11/8/2002 2:08:59 PM Blix is not a diplomat, he is a very able bureaucrat who has played on the international field. Whether that experience is sufficient remains to be seen. 1528. jexster - 11/8/2002 2:13:24 PM FYI - the sentiment among confessional Christian denominations is unequivocal, virtually unanimous, and absolutely congruent with views I have been espousing for six months. 1529. jexster - 11/8/2002 2:14:40 PM In religious circles, the antiwar voices are vastly outnumbering the those in favor of a war. Forty-eight Christian leaders, including the heads of the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Church of Christ and the National Baptist Convention, an African-American denomination, have sent a letter to the president opposing military action. 1530. jexster - 11/8/2002 4:34:16 PM If you want to replace Sad-am best to have something to replace him with! 1531. jexster - 11/8/2002 9:19:11 PM Text of UN Resolution 1532. jexster - 11/8/2002 9:32:06 PM Man in the News; A Diplomat Who Won't Take 'No' -- Hans Blix 1533. jexster - 11/8/2002 11:41:28 PM How PantyWaist Powell Beat the ChickenHawks 1534. jexster - 11/9/2002 11:22:14 AM 1535. jexster - 11/9/2002 7:31:31 PM 1536. jexster - 11/9/2002 10:30:01 PM The Church of England's House of Bishops has urged the British Government and the international community to continue to pursue all available peaceful means towards resolving the crisis with Iraq. In a submission to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee's ongoing inquiry into the foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism, the House of Bishops has said that conclusive evidence is lacking of an imminent and specific threat from Iraq to international peace and security. In such circumstances, it contends, military action cannot be justified at this time. In their submission the Bishops said: 1537. jexster - 11/9/2002 10:30:57 PM 4. We nonetheless hold that to undertake a preventative war against Iraq at this juncture would be to lower the threshold for war unacceptably. 1538. jexster - 11/9/2002 10:35:43 PM Dear Members of Congress, 1539. jexster - 11/9/2002 10:40:21 PM Iraq has not attacked the United States. 1540. jexster - 11/9/2002 10:42:32 PM RU Confused Wombie??? 1541. jexster - 11/9/2002 10:47:44 PM 1519. Wombat - 11/6/02 1:33:53 AM 1542. jexster - 11/9/2002 10:49:09 PM but NOW whatchu gonna do? 1543. jexster - 11/9/2002 10:53:42 PM 1544. Wombat - 11/11/2002 8:47:55 PM Great article by Bob Kerrey in today's Salon on the moral case for overthrowing Saddam. 1545. Cellar Door - 11/11/2002 9:00:34 PM Saddam Hussein is actually a Republican, Wombat. You do know his elite loyal team of bodyguards is called the Republican Guard, don't you? 1546. joezan - 11/11/2002 10:18:12 PM GOP platform and expectations raised; Poll: Most favor ousting Saddam: 1547. Cellar Door - 11/11/2002 10:24:03 PM How soon before I'm carted off to the ovens, joe? 1548. joezan - 11/11/2002 10:29:56 PM 1549. Cellar Door - 11/12/2002 11:07:59 AM Do you think that matters? 1550. joezan - 11/12/2002 11:09:59 AM 1551. communistche - 11/12/2002 12:14:02 PM this idea of war, what has it become now. when we speak of war the components of it are heard in the background. can profit, really justify the lives of the inoocent. the answer is yes and all we can do is talk whilst people have their houses and lives torn apart. we really dont care, really..... it doesn't affect our everyday lives does it, just a bit of intellectual stimuli to make you feel smart, isn't it. well, have a nice day and lets see if we'll ever change anyhing thats wrong in this world!!! 1552. concerned - 11/12/2002 12:22:27 PM Well, women aren't being shot for wearing makeup and national treasures are not being destroyed in Afghanistan anymore. Sounds like a good start to me. 1553. PelleNilsson - 11/12/2002 12:25:05 PM What Americans and Europeans think: 1554. concerned - 11/12/2002 12:52:08 PM The Iraqi 'Parliament' has rejected the UN Arms Inspection Resolution. However, this is only window dressing. No doubt Saddam is attempting to find a way to obfuscate and delay the resolution of the issue as he has in the past. It's doubtful he'll succeed this time. 1555. Wombat - 11/12/2002 12:55:07 PM That's a pretty impressive consensus! 1556. Cellar Door - 11/12/2002 3:14:22 PM 20% is a consensus? 1557. Wombat - 11/12/2002 4:10:10 PM Only invade with UN approval and with support of allies... 1558. concerned - 11/12/2002 4:12:44 PM This is what happens when Cellar and his fellow travelers lie down on the job. 1559. Trouble - 11/12/2002 6:47:14 PM RAINESPEAK: 1560. PelleNilsson - 11/13/2002 11:46:48 AM According to CNN Iraq has now officially accepted the resolution. 1561. joezan - 11/13/2002 1:01:58 PM Yeah - but, ominously, Saddam's flunky (Hammadi, is it?) says "sure - c'mon over and check. We don't have any WMD. Iraq is clean." 1562. Wombat - 11/13/2002 1:21:26 PM Yep. Except when they are caught doing it, the consequences will end up being fatal for Saddam's regime. 1563. Cellar Door - 11/13/2002 5:18:34 PM Can somebody provide an MP3 link of Saddam singing "I Can Change" -- his big number on South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut ? 1564. magoseph - 11/15/2002 8:24:26 AM I believe that Iraq has already transferred biological and chemical weapons to al Qaeda . It's really the only shot they have left in their arsenal. The Congress is putting pressure on the administration in respect to their emphasis re-Iraq. The FBI believes there are at least 2000 agents in the US. The materials have been transferred by Iraq on condition an attack be launched immediately. The FBI is now blocking roads from Canada to Michigan, this being the largest concentration of Arabs in the US. The US public has been led to believe by the media that the transfer would not occur until the US invasion was a reality. The Iraqis, unfortunately, aren't so stupid as to wait. 1565. ronski - 11/15/2002 5:47:17 PM Ding, dong, the spammer is suspended... 1566. wonkers2 - 11/15/2002 5:52:23 PM That would be horrible but poetic justice. We gave the anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s presumably to use on Iran and now they give it to Al Qaida to use on us. It's hard for me to understand why the U.S. government would give anthrax or smallpox seed stocks, or whatever we gave to Iraq, to any country. Or for that matter why we would be fooling around with it ourselves. 1567. wonkers2 - 11/15/2002 11:00:37 PM That would be horrible but poetic justice. We gave the anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s presumably to use on Iran and now they give it to Al Qaida to use on us. It's hard for me to understand why the U.S. government would give anthrax or smallpox seed stocks, or whatever we gave to Iraq, to any country. Or for that matter why we would be fooling around with it ourselves. 1568. Cellar Door - 11/18/2002 12:06:58 PM 1569. wonkers2 - 11/18/2002 10:53:33 PM War Games in the Senate by Elizabeth Drew 1570. jexster - 11/22/2002 2:33:35 PM 1571. Cellar Door - 11/22/2002 3:03:10 PM Canada. Land of Glenn Gould, Michael Snow, Anne Murray, Marshall McLuhan, Anthony Majanlahti (my favorite cyber-pal) and sanity. 1572. TabouliJones - 11/22/2002 3:25:51 PM The "moron" remark was apparently made by Francois Ducros, Chretien's senior communications officer. She offered a non-denial denial of sorts and submitted her resignation, which Chretien has refused. I think that Chretien should have accepted her resignation and offered a more direct apology to Bush. It is unacceptable for a senior aide to denigrate the intelligence of the President of the U.S. She suggests that she made the remark in private; but I have little sympathy for her excuse -- she was within earshot of reporters and should have known to use appropriate language. 1573. jexster - 11/23/2002 1:51:53 PM Richard Perle: Whose Fault Is He? 1574. Cellar Door - 11/23/2002 2:26:20 PM Quick! Somebody tell President Bunnypants that we'regoing to war against the wrong country! 1575. Cellar Door - 11/23/2002 8:35:40 PM 1576. wonkers2 - 11/23/2002 10:28:43 PM Calvin Trillin took the gloves off on Richard Perle. Perle is one of the most frightening people around. Evil incarnate. 1577. arkymalarky - 11/23/2002 11:25:11 PM My dad was talking about that poem today and the responses it had generated and I told him it was being posted here. I hope more people start taking the gloves off. I was really disgusted at just how lame the lame ducks were on their way out. I didn't think that Pelosi was a good idea for the Democratic party, but go for it. They might as well play hardball for a couple of years and see if they can stand for anything. It would be better for them to go down fighting for real issues than to wear camoflage hoping to just survive by blending in. 1578. Edmund Dantes - 11/24/2002 10:43:05 AM Calvin Trillin "took the gloves off"? What is the average IQ of the Mote these days, when Trillin's doggerel passes for something of import? 1579. Edmund Dantes - 11/24/2002 10:46:44 AM While Wizzo, Bonkers, and Jasper shit their pants over President Bush, let's check in and see what their hero has been up to: 1580. jexster - 11/24/2002 10:54:47 AM b>What a moron! 1581. Cellar Door - 11/24/2002 11:11:14 AM 1582. jexster - 11/24/2002 11:14:59 AM 1583. Edmund Dantes - 11/24/2002 11:22:12 AM That's just fine, Jasper. When we kick out Saddam no one will make the mistake of thinking you or your name had anything to do with it. 1584. arkymalarky - 11/24/2002 12:58:14 PM What is the average IQ of the Mote these days 1585. Edmund Dantes - 11/24/2002 1:08:18 PM Nice substantive post from a so-called moderator. 1586. arkymalarky - 11/24/2002 1:17:01 PM Jes' trying to make you feel at home, Ed. 1587. Edmund Dantes - 11/24/2002 1:29:06 PM Nifty jab? Whatever you say. Were I the typically banal and trite lefty who considers post 1584 a "nifty jab" I might reply something about don't hurt yourself from too much back patting. But then I'd be stooping to a cleverness level somewhere between yourself and Judy. 1588. Cellar Door - 11/24/2002 2:54:05 PM Of course they're lining up to flee. They don't want to get killed by our bombs. 1589. Cellar Door - 11/24/2002 4:16:00 PM White House Defends FBI Shoddiness in Investigating 9/11 1590. Al D - 11/24/2002 4:22:23 PM Why would anyone who believed Saddam want to flee Iraq? He insists he has no weapons of MD. Don't you believe him Cellar? If he is telling the truth, the Iraqies have nothing to fear. 1591. Al D - 11/24/2002 4:25:57 PM Arky 1592. arkymalarky - 11/24/2002 4:33:40 PM I don't oppose Bush's stance on Iraq as long as it stays within the UN resolution. 1593. arkymalarky - 11/24/2002 4:36:35 PM I would think true Liberals would want the peole in Iraq to be free true is tyrrany. 1594. Cellar Door - 11/24/2002 4:46:54 PM Why would anyone who believed Saddam want to flee Iraq? He insists he has no weapons of MD. Don't you believe him Cellar? If he is telling the truth, the Iraqies have nothing to fear. 1595. Al D - 11/24/2002 4:58:51 PM Cellar 1596. Cellar Door - 11/24/2002 6:00:16 PM Why would you say that? 1597. Cellar Door - 11/24/2002 6:01:24 PM I am convinced that this government wants to take over the Middle East in the way it failed to do with Southeast Asia. 1598. jexster - 11/24/2002 9:09:21 PM "George Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons. Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a 'clean bill of health' from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine. Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme will be enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught, he told an all-party meeting on global security. Former defence minister and Labour backbencher Peter Kilfoyle said: 'America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections. [Mr.] Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing. This makes a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq.'" 1599. jexster - 11/24/2002 9:10:50 PM Wallerstein still batting 1.000 1600. jexster - 11/24/2002 9:13:37 PM Iraq: U.N. Plan Is Pretext for War 1601. wonkers2 - 11/24/2002 10:53:12 PM Poor little Eddie. Like Richard Perle, picked on by his classmates, now always attacking his fellow Moties. We criticize Bush or Perle and he attacks us. Pitiful stuff. Not hard to see what makes the little weenie lawyer tick. 1602. Al D - 11/24/2002 11:23:09 PM Well if pointing out that someone makes fun of a person for being "girlish" and you take it as abuse of yourself, I think you have a bit of a problem. If you think the poem is an example of great poetry, I also think you have a problem, but wouldn't you swoon over any silly shot at a conservative? 1603. joezan - 11/24/2002 11:32:26 PM 1604. wonkers2 - 11/24/2002 11:33:54 PM The poem is pointed political doggerel, nothing more. Calling Clinton or Bush other political figures names is good fun, but I wonder about people who can't disagree without insulting others in our little community. 1605. joezan - 11/24/2002 11:40:48 PM 1606. wonkers2 - 11/24/2002 11:43:09 PM You should read Trillin more often. Last time I noticed he appeared regularly in "The Nation." 1607. arkymalarky - 11/24/2002 11:50:13 PM I'm afraid it's lost on them, Wonk. These are folks who think Mallard Filmore is a riot. 1608. Al D - 11/25/2002 2:36:33 AM Again, a liberal post that makes no sense. Now if you find that insulting, you mistake my point. The insults come far more often from the left, it seems to me. 1609. concerned - 11/25/2002 5:02:17 PM Concerned would never give Clinton credit for anything, even though, as you know, Clinton did much good. 1610. jexster - 11/26/2002 11:14:05 AM Bush's Iraq policy is riddled with internal political and ideological contradictions....sooner or later its going to fall apart. 1611. Trouble - 11/26/2002 8:38:55 PM Wine and Cheese, Volvo-owning, liberal Democrat dad reflects on his son's decision to join the Marines. 1612. judithathome - 11/26/2002 10:05:06 PM He's eager to get back to the Philippines. 1613. concerned - 11/26/2002 11:02:13 PM Mohammad's mama was sodomized by a hog. The next day, she shit out Mohammad, right onto a john's face. 1614. concerned - 11/26/2002 11:06:36 PM She did it for prophet, of course. 1615. judithathome - 11/27/2002 8:20:53 AM Concerned, you post something like #1613 but get upset when someone calls Bush a moron? I know you aren't a government official and this is only an on-line forum but that was a pretty lame joke. 1616. judithathome - 11/27/2002 8:27:55 AM Your post #1613 makes much more sense if you meant for it to be posted in the News & Current Events thread but how was I to know that? I read here first. 1617. jexster - 11/27/2002 12:06:06 PM Barely two weeks after it unanimously passed a tough new resolution against Iraq, the United Nations Security Council's united front is in danger of unravelling. 1618. jexster - 11/27/2002 1:26:05 PM 1619. jexster - 11/27/2002 1:38:42 PM The real battle for Iraq will be won or lost only after Saddam is gone...It is not unthinkable that a military victory could turn into a strategic defeat for the U.S. Anything other than a quick, decisive campaign could mean trouble. Civilian casualties in Baghdad and elsewhere could easily trigger regional turmoil, spurred by an anti-Americanism that is, alas, all too real in the Islamic world. Saddam on the way out may well opt for ...the 'Sampson option'--that he will use the weapons of mass destruction he now possesses (and) sabotage Iraq's oil fields. A prolonged, expensive, American-led occupation is also plausible, one that could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists....All of that could have immediate and decidedly negative consequences for the global economy; an aftermath that does not proceed relatively smoothly would almost certainly short-circuit what everyone hopes--and assumes--will be stronger economic growth worldwide in 2003." 1620. wonkers2 - 11/27/2002 4:32:37 PM I was away from a TV set on the weekend of the 26th. Was the network and cable news coverage of the protests fair? Probably a dumb question! 1621. concerned - 11/28/2002 2:31:40 AM Sodamn won't stop trying to game the system, even if it kills him, apparently--a palaces 'ban'? 1622. concerned - 11/28/2002 4:08:10 AM 1623. jexster - 11/28/2002 10:27:11 AM "We have not sensed anything which obstructed us. We were welcomed in a polite and professional manner, and we were able to do the job." 1624. jexster - 11/28/2002 10:46:58 AM UN welcomes Iraqi cooperation 1625. jexster - 11/28/2002 12:27:58 PM "Introduction 1626. jexster - 11/28/2002 10:04:19 PM 1627. wonkers2 - 11/28/2002 11:35:43 PM None of the calculations take into account the cost of future preemptive strikes likely once Pandora's Box is opened. 1628. jexster - 11/29/2002 12:09:14 PM Why that will open Endorra's box! - Kramer 1629. jexster - 11/29/2002 12:09:51 PM 1630. jexster - 11/29/2002 12:10:56 PM wonk: that's what the Nordhaus article attempts to do...its 37 pages of trying 1631. Trouble - 11/29/2002 1:49:52 PM Fox News is the only cable news network with improved ratings in the past year. The network is in prime-time triumph. With an average of 1.4 million nightly viewers this month, Fox has had a 17 percent increase in viewership compared with a year ago, according to Nielsen Media Research numbers released Wednesday. CNN lost 31 percent of its prime-time viewers compared with last year's numbers, with an audience of 921,000. MSNBC continues to languish in third place with a 43 percent drop and 528,000 viewers. 1632. jexster - 11/29/2002 10:51:54 PM Apropos of Slime Slung My Way by Pelle the Dilletante and Wombat, the Straw Eater 1633. jexster - 11/29/2002 10:56:18 PM Habermas was a student of Theodor Adorno, and a member of the Frankfurt School of critical theory. He is perhaps the last major thinker to embrace the basic project of the enlightenment, a project for which he is often attacked. When compositionists and rhetoricians pay attention to Habermas, it is usually to pair him in a theoretical debate over issues surrounding postmodernism. Foucault, Gadamer, Lyotard, etc. are often set up as his opponents. Yet the debate always seems to be a racasting of the debate between Kant and Hegel. Habermas is decidedly Kantian in his dedication to reason, ethics, and moral philosophy. 1634. Wombat - 11/29/2002 11:24:47 PM "The immediate conditions are those specified by the last resolution of the Security Council. And it should be up to the Council to interpret the findings. In any case, there should be no military action without a long-term commitment--and a realistic perspective--for coping with the uniquely explosive concentration of problems in the Near East. Just bombing Saddam Hussein out of his palace and leaving the "cleanup" to others won't do." 1635. wonkers2 - 11/30/2002 12:44:35 AM Cap'n Dirty sez, "Habermas's fog count is a little high fer me and the Tomater Sloop!" 1636. jexster - 11/30/2002 3:40:09 PM 1637. jexster - 11/30/2002 3:54:54 PM Some analysts, however, take the trope of “the fog of war” a philosophical step farther and suggest that warfare takes place beyond the reach of moral reason, in a realm of interest and necessity where moral argument is a pious diversion at best and, at worst, a lethal distraction from the deadly serious business at hand. 1638. jexster - 11/30/2002 5:11:14 PM A point I have made several times here and back during the Kosova War 1639. jexster - 11/30/2002 11:44:26 PM George Weigel, a conservative Roman Catholic social ethicist, is a senior fellow and the John M. Olin Chair in Religion and American Democracy at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D. C. He is the author of The Final Revolution, which details John Paul II's crucial role in the collapse of European communism, and Witness to Hope: The Biography of John Paul II. He earned his M.A. from the University of St. Michael's College in Toronto, and his B.A. from St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore. His areas of expertise include Catholic social teaching, religion and democracy, and just-war tradition. 1640. concerned - 12/2/2002 3:02:52 AM UN admits tipping off Iraq for arms inspection 1641. Cellar Door - 12/2/2002 10:02:57 AM 1642. jexster - 12/2/2002 12:39:23 PM a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61647-2002Dec1.html target=new>Antiwar Effort Gains Momentum 1643. jexster - 12/2/2002 12:44:13 PM 1644. jexster - 12/2/2002 12:44:29 PM 1645. jexster - 12/2/2002 3:12:59 PM The government was today accused of manipulating information on human rights abuses in Iraq to build its case for war against Saddam Hussein. 1646. Trouble - 12/2/2002 3:18:47 PM Good example of the dishonest, bad politics at the AI. 1647. Cellar Door - 12/2/2002 3:55:09 PM And speaking of dishonest bad politics. . . 1648. ronski - 12/2/2002 5:16:19 PM 1649. Edmund Dantes - 12/2/2002 5:21:07 PM "Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President" 1650. Cellar Door - 12/2/2002 5:50:53 PM That's what you and your RNC cronies would like to believe. 1651. Edmund Dantes - 12/2/2002 7:26:43 PM Yawn. 1652. Edmund Dantes - 12/2/2002 7:37:12 PM The story you linked was posted by Jasper back in September. 1653. ronski - 12/2/2002 11:26:28 PM If anyone bothered to read my post he would see that the idea that this was a secret document as Cellar's post alleges is nonsense. 1655. Edmund Dantes - 12/3/2002 9:56:14 AM I read your post, ronski, but disputing a factual point that was decided months ago again means there's no reason at all to argue opinion with these blatherers. 1656. Cellar Door - 12/3/2002 10:32:59 AM Make sure you're stocked up on pesticides for that garden of yours like a REAL AMERICAN, ronski. 1657. jexster - 12/3/2002 12:31:46 PM 1658. jexster - 12/3/2002 12:45:31 PM 1659. jexster - 12/3/2002 12:53:30 PM Iraqi Cooperation 'Good' 1660. jexster - 12/3/2002 12:54:31 PM Ronski - If you've nothing nice to say, shove it up your ass 1661. Cellar Door - 12/3/2002 5:10:36 PM Now, now, jex. Don't go near ronski's ass until the Supremes have ruled on it! 1662. concerned - 12/4/2002 1:08:40 AM Material Breach/Casus Belli Dept: Iraq steps up its pace of firing at allied planes in no-fly zones 1663. concerned - 12/4/2002 1:14:53 AM Re. 1658 - 1664. Cellar Door - 12/4/2002 10:16:47 AM A Big Ol' Bucket of Chickenhawks! 1665. jexster - 12/4/2002 10:33:23 AM The EyeRakis were right, Bush isn't interested in WMD. He wants to use the UN as a pretext for aggressive war - 1666. joezan - 12/4/2002 10:34:17 AM Great linking there, jasper. 1667. jexster - 12/4/2002 10:34:25 AM OOOPS Need Morning Coffee Stat 1668. jexster - 12/4/2002 11:17:59 AM TD - Amnesty International.... 1669. jexster - 12/4/2002 1:44:19 PM Meet Your Wacko ChickenHawks - an Interview With Big Bad Paul Wolfie-witch 1670. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2002 2:10:21 PM Following a visit by Wolfowitz, Turkey has agreed to the use Turkish bases as a staging point for the war. 1671. Wombat - 12/4/2002 2:16:30 PM After the Security Council has authorized it. 1672. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2002 2:44:14 PM Of course. That's the crucial point. As it is for Bahrein and Qatar. The Arab-Israeli conflict comes in the backdoor in an interesting way. Ever since the 1967 and -73 wars the Arabs have insisted that it has to be resolved on the basis of SC resolutions 242 and 338. Having demonstrated great faith in the SC on this issue they cannot easily backtrack on 1441. 1673. Wombat - 12/4/2002 2:51:48 PM I also find it interesting that Turkey did not commit using their military against Iraq. 1674. jexster - 12/4/2002 5:47:24 PM Following a visit by Wolfowitz, Turkey has agreed to the use Turkish bases as a staging point for the war. 1675. jexster - 12/4/2002 5:55:22 PM Powell Sees Good Start to U.N. Inspections (Reuters) 1676. concerned - 12/4/2002 7:08:13 PM More childish fallacies of Islam: 1677. Cellar Door - 12/4/2002 7:35:04 PM Childish fantasies of Americans: 1678. concerned - 12/4/2002 7:42:18 PM Here, celldoor - 1679. concerned - 12/4/2002 7:45:16 PM Apparently Muslims don't realize that many of their Koranic and Hadithic 'pearls of wisdom' are really well polished pig droppings. 1680. jexster - 12/4/2002 9:18:46 PM Ooops wrong cue card. 1681. jexster - 12/4/2002 9:25:16 PM In the two years since King Moron ascended to the Armadillo Throne, favorable attitudes toward the US have plummetted worldwide. 1682. concerned - 12/4/2002 11:15:14 PM Are there that many stupid people in Yurrup as to think that a multinational Allied force would be 'unilateral'? 1683. concerned - 12/5/2002 12:01:49 AM All this bullshit and bloviation from the Left about 'growing anti-Americanism' wrt Iraq makes me imagine that a lot of ex-hippies are playing their old 'Sympathy With the Devil' LPs and smoking their Last Ditch Weed. 1684. concerned - 12/5/2002 12:04:13 AM Or was it 'Sympathy For the Devil'? Wasn't my cup of tea, IAC. 1685. concerned - 12/5/2002 1:55:01 AM No More Idealism on the Left 1686. jexster - 12/5/2002 11:42:52 AM 1687. jexster - 12/5/2002 12:37:14 PM NFZ - pretext for death 1688. JJBiener - 12/5/2002 1:44:32 PM Tommy - Both the New and Old Testaments contain passages that have since been contradicted by science. Why do you think the Quran should be any different? 1689. jexster - 12/5/2002 1:48:42 PM NyT:The administration has a good deal of diplomatic ground to cover in its efforts to gain full cooperation from Turkey in the event of an Iraq conflict. 1690. PelleNilsson - 12/5/2002 2:47:26 PM Don't set your hopes too high, Jexster. The Turks will fall in line. They need those IMF loans. And if - as I hope - the EU gives Turkey some sort of date for negotiations, or even "a date for a date", the US will claim it was done because of its pressure on the member states and claim a quid pro. 1691. jexster - 12/5/2002 4:27:44 PM Looks Like Democracy Has the Upper Hand for Now 1692. jexster - 12/5/2002 4:32:29 PM Here's a lesson that will improve your knowledge of these matters Pelle... 1693. Edmund Dantes - 12/5/2002 8:57:47 PM Turks & Saudis climb aboard Bush express 1694. jexster - 12/5/2002 11:40:37 PM Yea right! 1695. jexster - 12/5/2002 11:45:03 PM Like that shit you were peddlin about aluminum tubes eh? Or maybe that crap Rummy was shovelin about Al Qaeda? Or maybe some of that "give peace a chance bush-shit"? 1696. jexster - 12/5/2002 11:53:34 PM The Charade Before the Crusade 1697. Cellar Door - 12/6/2002 1:09:02 PM 1698. jexster - 12/6/2002 1:30:37 PM Amb Muhammed Al Duri: We done flushed the stash down the terlit 1699. jexster - 12/6/2002 1:44:08 PM Hans Blix is standing tall before the lofty mast! 1700. jexster - 12/6/2002 2:02:30 PM The United States has arrived at an imperial moment in its history, but it is not the first time. 1701. jexster - 12/6/2002 8:34:15 PM Sung to the tune of "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands" 1702. jexster - 12/6/2002 9:12:52 PM Blix: Yo Moron Put Up or Shut Up 1703. concerned - 12/7/2002 12:53:27 AM Saddam Has Nukes, UN Weapons Inspector Says 1704. robertjayb - 12/7/2002 12:58:38 AM That's former U.N. inspector, pissant. 1705. concerned - 12/7/2002 1:01:18 AM So, what? 1706. concerned - 12/7/2002 1:02:02 AM Guess who forgot to close his tags again. 1707. concerned - 12/7/2002 1:30:33 AM Sodamn has nukes, does he? What should we do? I know! Let's ship $300 million worth of heating oil to Iraq per year and offer to build Insane some nuclear power plants! That's the ticket! 1708. concerned - 12/7/2002 2:47:11 AM How much can we rely on Hans Blix and his crew in Iraq? 1709. concerned - 12/7/2002 2:51:03 AM Blix - exactly who Insane wanted to lead the UN inspection teams. 1710. concerned - 12/7/2002 2:57:36 AM Are we supposed to believe that the WMD that Insane had in 1998 when he terminated the UN Inspection tours have been voluntarily destroyed since then? I'm sure some people have personal interests sufficient to allow themselves to be thusly gulled. 1711. concerned - 12/7/2002 3:09:02 AM The reasonable conclusion to be drawn, if Iraq cannot produce specific proof of the destruction of its known WMD of the last several years, is that they were never destroyed. What UN inspections find or fail to find become of far less significance, given this. 1712. concerned - 12/7/2002 4:09:18 AM From the NYP: 1713. concerned - 12/7/2002 4:16:37 AM Blix's business is to perform weapons inspections only, not to arbitrarily interfere with the transfer of and censor documenyation for spurious and suddenly announced reasons. 1714. concerned - 12/7/2002 4:17:11 AM ...documentation... 1715. robertjayb - 12/7/2002 11:38:49 AM Bingo, says Fisk... 1716. judithathome - 12/7/2002 11:40:14 AM I'm picking the 18th of December in the War Pool. 1717. concerned - 12/7/2002 12:10:06 PM Silly me! Here I was thinking that Blix & crew were not above criticism. 1718. concerned - 12/7/2002 12:14:06 PM After all, is or is not Blix attempting to violate UN Resolution 1441 which states: 1719. concerned - 12/7/2002 12:15:31 PM Dated November 7, 2002. 1720. concerned - 12/7/2002 12:23:27 PM Hafta admit, having the UN weapons inspector chief flagrantly violate the same UN resolution that authorizes his activities certainly sounds like grounds for criticism, at least. 1721. concerned - 12/7/2002 12:29:40 PM Hans Blix=Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heroes: 1722. jexster - 12/7/2002 2:12:10 PM Extending the Blessings of Civilization to our Brother who Sits in Darkness has been a good trade and has paid well, on the whole; and there is money in it yet, if carefully worked--but not enough, in my judgment, to make any considerable risk advisable. The People that Sit in Darkness are getting to be too scarce--too scarce and too shy. And such darkness as is now left is really of but an indifferent quality, and not dark enough for the game. The most of those People that Sit in Darkness have been furnished with more light than was good for them or profitable for us. We have been injudicious.... Is it, perhaps, possible that there are two kinds of Civilization--one for home consumption and one for the heathen market?" 1723. jexster - 12/7/2002 2:14:03 PM "We are not an agency of abuction or defection. We are an agency of inspection" Hans Blix 1724. jexster - 12/7/2002 2:16:58 PM So fuckin predictable...our resident Mayberry Moron, crestfallen when UN inspectors headed for Baghdad to find those WMD's that are ready to go, ready to hop on UAV's which can hit NYC, joins in the chorus of bashing Hans Blix, a tried and true New Fascist technique of demonizing and smearing when the truth doesn't serve their putrid aims.. 1725. jexster - 12/7/2002 2:20:55 PM TENSIONS between America and UN weapons inspectors rose sharply yesterday on the eve of Iraq’s promised declaration that it is free of weapons of mass destruction. 1726. robertjayb - 12/7/2002 2:21:48 PM Saddam is real sorry. Honest. 1727. judithathome - 12/7/2002 2:27:23 PM Kinda late in the day,huh? 1728. jexster - 12/7/2002 2:27:57 PM There is legitimate pressure. There is calculated sabre-rattling. And then there is downright irresponsible, threatening behaviour. On the vexed question of Iraq and efforts to ensure its compliance with UN resolution 1441, George Bush is guilty, not for the first time in this crisis, of the last of these. The task now being undertaken by the UN's weapons inspectors is already difficult enough without a running commentary, full of negative assertions, questionable claims and outright provocations, from the US president. 1729. jexster - 12/7/2002 2:28:08 PM This approach clearly does not suit Mr Bush nor the clique of hardliners who have the president's ear - and he appears to be doing his level-best to undermine it. Speaking in Louisiana earlier this week, he insisted, without evidence, that Iraq is not playing fair. He predicted that "he [Saddam] says he won't have weapons. He's got them." Then he went on to link Saddam, again without evidence, to al-Qaida. In another outburst, he claimed "the issue is not the inspectors... We're not interested in hide and seek in Iraq" before repeating his threat of an all-out invasion. Such remarks, both pre-empting Mr Blix's report and misrepresenting the inspection process to date, plainly suggest that Mr Bush may be preparing to declare the UN operation a failure whether it is or not. 1730. concerned - 12/8/2002 12:27:50 AM Sorry, jexster. I doubt that Blix will succeed in his attempt to violate UN Resolution 1441. 1731. jexster - 12/8/2002 7:54:04 PM I am sorry Concerned. Blix isn't violating anything. 1732. jexster - 12/8/2002 7:56:06 PM What were the words Rummy used to describe that Prague intel? 1733. jexster - 12/8/2002 8:10:43 PM Guardian Unlimited: 1734. jexster - 12/8/2002 8:21:23 PM Credibility gap? 1735. jexster - 12/8/2002 10:55:00 PM Credibilty Gap - Unraveling the Bush-shit 1736. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/9/2002 12:18:38 AM Bush, Iraq and Sister Souljah By Tom Friedman 1737. jexster - 12/9/2002 12:47:16 AM The New York Review of Books 1738. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/9/2002 1:52:26 AM 1739. jexster - 12/9/2002 11:15:05 AM I find it increasingly hard to believe that Mr. Bush's objective is limited to seeing that Saddam Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction. The history and the theology of the men whose advice now dominates Mr. Bush's thinking point to much larger purposes. I think this president wants to overthrow the rules that have governed international life for the last fifty years [and establish a new US imperium] 1740. jexster - 12/9/2002 11:23:38 AM I am, sadly, old enough to remember watching the Security Council debate live.. 1741. judithathome - 12/9/2002 11:36:07 AM Anderson Cooper ran a whole litney of examples, including Stevenson's, in a piece this weekend on CNN. It was pretty powerful. 1742. judithathome - 12/9/2002 11:37:21 AM litnAy, rather. 1743. jexster - 12/9/2002 12:50:03 PM Before a summit with President Bush, Turkish leaders hinted today that they wouldn't particpate in a war against Iraq without U.S. help in entering the E.U. 1744. jexster - 12/9/2002 12:52:35 PM Made his Moron do all the work... 1745. jexster - 12/9/2002 1:15:33 PM The British government's dossier on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programme, produced with great fanfare in September, dwelt on the regime's capacity to produce such weapons but not its intention to use them. 1746. jexster - 12/9/2002 3:05:11 PM The people who sent us here are the international community, the United Nations. We're not serving the US." 1747. concerned - 12/10/2002 2:19:26 AM Saddam Hussein's rope-a-dope strategy 1748. jexster - 12/10/2002 2:30:25 PM The US and Britain lack "killer" intelligence that will prove conclusively that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, according to sources in London and New York. 1749. jexster - 12/10/2002 2:30:35 PM 1750. jexster - 12/10/2002 2:31:30 PM Maybe The Moron King should send a carrier battle group to the North Pole 1751. jexster - 12/10/2002 2:49:35 PM 1752. jexster - 12/10/2002 3:37:20 PM Iraqi Response Puts Bush in Quandry, Dampens W-ar Support 1753. robertjayb - 12/10/2002 6:47:10 PM Oh, dear! Dubya looks schmart? 1754. Edmund Dantes - 12/10/2002 9:26:33 PM Annan: I'm not a US puppet! 1755. jexster - 12/10/2002 10:17:30 PM Hee-hee-hee. 1756. jexster - 12/10/2002 10:18:32 PM Now that I have stopped laughing, we are to believe that Iraq poses an imminent and grave threat to the US with what again? 1757. concerned - 12/11/2002 12:14:49 AM US aborts illegal Blix Scam, gets unredacted Iraqi arms dossier. Saddam and Leftists whine and lie 1758. concerned - 12/11/2002 12:18:31 AM So Sodamn's, Kofi's and Hans' little scheme fell through and and every shred of their credibility disappeared with it. Too fucking bad. 1759. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/11/2002 12:26:24 AM Quotes 1760. Edmund Dantes - 12/11/2002 2:22:18 PM Chomsky's lying. We've been through this before when Byrd made essentially the same statement. 1761. Edmund Dantes - 12/11/2002 2:24:07 PM How superpower dominance can be benign 1762. Wombat - 12/11/2002 2:54:04 PM 1757 1763. JJBiener - 12/11/2002 3:38:58 PM Wombie - I think Tommy was trying to claim that Blix was going to redact any admissions on the part of Iraqis that they had fissionable material, and the US foiled that by getting an unredacted copy. It is a stretch, but I think that is where he was going with that. 1764. Wombat - 12/11/2002 3:54:32 PM According to the article, the redacted versions were to be given to the non-permanent members of the Security Council. The dispute seemed to be that the US wanted the complete report before the UN inspectors had finished reviewing it. Concerned made this one up. 1765. jexster - 12/11/2002 6:37:05 PM FYI 1766. jexster - 12/11/2002 6:37:32 PM Kill a Sand Nigger for Christ 1767. jexster - 12/11/2002 6:45:50 PM 1768. jexster - 12/11/2002 6:53:26 PM Iraqi Dossier Names Western Arms Suppliers 1769. jexster - 12/11/2002 7:12:13 PM To help media, policy makers, scholars, and the public better follow the complicated issues surrounding the situation in Iraq, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has launched CRISIS IN IRAQ. This comprehensive web site contains news about weapons inspections in Iraq, expert analysis, information about US policy in the Middle East, and links to key resources. CRISIS IN IRAQ will be updated daily. 1770. jexster - 12/12/2002 10:48:19 AM Bad News in BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 11 — Teams of United Nations weapons inspectors began their third week of surprise visits to Iraqi industrial and scientific sites today in a mood of growing confidence that they can counter doubts voiced by senior Bush administration officials about their work 1771. jexster - 12/13/2002 3:37:31 PM The evidence of the absence of presence is not the same as the evidence of absence 1772. jexster - 12/13/2002 8:09:01 PM EU Freezing Out Turkey 1773. jexster - 12/13/2002 8:45:49 PM 1774. Edmund Dantes - 12/14/2002 12:05:20 AM Material breach, baby 1775. Edmund Dantes - 12/14/2002 12:08:51 AM Chief U.N. inspector prepares to target Iraqi scientists 1776. judithathome - 12/14/2002 12:41:59 AM Me, too...like ravioli full of Spam. 1777. Edmund Dantes - 12/14/2002 11:26:46 PM 1778. joezan - 12/14/2002 11:31:59 PM 1779. Edmund Dantes - 12/14/2002 11:34:40 PM Would Weekly World News lie to us, Joe? 1780. jexster - 12/15/2002 11:52:10 PM Bush Jr. Desperately Tries to Hide Bush Sr.'s Sale of WMD's to Saddam Hussein 1781. jexster - 12/16/2002 3:04:40 AM Planning for a Self-Inflicted Wound: 1782. jexster - 12/16/2002 4:18:28 PM 1783. joezan - 12/16/2002 10:09:59 PM 1784. jexster - 12/17/2002 3:21:29 AM Speaking of the paranoid...meet your moderator 1785. joezan - 12/17/2002 6:33:10 AM Why don't they just send a team of Hollywood stars to inspect the weapons? 1786. joezan - 12/17/2002 7:10:54 AM 1787. jexster - 12/17/2002 2:14:25 PM STELLENBOSCH, South Africa (Reuters) - South Africa's Nelson Mandela lambasted the United States Tuesday for what he said were efforts to sideline the United Nations (news - web sites) and condemned a U.S. grab for an Iraq weapons dossier as piracy. 1788. jexster - 12/17/2002 2:15:45 PM Joey is understandably confused and its my fault..he doesn't read the Pufessa who turned me on to the KooKoo Kluxers and Joey still ain't talkin. 1789. jexster - 12/18/2002 12:07:49 PM 1790. jexster - 12/18/2002 12:09:12 PM We've been hearin this shit about plans leaked for A YEAR! 1791. jexster - 12/19/2002 2:51:40 PM A military onslaught on Saddam Hussein's Iraq could destabilise the Islamic world and boost recruitment to al-Qaida and related terrorist groups, an influential committee of MPs warned today. 1792. JJBiener - 12/19/2002 3:04:20 PM Jex - Failing to take out Saddam could also destablize the region and boost recruitment to al Qaeda and other related terrorist groups. 1793. joezan - 12/19/2002 3:16:17 PM 1794. Edmund Dantes - 12/19/2002 3:23:41 PM Jumpin' Jehosophat but painty-waste powell in material breach 1795. Edmund Dantes - 12/19/2002 3:23:45 PM Jumpin' Jehosophat but painty-waste powell in material breach 1796. Edmund Dantes - 12/19/2002 3:24:52 PM Look at that. You try to post like Jasper and it double posts. 1797. ronski - 12/19/2002 10:16:37 PM Ears.... burning.... again.... 1798. jexster - 12/19/2002 10:59:58 PM "There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug and that's me and I know what it's like."—Washington, D.C., Dec. 11, 2002. 1799. jexster - 12/21/2002 12:30:02 PM US Demands Roil Turkish Government 1800. jexster - 12/21/2002 12:33:29 PM Everybody knows that 80 to 85 percent of the Turkish people would say no to war in Iraq," said Cuneyd Zapsu, a senior adviser to Mr. Erdogan. "As a democratic country, how can we say yes?" 1801. Cellar Door - 12/21/2002 12:50:25 PM 1802. jexster - 12/21/2002 1:22:41 PM Say I hear Bush lied again - we're gonna use land mines in EyeRak...well as ever one knows, sand niggers got nuthin betta to do 1803. jexster - 12/21/2002 1:27:33 PM Of the two slogans that the Bush Administration has coined to sell the idea of invading Iraq--installing democracy and monopolizing Iraq's petroleum riches--the one about democracy means little to ordinary folks. It is the prospect of uncontested access to the world's second-largest oil reserves--leading to the end of America's growing reliance on petroleum from Saudi Arabia, the homeland of most of the 9/11 hijackers--that excites popular imagination in the United States. And the US hawks, who are determining Iraq policy, know it. 1804. jexster - 12/22/2002 12:08:25 PM The NyT claims that Allies Think the Emperor is Being "Hasty" 1805. jexster - 12/22/2002 12:12:24 PM Mr. Powell's forceful statement was the result of a reversal of roles in the continuing argument between the State Department and the Pentagon over Iraq policy, a senior administration official said Friday. 1806. PelleNilsson - 12/22/2002 1:53:13 PM France may join the fray 1807. jexster - 12/22/2002 3:50:35 PM BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq said on Sunday it was ready to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain on its arms declaration, and would allow the CIA (news - web sites) to come and identify suspect sites for weapons inspectors. 1808. jexster - 12/22/2002 3:50:44 PM On Washington's question of whether Iraq had tried to produce the deadly nerve agent VX, Saadi said U.S. concerns were based on information from an earlier U.N. inspection team in the early 1990's, which Iraq said manipulated evidence. 1809. jexster - 12/23/2002 12:00:58 PM An Unnecessary War 1810. PelleNilsson - 12/23/2002 12:27:31 PM It is sad to see how partisan politics have penetrated the academic world in the US. 1811. PelleNilsson - 12/23/2002 12:30:07 PM It is also sad to see how jextser in Message # 1807 and following turns himself into a mouthpiece for Iraqi propaganda. 1812. wonkers2 - 12/23/2002 2:51:42 PM Perhaps it serves as an antidote to the almost completely one-sided view in American media. For a year the American public has been bombarded by propaganda from an unending stream of hawks explaining why regime change, preemptive strikes, and attacking Iraq were absolutely essential to protecting Americans. 1813. Wombat - 12/23/2002 3:30:28 PM Wonkers: 1814. jexster - 12/23/2002 4:16:59 PM I am so sad that you are so sad Pelle. 1815. Wombat - 12/23/2002 4:27:54 PM Well, for starters, Jex, their analysis of Iraq's past record of aggression is at best arguable if not utterly slanted to fit their overall point. 1816. jexster - 12/23/2002 4:30:47 PM Do you think that the statements of the spokesman for a totalitarian state should be presented and used uncritically as fact? 1817. jexster - 12/23/2002 4:31:31 PM In what respects Wombat? 1818. jexster - 12/23/2002 4:40:31 PM You've substituted "arguable" and "utterly slanted" for "partisan". Two adjectives and an adverb. Still vapid ad hominem I am afraid. 1819. Wombat - 12/23/2002 4:42:47 PM 1) They downplay (omit altogether, actually) Saddam's ambitions for the Iranian province of Khuzestan, which contains a great deal of Iran's oil as well as Iran's main oil refineries and petrochemical plants, as well as the other bank of the Shatt-al-Arab. 1820. Wombat - 12/23/2002 4:45:58 PM They also don't say much about Iraqi efforts to subvert Iran's Kurd and Sunni populations along their mutual frontier. 1821. jexster - 12/23/2002 4:49:35 PM Naaa...Pierre's just po'ed that the Professors made the same case that I did a year back. Maybe he should add "scholarly" to his vocabulary. 1822. jexster - 12/23/2002 5:00:19 PM Then you missed the point of the article Wombat didn't you? 1823. jexster - 12/23/2002 5:09:38 PM DETERRENCE is the issue. They also didn't mention that he threw his son-in-law in prison. This isn't another "Saddam as Hitler" piece Wombat. 1824. jexster - 12/23/2002 5:12:37 PM War with Iran was not a reckless adventure; it was an opportunistic response to a significant threat. 1825. jexster - 12/23/2002 5:17:07 PM It is not surprising that those who favor war with Iraq portray Saddam as an inveterate and only partly rational aggressor. They are in the business of selling a preventive war, so they must try to make remaining at peace seem unacceptably dangerous. And the best way to do that is to inflate the threat, either by exaggerating Iraq’s capabilities or by suggesting horrible things will happen if the United States does not act soon. It is equally unsurprising that advocates of war are willing to distort the historical record to make their case. As former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson famously remarked, in politics, advocacy “must be clearer than truth.” 1826. wonkers2 - 12/23/2002 5:29:49 PM wombat, Jex has answered your simplistic question. As Jex said, he posted accurately what the Iraqi spokesmen said. Do I think Americans should have uncensored access to what the Iraquis are saying? Yes, of course. That doesn't mean that I believe evertything they say. Right now we should not naively accept what they are saying without reservation. But when they say something good we should say to them "fine, put your money where your mouth is." My impression is that the public lying, exaggeration and obbuscation has not only been coming from the Iraqui side. There has been a monumental amount of well orchestrated propaganda coming from Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and a host of former DOD and CIA hawks for months on Iraq. 1827. jexster - 12/24/2002 7:36:24 AM Iraq-Don’t Go There 1828. jexster - 12/24/2002 7:41:11 AM That partisan rant in Foreign Policy is sufficient answer to those questions and no amount of Saddam He Bad Man propaganda be it black or white can obscure that truth. 1829. jexster - 12/24/2002 7:50:39 AM · What impeccable timing and juxtaposition, with your front-page photo of our premier next to likely date for war on Iraq and praises for our new archbishop (December 20). Obviously it's praise-the-archbishop-and-pass-the-ammunition time again. What could be more appropriate at this season of goodwill? 1830. jexster - 12/24/2002 2:25:26 PM Germany Just Says Nein to Bush BloodLust 1831. jexster - 12/24/2002 2:32:14 PM 1832. wonkers2 - 12/24/2002 4:48:11 PM Preemption=reckless means in pursuit of arrogant ends. 1833. jexster - 12/24/2002 7:36:21 PM 1834. jexster - 12/24/2002 7:44:08 PM Partisan hacks to the Left of them, partisan hacks to the Right of them into the Valley of Death ride the Wild Morons.. 1835. jexster - 12/25/2002 9:32:25 PM Iraq's Christians Celebrate Uneasily 1836. jexster - 12/25/2002 9:38:50 PM Milad Behnan, who carried three candles to light at the Virgin Mary statue in the church courtyard. Milad wants new shoes for Christmas; her 11-year-old brother, who has leukemia, wants a pair of birds. Their mother wants no more war. 1837. JJBiener - 12/26/2002 10:38:24 AM Pelle - It is sad to see how partisan politics have penetrated the academic world in the US. 1838. JJBiener - 12/26/2002 10:52:42 AM Two questions are relevant: Does Hussein actually possess weapons of mass destruction? And if so, do they pose a clear and imminent danger to the U.S. or its allies? 1839. Wombat - 12/26/2002 11:14:20 AM Wonkers: 1840. judithathome - 12/26/2002 11:18:56 AM Okay, if we go into Iraq and start bombing, and Iraq then decides to use these WMDs by bombing Israel, because after all, why not do it if they're being bombed already? are we going to use WMDs on them in retaliation because we are so protective of Israel? 1841. joezan - 12/26/2002 11:20:54 AM Jasper's probably got an esxplanation for this: 1842. Wombat - 12/26/2002 11:21:40 AM We wouldn't have to. I wish I could say the same of the Israelis. 1843. JJBiener - 12/26/2002 11:39:23 AM Judith - If Iraq uses WMD on Israel, Israel will respond. They have said so. They haven't quite explained how they will respond, but I think it would be naive to assume they would not respond in kind. I believe this will remain a deterrent to Saddam who still values his own life above all else. 1844. judithathome - 12/26/2002 11:51:06 AM What makes you think he values his own life so much, JJ? If he really valued his life above all else, he'd have complied with the UN guidelines, would he not? 1845. jexster - 12/26/2002 12:46:20 PM Churches unite to denounce war on Iraq - Times of London 1846. JJBiener - 12/26/2002 12:52:45 PM Judith - The man is also a meglomaniac. He just isn't a suicidal one. 1847. jexster - 12/26/2002 1:30:08 PM In his Christmas address, the Pope made clear that he still considered there was no moral basis for attacking Baghdad and emphasised that war could still be averted. Top Vatican theologians have also insisted that a pre-emptive attack could never be considered a “just war” under Christian doctrine and that such a war against Baghdad would be a war of aggression. 1848. joezan - 12/26/2002 2:11:46 PM 1849. joezan - 12/26/2002 3:49:42 PM It'll be over before you can say collateral damage: 1850. jexster - 12/26/2002 3:57:15 PM He says we are fundamentally disordered. What does Pastor LaHaye say? 1851. jexster - 12/26/2002 3:57:49 PM I'll save you the trouble....the Council for National Policy thinks we ought to be imprisoned. 1852. jexster - 12/26/2002 4:01:04 PM Gay Exterminator - Pastor LaHaye, FOB (Friend of Bush) 1853. jexster - 12/26/2002 4:03:04 PM Pastor Lahaye - Exposing Satan's Snares in the New World Order 1854. jexster - 12/26/2002 4:05:58 PM And Joey STILL ain't talkin! 1855. joezan - 12/26/2002 4:15:55 PM 1856. judithathome - 12/26/2002 5:14:56 PM America tore out 8000 pages of Iraq dossier 1857. jexster - 12/26/2002 11:39:50 PM 1858. jexster - 12/27/2002 12:07:18 AM Saddam deserves to be British citizen, say Today listeners 1859. jexster - 12/27/2002 10:42:50 AM BAGHDAD (Reuters) - War with Iraq, with biological or chemical agents possibly unleashed, will be a human calamity, the U.N. refugee chief warned --exactly a month before a final arms inspectors' report might trigger a conflict. 1860. jexster - 12/27/2002 10:43:45 AM UN INSPECTORS THROWN OUT OF COUNTRY!!!! 1861. jexster - 12/27/2002 12:51:05 PM Bush Regime Covers-Up Attacks on U.S. Forces in Kuwait 1862. jexster - 12/27/2002 7:55:19 PM Tales of the Tootin Turks 1863. jexster - 12/29/2002 5:19:32 PM Another academic "hack"...From Foreign Affairs Jan 03 1864. jexster - 12/29/2002 5:21:45 PM In fact, Washington effectively gave Baghdad a green light prior to its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Ambassador April Glaspie was never instructed to warn Saddam that the United States would go to war if he grabbed Kuwait. During the ensuing war, in contrast, American leaders did issue a deterrent threat, warning Saddam against using biological or chemical weapons. And that deterrent worked 1865. jexster - 12/29/2002 5:22:00 PM toys 1866. jexster - 12/29/2002 5:22:48 PM t 1867. jexster - 12/30/2002 12:09:51 PM FINALLY the story is being told in major media.... 1868. jexster - 12/30/2002 8:31:31 PM Baghdad -- Outside a huge, hulking building in an industrial suburb of Baghdad, long white metal cylinders shaped like ballistic missiles sit in rows, glinting ominously in the sunshine. 1869. wonkers2 - 12/30/2002 9:58:48 PM Great cartoon in the Sunday NYT from the Irish Times of Dublin. The cartoon shows Bush, Blair and an unidentified German General seated at a table. They have just finished examining Iraq's declarations. Bush says "We KNOW his declaration is incomplete....because we gave him a lot more stuff than this." Blair is examining a document labeled "List of Companies and Countries Selling to Iraq." 1870. wonkers2 - 12/30/2002 10:00:18 PM Now we know why Bush and Blair have been reluctant to divulge how they know what they claim to know about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." 1871. wonkers2 - 12/30/2002 10:01:38 PM Over the weekend and today I saw a few anti-war demonstrators on intersections around Detroit and in Lansing. 1872. magoseph - 12/31/2002 9:08:10 AM Just wondering: Is it possible that a gigantic counter-intelligence deception has been played out on the Bush team? Could their wish-list have blinded them to the probability that Saddam has run a con game on the Americans? Could it be that all the defectors and other various informants were Iraqi agents locating non- existent caches of nerve gas and anthrax throughout Iraq at the same time they were being placed outside the country? 1873. jexster - 12/31/2002 11:55:04 AM Inspectors Have "Zilch" Thus Far - LAT 1874. jexster - 12/31/2002 1:10:46 PM The inspectors said his colleagues think it possible that Iraq really has eliminated its banned materials. 1875. jexster - 1/3/2003 12:49:30 PM WARNING! THIS ARTICLE EXCERPT FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS STATEMENTS MADE BY A "HENCHMAN" FOR A RUTHLESS DICTATOR. SWEDES, LITTLE WOMBATS, DISICPLES OF PASTOR LAHAYE, AND BUSH NEO-FASCISTS SHOULD READ ONLY ON UNDER SUPERVISION OF A LICENSED MORON 1876. Wombat - 1/3/2003 1:22:39 PM All it proves is that Iraq is better at concealing what WMD it may have than the inspectors are at finding them. Bear in mind that almost all of the WMD found in previous inspections came from information provided by defectors. 1877. jexster - 1/5/2003 10:46:24 AM Jess funin Wombat...isn't it obvious? 1878. jexster - 1/5/2003 10:51:42 AM U.N. contingency planners estimated that as many as 4.5 million to 9.5 million Iraqis could need food from outside shortly after the beginning of a war and predicted that as many as 900,000 refugees could spill into neighboring countries such as Iran, Turkey, Syria and Jordan. 1879. jexster - 1/5/2003 2:10:20 PM As you begin this critical debate on behalf of the citizens of this country over the resolution to authorize military action against Iraq, we, the bishops of The Episcopal Church, USA, meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, want you to know of our prayers and support as you make this difficult decision, not just for our country, but also for the people of Iraq and the peace of the world. We pray, as well, for members of the armed services and their families in the midst of international crisis and possible military action. 1880. jexster - 1/5/2003 2:10:33 PM It is highly likely that the consequences of a war with Iraq will not be contained within its borders. 1881. Cellar Door - 1/6/2003 10:20:27 AM 1882. jexster - 1/6/2003 10:47:30 AM A Moron's Fantasy 1883. jexster - 1/6/2003 2:55:17 PM Seems that the British Foreign Service thinks so too... 1884. robertjayb - 1/6/2003 3:33:54 PM Taking over Iraq oil fields...No Shit? Who would have guessed? 1885. judithathome - 1/6/2003 3:39:06 PM Jeez, if this sort of thing were being thought about with Clinton at the helm, we'd already be hearing cries of "just polishing up his legacy!" 1886. Edmund Dantes - 1/6/2003 9:16:57 PM 100,000-strong invasion force ready to whup Saddam's ass 1887. jexster - 1/6/2003 9:26:42 PM British foreign secretary Jack Straw reports that the chances of war are less than 50-50 as Her Majesty's Government will not support Bush war without UN resolution authorizing force. 1888. jexster - 1/6/2003 9:26:46 PM British foreign secretary Jack Straw reports that the chances of war are less than 50-50 as Her Majesty's Government will not support Bush war without UN resolution authorizing force. 1889. jexster - 1/6/2003 9:27:38 PM Head of the IAEA reports there is no evidence that Saddam has a nuclear program. 1890. Edmund Dantes - 1/6/2003 9:35:01 PM Are you going to weep when your buddy goes down, Jasper? 1891. jexster - 1/6/2003 11:39:23 PM Found any aluminium tubes Eddie? 1892. jexster - 1/6/2003 11:40:29 PM National Council of Churche 1893. jexster - 1/7/2003 1:07:01 PM Avoiding war 1894. joezan - 1/7/2003 1:10:04 PM 1895. joezan - 1/7/2003 1:18:24 PM 1896. joezan - 1/7/2003 1:19:08 PM Yep. 1897. jexster - 1/7/2003 1:20:14 PM Such a conflict, the U.N. planners predicted in the document, would halt the country's oil production, severely degrade its electrical power network and disrupt the Iraqi government's capacity to continue distributing food rations through a U.N.-supervised humanitarian program. It would also likely lead to the outbreak of diseases, including cholera and dysentery, in "epidemic if not pandemic proportions," the confidential report said. 1898. jexster - 1/7/2003 1:20:48 PM Zan you are a fool. 1899. joezan - 1/7/2003 1:21:45 PM Have we heard from HRW yet on how horrendous this war is gonna be? 1900. jexster - 1/7/2003 1:21:50 PM and what have you done to work for the avoidance of war? 1901. jexster - 1/7/2003 1:23:02 PM Do you have anything to say or are you just going to blather on about things you know absolutely nothing about? 1902. joezan - 1/7/2003 1:26:08 PM 1903. jexster - 1/7/2003 1:27:50 PM The "strictly confidential" UN document, written to assist with UN contingency planning in the event of war with Iraq, predicts high civilian injuries, an extension of the existing nutritional crisis, and "the outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions." The existence of the draft document, entitled "Likely Humanitarian Scenarios" and dated 10th December 2002, was first reported in the Times (London) on 23rd December 2002, but this is the first time it has been made publicly accessible. 1904. jexster - 1/7/2003 1:28:58 PM It is estimated that the nutritional status of some 3.03m people countrywide will be dire and that they will require therapeutic feeding [according to UNICEF estimates]. This consists of 2.03m severely and moderately malnourished children under 5 and one million pregnant women" [para 27] 1905. jexster - 1/7/2003 1:30:14 PM What's a poor provincial such as myself to do? 1906. joezan - 1/7/2003 2:06:25 PM 1907. jexster - 1/7/2003 3:39:12 PM Tell us the truth for once - the UN and the Pope are the whores for the anti-Christ...that's about all one can reasonably deduce from your piss ignorant drivel. 1908. jexster - 1/7/2003 3:40:45 PM The double standards, dubious morality and duplicity of Bush War 1909. jexster - 1/7/2003 3:45:41 PM The most popular novel in America right now is one in which the world is tyrannized by the former secretary general of the U.N., who operates from Iraq, and his global force of storm troopers, called "peacekeepers." Revered rabbis evangelize for Christ, repenting Israel's "specific national sin" of "[r]ejecting the messiahship of Jesus." Much of the world is deceived by a false prophet, part of the inner circle of the Antichrist, who seems a lot like the pope – he's a Catholic cardinal, "all robed and hatted and vested in velvet and piping." 1910. jexster - 1/7/2003 3:46:08 PM 1911. joezan - 1/7/2003 4:02:45 PM 1912. joezan - 1/7/2003 4:23:52 PM Top U.S. War Planners Heading to Persian Gulf 1913. judithathome - 1/7/2003 4:27:34 PM Possible? ha! 1914. joezan - 1/7/2003 10:54:46 PM 1915. jexster - 1/8/2003 12:57:36 PM Your "my assessment" consists in nothing. I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you. 1916. jexster - 1/8/2003 12:58:33 PM UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 7 — Despite initial opposition from the United States, the Security Council appointed Germany today to the chairmanship of the committee monitoring economic sanctions against Iraq. 1917. jexster - 1/8/2003 1:01:49 PM Helpful Hint: 1918. joezan - 1/8/2003 1:17:54 PM 1919. joezan - 1/8/2003 1:22:39 PM 1920. jexster - 1/8/2003 1:24:57 PM No I don't you made it up. There was no UN report estimating civilian casualities prior to the US bombing of Afghanistan, per a Lexis search of major papers news articles, 2001. 1921. jexster - 1/8/2003 1:26:06 PM You'll have a harder time finding it Zan than UN inspectors are having finding WMD in Iraq. 1922. jexster - 1/8/2003 1:27:00 PM And speaking of gainful employment and responses, are you on welfare or just goldbricking? 1923. joezan - 1/8/2003 1:43:27 PM 1924. jexster - 1/8/2003 5:38:51 PM considering that 3,000,000 refugees had already been created; considering too that the flow got so bad that Pakistani Troops stopped it at gun point, and considering that the UN had no personell on the ground there because the Taliban had kicked them out, considering that you don't have any numbers showing that the estimate was wrong, I'd say that's a pretty decent "estimate".. 1925. jexster - 1/8/2003 5:39:42 PM How's your gainful employment going? 1926. jexster - 1/8/2003 5:41:58 PM 250,000 troops led by the Marine Expeditionary Force with the support of 4 US and 1 British carrier group and ground based strikes from 2-3 other countries, that kills people idiot. 1927. jexster - 1/8/2003 5:44:34 PM "The UN predicted that a war in Afghanistan would result in the most serious refugee problem of the past century, and that tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of civilians would die. Mass starvation and epidemics of cholera were inevitable. " 1928. jexster - 1/8/2003 5:53:16 PM In point of fact, there is no comparison for you to make Zan because you are trying to compare something with nothing. The UNHCR did not prepare a contingency plan for Afghanistan because they were ordered out of the country and because bombing began rather swiftly. Moreover, as you know since you read the report (otherwise how could you "assess" it?) "such comparisons are simply invalid" 1929. jexster - 1/8/2003 8:50:45 PM Even a half-witted frenzied fundie can appreciate that Iraq is not Afghanistan, if not from the military depoloyments, if not from a passable appreciation of war making tactics and strategy, then to even the most cursory knowledge of recent events for in fact while estimates vary, only 3,000 civilians died in a war that was not fought by US troops with relatively minimal air sorties. 1930. jexster - 1/9/2003 9:31:22 AM UNITED NATIONS - France asked governments to give U.N. inspectors any evidence they have on suspected Iraqi weapons programs, in a request directed at the United States and Britain ahead of a key Security Council meeting Thursday. 1931. jexster - 1/9/2003 9:55:59 AM Tales of the Tootin Turks 1932. jexster - 1/9/2003 10:03:49 AM Yet more than a month after Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz visited Turkey seeking approval to deploy the American forces, public opinion in Turkey remains overwhelmingly against the war....According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 83 percent of those surveyed did not think American forces should be permitted to use Turkish bases to attack Iraq. Only 30 percent had a favorable view of the United States, compared with 52 percent a year ago 1933. jexster - 1/9/2003 10:46:05 AM "There is no way that we can justify killing even one Iraqi child. We must put the face of Jesus on each one and ask why?" Martin Sheen, President of the US 1934. jexster - 1/9/2003 10:51:15 AM NCC-Led Religious Leaders Mission to Iraq Concludes 1935. jexster - 1/9/2003 12:22:28 PM UNITED NATIONS - U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq during their search for weapons of mass destruction, the chief U.N. weapons inspector said Thursday. 1936. jexster - 1/9/2003 1:47:31 PM UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, told the U.N. Security Council on Thursday that aluminum tubes suspected of being a part of an Iraqi nuclear arms program were unsuitable for that use. 1937. jexster - 1/9/2003 3:23:52 PM Rebel MPs Deliver War Ultimatum 1938. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2003 12:33:34 PM wombat 1939. jayackroyd - 1/10/2003 2:04:57 PM Joezan made the observation in politics, a while ago, that we (the US and its allies) have been making very steady progress against Al Qaeda. I think he's right, and so does the Washington Post: 1940. Wombat - 1/10/2003 2:06:23 PM More accurately, so does an op-ed columnist in the Post. 1941. jayackroyd - 1/10/2003 2:09:56 PM This, to my mind, is a key point: 1942. jayackroyd - 1/10/2003 2:10:57 PM Thanks, Wombat. That's what I should have said. 1943. jexster - 1/10/2003 9:09:07 PM Transatlantic differences over Iraq threatened to set back America's timeline for an invasion yesterday when the European Union warned the US that there could be no war against Saddam Hussein without clear proof that he holds banned weapons. 1944. jexster - 1/11/2003 12:44:01 AM Wombat...I am sure that both you and Pelle have good and sufficient reasons, firmly grounded in knowledge and experience, to "detest" Saddam and welcome his speedy demise. Despite my palpable ignorance, I somehow stumbled upon that very conclusion two decades ago. In fact, I have never waivered in this nor have I ever, in all these rants over all these many months, written anything remotely complementary about Hussein. 1945. jexster - 1/11/2003 12:47:52 AM Aaah the Turks! 1946. jexster - 1/11/2003 9:11:39 AM Wombat...I'd be interested in your thoughts on this piece. Now please, I do not post to suggest that we should not have become involved. Some of this is new to me but most I knew at the time and counted as marginally relevant outweighed by other considerations. What is new, is of the same weight in my view. 1947. jexster - 1/11/2003 9:14:47 AM 1948. magoseph - 1/11/2003 11:23:37 AM Hi,everybody! 1949. Cellar Door - 1/11/2003 11:27:21 AM "They read good books, and quote, but never learn 1950. jexster - 1/11/2003 11:11:29 PM Its sad indeed when Saddam Hussein is more trustworthy than the President of the United States but so it is. 1951. jexster - 1/11/2003 11:15:52 PM I long ago discussed the very real possibilty that a truly dangerous adversary might move whilst the Bloody Boob of the US is shilly shallyin around building empire in the sand. True I suspected China making a move on Taiwan but that would cost them too much money...and God knows when them Chinamen set their minds to tradin nothing gonna stop em. 1952. jexster - 1/11/2003 11:27:30 PM Hundreds of Thousands to Protest Saturday 1953. joezan - 1/11/2003 11:33:51 PM ...put a stop to a war that the United Nation's estimates will kill 500,000 people in the first week alone. 1954. joezan - 1/11/2003 11:48:38 PM 1955. jexster - 1/12/2003 12:09:23 PM Aaah the discrete charm of the booboise! 1956. jexster - 1/12/2003 12:14:58 PM N.M. Gov.: N. Korea Ready for Talks 1957. jexster - 1/12/2003 1:33:40 PM Time Europe writes, "Who really poses the greatest danger to world peace? Iraq and North Korea are certainly high on Bush's list though Iraq is still working hard to deny him a reason to attack... Bush and his dependable friend Tony Blair say they have 'solid evidence' that Saddam is lying and have called for weapons inspection teams to step up their work. Meanwhile, as the fuel rods go in and UN inspectors go away, the specter of a nuclear-armed North Korea is keeping the reclusive regime on everybody's radar. Washington and Pyongyang are talking tough but is the biggest danger to peace closer to home? European antagonism towards Bush's robust stance is now being mirrored in the U.S., with even those he might normally consider his allies now urging caution. So TIME asks you: which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" After 35,000 votes, it's U.S. 59.7%, Iraq 26.5%, North Korea 13.8%. Watch how fast Karl Rove scrubs this poll! 1958. jexster - 1/12/2003 6:47:25 PM Newsday reports, "Using Iraqi oil to fund an occupation would reinforce a prevalent belief in the Mideast that the conflict is all about control of oil, not rooting out weapons of mass destruction, according to Halim Barakat, a recently retired professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University. 'It would mean that the real ... objective of the war is not the democratization of Iraq, not getting rid of Saddam, not to liberate the Iraqi people, but a return to colonialism,' he said. 'That is how they [Mideast nations] would perceive it'... 'It [the oil] is going to fund the U.S. military presence there,' [a Pentagon official said]. '... They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq. I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation.'" 1959. joezan - 1/12/2003 9:11:29 PM 1960. jexster - 1/12/2003 9:20:40 PM The Raj by any other name is still the Raj... 1961. jexster - 1/12/2003 9:21:45 PM Maybe the Colossus of Crawford should try pickin on someone his own size...Kim Jung Il... 1962. jexster - 1/12/2003 9:33:02 PM This for the beleagured Wombat.. 1963. jexster - 1/12/2003 9:37:44 PM 1964. joezan - 1/12/2003 9:56:38 PM 1965. Cellar Door - 1/12/2003 10:26:54 PM In related events, senior administration officials have announced that North Korea is now in possession of a three-stage version of Clinton's dick, with the ability to threaten every virgin on the west coast of the United States.... 1966. Trouble - 1/12/2003 10:35:16 PM 1967. jexster - 1/13/2003 3:44:56 PM 1968. jexster - 1/13/2003 3:46:40 PM Bishop of Rome Just Says "No" to Bush 1969. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/13/2003 8:43:45 PM The Biggest Threat To Peace 1970. wonkers2 - 1/13/2003 8:49:14 PM Results so : U.S. 77%, Iraq 13%, North Korea 10%. 1971. wonkers2 - 1/13/2003 8:49:53 PM so "far" 1972. jexster - 1/13/2003 9:21:19 PM Sixty percent of Brits now opposed to Bush W-ar...97% of Turks according to a professor at a Turkish University... 1973. jexster - 1/13/2003 10:02:15 PM Europe Just Says NO to Bush W-ar 1974. Trouble - 1/13/2003 10:04:06 PM 1975. jexster - 1/13/2003 10:07:46 PM How long you think they're gonna sit Rosie? The PantyWaists appear to be in charge this week..... 1976. jexster - 1/13/2003 10:08:38 PM pining for their wives, girl friends boy friends and workin on their tans? 1977. jexster - 1/13/2003 10:35:33 PM 1978. joezan - 1/13/2003 10:41:00 PM 1979. jexster - 1/13/2003 11:04:23 PM 1980. joezan - 1/14/2003 6:58:55 AM 1981. joezan - 1/14/2003 7:04:09 AM 1982. jexster - 1/14/2003 10:38:57 AM I realize that this is short notice Joey but we've a problem out here that you maybe able to help out with. 1983. jexster - 1/14/2003 10:43:36 AM WPost 1984. jexster - 1/14/2003 10:44:25 AM And don't worry, the Black Hole isn't as terrifying as you might think. 1985. Wombat - 1/14/2003 10:54:57 AM What the Post article described was disgusting. Revives the old Stalinist line of "useful idiots" to describe naive and misguided supporters of the Soviet Union during the famine years (and after). You should read the other article on Iraq in today's Post; the one on the Shiite communities in the south of Iraq. 1986. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:10:31 AM I did. I have been talking for a long time about the bloodbath that's going to result when the Shiites are cut loose. I have been talking about this and posed a direct question up thread about the Iraqi exiles. 1987. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:15:07 AM 1988. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:16:30 AM Should point out also that the chief Iraqi Ayatollah has been emphatic in his opposition to being "saved" by you neo-imperialist missionaries. 1989. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:17:25 AM But what do I know? I am so very piss ignorant of these matters. 1990. Wombat - 1/14/2003 11:17:53 AM Jexter: 1991. Wombat - 1/14/2003 11:20:59 AM The day when protesters march in Baghdad protesting Saddam's treatment of Kurds and Shiites is the day that I take the "peace movement" seriously. What do you think the chances are of that happening--or being allowed to happen? 1992. Wombat - 1/14/2003 11:26:18 AM Jexter: 1993. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:37:05 AM Mao - Madame Chaing Kai Shek 1994. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:39:00 AM And yes indeed the Ayatollah speaks freely and I am not deluded in the least, rather you are...for here is but another example of the most infantile jingo burned brain in denial. 1995. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:39:25 AM Poles - How could I forget the Bishop of Rome 1996. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:41:46 AM British Muslims warn of 'conflict for generations' 1997. Macnas - 1/14/2003 11:44:03 AM Really, nobody ever gave a fuck about the Shiites or the Kurds before, either while Saddam was killing them in his country, or while Turkey was persecuting Kurds in their country. Its not an argument for war. 1998. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:46:05 AM Hell I have been talking about the Shiite situation since November 2001 1999. joezan - 1/14/2003 11:49:00 AM 2000. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:50:57 AM Nobody gives a shit about them now except for Wombat ...this isn't a war to "liberate" either save in Wombat's disordered imaginings 2001. Macnas - 1/14/2003 11:52:47 AM If you want another Lebannon, then no. 2002. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:54:08 AM Not to a bloodthirsty nincompoop who is longing to meet Jaysus above a sea of blood... not bad at all.. 2003. Macnas - 1/14/2003 11:56:04 AM Everybody knows its about oil primarily. Tony Blair, across the water there, going on and on about WMD, trying really hard to prove there is a link to Iraq to the ricin poison episode, it'd be funny if the outcome did'nt look so bleak. 2004. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:58:41 AM You have to realize where Joey is coming from so as not to unfairly bind Wombat to his cause... 2005. jexster - 1/14/2003 11:58:54 AM The opening sequence of the first Left Behind book is gripping and cinematic. Rayford Steele, an unhappily married commercial pilot, is flying to London and contemplating an affair with a stewardess, when, handing the controls over to his co-pilot and walking into the cabin, he finds her hysterical. People throughout the plane have disappeared, their clothes left in neat piles on their seats. 2006. Macnas - 1/14/2003 12:00:51 PM yikes. 2007. jexster - 1/14/2003 12:01:37 PM Amram Mitzna - Nicolae Carpathia, the U.N.-leader-cum-prince-of-darkness (often just called "the evil one," Osama bin Laden-style). Carpathia's rise is engineered by a cabal of bankers. He's supported by Israeli liberals enthralled by his devious promises of peace 2008. Macnas - 1/14/2003 12:03:26 PM Is there black UN helicopters and masonic conspiracy? If there is I'll buy it. 2009. jexster - 1/14/2003 12:07:57 PM and those folks in Baghdad, that band of "useful idiots" to describe naive and misguided supporters of the Soviet Union during the famine years (and after), Z has slimed with phrasing eerily reminiscent of LaHaye 2010. jexster - 1/14/2003 12:08:29 PM Like shootin chickenhawks with a 12 ga. 2011. jexster - 1/14/2003 12:17:03 PM Ask an you shall receive Wombat! Knock and it shall ...oh never mind 2012. Macnas - 1/14/2003 12:18:06 PM I'm off. I'm going to invade the kitchen in a pre-emptive strike before dinner. 2013. jexster - 1/14/2003 12:23:07 PM Americans Oppose Unilateral Action Against Iraq 2014. Wombat - 1/14/2003 12:53:28 PM Jexter: 2015. joezan - 1/14/2003 1:03:27 PM 2016. jexster - 1/14/2003 2:09:02 PM That's right Z. 2017. joezan - 1/14/2003 2:11:17 PM 2018. jexster - 1/14/2003 2:11:39 PM Trotsky 2019. joezan - 1/14/2003 2:11:47 PM ...lowers, rather. 2020. jexster - 1/14/2003 2:17:50 PM The White Russians and the Patriarch weren't just in Paris. They were right here in Northern California as well. 2021. jexster - 1/14/2003 2:19:03 PM "jasper raises Saddam's bar" 2022. jexster - 1/14/2003 2:21:42 PM Now either Saddam is more thorough and more expert in his tyranny than Stalin was in his...or Wombat hasn't the foggiest idea of what he talking about for there is no Iraqi opposition worthy of the name..no northern alliance nor loya jirga no nothin because Wombat has overstated his case 2023. magoseph - 1/14/2003 2:22:06 PM Jex, 2024. jexster - 1/14/2003 2:24:30 PM This is tiresome...cute boys in tan machines on TV...a more productive waste of my time 2025. magoseph - 1/14/2003 2:29:00 PM Answer my question, Jex, please. Forget the cute boys, I care only for the manly ones, that includes you, so answer me. 2026. Wombat - 1/14/2003 2:30:47 PM It's a matter of scale, Jexter. That's the only difference between Saddam and the other luminaries discussed. The methods are the same, the opposition--nonexistent within the country, divided and marginalized outside. 2027. Wombat - 1/14/2003 2:34:52 PM Anyway, when Saddam is gone, one way or another, the truth will out. I trust that you will be able to live with your conscience. 2028. jexster - 1/14/2003 4:54:03 PM My conscience Wombat is clear. I am not peddling death and war. 2029. jexster - 1/14/2003 5:00:21 PM Answer my question, Jex, please. Forget the cute boys, I care only for the manly ones, that includes you, so answer me 2030. jexster - 1/14/2003 5:01:31 PM "good reasons" "knowledge and experience" - you must be joking 2031. jexster - 1/14/2003 5:08:06 PM I see the question MAG...yeah that is a large number..not as many as GWI but they don't have any place to put them yet. 2032. jexster - 1/14/2003 5:10:21 PM The other think about those 250,000 troops Mago...until Bush pays the Turk his price and somehow brings Saudi Arabia to heel, most are quite useless except as canon fodder for a straight ahead march from Basra. 2033. magoseph - 1/14/2003 5:25:02 PM Jex, I wanted to know if 250,000 soldiers constitue a large force or not. I don't know if there were ever such a large force sent abroad before in the war history of this country. 2034. magoseph - 1/14/2003 5:26:41 PM Thanks, Jex 2035. Wombat - 1/14/2003 7:38:08 PM Correct me if I am wrong, Jexter, but after the Allies invaded Germany, I don't believe that the anti-Nazi opposition played much of a role in the post war government in Germany. 2036. jexster - 1/14/2003 10:26:06 PM You are deluded. You are a joke with your "Saddam is bad" bullshit. Which for the very last time, is the sum and substance of your offerings here. 2037. jexster - 1/14/2003 10:28:27 PM Two views for those other than Wombat who are capable of articlating a view... 2038. jexster - 1/14/2003 10:31:07 PM With apologies to RK 2039. jexster - 1/14/2003 10:41:32 PM The most surprising thing about the Bush Administration's plan to invade Iraq is not that it is destructive of international order; or wicked, when we consider the role the US (and Britain) have played, and continue to play, in the Middle East; or opposed by the great majority of the international community; or seemingly contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism. It is all of these things, but they are of no great concern to the hardline nationalists in the Administration. 2040. Cellar Door - 1/15/2003 12:07:18 AM 2041. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/15/2003 10:34:41 AM 2042. jexster - 1/15/2003 11:17:05 AM I also recall the "no blood for oil" chants that I am sure we'll be hearing this weekend. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. 2043. jexster - 1/15/2003 11:20:33 AM Correct me if I am wrong, Jexter, but after the Allies invaded Germany, I don't believe that the anti-Nazi opposition played much of a role in the post war government in Germany. 2044. jexster - 1/15/2003 11:22:20 AM Sorry Wombat, a waste is a terrible thing to mind. 2045. alistairconnor - 1/15/2003 11:33:23 AM "Take up the Wombat's burden..." 2046. jexster - 1/15/2003 11:44:39 AM 2047. jexster - 1/15/2003 12:26:08 PM On Moral Clarity and Conscience Clear 2048. jexster - 1/15/2003 12:32:57 PM Case for War Yet to Be Made Bishops Warn 2049. jexster - 1/15/2003 12:47:55 PM The text of the House of Bishops' submission to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Evaluating the Threat of Military Action Against Iraq: A Contribution to the Debate by The House of Bishops, is available from www.cofe.anglican.org/papers/ under the link 'House of Bishops sets high threshold for Iraqi war'. 2050. Wombat - 1/15/2003 1:48:23 PM Adenauer, a Catholic conservative politician who certainly detested the Nazis, refused to welcome Hitler when he landed at Cologne Airport during the 1933 election campaign. That was his sole act of resistance. 2051. jexster - 1/15/2003 2:13:56 PM Find a Konrad Adenauer among that bunch of Iraqi oppos and you win a "Don't Worry America Help is on the Way" T-shirt 2052. jexster - 1/15/2003 2:14:47 PM perhaps not just mine...several commentators have used that word 2053. jexster - 1/15/2003 2:16:02 PM FYI - having despaired of the corrupt incompetence of the Iraqi "opposition", Bush is now turning them into cannon fodder..that's right...giving them guns 2054. jexster - 1/15/2003 2:17:03 PM Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be — in part — about oil. To deny that is laughable 2055. jexster - 1/15/2003 2:28:56 PM Private Joker: I wanted to meet stimulating and interesting people of an ancient culture, and kill them. I wanted to be the first kid on my block to get a confirmed kill. 2056. Wombat - 1/15/2003 2:45:37 PM You are ignorant on conditions in Iraq, and until you recognize that distinguished visitors, journalists, and peace advocates who visit Iraq see only what the Iraqi government wishes them to see--assuming they are permitted to enter Iraq in the first place, ignorant you shall remain. 2057. Wombat - 1/15/2003 3:00:51 PM "We do not believe that the evidence presented to date suggests a clear link exists between Iraq and al-Qaida or that Iraq poses an immediate threat to international security." Agreed for now, although the link will become self-fulfilling. 2058. jexster - 1/15/2003 4:23:57 PM Letting Saddam Off the Hook 2059. jexster - 1/15/2003 4:25:00 PM Pyongyang Preempts Bush 2060. jexster - 1/15/2003 4:35:46 PM You may haul out revisionist garbage against Adenauer to your straw gobbler hearts delight there Wombat it won't change the fact that he was an opposition figure of considerable stature who lead a "denazified" german government of considerable talent 2061. jexster - 1/15/2003 4:36:38 PM Pelle has an excuse...he's a fuckin doubledealing Swedish Nazi..you don't 2062. jexster - 1/15/2003 4:40:17 PM At least in Vietnam we had Nyugen Kao Ki, Ngo Dinh Diem and other towering statesmen to staff our puppet state.... 2063. jexster - 1/15/2003 4:46:00 PM Pardon, ignorant of what? 2064. jexster - 1/15/2003 4:48:03 PM And you keep coming back with that puerile babble "OOOO he is a bad man" 2065. joezan - 1/15/2003 4:49:46 PM 2066. jexster - 1/15/2003 4:52:19 PM There you go Wombat, Jerry Falwell Power Ranger to the rescue....strangebedfellows? 2067. jexster - 1/15/2003 4:52:53 PM 2068. jexster - 1/15/2003 6:44:54 PM The Eden Project - Blair Following Bush into Oblivion 2069. jexster - 1/15/2003 8:28:12 PM Chicken Littles in Turkey 2070. jexster - 1/15/2003 8:29:55 PM Perhaps a Great SIGN on the camp 2071. vonKreedon - 1/15/2003 8:50:57 PM You know, I tend to simply not open a thread if Jex is the most recent poster. This of course means that I seldom open threads that aren't the Cafe. 2072. vonKreedon - 1/15/2003 8:51:01 PM You know, I tend to simply not open a thread if Jex is the most recent poster. This of course means that I seldom open threads that aren't the Cafe. 2073. jexster - 1/15/2003 8:52:35 PM WASHINGTON – Recent press reports of the Bush administration's plans for a post-Hussein Iraq have underscored Washington's determination to seek a regime change in Baghdad, even though the White House claims that its primary objective remains disarming Iraq. 2074. jexster - 1/15/2003 8:56:46 PM Why I always open a thread listing VK as the last post. 2075. wonkers2 - 1/16/2003 7:57:19 AM Big mistake, VK. You could learn a lot from Jexter, if you would just open your little Louisiana red neck mind. BTW, Jex is from Louisiana, too, just across the river. 2076. magoseph - 1/16/2003 9:54:37 AM We could use one of these buttons some financial forums have: "Ignore This Poster". Kidding aside, there' re other posters here, including Jexster, who would very much enjoy VK's posts. 2077. Wombat - 1/16/2003 10:14:46 AM Come on, VonKreedon! 2078. judithathome - 1/16/2003 10:27:06 AM Seems people like to use Jex as an excuse for not posting here. Silly, that. His links are very informative and are the same ones made elsewhere by others and if you want to ignore what he writes, do so. Surely those who sniff with disdain at Jex have enough fortitude to ignore something they'd rather not read? If I see a post by someone I'd rather not take the time to read, I just skip it. 2079. jexster - 1/16/2003 12:04:10 PM Sorry but Saddam Hussein is more credible than George Bush 2080. jexster - 1/16/2003 12:05:39 PM Now Wombat can whine all he wants about being lumped in with Bushies and Bush's deceitful and immoral and doomed policies but he cannot have his straw and eat it too. 2081. jexster - 1/16/2003 12:16:03 PM WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 — The Bush administration resisted calls by other nations today that it secure the explicit blessing of the United Nations Security Council before going to war with Iraq. The White House further suggested that it could decide in favor of military action even if weapons inspectors do not turn up concrete new evidence against Saddam Hussein. 2082. vonKreedon - 1/16/2003 12:20:54 PM One post among many I could ignore, but when I know that there are going to be little but jexterisms why bother? Rosie for instance is somebody that I have no trouble (pun intended) ignoring because he doesn't dominate the site like Jex. 2083. jexster - 1/16/2003 12:33:47 PM Every silver lining has a cloud: listening to idiots regurgitating the same old arguments on phone in shows on the radio. "Saddam gassed his own people", they say. So why did nothing happen then? Are we suddenly aware of this after 16 years? 2084. joezan - 1/16/2003 1:29:07 PM jasper no doubt has a perfectly logical explanation for this.. 2085. Wombat - 1/16/2003 1:37:47 PM Hmmm. 2086. jexster - 1/16/2003 1:49:05 PM They were empty. 2087. jexster - 1/16/2003 1:50:01 PM No need to grasp at straws Little Falwell Power Ranger. 2088. jexster - 1/16/2003 1:50:44 PM Episcopal Presiding Bishop Lashes Out at Bush 2089. jexster - 1/16/2003 1:53:19 PM But its not news to readers of this thread that Bush has consisently lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, these weapons that the Bush/Blair dossier claimed were within 45 minutes of launch, this nuke program which we now know does not exist, this "grave and imminent risk" that was only "grave and imminent" to Bush's political position, this UN "charade before the crusade". 2090. Wombat - 1/16/2003 1:54:02 PM Hopefully records of the warheads' disposal will turn up in that lengthy report the Iraqis submitted in November. You know the report that accounts for ALL of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. 2091. jexster - 1/16/2003 1:55:08 PM If Saddam had a brain, which he manifestly does not, he'd make a list of allegations that the War Peddlers have made that have proven to be lies. 2092. jexster - 1/16/2003 1:56:02 PM Hey maybe he should pay me...I'll take the scumbag's money - in the cause of truth! 2093. joezan - 1/16/2003 1:56:45 PM 2094. jexster - 1/16/2003 1:58:18 PM Yes they keep records of disposal...very detailed records..and if they don't produce them there's your "grave and imminent" risk to nothing other than your own reputation. 2095. Wombat - 1/16/2003 1:58:26 PM Jex: 2096. Wombat - 1/16/2003 2:01:10 PM According to Blix, there were gaps concerning disposal of existing WMD in the November report. Keep spinning! 2097. joezan - 1/16/2003 2:18:06 PM BAGHDAD, Iraq –– U.N. inspectors on Thursday found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported. They had not previously been declared by Iraq. 2098. jexster - 1/16/2003 2:23:05 PM There is a reason that Bush does not want the inspections process to continue, a reason that he does not want to have the UN authorize enforcement of its own resolutions. 2099. magoseph - 1/16/2003 2:24:55 PM vonKreedon, 2100. jexster - 1/16/2003 2:25:29 PM I am not spinning a fuckin thing Wombat you moron. 2101. Wombat - 1/16/2003 2:28:33 PM Blix has been warning Iraq for at least a week that they must provide more cooperation than the inspectors have been getting. Do you want to stake what little remaining credibility you have on the inspectors turning up more? Or a scientist realizing that the game is up, and providing usable information? 2102. Wombat - 1/16/2003 2:35:23 PM If anything, this discovery will buy more time for the UN inspection process, which is as it should be. 2103. jexster - 1/16/2003 2:41:25 PM Why thank you Wombat! 2104. jexster - 1/16/2003 2:45:59 PM MoveOn's "Daisy" Ad (RealNetworks) 2105. Wombat - 1/16/2003 2:52:57 PM I have been outspoken in my desire to see Saddam go, and in deriding the current crop of peaceniks; but I have also insisted that any actions against Saddam take place in the context of the United Nations. Sorry that Jexter appears terminally unable to realize this. 2106. jexster - 1/16/2003 2:53:44 PM BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq on Thursday dismissed a U.N. report of the discovery of empty warheads designed to carry chemical agents as a storm in a teacup over arms that had long expired. 2107. jexster - 1/16/2003 2:56:06 PM I must have missed something Wombat and for that I apologize. 2108. vonKreedon - 1/16/2003 2:56:06 PM Magoseph - I went to the N&CE thread, anything in particular you thought I should take a look at? 2109. jexster - 1/16/2003 2:58:38 PM WOW! I've been called a warmonger and a peacenik....perhaps its because I think. 2110. jexster - 1/16/2003 3:01:51 PM 2111. PelleNilsson - 1/16/2003 3:04:58 PM wombat 2112. Wombat - 1/16/2003 3:06:32 PM Pelle: 2113. jexster - 1/16/2003 3:07:11 PM Reminds me - what's that snake Chirac up2? 2114. PelleNilsson - 1/16/2003 3:08:19 PM jexster 2115. jexster - 1/16/2003 3:09:02 PM Generally 5 to 1 2116. jexster - 1/16/2003 3:10:39 PM a carrier has what 100 strike aircraft if that and a contingent of 5000 or so..... 2117. Wombat - 1/16/2003 3:10:42 PM Perhaps he'd rather see France on the right side, instead of the wrong side. The French usually manage to do that...eventually. 2118. jexster - 1/16/2003 3:11:54 PM No war unless there is a grave and imminent threat. 2119. jexster - 1/16/2003 3:13:22 PM Expanding...threat measured against the risk of graver evils...10 million at risk of cholera, starvation, 20,000 casualties, broader war, 20 years of occupation 2120. PelleNilsson - 1/16/2003 3:13:56 PM Threat to whom? 2121. Wombat - 1/16/2003 3:16:37 PM That depends. In this case it is the United States. In Kosovo it was Albanians. Go figure. 2122. jexster - 1/16/2003 3:19:34 PM Expanding further - as against the fact that inspections and monitoring in and of themselves make it impossible that chemical and biological weapons could ever be deployed as against fact that there is no evidence that Saddam cannot be deterred and contained, as against fact that despite the misleading name, chem and bio weapons are less dangerous than conventional arms 2123. joezan - 1/16/2003 3:24:10 PM 2124. PelleNilsson - 1/16/2003 3:30:42 PM But there is another aspect that must be considered in my view. Assume that Iraq has or nearly has WMDs (not nuclear, I also don't believe much in that, at least not in the near term). Forget about the fanciful scenarios how they could be delivered to the US and think conventional delivery systems. Where do you end up? In Israel of course. 2125. vonKreedon - 1/16/2003 3:31:48 PM Pelle - Yeah, better yet for the UN to authorize the US to do the job. 2126. Wombat - 1/16/2003 3:35:22 PM Agreed. UN authorization also makes it possible for countries in the region to join in. 2127. jexster - 1/16/2003 3:38:48 PM This is what a "grave and imminent threat" sort of looks like folks 2128. joezan - 1/16/2003 3:44:01 PM 2129. Wombat - 1/16/2003 3:46:12 PM North Korea is a good argument for taking steps to ensure that certain countries--like Iraq--are unable to develop and/or acquire WMD. 2130. joezan - 1/16/2003 3:46:13 PM 'They're Not Warheads, They're Peaceheads' 2131. magoseph - 1/16/2003 4:15:21 PM Thanks, Jex, this recording is much better than the last one you sent month ago. Maybe it was my system, I don't know. 2132. joezan - 1/16/2003 4:34:34 PM 2133. wonkers2 - 1/16/2003 5:46:39 PM Hans is doing us all a big favor. 2134. joezan - 1/16/2003 7:45:54 PM 2135. jexster - 1/16/2003 8:01:27 PM That's right Joey - you don't know whether to shit, go brown or cheer the UN anti-christ 2136. jexster - 1/16/2003 8:04:12 PM Hans Blix has a pair and he is trying his damndest to stop a bloodthirsty moron who cannot even control his own administration. 2137. jexster - 1/16/2003 8:07:10 PM WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) has yet to convince Americans that war with Iraq is justified, according to a poll that suggests the White House has much work to do to win public support for military force. 2138. joezan - 1/16/2003 8:07:25 PM 2139. jexster - 1/16/2003 8:08:41 PM THAT's why Bush on the very same day says "there is no timetable for inspections" andd "time is running out". 2140. jexster - 1/16/2003 8:10:19 PM Let's roll asshole...its time for you to go. 2141. jexster - 1/16/2003 8:13:24 PM "War for peace" 2142. alistairconnor - 1/16/2003 8:15:48 PM My comments of the other day are badly dated now. It seems Rice has been talking to Blix, and Blix has found some interesting stuff that the US knew about... This is good. I expect we'll get a drip-feed of new finds over the next few weeks, to put pressure on public opinion in the west. 2143. joezan - 1/16/2003 8:31:15 PM 2144. jexster - 1/16/2003 9:08:31 PM Ooh its going to be bigger than that....stay tuned 2145. jexster - 1/16/2003 9:11:07 PM 2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104 2146. jexster - 1/16/2003 9:12:52 PM Former American weapons inspector - meaningless find, sloppy record keeping in Iraq, no inference of hidden weapons possible, only permissible inference -the UN inspectors are doing a good job 2147. jexster - 1/16/2003 9:14:21 PM Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven Matt 5:16 2148. jexster - 1/16/2003 9:16:16 PM Meanwhile in Korea there are lots of weapons and no inspectors. 2149. jexster - 1/16/2003 9:43:09 PM This is the largest peace movement in the United States in over 30 years but it isn't your mother's "peacenik" love in. 2150. joezan - 1/16/2003 9:45:40 PM 2151. joezan - 1/16/2003 9:47:07 PM 2152. jexster - 1/16/2003 10:05:29 PM The President of the United States is COMING TO THE SF Rally Against Perpetual W-ar!!!! 2153. jexster - 1/16/2003 10:06:21 PM Hell JoeZ I know democracy is meaningless to a Napoleon Bonehead! 2154. Wombat - 1/17/2003 7:18:09 AM My religion's fifth commandment says: "you shall not commit murder." Notice the difference. 2155. jexster - 1/17/2003 10:08:42 AM WASHINGTON - Despite months of effort, President Bush (news - web sites) has not yet convinced most Americans there is justification for U.S. military action to depose Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), polls show. 2156. jexster - 1/17/2003 10:19:58 AM Mmurder is a killing committed purposely, knowingly, or recklessly 2157. jexster - 1/17/2003 10:21:28 AM Richard Bulter - Do we really want the USA to come into the heart of the Arab world and take over by military force and occupy by military force a hostile nation? 2158. jexster - 1/17/2003 10:22:26 AM Opposed to War 2159. joezan - 1/17/2003 10:22:59 AM 2160. Wombat - 1/17/2003 10:40:44 AM Actually, Jexter, war does involve a lot of accidental killing. It is called "collateral damage," and there is a lot less of it now than there was 50 years ago. 2161. jexster - 1/17/2003 10:43:18 AM Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God 2162. jexster - 1/17/2003 10:45:43 AM The City of God, Augustine of Hippo 2163. Wombat - 1/17/2003 10:53:05 AM Was city of God written before or after the Crusades, the Reconquista, and the 30 Year War? 2164. jexster - 1/17/2003 10:56:48 AM "collateral damage" in a war that is unjust to begin with is what in law would be called felony murder 2165. jexster - 1/17/2003 10:59:27 AM You know as well as I do when The City of God was written. The Ten Commandments long before that. Is your point then that we should pay no attention to the Fifth Commandment because it has been breached? 2166. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:00:32 AM 2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."108 2167. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:01:06 AM The last takes care of both Bosnia and the train incident. 2168. Wombat - 1/17/2003 11:02:12 AM On the other hand, in World War II, the good guys (U.S., Britain) were allied with one of the greatest mass killers in modern history; deliberately targeted civilians; and acquiesced in settlements that left victim countries worse off than they were before (say Eastern Europe). Was that a just war? Was it conducted according to the principles of just war theory? 2169. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:04:06 AM Using the aforementioned interpretation, this article sketches an argument, albeit dubious in priniciple and even more so in application Here 2170. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:05:33 AM It is echoed in the various statements of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the COE House of Bishops, acknowledged and dismissed and goes to the question is pre-emptive war unjust per se 2171. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:07:23 AM What is compelling about just war theory, in my view, is its usefulness beyond the ethical or Christian moral perspective for it is really a cost-benefit-proportionality thought exercise if taken seriously. 2172. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:09:20 AM The questions of how "bad a guy" your ally is or "how bad a guy" your enemy is are, for reasons that should be obvious, of little moment. 2173. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:13:29 AM In all instances was WWII conducted morally? A good argument can be made that Dresden and Hiroshima weren't justified. The War itself was certainly just and I know of no dissenting view. 2174. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:16:16 AM As for Hiroshima, I had no qualms until I visited Ground Zero a few years back, 6'5 anglo surrounded by all those little japanese. 2175. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:23:55 AM PARIS -- Leaders of the Iraqi opposition hope exile volunteers preparing to attend a U.S. training program in Hungary will serve as valuable intermediaries for American troops during any invasion of their homeland and help build a new military if President Saddam Hussein falls. 2176. joezan - 1/17/2003 11:26:50 AM 2177. Wombat - 1/17/2003 11:31:39 AM The article you linked to was excellent, and all credit to you for doing so. I particularly liked his use of Just War theory as a guide for action and conduct instead of hoops that need to be jumped through in order to legitimize a particular war in the eyes of protesting clergy (and Jexters). 2178. Wombat - 1/17/2003 11:34:40 AM "Nanking," of course. 2179. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:54:24 AM The only thing morally clear about the Bush Regime is its moral bankruptcy. 2180. jexster - 1/17/2003 11:58:05 AM See there you go conflating again. The issue of whether the bombing of Hiroshima was morally justified has NOTHING to do with what the Japanese did in Nanking what 10 years earlier? 2181. jexster - 1/17/2003 12:00:55 PM http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/news/C81F86D446BB036186256CAF002DAEB0 target=new>Conservative Teamsters Against W-ar 2182. jexster - 1/17/2003 12:03:19 PM 2183. jexster - 1/17/2003 1:44:04 PM GOOD QUESTION 2184. PelleNilsson - 1/17/2003 1:46:19 PM By the way, I hope that nowadays nobody believes that the allied bombing of Dresden caused 200,000+ dead. That has been exposed as a fraud propagated by revisionist historian and Holocaust-denier David Irving. 2185. jexster - 1/17/2003 1:50:45 PM Oh really. 2186. jexster - 1/17/2003 1:51:57 PM Schlacthaus Funf .... 2187. jexster - 1/17/2003 1:57:30 PM Don't Ask Zan He Don't Give a Damn! 2188. jexster - 1/17/2003 2:17:42 PM Internet Fuels Anti-War Campaign - Times of London 2189. Wombat - 1/17/2003 2:31:20 PM Pelle: 2190. PelleNilsson - 1/17/2003 3:04:35 PM Downward to what? 2191. joezan - 1/17/2003 3:20:21 PM 2192. jexster - 1/17/2003 6:00:45 PM 2193. jexster - 1/17/2003 6:01:19 PM Let's play guess my age! 2194. concerned - 1/17/2003 6:32:59 PM An Ominous Drift 2195. vonKreedon - 1/17/2003 6:48:14 PM Concerned - Is your posting an indication that you support a "regime change" policy for NK like the US administration's purported Iraqi "regime change" policy? 2196. concerned - 1/17/2003 7:03:57 PM Define 'like' more specifically, please. Of course I don't support coddling, in any way, a ruinous dictatorship such as NK has. 2197. concerned - 1/17/2003 7:05:03 PM Face it. The 'rainbow' policy wrt NK was an abject failure. 2198. vonKreedon - 1/17/2003 7:11:08 PM Concerned - Are you arguing that it should be the policy of the USA to effect regime change in NK? 2199. concerned - 1/17/2003 7:19:49 PM Are you arguing that it should be the policy of the USA to effect regime change in NK? 2200. concerned - 1/17/2003 7:23:02 PM With NK, we have a situation where the US gives up little or nothing by ignoring NK's belligerent demands. 2201. concerned - 1/17/2003 7:24:17 PM This is because, the way things stand, giving into such demands exerts no noticable leverage on Pyongyang's actions. 2202. concerned - 1/17/2003 7:33:21 PM I exclude such window dressing as throwing out UN inspectors or withdrawing from treaties it never adhered to in the first place, things NK does purely for its perceived aggrandizement. 2203. concerned - 1/17/2003 7:49:37 PM The important thing is that NK's dictator insists on having a nuclear missile arsenal, and no amount of compromising by the US will affect that. 2204. concerned - 1/17/2003 7:51:02 PM For the US's part, this is a solid reason to proceed full speed ahead with NMD development. 2205. vonKreedon - 1/17/2003 8:13:04 PM Concerned - I suggest that the statment, "Of course I don't support coddling, in any way, a ruinous dictatorship such as NK has." is an unwise one to make because I expect you in fact would support such coddling in a context that would work for what you percieve as US national interests; Turkmenistan for instance. You are better off not locking yourself into such a rigid policy position and then having to attempt to explain why "this is different". 2206. concerned - 1/17/2003 10:52:29 PM If I felt US support of or 'sunshine' treaties with the present regime would significantly affect its long term internal and external policies, I would advocate them. But I think we've just recently been down that failed route, and until something changes within the governance of NK itself, little better seems likely than the nullity that has so far been achieved. 2207. vonKreedon - 1/17/2003 11:11:28 PM Thanks Concerned, nicely put. 2208. concerned - 1/17/2003 11:30:01 PM It's plain to see that NK poses more of a potential threat to its neighbors than Iraq does, where the US has maintained air superiority over most of the country for the last decade or more. That is sufficient reason for the 'difference in execution', as you put it. However, much of that difference might not have existed if the counsel of the likes of Hans Blix had been followed in the late '80's/early '90's. 2209. concerned - 1/17/2003 11:42:03 PM Apparently, NK TV is both virulently anti-American and anti-Japanese which would seem to shed some light on Pyongyang's longer term goals. 2210. vonKreedon - 1/18/2003 12:01:35 AM Are you saying that NK if merely a threat to Japan, but Iraq is a threat to the US, and so the difference in execution? 2211. concerned - 1/18/2003 12:06:13 AM NK is also a threat to SK, and Iraq does not pose much of a conventional weapons threat to its neighbors due to US efforts. However, both have access to some sorts of WMD and a proven record of irresponsible behavior regarding the use thereof. 2212. concerned - 1/18/2003 12:08:30 AM NK is also adjacent to China, which is somewhat of an ally. There is no country that will back up Iraq. 2213. concerned - 1/18/2003 12:10:04 AM An international effort should be made to lift the iron yoke of despotism that oppresses NK. 2214. concerned - 1/18/2003 12:20:02 AM When the Truman administration indicated that Korea was outside the sphere of American influence in 1949, that encourage NK to invade SK then, leading to the bloody Korean War. Unfortunately, there is no reason to think that the NK government has significantly reconstructed itself since the '50's. 2215. vonKreedon - 1/18/2003 12:26:04 AM Well, Iraq would certainly be threat to a couple of notable neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Isreal. NK OTOH has a long history of blowing things up such as KAL airplanes, has been on the State Dept. list of terror sponsoring states for decades and the administration claims that it is a charter member of the "Axis of Evil"® Further, NK actually has a tested WMD delivery system that could reach Alaska and its oil, as well as prototype ICBMs capable of reaching the continental US. But for some reason Iraq is the bigger, more clear and present threat. Why? 2216. concerned - 1/18/2003 12:32:15 AM The question as I see it is: Which is the threat that can be more summarily dealt with, with fewer complications: Iraq or NK? Having said that I should mention that I'm not necessarily in favor of a large scale American incursion, but I think the value of having a democratic Islamic state immediately adjacent to SA and Iran is potentially immense. 2217. concerned - 1/18/2003 12:35:50 AM I'd rather have a small,quick American incursion, or better yet, Sodamn voluntarily go into exile before the poop hits the propeller. 2218. concerned - 1/18/2003 12:37:38 AM Besides, with Sodamn deposed, that might well work against the political stability of the NK despotism and for US goals. 2219. concerned - 1/18/2003 12:44:02 AM I really think the emphasis over the availability of oil is overdone. Iraq at full nominal capacity would only supply 3% of the worlds oil - certainly not enough to definitively shape US foreign policy. 2220. vonKreedon - 1/18/2003 1:20:03 AM The pragmatic argument, that we can deal with Iraq with little risk compared with NK, is IMO the strongest argument for the differences in approach to the these two Axial powers. But it does seem to communicate the message that we will only take on those too weak to cause us pain; that we are in fact a nation unwilling to risk large numbers of (our) casualties, that we are a bully rather than a force for good. 2221. jexster - 1/18/2003 12:12:07 PM WASHINGTON - Protesters rallied by the thousands in the bitter cold of Washington on Saturday and in capitals worldwide in a passionate show of dissent against war with Iraq. The cry "No blood for oil" echoed from the streets of Pakistan to America's National Mall. 2222. jexster - 1/18/2003 12:13:04 PM An international effort should be made to lift the iron yoke of despotism that oppresses NK. 2223. jexster - 1/18/2003 12:13:19 PM Regime change begins at home 2224. jexster - 1/18/2003 12:15:45 PM China an ally eh? 2225. arkymalarky - 1/18/2003 12:32:10 PM OK, now that was funny. I also loved "fulsomely florid." I'll have to remember it. 2226. jayackroyd - 1/18/2003 1:04:28 PM VK says: 2227. jexster - 1/18/2003 1:14:55 PM Anti-War Protests Worldwide 2228. jexster - 1/18/2003 1:16:08 PM toys.. 2229. vonKreedon - 1/18/2003 1:50:10 PM Jay - I agree that arguing that we should invade Iraq and be multilateral diplomacists with NK because we can invade Iraq with minimal risk, undermines the argument that Iraq is a clear and present danger. But it is still the most coherent argumen for the difference in approach to the two assumptive WMD owning members of the Axis of Evil®. 2230. jexster - 1/18/2003 4:07:06 PM BUSH IS ON CRACK AGAIN 2231. jayackroyd - 1/18/2003 5:50:42 PM Yes, VK, I agree that it is the most coherent argument to date. But that is damning with faint praise. 2232. joezan - 1/18/2003 6:33:40 PM 2233. joezan - 1/18/2003 6:37:43 PM My Letter to the Editor (I'll let you know if it gets printed): 2234. judithathome - 1/18/2003 6:42:24 PM Cute, Joezan. 2235. jexster - 1/18/2003 6:55:45 PM 2236. jexster - 1/18/2003 6:56:06 PM His father, Akram Chowdry, wore a bumper sticker on his head that read "Stop the War." Though Akram Chowdry had never before been to a peace rally, he said he was moved to attend this one because he believes the United States is acting unethically. 2237. jexster - 1/18/2003 6:56:15 PM 2238. joezan - 1/18/2003 6:57:36 PM 2239. jexster - 1/18/2003 6:58:52 PM Best Line - A teenage boy eyeing the beautiful women in the throng "I wish it were hot. We'd all be naked". 2240. jexster - 1/18/2003 7:14:11 PM 2241. jexster - 1/18/2003 8:35:58 PM 2242. jexster - 1/18/2003 8:54:01 PM 2243. jexster - 1/18/2003 8:55:21 PM 2244. jexster - 1/18/2003 8:59:09 PM Errr..that's the Ferry Bldg. - THE START OF THE MARCH 2245. arkymalarky - 1/18/2003 9:32:50 PM it's a small town and generally, if you can spell okay and stay pretty much on topic, you've got it nailed. 2246. Cellar Door - 1/18/2003 9:35:02 PM 2247. wonkers2 - 1/18/2003 10:31:19 PM Great job on the protests, Jex and all who participated! I feel guilty for not going to Washington. 2248. jexster - 1/19/2003 10:55:37 AM It was 24 degrees Wonk! Hell, I walked across the street to the bus stop, connected with the MUNI underground and I was at the starting point within 20 minutes. 2249. jexster - 1/19/2003 11:01:25 AM Cllr you know looking at that poll, it occured to me that something of a shift has taken place. Granted webpolls only measure the views of those who bothered to take it, no inference to a larger population scientifically possible, but it is also true that persons who take these polls tend to have higher SES stats and it is also true that these same sorts of polls used to show heavy anti-clinton bias. 2250. jexster - 1/19/2003 11:05:11 AM Time is Running Out - FOR BUSH 2251. jexster - 1/19/2003 11:05:33 AM Toys 2252. jexster - 1/19/2003 11:05:54 AM again 2253. jexster - 1/19/2003 11:10:10 AM For Immediate Release: 2254. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/19/2003 3:49:07 PM 2255. jexster - 1/19/2003 4:13:59 PM Desperate Times Make for Desperate Morons - Bush Looking to Bail 2256. jexster - 1/19/2003 4:16:33 PM Great article Wiz...a must read for all the Pollyannas who think this will be like Clinton in Kosovo 2257. jexster - 1/19/2003 4:22:12 PM Van Riper, Victor of Baghdad against the 21st Century Mongul.. has a familiar ring to it... 2258. jexster - 1/19/2003 6:44:59 PM Time Running Out - For Bush 2259. jexster - 1/19/2003 6:45:45 PM "Opting for peace does not mean a passive acquiescence to evil or compromise of principle. It demands an active struggle against hatred, oppression and disunity, but not by using methods of violence. Building peace requires creative and courageous action," the statement said. 2260. Cellar Door - 1/19/2003 7:36:31 PM FINALLY some Good News out of Vatican City! 2261. jexster - 1/19/2003 11:53:22 PM SF peace protesters flaunt wit and wealth Times of London 2262. concerned - 1/20/2003 12:42:12 AM Re. 2224 - 2263. concerned - 1/20/2003 1:27:45 AM To be more specific, China is influencing NK's policy toward the US in such as way that it hopes will frustrate US interests in east Asia longer term. So, to some extent, I think NK's posturing should not be taken at face value, being largely bluster. 2264. concerned - 1/20/2003 1:30:47 AM That is not to say that NK does not pose a threat to its neighbors and potentially to US interests. However, we should look much more deeply into the real workings of any situation related to NK when determining our actions than NK is attempting to manipulate the US and SK into doing. 2265. concerned - 1/20/2003 1:36:11 AM My guess at this point is that NK wants the US to agree to a spurious 'nonaggression' pact in order to maximize sentiment in the region for getting US troops out of SK. Of course, following this path under current conditions will do nothing but increase the threat of NK aggression. 2266. concerned - 1/20/2003 1:39:11 AM The first thing that needs to be done is for the NK government to become pluralistic, open and democratic. Not until then will treaties mean much with this country saddled with a barbaric government. 2267. concerned - 1/20/2003 1:44:14 AM So the NK government needs to do what Communism always promises but can hardly provide under the best of conditions - give the power to the people -electoral power. 2268. jexster - 1/20/2003 12:32:27 PM Whew! 2269. jexster - 1/20/2003 1:51:38 PM Istanbul -- His fellow shopkeepers told him he was risking his income and theirs, but Hakan Ozdemir insisted on putting up his anti-war signs. And not only in Turkish, a language unknown to most of the tourists visiting the Grand Bazaar, but in bold, black English. 2270. jexster - 1/20/2003 2:01:52 PM Given the relentless media carpet-bombing of anything to do with Iraq, it is surprising that one significant act by Saddam Hussein earlier this week passed without notice abroad. Saddam sent a pointed warning to the Kurds of northern Iraq. He did so by the simple device of stopping the flow of heating oil to Kurdistan, the three Iraqi provinces that have enjoyed de facto independence for a decade. The Kurdish mountains are bitterly cold this time of year, and the price of heating oil immediately soared as people rushed through the snow to buy up remaining stocks 2271. joezan - 1/20/2003 4:40:21 PM Hey - here it is - our own little peacefairy brigade. 2272. judithathome - 1/20/2003 4:41:15 PM I'm surprised you didn't mow them down with your truck. 2273. joezan - 1/20/2003 4:52:04 PM I mean, look at those signs, ferpetesake. 2274. vonKreedon - 1/20/2003 5:00:21 PM Joe - You have anything of substance to say, or do you just get your jollies from High School level insults? Your comments are on the level of, "I mean, their wearing white socks for gods sake! What fucking dorkwads, thank god I don't hang out with any of those losers!" 2275. judithathome - 1/20/2003 5:02:59 PM Joezan, what would be the acceptable attire and signage for these woebegon protesters? Should they all be dressed in cammies and sporting OD green signs with black letters? Or do you prefer the Rainbow Coallition's multi-hued garb with pale blue signs adorned in brown letters...because this is a good look for peacefaries...very avant garde, the earth-and-sky timbre. 2276. judithathome - 1/20/2003 5:06:12 PM Keep on laughing at these people because it is showing how shallow you actually are. What did YOU do while they were out there, as VonK notes, in the cold? I'd be willing to bet that after getting a hair cut and ridiculing them, you went home to a snug, warm den and watched the playoffs. 2277. Wombat - 1/20/2003 9:12:53 PM I cannot think of which is more morally bankrupt over Iraq, the Bush Administration or the Peace Movement. 2278. vonKreedon - 1/20/2003 9:14:31 PM Wombat - Would you explain the moral bankruptcy of the Peace Movement. You might want to start by defining the Peace Movement, or that part of it that you argue is morally bankrupt. 2279. jexster - 1/20/2003 9:38:25 PM Wombat - For someone with so dim an understanding of ethics you do throw "moral bankruptcy" around with amazing aplomb! 2280. jexster - 1/20/2003 9:39:19 PM Perhaps you were referring to the Sister of St. Joseph carrying a small handlettered sign 2281. jexster - 1/20/2003 9:41:13 PM Speaking of the morally bankrupt, the networks all led with The Big Story "US Facing Stiff Opposition at UN" or variants 2282. Wombat - 1/20/2003 9:44:16 PM VK: 2283. Wombat - 1/20/2003 9:46:21 PM Jex: 2284. jexster - 1/20/2003 10:18:46 PM blah..blah..blah... 2285. jexster - 1/20/2003 10:19:37 PM TIME IS RUNNING OUT - FOR BUSH 2286. jexster - 1/20/2003 10:21:04 PM "Blood for Oil/Merchants of Death are at it again. " 2287. jexster - 1/20/2003 11:26:54 PM Tick Tock Tick Tock 2288. jexster - 1/20/2003 11:27:37 PM Morally bankrupt opposition to war... 2289. Dubai Vol - 1/21/2003 5:32:59 AM Here'a new one: it is in fact possible to be anti-Bush and pro-war! 2290. Wombat - 1/21/2003 7:08:26 AM Would Jesus gas Halabja? Seize Kuwait? Build palaces while allowing his people to starve? 2291. Dubai Vol - 1/21/2003 7:51:16 AM Jesus? No such person. Fictional characters have no place in a rational debate. 2292. Wombat - 1/21/2003 7:58:09 AM Dubai: 2293. Dubai Vol - 1/21/2003 8:23:36 AM Hey, ho, Saddam must go! 2294. jexster - 1/21/2003 8:26:51 AM Of course he wouldn't and neither would he invade Iraq. 2295. jexster - 1/21/2003 8:28:18 AM Vive La France! 2296. Wombat - 1/21/2003 8:30:48 AM I haven't shaken my disgust with the antiwar movement over their protests against the Gulf War in the early 90's. I note that many of the theologians that Jexter trots out to support his moral justifications opposed that war as well, as did many of the organizations that organized the weekend's demonstrations. If they opposed a far more clear-cut situation before, I see no reason to cut them any moral or intellectual slack. 2297. jexster - 1/21/2003 8:57:14 AM I'll grant you that you are still fighting the unwashed mob of thirteen years ago but as far as "moral or intellectual slack", I am sad to report that your account is overdrawn. You've none to cut. 2298. jexster - 1/21/2003 8:59:13 AM No Blood for Oil! 2299. Wombat - 1/21/2003 9:09:41 AM The peace movement will regain some legitimacy, if/when the Security Council finds Iraq in material breach of its resolutions, and votes to authorize force, they stop protesting. How likely do you think that scenario will be? 2300. judithathome - 1/21/2003 9:21:26 AM But if the inspectors find nothing, do you really think we won't attack after all this buildup? And if the inspectors do find something, it will prove they are doing their jobs; should we then just step back and let them do their jobs and not go forward with the military buildup? 2301. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:28:01 AM If if if...the Security Council is now Infallible? 2302. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:29:14 AM Only when Kofi Anan speaks ex cathedra? 2303. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:31:55 AM The archbishop is arguing for more explicit recognition of a principle heretofore subsumed in 2304. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:33:09 AM Which, next to the "grave and imminent" threat requirement, seems to choke the Wombat most often. 2305. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:36:45 AM Time Running Out for Bush 2306. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:44:47 AM Trot Trot...You Can Thank Robert! 2307. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:45:22 AM "My sense is that we have been so abundantly blessed as a nation that it's all the more incumbent upon us that we share those blessing with others," he said. "God's concern is for the world and not simply for a nation.... Too often we narrow down faith to serve our own immediate concerns and national interests." 2308. Wombat - 1/21/2003 11:42:01 AM Editorial in the left-of-center British newspaper The Observer: 2309. Wombat - 1/21/2003 11:43:09 AM Editorial, cont. 2310. Wombat - 1/21/2003 11:44:39 AM Editorial, continued: 2311. Wombat - 1/21/2003 11:46:13 AM Editorial, continued (Brits are wordy, are they not?) 2312. Wombat - 1/21/2003 11:47:11 AM Editorial, conclusion: 2313. judithathome - 1/21/2003 11:53:30 AM American Civilian Killed in Kuwait 2314. jexster - 1/21/2003 12:55:59 PM Does he make this shit up? 2315. jexster - 1/21/2003 12:57:26 PM Wombat - 2316. Wombat - 1/21/2003 12:59:00 PM Jexter: 2317. vonKreedon - 1/21/2003 1:00:28 PM Wombat - You posit the moral bankruptcy of the Peace Movement (Message # 2277) and to back this statement up you say, "While not doubting the sincerity of many of the marchers, and their concern that the United States not go to war unilaterally--a concern that I share; I think they really need to educate themselves on who it is they are protecting by their actions...The point that they miss, I hope out of naivete, is that the Iraqi people have been suffering for decades under Saddam's rule; and that if allowed to speak freely, the Iraqi people themselves wish to see Saddam go."(Message # 2282) 2318. vonKreedon - 1/21/2003 1:00:40 PM Really the question is whether or not the Iraqi regime presents a clear and present danger to the security of the world community. I believe that the jury is still out on this and so support protests in order to attempt to restrain this administration to taking hasty action before the jury is in. Further, I do not trust that this administration will prosecute any military action with the correct focus and is likely to only exacerbate our strategic problems by their actions, and so again I support the protests as a brake on the administration's war making sensibility. Finally, the biggest threat that I experience currently is from this administration on my civil rights, and so I support the protests as an exercise in the right to assemble/petition to ensure that these rights to do atrophy. 2319. jexster - 1/21/2003 1:01:38 PM "They must recognise that the much-maligned Bush administration has dutifully pursued a multilateral approach over Iraq....." 2320. jexster - 1/21/2003 1:05:37 PM London: Mass Demonstration Targets MP's 2321. jexster - 1/21/2003 1:06:47 PM Maybe they don't want to be "saved"...the Kuwait killings are just the beginning. 2322. jexster - 1/21/2003 1:07:42 PM No this isn't anything like Gulf War I. The only resemblance is geographic 2323. joezan - 1/21/2003 1:09:03 PM 2324. Wombat - 1/21/2003 1:14:55 PM Von Kreedon: 2325. jexster - 1/21/2003 1:15:04 PM From "Frequently and Infrequently Asked Questions About Iraq" 2326. jexster - 1/21/2003 1:18:34 PM "I get no sense from the peace marchers and their organizers that they have any idea of the type of regime that their actions may be bolstering; and quite a bit that it is of little concern to them." 2327. jexster - 1/21/2003 1:22:24 PM Not about your school boy memories nor your grandee pretension to sophistication, your Crusader mentality, your savior complex, your filtered histories, your arm chair samurai sense for military strategy. 2328. jexster - 1/21/2003 1:25:33 PM Time Running Out for Bush 2329. vonKreedon - 1/21/2003 1:30:52 PM Wombat - In talking with anti-war protesters I do see an awareness of how bad Saddam's regime is, but they don't see that that is really our business to correct by killing thousands of Iraqi civilians. Their point would be that they are not bolstering Saddam, who they have no power with, but rather are acting to restrain our government, with whome they hope to have some power. 2330. jexster - 1/21/2003 1:31:12 PM "Convictions are tested not when things are 2331. Wombat - 1/21/2003 1:33:53 PM Jexter: 2332. Wombat - 1/21/2003 1:40:16 PM According to Mr. Pitt, it is about the US not taking unilateral action against Iraq. I'll be interested to read his views if UN-sanctioned multilateral action against Iraq takes place. 2333. jexster - 1/21/2003 2:01:27 PM This should put your UN fantasies to rest. The day before Bush spoke to the UN, I said it was a charade and I have said it ever since. 2334. jexster - 1/21/2003 2:02:57 PM Wombat I have said it before....I defer to your vast direct knowledge of the Iraqi people. 2335. jexster - 1/21/2003 2:17:19 PM WRT the UN, Hans Blix in an interview with Dan Rather put the matter rather well - there are two choices - containment which costs about 60 million bucks a year (for UNMOVIC/IAEA), no deaths and which is working or the uncertainty of war at 100 billion a year and untold thousands of dead. 2336. jexster - 1/21/2003 2:18:44 PM Unless of course, WMD is not the goal but rather empire is in which case option #1 is useless and Novak is dead on, n'est-ce pas? 2337. judithathome - 1/21/2003 2:19:11 PM I get no sense from the peace marchers and their organizers that they have any idea of the type of regime that their actions may be bolstering; and quite a bit that it is of little concern to them 2338. joezan - 1/21/2003 2:24:23 PM Shouldn't someone be looking into this? 2339. PelleNilsson - 1/21/2003 3:19:23 PM jexster 2340. jexster - 1/21/2003 3:36:14 PM LONDON (Reuters) - A first wave of mainly Western volunteers will leave London this weekend on a convoy bound for Iraq to act as "human shields" at key sites and populous areas in case of a U.S.-led war on Baghdad. 2341. jexster - 1/21/2003 3:38:21 PM nyeah..nyeah..nyeah Pelle the EU is bold? 2342. jexster - 1/21/2003 3:47:13 PM James Webb, Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Raygun - "Bush's policy towards Iraq is born of obession and is ill-advised. There are inspectors on the ground there and no danger to the US" Buchannan & Press NOW 2343. jexster - 1/21/2003 3:50:23 PM Advises Bush, per Sen. George Aiken in Vietnam, to declare victory and get the fuck out... 2344. jexster - 1/21/2003 3:52:39 PM Do you parlez Pierre? 2345. jexster - 1/21/2003 3:56:22 PM And BTW Zan, Webb speaks to your point as well - the US Military's combat units are full of rednecks (in his words - hill folk and country people) and it has become the "King's Army" enabling elective wars. 2346. PelleNilsson - 1/21/2003 4:00:46 PM jexster 2347. vonKreedon - 1/21/2003 4:04:04 PM Iraq: France threatens to use its veto against an american war 2348. vonKreedon - 1/21/2003 4:05:50 PM Translation above for those who don't speak "Pierre", but none the less care. 2349. magoseph - 1/21/2003 4:06:16 PM Well, Jex, to me it looks like Bush is poised to strike any day now. The market feels it, Bush's language tells us, other signs here and there...it's coming. 2350. jexster - 1/21/2003 4:41:18 PM Bush Scolds U.N. Member Nations on Iraq 2351. jexster - 1/21/2003 4:48:22 PM Loosely... 2352. jexster - 1/21/2003 4:49:17 PM The quote from Le Monde...I leave it to ma petit chou to clean up 2353. jexster - 1/21/2003 4:49:36 PM or is it mon or petite 2354. jexster - 1/21/2003 4:50:54 PM It might surprise Pelle to know that Javier Solana joined y the pussy greeks in expressing the same sentiments a week ago 2355. jexster - 1/21/2003 4:55:11 PM MG is correct...Bush wants war..he has wanted it all along. The UN process has always been a charade, a political cover for the fall elections. The only remaining question then is whether and to what extent people and governments of conviction will join in a coalition of the resisting and just say NO to the Little Emperor. 2356. jexster - 1/21/2003 5:06:37 PM From Europe Information Service 2357. magoseph - 1/21/2003 5:07:41 PM Mon petit chou or ma petite, or mon petit are all correct when you talk to me, Jex, and ma chérie is the best. 2358. concerned - 1/21/2003 5:54:53 PM Re. 2340 - 2359. jexster - 1/21/2003 8:27:02 PM 2360. jexster - 1/21/2003 8:28:50 PM Would you donn your shorty short running shorts and tie yourself to the cattle shoot at the Crawford ranch waiting to be gassed by Saddam TD? 2361. jexster - 1/21/2003 8:29:41 PM chute... 2362. jexster - 1/21/2003 8:31:07 PM MG - Guess we received our answer to the question "What's up with that snake Chirac" eh? 2363. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:00:42 PM While Bush was obsessing over his plans for Middle East empire, the CIA in June provided him with a detailed report on the North Korean nuclear program and its Pakistani sponsors. Bush not only sat on the information, he actively tried to cover it up because he feared publicity would interfere with his Empire Scam. 2364. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:03:36 PM The Administration's fitful North Korea policy, with its mixture of anger and seeming complacency, is in many ways a consequence of its unrelenting focus on Iraq. Late last year, the White House released a national-security-strategy paper authorizing the military "to detect and destroy an adversary's WMD assets"—weapons of mass destruction—"before these weapons are used." The document argued that the armed forces "must have the capability to defend against WMD-armed adversaries . . . because deterrence may not succeed." Logically, the new strategy should have applied first to North Korea, whose nuclear-weapons program remains far more advanced than Iraq's. The Administration's goal, however, was to mobilize public opinion for an invasion of Iraq. One American intelligence official told me, "The Bush doctrine says MAD"—mutual assured destruction—"will not work for these rogue nations, and therefore we have to preëmpt if negotiations don't work. And the Bush people knew that the North Koreans had already reinvigorated their programs and were more dangerous than Iraq. But they didn't tell anyone. They have bankrupted their own policy—thus far—by not doing what their doctrine calls for." 2365. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:05:13 PM Now someone stand here and tell us with a straight face that Bush gives a shit about WMD or about the plight of the Iraqi people or about Saddam's threat to the security of the US or the Persian Gulf. 2366. jexster - 1/21/2003 9:30:32 PM 2367. alistairconnor - 1/22/2003 5:32:38 AM Message # 2346 Pelle, increasingly it seems that the French vote on the security council is becoming a proxy for an EU view. This is complicated by the fact that there is no clear mechanism for getting a concensus of EU views, and any such concensus would be weak and wishy-washy (until such time as EU constitutional reform fixes that). 2368. jexster - 1/22/2003 7:05:30 AM The Iraqis have been saying so for months, Bush denying for months, now the Russians claim Bush has been lying for months.... 2369. jexster - 1/22/2003 7:06:13 AM Even Bulgaria's bolting the "coalition of the willing" 2370. jexster - 1/22/2003 7:11:04 AM GERMANY JUST SAYS "NEIN" to BUSH WAR 2371. jexster - 1/22/2003 7:14:45 AM Allies Ask "Why the Rush to War?" 2372. jexster - 1/22/2003 7:20:34 AM Los Angeles Times -- With its threat of a veto, France has sharply escalated the war against a war on Iraq 2373. jexster - 1/22/2003 7:28:07 AM "We are mobilized" 2374. jexster - 1/22/2003 7:40:39 AM In honor of our noble French allies 2375. Trouble - 1/22/2003 8:49:24 AM All we are saying is give... 2376. concerned - 1/22/2003 11:39:56 AM France Makes Last Ditch Effort To Hamstring U.S. Over Iraq 2377. jexster - 1/22/2003 11:55:46 AM Bush War for Empire Threatens War on Terrorism 2378. jexster - 1/22/2003 11:59:07 AM 2379. jexster - 1/22/2003 12:04:15 PM Coalition of the Willing????? 2380. jexster - 1/22/2003 12:18:36 PM Not nearly 90% of the US public that agrees with France! 2381. jexster - 1/22/2003 12:19:28 PM Hell that dimwit even lost Bulgaria! 2382. jexster - 1/22/2003 1:09:50 PM "Denouncing the war plan as an administration idee fixe that will undermine America's standing in the world, stir unrest in the Mideast and damage the American economy, the protesters in Washington massed on Saturday for what police described as the largest antiwar rally at the Capitol since the Vietnam era. It was impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers - from young college students to grayheads with vivid protest memories of the 60's... Mr. Bush and his war cabinet would be wise to see the demonstrators as a clear sign that noticeable numbers of Americans no longer feel obliged to salute the 2383. jexster - 1/22/2003 1:14:37 PM 2384. vonKreedon - 1/22/2003 1:17:42 PM Jex - You posted the exact same quotes/links in American Politics. Would you please pick a thread to spam and leave the others alone? 2385. jexster - 1/22/2003 1:27:21 PM I am delighted that you read these extremely important articles. You are obviously a person of great conviction. 2386. Trouble - 1/22/2003 1:27:40 PM To think that I encouraged Jexster to return to mote. 2387. jexster - 1/22/2003 1:28:17 PM 2388. jexster - 1/22/2003 1:31:01 PM Rose..this is War Against W-ar..you are either with us or against us....the ax is laid to the root of the Shrub... 2389. jexster - 1/22/2003 1:43:41 PM Lets now turn our attention to center field where La Legion Etrangere will present the colors and join in singing our new national anthems 2390. jexster - 1/22/2003 1:44:05 PM Lets now turn our attention to center field where La Legion Etrangere will present the colors and join in singing our new national anthems 2391. jexster - 1/22/2003 1:55:10 PM The King is brain dead... 2392. PelleNilsson - 1/22/2003 2:34:22 PM jexster 2393. Cellar Door - 1/22/2003 2:36:44 PM 2394. jexster - 1/22/2003 4:52:14 PM Bush had better watch his fatuous belches about "war crimes" 2395. jexster - 1/22/2003 4:52:52 PM The United Nations hung Bush's Nazi forebears on less 2396. jexster - 1/22/2003 9:37:27 PM "When Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried, and persecuted as a war criminal."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 22, 2003. 2397. Trouble - 1/22/2003 10:39:10 PM Not fit to print 2398. jexster - 1/22/2003 11:49:05 PM You know you're hot shit when the Wingnuts turn up the cheap shots, cheap rhetoric, and bogus information. 2399. jexster - 1/22/2003 11:49:47 PM Allez France! Seulement, dites NON a Bush! 2400. jexster - 1/22/2003 11:50:48 PM Cram it up your fascist twat twat Rosie...if you can find it for all the flies 2401. jexster - 1/22/2003 11:54:14 PM Before ya know it, Heinrich Himmler Trashcroft will haul off the entire membership of the National Council of Churches because they were also part of the ANSWER coalition. 2402. jexster - 1/23/2003 12:17:14 AM Take Your Empire And Shove It 2403. jexster - 1/23/2003 12:19:35 AM 2404. jexster - 1/23/2003 12:41:42 AM Germany blocks the road to war 2405. concerned - 1/23/2003 1:43:57 AM Re. 2398 - 2406. Macnas - 1/23/2003 3:38:37 AM "Washington, which does not believe Iraq’s claim it has no more biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, has threatened the Iraqi dictator with war if he fails to disarm voluntarily. 2407. jexster - 1/23/2003 10:53:11 AM Time Has Run OUT 2408. concerned - 1/23/2003 11:23:28 AM Powell also sought to allay fears that America’s military build-up in the Gulf was aimed at securing Iraq’s oil reserves for itself. 2409. Macnas - 1/23/2003 11:26:14 AM Hang on a sec, I have to look up "fungible", God bless my trade education. 2410. Macnas - 1/23/2003 11:30:27 AM "being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation 2411. Macnas - 1/23/2003 11:31:34 AM See?? I used "is" where I should have used "are", there is just no hope for me. 2412. concerned - 1/23/2003 11:33:25 AM Nobody credible is claiming that the availability or lack thereof of Iraq's oil amounts to more than a fart in the wind of the global energy economy. 2413. concerned - 1/23/2003 11:38:57 AM Why do people persist in forgetting that even a large number of the world's largest oil producers had to join in a cartel (OPEC) to significantly influence world energy prices? 2414. jexster - 1/23/2003 11:44:34 AM Sorry to disabuse you Concerned but among your many weak suits, economics has to rank first 2415. Macnas - 1/23/2003 11:46:06 AM My ignorance of world/global economics notwithstanding, control of Iraq/Iraq's oil would be , in my opinion, a precursor to eventual control of middle east oil in general. 2416. Macnas - 1/23/2003 11:47:02 AM What jex said. 2417. jexster - 1/23/2003 11:52:47 AM Concerned doesn't have a clue about the oligopoly power of OPEC (nor of oligopoly pricing in general) but he can find same in any basic micro principles book or ask Prof. Slackjaw if he ever visits his thread these days. 2418. jexster - 1/23/2003 11:54:22 AM Bush is a liar, a thief, a cheat, and an incompetent but there is one thing he does with honest aplomb - pay back his paymasters. 2419. jexster - 1/23/2003 12:07:42 PM 2420. jexster - 1/23/2003 12:21:33 PM For all of Wombat's expertise on the travails of the Iraqi people, we had a better ally in No Dinh Diem etc et al and Stalin had more represenative, legitimate puppets ready to go throughout eastern euro 2421. concerned - 1/23/2003 12:24:21 PM Re. 2415 - 2422. jexster - 1/23/2003 12:24:58 PM But once the bombs destroy their homes, food supplies run out, 10 million starve, cholera runs rampant, once the jackboot of Bush's military dictatorship crushes their spinal cords, they'll strew dates in the path of the new Butcher of Baghdad! 2423. Macnas - 1/23/2003 12:28:36 PM Its not like all the oil is one country, and thats simplifying my point, if such a thing could be imagined. 2424. concerned - 1/23/2003 12:30:17 PM I do not agree that the weapons Saddam has, whatever they may be, are a threat to the rest of the world/the U.S.... 2425. jexster - 1/23/2003 12:31:51 PM That's how OPEC works TD..that's how oligopoly works. It only controls 63% of the oil but it generally can control prices if all its members stay in line because other producers aren't large enough, they are "price takers". Russia is the exception but they are really defacto members of OPEC because they have distribution problems and severe economic problems. 2426. Macnas - 1/23/2003 12:38:31 PM Well using that argument every bastard in the world is a threat. The components for a dirty bomb are more easily available in the ex-warsaw pact/eastern bloc than in Iraq. 2427. jexster - 1/23/2003 12:39:39 PM Here ya go 2428. jexster - 1/23/2003 12:41:47 PM I dunno TD but I suspect that you are laboring under the false impression that there is a "free market". Too much GOP propaganda, not enough knowledge 2429. vonKreedon - 1/23/2003 12:56:45 PM Concerned says, "Nobody credible is claiming that the availability or lack thereof of Iraq's oil amounts to more than a fart in the wind of the global energy economy." Yet James Baker's working paper on Guiding Principles for U.S. Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq spends its entire Addendum on Iraqi oil/gas, noting that, "There is little doubt that there is great potential to expand Iraq's oil production and export capacity, but it will require massive investment. Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) estimated at 112 billion barrels, with as many as 220 billion barrels of resources deemed probable. Of Iraq's 74 discovered and evaluated oil fields, only 15 have been developed. Iraq's western desert is considered to be highly prospective but has yet to be explored. There are 526 known structures that have been discovered, delineated, mapped, and classified as potential prospects in Iraq of which only 125 have been drilled." 2430. vonKreedon - 1/23/2003 12:57:01 PM Then there's the fact noted in each of the above citation that there will need to be massive investment in rebuilding Iraqi energy production infrastructures, something that Haliburton already has experience in doing. Alexander's Gas and Oil says, "Facilities have deteriorated so radically that advanced US technology is critical to restoring and expanding oil production, according to Iraqi National Congress adviser Francis Brooke. "It is obvious... that the US is the leader in this industry and will play a leading role" in bringing post-Saddam Iraqi oil production up to date, Brooke said, adding that Iraqi National Congress officials have had extensive conversations about oil with Bush officials." The Asia Times says, "Woolsey [former CIA Director] had been openly saying that if France and Russia contributed to "regime change", their oil companies would be able to "work together" with the new regime and with American companies. Otherwise, they would be left contemplating passing cargoes in the Gulf." 2431. jexster - 1/23/2003 1:12:20 PM Porto Alegre s'ouvre par la dénonciation d'une guerre en Irak - Le Monde 2432. jexster - 1/23/2003 1:31:40 PM Chirac's Game Plan - Times London 2433. PelleNilsson - 1/23/2003 2:51:31 PM Hey jexster! 2434. jexster - 1/23/2003 3:03:32 PM No. 2435. concerned - 1/23/2003 3:12:31 PM Practicing to be Islamic regimes, IOW? 2436. jexster - 1/23/2003 3:13:37 PM Sure TD the whole world is a victim of the Insidiously Vast Moslem Conspiracy and GWB is a martyr for the Gospel. 2437. concerned - 1/23/2003 3:17:20 PM It seems clear to me that Iraqi oil is seen by many credible sources as a significant player in the global energy economy. 2438. jexster - 1/23/2003 3:20:12 PM You have an IDIOT for a king and that is the bottom line. 2439. concerned - 1/23/2003 3:21:55 PM I've already shown that nothing better than their economic interests and partisan pandering shapes French and German policy vs Iraq. Since they've made it abundantly clear that they don't plan to contribute to the resolution of any international situation that the US is involved with in any useful manner, perhaps they would do well not to waste their rather provincial diplomatic capital by meretriciously adding to international friction. 2440. jexster - 1/23/2003 3:23:01 PM mach es dir selber 2441. jexster - 1/23/2003 3:25:16 PM You've shown shit. 70-80% of the French and German people agree with Chirac and Shroeder. 2442. concerned - 1/23/2003 3:26:43 PM Re. 2438 - 2443. jexster - 1/23/2003 3:29:38 PM Message # 2437 2444. Wombat - 1/23/2003 3:30:00 PM I'll be interested to see what the material violation is. It will have to be more than we (the public) are currently aware of. 2445. Wombat - 1/23/2003 3:31:17 PM Jexter ignores the economic stakes behind France and Russia's attitude as surely as he trumpets those of the United States. 2446. jexster - 1/23/2003 3:35:41 PM First Sharon, then the Dear Leader, next the French and Germans, who will be next to learn what has always been clear to me... 2447. jexster - 1/23/2003 3:38:35 PM I don't need to join your cheap shot and cheaper rhetoric crowd Wombat because those interests are identical to the overwhelming views of the people in those DEMOCRACIES. 2448. concerned - 1/23/2003 3:39:22 PM Anybody who believes 'this is all about oil' is being a tendentious idiot. Anybody who doesn't believe it but asserts it anyway clearly expects only easily manipulable credulous fools to believe him. 2449. jexster - 1/23/2003 3:40:34 PM I think its laughable but entirely predictable these ChickenHawk nazis turning on the GOP slime machine to yap about big oil interests. Conflict in the Middle East 1a
all three major stock market indices were up today.
Thus their statment in this week's editorial that the Bush Regime's "justifications" for a pre-emptive war to Make Bush Believable are "are only making people like [Cong. Jim] McDermott sound reasonable" is all the more remarkable.
Vaya Los Gigantes!
Thus their statment in this week's editorial that the Bush Regime's "justifications" for a pre-emptive war to Make Bush Believable are "are only making people like [Cong. Jim] McDermott sound reasonable" is all the more remarkable.
Vaya Los Gigantes!
After that sorry ass speech and on news that public support for Mass Murder to Make a Moron Believable was crashing both here and in Great Britain, the markets rose.
"America has not started a war in this century," Newsweek proudly declared at the end of the last century, summarizing 100 years of warfare and encapsulating our belief in our purity. One reason that many people have qualms about the looming invasion of Iraq—in which the United States intends to strike first without an unambiguous casus belli—is that we imagine that we go to war only when provoked. As we debate commencing hostilities, it's worth reviewing our reasons for waging war in the past, for our retrospective judgments about those conflicts should influence how and whether we go to war today.
To give America its due: In those wars dearest to our national mythology—the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War I, World War II—we went to war for what still appear to be sound reasons.
To look at these examples is to find a creditable American moral track record. They would suggest the pending Iraq attack is unprecedented, that it violates our traditions. You could even bolster this case by throwing in some of our less noble conflicts—1812, Korea, Vietnam—which, at least initially, had defensible rationales....[Yet] for a century, the United States has cheerfully effected "regime change"—that bloodless euphemism for killing or deposing other nations' leaders—in Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, up through our gratuitous 1989 invasion of Panama.
History Lesson
Does the United States Start Wars?
US Marine Killed in Kuwait - Our "Ally"
And the Imbecile in Chief doesn't even have a war plan yet...
As Bette Midler said in The Rose
Wake me when the killin starts
The West Virginian asked the Senate: "If he could speak to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive strikes?" No doubt, Lincoln would join millions of Americans in telling senators to listen to the wisdom of Robert Byrd.
Petition - Thank You Senator Byrd!
Radio Liberty reported that a survey of 1,500 people throughout Russia conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation on Sept. 21 revealed that only 4 percent of Russians think Moscow should support Baghdad in the event of a military conflict between the United States and Iraq.
Russian industry sources said Putin has assured the nation's energy industry that it will not be harmed by the toppling of the Saddam regime. Mihhail Dolgov, a spokesman for LUKoil, said Moscow has pledged to protect the company's multi-billion dollar interests in Iraq regardless of the regime in Baghdad.
Sergei Markov, director of the Institute of Political Studies, told a Moscow strategic seminar last week that Russia doubts whether Iraq will honor its pledge to provide $40 billion in energy and other contracts.
Another Robert Fisk Moronathon, interspersed with cogent and appropriate commentary provided by somebody with more energy and patience than I would have with Fisk's reflexive anti-Western degenerate droolings.
Which country will have the first "regime change" due to Bush's W-ar? Maybe Italy's Silvio Berlusconi: "More than 1.5 million Italians took to the streets of dozens of cities Saturday afternoon and evening to protest possible U.S. military action against Iraq -- a surprise show of discord that could be fervent enough for the Italian government to re-think its support of Washington... up to this point, Rome and London have been Bush's strongest allies in Europe... A survey from Opinioni show[ed] that more than two out of every three Italians opposed any armed conflict over Iraq... The day's biggest march was held in the evening in Rome, where police said as many as 200,000 people gathered in protest.
'Our point is that we cannot support the United States's plan to kill innocent Iraqis in order to win the upcoming (Congressional) elections," Marco Filiberti, 38, a protester who came to Rome with six friends from the nearby city of Latina, told UPI.
1.5 MILLION Italians Protest War to Make Bush Believable
But that's unfair...you have said the VERY SAME THING ZAN!
Who cares what a bunch of Italian fascists thinks about the US and Iraq?
I may visit H&G from now on, but the hell with the rest of this crap.
It is impossible to have a conversation here anymore. Pity.
I hear you. I suggest Cal's new site, despite Cellar's comments (you may well post there and I do not know it). The discussion is lively, can be very intelligent, and it is hardly one-sided (for example, Cal opened a thread having contributors vote on the resolution before the Senate -it is losing, 22 to 16).
Hope to see you there.
The rest of your post contradicts that remark.
Ola Daniela!
How ENRONesque!
Bush's Cuban Missile Fantasy
In a submission to the Commons foreign affairs select committee, the bishops say: "To undertake a preventive war against Iraq at this juncture would be to lower the threshold for war unacceptably."
About 50 diocesan and suffragan bishops agreed the submission unanimously. Dr George Carey, the outgoing archbishop of Canterbury, was not present but agreed its terms. Dr Carey and his successor, Rowan Williams, have said that war would only be acceptable if sanctioned by the UN but the current statement appears to go further.
The bishops say that conclusive evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq to international peace and security is lacking, so military action cannot be justified. It would be contrary to international law and the ancient theological concept of a just war. The Guardian UK
"I'm not convinced we need to do this now," Zinni said during a question-and-answer session at a Middle East Institute forum.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans accept arguments by President Bush (news - web sites) for a potential war against Iraq: that it may soon have a nuclear weapon and the surest way to avert the threat is to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), according to a poll released on Thursday.
The poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, an independent opinion research group, found that debate over Iraq was having little impact on next month's elections, which will determine control of Congress.
According to the poll, 86 percent of those surveyed believed Saddam had nuclear weapons or was close to acquiring them, and 66 percent believed he was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
Furthermore, 85 percent of those surveyed believed that the Saddam must be ousted -- rather than simply disarmed -- to deal with the threat
posed by Iraq.
The survey of 1,513 people was taken Oct. 2-6, before Bush made a prime-time speech on the Iraqi threat. It had an error margin of 3 percentage points.
Come, jasper...
France signals wish to fall in with America over Iraq:
Following lengthy conversations on the telephone
between Colin Powell, the American Secretary of
State, and Dominique de Villepin, the French
Foreign Minister, the United States has moved
slightly closer to the demand by the French for a
“two-step” process of authorisation.
The first would cover weapons inspections, and
the second, the use of military force.
But in turn, France has been prepared to harden
the wording of a possible resolution on weapons
inspections, to make it clear that Iraq would face
consequences if it blocked the arms searches.
Jexster, you fuckup.
The dateline on that France story I linked above is today. But the article does say This week, in fact, the French Government has moved considerably closer to Washington’s position on Iraq...
One wonders whether the freighter attack had something to do with this move. Sure - the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam is vague at best. But as they say - A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
Don't go looking for it, they've ripped it off their site.
The bottom line.
That 'option' is a media fabrication. However, in trying to make it appear that the US had to get UN approval up front, the media is hoist by its own petard here, because Great Britain and other countries have already committed themselves to be US allies in the event of an Iraqi military incursion, UN approval or no.
Working throught the Security Council will bring large payoffs in terms of legitimacy and support. The only reason not to risk the delay (in the absence of an imminent threat of WMD development and use, which the Bush administration has yet to approach proving), would be for potential domestic political gain. The polls indicate that support for such an action is very shallow.
I'll make you a bet. In any so-called unilateral action, the U.S. will be supported by no fewer than a dozen countries. I'll give you three to one odds with you putting up a hundred.
And I wouldn't downplay the importance of bases in Romania (which in the past, they have offered) if we are unable to secure them elsewhere on continental Europe.
I am sure that you are right; but pointing out to a concerned US public that countries such as El Salvador, Romania, and Australia are in there with us will have little value if other countries, such as France, Jordan, and Russia, are not. However, we all seem agreed on the desireability of UN and our "traditional" allies' support in this.
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Chaffee
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Durkin
Feingold
Graham
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
GO BLUE!
Get Serious
By Michael Kinsley
According to the Bush administration, the threat posed by Iraq is serious enough to risk the lives of American soldiers, to end the lives of what would undoubtedly be thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and to risk a chemical or biological attack on the American homeland, but not serious enough to interrupt prime-time television. None of the big three broadcast networks carried Bush's case-for-war speech Monday night because, they say, the White House didn't ask. Pre-empting Saddam Hussein is one thing, apparently, but pre-empting Drew Carey is another.
The Washington Post reports that "the White House said it did not put in the usual formal request because it wanted to keep the American public from thinking we were going to war." As the hour for the speech approached, the Post says, White House officials had second thoughts and offered to "beef up" the speech to entice the networks, but it was too late.
This notion that a call to arms can be beefed up or beefed down at will, like the idea that people should give their support for a war without really thinking it's going to happen, is characteristic of the Bush sell job....
Ambiguity has its place in dealings among nations, and so does a bit of studied irrationality. Sending mixed signals and leaving the enemy uncertain what you might do next are valid tactics. But the cloud of confusion that surrounds Bush's Iraq policy is not tactical. It's the real thing. And the dissembling is aimed at the American citizenry, not at Saddam Hussein. Saddam knows how close he is or isn't to a usable nuclear bomb—we're the ones who are expected to take Bush's word for it
Arguments that stumble into each other like drunks are not seriousM. Kinsley
Ola Ronski! "lurching from argument to fatuous argument like a drunkard stumbling from pillar to post" or roughly
The O'Hanlon piece and other linked up thread discuss the significant logistical problems involved in this op in some detail. Not enough runways basically.
As for international support, I'll take that bet.
- Putin told Blair to get bent
-Public support for Blair's line is heading for 20%
- The Conservative Party is setting themselves up for a "We told you so Tony Poodle Dog"
- South Africa as head of the 130 Nation Non-aligned bloc has moved to open security council debate to all UN member states
- Powell is reported as having privately stated in negotiations that he doesn't have any substantial objection to two resolutions per the French proposal but when word got back to the ChickenHawk dilletantes, Wolfowitz appeared to pull those panties back up...
Bush will certainly get the gruding acquiesence of a few sheiks and Arab puppet (at a huge cost) but if he lurches off to war in the dead of winter without UN sanction, he'll be lucky to have Britain.
The news that the nutters and fascisti are planning to install Tommy Franks as Governor General of Iraq makes yours even more a sucker bet
You're on, my rabid dog.
Daniel Sickles is my usual bookie. I'll see if we can mail him the money. If he's not up for it, I'm sure we can arrange someone else to act as the mediator.
Here's the bet: When the U.S. moves against Iraq, at least a dozen nations will support the move.
You send in a hundred U.S. dollars and I send in three hundred. Winner takes all.
If the U.S. does not move to take down Saddam before the end of 2003, all the money will revert to you.
Deal?
Covert assistance and abstention from a vote does not count.
H. L. Mencken
Who can forget Russ Hodges' famous call of perhaps the most dramtic home run in baseball history. Bobby Thomson connects for the game winner off of the Dodger's Ralph Branca , and wins the pennant for the Giants!.--October 3, 1951
"Bobby, if you ever hit one, hit it now."
- Leo Durocher to Thomson as the two men huddled up the third base line prior to his famous at-bat.
"There's a long drive, in center field I believe! The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant! BobbyThomson hits into the lower deck of the left field stands. The Giants win the pennant, and they're going crazy, they're going crazy! OOOOHHHH!!!" -- Russ Hodges
But i won't count support as a fuckin base right in Romania or a UN vote....
Material support yes....base from which attacks are launched...troops in the Order of Battle
But i won't count support as a fuckin base right in Romania or a UN vote....
Chickenshit.
Support is support. The U.S. does most of the hard work anyway. In the first Gulf War, Bush gathered 31 nations to aid the U.S. in material ways, but none of them -- not even Britain or France -- were really needed. Saudi bases were necessary. Japanese money was nice. That was about it.
So stop whining like a diseased bitch about how Romanian bases aren't helpful and back up your brave words with some cash.
Voice of America
by Simon Tisdall (Gaurdian UK)
Who can stop Bush on Iraq? Not the UN security council, it seems, where US diplomatic kneecapping and punishment beatings proceed apace. Not an intimidated US Congress where, with honourable exceptions, the call to arms trumpets irresistibly over November's hustings. And not any number of international lawyers, vainly brandishing the UN charter and pre-emptively disregarded by high counsel to the White House hyperpower. In Whitehall, worried marchers scare pigeons but not the Pentagon. As the drum beats and the rhetoric rises, respected analysts opine that nothing now can prevent the war. Bush will have his way because, whatever bishops and imams vicariously preach, no power on earth can stop him.
This is not entirely true; in truth, not true at all. Americans can stop America's next war as they have stopped similar planned or actual idiocies in the past. That the Bush clique pays scant heed to Arab and Muslim concerns, has no time for "euro-wimps" and other appeasers is brutally clear. But domestic public opinion is a different story - and that story is changing. Slowly, inconsistently but palpably, ordinary Americans are making their voices heard. This is no anti-war movement to compare with Vietnam. Their motivations are often practical, even mundane. But a strange phenomenon is now apparent in which Karl Rove, Bush's top electoral strategist and poll-watcher, may yet emerge as a more potent force than the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis and all the other full-spectrum dominators combined.
Its not Shroeder against Chirac, it the world against Bush and Blair M. Jacques Chirac,
Vive La France! Vive Le Vrai President!
What a segue, what a mind, Cmndr Baba Jex, Jeximan-the-Magnificent
I'd have preferred the "support" they gave in their last pre-emptive war they fought in
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 14 — The impasse between the United States and France over military action in Iraq has deepened in recent days after an effort to reach a compromise stalled, with the French insisting that the Americans must come back to the United Nations Security Council before they can use force, diplomats said today.
US - France Rift Deepens
La Dame D'avignon
Saddam's Ballot
Nations Opposing Iraq War Get Ready for UN Debate
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - In a preview of a debate on Wednesday, South Africa, head of the 130-member Non-Aligned Movement of developing nations, said the world should solve the Iraqi crisis without resorting to force.
Stop slappin my monkey.
"There is no more unwavering supporter of the exercise of state power than I" PM
"War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense . . . the nation in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war...The State is intimately connected with war, for it is the organization of the collective community when it acts in a political manner, and to act in a political manner towards a rival group has meant, throughout all history - war." [A War Diary by Randolph Bourne, September 1917]
Why the Reckless Rush to War
Wilson Report: Will Iraq War Go Nuclear
Conditioning of the Masses in the Hall of Mirrors
Nope. I've said there is no greater supporter of the state of Israel than I. I've also said that military power tends to be underutilized by developed states.
100% voted for Saddam.
The world is stunned.
What an asshole. Those are human beings, waiting to be executed for the crime of being Iraqi. Allow them the dignity of at least standing together with their heads up.
JoeZ:
From the Guardian article you cited above:
"The poll results also show that the belief that a new UN mandate is needed before British troops are committed remains overwhelming with 85% of voters saying this must be a precondition."
As if they would be better off dead.
I repeat, what an asshole.
Robert Kaplan has a good article in the New Republic on life in Saddam's Iraq as a case for humanitarian intervention. it is even succinct, so that Sakonige can read it.
I would be curious to hear any ideas South Africa and these other countries have that haven't already been tried. I supposed we haven't tried voodoo, but I an not even sure of that. We have tried sanctions, no-fly zones, containment, limited air strikes, UN resolutions, threats, promises, rude remarks and hopeful pleading. Saddam continues to arm and fund terrorists. I think we have exhausted our options.
That must be one of the most ignorant statements made in the Mote, maybe in all of cyberspace. The "solidarity" of the Iraqi people with their leader far exceeds that extended to other beloved leaders such as Stalin, Amin, Ceaucescu and Khadaffi. Even they didn't dare to claim more than 97-99% of the vote.
Of course, the Iraqi solidarity may have been encouraged by the fact that the voters marked their ballots in public view.
I am a supporter of actions to be taken against Iraq, but the sheer mendacity, the outrageous doublespeak dishonesty of those who are currently making the slipshod arguments for war is revolting.
I hate to interrupt your bizarre little diabtribe, but the US et al are not going to be carpet bombing residential neighborhoods in Bagdad. Iraqi civilians are not going to be executed. The few non-combatants that may die will be because Saddam and his military have chosed to use them as human shields. The total number of civilian casualties will likely be lower than the number executed by the current Iraqi government in an average month.
It's cynical to deny the Iraqis even their defiance in the face of an invasion. You don't grant them any humanity at all.
Iraqis, and all Arabs, have plenty of reason to hate the West.
They have plenty of reason to want to destroy the United States and its allies, already. I don't begrudge them their hatred. They have a right to it.
Saddam is arming and funding Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza. This isn't exactly news. Or don't you consider people who kill innocent civilians terrorists if you agree with their cause?
The few non-combatants that may die will be because Saddam and his military have chosed to use them as human shields. The total number of civilian casualties will likely be lower than the number executed by the current Iraqi government in an average month.
You mean like the few (thousand) non-combatants who died in far more sparsely-populated Afghanistan during the US air campaign?
Funds, big deal, the Saudis pour funds into Palestine and I don't hear you and your chest-beating buddies in the US Right clamoring to attack Saudi Arabia. Hell, as someone who agrees with every bit of propaganda emerging from the Sharonites you should be calling for a carpet-bombing of the EU too - they are the biggest source of funds for Arafat's PA.
George C. Wilson
National Journal
October 12, 2002
Israel's firing off a nuclear weapon in retaliation for Saddam Hussein's attacking it with a chemical or biological weapon looms as the No. 1 nightmare if the United States goes to war against Iraq, according to a wide spectrum of government and private arms specialists pondering the "what-if" scenarios.
The scenario would unfold this way: Saddam fires chemical and/or biological weapons at Israel. They inflict such heavy casualties that hard-line Israeli leader Ariel Sharon strikes back with a nuclear device as deadly as the one that incinerated Hiroshima during World War II. Arabs and Muslims, in angry response, attack Americans and their cities wherever and whenever they can, including launching suicide attacks similar to the ones being conducted by the Palestinians against Israel.
Four of these worst-case scenarios, including the Israeli one, have been discussed at high levels in the Bush administration, although behind closed doors. But the public is unlikely to hear much about them as President Bush strives to build support for attacking Iraq should United Nations inspectors fail to disarm Saddam's regime.
What follows are the views of nongovernment defense analysts on the possible-but not necessarily probable-worst-case consequences of the United States' invading Iraq. All four scenarios involve the possible use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs. Government officials, who declined to be identified, were also interviewed for this story. But their privately expressed concerns closely parallel those of the private defense analysts, who can speak more freely.
They did? When was the last time inspectors had free access to all of the suspected sites in Iraq? Why did the inspections stop?
We need to be able to resume them, and to be able to strike hard and decisively if Iraq attempts to evade them.
Uh, Wombat, that is what we are doing. The inspectors were kicked out 4 years ago. If Saddam would agree to unfettered access for inspectors and actually deliver on that promise, we could avoid this war. So far Iraq hasn't agreed to that. What they have offered does not begin to ensure that they are free of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
Since they have "evaded" inspections for years now, it is time "strike hard and decisively."
It's pretty clear the American administration isn't in control of how a war on Iraq will play out. It was being discussed just today in this article,
Rumsfeld, Top Brass Clash
And everyone knows the promise of democracy rising from the ashes in Iraq is bullshit. The people of Iraq are not going to be allowed to democratically chose their own leaders, certainly not when they choose Islamic leaders. They are going to be left fighting over the dregs under the neglect of some business crony of the American regime.
Of key importance here has been the growing alliance between the Christian Right - closely linked to the old White South - and the Israeli lobby, or at least its hardline Likud elements.
When this alliance began to take shape some years back, it seemed a most improbable combination. After all, the Christian Right and the White South were once havens of anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
For Christian fundamentalists today the influence of millenarian thought is equally important in shaping support for Israel: the existence of the Israeli state is seen as a necessary prelude to the arrival of the Antichrist, the Apocalypse and the rule of Christ and His Saints. But above all, perhaps, this coming together of the fundamentalist Right and hardline Zionism is natural, because they share many hatreds. The Christian Right has always hated the United Nations, partly on straight nationalist grounds, but also because of bizarre fears of world government by the Antichrist. They have hated Europeans on religious grounds as decadent atheists, on class grounds as associates of the hated 'East Coast elites', and on nationalist grounds as critics of unconstrained American power. Both sides share an instinctive love of military force. Both see themselves as historical victims. This may seem strange in the case of the American Rightists, but it isn't if one considers both the White South's history of defeat, and the Christian Right's sense since the 1960s of defeat and embattlement by the forces of irreligion and cultural change.
Finally, and most dangerously, both are conditioned to see themselves as defenders of 'civilisation' against 'savages' - a distinction always perceived on the Christian Right as in the main racially defined.
From "The Push for War" Anatoly Levin Carnegie Endowment
That's a spurious argument. Much as I disagree with Sharon's domestic policies, the man is no fool. What could possibly be gained from nuking an Iraq which at that stage will already be crumbling under the American attack?
Also, I doubt very much that missile delivered chemical/biological weapons will do much damage unless launched on a massive scale with good precision. Iraq doesn't have the capability for that. The few missiles they have have poor guidance systems, as evidenced in GW1.
One scenario not mentioned, I have mentioned before, is the Ethnic Cleansing Plan. That I fear is a more plausible one and about as worse case as those mentioned in the National Journal piece.
Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan
By Martin Van Creveld
Mr. Bush says he's in a rush to go to war with Iraq because it's so strong, but he's in a rush to go to war with Iraq because it's so weak. Mo Dowd "Texas on the Tigris"
We are currently seeking to return to the situation before the UN inspectors left, with additional freedoms for inspectors, backed with the threat of invasion if Iraq does not comply. We are seeking to re-start the process, so that any action we end up taking will have the legitimacy of the UN behind it, which will allow other countries to join us, or at least remain neutral.
There is no need whatsoever--unless it is for domestic political reasons--to rush into this. I hope that Bush has gotten this into his head, and that we will not strike in November by ourselves.
Your hope and 2.50 will buy a cappucino
If we go in on the basis of Iraq's refusal to accept a stringent inspection regime, and under the imprimatur of a Security Council resolution, would you continue to oppose it?
Bombing Iraq into democracy could well prove counterproductive
Which may explain why Pantywaist Powell has been reported as being in favor of keeping Sad-am in power.
But against those Chickenfried Fundies, all Powell has goin for him is purty pink panties
And Arafat's plan has always been to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean. Which is more extreme, relocation or genocide?
The claim is ridiculous on its face. Israel could have expelled the Palestinians at any time in the last 30 years if that had been the goal. An interesting point in that article is that Jordan solved its "Palestinian problem" by exterminating thousands and using mass relocations. Israel actions are miniscule by comparison.
Like most "official lines", this one can be dismissed. He's not coming to learn what our attack and defense plans are, the IDF can get that from an attache in Tel Aviv.
It was more dangerous to walk through East St Louis in 1975.
The difference being that the Israelis could actually drive the Palestinians out, as opposed to whatever wishful thinking about Israel's disappearance that the Palestinians may harbor.
Israel driving the Palestinians across the Jordan is speculation at best.
The Israelis have expelled large numbers of Palestinians in the past.
There is a frightening number of Israelis who now advocate that, and they are found in the coalition that is now running Israel. If the Israelis used a US invasion of Iraq as a pretext to expel the Palestinians--as Van Creveld (no flaming lefty, he)--"speculates," are you confident that the Bush administration would be able to stop it?
Secondly, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US embassy – in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. Thirdly, because the envoy was – wait for it – Donald Rumsfeld. Now you might think it strange that Mr Rumsfeld, in the course of one of his folksy press conferences, hasn't chatted to us about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would have wished to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no.
Strangely, Mr Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz – which just happened to take place on the day in March, 1984, that the UN released its damning report on Saddam's use of poison gas against Iran. The American media are silent about this too, of course. Because we must forget.
And when President Bush junior promises the Iraqi people "an era of new hope" and democracy after the destruction of Saddam – as he did last night – we must forget how the Americans promised Pakistan and Afghanistan a new era of hope after the defeat of the Soviet army in 1980 – and did nothing.
We must forget how President Bush senior urged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and – when they obeyed – did nothing. We must forget how America promised a new era of hope to Somalia in 1993 and then, after "Black Hawk Down", abandoned the country.
We must forget how President Bush junior promised to "stand by" Afghanistan before he began his bombings last year – and has left it now an economic shambles of drug barons, warlords, anarchy and fear. He boasted yesterday that the people of Afghanistan have been "liberated" – this after he has failed to catch bin Laden, failed to catch Mullah Omar, and while his troops are coming under daily attack. We must forget, as we listen to the need to reinsert arms inspectors, that the CIA covertly used UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq.
Most of the Palestinian "refugees" who left Israel in 1948 and 1967 did so not because they were expelled by Israel, but because they did not want to live in a Jewish state. Their leaders promised them that they would push the Jews into the sea and they would be able to plunder their Jewish neighbor's property.
Now they sit in squalor in refugee camps and their hatred burns. They blame Israel because it is too difficult for them to blame themselves and their ancestors for their lot in life. Had they stayed in Israel, the majority of them would be living middle-class lives next door to their Jewish neighbors and enjoying the fruits of their labor like the other Palestinians who chose to stay.
They still have this opportunity. All they have to do is to put aside their hate, swallow their pride and admit to their mistakes. A two-state solution with strong business and political ties to Israel would allow them the benefits enjoyed by Israeli Palestinians. But then, making such an admission is the most difficult thing of all.
Why doesn't Bush make it easy for himself?
Can Bush be trusted?
Two very good questions for our Moral Moderator, Mister Legion
Hello my name is Ed
Well, here is one theory. If Bush is making his decision based on classified intelligence, it could very well be that the information was gathered by agents working inside Iraq. Making this information public would place the mission and very likely the lives of these agents at risk. We don't need a repeat of what happened in the 80's when Congress leaked information concerning ongoing covert activities and several US agents died as a result.
He's leaked enough about Iraq to fill the tigris river and of course, you have forgotten the big Afghan dossier chock full of intelligence information that was used with great sucess to convince even the most radical states that our cause was just.
I know the obvious answer doesn't illlude you Biener, its just too painful for you to admit
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - South Africa, head of the 130-member Non-Aligned Movement, on Wednesday set the tone for a marathon U.N. debate on Iraq, warning Washington against military action before U.N. inspectors returned to Baghdad.
U.N. Members Apprehensive of War Drums Against Iraq
U.N. Members Apprehensive of War Drums Against Iraq
Yeah, that was what I was taught in Sunday School in the 1960s.
If you have bothered to keep up with the history of 1948, you would know that many of the Palestinians who "fled" were in fact encouraged to do so by local Israeli military commanders. Others who left of their own volition anticipating a return after the fighting ended, found themselves forcibly barred from returning.
Van Creveld and Morris both note that many of the early infiltration attempts by Palestinians after 1948 were cases of indivduals attempting to recover their movable possessions, which had been appropriated by the new owners of what had been their property.
As to Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, while in theory they have equal status to other Israelis, the most cursory glance at their living conditions puts them in a distinctly second-class relationship in terms of resources and access to state services. The actions of Israeli police in responding to disorders in Israeli-Arab areas in the last two years would have been a government-toppling scandal had they taken place anywhere else in Israel.
Time to take off the rose colored glasses and recognize that the Israelis have not only been victims of Palestinian hatred, but have also done much to encourage it.
(a) Essential elements.
1. Complete and total authority is vested in the Fuehrer.
"He shapes the collective will of the people within himself and he enjoys the political unity and entirety of the people in opposition to individual interests.
"The Fuehrer unites in himself all the sovereign authority of the Reich; all public authority in the state as well as in the movement is derived from the authority of the Fuehrer. We must speak not of the states authority but of the Fuehrers authority if we wish to designate the character of the political authority within the Reich correctly. The state does not hold political authority as an impersonal unit but receives it from the Fuehrer as the executor of the national will. The authority of the Fuehrer is complete and all-embracing; it unites in itself all the means of political direction; it extends into all fields of national life; it embraces the entire people, which is bound to the Fuehrer in loyalty and obedience. The authority of the Fuehrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited.
"The Fuehrer-Reich of the (German) people is founded on the recognition that the true will of the people cannot be disclosed through parliamentary votes and plebiscites but that the will of the people in its pure and uncorrupted form can only be expressed through the Fuehrer." (2771-PS)
"Thus at the head of the Reich, stands a single Fuehrer, who in his personality embodies the idea which sustains all and whose spirit and will therefore animate the entire community." (2780-PS)
If the settlers get their way, Israel will de facto or de jure annex the West Bank and Gaza. And if current Palestinian birth rates continue, by around the year 2010 there will be more Palestinians than Jews living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined. When that happens, the demand of the college anti-Israel movements will change.
They won't bother anymore with divestiture. They will simply demand: "One Man, One Vote. Since Israel has defacto annexed the territories, and there is now just one political entity between Jordan and the Mediterranean, we want majority rule." If you think it is hard to defend Israel on campus taday, imagine doing it in 2010, when the colonial settlers have so locked Israel into the territories it can rule them only by apartheid-like policies.
This is not a call for unilateral Israeli withdrawal. This is a call for everyone who wants Israel to remain a Jewish state--and not become a binational state--to urge Bush to renew the U.S. push for a two-state solution. If you think the Bush team is doing Israel a favor with its diplomacy of benign neglect, if you think the only campaign Jews need to be involved in today is with hypocrites on U.S. college campuses--and not with extremists in their own camp--you too are telling yourselves a very big and dangerous lie.
Tom Friedman NYT 10-16
These risks are not only to American (and British) lives and interests, but to the political future of the Administration. If the war goes badly wrong, it will be more generally excoriated than any within living memory, and its members will be finished politically - finished for good. If no other fear moved these people, you'd have thought this one would.
Given the political risks of failure - to themselves, above all - why are they doing this? And, more broadly, what has bred this reckless spirit?
To understand the Administration's motivation, it is necessary to appreciate the breathtaking scope of the domestic and global ambitions which the dominant neo-conservative nationalists hope to further by means of war, and which go way beyond their publicly stated goals. There are of course different groups within this camp: some are more favourable to Israel, others less hostile to China; not all would support the most radical aspects of the programme. However, the basic and generally agreed plan is unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority, and this has been consistently advocated and worked on by the group of intellectuals close to Dick Cheney and Richard Perle since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
Anatol Lieven "London Review of Books" makes the precise point that I have made countless times here.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States came under a barrage of criticism Wednesday as the Security Council held an open debate at the behest of dozens of countries angry with the Bush administration's threat to attack Iraq.
Key U.S. allies in the Middle East, including Kuwait -- which was invaded by Saddam Hussein's forces in 1990 -- came out against the use of military force in Iraq and called on Washington to give U.N. weapons inspectors a chance to disarm the oil-rich nation
Hello my name is Ed
Too bad Cheney was so opposed to projecting America's power against apartheid South Africa.
October 11,2002- San Jose, Costa Rica. the government of Costa Rica is beginning preparations for a possible invasion of the United States, Costa Rican officials have said.
In a speech to a group of business leaders in San Jose on Thursday, Costa Rican Foreign Ministar Roberto Tovar said that the government of George W. Bush consititutes a "continuing threat that will only worsen," making military action a requirment. "It is better to act now than to wait until bombs are raining down on San Jose," he said.
"Costa Rica has a stronger democracy than any other country in Latin America," said Tovar. "As such, we realize thatthe threat we pose to the Bush regime. For all we know, they could attack at any moment."
tovan and Costa Rican president Abel Pacheco have been working to convince their country that they ignore the danger at their peril. "George W. Bush has massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological," Pacheco said in a recent speech. "Nothing he has done indicates he would have the slightest hesitation to use them against his neighbors." Pacheco cited the numerous instances in which the U.S. government has initiatied overt or covert military action against its neighbors, listing Panama, Grenada, and Nicaragua, among others.
more
The Costaq Rican president also cited recent domestic moves by the Bush administration and Bush's human rights record as causes for concern. "Bush executed more prisoners than any governor in modern U.S. history, and has clamped down on human rights since he assumed the presidency. While the United States has a proud tradition of democracy, Bush's eagerness to undermine consitutuional protections and the separation of powers makes us nervous," said Pacheco. "Once he has concentrated all power in the executive branch, who knows what he'll do."
Costa Rican television stations have been contributing to preparations for war by repeatedly showing a clip in which Bush is seen standing on a balcony firing a rifle into the air. Although the clip is nearly two decades old, it airs as many as twenty times a day on state television, enhancing the image of Bush as a belligerant war monger preparing to harm Costa Rica.
more
Nonetheless, Costa Ricans are far from unified on the need to invade the United States. "We all know that Bush is a brutal dictator," said Sonia Picado, leader of the oposition National Liberation party (PLN) "But how many Costa Ricans need to die to get rid of this one man? Unless he makes an explicit move against us, it's better to us international pressure to keep him in his box." Picodo questioned the rationale for moving against Bush now. "One thing we know about Bush, he values his own power pabove all else. so why would he risk it by attacking Costa Rica? And why is the threat suddenly greater than it was six months ago, or a year or two years?"
Picado also raised the possibility of the tens of thousands of inevitable American casualties that would result from an invasion to depose Bush, but addedl, "To be honest, that argument doesn't mean very much here. Costa Ricans don't particularly care how many civilians get killed in a military action we undertake, particularly if they speak a different language than we do." more
For now the Costa Rican government is continuing to plan for a move on Washington, which some say could come by year's end.
Copyright 2002 The Waldman Political Report
Apprehension about Washington's war plans to topple Mr. Hussein was especially strong among the Arab nations.
"An attack on Iraq would open a Pandora's box," said Yahia A. Mahmassani, the representative of the Arab League. "It will lead to civil and ethnic war in Iraq and also destabilize the whole Arab region, which is already outraged at the Israeli occupation," he said.
"The war on Iraq will negate the present world order, the charter of the United Nations and international law," he said.
Even Kuwait...insisted that "any use of force must be a last resort and within the United Nations framework, and only after all other available means have been exhausted."
Arab representatives, including those from American allies like Egypt and Jordan, complained of a double standard, saying the Council had been less forceful in bringing Israel to comply with resolutions calling for a nuclear-free Middle East and for it to withdraw from lands occupied in the 1967 war.
"It would be tragic if the Security Council were to pre-judge the work of the inspectors before they set foot in Iraq," said South Africa's ambassador, Dumisani S. Kumalo, who was also speaking on behalf of the nonaligned nations.
Iran, a neighbor that fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq, objected strongly to the Bush administration's policy of "regime change" for the Iraqi leader, calling it "fully alien" to international law. Ambassador Javad Zarif warned that an attack on Iraq would "sow seeds of new hatred" in the Middle East "that will feed instability for years to come."
Even United States allies like the European Union, which supported tough pressure to disarm Iraq, gave no support for a unilateral American strike against Baghdad. It insisted that the issue be handled through the Security Council.
NyT
WASHINGTON -- Bowing to pressure from France and Russia, the United States on Wednesday offered a compromise proposal that would call for serious "consequences" if Iraq does not comply with tough weapons inspections — but would not seek authorization for military action without further discussions at the world body.
The compromise, outlined Wednesday by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in telephone conversations with his French and Russian counterparts, calls for one Security Council resolution that will send U.N. weapons inspectors back to Iraq with sweeping orders to track any nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, U.S. sources said.
Crawford Crawfishin
To Deal with Bush, You Just Say NO to Bush
Masoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, the leaders of northern Iraq, were reunited on October 4 at Irbil to discuss peace and a future constitution, while an armored division of 5,000 Turkish troops, tanks and helicopters muscled down well inside the Kurdish safe-haven. Middle East Times
OOOPS
In the Commons the Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, acknowledged that Mr Blair's belief that a twin-track approach was feasible was "undoubtedly genuine", but coupled this with the assertion, shared by Labour and a handful of Tory sceptics, that it is unwise.
Kennedy Warns Blair on Iraq
If I were Pincher I'd hate me too.
"What's next, the rally monkey on ice?" he said.
"We're going to drown the bastard in blood."
The canard that won't die...the UN withdrew them
Terror Threat As High Today As it Was pre-911
Way to Go Morons
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA (news - web sites) director George Tenet said on Thursday the current "threat environment" is as serious now as it was the summer before last year's Sept. 11 attacks on America that killed around 3,000 people.
Tenet, in a joint hearing before the congressional intelligence committees, said the CIA and FBI (news -web sites) could not be absolutely flawless all the time in fighting the terror threat.
"The threat environment we find ourselves in today is as bad as it was last summer, the summer before 9/11. It is serious, they've reconstituted, they are coming after us, they want to execute attacks. You see it in Bali, you see it in Kuwait."
"They plan in multiple theaters of operation, they intend to strike ... again."
The CIA chief earlier hit back at critics of U.S. intelligence lapses before the attacks on America, telling Congress the intelligence agencies lacked precise details to prevent the strikes even though they knew Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) was plotting to kill many Americans.
The same goes for the war against al-Qaida and its allies: the plan for the destruction of the existing Iraqi regime is related to this struggle, but not as it has been presented publicly. Links between Baghdad and al-Qaida are unproven and inherently improbable: what the Administration hopes is that by crushing another middle-sized state at minimal military cost, all the other states in the Muslim world will be terrified into full co-operation in tracking down and handing over suspected terrorists, and into forsaking the Palestinian cause. Iran for its part can either be frightened into abandoning both its nuclear programme and its support for the Palestinians, or see its nuclear facilities destroyed by bombardment.
The idea, in other words, is to scare these states not only into helping with the hunt for al-Qaida, but into capitulating to the US and, more important, Israeli agendas in the Middle East.
'The road to Middle East peace lies through Baghdad' is a line that's peddled by the Bush Administration and the Israeli lobby. It is just possible that some members of the Administration really believe that ...they will gain such credit with Israelis and the Israeli lobby that they will be able to press compromises on Israel.
But this is certainly not what public statements by members of the Administration - let alone those of its Likud allies in Israel - suggest. Rumsfeld recently described the Jewish settlements as legitimate products of Israeli military victory; the Republican Majority Leader in the House, Dick Armey (a sceptic as regards war with Iraq), has advocated the ethnic cleansing ('transfer') of the Palestinians across the Jordan; and in 1996 Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (now a senior official at the Pentagon) advised Binyamin Netanyahu to abandon the Oslo Peace Process and return to military repression of the Palestinians.
It's far more probable, therefore, that most members of the Bush and Sharon Administrations hope that the crushing of Iraq will so demoralise the Palestinians, and so reduce wider Arab support for them, that it will be possible to force them to accept a Bantustan settlement bearing no resemblance to independent statehood and bringing with it no possibility of economic growth and prosperity.
Anatol Lieven
Download Full Report (PDF)
The Leftist world has been stunned by the revelation, forced into the open by the GWB Administration, mind you, that x42 was an actual enabler of the North Korean nuclear arms development program (and no good reason currently exists to doubt Rumsfeld's belief that they may now actually have an atomic bomb or two).
Now, jexster, even you couldn't convince anybody but an imbecile that the very same blinkered attitudes and beliefs which have led to the N. Korea nuclear fiasco should be allowed to dissuade the US from ensuring that Insane will not be allowed to do the same.
There's a saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice - shit! I must be a Leftist moron! 
"Rice suggested it would be a mistake to equate the situation in North Korea with that of Iraq, where the United States is contemplating use of force to disarm that country."[of weapons it does not have]
The banal propaganda portrayal of Saddam as a crazed and suicidal dictator plays well on the American street, but I don't believe that it is a view shared by the Administration. Rather, their intention is partly to retain an absolute certainty of being able to defend the Gulf against an Iraqi attack, but, more important, to retain for the US and Israel a free hand for intervention in the Middle East as a whole....the basic and generally agreed plan is unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority, and this has been consistently advocated and worked on by the group of intellectuals close to Dick Cheney and Richard Perle since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
jexster-
The term 'fuckwit' admirably describes you and Leftist idiotology in general. Can you hazard a guess why?
img src=http://www.nhgazette.com/2002/graphics/chickenhawks_logo_3.jpg width=400>
They are not accused of lacking experience and judgment compared to military men.
They are accused of hypocrisy and cowardice. 
The Whoops O Matic!
Although U.S. officials stressed again on Friday they could strike Iraq at any time in self-defense and without U.N. approval, even close ally Britain would have second thoughts about joining a military action without some kind of new United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council resolution.
Almost every nation in the world expressed apprehension about a war in the Middle East in speeches before U.N. Security Council members on Wednesday and Thursday.
Guess they didn't know Pincher was tryin to find someone to take his money.....
God knows I need it. But I don't steal old ladies purses either.
Rumanian National Anthem
Are you planning on writing that hundred dollar check and sending it off today?
So make that a two-hundred dollar check.
Works with snake oil salesmen & telemarketers every time
De Beyrouth, Jacques Chirac réaffirme ses divergences avec les Etats-Unis sur l'Irak
Vive La France!
Saturday, October 26th:
STOP THE WAR ON IRAQ BEFORE IT STARTS!
National March in
Washington, DC, San Francisco and other cities
The International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition has called for and is leading the organizing of a mass demonstration and march in Washington, and San Francisco. Solidarity rallies will be held in several other cities on the same day, including Denver and Seattle. At last count, buses from over 130 cities across the US were booked for travel to DC or SF.
Bien moins jaloux de leur survivre
Que de partager leur cercueil
Nous aurons le sublime orgueil
De les venger ou de les suivre!
Your money or more mouth, Jexter? Do you have the balls to stand behind your words? Or is your use of French mean you plan on a pusillanimous last stand behind the Maginot Line?
keep your money.... you're lookin like a used tampon
Little Old Lady Martin, the same yesterday, today, tommorrow
France wins friends in east, respect in US
"In the modern world, the use of force should only be a last and exceptional resort," he said in Beirut. "It should only be allowed in the case of legitimate defence, or by decision of the competent international authorities."
That position has been backed by Russia and China, fellow veto-holding permanent members of the security council, and was echoed almost unanimously by UN ambassadors in New York this week. Mr Chirac's efforts have also won the praise of several Arab states.
"Allow me to thank you for France's remarkable position on the threat of using force to resolve the Iraqi problem," the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, Nabih Berry, told the French president yesterday. "It is a position that has earned the gratitude of the entire Arab world."
In case it escaped your notice, little fella, Chirac just said "non"...
Works every damn time.
What banal phrase did you use with Ronski, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen?
Democrats' REAL positions on Iraq War
UK Telegraph Editorial by: Mark Steyn
As I understand it, the British Labour Party is divided between those in favour of war with Iraq and those opposed to it. In the US Democratic Party, it's more complicated: Faction A is anti-war but trying hard not to have to say so between now and election day in November. Faction B was pro-war when it was Bill Clinton in charge but anti-war now there's a Republican rallying the troops. Faction C can go either way but huffily insists that to ask them to express an opinion would be to "politicise" the war. Faction D can't quite figure which position alienates least of their supporters and so articulates a whole all-you-can-eat salad bar of conflicting positions and then, in a weird postmodern touch, ostentatiously agonises over the "inherent risks" in each of them. Faction E thinks the priority right now should be to sit around holding inquiries into why the administration failed to act on what it knew about al-Qa'eda before they killed thousands of Americans. To act on what we know about Saddam before he kills thousands of Americans would be an unnecessary distraction from the important work of investigating why we didn't act last time round.
Taken as a whole, the 50 Democratic senators' current positions on Iraq forms the all-time record multiple-contortionist pretzel display. But a week ago they showed signs of finally remembering the First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging. Instead of talking about why they don't want to talk about Iraq, they correctly figured that the easiest thing would be to give Bush some qualified, perfunctory support and hastily change the subject to something more favourable, such as the allegedly collapsing economy.
Al spent his riveting Gore '00 presidential campaign in a fruitless pursuit for "the real Al Gore", launching a brand new "real Al Gore" every couple of weeks. But, in fairness to the Democratic Party's very own weapon of mass self-destruction, throughout all his multiple personalities Gore has been consistently tough on Saddam, ever since he was one of the few Democratic Senators to vote for the first Gulf War 12 years ago.
Not any more, though. Last week, Al decided he's against a war with Iraq. Iraq, he argues, will distract us from Afghanistan. "Great nations," he intones, "do not jump from one unfinished task to another." Just so.
You'll remember that in the Second World War, after its early victories in the Pacific, the US wisely concentrated on nation-building in the Solomon Islands for five or 10 years instead of rushing on to liberate Europe. America, says Al, can't fight Iraq and mop up Afghanistan at the same time. We can walk. Or we can chew gum. But we shouldn't try to jump from walking to gum-chewing until we're certain we've completed our walk.
That's why a couple of days later the normally sober, soft-spoken, funereal Tom Daschle, the Democrats' leader in the Senate, had a meltdown on the floor of the chamber. For months, the calmly evasive Daschle has stuck to an unvarying routine on Iraq. He has "concerns". He has "grave concerns". His concerns have concerns. He's gravely concerned that the President isn't concerned about some of his concerns and that concerns him all the more. Plus he's concerned that the Republicans may be politicising the political process. Also, he has "questions".
Thousands of questions: Has the President weighed all the options? Is the President aware of the risks? Could the President weigh all the options a couple more times? Is the President aware there may be some risks he's not aware of? When the President says he's weighing all the options, is that in pounds or kilograms? Does the President know who put the bomp in the bomp-sh-bomp-sh-bomp, who put the ram in the ram-a-lama-ding-dong? Where have all the flowers gone? What kind of fool am I? If happy little bluebirds fly beyond the rainbow, why oh why can't I? In the immortal words of David Cassidy, how can I be sure in a world that's constantly changing?
The network correspondents hailed this as one of the most genuinely profoundly moving performances since Al Jolson last sang Sonny Boy or, alternatively, Bill Clinton held his final post-Monica "prayer breakfast" with his legions of "spiritual advisors". But, as someone who sat there howling with laughter as Senator Daschle blinked back tears, I think his attack on the President was an example of what the shrinks call displacement: Bush only implied the Democrats were soft on the war; Gore positively boasted about it.
Got that? It's available from party headquarters on a bumper sticker, if you've got a stretch limo long enough.
The sight of the Democratic Party "wrestling" (as Al put it) with its conscience over Iraq is like some old-time carney freakshow: it's strangely compelling, but you can't help feeling it's cruel to put these misfits on public display. The administration doesn't need to "politicise" the war. They're for it. So are the American people. The Democrats have had since the liberation of Kabul 10 months ago to work out a viable position. Instead, they seem to have run the various options past the focus-groups, identified the half-dozen least popular, and plumped for all of them.
Five weeks till election day and the Democratic Party's doing a dandy impression of one of those incompetent suicide bombers who accidentally self-detonates before he gets on the bus.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq began releasing political prisoners under an unprecedented amnesty issued Sunday by President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to inmates and exiles to mark his perfect 100 percent win in an uncontested election last week
"The atrocity in Bali last Saturday is a grim reminder that we are in a long war. It is a war that pits a few thousand unidentified individuals against most of humankind, from the beaches of Bali to lower Manhattan. A year ago President Bush named this conflict the "war on terror" and committed the United States to fighting it. Today many people outside America believe that Washington has lost interest in this war, except as rhetorical cover for a retreat to more familiar territory: an old-fashioned battle against an old-fashioned kind of enemy — Iraq. We are seeking a fight we can win instead of concentrating on the war that we must win."
PantyWaist Powell Eases Iraq Rhetoric
Secretary of state says disarmament, not regime change, is top priority
Last week, a divergence became clear. Diplomacy toward North Korea, which peddles missiles and may have one or two nuclear weapons, along with chemical and biological weapons, but confrontation toward Iraq, which has no nuclear weapons and, depending on the analysis, could be years from obtaining them, though it possesses chemical and biological weapons.
Blunder On Oh Ship of State,
Stumble On Oh Union Strong and Great
Humanity With All its Fears
With all the Hopes of Future Years
Is Waiting Breathless on Thy Fate
But I'm afraid it's a pipe dream, a marketing ploy to sell a war.
From the point of view of the Arab-Israeli conflict, war with Iraq also has some of the character of a Flucht nach vorn - an 'escape forwards' - on the part of the US Administration. On the one hand, it has become clear that the conflict is integrally linked to everything else that happens in the Middle East, and therefore cannot simply be ignored, as the Bush Administration tried to do during its first year in office. On the other hand, even those members of the American political elite who have some understanding of the situation and a concern for justice are terrified of confronting Israel and the Israeli lobby in the ways which would be necessary to bring any chance of peace.
When the US demands 'democracy' in the Palestinian territories before it will re-engage in the peace process it is in part, and fairly cynically, trying to get out of this trap. However, when it comes to the new rhetoric of 'democratising' the Arab world as a whole, the agenda is much broader and more worrying; and because the rhetoric is attractive to many liberals we must examine this agenda very carefully.A. Lieven
Examine the rhetoric...its just another Bush con job, another Bait and Switch
the increasingly popular idea in Washington that the US, by toppling Saddam Hussein, can rapidly democratize Iraq and unleash a democratic tsunami in the Middle East is a dangerous fantasy
Tsunami?
Equally doubtful is the idea that a regime
change in Iraq would trigger a democratic
tsunami in the Middle East. The notion that
the fabled “Arab street” would respond to the
establishment of a U.S.-installed, nominally
democratic Iraqi regime by rising up in a surge
of pro-democratic protests, toppling autocracy
after autocracy, and installing pro-western,
pluralist regimes is far-fetched.
Democracy Challenged: The
Rise of Semiauthoritarianism
(Carnegie Endowment,
January 2003).
Open wide
War plans under fire as even Bush heartland talks peace
Dissent is coming from all quarters - even in Bush's own church
As the United States edges towards a possible war against Iraq, a sudden torrent of concern has begun to flow - a revolt by the intelligentsia spreading beyond the expected opposition political circles and penetrating the heart of the media and foreign policy establishment.
From New York to the plains of Kansas, local and provincial papers, glossy magazines, serious periodicals and heavyweight national dailies have carried a range of articles and essays that challenge not only the proposed war, but the notion and conduct of unilateral American power in the world.
But the most dramatic intervention comes from President George Bush's own United Methodist church which launched a scathing attack on his plans for war.
In a pig's eye!
King Moron's Empire Crumbling Before the First Shot
WASHINGTON — HOW many battles can the United States take on at one time?
Even before North Korea's stunning admission last week that it had been cheating for years on its commitment to freeze its nuclear weapons program, that question was heard all over Washington.
For 12 days this month, as administration officials kept the wraps on North Korea's defiant declaration to American diplomats, one subtext of the meetings inside the White House situation room was "whether we are overloading the circuit boards," a participant said.
Go find yourself a war Pincher..then we talk about takin your money....storm Pyongyang or somethin.
Keep evading me, you diseased wretch.
Here is the original bet from Message # 1129 and Message # 1130 Here's the bet: When the U.S. moves against Iraq, at least a dozen nations will support the move.
As the bold highlighting shows, if there's no war in the next fourteen months, all the money goes to you.
You send in a hundred U.S. dollars and I send in three hundred. Winner takes all.
If the U.S. does not move to take down Saddam before the end of 2003, all the money will revert to you.
Support shall be deemed as any open material or diplomatic assistance to the U.S. war effort against Iraq, which can mean anything from a vote, to bases, to allowing U.S. jets to use the airspace above the country.
Covert assistance and abstention from a vote does not count.
So why don't you come up with another excuse for why you're evading me, bitch.
When you offered your bet all full of yourself because Rumania had offered useless airbases, Powell had not caved to the French. So I specifically stated that "support" meant REAL support, not votes for a UN resolution, not Rumanian airbases, not jockstraps, not your corset, REAL support - Order of Battle, airbases from which strikes are conducted.
I don't care whether Outer BotswannaLand "votes" for a French resolution that guts Bush's Empire Plans.
Neither does anyone else.
This bewilderment at Blair's policy is felt in Britain, too. But it also extends across a once anglophile Arab world and is even shared, despite their 12-year battering, by many ordinary Iraqis. It is to be found, too, among the citizens and governments of most of Britain's European partners, in Commonwealth countries and the non-aligned movement, as last week's UN debate on Iraq showed. Is everybody wrong or should Blair pause and think again? Is it really in the British national interest to alienate and antagonise so many influential and valuable allies? Would not a more independent, less uncritically pro-Bush approach be wiser?
Bad diplomacy, bad foreign policy and bad for Britain
Blair's support for Bush on Iraq alienates our allies and brings war closer
I don't care whether Outer BotswannaLand "votes" for a French resolution that guts Bush's Empire Plans.
Neither does anyone else.
Pussying out again.
Outer Botswannaland seemed to be enormously important to you when you mentioned that much of the non-aligned movement was lining up behind South Africa to speak out against a possible war.
Oh, THAT's what DimSon meant by regime change. Right, Condi?
More Bush-shit exposed. Vaclav Havel has informed the U.S. that Czechoslovakia has no evidence that contact between Muhammad Atta and anyone from Iraq occurred in Czechoslovakia.
From liberal rag NY Times
For months, American intelligence and law enforcement officials have cast doubt on the reports of the Prague meeting, which proved to be based on the statements of a single informant, and last week the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, told Congress that his agency could find no evidence to confirm that the meeting took place.
The White House has generally been cautious about using the reports of the Prague meeting to help make the case for war with Iraq. Yet the Prague meeting has remained a live issue with other proponents of military action against Iraq, both in and out of the government.
The disclosure of Mr. Havel's decision to inform the Bush administration that it should ignore the reports of a meeting comes after a year of confused and often contradictory statements from other Czech officials about the incident.
Why not sink your eyeballs into this report from August:
Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is backing assertions that suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta secretly met five months earlier with an Iraqi agent....In an interview, a senior Bush administration official said evidence of the long-disputed meeting "holds up"....The White House previously has declined to publicly back those who insist that the Prague meeting shows Iraq's hand in last fall's attacks."
We don't/do/don't believe the reports of a meeting in Prague.
This administration do an about-face on an about face? Nah. Couldn't be.
I swear, trying to figure out what Bush's direction is on this is like watching a ping pong match on a short table.
Fact is, goof brains, this was a Czech story from start to finish. So hopeless Bush bashers like you and Wonka construct the classic straw man in a pathetic and sickening attempt that reveals only your border-line Jasper personalities of trying to stick any silly string you can to our President.
Had Bush lent credence to the Czech report, even that would have been a reasonable thing to do. After all, you fungus skulls are the same shambling neuronless mounds who would be droning later about "Why didn't anyone in the administration connect the dots? Czech security told us that Atta had been in Prague."
Not content with that, though, because Bush didn't actively push the story, you're stuck with further cretinous fabrications, implying that Bush and company produced the report. They didn't do either, and if you weren't a deceitful, partisan sack of gelatinous quiverings trying to imitate a functioning cerebellum you'd realize that.
Bush administration has proved more adept at speaking the language of compromise than shifting away from its readiness to go it alone in disarming Iraq by force.
His collaboration with terrorists is well documented. Evidence of a meeting in Prague between a senior Iraqi intelligence agent and Mohamed Atta, the Sept. 11 ringleader, is convincing. Richard Perle
Ed filled two toilet bowls with turgid excrement answering a charge that no one made. The Regime's ultra-nationalist nutters tried their damndest for months they tried, but Cheney et al were never able to prove a 9-1-1 link. The "official position" was not the "officials' position." Several prominent ChickenHawks, including Paul Wolfowitz pressed the 9-1-1 Prague connection well into the spring, 2002
By early Spring, Colin Powell had had enough with their obessions. He hired James Woolsey as a special consultant, gave him full access to all US, Brit, and Czech intelligence on the matter and packed him off to Europe to conduct a fact finding investigation. Apparently, Powell's gambit worked.
Woolsey, Wolfowitz et.al. stopped harping about 911 & Iraq but they continued to cite the Prague meeting as evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. They embraced the intelligence report. It wasn't a Czech thing. It was BUSH's thing. Within the past two months, Trent Lott and Tom DeLay said that the Prague meeting and other intelligence convinced them that Iraq was involved in 911.
I don't think I have ever seen someone pick a fight with a strawman and lose!
Hello My Name is Ed.
President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.
"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence.
Perhaps I wasn't clear when, on two prior occasions, I specifically objected to your overbroad definition of "support".
Let me try again:
- no Romanian "support" - Order of Battle or attack air base.
- no UN vote "support" - It was Romania's offer of airbase rights (totally useless for attack or for logistics) that brought on all your silly gushing. At the time, the US & Britain were pushing their "hard line resolution". Two or three days later, they offered a new resolution, a significant revision of the first which after weeks of bribery and general ball busting had received NO support. Assume for the sake of argument that this resolution is voted on (dubious assumption - no support!) and tell me what exactly would a nation voting "yes" be supporting - no attack without a specific UN authorization or Bush's unilateral imperialist fantasies? If the latter, would it be supporting a massive invasion and regime change if Iraq should fail to disclose an aluminum tube? 16 oz of a chemical used to produce Sarin and baby formula?
I will bet that outside of Britain, Turkey, the UAE, Qatar & Kuwait there won't be any support as I defined it, support that means something, support not pom-poms.
I might even consider financial assistance in significant amounts - say something in the range of contributions to GWI but no Romanian airfields and no UN resolution.
CIA experts doubt whether the tubes in question were suitable for the supposed task, and believe they were intended instead for use in missile engines, still a clear violation of Iraqi commitments to the United Nations, but not necessarily proof of nuclear intent.
"The Bush campaign for war against Iraq has been insulting to American citizens, not just because it has been dishonest, but because it has been unserious. A lie is insulting; an obvious lie is doubly insulting. Arguments that stumble into each other like drunks are not serious." Kinsely
Next: The Evil Saddam's Plans to Attack Texas with Killer Strawmen
In an interview, a senior Bush administration official said that available evidence of the long-disputed meeting in Prague "holds up." The official added, "We're going to talk more about this case."
Hard evidence that Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks would give strong ammunition to the administration in its efforts to build domestic and international support for a military campaign to topple the Iraqi leader.
But the CIA and FBI concluded months ago that they had no hard evidence to confirm Czech claims that the Prague meeting took place.
A U.S. intelligence official said Thursday that the CIA remains "open to the possibility" of Iraqi sponsorship of the attacks but that no hard evidence or intelligence has emerged to prove it. "There is nothing hard," the official said.
The White House previously has declined to publicly back those who insist that the alleged Prague meeting shows Iraq's hand in last fall's attacks. The purported meeting with Atta, the apparent leader of the hijackers, is the only allegation that has come to light suggesting a direct tie between Hussein and Sept. 11.
But the administration faces growing pressure to provide a more-convincing rationale for a potential military campaign against Iraq or a covert operation to topple or kill Hussein. The Los Angeles Times, August 2002
But what GWB did to poor Ronski....that I cannot forgive.
Although administration officials say they are still trying to develop a strong case tying Hussein to global terrorism, the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence despite having combed its files and redoubled its efforts to collect and analyze information related to Iraq, according to senior intelligence officials and outside experts with knowledge of discussions within the U.S. government.
Most specifically, analysts who have scrutinized photographs, communications intercepts and information from foreign informants have concluded they cannot validate two prominent allegations made by high-ranking administration officials: links between Hussein and al Qaeda members who have taken refuge in northern Iraq and an April 2001 meeting in Prague between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent.
"It's a thin reed," said a senior intelligence official describing the information on both cases.
'
A more mundane, yet concrete indication that the CIA's focus is elsewhere is that the agency has not established an Iraq task force at its counterterrorism center at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.
According to sources, the CIA believes that the last time Iraq planned an anti-American attack was in April 1993, when it organized a failed assassination plot against former president George H.W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait. The Clinton administration retaliated by launching a cruise missile strike against Iraqi intelligence headquarters in BaghdadW Post September 10, 2002
The Bush administration is growing bold in its attempts to link al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein, and now come reports that the White House is putting pressure on the CIA.
The administration needs a smoking gun. Invading Iraq over arms inspections is dicier than invading over links to Sept. 11, especially if Saddam cooperates with the inspectors.
A year ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that no smoking gun existed. Links between Saddam's secular regime and al-Qaeda's Islamic zealots never seemed likely, but that has not stopped the warhawks from looking. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz dismisses CIA reports that a putative meeting in Prague early last year between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official never occurred. Last month, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the administration had new information linking al-Qaeda to Iraq, some of it acquired from al-Qaeda detainees.
Rumsfeld is in the vanguard of those seeking the smoking gun, stating this summer that a nuclear or biological attack on America was "inevitable," that Saddam was likely to pass information leading to such an attack to al-Qaeda and claiming last week that "bulletproof" evidence exists linking al-Qaeda to Iraq.
President Bush went Rumsfeld one better in his Cincinnati speech last week, drawing on a CIA statement to state that "Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses." The CIA statement reads "conventional bomb-making," but Bush dropped the word conventional to heighten the effect. San Diego Union-Tribune October 10, 2002
Hilliary Dem Blames Bush for N. Korean Nukes
Let me get this straight. Hinchey claimed that GWB's calling NK part of an 'evil axis' twisted Pyongyang's undies so hard that it immediately implemented a full bore nuclear weapons development program complete with retroactive funding, research and developmental results for seven years prior to GWB's statement, never mind such foolishness as 1999 Congressional Reports exposing massive NK violations of the 1994 x42 'agreed framework' to hand NK billions in cash and nuclear technology in return for vague promises?
Clearly Hinchey has the kind of mentality which sees no problem with believing that if one woman can deliver a baby nine months after impregnation, that nine women can do the same in one, mixed with whatever other partisan idiocy he prefers to delude himself with at the moment.
- Bush threatens to conquer Iraq and set up a puppet regime under a US general because Iraq "still wants" nukes and about 10 other bogus reasons fashioned weekly from the finest of whole cloth
- Bush calls your country an Axis of Evil
I'd order up a bomb post haste from Bush's Moose-Sheriff.
Wouldn't you or are you really THAT dumb?
Mr. Harrison, who is the author of "Korean Endgame: A Strategy for Reunification and U.S. Disengagement," said Pyongyang's position was spelled out to him this week by the country's representative to the United Nations/
And so what is the Bush response?
Diplomacy.
Whoops!
Today, Mr. Havel's spokesman said: "The president did not call the White House about this. The president never spoke with any American government official about Atta, not with Bush, not with anyone else."
Seems as though Bonkers and Thoughtcrime were pushing a false report.
Now that's understandable...after all, they were just quoting what the newspaper said a Czech government official said. Funny thing, though, is people saying Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague were also just quoting what a Czech government official said. And Bonkless, Thoughtdrought, and Jasper worked themselves all up to a bluster over that!
So now the shoe's on the other foot, folks. And it's laden with Wonk-shit, Thought-shit, and Shit-shit.
Shit.
"The spokesman, Ladislav Spacek, said Mr. havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr Atta met an Iraqui diplomat, Ahmad Ibrahim Samir al Ani, here in April 2001."
That is the point, not whether Havel called Bush. For months the Bush administration has been engaging in the most massive and deceptive Madison Avenue campaign on Iraq in the history of our country. The alleged Atta contact in Prague is a tiny part of it.
There has been speculation about N Korea having nukes for close to 10 years. If this administration did not mention it, you and others would accuse them of witholding information.
Hell are you daft?
They peddled that lie for 9 months. They used it deliberately and with malice aforethought to whip up war fear and fever.
They are moral scum
There are now more than 40 regional organizing centers in the Western United States, that have been organizing teach ins, doing outreach, and coordinating transportation to the demonstration in San Francisco on the 26th. Buses coming from as far away as Seattle and Tucson are packed.
By Jay Bookman
Atlanta Journal-Constitution 9/29/02
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman 
The Defense Department and the CIA have repeatedly clashed in their statements on Iraq, with Langley suggesting that Saddam Hussein is still containable and discrediting reports of Iraqi links to terrorism. Frustrated by the resistance, Defense [Sturmbannfuehrer Rummy] has mobilized its own four- to five-person intelligence team to look for information to support the hawks' case. Critics accuse the Pentagon of politicizing intelligence-gathering. "Wolfowitz and company disbelieve any analysis that doesn't support their own preconceived conclusions," one defense official said, referring to Deputy Secretary and leading hawk Paul Wolfowitz. "The C.I.A. is enemy territory, as far are they're concerned."
Same as it ever was....
And these morons think they're gonna conquer the world with this bunch of nitwits???
Bush banks on Pyrrhic victory
If passed, America's tough resolution on Iraq could be so damaging that only al-Qaida may be said to have scored a victory
A precedent will have been set, to all intents and purposes, that suggests that a member state, if it feels strongly enough about a given issue, can go ahead with pre-emptive military action without UN authority. That undermines the UN charter and international law and the system of collective responsibility and collective self-defence that has been in place (and fully supported by previous US administrations) since 1945. It is a recipe for chaos in international affairs. Tisdall
Its not Shroeder against Chirac, its the world against Bush and Blair Jacques Chirac
It's discouraging to contemplate that he's supposed to be an economist, given his idiotic partisan fits of ballistic salivation in print.
Note too the projection of the strawman from himself onto me. Facts and reports do not a strawman make. However, his delusional ravings about who would say what if some event that can't happen did happen demonstrate he has so surrounded himself with straw, he'd better not light a match.
wonkers -
I'm not twisted. I'm extra-dimensional.
Sorry.
Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith, Israel’s Voice In The Department of Defense
Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith, Israel’s Voice In The Department of Defense
Tracy Wilkinson
August 26, 2002
“The Nation” magazine has published a September 2, 2002 article "The Men From JINSA and CSP" by Jason Vest
link
This four-page article describes the Jewish shadow defense establishment that currently has a lock on the Bush administration and currently demands that the US start a war against Iraq, if not the entire Arab world. The article describes how two primarily Jewish right wing hawkish organizations operate.
Douglas Feith is part of the Perle - Wolfowitz cabal at DOD who constantly shriek that all Arab regimes must be destroyed to protect Israel. In May 2001 Arab Institute President, Dr. James Zogby warned about the appointment of Douglas Feith to the position of Undersecretary of Policy at the Department of Defense (DOD/Pentagon).
“Because this is one of the top four posts at the Pentagon in charge of "all matters concerning the formulation of national security and defense policy" and because Feith is an extreme hard-line pro-Likud hawk-I called it a "Dangerous Appointment."
In the months since my essay "The Israel lobby" appeared (Prospect, April 2002), US foreign policy has been aligned with-if not subordinated to-that of Ariel Sharon's Israel to a degree that nobody could have imagined last spring. To the dismay of moderate Israelis and our European allies, President Bush has endorsed Sharon's policies of reoccupation, the repudiation of the Oslo negotiations, the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority, and the diplomatic isolation of Arafat, while announcing unrealistic conditions for Palestinian statehood that give Israel a licence for indefinite rule over almost 4m conquered subjects.
If Adam Garfinkle-in his reply to my essay (Prospect, September 2002) -is to be believed, this represents a cold calculation of America's long-term national interest: "At that level of the decision process, the Israel lobby has had but modest influence..." If this is modest influence, one wonders what might be the result of major influence.
I would welcome serious criticism by Garfinkle, who succeeded me as executive editor of the National Interest and became editor when the magazine was taken over by Conrad Black's Hollinger International. Unfortunately, instead of addressing the major points I made in my essay, Garfinkle tosses out a number of arguments unrelated to my thesis. For example, he argues that US policy-makers often repudiated Israeli policies between 1948 and 1992. I agree. I said the same thing in my essay. The extreme tilt toward Israel is a dramatic break with American tradition that took place in the Clinton administration and-to a greater degree-the Bush administration. The only evidence to the contrary that Garfinkle offers is Bush's "saying, as he did on 24th June, that the Israeli occupation is untenable and must end (a view shared by parts of the pro-Israel lobby in the US for many years)." Garfinkle's parenthesis negates the force of his example. Even Sharon pays lip service to the idea of Palestinian statehood, while doing his best to make it impossible for ten or 20 years. Garfinkle himself is on the record opposing Palestinian independence. In an essay in the National Interest, co-authored with Daniel Pipes, he wrote that "the only thing worse for Israeli and US security interests than a fully independent Palestinian state on the west bank is one on the east bank."
Garfinkle thinks I am too unkind to the Wolfowitz-Perle-Feith clique at the Pentagon. In the months since I published my essay, individuals associated with this group, both in the government and outside, have proposed the following measures, among others: the US invasion and occupation of Iraq; US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities on behalf of Israel; US seizure of the Saudi oil fields and toppling of the Saudi monarchy; and the dispersal throughout the world of US anti-terrorist hit teams, modelled on Israel's death squads, which would murder people without arrest or trial on the territories of foreign countries. Meanwhile, Douglas Feith has been appointed to head a new Israeli-American counter-terrorist organisation from which our European allies are excluded.
Moreover, an ever-expanding rift has opened between the civilian Wolfowitz clique and America's career soldiers, many of whom do not want to be cannon fodder in a crusade supported by American Zionists and Southern Baptists to establish an Israeli-American condominium over the middle east. Career military officers, in an attempt to subvert the Wolfowitz team, are leaking documents to the press on a scale not seen since the closing years of the Vietnam war. In private, our soldiers deride the bloodthirsty neo-conservative civilian policymakers and pundits, many of whom avoided service in the US military before the draft was abolished, as "chickenhawks."
The Prospect (UK)
Cowards
Hypocrites
Crypto-Fascist Bush-Shitters
Feel Like I'm Fixin to Die Rag
let's hear BS some more
Hello my name is Ed 
whoopee we're all gonna die
If you would like to discuss the substance of his piece, I think it would be more appropriate to take the discusstion to Politics or some other more appropriate thread. The fact that there actually is some substance to this piece makes it quite rare among Krugman's recent offerings.
It is possible to intelligently disagree with that article, but it is not possible for Biener.
It's frightening to remember that he and all the other top Al Qaeda men are missing, with their whereabouts unknown. It's equally frightening to note that their base of support has, if anything, grown since the mishandling of the 'war on terror' since the early successes in Afghanistan. I look in my region of interest and I see both Karzai and Musharraf looking more like dead men walking every month, the poll results in Pakistan showing a broader anti-Americanism than they've ever shown before, the fact that Karzai remains alive only because of a thin layer of direct US protection...it's all rather worrisome.
In retrospect, since Bush has absolutely not followed up on his rhetoric post 9/11 and has singularly sidetracked US resources, I feel that the biggest mistake was making this a nebulous 'war on terror'. Rather, it should have been a merciless 'war against al qaeda' and all US foreign policy interests should have been subverted to this war in the short term. There was international consensus, once upon a time, that this was justified. But now, the US risks getting into a long-term commitment to remake Iraq - even as Al Qaeda has not been reckoned with at all other than the destruction of its training grounds in Afghanistan. One must hope that this will not prove to be a very costly error, and I certainly hope that my city will not be the one to pay the price again.
Also in the last few days, The Wall Street Journal reported that "senior officials have referred repeatedly to intelligence . . . that remains largely unverified." The C.I.A.'s former head of counterterrorism was blunter: "Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements." USA Today reports that "pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda."
Reading all these euphemisms, I was reminded of Monty Python's parrot: he's pushing up the daisies, his metabolic processes are history, he's joined the choir invisible. That is, he's dead. And the Bush administration lies a lot.
The Dead Parrrot Society and the Huckster of the US
The Independent Task Force, which came to this sober conclusion and which makes recommendations for emergency action, included two former secretaries of state, two Nobel laureates, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former director of the CIA and FBI, and some of the nation's most distinguished financial, legal, and medical experts. One of the country's leading authorities on homeland security, Council Senior Fellow Stephen Flynn, directed the Task Force.
America Still Unprepared - America Still in Danger,"
An Independent Task Force
Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations
Bush addressed this conundrum the other day. "Saddam Hussein is unique," he explained. "He has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years … and for 11 years he has said, 'No, I refuse to disarm.' " The North Koreans, by contrast, said, "Yes, we will disarm"—they promised to stop building nukes in exchange for help in developing peaceful nuclear power—and then they didn't do it. I guess that's a difference, but it sounds as if we're punishing Saddam for his honesty.
Bush's public case for going to war against Iraq is full of logical inconsistencies, exaggerations, and outright lies. It reeks of ex-post-facto: First came the desire, and then came the reasons. But this raises a troubling question, especially for opponents of Bush's policy: If his ostensible reasons are unpersuasive even to him, what are his real reasons? There must be some: Nobody starts a war as a lark. It would be easier to dismiss the whole exercise if there were an obvious ulterior motive. Without one, you are left wondering, "Am I missing something?"
What Bush Isn't Saying About Iraq
President Bush won't discuss two big reasons he wants to invade Iraq.
Kinsley Begins to See the Truth
the idea of pre-emptive defence, now official doctrine, takes this a leap further, much further than Powell would wish to go. In principle, it can be used to justify the destruction of any other state if it even seems that that state might in future be able to challenge the US. When these ideas were first aired by Paul Wolfowitz and others after the end of the Cold War, they met with general criticism, even from conservatives. Today, thanks to the ascendancy of the radical nationalists in the Administration and the effect of the 11 September attacks on the American psyche, they have a major influence on US policy.
Anatol Lieven
They don't think YOU can handle the truth...
I'm surprised he's so candid regarding his limitations.
You will see in his next column.
Bush Frustrated Over Tepid Response at Summit
Lack of Support on Iraq, N. Korea
LOS CABOS, Mexico, Oct. 26 – U.S. efforts to lead multilateral coalitions against Iraq and North Korea flagged today, as administration officials seemed increasingly resigned to the possibility of abandoning United Nations negotiations over Iraq and Asian leaders meeting here with President Bush declined an offer to take a harsh stand against Pyongyang
GWB: I don't need me no turkey sept at Thanksgivin when my Mexican makes me a mess o turkey chimichangas
US/Brit Iraq Scam Close to Collapse (Times London)
Now appearing in Slate.
The Rumsfeld ChickenFried Intel Agency
"If the CIA Can't Find an Al-Qaeda/Iraq Connect We Will"
Lies Are Our Bidniss - Our ONLY Bidniss
Not mistrust of Saddam
Many members of the U.N. Security Council see American bullying, not Iraqi defiance, as the greater risk to geopolitical stability
Must be Democratic Party hacks
It is like the weather. Everybody talks about it, but no one does anything.
The Karl Rove Theory that everyone is a moron is not quite true.
But if as works in your case, TD...
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
J Bookman Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Hat's off Dumbya.
THAT is quite an accomplishment
Anatol Lieven considers what the US Administration hopes to gain -London Review of Books
What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is bracing for further delay in U.N. action on Iraq, with the expectation there will be no agreement before next week's congressional elections.
France's resistance to a provision in a U.S.-British draft resolution that could trigger an attack on Iraq if it defies U.N. weapons inspectors is the biggest hurdle to an agreement, a U.S. official said Wednesday.
As diplomats at the United Nations (news - web sites) debated whether to confront Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) tried his powers of persuasion on the telephone with the Russian and French foreign ministers.
Powell also was holding talks Wednesday with Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany, which opposes any invasion of Iraq — a stand credited with helping Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder win a second term last month. The Bush administration is still angry about the campaign, and Fischer wasn't invited to the White House as a result.
Anatole Lieven has shown that he is completely incapable of realistically evaluating potential actions and their results by the US and its allies regarding Iraq.
His screed is an embarrassing combination of half baked Leftist anti-US cant and outright ignorance with little truth to most of it.
pseudopederastus -
Why don't you read Lieven's POS article before you parade your ignorance in public? Or are you so stupid that you agree with his tripe?
( I support the war against Iraq. )
I was merely reacting to your partisan-hack-idiotic tendency to brand anything you disagree with as "leftie". And given what Lieven has said and done in the past, it's highly unlikely he's a leftie.
My point in anything I address to Concerned is always that Concerned is a partisan idiot hack who never says anything worthwhile. Also that Concerned is a child molester who kills his victims by crushing them with his 400-lbs. weight.
Now that the air is clearing in Afghanistan for
a short while, may I suggest for you to order
a fleet of crop dusters loaded with
laughing gas to start our
war on Iraq.
It would be quite a sight to see Iraq loosen up
and finally have the picnic they wish for.
At the same time it would save us
Untold billions of dollars,
entertain us with fresh
news and soon a few
other countries
might quickly
get the
point
that
“WAR COULD BE A PICNIC”
if
we chose
for it to be so.
So, why not have a war AND fun all at the same time?
Also, to sustain quiet on the Middle Eastern Front,
I suggest that their food be laced with Prozac
until they get hold of themselves. A
beneficial side effect of such
medicine is that it will
reduce their sex drive
and therefore their
belligerence
towards
us.
The same should apply to Saudi Arabia and soon
thereafter we should pipeline their oil
directly into the
U
S
A
so that we can feed our SUV’s.
Because of their fundamentalist views, I
think they owe the world a few trillion
dollars for loss of time and untold
grief for sending us unwanted
exploding gifts which now
we must send back COD.
Now, if they don’t get the message rapidly, I
suggest we bomb them randomly, sporadically
but at least once weekly to give them a taste
of their own imbecility.
Yours truly
Since The Boy Blunder began his Great Adventure last November with the Prague Meeting Crapola, his administration has been leaking like a sieve, factions in open war on the pages of the New York Times, the Hukster of the US Himself - All Highest WarLord - has taken to the hustings proclaiming the Great Crusade '02 daily, with sermons, saccharine and nauseating, and what has he accomplished?
- As I predicted a year ago, Saddam is no longer an international non-entity but has for the first time in a decade achieved a measure of international influence
- Support for this tawdry empire grab by a gaggle of autistic meglomaniacs has dropped 10% in a month - now onl y27% support US action without allies
- the whole world other than Britain is opposed and Blair will fall if the UN doesn't go along with creating the Moron Empire
- and he has himself a vigorous and large anti-war movement before he even has a war.
Smooth move ExLax
HELLO MY NAME IS ED
PE -
Your bad. I never claimed that Lieven is a Leftist.
The reason why I asked jex to repeat the link was in order to read it again as I had heard a prof from a prestigious university known for it's very conservative political stances take essentially the same point of view as Lieven on why the Bush admin is so hell-bent on attacking iraq.
PseuE, I'm surprised you said you support the war and would be interested in hearing why.
One only needs a little knowledge about Iraq and/or experience dealing with Iraqis to be in favor of getting rid of Saddam. The reasons have been the same since the 1980s: His regime is a totalitarian and human rights nightmare for Iraq; he has been in violation of UN sanctions and inspection regimes since the end of the Gulf War; he harbors aggressive designs in the region; and he possesses and is attempting to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
The only question that the antiwar folks are asking that has any intellectual validity--and that the Bush administration has been unable to respond coherently to--is "why now?" given that most of these conditions have existed for the better part of two decades.
This goes back to "why now?" Where we agree is that other means must be tried in order to assure the support and/or acquiescense of our allies and other countries in the region, if--or more likely--when Iraq is attacked. Where we may disagree is that the process must be enacted and Saddam's feet held to the fire in a comparatively short period of time, rather than using arguments that all means haven't been tried as an excuse to string things out indefinitely. If Saddam does manage to obtain nuclear weapons it will be a very dangerous situation in the Middle East, more so than it is now.
It won't be enough to 'contain' Saddam. The man is well on his way to completely destroy his country. The previous hard-working well-educated middle class is being replaced by black market and smuggling wheeler-dealers. The situation may well be almost irreversible; if not it will soon become so. If America wants to remove him (for its own reasons) I support it (for my own reasons).
I do not support the war on the grounds made by the Bush administration.
What means haven't we tried?
This goes back to "why now?"
Barring some massive form of aggression from Saddam, this will always be a question. Someone will always be able to say, Let's try more sanctions. Let's try more inspections. Let's try more containment. At what point do we say, We have tried everything, let's go to war. Obviously Bush is saying we have reached that point. Others say there is still more we need to do.
I think we need to realize that the world in not going to go along absent a strong US showing or some egregious act on the part of Iraq.
My concerns are:
The world, more concerned about the unbridled use of American power than it is about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, is as intent on limiting the giant's power as it is in taking away the despot's weapons.
The global interest in restraining American power is one factor explaining why so many countries are balking at US pressure to support its resolution in the United Nations Security Council. It also explains why so many are supporting France and its alternative approach to dealing with Baghdad.
The UN and Bush's Empire Dreams
Christian Science Monitor
Is it all about oil? [CSM
Let the Turks and the Kurds co-op the oil wealth in the north and we'll share the southern fields with our allies.
Take complete control of the air over Baghdad & its suburbs and then let Saddam stew in one of his "palaces" until local forces overthrow him.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush (news - web sites) said Thursday it is the job of the United Nations (news - web sites) to force Iraq to disarm and said "we will lead a coalition of nations" against Baghdad if the international body fails to act.
HOW MANY TIMES CAN HE WAG THAT DOG's TAIL?
ROTFALMAO!!!!!!!!
Just how old are you, sweetheart?
thoughtful -
You're off by 13 inches. I'll let you guess in which direction.
How old are you?
22?
All Saddam has to obtain is enough radioactive material of almost any description to create a unsafe environment when dispersed throughout, say, a major metropolitan center or reservoir in order to make the current dilatory efforts by the Left appear to be a really disastrous idea.
It is easily winnable, especially with our aircraft (especially drones) controlling the skies.
thoughtful is the kind of person who would have been for 'containing' Hitler while he gassed Jews.
Save us all a lot of time and expense.
Ari says it only takes one bullet, you know.
But surely an Innately Superior white man such as yourself should be the only one entrusted with such a job.
Getting Harder for Napoleon BoneHead to "Take the 'Saud' Out of Arabia
AR'AR, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq reopened a border crossing with Saudi Arabia on Thursday, letting through people and goods for the first time since the frontier was shut after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
The reopening is one of several signs that Baghdad, facing a the prospect of a U.S. and British military campaign, wants to improve its relationship with its former Gulf War foe.
``The opening of the crossing is a step forward toward promoting and strengthening trade ties with Saudi Arabia,'' Iraq's trade Minister Mohammed Saleh told reporters at Ar'ar.
Saleh said Saudi Arabia is among countries that supply Iraq with goods such as cooking oil, soap and milk powder under a U.N.-administered oil-for-food scheme that allows Baghdad to distribute rations to Iraqis burdened by U.N. sanctions.
Witnesses at the crossing said 100 Saudi trade officials and businessmen crossed into Iraq to attend Baghdad's 10-day trade fair, due to open on Friday.
Several months ago, it appeared that removing the Saddam regime would require physical force, whereas the ayatollah regime in neighbouring Iran was coming down of its own exhausted weight under the pressure provided by the Iranian population. It now appears the Iraqi regime may itself be crumbling, under the pressure of U.S. and British threats.
There have been unprecedented demonstrations against Mr. Saddam in Baghdad itself, and suddenly Iraqi citizens are even approaching foreign news reporters to explain what's going on. The U.S. mission in Iraq may have to be re-oriented at very short notice, as it would be if Mr. Saddam were assassinated. The U.S. would still have to go in to sort out the mess, but more immediately and less aggressively. It must be prepared at all times for other, less predictable, breaking developments.
Why does the Radical Left so readily throw all it claims to stand for away in order to support a mass murderer like Insane? Because all the Left really cares about is its hate for Western Civilization.
The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.
The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.
Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
That's what this is about.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In fact, I know they are.
GWB must be doing something right:-)
Think this'd fly in the US?
Nah - it might actually make these jerkoffs think twice about attacking.
If President Bush sounded as though he was of two minds when talking about Iraq last week, that's because his administration is also of two minds—or three—about our aims there.
No Mindm = f(2-3 minds)
Ivo Daalder, James Lindsay -Brookings
"Everyone should pay close attention to the bureaucratic war now underway between Colin "PantyWaist" Powell and the neo-con nutters in DoD - this conflict will define the DuhBya Regime" Commander Baba Jex to Public Policy Masters Seminar 3/01
Who elected this nebbish?
NOBODY
Wombat persists in defending a position that is bereft of moral or strategic/geo-political justification.
He does so because he fails to perceive the real stakes and issues. He believes the spin. Its a problem of blindered perception, a failure of intellect....
President Bush's first National Security Strategy presents his vision of "a distinctly American internationalism." Media reports focused on the Strategy's support for preempting emerging threats militarily, but the 31-page document covers a far broader set of issues. At its core, the Strategy calls for the United States to use its "unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence" to establish "a balance of power that favors human freedom" and to defeat the threat posed by "terrorists and tyrants." These themes will likely resonate with the American people, who believe that the United States should play a leading role in making the world a safer and better place. Although the Strategy's overarching goals make sense, its proposals for achieving them raise important questions. First, the Strategy sets as a goal promoting global freedom but gives priority to a counterterrorism policy that relies heavily on the help of countries that in many cases do not share America's basic values. Second, the Strategy fails to recognize the limitations of preemption as a policy tool or to specify when it should be used. Third, the Strategy emphasizes ad-hoc coalitions to address threats to international security but underestimates the contribution that broad-based alliances and institutions make to furthering U.S. interests over the long term. Finally, the Strategy warns that failed states threaten American security, but proposes economic and political assistance programs ill-suited to alleviating the danger. Brookings
The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless....at first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited, whereas the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. A general Middle Eastern conflagration and the collapse of more pro-Western Arab states would lose us the war against terrorism, doom untold thousands of Western civilians to death in coming decades, and plunge the world economy into depression.
These risks are not only to American (and British) lives and interests, but to the political future of the Administration. If the war goes badly wrong, it will be more generally excoriated than any within living memory, and its members will be finished politically - finished for good. If no other fear moved these people, you'd have thought this one would.
To take the geopolitical goals first.
The banal propaganda portrayal of Saddam as a crazed and suicidal dictator plays well on the American street, but I don't believe that it is a view shared by the Administration. Rather, their intention is partly to retain an absolute certainty of being able to defend the Gulf against an Iraqi attack, but, more important, to retain for the US and Israel a free hand for intervention in the Middle East as a whole.
Anatol Lieven
Following the terrorist attacks, Bush changed course, declaring war on terrorism, assuring the American people that “the outcome is certain” and informing the world that “you are either with us or against us.” Long frustrated by even the most conservative U.S. administrations, the hawks finally came to dominate American policy. Their position is clear: The United States wields overwhelming military power, and even though countless foreign leaders consider it unwise for Washington to flex its military muscles, these same leaders cannot and will not do anything if the United States simply imposes its will on the rest. The hawks believe the United States should act as an imperial power for two reasons: First, the United States can get away with it. And second, if Washington doesn’t exert its force, the United States will become increasingly marginalized.
Today, this hawkish position has three expressions: the military assault in Afghanistan, the de facto support for the Israeli attempt to liquidate the Palestinian Authority, and the invasion of Iraq, which is reportedly in the military preparation stage. Less than one year after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, it is perhaps too early to assess what such strategies will accomplish. Thus far, these schemes have led to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan (without the complete dismantling of al Qaeda or the capture of its top leadership); enormous destruction in Palestine (without rendering Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat “irrelevant,” as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he is); and heavy opposition from U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East to plans for an invasion of Iraq.
The hawks’ reading of recent events emphasizes that opposition to U.S. actions, while serious, has remained largely verbal. Neither Western Europe nor Russia nor China nor Saudi Arabia has seemed ready to break ties in serious ways with the United States. In other words, hawks believe, Washington has indeed gotten away with it. The hawks assume a similar outcome will occur when the U.S. military actually invades Iraq and after that, when the United States exercises its authority elsewhere in the world, be it in Iran, North Korea, Colombia, or perhaps Indonesia. Ironically, the hawk reading has largely become the reading of the international left, which has been screaming about U.S. policies—mainly because they fear that the chances of U.S. success are high.
But hawk interpretations are wrong and will only contribute to the United States’ decline, transforming a gradual descent into a much more rapid and turbulent fall. Specifically, hawk approaches will fail for military, economic, and ideological reasons. I. Wallerstein
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire!
So this is mote's infamous Poopstain Thread?
Wombat has much more knowledge and experience concerning Iraq, its ruler, and its people in his little finger than you do in your body. It is your stand that is lacking in moral clarity and legitimacy. Anyone who can say with a straight face that her or she is concerned about the loss of Iraqi lives in a possible US invasion, while completely disregarding the decades-long loss of Iraqi (and other) lives due to Saddam and Baathist actions does not have a lodestone in his or her moral compass.
Also, your grasp of and use of history, while comprehensive in your quotes from sources as disparate as Immanuel Wallerstein and Heinz Guderian, is deployed in furtherance of your opinions and prejudices of the moment, which never hints at objectivity. This puts you on the level with Concerned and JoeZan, except they lack your logorrhaeic verve.
Weapon of Mass Dissolution - BumbleFucks R US
If President Bush sounded as though he was of two minds when talking about Iraq last week, that's because his administration is also of two minds—or three—about our aims there.
The president was trying, yet again, to finesse the well-known divisions within his administration between those content to disarm Saddam Hussein, those who seek his overthrow, and those who want to remake the entire Middle East, beginning in Baghdad. Should we go to war, whom the president sides with in this debate will determine how we fight and, especially, what we will do in a post-Saddam Iraq.
The debate between proponents of disarmament and regime change accounts for President Bush's seemingly contradictory messages last Monday. On the one hand, Bush insisted on regime change "because for 11 years Saddam Hussein has ignored the United Nations and the free world." On the other hand, Bush added that, "If he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations . . . that in itself would signal the regime has changed." Asked the next day to clarify whether or not the administration wanted to oust Hussein, Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "The policy is regime change. Saddam Hussein is the heart of the regime."
These different emphases reflect the first of the administration's internal rifts. Secretary of State Colin Powell has argued that war is unnecessary if Baghdad disarms. In September, he told senators it was "unlikely that the president would use force if [Iraq] complied with the weapons of mass destruction conditions. . . . We all know that the major problem . . . the president is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction...
Yugoslavia on Thursday formally acknowledged illegal military sales to Iraq after Croatia seized a ship last Saturday in the Adriatic Sea carrying 14 containers of solid rocket fuel WPost
See your triumph and our glory
No it doesn't, but the Iran-Iraq War made up a major part of my postgraduate research, and every characteristic that Saddam has exhibited recently have not changed since then. Can you say the same?
Wombat's is not so much a failure of knowledge as it is a failure of intellectual ability; intellectual mypopia, and intellectual narcissism.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Jexter is indulging in psychological transference when he accuses me of "a failure of intellectual ability; intellectual myopia, and intellectual narcissism." He should know better, as anyone who has read my postings on Iraq in the Mote and the Fray should be able to tell.
...however, jexster does do a great job of making you look real smart.
Wombat is no dummy. We have faith in The Wombat!
When the US demands 'democracy' in the Palestinian territories before it will re-engage in the peace process it is in part, and fairly cynically, trying to get out of this trap. However, when it comes to the new rhetoric of 'democratising' the Arab world as a whole, the agenda is much broader and more worrying; and because the rhetoric is attractive to many liberals we must examine this agenda very carefully.
Belief in the spread of democracy through American power isn't usually consciously insincere. On the contrary, it is inseparable from American national messianism and the wider 'American creed'. However, this same messianism has also proved immensely useful in destroying or crippling rivals of the United States, the Soviet Union being the outstanding example.
The planned war against Iraq is not after all intended only to remove Saddam Hussein, but to destroy the structure of the Sunni-dominated Arab nationalist Iraqi state as it has existed since that country's inception. The 'democracy' which replaces it will presumably resemble that of Afghanistan - a ramshackle coalition of ethnic groups and warlords, utterly dependent on US military power and utterly subservient to US (and Israeli) wishes. Lieven
This time, however, a gap between words and deeds could be disastrous. Raising expectations that the United States will "create a balance of power that favors human freedom" and then failing to do so will feed the cynicism about American motives that pervades the Middle East and much of the world. Worse yet, leaving behind a new Iraqi leadership that provides stability but no justice will only further fuel the resentment and anger that have attracted so many young men to Osama bin Laden's cause. Given these risks, the president would do well to decide on his aims for Iraq before the fighting begins. Brookings
Intellectual blinders, delusions, and fantasies...
Free your mind Wombat..the rest will follow!
The Democratic Mirage in the Middle East - Carnegie
"Summary
The increasingly popular idea in Washington that the United States, by toppling Saddam Hussein, can rapidly democratize Iraq and unleash a democratic tsunami in the Middle East is a dangerous fantasy. The U.S. record of building democracy after invading other countries is mixed at best and the Bush administration's commitment to a massive reconstruction effort in Iraq is doubtful. The repercussions of an intervention in Iraq will be as likely to complicate the spread of democracy in the Middle East as promote it. The United States has an important role to play in fostering democracy in the region, but the task will be slow and difficult given the unpromising terrain and lack of U.S. leverage over key governments"
Which is more than can be said of a comparison of you and Jexter. A toss-up, with a slight edge to Jexter.
The list of "gay friendly" blue chip companies was impressive. To be included each company, at a minimum, had to have in place a written policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and extend benefits to same sex domestic partners. Here's the list
No I can't say that I have a post-graduate focus on the Iran-Iraq War to list on my resume. Neither can I join with your sweeping condemnation of Sad-am as I also lack any credentials in historical psychoanalysis, a problematic field to begin with. Sad-am may be more deranged, more prone to violence than he was then or he may have mellowed with age. I don't know and neither do you.
But in either case, the state of Sad-am's soul is not my concern at least insofar as it bears on the moral or prudential case for war.
Sad-am is a bad, bad fellow. So what?
Please make a moral case against overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Slobodan Milosevic was also a "bad" fellow (although nowhere near as "bad" as Saddam), and you had no problem raving against him. What is the difference?
"This man is evil. He gassed his own people. He has UAV's that will hit New York from Baghdad. He tried to kill my dad. He would like nothing better than to serve as a training base for world terror. He would like nothing better than to throw Israel into the sea. He would like nothing better than to have nuclear weapons."
As you know, Slobo drove 500,000 Kosovars out of their homes and onto the Macedonian plain at the point of T-72 cannon in violation of specific international statutes. The NATO allies did everything possible to stop ethnic cleansings in the former Yugoslavia and failed miserably.
Thus the requirements of a just war were met. In contrast, the last time Sad-am tried to attack the Kurds (12/00), the Kurds, armed with Kalashnikovs and small mortars and Operation Northern Watch air cover, routed the Iraqis.
Slobo threatened non-unionized Europeans. Saddam only menaces distant sand-niggers and their friends in Israel, the sand-kikes.
Iraq is like Somalia and Rwanda, full of a bunch of sadly debased over-there people that just don't have anything important to do with us.
Right Jexster?
This is, according to Telhami, a reflection of widespread supermajoritarian democratic sentiment throughout the Middle East that Bush not Sad-am is a threat to their lives and livelihoods.
And so, Wombat, off to build a democracy are you?
Sucker
Fundamentally though, the failure to recognize one's moral obligations in one instance does not excuse a conscious failure to do so in another case.
Put more simply by my momma and yours "Two wrongs don't make a right"
Here there is also a racial/ethnic component - the demonization of the Arab which is driving such slender support as their is for what is transparently a scheme of far right wing nationalists and religious nutters here with cheerleading support from Bibi & Butthead.
1) Started not one but two major wars, with casualties (soldiers and civilians) in the hundreds of thousands in the Iran Iraq War. The former also saw the widespread use of chemical weapons (initiated by Iraq), ballistic missile strikes on civilian targets, attacks on neutral civilian shipping.
2) Invaded and attempted to integrate into Iraq a sovereign nation.
3) Set up a police state whose brutality and efficiency Milosevic could only envy.
4) Crushed with extreme brutality any regional or ethnic resistance to his rule.
5) Attempted to evade existing inspection regimes on acquiring nuclear weapons.
6) As a Baathist (pan-Arab) harbors an expansionist ideology.
7) Has been in material violation of existing UN agreements governing his obligations in the aftermath of the Gulf War.
I have far too much respect for the Iraqi people to hold such ethically and morally challenged positions on overthrowing Saddam as you. Frankly, Jexter, almost anyone would be better for the Iraqis than Saddam.
You have yet to respond to multiple requests on how you justify opposing military action against Iraq if it takes place under the aegis of UN resolutions that have been violated by Iraq, with the support of a coalition along the lines of the Gulf War.
In recent interviews, top investigative magistrates, prosecutors, police and intelligence officials who have been fighting Al Qaeda in Europe said they are concerned about attempts by President Bush and his aides to link Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden's terror network.
"We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," said Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the French judge who is the dean of the region's investigators after two decades fighting Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorists. "And we are working on 50 cases involving Al Qaeda or radical Islamic cells. I think if there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever."
Los Angeles Times
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were. Jay Bookman
NATO's action in Kosovo is the first war in modern history to be fought for humanitarian reasons John Keegan
The Bush W-ar won't be the second.
On prudential grounds, in my view, there would be no argument.
But of course the objection is that you have presented facts not in evidence. Not even within the realm of possibility.
So its an idle exercise.
In other words, you would have an easier job were you to adopt the arguments and goals of the ultra-nationalist right wing, as articulated by the ChickenHawks.
Trouble with that is no body in his right mind would support an adventure framed that way, no matter that it comports with reality.
Da noive eh Wombat?
"A war on Iraq will not diminish the terrorist threat. It will probably increase it," said Baltasar Garzon, Spain's best-known investigative magistrate, who is prosecuting Al Qaeda suspects in Madrid as alleged accomplices in the Sept. 11 attacks. "It could radicalize the situation in the Middle East.... As for the investigations of Sept. 11, doors would close in the Arab world that have helped in the fight against Al Qaeda. And a war would do nothing to bolster the investigation into the attacks in the United States."
The European critics aren't limited to the usual suspects: instinctively anti-American, pro-Arab politicians and pundits whose voices are often the loudest in the Iraq debate here. On the contrary, Bruguiere, Garzon and other investigators have won praise from U.S. officials for their tough tactics and proven willingness to lock up suspected terrorists during the past year. LAT
Banal propaganda is putting Bush's Krap kindly - "lies" is closer to the truth but some can't handle the truth
The worldwide liburul demo-rat conspiracy
I have presented nothing but facts, if you would care to check them. Not once have I mentioned the various tenuous rationales that the Bush Administration is putting forward to justify action (multilaterally or unilaterally).
Their are also serious and justifiable concerns about acting unilaterally without at least the acquiescence of countries in the region (now complicated even further by the results of the Turkish election).
The Bush Administration has shown little concern for the aftermath of a successful operation, and their record (and the US's record in general) of helping put countries back together again has been poor in recent years.
However, the ingenuousness of the Bush Administration does not detract from the desireablity of getting rid of Saddam. I have held these views, based on the above facts, far longer than the Bush Administration has been spinning. If anyone is the victim of spin, it is you, and it is largely self-inflicted.
Moreover, your "facts" do not accord with the goals and justifications that Bush has advanced or that are really driving his policy.
Basically Wombat you are mired in a miasm of intellectual myopia...not hopelessly mind you but damn close.
"getting rid of Sad-am via aggressive, preemptive war followed by openly hostile occupation of an Arab state" THAT is closer to the truth...
You have a LONG way to go...and I have to study...
Ciao
Prove my facts wrong, then.
I suggest you spend a little time studying Iraq. Then your arguments won't be so convoluted and cockeyed.
More of the Sad-am is bad nonsense...and yes he is bad, but international law, morality, and strategic interests of the US do not remotely support war to remove Hussein.
The only imminent and grave threat to peace and tranquility is in Crawford TX not Baghdad.
What do you call an on-line stand-up comedian?
Lemme tell ya, Ho Chi Minh & Vo Nyugen Giap were BAD motha fuckas...and that one one reckless US adventure.
As Wombat would attest I am sure if he didn't have that mental astygmatism...
The Bush administration's plan to invade Iraq and install a client regime in Baghdad may be popular in America, but to the outside world it increasingly recalls old-fashioned British imperialism.
If administration hawks studied Iraq's gory history, they would learn it ranks among the most disastrous and tragic creations of Britain's colonial policy, and offers a grim reminder of what George Bush's planned "regime change" in Baghdad may bring.
A Brief History of Iraq
What is your point in re Vietnam? The Iraqis will most likely fold in a way that the NVA didn't; Iraq's social and ethnic divisions are such that a suprisingly large portion of Iraqis will openly welcome Saddam's overthrow; and we would not be fighting to support a corrupt and incompetent regime as we did in Vietnam. Another in-apt comparison from the master, who will marshal any argument, no matter how irrelevant, to support an insupportable position.
Eric Margolis
Some people come up in the world, steadily building and growing, and some people seem to fade out. Intrepid foreign correspondent Eric Margolis, of whom I am a fan, is turning out to be the second type of person, and it is painful to watch, like a slow death. An energizing time for many writers, since 9/11 Margolis has done little more than take the simplest of European cudgels against the Bush Administration, and he never seems to let up, writing the same article over and over. Recycling old words, and worse, recycling other people's old words, is the first step to hackdom.
CBS News has obtained an excloo - a CIA memo confirming that the tape of OBL last month is authentic and Al Qaeda is in bidniss....
Gore - right again
Now why don't you tell us what is wrong with Margolis's history.
Or maybe you can't.
So you tell us why not.
And while you're at it...how have I "tied my self in knots"
So long on ad hominem so short on argument.
Both of you are fuckin jokes.
Saddam should be worried.
"Oh Mister Jexster what if Bush had a coalition like GWI..."
And what if pigs flew and Santa came down your chimney.
Don't let the Shiites loose though..you might get hurt
It's understandable, though: for all his blustering, he knows that tomorrow, GWB owns both houses.
Surprise attack, employing atomic and hydrogen weapons and other modern means of conflicts, now takes on new forms and is capable of leading to singularly greater results than in the past war. ... Surprise attack with the massive employment of new weapons can cause the rapid collapse of a government whose capacity to resist is low as a consequence of radical faults in its social and economic structure and also as a consequence of an unfavorable geographical position. - Pavel Rotmistrov, Cmndr 5th Guards Tank, Marshall of the Soviet Union (1955)
Better get the job done ASAP 'cause you idiots are starting this war with a divided country and a credibility gap of major proportions before even the first shot is fired.
One question though Wombat - where in the hell are your dear little Iraqi resistors?
What a joke
Several actually
1. You are suckin crap just like the entire nation during in Vietnam about the chances of success and the risks to national secuirty
2. You make much of how evil Saddam is. I say that's no criteria for war either from a moral or prudential standpoint. I say that if it were, Ho and Vo were more evil than Sad-am is, was or will be. The people more repressed than the Iraqis and yet they did not support their "liberation"
3. In Vietnam we had an indiginous army and some popular support. In Iraq we have NONE. Even the Bush Empire Builders can't spin one into existence.
4. In Vietnam, the country was unified. Now it isn't. Bush has managed in 3 months of campaign speeches to decrease support for even the most bloodless allied heavy attack. That is not going to happen. 27% support
5. As a student of the Iran/Iraq War you are no doubt familiar with predictions then of a collapse of the Iraqi Army...that didn't happen...that's a fantasy now.
6. You are fully deluded when you think that your brave Iraqis are gonna rise to greet the infidels who drop bombs on them.
7. This war, unlike the Vietnam war, has a major credibility gap and anti-war movement going in. Even the Bush administration remains divided. The intelligence services and the military are in open revolt.
8. Whether the Iraqi army caves in weeks or not, one thing is certain and in fact conceded by the most conservative pro-war advocates - 10 years or more of hostile occupation without regional or international support
Get real
In contrast, while I felt that Kosovo conflict met just war criteria at the same time I recognized it was a close question. Iraq, Vietnam by contrast are not.
To refresh...Don't mess with a Missionary Man
VATICAN (CWNews.com) --The Vatican's leading foreign-affairs official has reiterated the concerns of the Holy See regarding the NATO intervention in the Kosovo crisis,
Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, in an interview published April 20 by the French daily Le Figaro, addressed the Balkan conflict from the perspective of the "just war" theory, and concluded that the position of the Western powers is "very delicate.'
The French-born prelate noted that Pope John Paul II has consistently called for peaceful solutions to the conflicts in the Balkans and elsewhere. He recalled that the Holy Father had said, before the Persian Gulf war, that "war is an adventure from which there is no return." And more recently, speaking specifically of Kosovo, the Pope said, "It is never to late to negotiate."
In the Kosovo crisis, Archbishop Tauran observed, NATO has indicated that its military campaign is designed to "bring an end to unacceptable violations of human rights." This principle of "humanitarian intervention" is an important new step in international affairs, he said. And he observed that the "intense diplomacy" prior to the beginning of the NATO campaign suggested a real effort to find a solution without the use of military force.
Nevertheless, the archbishop continued, in the case of the Kosovo conflict, the Holy See "faces the delicate question of the proportion between the evil that is being combated and the consequences of the response that is being used."
Iraq,like Yugoslavia, was cobbled together after World War I. Yet in the case of Yugoslavia, you foamed at the mouth in your eagerness to overthrow a leader who is using brutal means to try and hold what is left of his country together; while you decry as immoral, etc. the same sort of actions directed at a similar ruler (except worse) in Iraq. In both cases, the US took and is taking the lead, and in the former case, it even acted outside of the United Nations.
To address your points:
"1. You are suckin crap just like the entire nation during in Vietnam about the chances of success and the risks to national secuirty."
Even the military critics of the Bush policy note that the Iraqi military will most likely fold quickly. It is the possiblity of WMD use, third country reactions, and the aftermath that concerns them most. In Vietnam there was none of the discussion going in that we are having now. Dienbenphu was written off as French ineptitude instead of being a warning of the competence and tenacity of the NVA.
2. "You make much of how evil Saddam is. I say that's no criteria for war either from a moral or prudential standpoint. I say that if it were, Ho and Vo were more evil than Sad-am is, was or will be. The people more repressed than the Iraqis and yet they did not support their "liberation""
Your ignorance about Iraq shines through again. I am sure that Iraqis who disagree with Saddam would love to lose their jobs and priviledged positions, and even be "reeducated," compared to what they face now. "Uncle Ho" and his regime were certainly not benign, but your attempt to draw moral equivalence is "tortured."
In Vietnam, the indigenous army was--with occasional exceptions--hopeless militarily and corrupt. Popular support was confined to the wealthy classes, and those parts of the population with economic ties to the war.
It is hard to gauge what the Iraqi public thinks, given that it is almost impossible for visitors to talk with them without a government minder present. You appear to buy Saddam's propaganda (no doubt you feel that his 100% victory in the recent referendum was a legitimate expression of Iraqi will). Anyone with an inkling of knowledge of how totalitarianism works would suggest that there is a great deal of dissent underneath, which will only reach our eyes and ears when Saddam and his regime are collapsing.
"4. In Vietnam, the country was unified. Now it isn't. Bush has managed in 3 months of campaign speeches to decrease support for even the most bloodless allied heavy attack. That is not going to happen. 27% support"
The percentage of people supporting a war against Iraq is dropping, but is still over 50%. There is a great deal of concern about the US going it alone, which--rightly--lowers the percent approving even lower. This speaks more to the inability of the Bush Administration to articulate its message (which it shares with the Clinton Administration) on Iraq, and a real fear that it might go it alone and make a mess of it (which I share). It does not detract from the legitimacy of overthrowing Saddam.
As I recall, most of predictions were on how quickly the Iranians would collapse. By the end of the first year of the war, Iraqi forces invading Iran had been routed, with tens of thousands of prisoners lost. Abadan and Khorramshahr became little Stalingrads, which chewed up thousands more.
When Iran made the mistake of continuing the war into Iraq, the Iraqis were usually able to hold, given that they had superior weapons, fixed defensive postions, poison gas, etc., while the Iranians were reduced to human wave charges of teenaged Baseej.
The war you are conveniently ignoring is the Gulf War, where the shoe was on the other foot. Most Iraqi soldiers fled or deserted, when it hit the fan. Those who resisted were picked off like ducks in a shooting gallery.
"6. You are fully deluded when you think that your brave Iraqis are gonna rise to greet the infidels who drop bombs on them. "
I expect most Iraqis (including the military) to find deep holes to hide in until the shooting stops. If you expect mass resistance on the part of the Iraqis to an "infidel" invasion, it is you who is deluded.
I agree. Most of the divisions in the administration and the military center around going it alone ASAP for dubious and unproven reasons and accepting a delay in order to bring on board allies and the United Nations. I am firmly in the latter camp.
"8. Whether the Iraqi army caves in weeks or not, one thing is certain and in fact conceded by the most conservative pro-war advocates - 10 years or more of hostile occupation without regional or international support."
If it is done in concert with the United Nations and our "traditional" allies, we will have international and regional support. I would predict 20-30 years of occupation, with a population that will become less and less hostile (and which may not be as hostile as you think/hope), if we don't screw it up.
When was the last time the church declared a war moral? Was Kosovo, which you supported, declared moral by your church or any other?
2. The Church's view is expressed in the above link. Read it
Since you have a crude and undifferentiated prejudice against Christianity, I thought you'd like to know
Finally a Real Diaglogue About REAL Issues
Talk in Washington these days is of Rome and its imperial responsibilities. But George W. Bush is no Julius Caesar. France under Napoleon may be the better precedent. Like Bush, Napoleon came to power in a coup. Like Bush, he fought off a foreign threat, then took advantage to convert the republic into an empire. Like Bush, he built up an army. Like Bush, he could not resist the temptation to use it. But unlike Caesar's, Napoleon's imperial pretensions did not last.
Analogy is cheap but the point remains. Empire is not necessarily destined to endure, least of all in the undisturbed, vapid decadence to which our emperors so evidently aspire. True, in recent times the British Empire lasted for a century (or perhaps two, depending on how you count). The Soviet Union held up for seven decades. Napoleon was finished in just 15 years.
There is a reason for the vulnerability of empires. To maintain one against opposition requires war -- steady, unrelenting, unending war. And war is ruinous -- from a legal, moral and economic point of view. It can ruin the losers, such as Napoleonic France, or Imperial Germany in 1918. And it can ruin the victors, as it did the British and the Soviets in the 20th century. Conversely, Germany and Japan recovered well from World War II, in part because they were spared reparations and did not have to waste national treasure on defense in the aftermath of defeat.
War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense . . . the nation in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war...The State is intimately connected with war, for it is the organization of the collective community when it acts in a political manner, and to act in a political manner towards a rival group has meant, throughout all history - war." ["A War Diary" by Randolph Bourne, September 1917]
Yes indeed a cause for taking a deep breath though not rejoicing
Chin up Concerned, Bush will make his bid for Emperor b4 long.
He just has to wag the dog again in a few months.
Hopefully Hans Blix is the sharp diplomat everyone seems to think he is.
THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS
Evangelical Figures Oppose Religious Leaders' Broad Antiwar Sentiment - NyT 10/6/02
Christian leaders and ethicists who represent a broad swath of the nation's Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and African-American churches are speaking out against war with Iraq, a chorus of opposition that prompted five conservative evangelicals yesterday to announce their support for the president.
As Mr. Bush prepares to make the case to move against Iraq in a speech on Monday, a surprisingly diverse cross-section of religious leaders say they are unconvinced that war is necessary, moral or wise.
The objectors represent not only the traditional pacifist churches. They are also joined by many "just-war" adherents who say war can be moral under certain conditions, andwho have in the past supported American intervention in Afghanistan, Bosnia and the Persian Gulf.
One hundred Christian ethicists signed a one-sentence declaration last month that opposed a pre-emptive war on Iraq. The signers belong to a broad range of denominations and teach at universities that run from the liberal Catholic and Protestant to the conservative evangelical.
"It's not just the usual left-leaning crowd," said Shaun Casey, an assistant professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary, a Methodist institution in Washington and who helped gather signatures. "You can't dismiss this group by saying, 'There they go again.' There's some very conservative and moderate voices in this group of 100."
At the White House last month, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, handed a letter to Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, saying that the bishops urged the president "to step back from the brink of war."
The National Council of Churches, which includes 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations and frequently criticizes foreign policy, has also announced its opposition. Leaders of member churches spent part of last week on Capitol Hill trying to encourage legislators to question the president's war plans.
"Many of our members really want some evidence that the administration has thought about the unintended consequences of going to war with Saddam Hussein," said the Rev. Robert W. Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, and a former member of Congress.
To counteract the chorus of negativity, Dr. Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, stepped forward to back Mr. Bush.
Iraqi "Opposition" A Sick Joke
Bush Can't Even Buy A Puppet
"If anything, this proves the point that the opposition cannot run a government or have access to power"
An Enactment Even Syria Could Love
Way to go PantyWaist!
Be sure to write the NyT
Stock May Plummet if Inspectors Find No Reason for W-ar 
450,000 Take to the Streets in Firenze 
1. We affirm the Government's stated policy of disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Unfettered and unhindered access must be gained for the UN weapons inspectors, in order to facilitate the identification and destruction of Iraq's WMD in compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSC).
2. We hold that the primary international concern remains Iraq's blatant disregard of the UN and its authority as expressed in relevant UNSC resolution. Any unilateral action to enforce Iraq's compliance with such resolutions risks further undermining the credibility and authority of the UN.
3. We recognise that in those instances where diplomatic and economic pressure fail to ensure compliance with UNSC resolutions, military action can sometimes be justified as a last resort to enforce those resolutions.
5. We believe that if military action were to be considered as a last resort, the outcome in terms of suffering on all sides could be immense, with widespread and unpredictable environmental, economic and political consequences. There would also be implications for inter faith relations. We therefore urge that these concerns should be central to all political and military planning.
6. We support and encourage the Prime Minister in his efforts to press for a new international conference to revitalise the Middle East peace process, based on the twin principles of a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state. We believe such a conference has an important role in trying to promote the wider stability of the region at a time of widespread suspicion and insecurity
I'm not confused Wombat.
RU?
As you begin this critical debate on behalf of the citizens of this country over the resolution to authorize military action against Iraq, we, the bishops of The Episcopal Church, USA, meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, want you to know of our prayers and support as you make this difficult decision, not just for our country, but also for the people of Iraq and the peace of the world. We pray, as well, for members of the armed services and their families in the midst of international crisis and possible military action.
We deeply respect the seriousness of your responsibility to protect the lives of our citizens, and, with you, we condemn the brutality of Saddam Hussein and his regime.
As disciples of Jesus Christ, we abhor violence and war. Our faith requires us to strive always for justice and peace. We believe that restraint and the ongoing commitment to international cooperation are the means toward peace that we all desire.
With you, we recognize the possibility that war is sometimes unavoidable, but we do not believe that war with Iraq can be justified at this time.
Our nation has not exhausted all possibilities for a peaceful solution to this potential conflict, including a new vigorous arms inspection regime.
Our nation has not sufficiently garnered world support.
It is highly likely that the consequences of a war with Iraq will not be contained within its borders.
We believe a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, with the overwhelming force such a strike may require to attain an expedient victory, may have many unintended consequences, including unacceptable civilian casualties.
Further, in this instance, we do not support a decision to go to war without clear and convincing evidence of the need for us to defend ourselves against an imminent attack. The wisdom of our own Christian faith, as well as other religious traditions, teaches us to demonstrate the greatest prudence and caution when the lethal force of war is contemplated. We believe that writings on Just War are particularly helpful to our nation's ongoing deliberations. As we search for those responsible for the attacks of September 11, we must encourage such discernment that keeps our society civilized and free.
We stand with other Christian leaders who oppose a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. The leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church of the USA, the Orthodox Church in America, The Christian Church (The Disciples of Christ), The United Church of Christ, The African Methodist Episcopal Church, The Anglican Consultative Council, representing 70 million Anglicans around the world, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have all raised questions about the wisdom and morality of our country's pursuing this course of action...know that we are praying with you and for you.
The House of Bishops
The Episcopal Church 
My Prussian blue electric clock's
alarm bell rings, it will not stop
and I can see no end in sight
and search in vain by candlelight
for some long road that goes nowhere
for some signpost that is not there
And even my befuddled brain
is shining brightly, quite insane
The chandelier is in full swing
as gifts for me the three kings bring
of myrrh and frankincense, I'm told,
and fat old Buddhas carved in gold
And though it seems they smile with glee
I know in truth they envy me
and watch as my befuddled brain
shines on brightly quite insane
Above all else confusion reigns
And though I ask no one explains
My eunuch friend has been and gone
He said that I must soldier on
And though the ferris wheel spins round
my tongue it seems has run aground
and croaks as my befuddled brain
shines on brightly, quite insane
Don't fret
get over it
Pathetic and ignorant as ever, Jex. But don't let that stop you.
Ad hominem.
How's that noble Iraqi opposition movement comin Wombat.
Still confused?
NOW regime change is off the table....watchu gonna do?
Still confused RU? 
Endangered Species: Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat
Lasiorhinus krefftii
Northern Hairy-nosed Wombats were extinct at Deniliquin and St George by the late 1800s. Today there are around 65 left at Epping Forest near Clermont. Their numbers have not increased since 1985. The variety of native grasses they feed on has been reduced by Buffel Grass infestations. They are reluctant to accept food hand-outs when conditions are poor.
NO SHIT...I've tried!
Jexter: While you are busy trumpeting my "confusion," you will note that the UN has now moved down the path toward supporting the eventual invasion of Iraq. Unless you feel that Saddam is going to play it straight with the inspection regime (assuming he accepts it in the first place), in which case you are far more confused in your thinking than I have ever been.
Does George W.Bush really want to attack fellow Republicans? I think not.
59% favor sending U.S. ground troops to oust Saddam, up from 54% three weeks ago.
And 60% of Democrats polled say Democrats in Congress
should support Bush as much or more than they have in the past. Just 37% say Democrats should support him less.
The average Democrat has left you behind, jasper.
But don't despair - your party supports you
Are you an Iraqi, Cellar?
Check with Supreme Commander Sully.
Well, I heard we're only gonna be gassing the Iraqis this time around. 
"The Parliament speaker, Saadoun Hammadi, also concluded that the assembly would leave it up to Mr. Hussein what to do." - Neil MacFarquar, New York Times.
Translation: "The appointed head of Saddam Hussein's appointed rubber-stamp body of cronies, Saadoun Hammadi, confirmed that anything Saddam Hussein decided about anything would be fine by him, especially since he'd be shot dead and his family tortured and killed if he said anything else."
Readers are invited to contribute to a new and irregular feature, translating sentences in the New York Times into non-Orwellian English.
ANDREWSULLIVAN.COM
Which, of course, means that this is most likely what they will claim in the disclosure they are required to submit within a few weeks from now. Which, of course, will be a lie. Which, of course, means that once the inspectors are working again, it'll be hide-n-seek all over again.
Fortunately, the action along the border and the TV warnings suggest the FBI has anticipated the obvious and is doing its best. Because the time factor requires almost immediate action, the planning may not be the quality of previous al Qaeda operations. Let's hope so.
It would of course be ironic if we go to war against Saddam fearing he might someday give WMD to al Qaeda and find that we have in fact caused him to do so.
Still, it could be argued that getting an anthrax attack now is better than getting nuked later.
Canadian official allegedly calls Bush 'a moron' over Iraq
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
A senior Canadian official in Prague allegedly branded U.S. President George W. Bush "a moron" at the NATO meetings in the Czech Republic, reportedly for his attempts to drum up support for an attack on Iraq, a report said Friday.
"What a moron," Post reporter Robert Fife quoted the official as saying in reference to the U.S. president.
Canadian officials said they were investigating to see if the report quoting the remarks was credible.
Chretien, meanwhile, danced around the issue when asked for comment.
"He's not a moron at all, he's a friend. My personal relations with the president are extremely good," Chretien said, according to the Canadian Press.
The report came after Canada's Defence Minister John McCallum this week urged Bush stay out of Canada's business regarding military spending.
McCallum made the remarks after Bush said some Western countries were not spending enough on their armed forces.
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
. . . and, Cellar, you forgot me on your list.
by CALVIN TRILLIN
Consider kids who bullied Richard Perle--
Those kids who said Perle threw just like a girl,
Those kids who poked poor Perle to show how soft
A mamma's boy could be, those kids who oft-
Times pushed poor Richard down and could be heard
Addressing him as Sissy, Wimp or Nerd.
Those kids have got a lot to answer for,
'Cause Richard Perle now wants to start a war.
The message his demeanor gets across:
He'll show those playground bullies who's the boss.
He still looks soft, but when he writes or talks
There is no tougher dude among the hawks.
And he's got planes and ships and tanks and guns--
All manned, of course, by other people's sons.
All manned, of course, by other people's sons.
Manned? Sons? No women serving in Trillin's armed forces? Oh, but it would make for a more difficult rhyme to include the womenfolk, now would it? Well, "talks" and "hawks" doesn't rhyme either, and that doesn't stop Calvin from popping them together.
Maybe he should have tried "other people's kids" instead, since "kids" is a favorite word of his, using it four times and three lines in succession.
Buy a thesaurus, Cal.
Nice Christmas colored treatment, though, Jasper. And welcome back! This pic's for you: 
"This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents," writes Mr. Pollack in his new book, The Threatening Storm. "This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess.
Saddam's chambers of horrors
Francoise Ducros
"An aggressive dictator now rules in Iraq. The dictator of Iraq threatens the security of free nations, including the free nations of Europe. Every nation must confront danger. Every free nation has a responsibility to play its full and responsible role." 
Iraqi held in Afghan assassination plot
I don't know, but I know it's inversely proportional to the frequency of your posts.
You pick nits well, though.
Keep up the firstrate job of raising the level of discourse around here, Fullofmalarky.
Besides, I couldn't let such a nifty little jab go to waste. Don't take it personally.
Thousands line up to flee Iraq
Is it mandatory for Liberals to oppose Bush's stance toward Iraq? I would think true Liberals would want the peole in Iraq to be free true is tyrrany. But I guess there is a difference between a Liberal and a Leftie. But perhaps you would like to see Saddam gone, but just can't stand givwing Bush the credit. Concerned would never give Clinton credit for anything, even though, as you know, Clinton did much good.
I was merely responding to Ed's Mote IQ swipe.
Sure. If we're not selective about it. Problem is, of course, if we're not it's an endless task, and if we are it's hypocritical to put a gild of altruism on what is motivated by self-interest.
I strongly oppose Bush on domestic policy, but haven't addressed that here.
They're not fleeing him, stupid, they're fleeing US!!!!
IRAQ IS NOW GROUND ZERO. DO YOU THINK THOSE PEOPLE WANT TO SIMPLY SIT THERE AND GET KILLED??? YOU MUST BE INSANE!!!
Then, I take it, you are convinced that Saddam has WMD.
Mirror UK
Consider kids who bullied Richard Perle
Those kids who said Perle threw just like a girl,
....
The message his demeanor gets across:
He'll show those playground bullies who's the boss.
He still looks soft, but when he writes or talks
There is no tougher dude among the hawks.
And he's got planes and ships and tanks and guns--
All manned, of course, by other people's sons.
We're in deep shit when Saddam Hussein's propagandists are more reliable than our Moron King.
I still can't get over the fact that Trillin actually gets paid for the crap he writes.
That "poem" must've taken him all of five minutes.
Ooops!
I'm sorry - is Calvin posting here now?
What's his moniker - I'll beg his forgiveness immediately.
That's not true and you know it. If it weren't for x42's misguided social policies, both houses of Congress wouldn't have gone Republican in '94. And the same goes for the effect of x42's influence on Congressional and local races in '02.
LONDON (Reuters) - Their leaders stand shoulder to shoulder against Baghdad and their pilots fly wingtip to wingtip over Iraq, but the United States and Britain are sending subtly different signals over what may trigger war with Saddam Hussein.
While Washington says Iraq may already be violating a two-week-old U.N. resolution on arms inspections -- effectively claiming a green light for military action -- London insists weapons inspectors must first have a chance to do their work.
The apparent daylight between the two close allies stems in part from different readings of U.N. Resolution 1441, which calls for a tough new weapons inspections regime in Iraq.
Strikes home because my oldest has just enlisted in the Marines, starting his basic training in August.
Can I have my own fatwa, now?
Jeez, now I'm just like y'all, bitching about the quality of insults hurled at gods, demi-gods, and those who would be gods.
So if that is the case, I take back post #1615.
Oil-for-food policy splinters unity -FT
That didn't take long. 
OCT. 26TH PROTEST FROM ATOP THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT
FORTUNE
Jacques Baute -- leader of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the team in charge of nuclear arms --
Certainly nothing to be thankful for I must say.
'Polite and professional' reception for weapons teams
Several years ago I was representing a person accused of dealing drugs in connection with asset seizure proceedings. On night I was at his place going over a few things and repeated my advice to him that if he had anything incriminating he get rid of it.
Rationally, once the police took their eyes off of him he'd be free to do whatever. Rationally, Sad-am would be well advised to act like the narcs were watching him too. Get rid of his stash and wait until the sanctions were lifted.
As I was leaving my client's apartment, I was detained by a half dozen undercover cops. Explaining that I was a lawyer did no good. They said fine, we are going into that apartment and you can either sit in the car or come over to the station and tell us that you didn't see anything up there.
So I waited until they busted down my client's door.
My client evidently took my advice.
Will Sad-am?
The drums of war are beating as United States marches, two steps forward and one step backwards, toward war with Iraq....
But what of the costs? ... If the casualty estimates were in the thousands or tens of thousands, if the costs to the economy were major tax increases or high inflation or deep recession, and if the United States were to become a pariah in the world because of brutal attacks on civilian populations, then decision makers in the White House and the Congress might not post so expeditiously to battle.
Given the salience of cost, it is surprising that there has been no systematic public analysis of the economics of the coming conflict in Iraq. This essay is written in an attempt to fill the gap...."
"The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq,"
by William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University, November 2002
Professor Nordhaus notes that nations historically underestimate the costs of war. By his calculations the United States could end up with a bill for a war in Iraq of as much as $1.6 trillion or as little as $120bn. The former is eight times the maximum price tag for military action in Iraq offered by Larry Lindsey, the White House's economic guru. Even the professor's lower number is roughly double the amount calculated by two studies for Democrats and a Congressional research body.
Guardian
What a MORON!
You mean Pandora's box don't you? - Seinfeld
She has one too - Kramer
UN Team Fights Bush Smear Campaign
A Letter to America
Jurgen Habermas
Whose moral position on this war, on the Kosovo War and on the Persian Gulf War, happen not only to coincide with views that I have expressed here but coincide exactly.
So a big FUCK YOU to you both.
Happy Thanksgiving.
At the center of Habermas's controversial project, as it is outlined in his written work, are the contested and problematic areas of universality and rationality. Of his theoreitcal intent and his debt to important German sociologists like Marx and Weber, Jefferey Alexander notes:
To restore universality to critical rationality and to cleanse the critical tradition from its elitism, Habermas seeks to return to key concepts of Marx's original strategy ("Habermas and Critical Theory" 50).
In many ways, Habermas is engaged in the restoration of philosophical and sociological work which has been descredited or harshly criticised. Among these are theorists such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Lukacs, Sigmund Freud, G. H. Mead, and Talcott Parsons (Foss, et. al. 241) as well as contemporary critics such as Stephen Toulmin and Jean Piaget.
Habermas has no shortage of critics. His work is routinely criticized by postmodernists, poststructuralists, and feminists. A particularly damning dismissal of the political nature of contemporary critical theory is given by Edward Said, who uses Habermas as a spokesman for theory's anti-political stance.
The Habermas Web Resource - Michigan State University
Habermas' position on Iraq is the same as mine and Pelle's: With the imprimatur of the UN based on violations of existing UN resolutions (which Iraq has been doing since the end of the Gulf War...but never mind). I doubt we even differ on the desireability of eliminating Saddam, and what should happen afterwards. What's your position? Never as long as Bush is President?
To which men and women formed by biblical religion, by the great tradition of Western moral philosophy, or by the encounter between biblical religion and moral philosophy that we call moral theology must say – “No, that is a serious mistake.” Nothing human takes place outside the realm or beyond the reach of moral reason. Every human action takes place within the purview of moral judgment.
Thus moral muteness in a time of war is a moral stance: it can be a stance born of fear; it can be a stance born of indifference; it can be a stance born of cynicism about the human capacity to promote justice, freedom, and order, all of which are moral goods. But whatever its psychological, spiritual, or intellectual origins, moral muteness in wartime is a form of moral judgment – a deficient and dangerous form of moral judgment.
19 The debate over “humanitarian intervention” launched in the 1990s by the Somali famine and the genocidal violence of an imploding Yugoslavia also remains to be completed, and bears on the development of the just cause criterion. Addressing the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization on 5 December 1992, Pope John Paul II spoke of humanitarian intervention as a “duty of justice” in cases of impending or actual genocide, or mass starvation caused by political upheaval or ethnic conflict. But the Pope did not specify precisely why this is a moral duty, on whom that duty falls, or how it is to be fulfilled. Development is, again, required.
Can we argue that the mass murder of innocents (or the starvation of entire peoples) constitutes an unacceptable affront to world order and a challenge to international security that must be met? That might have arguably been true in Yugoslavia, but it seems a stretch in regions more marginal to mainstream world politics — no matter how much we deplore (as we should) situations like the Somali famine or the genocide in Rwanda. If, as the Pope proposes, there is a “duty” of humanitarian intervention in these cases, then perhaps it is time to revisit the old notion of “punishment for evil” as satisfying the criterion of “just cause” for the resort to armed force in the vindication of justice and the peace of order. That would not resolve other questions posed by the assertion of a “duty” of humanitarian intervention, but it would get the just cause debate tethered to what are likely to be an increasing number of “real-world” situations in the 21st century.
In any event, this is an argument for another occasion.
EXACTLY the point I made as a matter of fact.
excerpt:
The first two days of inspections on Nov 27 and Nov 28, all covering sites visited previously by disarmament experts before 1998, had gone ahead 'without incident', according to UN
spokesmen. The apparent failure of inspectors to announce the discovery of anything untoward has led Iraq to trumpet that the 'lies' of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had claimed the inspected sites would produce banned weapons, had been exposed. -- AFP
Mr Ueki had told the press briefing that 'the inspectors arrive unannounced' and that the UN does 'not notify Iraqis' of planned visits.
But he added that it was not surprising if officials at specific sites expected visits since such sites had been marked for inspection by the former UN experts who pulled out of the country in 1998 ahead of US and British air strikes on Iraq.
Later to explain his apparent flip-flop, Mr Ueki issued a statement elaborating on what he told AFP. He defended the advance notice given to Iraq as purely a matter of logistics, but added the UN had also given prior notice to a second inspection site.
I wonder if Mr. Ueki has any real concern about Iraq's WMD developmental programs. It would seem from his misleading statements, as well as the fact that there has not yet been an indication that sites will be inspected that were not previously agreed on in the old framework that the UN does not feel obliged to take these duties seriously.
Growing Peace Movement's Ranks Include Some Unlikely Allies
The extraordinary array of groups questioning the Bush administration's rationale for an invasion of Iraq includes longtime radical groups such as the Workers World Party, but also groups not known for taking stands against the government. There is a labor movement against war, led by organizers of the largest unions in the country; a religious movement against the war, which includes leaders of virtually every mainstream denomination; a veterans movement against the war, led by those who fought Iraq in the Persian Gulf a decade ago; business leaders against the war, led by corporate leaders; an antiwar movement led by relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks; and immigrant groups against the war.
There are also black and Latino organizations, hundreds of campus antiwar groups and scores of groups of ordinary citizens meeting in community centers and church basements from Baltimore to Seattle.
It has reached a point where United for Peace, a Web site started by the San Francisco-based human rights organization Global Exchange for groups to list events commemorating the Sept. 11 anniversary, has morphed into a national network coordinating events for more than 70 peace groups nationwide
Amnesty International said a dossier released today by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, listing torture, rapes and other abuses perpetrated by the Baghdad regime, is a "cold and calculated manipulation" of the work of human rights activists.
"Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International's reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq before the Gulf war," the group's secretary general, Irene Khan, said.
The BS Just Keeps Gettin Deeper
Amnesty International Blasts Blair's Latest "Dossier"
Wow! Stop the presses! Holy cow!
Umm...wait a minute. The Clinton administration was working toward regime change in Iraq before Bush became president.
(We've covered this before, but I guess somebody wasn't paying attention.)
Madeline Albright, 2/16/2000: "On the Iraq Liberation Act, let me just say our second part of our policy is we are committed to regime change and in assisting the opposition both inside and outside Iraq. We've been working very hard with the opposition, and are discussing providing it first with non-lethal material and training. They are making progress -- the Iraqi opposition -- in organizing themselves, and we have been working with them. I've met with large numbers of them. So our position has not changed. We believe that we should be involved in containment and regime change."
Iraq Liberation Act (Signed by Bill Clinton October 31, 1998): "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
I also posted a link and quotation from Madeline Albright in post 597 of the Politics thread then, showing that it was Clinton's policy as well.
You posted a retort in 598, so you must have read it. OhioSTOPAS and I exchanged several more posts about it.
Yet you again post it now and pretend as though you've never heard such a thing and it's all a product of Republican propaganda.
Alzheimer's or dishonesty?
Just another indication of how this site has deteriorated, thanks to the demented one, jexster, and his cronies.
But fortunately, there is still Home and Garden, where one can have a nice exchange or two.
They dispute verifiable facts (such as are demonstrable by Clinton's signing of the Iraq Liberation Act), so how will you ever get anywhere arguing "subtleties" like "To compare the United States with any such empire is ludicrous"?
As for your home, I trust it's in an area where "protective covenants" are in force.
Of course after the Supremes re-inforce Bower s. Hardwick this June I'm sure you and your boyfriend will stop having sex.
Recently, though, Bush has sounded more dovish. "I hope we don't have to go to war with Iraq," he told Czech TV on Nov. 18. "I hope that Saddam Hussein does what he said he would do, and that is disarm." In speeches yesterday, Bush and Vice President Cheney again emphasized disarming Hussein and made no mention of regime change.
The delicate phrasing is the result of a geopolitical Catch-22 the Bush administration faces as it confronts the Iraqi president....
Longhorn Cowpies Are Round
The Moronarchy's Circular Spin
Anger over Straw's dossier on Iraqi human rights
December 3: The British government was accused of double standards yesterday after launching a dossier on Iraqi human rights abuses designed to soften up public opinion ahead of a possible war.
U.N.'s Annan says country working well with weapons inspectors
Moron King: Inspection results not encouraging
jexster and the Guardian editorial staff are invited to remove to Iraq if they believe it's such a bastion of human rights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5724-2002Dec3.html target=NEW>U.N. Chief Challenges Bush's Iraq Assessment
Search Teams Gain Access, Annan Says
Hell I saw those same tapes on an old Biography Channel piece on Sad-am years ago....
That's because they were taken years ago.
In Washington, as well as Europe, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary at the Pentagon, is regarded as the most awesome of hawks in his appetite for a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. A Republican senator I interviewed on a recent visit saw him as a weirdo whose views were so dogmatic as to put him outside the realms of normal debate.
Nothing/no one is outside the realm of moral debate....
Very good.
Very good.
Idiot. Dilletante.
In the first place Turkey made NO SUCH COMMITTMENT. The Turks (for now) are of a mind that they will only allow use of their bases if the UN authorizes a Bush W-ar.
Of course, the much ballyhooed UN resolution resolved nothing. The same split exists between the US hegemonists and the rest of the world as evidenced most recently by our Moron King's dispute with Annan over the progress of the inspections. In point of fact, that resolution didn't even resolve the conflict WITHIN the Bush administration as Colin Powell contradicted his "boss" only yesterday as he essentially echoed Annan's comments. Bush and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have stated that they don't give a shit about WMD they want Iraq - full stop.
Of course, no one expected Turkey to bolt from the so-called "coalition of the willing". The Turk is holding out for more $$$$ - par for the Turk course.
You are an idiot and a dilletante Pierre.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Tuesday that U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq had made "a pretty good start" and that a final judgment on their effectiveness could take weeks.
Bush says results of Iraq inspections are not encouraging (AP)
Amid reports that Iraq is giving weapons inspectors full access, a skeptical President George W. Bush said Tuesday the critical test is whether President Saddam Hussein disarms and averts war threatened by the United States.
Yahoo
UN's Annan Says Cooperation with Iraq Good So Far (Reuters)
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday that Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspectors had been good so far and praised the arms experts for using their authority to visit one of Saddam Hussein's presidential compounds
The Moron long ago lost control of his internal foreign policy decision making process and as a predictable result he is fucked as he has lost control of the decision to pundits, to Turks, to Pat Robertson, to Billy Kristol, to Ariel Sharon, to Jacques Chirac, to Hans Blix, to Tony Blair, to Vladimir Putin....
Sahih Bukhari Hadiths: Abzur Ghifari (ra) narrated: one day Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) asked me, “Abzar do you know after setting where does the Sun go?” I replied, I do not know, only Allah’s apostle could say better. Then the Prophet (SA) replied, “After setting, the Sun remains prostrated under Allah’s Aro’sh and waits for Allah’s command for rising again in the East. Day will come when sun will not get permission to rise again and Qeyamot will fall upon earth”.
Note: This belongs in International, but a certain type of socialist there would probably delete it , thus the diaspora to here.
That freelance middle-eastern Rabbi is the incarnation of GOD.
check out this Islamic pearl of 'wisdom'. But if you hurt yourself laughing, it's not my fault.
Quran-67:5: And We have (from of old) adorned the lowest heaven (sky) with lamps, and We have made such (Lamps as) missiles to drive away Satans.
The prophet Mohronmed is calling stars 'lamps' here.
Bush "clarified" his comments - he wasnt' referring to "inspections" when talked about "inspections" he was talking about gassing circa 1991
Apologies to Morons and diletantes on whichever side of the Skagerrak they may be
Substantial majorities in Russia, France & Germany oppose unilateral US action in EyeRak.
What the World Thinks in 2002
Global Gloom and Growing Anti-Americanism
What a Moron!
According to jexster, there are.
It's just one Sodamned thing after another, isn't it, Lefties?
A significant problem is that Lefties have become so fixated on zero-sum power games and partisanship that they seem to have forgotten that these are tactics, not ends in themselves.
Robert Dreyfuss, "Persian Gulf—or Tonkin Gulf?," The American Prospect vol. 13 no. 23
On Tuesday, for example, Turkey's foreign minister, Yasir Yakis, said the deployment of a significant number of American troops in Turkey would be politically unsustainable. He also said a new United Nations Security Council resolution must be passed authorizing force before an American attack could be mounted from Turkish soil.
Both positions seriously complicate the Pentagon's planning. Washington insists that United Nations Resolution 1441, which outlines the Security Council's demands for determining that Iraq has abandoned its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, provides all the authority needed for military action, if Baghdad fails to comply....
"Most informed observers agree that in this election Turks were casting their votes for the concept of responsible and accountable representation,"[Wolfiewitch] said.
Certainly, Washington is looking to Mr. Erdogan to close ranks on Iraq. The conversation will dwell heavily on how much economic assistance the United States might provide as well as Washington's efforts to persuade the European Union to set a date for negotiations on Turkey's eventual membership.
Bears repeating...
"Most informed observers agree that in this election Turks were casting their votes for the concept of responsible and accountable representation," Wolfowitz said.
Turks, should your government allow the US to use bases to attack Iraq?
Favor - 13
Oppose - 83
A Republican senator I interviewed on a recent visit saw him as a weirdo whose views were so dogmatic as to put him outside the realms of normal debate.
If it looks like bullshit, sounds like bullshit, smells like bullshit it must be....
AKARA, Turkey, Dec. 3 — Turkey said today that it would not allow the United States to deploy substantial numbers of ground troops on its territory in the event of a war with Iraq.
The new Turkish government, dominated by a party with Islamist roots, did say that the United States could station warplanes and use Turkish air space to carry out strikes — but only if the United Nations Security Council adopted a new resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.
<
i>Asham was a tootin Turk
Toot toot a loot toot toot
Made his wife do all the work
Toot toot a loot toot toot
He played away
Toot toot a loot toot
Every day
Toot toot a loot toot
Asham was a tootin Turk
Toot toot a loot toot toot
The United States has won support from two critical allies for any future attack on Iraq, with Turkey offering the use of its bases and Saudi Arabia agreeing to military support.
White House: Evidence of Iraq's WMD "solid"
Why doesn't your Moron King pick on someone he can handle?
Here's a stupid mutha fucka he might be able to top... 
Ed you are my bitch
May the farce be with you boba fett
A big Buzz off Moron!
Long before a President talked about an "axis of evil" and "regime change," a President talked of going "to war for humanity's sake," in order to liberate Cuba and the Philippines from Spain. Both were taken, and a string of other colonies followed: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and Panama--a country we created in order to occupy it. There was, President McKinley said of his decision to declare war, "nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate and uplift and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died."
An Imperial Moment
--------------------------------------------------------------
If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.
If the corporate scandal's growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
That Saddam will soon be croakin',
Bomb Iraq.
Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
>From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
(Though our ignorance is showing),
Bomb Iraq.
So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
>From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying "no" would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq!
U.N. Inspections Chief Urges U.S. to Provide Intelligence on Iraq
Hans Blix Stod ved Højen Mast
About as much as we could when he, as head of the AEA, declared in the late 1980s that Insane had no nuclear program. Of course, in the wake of the Gulf War, we found that Sodamn was only months away from producing an atomic bomb.
This isn't tiddleywinks, kids.
Blix Trix
12/7/02-- It was to be expected that Hans Blix and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan would pull some kind of stunt to undermine the U.N. Security Council's allegedly tougher attitude toward Iraqi weapons possession.
Sure enough, they did.
The United Nations yesterday announced that Saddam Hussein's mandated weapons inventory due by Sunday will not be given immediately to Security Council members, as expected, but first will be "screened" by Blix's inspectors.
It could be a week or more before the United States gets to see a copy.
The stated reason for this? To make sure that "proliferation-sensitive" material in the declaration doesn't fall into the wrong hands like terrorists, or even Security Council members like Syria.
As if the Iraqis are going to include how-to-build-a-bomb instructions in documents whose whole purpose is to prove that they have no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons programs!
Clearly, Blix & Co. are demonstrating unequivocally bad faith.
More ominously, the delay gives every appearance of a scam designed to delay if not derail U.S. military action.
No serious person doubts that the Iraqis are in material breach of the relevant U.N. resolutions.
But now Blix and his buddies are set to "redact" all proliferation-sensitive material from the declaration, estimated to be some 12,000 pages long.But how will anyone know if Blix won't also redact material that would implicate Saddam in a "material breach"?
His concern about offending Saddam isn't just on record: It's why he got his job in the first place.
And only this week Blix resisted U.S. calls for more aggressive inspections and for his organization to offer protection to the families of Iraqi technicians that it interviews.
Trust Hans Blix?
Why?
Why, indeed. Blix is a dog in the manger.
"In North Carolina last month, a woman attending a lecture I was giving asked me when America would go to war in Iraq. I told her to watch the front page of The New York Times and The Washington Post for the first smear campaigns against the UN inspectors. And bingo, right on time, the smears have begun." (Robert Fisk in The Independent, December 4)
"3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;"
....?
I see Nutzing! I hear Nutzing! I know Nutzing!
--Mark Twain,
"To the Person Sitting in Darkness"
Read - not a tool of a Moron King.
Scum of the earth.
Hans Blix, the chief inspector, countered growing pressure for more aggressive investigations including American specialists by insisting: “We are in nobody’s pocket.”
UN chief tells US to back off Iraq mission - Times of London
"If you're not in our back pocket you're against us" King Moron I of Crawford
BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec. 7 —(AP)- President Saddam Hussein on Saturday apologized to the Kuwaiti people for his invasion of their tiny country in 1990, saying he was not speaking from weakness but a desire to set the record straight.
In a speech read on national television by the Iraqi information minister, Saddam outlined the events that led to the invasion and said:
"We apologize to God about any act that has angered him in the past and that was held against us, and we apologize to you (the Kuwaitis) on the same basis."
Since the inspections resumed, says UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, Iraq's record of collaboration has been good. He sensibly counsels patience, saying it is early days, while stressing that Saddam Hussein's regime must "sustain the cooperation and the effort". In similar vein, chief inspector Hans Blix urges a gradualist approach. But he has not by any means been pulling his punches in launching unannounced, go-anywhere spot checks on Iraqi factories, military sites and, symbolically perhaps, on one of Saddam's presidential palaces. This firm but measured tone finds an echo in Moscow, in London and in Europe's foreign ministries. It reflects a degree of relief that, so far at least, the UN process upon which they expended so much diplomatic capital appears to be working. It derives from a consensus that 1441 must mean what it said when it gave Iraq a genuine "final opportunity" to assuage the international community's concerns. It does not, however, herald any weakening of their resolve that Saddam must meet his obligations to the UN.
This apparent lack of US respect for the UN's work contrasts sharply with the Iraqi government's attitude. And it has been compounded by several other US actions. One is the derogatory or dismissive comments by administration officials, on and off the record, about the professional and personal lives of some UN inspectors. Another is the highly provocative, increased level of bombing in the southern no-fly zone by US (and shamefully, by British) warplanes. Meanwhile, the US military siege of Iraq, and diplomatic alliance-forging in preparation for war, grows ever more menacing. - Guardian UK
Of course, its been obvious all along hasn't it? Our would be Emperor and his Beltway Prussians are not interested one wit in weapons of mass destruction. Never ready to take "yes" for an answer, these people are hell bent for war, the rest is pretext...
But Bush has himself a problem bigger than Hans Blix.
The White House must counter Iraq's denials that it is developing weapons of mass destruction by releasing evidence to the contrary, lawmakers said today.
Evidence. Let's hope its better than that Big Pile of Prague poop or those UAV's or those aluminium nuke components
US seeks one excuse for war in 12,000 pages of denial
As Iraq insists it has no weapons of mass destruction, Washington is losing patience with anyone who wants to prevent another conflict
The [chicken]hawks in the administration are nervous, some experts say.
"They are nervous that he will not pull the trigger," said Michael McFaul, a professor of political science at Stanford University who has advised both the Bush and Clinton administrations on Russian policy.
"They thought they were in the driver's seat," he said, adding that "now they are panicked" because they agreed to drive Mr. Bush to the United Nations. Their fear is that Mr. Bush will balk at writing unilateral rules of the new international game.
NyT
In early September, amid the US-led clamour for a war to depose Saddam Hussein and strip Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, Tuwaitha was catapulted again into the headlines. The International Atomic Energy Authority had released satellite images suggesting new building work at the site.
Although the IAEA drew no conclusions from the pictures, the White House did, putting forward spokesman Ari Fleischer who said the images could indicate Saddam 'may seek to develop nuclear weapons and may be making progress'. Within days, those images had become part of the received knowledge about Iraq: evidence that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear weapons capability.
Last week Tuwaitha was in the news again. This time, however, it was because UN inspectors had visited the site of the new construction at the plant. According to western intelligence sources, they found nothing untoward -certainly 'no smoking nuke'.
Selling the Iraq War to the US [60 Minutes] 
"This can't go on. We are at war. We are at war with a cruel, militant Islam, led by Al Qaeda, we are at war with a rising tide of global anti-Americanism, and we will probably soon be at war to disarm Iraq. There is no way we are going to win such a multidimensional conflict without sacrifices and radically new thinking."
November 7, 2002
Bush and Iraq 
Sound familiar?
At the height of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, Adlai E. Stevenson, the American chief delegate to the United Nations, crystallized one of the most dramatic moments of the cold war when he displayed spy-plane photos of Soviet nuclear missiles being delivered in Cuba — images that swept away Soviet denials that anything nefarious was afoot.
Some officials in Washington recalled that moment this weekend. The administration was asked why President Bush has not orchestrated a similar display of evidence
NyT
I know why and everyone here does too.
Asham was a tootin turk
tootatoot-toot-a-loot-toot toot
On the contrary, all the evidence points to Saddam being deterred from using them ever since the Iran-Iraq war, when the west did not care, and with Britain actually relaxing its controls on arms-related exports to Iraq after the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. Indeed, the British dossier seemed to contradict confident assertions made by ministers about Iraq's weapons programmes. "Without UN weapons inspectors," it admitted, "it is very difficult to be sure about the true nature of many of Iraq's facilities."
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said yesterday the British government had "total confidence" in the UN inspectors. That view is not shared by Washington's hawks. In a recent speech in London, Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary, downplayed the role of the inspectors, saying: "It is not and cannot be [their] responsibility ... to scour every inch of Iraq. It cannot be their responsibility to search out and find every illegal weapon or programme." That, he said, was the responsibility of the Iraqi regime. - Guardian UK
King Moron's loss of control over his own internal processes continues, disaster looms
excerpt:
One place to begin, notes the Post editorial, is the United Nations' own evidence, including the official report of the last inspection mission. That report cited 360 tons of chemical warfare agents, 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, growth media sufficient to produce more than 25,000 liters of anthrax and 30,000 munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents that Iraq failed to account for before 1999. As the editorial says, "If this weekend's report does not cover those materials, then the Security Council's resolution has been breached. "
Ok, jexster, where'd you hide it?
"If we had intelligence that there is a piece of weaponry at this map reference, we would tell the inspectors and they would be there like a shot," a source said.
US/UK Admit They DO NOT HAVE SOLID EVIDENCE
Someone better tell the Moron.
TD...If you cryptonazis promise not to bomb me or send my family to a concentration camp, I will disclose that I made a weapon of mass destruction.
To be specific I made deadly chlorine gas with a chemistry set that Santa Claus gave me when I was 9.
Anti-War Protests Scheduled for 100 Communities from the East Coast to Alaska - 12/10/02
Not to quibble, but is this noteworthy? A Moron in a quandry???
Scud missiles found on North Korean (Axis of Evil charter member) ship off Yemen.
"It was unfortunate and I hope it is not going to be repeated," Annan said of the way the U.S. had circumvented the U.N.'s decision.
Sort of like it's been unfortunate the number of times the UN has been made to dance a tune by Saddam.
Hee-hee-hee.
Jexster - you want some Iraqi fissionable material with those fries?
"I think the Bush Administrayion are desperately eager to win an easy victory over a defenseless enemy, so they can strut around as heroes and liberators, to the rousing cheers of the educated classes. It’s as old as history.
Iraq wasn’t brought up as a matter of immediate significance until September of this year, when the election season started."
--Noam Chomsky
Colin Powell, February, not September
-- Secretary of State Colin Powell says the United States might have to act alone to bring about a ``regime change'' in Iraq.
Powell told House members Wednesday that President Bush is considering ``the most serious set of options one might imagine'' for dealing with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
How on earth did Concerned arrive at the conclusions he posted based on the contents of the article he linked to?
Most of Concerned's posts are made up.
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon (news -web sites) is preparing to use anti-personnel land mines in a war with Iraq, despite U.S. policy that calls for the military to stop using the mines everywhere in the world except Korea by 2003.
That is the Moronarchy's answer to Sadaam's "come and look" strategy.
How fuckin pathetic - Bush DoubleSpeak is one thing, the imbecile's malapropisms another but when you combine the two and call that "US strategY", why if I were a towelhead hater, like Zan or Horsie Fett, I'd shit my pants.
Finally, though, the media seems to be picking up on the root causes of the muddle that is Bush foreign policy, a policy of zig of zag until some half baked pissant foreign politician says "fuck you"
Michael Isikoff has said what I have said for nearly a year now - the Moron who would rule the world is so mentally defective that he can't even control his own internal political mess..
Its pantywaist powell and the rest of the world against the ChickenHawks and chickenfried christian fundies and the Moron King doesn't know whether to shit or go brown...
Saddam may laugh so hard that he keels over and dies...
Asham was a tootin Turk...
Say wonder if the Turk will follow thru on their promise - no EU, no bases 
"He's no moron. He's my friend!"
The US, by challenging the dossier, could be laying the ground for military action early in the New Year, after UN inspectors have returned their official verdict in January on Iraq’s claims it has no banned weapons.
The early impression of Iraq's 11,807-page weapons declaration -- both from officials in the United States and at the United Nations -- is that it is an empty shell full of recycled material that leaves unanswered important questions about Baghdad's capabilities.
"Empty shell full of recycled material."
Sounds like a poster I know.
Sooooooo sorrrryyyy, Jasper et al, but your pal Saddam is really a goner now.
President Bush may be receiving some much-needed help in his quest to oust evil Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein -- from a band of America-loving extraterrestrials!
The otherworldly warriors have offered their armies and weapons expertise in a series of top-secret communiques to the White House, and the President is now certain that Baghdad can be taken without a single American casualty, according to a high-level Pentagon source.
"We have been contacted by an alien force from another galaxy which has offered its full military assistance for an invasion of Iraq," says the official who spoke under condition of anonymity.
Sounds like a trap to me, ED. Prob'ly some kinda Trojan Horse thing.
Newsday reports, "Iraq's 12,000-page declaration of its weapons programs lists American companies that provided materials used by Baghdad to develop chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s... The public release of such a list could prove embarrassing for the US and highlight the extent to which the Reagan and first Bush administrations supported Iraq in its eight-year war with neighboring Iran in the 1980s. U.S. military and financial assistance to Iraq continued until Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990... The U.S.-Iraqi relationship flourished from February 1986, when then-Vice President George Bush met with Iraq's ambassador to Washington, Nizar Hamdoon, and assured him that Baghdad would be permitted to receive more sophisticated U.S. technology, until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Over that four-year period, the Reagan and Bush administrations approved licenses for the export of more than $600 million worth of advanced American {WMD}technology to Iraq."
US Policy to Reshape a Post-Saddam Iraq
Anthony H. Cordesman
Arleigh A. Burke Chair for Strategy
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Yep - it's a conspiracy.
Fundamentally Unsound 
the bestselling series of paranoid, pro-Israel end-time thrillers, may sound kooky, but America's right-wing leaders really believe this stuff
The most popular novel in America right now is one in which the world is tyrannized by the former secretary general of the U.N., who operates from Iraq, and his global force of storm troopers, called "peacekeepers." Revered rabbis evangelize for Christ, repenting Israel's "specific national sin" of "[r]ejecting the messiahship of Jesus." Much of the world is deceived by a false prophet, part of the inner circle of the Antichrist, who seems a lot like the pope -- he's a Catholic cardinal, "all robed and hatted and vested in velvet and piping."
#1 Bestseller?!?!??! Bush cadre and financier?
Thank you Professor Krugman...I never heard of this shit and Joey ain't talkin
I mean, if Sean Penn can determine in 3 days what's supposed to take dozens of inspectors months...
Wow.
Krugman's writing as Michelle Goldberg now?
Couldn't fool jasper, by golly!
The former South African president, who has been praised across the planet for his efforts to heal the wounds that decades of apartheid inflicted on his country, said he felt let down by the silence of other world leaders over U.S. policy.
"I am disappointed with heads of state who are just keeping quiet when the United States wants to sideline the United Nations," he told the ANC's five-yearly conference.
The latest move, providing evidence for what Mandela says is the dangerous U.S. disregard for the principles of multilateral world governance, was the arrival of Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration dossier in Washington earlier this month.
Washington obtained an early unedited copy of the Iraqi declaration originally sent to the United Nations after a deal was struck to override a U.N. Security Council decision to keep the report under wraps at U.N. headquarters in New York.
"This was an act of piracy which must be condemned by everyone," the former South African president told members of the ruling African National Congress (news - web sites) (ANC).
These imbeciles couldn't handle an invasion of fleas.
The House of Commons' foreign affairs select committee said that while President Saddam could not be allowed to continue to defy the UN over weapons of mass destruction, the UK and US governments should not underestimate the potential impact of war on opinion on the "Arab street".
It cautioned that despite vigorous international efforts to disrupt Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, and even before any conflict with Iraq, al-Qaida continued to pose a "grave threat" to the UK and its interests around the world.
In a report entitled Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, the committee expressed concern that the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, appeared "surprisingly unconcerned" about the potential repercussions of an attack.
Representative Government Alive in Mother Country
It's about time someone told the Arab Street to shut the hell up.
GW is just the man for the job.
What the fuck is there a poopstain his britches?
Regime change with Lott and Rove, not Saddam.
Fucking Ronski.
What the fuck is there a poopstain his britches?
Regime change with Lott and Rove, not Saddam.
Fucking Ronski.
The server knows.
Must.... find.... out.... why....
Oh, I see.
The U.S. seems to be counting on intimidating all its "allies" into going along....
It is no doubt correct that the use of overwhelming force does establish hegemony. This occurred in 1945, and the U.S. did become the hegemonic power. But the use of such force when the conditions of hegemony have already been undermined is a sign of weakness rather than of strength, and weakens the user.
Turkey clearly does not want to defend Iraqi Kurds, when the major consequence on this would be to strengthen the Kurdish movement in Turkey, against which the Turkish government focuses all its efforts.
Immanuel Wallerstein 4/02
Oil, Iraq, & AmeriKa
Hasty?
How can you haste to a decision that has already been made, haste to a charade that's been underway for months?
Mr. Powell, normally more willing to moderate the pace of confrontation with Baghdad to consider the views of other Council nations, declared a breach immediately. Pentagon officials were reluctant, the official said, because they said the statement could be seen as tantamount to a declaration of war.
"It's not necessarily casus belli right away," the official said, summarizing Mr. Powell's argument. "Just because there's a material breach doesn't mean you bomb them the next day."
Jumpin Jehosephat - its not for nothin they call him "PantyWaist" Powell's entire career has been one of stealth. Of steelin about the rings of the Pentagon, stabbin folks in the back and leaking. He never stands up. A fella can get shot doing that.
Powell is no fool. He is a pantywaist.
Excerpts:
Despite its highly publicized reluctance to align itself with U.S. and British war cries against Baghdad, the French government has concluded that the Iraqi declaration about its weaponry is badly inadequate and falls so far short of Security Council demands that France may soon have to support and join UN-mandated military action against Iraq, according to French government sources.
In Paris, it seemed increasingly probable that the Iraqis have mishandled the declaration, a key element offered by the Security Council to Baghdad as "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."
The French view will be influential with other nations, including the 15 members of the Security Council, because Paris has in the past battled against hard-line U.S. calls for action against the government of Saddam Hussein.
"We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," said presidential adviser Amir al-Saadi.
"We do not even have any objections if the CIA sent somebody with the inspectors to show them the suspected sites," he told a news conference in Baghdad.
He said chief weapons inspector Hans Blix had sent Iraq a "formal request to provide a list of certain scientists and we are going to provide that list before the end of this year."
Saadi addressed specific questions raised by Washington and London, allies which found that Baghdad's declaration fell short of meeting the U.N. resolution to disarm Iraq.
Saadi said U.S. questions over whether Iraq had disclosed its efforts to obtain uranium from South Africa or Niger had already been discussed in talks with Blix and nuclear weapons chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
Saadi said he told the two inspectors last month Iraq had tried to obtain uranium oxide, not uranium, from Niger in the mid-1980s but had never tried to obtain any such material from South Africa.
"There were no new procurements or attempts to procure," he said. "That was a question formally asked across the table and formally answered by us."
Saadi said Iraq made an unsuccessful attempt in April 1990 to produce a quantity of VX but the material degraded rapidly and attempts to produce it were abandoned.
"No production was achieved, no VX was produced," he said.
The adviser said samples purported to be VX taken from Iraqi sites by members of UNSCOM, headed by Richard Butler, were sent to the United States for analysis.
"They were sealed...but we found later they had been opened," Saadi said
Foreign Policy
In the full-court press for war with Iraq, the Bush administration deems Saddam Hussein reckless, ruthless, and not fully rational. Such a man, when mixed with nuclear weapons, is too unpredictable to be prevented from threatening the United States, the hawks say.
One problem with this argument: It is almost certainly wrong. The belief that Saddam’s past behavior shows he cannot be contained rests on distorted history and faulty logic. In fact, the historical record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively—even if Saddam has nuclear weapons—just as it contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Regardless of whether Iraq complies with U.N. inspections or what the inspectors find, the campaign to wage war against Iraq rests on a flimsy foundation.
If the United States is, or soon will be, at war with Iraq, Americans should understand that a compelling strategic rationale is absent. This war would be one the Bush administration chose to fight but did not have to fight. Even if such a war goes well and has positive long-range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly—whether in the form of high U.S. casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the United States in the Arab and Islamic world—then its architects will have even more to answer for.
John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison distinguished service professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he codirects the Program in International Security Policy.
Stephen M. Walt is the academic dean and the Robert and Renee Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is faculty chair of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Do you think that the statements of the spokesman for a totalitarian state should be presented and used uncritically as fact?
Mouthpiece for Iraqi "propaganda"? You mean the article I posted, the one from from Reuters, the gist of which is being run on the front pages of every newspaper in the world?
And the Foreign Policy article, "partisan" you say?
How exactly is that?
The political science department at the University of Chicago is one of the best in the country, its international relations program arguably second to none, not even to Harvard. Two chaired professors, chairmen of two of the best international relations programs in the world, presented a strategic/historical analysis that is astonishingly similiar if not identical to my own.
Curious isn't how when you've nothing to say, you chirp "partisan!!!". And you know what Pelle?
You don't have anything else to say do you?
No more so than the statements of Ari Fliescher I suppose. The article was factual Wombat. I heard the press conference. The Reuters account was a faithful and accurate report of that conference.
Should perhaps their facts and analysis not fit their conclusion? Is that what you mean?
2) They say absolutely nothing about Saddam's continuance of Iraq's refusal to recognize the existence of Kuwait as anything other than an Iraqi province. One could argue that Saddam could have settled the dispute with Kuwait by seizing the disputed oil fields (which the authors do not mention either), rather than taking over the whole country. Was it Saddam's irredentism concerning Kuwait's existence that prevented this?
"My Jex, you are quite the IR scholar!"
Thus, both the hard-line preventive-war advocates and the more moderate supporters of inspections accept the same basic premise: Saddam Hussein is not deterrable, and he cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear arsenal.
One problem with this argument: It is almost certainly wrong
In fact you missed by a mile.
Saddam invaded Kuwait in early August 1990. This act was an obvious violation of international law, and the United States was justified in opposing the invasion and organizing a coalition against it. But Saddam’s decision to invade was hardly irrational or reckless. Deterrence did not fail in this case; it was never tried.
In this case, however, the truth points the other way. Both logic and historical evidence suggest a policy of vigilant containment would work, both now and in the event Iraq acquires a nuclear arsenal. Why? Because the United States and its regional allies are far stronger than Iraq. And because it does not take a genius to figure out what would happen if Iraq tried to use WMD to blackmail its neighbors, expand its territory, or attack another state directly. It only takes a leader who wants to stay alive and who wants to remain in power. Throughout his lengthy and brutal career, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly shown that these two goals are absolutely paramount. That is why deterrence and containment would work.
By the way, Saddam didn't throw Kuwaiti babies out of incubators....and the Hun didn't eat little Belgian girls in WWI either.
By George Hunsinger
Professor of Systematic Theology
Princeton Theological Seminary
Christian Ethics Today
“Wars are not won on the defensive,” asserts Vice President Dick Cheney. “We must take the battle to the enemy(too much Tom Clancy!) and, where necessary, preempt grave threats to our country before they materialize.” For the Bush administration, this policy appears to include a preemptive strike against Iraq, which is viewed as another installment in its war against terrorism.
A war of preemption, advocates maintain, will bring about a highly desired “regime change” in Iraq, install a democratic government there and free the Iraqi people. By just war standards, however, a preemptive attack against Iraq must be condemned.
`According to just war theory, three criteria determine whether going to war is justifiable: the cause must be just, the chances of success must be reasonable, and the authority to wage war must be competent. None of these conditions can be met by the preemptive strike planned against Iraq. ...
The right to preempt an anticipated attack can be extrapolated from the self-defense principle if preemptive strikes meet a high standard of justification: the attack being prevented must be imminent, not merely conjectured or vaguely feared in the long run. Everything depends, therefore, on whether Iraq plans to launch an attack against the U.S. in the near future.
Two questions are relevant: Does Hussein actually possess weapons of mass destruction? And if so, do they pose a clear and imminent danger to the U.S. or its allies?
And what of it?
Well, unnecessary war is homicide, a grave moral evil.
And what of it?
From the Guardian:
International aid agencies have warned of a humanitarian catastrophe in the event of a war in Iraq, which could leave millions without food or shelter.
Unicef, the children's charity, has already begun to move supplies to neighbouring countries while the World Food Programme is moving food it intends to provide for nearly a million people for one month. Aid officials say the United Nations' 'Oil for Food' programme - under which tens of millions of Iraqis live on meagre rations - would be suspended during any military action, leaving them facing starvation or reliant on emergency food aid.
The UN, which drew up a request at a meeting in Geneva last week for $37.3 million from donor countries to tackle the issue, is increasingly worried about the scale of any potential disaster.
In Britain, Clare Short's Department for International Development admitted last night that it was now holding 'regular discussions on general contingency preparedness' for a range of possible outcomes in the Middle East.
'In the case of Iraq, the UN is preparing for all such eventualities,' said a spokeswoman.
UN officials complain that the US administration is refusing to listen to warnings about the scale of the possible humanitarian disaster.
'There is a studied lack of interest in a warning call we are trying to deliver to the people planning for war, about what its consequences might be,' a UN official told The Observer yesterday.
Tony Hills
Crediton, Devon
Contributor of $5.5 Billion in GWI Won't Give a pfenning 
Iraqi Christian children celebrate Christmas Eve mass at Rafael's Church in Baghdad December 24, 2002
Time Magazine 12-30 quoting Bush critics.
Deterrence appears to have a considerable effect even against rogue states. As the State Department's annual report on terrorism makes clear, for example, most rogue states are actually diminishing their active support for terrorism, perhaps partly in response to President Bush's recent threats. That is not because they have all reformed their ways, but because deterrence tends to work against even brutal autocrats, who tend to value highly their hold on power and their lives—as National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice herself wrote in the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs: "These [rogue] regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. Rather, the first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration. BROOKINGS
Ironically, some of the officials now advocating war used to recognize that Saddam could not employ nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. In the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, for example, National Security Advisor Rice described how the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. “The first line of defense,” she wrote, “should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.” If she believed Iraq’s weapons would be unusable in 2000, why does she now think Saddam must be toppled before he gets them? For that matter, why does she now think a nuclear arsenal would enable Saddam to blackmail the entire international community, when she did not even mention this possibility in 2000? Mearsheimer & Walt
Residents of Diverse Community Fear Consequences of U.S. Attack
"What do they get in benefit just to kill kids?" she asked. "We are praying to God to protect us and our children."
This is nothing new. The academic world in the US has been blindly partisan for decades. Back in the 70's I had an economics professor who was little more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. He just loved me.
The answer to both questions is yes. We know Iraq had WMD in 1998 when the inspectors left. It would be foolish to assume he has destroyed them and not told anyone.
These weapons may not present a clear and present danger to the US but they do to Israel. Israel continues to be in a precarious position. Its continued existence depends in large part on its military superiority. Since it is the lone nuclear power in the region, it holds the ultimate trump card against any invasion. If Iraq develops nuclear weapons, Israel loses its trump card and is immediately vulnerable.
When Iraqi or foreign journalists can quiz Iraqi government representatives in Baghdad on the many questions and contradictions in Iraq's denials of possessing and seeking to build WMD, without losing their lives or access, then I will be less inclined to scoff at Iraqi government messages.
"Straight" reporting of Iraqi government claims without the caveat that they originate from a regime that does not permit freedom of expression, allows the politically naive (either willfully or actually) to give these statements the the same or greater value as those coming from the United States and its allies (and other countries with a free press that may oppose current policy toward Iraq).
I am no longer suprised that Jexter prefers to believe Iraqi statements on WMD over those of virtually every other government. I would be very suprised if you did.
Iraq sending weapons to Syria, Hezbollah:
It is known, for instance, that the missile cargo captured two weeks ago on a ship bound for Yemen from North Korea was in fact destined for Iraq. The Americans released the ship after Yemen promised to keep the missiles itself, apparently to ensure Yemen's cooperation in the struggle against Al-Qaida.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, used a Christmas broadcast to warn of the unintended suffering caused by politicians. Referring to the biblical story of the birth of Christ, the archbishop compared political strategists to the three wise men who informed King Herod of the birth of Jesus.
"Telling Herod about the Christ child, they provoked the massacre of the children of Bethlehem," he said in the message, broadcast today on the BBC. "The strategists who know the possible ramifications of politics miss the huge and obvious things and wreak yet more havoc and suffering. Here we all are, tangled in the same net ... stepping deeper and deeper into tragedy."
Another thing to think about. Saddam stays in power through the use of fear. If he were to kowtow to the US and the UN, he would appear weak to potential rivals. He would not survive long by appearing weak.
URBI ET ORBI MESSAGE
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II
“In spite of the tragic phenomenon of terrorism, humanity must not give in to diffidence, suspicion, mistrust. And the believers of all religions together with all men of goodwill, not giving into intolerance, (must) build peace.”
I wonder what His Holiness has to say about gays?
In all, more than 80 percent of all air-to-ground munitions
can be precision-guided, compared with 10 percent in Desert
Storm. The ability to hit more targets, using fewer missions, is
one reason the number of American troops being sent to the
region is half the 550,000 deployed in 1991.
"When you roll it all together, I say we're 10 times more
powerful," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas
McInerney. "And [Saddam] is about 30 percent what he was
before. So you can see how we can achieve rapid dominance
using 'effects-based' operations."
...Another big advancement is the development of
unmanned spy planes, such as the Air Force Predator and
Global Hawk, and the Army's Shadow. The
remote-controlled drones can loiter aloft for long periods of
time, sending back video images. Commanders can use the
"real-time" intelligence to direct air strikes or reposition
ground forces.
"We did not have that kind of 'real-time' reconnaissance
capability in the Gulf war," Col. Warden said. "If we had a
handful of Predators in the Gulf war, we probably would
have found and killed Saddam Hussein He was always
moving enough that we stayed one step behind."
The most popular novel in America right now is one in which the world is tyrannized by the former secretary general of the U.N., who operates from Iraq, and his global force of storm troopers, called "peacekeepers." Revered rabbis evangelize for Christ, repenting Israel's "specific national sin" of "[r]ejecting the messiahship of Jesus." Much of the world is deceived by a false prophet, part of the inner circle of the Antichrist, who seems a lot like the pope -- he's a Catholic cardinal, "all robed and hatted and vested in velvet and piping."
You're manic, aren't you jasper?
THE United States edited out more than 8000 crucial pages of Iraq's 11,800-page dossier on weapons, before passing on a sanitised version to the 10 non-permanent members of the United Nations security council.
The full extent of Washington's complete control over who sees what in the crucial Iraqi dossier calls into question the allegations made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell that 'omissions' in the document constituted a 'material breach' of the latest UN resolution on Iraq.
Last week, Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan accepted that it was 'unfortunate' that his organisation had allowed the US to take the only complete dossier and edit it. He admitted 'the approach and style were wrong' and Norway, a member of the security council, says it is being treated like a 'second-class country'.
Archbishop Warns Against Conflict
The Church Leaders Unite in Plea for Peace as Williams Attacks War 'Strategists' in Christmas Message
Church leaders across the western world warned the United States and Britain against war with Iraq in current circumstances, in a remarkable display of Christian unity during their Christmas messages.
From the Pope to the new Archbishop of Canterbury, there were warnings that a war could not be justified
Owen Bowcott
Friday December 27, 2002
The Guardian
We may be about to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but listeners to the BBC Today programme have just voted him one of five foreigners "most deserving of honorary status as a British citizen".
"Believe me, it will be a disaster from a humanitarian perspective," Ruud Lubbers, the United Nations (news - web sites) High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said in a BBC interview.
He raised the spectre that bacteriological or chemical weapons -- for evidence of which U.N. inspectors are currently scouring Iraq -- could be used in a conflict.
He urged the international community to prevent war, and not to fight unless Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) could not be disarmed if he still has such weapons, which Saddam denies.
"Only, only, when Saddam Hussein does not comply with both the inspections and the consequences of the inspections...then there can be reason for a military intervention," said Lubbers.
Shit guess this means war....
OOOPS wrong country
"Attacks on American forces in Kuwait are being covered up and played down because of concerns that further disclosures will destabilise military preparations for war against Iraq," reports the UK Telegraph. "Incidents have either gone unreported or have been passed off as harmless recreational shooting by hunters. 'The Americans have told us to downplay these incidents for fear of creating the sort of climate in which further attacks can happen,' one official said." Meanwhile "western diplomats" are disseminating lies about Kuwaiti support of Bush: "The majority of Kuwaitis fully back what the Americans are doing. All this trouble is being caused by a very small, extremist fringe."
Fringe? A nationwide poll of thousands of Kuwaitis found that 7 in 10 sympathize with Osama Bin Laden, while an October Gallup Poll shows 69% of Kuwaitis say U.S. incursion into Iraq is unjustifiable.
Quite a big fringe, eh?
Bush Offers $4 Billion
Ankara Wants $28 Billion
Split the difference and tax the poor?
"Preventive war is suicide for fear of death." Otto von Bismarck
HOW TO FIGHT A COLD WAR
Although it is already terribly late in the day, the risk of Iraqi retaliation also underlines the need to reconsider the alternative to provoking it. Why are containment and deterrence -- the strategies that worked for the four decades of the Cold War -- suddenly considered more dangerous than poking the snake? Proponents of war against Iraq have provided an answer -- but they are wrong.
Deterrence rests on the assumption that a rational actor will not take a step if the consequences of that action are guaranteed to be devastating to him. The United States can therefore deter Iraqi aggression unless or until Saddam deliberately chooses to bring on his own demise, when he could otherwise continue to survive, scheme, and hope for an opportunity to improve his hand. Of course, Saddam's record is so filled with rash mistakes that many now consider him undeterrable. But there is no good evidence to prove that is the case. Reckless as he has been, he has never yet done something Washington told him would be suicidal.
It is true that Saddam has a bad record of miscalculation and risk-taking. But he made his worst mistake precisely because Bush the Elder did not try to deter him.
Despite humiliating defeat, Saddam held back his high cards in 1991 because he was never forced to the wall or confronted with his own demise. That war, unlike the one now contemplated, was limited.
Should Saddam be compared to terrorists instead of to Stalin? If the Iraqi regime is viewed as similar to al Qaeda (a conflation of threats that official rhetoric has encouraged), deterrence would indeed be impractical. But Saddam and his Baath Party supporters are not religious fanatics bent on martyrdom. They are secularist thugs focused on their fortunes in this world. ... The crucial difference between a rogue state and a terrorist group is that the state has a return address.
Richard K. Betts is Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a member of the National Commission on Terrorism. Among his books are Surprise Attack, Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance, Military Readiness, and Conflict After the Cold War.
Cleaning Up a RUMMY Mess
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
To American intelligence experts viewing by satellites miles overhead, the al-Nasr factory complex must look like a hiding place for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's reputed weapons of mass destruction.
But when U.N. inspectors swarmed over the site, they found that the cylinders outside the building, and under construction inside, appeared to be exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- large pressured chambers in storage tanks for the nation's petroleum and petrochemical industries.
Tension flared when inspectors and their Iraqi counterparts hurried from the main factory to a nearby office building and returned with a nervous Iraqi clutching a handful of keys -- a sign they had found a suspicious door that wouldn't open.
Would the Iraqis find the right key? If not, would a locked storeroom be considered Iraqi stonewalling and thus another piece of evidence in the case for war? If the key were found, would the inspectors find a secret stash of documents or weapons behind the locked door?
The Charade Before the Crusade
Repeated Inspections, No Evidence
And the German General says "And ours probably still works."
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 2 — The Iraqi government said today that United Nations weapons inspectors had thus far failed, after five weeks of visits to some 230 sites, to uncover any weapons of mass destruction or evidence of other prohibited programs.
"The inspectors did not find any prohibited activities nor any prohibited items in those 230 sites visited up until now," Lt. Gen. Hussam Muhammad Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison to the inspectors, told a weekly news conference.
The general said that his teams of scientists and engineers who accompanied the inspectors had a pretty good sense of what was examined during inspection visits and that they had reported nothing unusual.
"They can of course notice anything which is abnormal which exists at any of the sites visited daily," he said, noting that his liaison officers also attend all the meetings and hence can evaluate the inspectors' activity.
"All those activities proved that the Iraqi declarations are credible and the American allegations and claims are baseless," General Amin said.
I would also think you were less of an asshole if you did not always lump people like Pelle and myself in with pro-Bushies and Christian fundamentalist authors, when our politics have much more in common with you. We have particular reasons--based on knowledge and experience, which you manifestly lack--to detest Saddam and to encourage his overthrow that have nothing to do with what I (and I assume Pelle) might think of Bush and his cohorts.
This is no joke however:
Supplies Readied for Iraq's 'Other' War
As U.S. readies its battle plans against Iraq, humanitarian group are preparing for what they call a massive crisis in the making.
But preparations have been hampered by political sensitivities. Humanitarian organizations, especially those run by the United Nations, feel constrained in preparing for a war that most governments still hope to avoid. Aid groups have held no all-inclusive meetings [in Iraq]to coordinate efforts in the event of war... because Bush has no "world wide judgment"
We deeply respect the seriousness of your responsibility to protect the lives of our citizens, and, with you, we condemn the brutality of Saddam Hussein and his regime.
As disciples of Jesus Christ, we abhor violence and war. Our faith requires us to strive always for justice and peace. We believe that restraint and the ongoing commitment to international cooperation are the means toward peace that we all desire.
With you, we recognize the possibility that war is sometimes unavoidable, but we do not believe that war with Iraq can be justified at this time.
We believe a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, with the overwhelming force such a strike may require to attain an expedient victory, may have many unintended consequences, including unacceptable civilian casualties.
Further, in this instance, we do not support a decision to go to war without clear and convincing evidence of the need for us to defend ourselves against an imminent attack. The wisdom of our own Christian faith, as well as other religious traditions, teaches us to demonstrate the greatest prudence and caution when the lethal force of war is contemplated. We believe that writings on Just War are particularly helpful to our nation's ongoing deliberations. As we search for those responsible for the attacks of September 11, we must encourage such discernment that keeps our society civilized and free.
We stand with other Christian leaders who oppose a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. The leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church of the USA, the Orthodox Church in America, The Christian Church (The Disciples of Christ), The United Church of Christ, The African Methodist Episcopal Church, The Anglican Consultative Council, representing 70 million Anglicans around the world, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have all raised questions about the wisdom and morality of our country's pursuing this course of action.
Over the next weeks, as you debate our possible involvement in a war against Iraq, know that we are praying with you and for you.
The House of Bishops
The Episcopal Church
Cleveland, Ohio
Just for you Joey
Guns, Butter, Nation Building, & Social Engineering in Moronius Caeser's Iraq
"Things will have to come together much faster than in Afghanistan" anon. source
God help us. What an imbecile.
British Embassies Flooding Whitehall With Telegrams Urging Blair to Stop Bush War
Richard Norton Taylor
Guardian Security Editor
By DAVID E. SANGER and JAMES DAO
(New York Times)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's national security team is assembling final plans for administering and democratizing Iraq after the expected ouster of Saddam Hussein. Those plans call for a heavy American military presence in the country for at least 18 months, military trials of only the most senior Iraqi leaders and a quick takeover of the country's oil fields to pay for reconstruction.
The proposals, according to administration officials who have been developing them for several months, have been discussed informally with Bush in considerable detail. They would amount to the most ambitious American effort to administer a country since the occupations of Japan and Germany at the end of World War II.
"You've almost got to put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi general who says, 'I have two alternatives here: remain loyal to Saddam Hussein, for fear that he will shoot my family, or trust once the Americans cross the border that they have the will not only to fight against me, but carry the campaign to Baghdad and Tikrit and take care of my boss,' " Scales said.
You can fool Eddie all the time
You can fool Eddie all the time
You can fool Eddie all the time.
Which will hurt you the worst personally:
Clinton's impeachment?
Gore's defeat?
Saddam having his eye sockets gouged out with Bin Laden et al while spending eternity in Satan's bunghole?
Try your "bunghole"..
And this folks is the Town Crier of the Moronarch's "adult administration"?
Seasons of Peacemaking:
Coming Events
Slowing the Rush to War with Iraq
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life.
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
-the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 6 -- The United Nations estimates that a U.S.-led military campaign to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could place about 10 million Iraqi civilians, including more than 2 million refugees and homeless, at risk of hunger and disease and in need of immediate assistance, according to a U.N. planning document.
U.N. officials warned that the impact of a U.S. air and ground invasion in Iraq would likely be worse than the humanitarian crisis caused by the Persian Gulf War in 1991 because a decade of U.N. sanctions has made the Iraqi population almost totally dependent on government handouts for survival.
The Washington Post
Yeah. God forbid it should become another Afghanistan!
...I mean, with all those refugees, and people starving...draining the resources of all the surrounding countries.
And don't forget the tens -maybe hundreds of thousands who died in US bombing raids!
It'll be a disaster, alright. Must be, if the UN says so.
No?
I guess they must be gathering "data". Maybe they figure it would be nice if this time they don't overstate by a magnitude of several thousand.
I knew nothing about Afghanistan, either - or the Jenin Refugee Camp, for that matter.
All I had to go on were UN and HRW and AI estimates and reports of projected and actual damage/casualties.
They all lied to me, jasper.
What's a poor provincial such as myself to do?
The document focuses on the likely humanitarian consequences of a range of anticipated military scenarios. It estimates that:
"as many as 500,000 people could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries", based upon World Health Organisation estimates of 100,000 direct and 400,000 indirect casualties [para 23]. It indicates existing shortages of some medical items, "rendering the existing stocks inadequate" for war-increased demand [para 22], and exacerbated by the "likely absence of a functioning primary health care system in a post-conflict situation" [para 24].
damage to the electricity network will reduce "water and sanitation as well as health [sectors]" [para 5].
In the short term "39% of the population will need to be provided with potable water" [para 28].
The high number of indirect casualties may be because "the outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions is very likely" [para 25].
"It is estimated that there will eventually be some 900,000 Iraqi refugees requiring assistance, of which 100,000 will be in need of immediate assistance, [according to UNHCR]" [para 35].
An estimated 2 million people will require some assistance with shelter [para 33]. For 130,000 existing refugees in Iraq "it is probable that UNHCR will initially be unable to provide the support required" [para 36]
The document also rejects comparisons with humanitarian outcomes of both the 2001 Afghanistan and 1991 Gulf conflicts, since the existing sanctions-induced humanitarian situation in Iraq has produced a population in which 16 million (60%) "have no other means with which to provide for other essential requirements" other than monthly government food rations [para 2,4,11]
Full UN Report Here [pdf]
Oh and BTW, found any chem bio or nuke weapons yet?
There are some in North Korea if you're really interested but of course, that's been a demonstrable load of crap for months now.
Stop talking about things you don't know anything about.
Didn't I say that?
I do know, jasper.
All of that nonsense and more was predicted -with even more dire justification - in Afghanistan.
The UN were proved to be exactly what they are: an irrelevant bunch of pre-menopausal, hystrionic, clucking biddies.
I think I'm getting the picture. North Korea breaks all its nuclear agreements with the United States, throws out UN inspectors and sets off to make a bomb a year, and President Bush says it's "a diplomatic issue". Iraq hands over a 12,000-page account of its weapons production and allows UN inspectors to roam all over the country, and – after they've found not a jam-jar of dangerous chemicals in 230 raids – President Bush announces that Iraq is a threat to America, has not disarmed and may have to be invaded. So that's it, then.
After all, Tim LaHaye isn't merely a fringe figure like Hal Lindsey, the former king of the genre,
The former co-chairman of Jack Kemp's presidential campaign, LaHaye was a member of the original board of directors of the Moral Majority and an organizer of the Council for National Policy, which ABCNews.com has called "the most powerful conservative organization in America you've never heard of" and whose membership has included John Ashcroft, Tommy Thompson and Oliver North. George W. Bush is still refusing to release a tape of a speech he gave to the group in 1999.
The point isn't that all these leaders are part of some kind of right-wing Illuminati. It's simply that the seemingly wacky ideology promulgated in the Left Behind books is one that important people in America are quite comfortable with. The Left Behind series provides a narrative and a theological rationale for a whole host of perplexing conservative policies, from the White House's craven decision to cut off aid to the United Nations Family Planning Fund to America's surreally casual mobilization for an invasion of Baghdad – a city that is, in the Left Behind books, Satan's headquarters.
Political attitudes and actions that make no practical or moral sense to secularists become comprehensible when viewed through Christian pop culture's eschatological looking glass. At a time when America is flagrantly flouting international law, spurning the U.N. and tacitly supporting the land grabs of Israeli maximalists, surely it's significant that the most popular fiction in the country creates a gripping narrative that pits American Christians against a conspiracy of Satan-worshipping, abortion-promoting, gun-controlling globalists – all of it revolving around the sovereignty of Israel.
Provincial?
You're too easy on yourself.
Learn to hate yourself.
the UN and the Pope are the whores for the anti-Christ...that's about all one can reasonably deduce from your piss ignorant drivel.
Refute my assessment of the UN's miserable "prediction" record - especially as regards the US and Israel, instead of spewing more of your drivel.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. is moving its top war planners to the Persian Gulf to prepare for a possible war with Iraq, Fox News confirmed Tuesday.
Hey - what happened?
Did jasper get a job or something?
I just know he wouldn't let such a straight-forward question go unanswered for 7 hours unless he were gainfully occupied...
The Bush administration had tried to block the appointment after Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said he would not send German troops in case of a war with Iraq. Washington dropped its objections after France and Russia supported Germany's bid.
Just Say NO to Bush - Works Every Time
Try finding a source. I haven't the time to do it for you.
You know perfectly well what I'm talking about.
The UN predicted that a war in Afghanistan would result in the most serious refugee problem of the past century, and that tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of civilians would die. Mass starvation and epidemics of cholera were inevitable.
Within weeks of that announcement, their man in Palestine then affirmed that there had indeed been a massacre in Jenin.
As we all know, none of this ever happened.
There is no reason - absolutely none - to believe they are any more correct in their present assessment.
I haven't the time...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
You have something to refute. Go find it.
Your "assessment" ...that came out your ass. And I ain't gonna look up there
I suggest you read the UN report on Iraq and not bother looking for something that doesn't exist.
Well, here are a couple on the overblown predictions of a refugee crisis, to begin with:
Bull
Shit
Considering all of that I suggest you read the report on Iraq you stupid little boy
Iraq is not Afghanistan.
Now we know you hate the UN and the Catholic Church but other than that, I don't think we know much else
Funny. Not in either of your "authorities".
Try that brown one over there in the corner. The one you pu8lled out your butt
Now back to work or do you need a tax cut to give you the proper incentive?
as are the bogus comparisons that Chickenhawks tried to make on the military side before the professional soldiers finally got them to realize that Afghanistan and Iraq are two different places and that wars are not fought either in their Clancy-esque dreams or in your fundamentalist fantasies.
In GWI, fought almost entirely outside of urban areas, nearly 30,000 Iraqi civilians died. Over half a million Iraqis have died since, most of them children under five, due to lack of food and medicine and our continued bombing.
As the Bloody Fool, Boba Fett, put it, we gonna kick ass this time.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis will die, hundreds of US soldiers, and there is no imminent or grave threat to the US or to any of Iraq's neighbors now or in the forseeable future.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction are thousands of miles away.
So what are they going to die for other than the greater glory of the Colossus of Crawford, the half-baked notions of a bunch of radical nationalists in the Administration, and the eschatalogical delusions of so-called "Christian" fundamentalists?
But Washington is holding back some information to see if inspectors "are able to handle it and exploit it. ... It is not a matter of opening up every door we have," Powell said.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Wednesday his government wants the council to adopt a resolution that requests all countries to provide information on Iraq's "prohibited programs" and recommend sites to be visited and Iraqis to be interviewed.
On Tuesday, De Villepin told a news conference in Moscow that "all countries with specific information must convey it."
The requests were aimed at the United States and Britain, who claim they have evidence of clandestine Iraqi programs
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
Turkey Balks at Bases, US Worried
Even so, Mr. Wolfowitz said a move to indicate that Turkey would eventually be welcome in the European Union would encourage continued political and economic change in Turkey. He added that it could also send a signal to Islamic nations that there is not a fundamental clash between the West and nations with a Muslim majority.
"Turkey offers a valuable model for Muslim-majority countries striving to realize the goals of freedom, secularism and democracy," Mr. Wolfowitz said. "Those who would criticize Turkey for its problems confuse what is challenging with what is fundamental. They focus too much on the problems Turkey is struggling today and ignore where it is heading."
Yeah right.
"I am concerned from a military point of view. This is likely to lead to a siege of Baghdad, a city of 5 million people. Siege warfare is the most horrible. Thousands of innocent civilians will die and there is no danger to the US. Bush has what he asked for over a year ago. Inspectors on the ground. There is no reason for this."
Admiral Jack Shanahan, "Business Leaders for Responsible Priorities"
January 3, 2002, NEW YORK CITY – A 13-member religious leaders’ mission to Iraq returns to the United States today (January 3) after witnessing the 20-year legacy of suffering of Iraqi civilians – especially children – and burdened with the knowledge that war would further deepen that suffering.
Terming preemptive war immoral, illegal and theologically illegitimate, the group contends that a war against Iraq would result in widespread suffering and death for innocent people and would make the U.S. less secure, not more secure.
“Ours is a religious and not a political delegation,” emphasized Dr. Bob Edgar at a closing news conference (5:30 p.m. today, Iraq time). “We came as humanitarian inspectors, not weapons inspectors.” The group’s four-day itinerary included visits to schools, hospitals, churches, mosques and humanitarian aid agencies.
“We came to meet with our counterparts in churches and mosques, visit with international aid and UN workers to learn more about the humanitarian situation in Iraq,” Dr. Edgar said. “We came to see the faces of the Iraqi people so that the American people can see the faces of children laughing and singing and also hurting and suffering.”
Group members attended a New Year’s Eve Mass at a Catholic Church and potluck dinner at a Presbyterian church – “a potluck that would be intimately familiar to American Christians,” Dr. Edgar commented.
Group members visited two hospitals, the Red Crescent Society, UNICEF and a school, and visited holy sites and traditional Babylon. “On the street and in informal settings,” they said, “we experienced the spontaneous warmth, hospitality and openness of the Iraqi people.”
Hans Blix spoke to reporters at the United Nations (news - web sites) before he and his counterpart Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, went in to brief the Security Council on their assessments of Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration.
"We have now been there for some two months and been covering the country in ever wider sweeps and we haven't found any smoking guns," Blix said before the Security Council meeting, in which he and ElBaradie were likely to provide an update on the inspections process."
Financial Times 11/27/01
BODY:
President George W. Bush yesterday demanded that Iraq allow United Nations weapons inspectors inside the country, reinforcing the impression that Baghdad may be a future target of US military action.
Iraq has not allowed UN inspectors to enter the country since 1998, but Washington is concerned that it is using the lack of inspections and improving finances to develop biological and other weapons of mass destruction.
"Saddam Hussein agreed to allow inspectors in his country, and in order to prove to the world he's not developing weapons of mass destruction, he ought to let the inspectors back in," Mr Bush told reporters. Asked what would be the consequences if Mr Saddam did not comply, Mr Bush said: "He'll find out."
HORSE SHIT
More HORSE SHIT
Revolt looms if conflict has no UN backing
The government is facing a hardening mood among Labour backbenchers against an attack on Iraq with predictions that up to 100 MPs are preparing to rebel and junior ministers could resign if war starts without UN backing.
I've been away for a week. I fully agree with your Message # 1876.
reading the mind of Al Qaeda
Of course, that's yet another reason not to invade Iraq, and I have yet to see a cogent case made for the invasion.
We [Al Qaeda] (a)re still communicating and planning operations. But every time we surface, we risk blowing more information to the Americans and their friends.
They are in a catch-22. They need to run operations, but they can't do so without exposing their operatives. Without the resources of a state, they are going to have a very hard time keeping this going.
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, issued a blunt reminder to Washington that only the UN security council could determine whether military action was justified.
European governments and public opinion believe overwhelmingly at this stage that it is not justified, because the work of weapons inspectors has been inconclusive.
"Without proof, it would be very difficult to start a war," Mr Solana told the French daily Le Monde. "The legitimacy of such a war will be determined by the security council. The UN arms inspectors derive their legitimacy from the council... so if there is not any information deemed sufficient by the security council... I would find it very difficult to act."
EU Tells Bush Toe the UN Line
It is most curious then, and revealing, that you have apparently so misapprehended my view of the man. It is curious that you have inferred from the fact that I oppose this war as a strategic blunder, a moral outrage, and geopolitical folly born of a stupendously inept decision process, that I support Saddam Hussein or at best am indifferent.
Your comment also reveals, sadly and surprisingly, how deadly warmongering propaganda and demonizing can be to serious analysis, rigorous thought, and sound judgment.
You urge war because "Saddam is an evil dictator. Let's do the detestible fuck". That is the banal essence of your argument. All else from you is surplus, "reasons" heartedly half-heartedly tossed about because you only half believe them.
Ata-turk lives!
Gul has spent weeks emphasizing that his government is "doing everything it can to avoid a war." To that end, he visited Syria, Egypt and Jordan on a diplomatic mission this week and plans to go to Iran and Saudi Arabia this weekend.
"There has been an assumption by the Americans that the Turks would come along, but that hasn't happened," said Bulent Aliriza, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"So you have to draw the conclusion that the Turks really mean what they say: They don't want this war; they don't want to participate in this war. They seem determined to run out the clock so that it becomes too late to get involved
The point of the post is historical accuracy in the old adage "truth is the first casualty" More pointedly, it illustrates the dangers of accepting the government line especially in forming an opinion on whether to support a war, any war. I am sufficiently discerning to filter out the obvious waste - Iraqi Baby Killers, Kuwaiti heros, Saddam qua Hilter, appeasement, Munich lessons and the like or Vietnam domino theories, figthing for freedom, pacification, or leftwise- Ho Chi Minh as Saint but I wonder whether one can ever be too skeptical in most cases.
Lies They Told Us About Iraq in GWI
The indiscriminate targeting of Iraq's civilian infrastructure left the country in ruins. A United Nations mission in March 1991 described the allied bombing of Iraq as "near apocalyptic" and said it threatened to reduce "a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society ... to a preindustrial age." Officially, the U.S. military listed only 79 American soldiers killed in action, plus 59 members of allied forces.
A subsequent demographic study by the U.S. Census Bureau concluded that Iraq probably suffered 145,000 dead -- 40,000 military and 5,000 civilian deaths during the war and 100,000 postwar deaths because of violence and health conditions. The war also produced more than 5 million refugees. Subsequent sanctions were estimated to have killed more than half a million Iraqi children, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and other international bodies.
I just can’t help but wonder if the North Koreans are not putting on a sideshow to mask their real intentions. There’s a conception in the West they won’t dare make a bold move because of knockout atomic or nuclear retaliation by the West. Nuking won’t be an option if they have already occupied half of South Korea. Occupation of South Korea solves all their problems of no industry, no food, and no power and insulates their forces against any retaliation. What are we going to do, nuke the South Korean population? All the resources of South Korea will be in the hands of the North.
I am worried that their attack by a million or more fanatics will be launched in conjunction with the breakout of war in Iraq. The US and South Korean forces at the borders will be overrun in a matter of hours. There will be no forces available to save all of South Korea from being overrun in a few weeks at the most. The US forces that have not been massacred will now become hostages and a substantial bargaining chip in the endless negotiations, which will now ensue.
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn.
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad:
Elections, money, empire, oil and Dad"
-- Andrew Motion
The Charade Before the Crusade
Hawks sit out phoney peace while war machine rolls on
The UN weapons inspectors' first report on Iraq found no 'smoking gun' to trigger a US and British attack. But the appearance that peace has broken out is deceptive
'If Blix finds anything, that will be a breach of the resolution. If his work is frustrated, that will also be a breach' Downing Street source
I was poo-pooed, some said "Oh pshaw! Heavens to Mergatroid what have you been smokin"
I know my Moron and he is a genuine menace
January 18 Against a War with Iraq
In San Francisco and Washington, D.C. and other cities worldwide
Building on the Oct. 26 anti-war protests that were the biggest since the Vietnam War, the International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition will sponsor mass rallies against a new war on Iraq in San Francisco , Washington, D.C. and other cities worldwide on Sat., Jan. 18. In the spirit of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, hundreds of thousands are expected to march in the streets to put a stop to a war that the United Nation's estimates will kill 500,000 people in the first week alone.
"The Bush Administration is using the United Nations weapons inspection as a stepping stone to launching war against Iraq," said Richard Becker, national steering committee member for International A.N.S.W.E.R. The Administration has created a no-win scenario for Iraq. No matter what information the Iraqis provide, no matter how widespread the inspections, the United States intends to take over the country and gain control of Iraq's oil."
The San Francisco demonstration begins at 11 a.m. at the corner of Embarcadero and Market Streets. Protesters will march to the Civic Center at noon and hold a closing rally.
More than 40 organizing centers on the West Coast from Los Angeles to Alberta, Canada are preparing to send protesters to San Francisco on Jan. 18. More than 130 organizing centers have been set up on the East Coast for the Washington, D.C. event. For more information go to WWW.Internationalanswer.org
Solidarity protests will be held around the world from Europe to Asia on Jan. 18. Major actions are planned in Spain, Egypt, Indonesia, Germany , Argentina and other countries.
A coalition of hundreds of groups, ANSWER organized demonstrations of 100,000 people in San Francisco and 200,000 people in Washington, D.C. on Oct 26
See what I mean?
Morons.
Chicken Littles.
Just like your peace fairy friends.
"The Bush Administration is using the United Nations weapons inspection as a stepping stone to launching war against Iraq," said Richard Becker, national steering committee member for International A.N.S.W.E.R.
Oooh - now there's an important-sounding title.
...must know what he's talking about, eh?
What Becker said is exactly what the Guardian reports Whitehall is saying. What the UN anti-christ crowd estimates now is perfectly consistent with the post GWI studies of the first Gulf War....
Can you read, you poor dimwit?
Bill Richardson has to come in to clean up Bush's mess because by now even Powell is too contaminated. And what happens the next day?
A leak.."its all Clinton's fault"
These are the folk who hornswaggled some with that "we take responsibility crapola...
As I reported two years ago, a prominent political figure who must go unnamed told me that he turned down a Bush cabinet offer because "while I admired his father, I do not trust him"
Time's European Readers Say US - Not Iraq or North Korea - is Greatest Threat to World Peace
What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind.
Anatol Lieven, a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC, is the author of Chechnya and Ukraine and Russia: A Fraternal Rivalry.
Bush Plans to Steal Iraq's Oil to Pay for US Occupation, Reimposing Colonialism
That's next Saturday, 11 am, Justin Hermann Plaza, The Embarcadero
Newsday reports Bush to rape Iraq for oil to pay for 20 year occupation of the new US colony...
I scooped Newsday on this by at least 2 months.
The truly tragic thing though (for brain damaged Bush haters such as yourself) is that GW and the boys can take control of the Iraqi oil, use a quarter of it to pay for the war, take care of its obligations to Russia, Turkey, et al; a quarter of it to rebuild the country to its pre-'91 splendor; and still have enough left over to raise the standard of living of the average Iraqi 1,000% - all while stabilizing oil prices.
Say I didn't realize that you were an economist as well as a military strategist!
And if you had read the UN report as I suggested you should do, you would no that nowhere in it is there any reference to 500,000 casualties in the first week.
No you're just a garden variety moron in a gas mask.
500K first week would be a megamess...we just gonna a have a Texas sized bloodbath...
Baghdad -- Despite the near-constant talk of a U.S.-led invasion to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, aid officials here say there appears to be little preparation by the Bush administration, the United Nations or private foreign aid agencies to handle a potential humanitarian disaster.
Aid officials cite a litany of calamities in the making if war comes: the expected exodus of Iraqi refugees, either internally or across national borders, as well as potential interruptions in food distribution, electricity, water, fuel, waste disposal and public health services throughout the country.
Making matters worse, say these officials, is Iraq's already weakened condition -- a result of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, the 1991 U.S.-led Persian Gulf War and 12 years of international economic sanctions that have ruined the economy of this once-flourishing nation.
Wartime Iraq aid calamity feared; Relief agencies predict humanitarian disaster...Bush AWOL Again
Iraqi Exiles See No Hope for Embattled Nation - Los Angeles Times
Refugees say that even without Hussein, their homeland would be riven by bloodshed.
That's Georgie's new Northern Alliance....Saddam assuredly is a dirtball but consider that never in modern times ever been a weaker, more corrupt, more ineffectual exile group than these jokers...
Russians, Chinese, Poles, Afghans hell you name the Evil Dictator and there was at least a semi-viable Oppo in Waiting...
Is Saddam really more efficient than Stalin? Mao? Or maybe just maybe not quite the ogre that the WarSellers want us to believe.
If truth is the first casualty in war, what are to we to make of all those body bags before one even starts?
"With the U.S. government moving closer to war with Iraq, thousands of demonstrators, some pushing strollers and walking dogs, took to the streets of downtown Los Angeles Saturday to voice their protest," begins Saturday's Associated Press dispatch (January 11, 2003).
"'Here, take a picture of my sons' first protest,' Maria Negrete, 27, goaded relatives as waves of people streamed by in a festival-like atmosphere.
"A mother of three small children, Negrete echoed the views of many accidental activists who said although a war with Iraq might be inevitable, they weren't going to sit back without a nonviolent fight.
"'There are going to be children like mine who will die for oil, which I think is crazy, stupid and dumb,' Negrete said. 'So I brought my sons, who are just as beautiful as any in Iraq.'" (Excerpts from the rest of the article are below.)
Is Saddam really more efficient than Stalin? Mao? Or maybe just maybe not quite the ogre that the WarSellers want us to believe.
You heard it here first, folks. History revision 101
Listen, you fucking disease-addled parasite: Saddam's inhumanity - his extreme viciousness - his torture and mass-murder of his own people, as well as his neighbors, have all been well documented for at least the past 3 decades.
I realize that in your febrile, wilted gray matter the fact that he hasn't killed quite as many people as Pol Pot registers as a major plus, and that in any case he isn't half as bad as Dumbya. But anyone with a lick of sense realizes that the only reason his death toll hasn't yet reached the tens of millions is that he has not yet attained the means to achieve this benchmark.
Be that as it may, your personal demon - Milosevich - was a lightweight. A rank amateur in comparison.
But it was hunky-dorey to go destroy his country, and kill hundreds of innocents, because, of course, it was your president that was doing it.
Bush's War "a defeat for humanity"
Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? TIME asks for readers' views . . .
Vote Here
Remember Mogadishu? The US military is now estimating a 50% casualty rate
Fuckin chicken littles! What do they know?
John,
Thank you for the nice note and the reference.
Urban warfare is indeed grim. Since WWII, we have only had to do it twice, when the Marines captured Seoul in Sept. 1950 during the Korean war and again when the Marines liberated Hue during the Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968. Both caused terrible casualties and I personally lost five good friends between the two actions. Hopefully that will be avoided if we go into Iraq. Here is an excerpt on a strategy for Iraq from an OPED I just submitted to the Washington Post. I don't know yet whether they plan on publishing it.
"By concentrating air power on the Iraqi military in the field, and not on Iraq's infrastructure as was the case in the Gulf war, civilian casualties would be minimized. However, it would probably force retreating military units loyal to Saddam Hussein to fall back on the cities, where American power would be less effective. Fighting in cities is a nasty business accompanied by terrible casualties all around to say nothing of the destruction wrought."
Best,
Bernard Trainor, USMC (ret)
Semper Fi Bernie!
Patten warns US over aid for Iraq
Ian Black in Brussels
Tuesday January 14, 2003
The Guardian
Europe will not willingly pay for the reconstruction of Iraq if the US does not obtain United Nations authority for war, Chris Patten, the EU external relations commissioner, has warned.
Signalling a slightly more confident tone over a crisis which has deeply divided the union, Mr Patten said it would be hard to persuade Europeans to pick up the tab if President George Bush acted unilaterally to disarm Saddam Hussein.
The EU, the world's biggest aid donor, is already paying billions of euros to help rebuild Afghanistan after the US-led campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaida.
oooo....speedos..Marines yum
Waiting for the Moron's Legion
Fatma Rakwan, 6, is held by her mother after being diagnosed with leukemia at Iraq's Basra Hospital for Maternity and Children. Iraq has experienced a dramatic rise in child cancers, leukemia and birth defects in recent years, which Iraqi medical authorities and growing numbers of American activists blame on U.S. weapons containing depleted uranium that were used in the 1991 Gulf War and in missile attacks in 1998.
Dan Rather had a RATHER fine interview this evening with some young Iraqis....They're not real keen, Wombat, on Western Saviors.
...which Iraqi medical authorities and growing numbers of
American activists blame...
Oooh...now there are a couple of relaible sources.
But what I really wanna know, jasper, is what does Ted Turner think? 
Another genius adds her voice to the "growing, vital, anti-war movement":
"I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies."
---Cheryl Crow, aging self-absorbed rocker
...this is of course accomplished by closing one's eyes while standing in a "quiet, peaceful space", arms extended airplane-style, and spinning slowly for three complete revolutions, proclaiming loudly and confidently at the completion of each revolution: People like me - I have no enemies!
The Oaktown School District is holding teach-ins on the Iraq War this week but has been unable to line up guest speakers who support Bush's perpetual w-ar.
If you can make it, just let me know the flight and I will arrange to have you picked up by the Raider Nation at Oakland International.
Thanks.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 13 -- With tens of thousands of U.S. troops mobilizing for a possible invasion, waves of anti-war activists have descended on Baghdad in recent days to plead for a peaceful solution to the showdown between the Bush administration and President Saddam Hussein's government.
They include Italian legislators, South African Muslims, German musicians and a flurry of Americans, from church leaders and professors to four women who lost relatives in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. They have reasoned that the backdrop of Baghdad, where scars are still visible from the 1991 confrontation with the United States, will give added currency to their appeals for peace.
"Not in Hanoi or Panama or Baghdad last time, or anywhere else for that matter, has there been this many people coming to a city that probably will be bombed to bits saying, 'Don't do it. It doesn't make sense. There are other ways to resolve this disagreement,' " said James Jennings, the president of Conscience International, an anti-war group based in Atlanta.
Trouble is Wombat, this is not a war to redress Shiite grievances, Kurd grievances nor a war to aid their revenge against the Tikritistas...
So since you raised the subject of Stalin - why is it, and refresh me if my memory has failed me, why is it that in contrast to all the Evil dictatorships of the 20th century -Stalin's Mao's, Hitler's, etc. why is it that in this Evil Saddamite empire there is no absolutely no viable opposition in waiting?
Again, you take your stand on the most infantile and banal of arguments - Saddam is a bad man.
Your thought processes, your objectivity are lost in a jingoist jungle. 
Activists Bring War Protests to Baghdad
A Japanese peace group demonstrated at the U.N. office in Baghdad on Dec. 19. (Reuters)
And I suppose its a good thing that we aren't fighting to liberate the poor and oppressed of Iraq.
At the risk of further deadening your thought processes but in the interest of saving you time, read this
Iraqi Exiles See No Hope for Nation
[*] Refugees say that even without Hussein, their homeland would be riven by bloodshed.
Name me one of the above listed dictators who had viable opposition while he lived. See a pattern there?
If you seriously think that Dan Rather's interview or the Iraqi Ayatollah's statements represent independent statements of Iraqis speaking freely, then you are deluded.
Stalin - any number of white Russians
Hitler - internal and external opposition
Mullah Omar - the Northern Alliance
Myanmar - what's her name
Poland - Free Poles
Castro - ask Jeb Bush
I rest my case.
Want Iraqis speaking freely do you? Read the LAT article.
There's going to be a bloodbath and no amount of puerile palaver from you can change that.
January 14: Britain's biggest Muslim organisation yesterday warned Tony Blair that war with Iraq would cause community relations to deteriorate and breed "bitterness and conflict for generations to come".
As for Iraqi opposition groups, after two years of trying to create something from nothing, the Bushies have even given up their project of using them for propaganda purposes much less a government in exile.
War must not unleash greater evil than it resolves
And as for Iraqis speaking freely, well, there are precious few arab countries that allow the people to speak freely, be they "good arabs" or "bad evil oppressive arabs".
Everybody that I speak with about this impending conflict views it as warmongering, thats all.
Editorial Desk | September 24, 2002, Tuesday
The Day After
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (NYT) 780 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 27 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - Nicholas D Kristof Op-Ed column says US should not invade Iraq unless it is prepared for consequences of victory, including possible upheavals in Shiite-dominated south and among Kurds in north As soon as American troops are rolling through Saddam Hussein's palaces, the odds are that this holy Shiite city 100 miles south of Baghdad will erupt in a fury of killing, torture, rape and chaos.
The Shiite Muslims who make up 60 percent of Iraq -- but who have never held power -- will rampage through the narrow streets here. Remembering the whispers from the bazaar about how Saddam's minions burned the beard off the face of a great Shiite leader named Muhammad Bakr al-Sadr, then raped and killed his sister in front of him, and finally executed him by driving nails through his head, the rebels will tear apart anyone associated with the ruling Baath Party.
That's a bad thing?
It isn't a war to stop any grave or imminent threat from Saddam..that's been an open secret and joke for months...its about oil, its about empire, its about Bush's domestic political position, its about redressing Poppy's failures...and it is those objectives that will be pursued those objectives that will determine the strategy, the tactics and the inevitably disatrous geopolitical and moral outcome.
Wombat has good and sufficient reasons to detest Saddam and wish him gone, but when he attempts to transfer that into an argument for war he winds up with gossamer and delusion
We must be careful. Wombat DOES NOT believe, but Z does that
"This was no joke, no trick, no dream," Jenkins and LaHaye write. "Something was terribly wrong, and there was no place to run."
Returning to America, Steele finds a world in chaos. All real Christians -- as opposed to mere churchgoers -- as well as children and fetuses out of wombs have vanished. Planes flown by believers have crashed, along with cars driven by the faithful. The media struggles to make sense of it, but Rayford, whose marital troubles were caused by his wife's newfound religious passion, knows what happened. His wife had told him that Christians would be raptured up to heaven in preparation for the rise of the Antichrist, his nefarious seven-year reign and the Second Coming of Jesus.
The Left Behind books chronicle those seven years --known to Christians as the Tribulation -- as a ragtag group of new believers form the "Tribulation Force" to thwart the murderous plans of Nicolae Carpathia, the U.N.-leader-cum-prince-of-darkness (often just called "the evil one," Osama bin Laden-style). Carpathia's rise is engineered by a cabal of bankers. He's supported by Israeli liberals enthralled by his devious promises of peace, and a Democratic American president sells out the country to Carpathia's one-world government. Meanwhile, the Tribulation Force finds a spiritual leader in Tsion Ben-Judah, a rabbi and former Israeli statesman who realizes the error of his Jewish ways and becomes a guerrilla media evangelist.
PS Wombat - you're analogy is pathetic but again revealing. Pathetic because nobody is supporting Saddam. We oppose your war. Revealing that you equate the two, you stoop to the very basest of jingoistic ad hominem
target=new>Progressive Leaders Unite to Oppose the Bush Doctrine of Global Imperalism and Support Global Democracy
"Much of the world sees [the Bush] doctrine for what it is: the proclamation of an undisguised U.S. global imperium. Ordinary Iraqis, and people everywhere, need to know that there is another America, made up of those who both recognize the urgent need for democratic change in the Middle East and reject our government's militaristic and imperial foreign policy. By signing this statement we declare our intention to work for a new democratic U.S. foreign policy. That means helping to rein in the war-makers and building the most powerful antiwar movement possible, and at the same time forging links of solidarity and concrete support for democratic forces in Iraq and throughout the Middle East."
I'll launch a diversionary assault on the bread bin, then left flank to the 'fridge. Fire base support will be provided by my children who will engage in a series of highly annoying skirmishes which will distract the Missus long enough for me to liberate ham and cheese.
Apon withdrawing, I'll forage enough bread to assemble a provisonal sandwich. Thats the plan, wish me well.
"With U.S. troops heading for the Persian Gulf, Americans say in overwhelming numbers that they oppose unilateral U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, according to a national Knight Ridder poll. A robust majority of Americans - 83% - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only [34%] would support a war with Iraq... Among the survey's other findings: Most Americans do not want to rush into war. 68% of the respondents said the United States should continue to work toward achieving its goals in Iraq without war. Only 27% favored quick military action." One striking aspect of this poll is the total brainwashing of Americans by Bush and the media into thinking Iraq had something to do with 9-11 - only 17% accurately said that "none" of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq.
Madame Chiang Kai Shek viable opposition to Mao? She and her husband were such a viable opposition that they had to flee to Taiwan. I don't recall any word of them taking over once he died either.
Leaving aside their various divisions, the White Russians fulminated in Paris for a reason. They got thrown out of Russia.
Opposition to Hitler was so effective that each of the occupying powers had to set up their own military government in the areas they occupied.
Just so you know, Jexter, the previous Shiite ayatollah in Iraq spoke out in support of the Iranian revolution. He was imprisoned, and died soon after. Still think the current Ayatollah can say what he likes?
UNITED NATIONS — U.N. inspectors have discovered that weapons-related smuggling is going on in Iraq in violation of Security Council resolutions, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the BBC late Monday.
Blix stressed that there was no clear evidence that the smuggled goods were weapons of mass destruction or materials used to create those weapons.
"We have found several cases where it is clear that Iraq has imported weapons-related material in violation of the prohibitions of the Security Council," Blix said. "There has been a considerable amount of import in the weapons sector, which clearly is smuggling, and in violation, and they are in fact large quantities."
And North Korea is about to test a missile which can hit the US with the nuclear warheads it has. And Iraq? It has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons in process. It is a threat to no one except to your fevered religious imgination.
The entire UN inspection process is a charade, not because of the process itself but because if the inspectors find nothing - Bush wages war. If the inspectors find something - Bush wages war. If Iraq fails to report all that it has done since 1998 - Bush wages war. If Iraq reports all that it has done since 1998 - Bush wages war. If Iraq had anything and destroyed it all yesterday - Bush wages war.
Its all a charade that has nothing whatever to do with WMD.
jasper raises Saddam's bar.
Committee of 100
and again Wombat there is no Iraqi counterpart even remotely like any of the opposition groups, governments in exile I have mentioned.
In fact, as I have said, Bush has even found them useless for propaganda purposes.
I take back what I said about how much you know about Iraq.
You don't know squat.
And of course in addition to significant, well financed, armed and ready democratic and monarchist opponents around the world, Stalin had that little problem he took care of in Mexico.
The lengths to which you go to turn Saddam into an ogre are beyond absurd. It is laughable in the extreme to suppose as you do that Saddam is Hitler or Stalin or that those brave Iraqis suffering under his yolk bear any remblance whatever with Russians or Germans.
Its comic and hardly more.
huh?
250,000 troups? Is this number huge? The biggest we had so far ever?
You haven't cited a "viable" opposition movement yet in your examples, just a bunch of fantasists who could barely manage a cocktail party, or at best, a short and paranoid existence before being eliminated, either inside or outside the country. None of the "viable" movements you have cited took over the government after Stalin, Mao, and Hitler died.
You are. You have never, ever managed a cogent argument beyond "oh what a bad man". Well, here's a friggin newsflash you benighted dilletante. Everyone knows what Saddam is.
You don't have any special knowledge of Iraq, no experience with country worth mentioning, so don't bother. In the course foundering in joistic blather, you have made a mockery of history, of morals, of basic geopolitical analysis.
My conscience is clear, crystal clear...this war is an imperialist venture, a war of aggression, that, as you have so ably demonstrated, is bereft of justification and is thus a moral scandal. Every death will be a murder.
What question cher?
Be delighted?
Its certainly better that this silly assed, non sequitur:
You haven't cited a "viable" opposition movement yet in your examples, just a bunch of fantasists who could barely manage a cocktail party, or at best, a short and paranoid existence before being eliminated, either inside or outside the country. None of the "viable" movements you have cited took over the government after Stalin, Mao, and Hitler died.
You idiot you grass eating moron!
I don't give two shits and a holler about your "conclusions". You have got a freakin clue. There is no Iraqi opposition period. That none of the movements took power is a non sequitur because no one invaded on their behalf to install them....and if you happen through your vast store of knowledge and experience to know of one Iraqi oppo group a tenth as viable as any of the ones I have listed....feel free to call Bush..he's lookin
But the next time you wish to call me ignorant...think twice.
The killer isn't the troop number its gonna take 100,000 for 5 years just to occupy and colonize, maybe 10, as Georgie engages in his big Social Engineering and Nation Building Project.
The killer is the news that up to 6 carrier battle groups will be sent, two maybe three more than in GWI. This is because we don't have any ground bases to speak of.
I don't think the Dearest Leader of the DPRK need to worry about the Emperor Imbecile showing up on his doorstep before he has 10-20 nukes ready no matter what Obstergruppen Fuerhrer or Otto von Wombat may say otherwise.
"knowledge, experience" = paroxysms of laughter
You also forget that the Kurds are a viable opposition in Iraq, far more viable than any of the precedents you have cited. For reasons that even you must be aware of, it will not do to have them rule Iraq on their own.
If Iraq is found in violation of the UN resolutions on disarmament, as they have been since the end of the Gulf War, and the Security Council votes in favor of military action, then war is justified, and you know it. Ranting about imperialism and an arguable interpretation of Just War theory just won't hack it, particularly when you have supported similar actions in the past.
I also note that some of the same people who you have cited as opposing this war against Iraq also opposed the previous one. I also recall the "no blood for oil" chants that I am sure we'll be hearing this weekend. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
I say with good and sound reasons on experience and study - pathetic
Which is yours?
From the BBC "Prepare for the Worst..Hope for the best"
If you take the gloomy view, you believe that it doesn't actually matter very much what the inspectors find. This is the "Heads the US wins, tails Iraq loses" scenario.
If they find evidence that Iraq has or has tried to acquire illegal weapons, the United States could declare that Iraq has failed to cooperate and was in breach of Security Council resolution 1441.
The US might then attack, with or without Council backing, with or without allies, possibly in mid to late February.
If nothing is found, then the US might argue (and probably soon after 27 January) that Iraq has hidden its weapons and attack anyway.
This is the "Heads the US wins, tails Iraq loses" scenario.
The optimists hope that if the inspectors do uncover weapons of mass destruction, then that process will be allowed to continue until Iraq is fully disarmed.
And if the inspectors don't find anything definitive, they should be given that "time and space" to go on looking - maybe for as along as the year which the International Atomic Energy Agency says is needed.
This argument is based on the assertion that Saddam Hussein cannot be a threat while inspectors are crawling all over his infrastructure.
Take up the Wombats's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captive's need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Take up the Wombats's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.
Take up the Wombat's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the Wombat's burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the Wombat's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of those ye humor
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the Wombat's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.
Take up the Wombat's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind. 
War Without End? Not in Our Name!
Is the war that the Bush team is preparing to launch in Iraq really a war for oil?
My short answer is yes. Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be — in part — about oil. To deny that is laughable T . Friedman
ROFLMAO
I'd be delighted
KONRAD ADENAUER
German statesman, first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (W. Germany). Elected to the Cologne city council (1906), he served as the city's lord mayor 1917-33. He was elected to the Prussian Staatsrat (state council) in 1920 and served as its speaker 1928-33. He lost his posts when the Nazis came to power, and in 1944 he was sent to a concentration camp. As World War II drew to a close, he played an important role in the formation of the Christian Democratic Union. As chancellor from 1949, Adenauer stressed individualism under the rule of law. His fear of Soviet expansion made him a strong supporter of NATO. He worked hard to reconcile Germany with its former enemies, especially France and Russia. He retired in 1963.
Smirk.
We'll see, Wombat, we'll see.
If the US is serious about disarming Iraq, as distinct from annexing its oil reserves, then we'll see more co-operation with the UN weapons inspectors.
Because curiously enough, it's not the Iraqis who are obstructing them -- it's the US, which claims to have information about weapons of mass destruction, but refuses to disclose it. 
Anxiety Lies Beneath Support for War
Many Americans worry about an Iraq war amid tougher times. War veteran Haiden Turner, 86, sends a message in his yard
The Guardian UK -
Church of England bishops issued a statement saying a conclusive case has yet to be made in favour of military action against President Saddam and without compelling new evidence a war could not be "morally justified".
A statement from the house of bishops said: "We do not believe that the evidence presented to date suggests a clear link exists between Iraq and al-Qaida or that Iraq poses an immediate threat to international security."
"Without compelling new evidence to the contrary, we contend that military action could not be morally justified."
The bishops said that it was crucial that the work of the UN weapons inspectors should be allowed to run its course.
To launch military action while there remained the potential to secure a peaceful resolution would be "ill-judged and premature", they said.
The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev Richard Harries, warned the prime minister that any military action against Iraq could only be justified if there was a fresh UN resolution.
He told the BBC: "I do think that Iraq is a threat ... but the point is that we have contained this threat over the last 10 years by a policy of deterrence and containment, and there is absolutely nothing new now which would justify us going over the awesome threshold of war with all the unpredictable consequences in the Middle East and the almost certain rise of terrorism around the world and in this country."
Last month the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, attacked the government over its apparent readiness to launch military action against Iraq.
In his Christmas message, Dr Williams recalled the biblical story of the three wise men as he mocked strategists who end up creating "yet more havoc and suffering", despite their intimate knowledge of politics.
Anglican Communion News Service
Jesus, Mary and Joseph it sure is taking the WarPeddlers a long time to make their pitch!
Clear as Calistoga Spring Water Wombat.
When the Nazis won the election, Adenauer was fired from his position of Mayor of Cologne, and banished to the countryside, where he and his family sat out the war until 1944, when he was arrested by the Nazis in the aftermath of the attempt on Hitler's life and sent to a concentration camp, along with other Weimar era politicians (including some who did work with Hitler).
By virtue of his early dismissal, Adenauer was considered "clean" by the American occupation authority, and was reinstated as Mayor of Cologne immediately after the war. When Cologne was placed under British control, Adenauer was almost immediately fired by the British occupation authority for "incompetence."
In addition to his praiseworthy and successful efforts to create a free and democratic West Germany, Adenauer made sure that bureaucrats who served under Hitler and had fled abroad received their state pensions. He also curtailed de-Nazification.
A great and dedicated man, perhaps, but hardly a resistor--after 1933, anyway.
The point remains unchallenged - Bush cannot even find a plausible puppet to put in power. Even Stalin had more for Eastern Europe.
And historical analogies aside, anyone who thinks that the United States can blast an Arab state into submission and peaceably install a satellite government ruled by a US military commander and a corrupt Iraqi stooge is seriously, to use your words, "IGNORANT", and to use mine "deluded"
Don't you EVER call me ignorant on matters Irak again
Watch em run
Thanks Wombat for an entertaining 2 days
Hell I like you, wombat, you can come over to my house and fuck my sister.
I recall that great patriot and defender of the downtrodden, Ramsey Clark, being shown around Basra after the Gulf War, and commenting on the devastation there. The Iraqis omitted telling him, and he was too "deluded" or "ignorant" to realize, that Basra had been heavily shelled during the Iran-Iraq War, and that the shattered neighborhood that he was touring had been damaged during that conflict.
The main concern of the British clerics that you gleefully--and constantly--quote is that any military action not take place without a Security Council resolution authorizing it. It is a concern that I share.
I too am skeptical of the viability of a post-Saddam democracy--and with the Bush administration's record in nation-building. I could suggest that anything would be an improvement; but a UN-run interim administration that would oversee the de-Baathization of Iraq, reconstruction and modernization of Iraq's infrastructure, and the formation of a constituent assembly to draft a constitution for a federal Iraq would be the ideal. If the UN is on board, this is possible.
"Without compelling new evidence to the contrary, we contend that military action could not be morally justified." Agreed. Although I suspect it would take less to convince me than it would them.
"The bishops said that it was crucial that the work of the UN weapons inspectors should be allowed to run its course."
Agreed.
To launch military action while there remained the potential to secure a peaceful resolution would be "ill-judged and premature", they said. Agreed. I suspect that their conception of what it would take to secure a peaceful resolution and mine are different.
The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev Richard Harries, warned the prime minister that any military action against Iraq could only be justified if there was a fresh UN resolution.
Agreed.
If all these conditions are met, they should have no objection to war with Iraq.
Faleh Jabar
A leftwing Iraqi dissident in exile says the antiwar movement must do more than just oppose the war -- it must support the peaceful overthrow of Saddam's regime.
Posted on January 13, 2003.
Worse, and to the point you persist in avoiding, the Iraqi opposition is feckless, corrupt, incompetant, and not even ready for Prime Time Bullshit after months of State Department courses on how to Hornswoggle Wombats and Other Assorted Naifs of the Booboisie.
What are you and your Imperial Imbecile gonna do, convene a Loyal Jagoff?
The place is going to be a blood bath. Kurd who can't even get along with Kurds will move to set up their own state in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq.
Shiites and Sunnis will massacre each other and presiding over the entire Allah forsaken hell hole, an Imbecile and his military governor clownishly attempting to impose a fascist occupation on an Arab population.
You piss ignorant jingoist snot
How venal...if you can't personalize something, you cannot speak to it, but when you try to speak, babble...vapid...inane babble
"I have so much expertise"
Much good it does you
...babble...vapid...inane babble...
Pretty much characterizes the last 7 posts...
Sleep well.
Tony is in Trouble
The brewing mutiny in his own party is putting a damper on Tony Blair's commitment to stand by his main man, George Bush. The Telegraph reports that high-level cabinet members have "served notice on the Prime Minister that (Members of Parliament) would rebel unless there was a second UN resolution explicitly authorising the use of force."
January 15: The many parallels between the looming conflict in Iraq and the Suez fiasco of 1956 should ring alarm bells for Tony Blair..
I am truly at a loss to see the parallels to 1990. Please don't bother digging into your vast store of knowledge and experience to answer that Wombat. Let me persist in my ignorance. I find some on my own in two three years.
By Jonny Dymond
BBC correspondent in Istanbul
The Turkish Red Crescent has started preparations for the arrival of refugees from Iraq in the event of war.
A 24,000-tent refugee camp is planned near Turkey's border with Iraq. During the Gulf War, almost half a million refugees entered Turkey from Iraq.
A 10-member team from the Red Crescent has been in the border province of Sirnak for four days.
In all, the Red Crescent hopes to be able to accommodate up to 100,000 refugees.
Wombat Knows What's Best for You
Instead of becoming giddy over the prospects of a new democratic Iraq, President Bush's advisers should review Washington's own -decidedly mixed - record of regime change and temper their optimism.
Among the major powers, the US has engaged in the largest number of regime changes. Since the past century, it has deployed its military to impose democratic rule in foreign lands on 18 occasions. Yet this impressive record of international activism has left an uninspiring legacy. Of all the regimes the US has replaced with force, democratic rule has been sustained in only five places - Germany, Japan, Italy, Panama, and Grenada. This suggests a success rate of less than 30 percent. Outside the developed world and Latin America, there hasn't been a single success.
GWB -Social Engineer - Nation Builder - Emperor - Joke - The Christian Science Monitor
"Democratic Mirage in the Middle East", Carnegie Policy Brief #20
Ignorant of what? Come again?
Surely if I can do it, others can, also.
Very sorry indeed...
The Charade Before the Crusade
U.S. Fights Late March Report on Iraq Arms
Impact on Plans Feared; Dispute at U.N. Likely
Not until Pelle 86's me.
Bush Full of Shit
I am uninterested in links, I am interested in discussion; Jex links, insults and postures, but contributes nothing to the discusion that is of interest to me while taking up almost all of the space. Judith may see this as an excuse, but there it is none the less.
The (Sp)oils of W-ar
U.N. Experts Report Chemical Warheads Find in Iraq
What's to explain?
KAZAAAAM Bush doesn't give a shit about inspections. Its all a sham.
I've been telling you that for months.
So take your doublespeak somewhere else.
All such warheads found were destroyed last time around. The facility where these were found had already been searched in the '90s.
This of course means these warheads are new, which is a DIRECT VIOLATION. Blix also reports that Saddam has been importing other missile parts.
You want me to draw you a map jasper?
Every silver lining, Wombat, has a cloud so keep regurgitating.
You're already doing it for free! Too bad it won't be all in the name of truth.
A 12th warhead, also of a 122 mm, was found that requires further evaluation, according to the statement by Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad.
"It was a discovery. They were not declared," Ueki told The Associated Press.
Note carefully that Resolution 1441 requires more than empty shells and "omissions"
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;
More than an ommission is required.
Please, try the News & Current Events thread.
I am very clear....unless there is a grave and imminent threat to the United States there is no moral basis for war and indeed war under such circumstances would be murder.
Failure to produce a piece of paper is not a grave and imminent threat.
As I said, the only grave and imminent threat here is your assault on intelligence
Finally we agree on something. So does Blix et al
Problem is Bush can't wait. He still hasn't resolved the internal mess in his administration. He can't say no to either the PantyWaist or the ChickenHawks. But "time is running out" for the Little Idiot Who Would Be Emperor.
He'll soon have 250,000 ground troops in theater, SIX carrier groups, thousands of soldiers and sailors sitting around with their thumbs up their butts as his poll numbers slide, as the Dear Leader shows him up for the half-wit he is.
MOSCOW - The U.N. nuclear watchdog intends to ask the Security Council for more time — "at least a few months" — to complete inspections in Iraq, agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Thursday as the top U.N. inspectors pressed Baghdad to provide more information on its weapons programs
Bush doesn't have "a few months". "Time is running out" on the bloody dictator, the tin pot fascist, the Colossus of Crawford.
Besides JoeZ has bought all those gas masks and has one way tickets to Tel Aviv for Feb. 23rd
Reuters Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
Blix Calls For More Cooperation From Iraq
(Reuters Video)
"These are 122mm rockets with an empty warhead. There are no chemical or biological agents or weapons of mass destruction or linked to weapons of mass destruction," said the head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, General Hussam Mohammad Amin.
"These rockets are expired...they were in closed wooden boxes...that we had forgotten about," he told a news conference.
However until the requirements of a Just War are met I cannot, in good conscience as a Catholic Christian, support murder.
Empty warheads in wooden boxes are not a grave and imminent threat to anything other than the big toe of an Ay-rab walking barefoot in the warehouse.
It appears that the US has now committed 150,000 troops to the Gulf. What, in your opinion, is the ratio between fighting troops and support forces?
I don't know. 50-50? The U.S. military traditionally has a long tail.
I have a question for you too. Assume that Blix et al find evidence of WMDs, that the UNSC is convinced and unanimously vote a second resolution.
If so, what will your position be?
5 to 1 is ground troop ratio
there of course are no nuclear weapons in Iraq that much we already know and knew even before this charade began...
I guess that's my view in a nutshell Pell
...Nutshell.
Hmmmmmmnnn.....
An Iraqi attack on Israel would gain it and Saddam enduring fame in the Arab world. The Israeli retaliation would be swift and brutal and all chances of a peaceful settlement of the conflict would be blown away for the remainder of this century, perhaps for ever.
Better have the US do the job, that's my simple view.
SEOUL, South Korea - South Korea (news - web sites) said Thursday it was preparing for a "worst-case scenario" in North Korea (news - web sites)'s nuclear standoff with the United States,
I figured this'd be about the time jasper'd be changing the subject.
(2003-01-16) -- Saddam Hussein reacted to news that UN weapons inspectors had found 11 chemical warheads today by saying, "They're not warheads. They're peaceheads."
The Iraqi president said he was intending to launch the missiles, tipped with a "mild, mountain spring fragrance" at countries with whom Iraq would like to be at peace--like Israel.
"It was going to be a surprise," said Mr. Hussein, "But the UN ruined it. Perhaps we have other surprises for our international friends. No peeking."
Didn't Jacques sided with Bush lately?
NO FAIR!
I thought George Bush was supposed to be the unilateralist here!
Hans Blix's Mission Creep
Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, a Swedish diplomat, can see that his mission is failing. But rather than report that to the Security Council, as required by 1441, he is attempting to redefine both his mission and the resolution. In a series of interviews in recent days, Mr. Blix has said that the report he is required to make to the council on Jan. 27 will mark only "the beginning of the inspection and monitoring process, not the end of it," even though any extension must be the council's decision. He says he will report to the council again in March, even though 1441 provides for no such report, and supply a list of "key remaining disarmament tasks" for Iraq, even though the council has asked for no such list. "I am operating on my own timeline," says the nominal U.N. servant. He also has invented a new mission for his team: deterring, by its simple presence, future Iraqi misbehavior. "It's a form of containment," he said.
That's your Washington Post making those horrible observations about Blix btw, wonk.
But, as you say, he's doing us all a "big favor".
Yesindeedydo he is.
A couple more statements like that coming on the heels of a couple more Iraqi woopsies, and the UN's ass will be hanging out, and all the world will see them for the scheming cabal of butt carbunkles they are.
Of course, no matter what happens the usual suspects will never actually admit that, but they will have no choice but to keep their yapping holes shut when it's time to do what we - THE USA - have to do.
Enough is enough. Time is running out on that Imbecile in Washington who is a liar and menace to peace.
Time to hit the streets.
WASHINGTON - Demonstrators are mobilizing in Washington and cities across the country for what they consider their last chance to speak as one great multitude against the gathering clouds of an Iraq war.
The weekend demonstrations coincide with America's military buildup overseas and a time of remembrance for the nonviolent struggle embodied by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Even as sailors ship out, protesters are packing Washington-bound buses and organizing local marches and vigils from Tampa, Fla., to San Francisco.
"We are attacking a poor country that has enough problems," said Al Svitesic, a retired pile driver and World War II veteran who will be rallying in Pittsburgh next week. "It is unjust."
The largest crowds are expected in the nation's capital, where President Bush (news - web sites) and many in Congress are united on the move toward war and protest leaders hope they can draw tens of thousands, at least, to march in dissent.
"We've been working with protest groups; they've got permits for various locations, including marches, so we'll be ready for it," said Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey. "We don't anticipate any problems, although we do anticipate large crowds."
The organization International Answer planned the national rally Saturday in Washington and one in San Francisco, exhorting war opponents everywhere to "stop the Bush administration from threatening and killing the people of the world who are not our enemy."
"I think a little more diplomacy would be in order," said Creig Crippen, an 84-year-old retired Air Force veteran from Deland, Fla.
There is widespread support for removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), but that support is conditional on proof of a threat from Iraq and on the support of allies, said the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The poll was released Thursday as the United Nations (news - web sites) said it had discovered empty chemical warheads south of Baghdad.
Two-thirds or more in the Pew poll and other recent polls say they favor military action against Iraq — but only under certain circumstances.
For example, the Pew poll suggested that support for war is strong, 76 percent, if United Nations inspectors find nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The support is evenly split if they find no weapons but determine Iraq has the ability to make these weapons.
The public does not buy the administration's argument that Iraq must prove it does not have these weapons. Almost two-thirds, 63 percent, said that would not be a sufficient reason for a war.
More than half, 53 percent, say the president has not yet explained clearly what's at stake to justify the United States using military force to end Saddam's rule, according to the poll. Some 42 percent say he has.
The number who say Bush has clearly explained what's at stake has eroded since his September address to the United Nations, when it was 52-37 saying he had given a clear explanation.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
His w-ar is going down the fuckin toilet with his poll numbers and time is running out - for George Bush
"time is running out but there's no timetable"
"the absence of proof is not proof of absence"
"jobless recovery"
Doublespeak
The ability to speak or write two or more contradictory ideas without the speaker or writer being consciously aware of the contradiction. Doublespeak is used to deceive
But they'll have to come up with something more convincing than empty shell cases.
The weekend demonstrations coincide with America's military buildup overseas and a time of remembrance for the nonviolent struggle embodied by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Even as sailors ship out, protesters are packing Washington-bound buses and organizing local marches and vigils from Tampa, Fla., to San Francisco.
jasper and his friends are holding 2 months of spring training for a season that's gonna last 2 weeks.
Come March, they'll have to petition the Bush admin for a do-over so they can use up all their nifty signs, smoke up all their dope, and give Jackson Brown and Joan Baez a chance to sing their silly protest songs. 
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
Do I have to do ALL the work around here both spiritual and mental?
DOUBLETHINK - the ability to hold to two utterly inconsistent ideas with no experience of cognitive dissonance
Dissident republicans ran a full page ad opposing Bush perpetual W-ar in the Wall Street Journal.
Sixty-five percent of the Bay Area's 6.5 million residents do not believe that there is any justification for attacking Iraq, only 23% feel otherwise.
No this is no hippy dippy love in Joey and Bush knows it.
That is why time is running out.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
jasper, you can march 3 million people and it won't stop the US attacking Iraq.
Once it starts, it won't last long enough for your silly "movement" to have any effect.
March away.
...and Bush knows it. 
I just wanna help dig his grave....
"I think a little more diplomacy would be in order," said Creig Crippen, 84, a retired Air Force veteran from Deland, Fla. "I don't like this pre-emptive idea. That's imperial. That's not democratic."
There is widespread support for ending Saddam's rule, but that support is conditioned on proof of a threat from Iraq and on the support of U.S. allies, said a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
What is war, an accidental killing?
Do you have a problem with the Just War Doctrine's formulation or do you wish to revise it because you cannot dispute it as applied to these facts much as you did with the history of Konrad Adenauer?
If however you are genuinely interested in what St. Augstine had to say or what others have, you'd enjoy The City of God or any of the footnotes to The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
mmmmm...mmm..
Multiple choice???
75% France
81% Deutschland
71% Great Britain
Hell yes!
You will remember some instances of it a few years ago, when NATO forces were hitting Yugoslavia. I recall little if any hand wringing on your part after NATO air forces accidentally bombed a commuter train near Belgrade, or deliberately destroyed Danube River crossings, inflicting much hardship on civilians. Do you think that there was excessive collateral damage in the Gulf War and in Afghanistan? Deliberate targeting of civilians? Wanton recklessness?
As to Catholic Just-War Doctrine, you will forgive my skepticism concerning it; given how it has been used to justify opression and slaughter of nonbelievers down through the centuries. At very least, it is open to considerable interpretation (could it be applied in favor of a war to overthrow Saddam, given the suffering he has inflicted on his people?).
Stanford University: Just War Theory
Access to Catholic Social Teaching: Just War and the Iraqi Escalation
The Shalom Center: War Against Iraq, Rushing or Reflecting
Pax Christi
A Primer on the Just War Doctrine
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3 Section 2 , Article 5
Comprised of 22 books..happy hunting...see ya next year wombat
Look if you want a way out, and you obviously do, check out the Stanford link above. It contains a somewhat controversial exception of dubious applicability to the present facts but it is the only way to square the two.
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
It is also critical to bear in mind, as I have said before, that Just War theory is not mechanical. You don't plug in facts and get an answer that is infallible. It is an exercise, a thought exercise, that by asking the right questsions makes it more likely than not that the correct answers will be found, or at a minimum that the decision to fight regardless of which judgment one arrives at will be morally sustainable simply because the exercise has been undertaken.
But the plan has provoked predictable discord in the fractious exile community and among Iraq-watchers, with some warning that the force could be viewed by ordinary Iraqis as a U.S. puppet.
A War Role for Iraq Exiles May Be Two-Edged Sword
And indeed the US is planning to install a puppet. According to another piece in the Washington Post, the military occupation, which Bush plans to continue for many years, will not have any Iraqi exile representation.
That's all very nice, jasper.
But if one is going to promote Just War principles, one needs to apply them to all conflicts one argues. Otherwise one comes off sounding like a hypocritical, partisan asshole.
Read the book, Rape of Naking, before your qualms about Hiroshima become too ingrained. Also a recently published book on the end of the war in Japan which spells out the alternatives to the A-bomb, and the losses to civilians that would have resulted.
This from Krugman's column on another subject applies with equal force to the ever shifting justifications and never ending stream of likes and doubletalk that Bush keeps offering up as he shamelessly peddles death.
Economics aside, the administration's ever-changing rationale for tax cuts says a lot about its character. If the Bush team never cared about deficits, Mr. Bush's promises of fiscal responsibility were dishonest. On the other hand, if administration officials didn't decide that deficits are O.K. until that belief became convenient, that suggests that they're tough talkers who make excuses when confronted with real problems. That's a scary thought; is this the kind of administration that would, say, call North Korea names and talk about pre-emptive war, but back down and offer aid when the country actually threatens to restart its nuclear program? Nah, couldn't happen.
You cannot trust George W. Bush any more than you can trust Saddam Hussein, and in some instances, substantially less.
The war against Japan was justified. The Rape of Nanking was an abomination (although the book is questionably accurate in some particulars - I read it ages ago).
But one has nothing to do with the other unless you believe that revenge is a proper moral justification for killing which it isn't.
No the bombing of Hiroshima or Dresden must be judged on their own terms and the issue resolves into one of proportionality.
"From discussions in local union halls to public protests, from petitions to speak-outs to resolutions, workers are expressing concern or even outright opposition to U.S. plans for military action... Among the most recent efforts was a gathering over the weekend in Chicago, spearheaded by the city's biggest Teamsters local, at which 110 officers from labor unions around the country tried to put organization and money behind what have been mostly spontaneous, grass-roots activities. The meeting was hosted by the 20,500-member Teamsters Local 705, whose leader, Jerry Zero, said he acted because of overwhelming opposition among his members to a war against Iraq. 'We're not exactly a real liberal union,' Zero said. 'We've got a lot of truck drivers, UPS employees, freight drivers. I'd say it's a pretty conservative union. Yet they feel pretty strongly against the war.'"
Not your mommy's peace movement. Remember the Teamsters in Vietnam
Time is indeed running out - on Bush.
And after all these months of relentless warmongering by the War Peddler in Chief, a majority of the American people do not believe that it has been answered.
Editor -- President Bush's talk of war brings back to mind a song that was played over and over in my barracks during Vietnam. It was done by Country Joe McDonald. So again I ask, "What are we fighting for?" -- and I do give a damn.
I have watched as vet friends of mine have put in a night of recon crawling on their stomachs guarding their own homes. I have watched vets at the post- traumatic stress disorder clinic at Fort Miley medical center dive for cover as buses started, thinking they heard "quad 50s" firing. I have known full- grown men to put guns in their mouths to stop the pain. Again I ask, "What are we fighting for?"
GEORGE R. QUARLES
Forestville
I am gonna believe a Swede's WWII revisionism?
In a pig's eye
;)
If You're Happy And You Know It, Bomb Iraq
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi,
And your alibi is shoddy,
And your tastes remain quite gaudy,
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think that SUVs,
Are the best thing since sliced cheese,
And your father you must please,
Bomb Iraq.
If the globe is quickly warming, bomb Iraq.
If the poor will soon be storming, bomb Iraq.
We assert that might makes right,
Burning oil is a delight,
For the Empire we will fight,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might now knows no borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
It's the "make war not love" season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
No shit. I suck hi-test
Even David Irving, the revisionist historian in question, ended up revising his figures for the Dresden raid downward.
jasper:
How old are you?
Inspectors To Request More Time For Work
Bush, Running OUT of Time, in a Snit
_________ going on 12.
excerpt:
....the chief inspector today, Hans Blix, is a man who is unwilling to report bluntly about Iraq's weapons offenses since that might prompt the West to go to war — and indeed was chosen for his job by Baghdad's patrons in the U.N. for that very reason. Blix is now acting as though his chief imperatives were bureaucratic, and no revelation — the discovery of undeclared chemical warheads Thursday being an example — seems likely to jolt him from this mode. He wants more staff and he wants his mission to extend further into the future, perhaps indefinitely.
Allowing Blix to continue his work beyond the Jan. 27 report to the Security Council stipulated in Resolution 1441 would be an unacceptable concession to further delay and inaction.
It should not surprise us that a happy course of action (wrt NK) is hard to find. One of the marks of bad policy, of the sort that Clinton bequeathed to Bush in North Korea, is that it narrows our options to the unpalatable. But that is all the more reason not to continue such policy. The goal of the U.S. on the Korean peninsula should not be cutting another deal with Pyongyang, in which support for the regime is exchanged for more empty promises, but ending the totalitarian government there.
Also, be careful about making statements such as, "Of course I don't support coddling, in any way, a ruinous dictatorship such as NK has." This may well come back to bite you in a variety of times and places.
Within the bounds of practicality, yes. Please notice that I said nothing about any incipient military action.
Also, be careful about making statements such as, "Of course I don't support coddling, in any way, a ruinous dictatorship such as NK has." This may well come back to bite you in a variety of times and places.
Why do you say this? Is it because you believe that we have no option but to accept NK's attempts to blackmail and coerce us? If so, I strongly disagree.
Regarding NK regime change, I still don't have a good understanding if you support the apparent National Review postion that the goal of US policy vis-a-vis NK should be regime change, stated as,
"The goal of the U.S. on the Korean peninsula should not be cutting another deal with Pyongyang, in which support for the regime is exchanged for more empty promises, but ending the totalitarian government there."
This would at least give some consistency to the US positions regarding the "Axis of Evil" and WMD, but this does not appear to be the policy of this administration. So, I ask you again, are you arguing in favor of regime change as the goal of US policy in NK?
I believe it's likely that Pyongyang has not abandoned its goal of military rule over the entire Korean peninsula, as that would be the only way that the South would accept a despotism such as rules the North. That is the only halfway rational justification for all of NK's posturing.
The phrase you quote in the second paragraph is a fair outline of what I believe the ultimate goal of US policy toward NK should be at this point in time.
Now, since the goal of US policy in NK is the same as in Iraq, why the difference in execution? The cynics would say two things: oil and NMD. Since NK has no resources we covet there is no profit in hurrying the regime change. And better yet, since this administration has a strange fixation with NMD, but it lacks a rationale for this expensive boondoggle other than what Pyongyang conveniently provides.
Now I am in potentially in agreement with you regarding the relative utility of a large scale incursion into Iraq. If we were to use our armed forces in support of a UN regime of coercively ridding Iraq of the means of producing WMD, instead of regime change, we could possibly accomplish all of our goals without incuring the worst of the negative consequences.
Regarding oil, according to James Baker there is tremendous opportunity for investment and growth in production of Iraqi oil, that the majority of Iraq's oil reserves are as yet completely undeveloped, "Of Iraq's 74 discovered and evaluated oil fields, only 15 have been developed." Also, "Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) estimated at 112 billion barrels, with as many as 220 billion barrels of resources deemed probable." So oil, and its associated development industry/investements, certainly should not be understated in this equation.
A rally outside the Capitol, followed by a march to a naval yard, anchored demonstrations from coast to coast as well as abroad. With war seeming so close, many protesters made special efforts to get to Washington to make their point in the shadow of America's political and military institutions.
"We stand here today, a new generation of anti-war activists," Peta Lindsay from International Answer, the main organizers, exhorted the national rally. "This is just beginning. We will stop this war."
Signs branded America a "Rogue Nation," and demanded, "Disarm Bush."
"No war on Iraq," the crowd chanted.
The United States seems to be on a relentless march toward conflict, said Larry Holmes, speaking for the organizers. "It seems like it has a momentum and a sense of inevitability, and so we're rushing against the clock," he said.
"So as they send the troops there and surround Iraq, we're sending the troops into the streets of Washington, D.C., so to speak."
How fulsomely florid
Say is this the same concerned that used to whine and whelp about China, the one that used to worry about Chinese plans to colonize Mars, the one that brought down The Plane....the Shame of the Plane?
Or is this an imposter?
Y'know I love ya Concerned, but when ya gotta laugh, ya gotta laugh.
The pragmatic argument, that we can deal with Iraq with little risk compared with NK, is IMO the strongest argument for the differences in approach to the these two Axial powers.
The problem with that argument is that it undermines the administration's position (never very clearly articulated) that Iraq poses a threat. Isn't the threat shut down right now, with no lives at risk, with the UN running around the country looking for things? (This begs the question of whether those guys would be running around if US forces were not staged where they are.)
IAC, whatever the administration's motives are, they do not include a threat to the US from Iraq.
Looks like a decent turnout in DC despite the 27 degree temp....65 here at the other pole of the Axis
Oh Little Tommie D looks like he played Risk til the wee hours of the mornin
DON'T ATTACK IRAQ AGAIN!!!
Just back to take a leak
At least 250,000 to 300,000 people, 80% white middle class, women with babies in strollers, thousands of young people, and the Ragin Grannies of Sonoma County
FLUSH BUSH!!!!!!!
And, as some other folks have pointed out elsewhere (that's code for I can't remember where I read it, but the following wasn't my idea), this policy has perverse incentives. The best way to get what you want out of the US is to acquire nukes(as with NK) rather than bluster and fail (as with Iraq). I mean, NK,economically, may well be even more of a basket case than Iraq. But they have two warheads, and the administration is hamstrung.
Boy - we even had demonstrators here. I was not even aware anything was planned.
So imagine my surprise when I went to get my hair cut, and there on the sidewalk abutting the major N-S interstate route that runs through town was a group of sign-carrying peacefairies - about 2 dozen of 'em, not including the poor little kids they dragged out into the single-digit cold, in a blizzard.
Couldn't believe it.
So I parked my car and watched awhile, as they jumped up and down to keep warm and stuck their HONK IF YOU WANT PEACE! signs out into the street.
5 minutes I waited. Not a single beep.
Oh well.
I went in and got my haircut. Drove back over there. Waited.
Still no beeping.
They were all looking very dejected at this point, so I figured I'd take a stroll over there - just to kinda let them know someone was paying attention to them.
I walked up and down the line, and told each and every one of them, "Smile - Saddam loves you!"
BTW - I mentioned this to a friend of mine later on, and he informed me they were expecting "at least 300 people", which probably accounted for the five tables of hot cocoa and snacks that nobody was using.
Dear January 18 Demonstrators,
Just a short "THANK YOU" to let you know how much I appreciate yourefforts to stop the war-mongering madness that seems to have afflicted the current administration. I am sure that your protest - as well as all the others that occurred across the world - cannot help but penetrate
the wall of intolerance that has been built around the White House. Watching on the news the images of people in my humble city demonstrating for peace at the same time you wonderful people thousands of miles away were doing the same, an overwhelming sense of connectedness and one-ness of purpose washed over me. We are working toward the same end - and no matter how far away we are, they cannot stop our individual voices becoming one.
God Bless you all!
With Eternal Gratitude,
SH - Baghdad
PS: Ossama sends his warmest wishes, and hopes you didn't take that little skyscraper thing personally.
Stop the presses!
I'm certain it will be published.
(01-18) 15:01 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Teenagers with their parents, retirees with their children, seasoned peace activists and first-time protesters marched in San Francisco Saturday to protest the possibility of war with Iraq.
Tens of thousands of people from along the West Coast packed the streets, holding signs that read "Peace for All Nations" and "Patriots for Peace." The demonstration coincides with other anti-war protests nationwide and across the world.
Police estimated the crowd at more than 50,000. Organizers said 200,000 people attended. No arrests were reported.
"We want the rest of the world to know that not all of America is behind Bush and his policies," said Shahzad Chowdry, 34, an engineer from Palo Alto who marched with his parents and sister.
"It should not be done. This is wrong," said Akram Chowdry, who immigrated to the United States from Pakistan 30 years ago.
Dan Bradshaw, 43, of Sacramento, carried a sign that read "Republicans for Peace (and a Balanced Budget)," in one hand. In the other, he carried his 3-year-old son, Boo. Wearing a business suit and tie, he marched with his wife, Caroline, a Democrat who wore an American flag sweater over a white turtleneck.
They said that though they sometimes disagree, they're united in their stance against the war.
"I've been dumbfounded that we've come to this," Dan Bradshaw said. "War is a last resort I'm not averse to. But we're nowhere near a last resort with Iraq."
Though it was a festive atmosphere -- some marchers came as Uncle Sam, some wore angel wings, and music and cheering energized the crowd --demonstrators said they were serious about their opposition to the war.
Former Army reservist Chris Shay, 31, of San Jose, was a member of a U.S. Army chemical weapons unit in Iraq in 1989. There, he said, he saw first-hand the devastation of the Kurds wrought by Saddam. Though he believes "100 percent" that Saddam needs to go, he said he believes that war isn't the way to do it.
"The important thing is to start the message," he said. "Nobody listened in 1965, but by 1972 they stopped the war."
Shay attended with his friend Damon Jansen, 30, of Oakland, a high school teacher.
Jansen said protesting was not un-American. A lot of people think "if you're not for the war, then you're for Saddam and against the U.S.," he said. "There's a lot of U.S flags here."
Protesters marched up Market Street to the city's Civic Center, where celebrity speakers including actor Martin Sheen and singers Bonnie Raitt and Joan Baez addressed the crowd.
Well, I've written excatly 5 letters to this paper over the years, and all five were printed.
Not that that's any great shakes - it's a small town and generally, if you can spell okay and stay pretty much on topic, you've got it nailed.
This one is a bit sarcastic though - so I dunno.
But then again, there was that anti-Gore one I wrote in November 2000 that my wife swore would never make it in, but which did....
Best Act - Uncle Sam on stilts holding a guy in a Bush mask by ropes. He poured from a gasoline can down the puppet's mouth 
Protesters march down Market Street during a rally against a possible war with Iraq, Saturday, Jan. 18, 2003, in downtown San Francisco.
Charity Sevilla chants 'No War for Oil' as protesters march down Market Street in downtown San Francisco on Saturday, Jan. 18, 2003. Tens of thousands of people from along the West Coast packed the streets protesting the United States' possible war with Iraq. 
Two hundred thousand or more by the time we hit Civic Center above.
Man, y'all have some high standards compared to our state paper.
But I didn't realize that Saddam Hussein was one who would appreciate freedom of speech and assembly and peaceful protest of government actions. Good for him.
Seriously, I can't discuss the prospect of war with any sense of clarity because I can't make heads or tails out of Bush's criteria for starting an invasion from one day to the next.
It was a blast and to think that at that moment there were more people on the streets of SF protesting Bush's perpetual war than there were BushTroopers in the Middle East.
"The antiwar movement is now at a whole new level"
Today they show strong anti-war sentiment.
Support for War Ebbs At UN
200,000 ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS FILL STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO -- 500,000
PROTEST IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
MILLIONS DEMONSTRATE AROUND THE WORLD
In the largest anti-war protest since the Vietnam era, 200,000 protesters
filled Market Street from Embarcadero St. to Civic Center in San Francisco
to say "No War Against Iraq." It took four hours for the entire march to
traverse the 1.7 miles from Justin Herman Plaza to Civic Center.
A national demonstration held in Washington, D.C. drew a half million
people. Sponsored by the International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War &
End Racism) Coalition, the protests were endorsed by thousands of
organizations. Similar demonstrations were held in at least 30 other
countries.
Jan. 18 was a day of global protest against a U.S. war on Iraq.
Simultaneous demonstrations were held in more than 30 countries, including
Japan, Ireland, Egypt, Spain, Argentina, South Africa, Jordan, Belgium,
Syria, Hong Kong, Russia, Germany and Britain.
"Today's demonstrations shattered the myth of consensus for war," said
Gloria La Riva of the A.N.S.W.ER. Coalition, who was one of the co-chairs
of the Civic Center. "The world spoke with one voice today in denouncing
the Bush administration's rush toward a new conflict."
In the Bay Area, the crowds were so dense that at BART stations throughout
the Bay Area passengers had to wait for up to an hour to board trains. At
least 125 buses traveled from as far away as San Diego, Oregon and Utah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.
World Religions Proclaim War Unjust
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Leaders of world religions appealed to believers in all faiths to work to avert a conflict in Iraq as anti-war protests gathered pace around the world.
"As conflicts divide neighbors and nations and the threat of war hangs over us like a shadow, too many people see and employ religion as a force of divisiveness and violence, rather than a force for unity and peace," the representatives said in a concluding statement issued Saturday at the end of a symposium.
The Vatican (news - web sites)-sponsored meeting was attended by representatives of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and Sikhism.
It concluded as demonstrators staged one of the biggest waves of global anti-war protests since the United States and close ally Britain began pouring warplanes, ships and tens of thousands of troops into the Gulf region.
"As conflicts divide neighbors and nations and the threat of war hangs over us like a shadow, too many people see and employ religion as a force of divisiveness and violence, rather than a force of unity and peace," the concluding statement said.
The 38 leaders from 15 countries who attended the three-day meeting appealed for diplomacy and persuasion to correct injustices and respond to international threats.
The United States has threatened a war on Iraq to force Baghdad to come clean on its alleged nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Iraq denies that it has any.
Pope John Paul (news - web sites) has put the Vatican on a diplomatic collision course with the United States by condemning the possibility of a war, saying it was avoidable and would be a "defeat for humanity."
jexster -
If you actually read the post, you'd notice that I referred to China as somewhat of an ally of NK, not the US, here.
I thought you might be goin pink on us
If Ozdemir had to choose, his American customers could leave behind his traditional embroidered shirts and take home a message instead: "No war on Iraq."
It may lose him a few tourists in the short term. But a war, he figures, would scare away far more.
"It's like a chain," he says. "If I cannot make money, I can't buy something. Because of this, all the businessmen will be affected."
Ozdemir is not alone in his opinion. A recent poll by the Ankara Social Research Center found that 87 percent of the Turkish public opposes a U.S.-led war against their neighbor.
Public Opposes W-ar But "Defenders of Democracy" Set to Break Teeth
Kurds: Saddam Hates 'em Bush Won't Even Talk to Them - Wassup Wit Dat?
This farce has nothing to do with Iraqi Lib.
Next question.
Are these people pitiful, or what?
They say they're gonna do this every Saturday at the same time, same place, till whenever. 
What, is there a shop that sells signs and you get to go pick from 3 sayings and 4 colors?
I'd be embarrassed to be seen with these morons if I was a real peacefairy.
Those losers on the other hand are out in the cold keeping our right to assemble/petition fit by exercising them vigorously.
"Would Jesus Bomb Iraq?"
Of course this is not news. The UN "agreement" was a spin product. There never was any consensus.
While not doubting the sincerity of many of the marchers, and their concern that the United States not go to war unilaterally--a concern that I share; I think they really need to educate themselves on who it is they are protecting by their actions. Many seem to believe that George Bush is morally equivalent to Saddam Hussein, and that a war will impose untold suffering on the people of Iraq.
The point that they miss, I hope out of naivete, is that the Iraqi people have been suffering for decades under Saddam's rule; and that if allowed to speak freely, the Iraqi people themselves wish to see Saddam go.
What we then have is that Saddam, like Herr Hitler, is misunderstood, and is only trying to improve Iraq in the face of onerous obstacles placed there by the United States/Great Powers, after the sanctions/diktat of 1991/1919. Blood for Oil/Merchants of Death are at it again.
The peace marchers also underestimate Saddam's capacity for self-delusion. I hope that they will be able to live with themselves if Saddam uses them to delay and obstruct the inspection process, because he is under the delusion that the apparent divisions in the United States and Europe means that he will be able to get away with doing so.
Considering how selective you are with your ethics, you are in no position to criticize mine.
Support for War of Aggression Falls to New Low in GB
To deny that this war is about oil is laughable Tom Friedman
Ever vapid but always entertaining - The Wombat
European allies move to thwart Blair war strategy
By James Bone in New York and Philip Webster, Political Editor - Times of London
During a Security Council summit meeting both France and Germany spoke out strongly against an attack on Iraq as Britain and America struggled to muster support for the use of force
You crack me up
I hate dubya more than all of you put together, and I am deeply suspicious of his motives for the war on Iraq (as I am deeply suspicious of the idea that he is smart enough to actually HAVE motives of his own) but there is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Pragmatist that I am, I have no problem with that.
As a resident of the Gulf, I am in no doubt that the region and the world will be a better place with Saddam gone, and that the Iraqi people will be the biggest benificiaries. He should have been ousted twelve years ago, but you anti-war lot made such a fuss then about mandates and the like that dubya's wimpy daddy didn't have the guts (or the brains, it runs in the family) to do what so clearly needed to be done.
I'll leave it there for now.
Oh, I am feeling confrontational today...
Just twitting Jexter....I'll leave the confrontation to you.
There, a catchy chant for the pro war protesters! If there were any.... Still, it's every bit a reasonable and persuasive as the anti-war rhetoric IMO.
The real problem is the time zone difference: you have to be a real night owl to argue with me in real time, but rest assured if the horizon lights up you'll be the first to know :)
I notice that you have this tendency to change the subject regurgitating half assed histories that generally took place a decade or more before the event in question.
Bombing Hiroshima -> the rape of Nanking
Invasion of Iraq -> HE GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE! or Kosova (BTW Slobo created 500,000 refugees, Bush may create as many as 1,000,000 per the UN)
Lead me to think that you aren't morally obtuse as I had previously thought but rather, to be more precise, you are morally disingenuous.
UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 20 -- France suggested today it would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
France's opposition to a war, emphatically delivered here by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, is a major blow for the Bush administration, which has begun pouring tens of thousands of troops into the Persian Gulf in preparation for a military conflict this spring. The administration had hoped to mark the final phase in its confrontation with Iraq when U.N. weapons inspectors deliver a progress report Monday.
But in a diplomatic version of an ambush, France and other countries used a high-level Security Council meeting on terrorism to lay down their markers for the debate that will commence next week on the inspectors' report. Russia and China, which have veto power, and Germany, which will chair the Security Council in February, also signaled today they were willing to let the inspections continue for months.
Only Britain appeared to openly support the U.S. position that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has thwarted effective inspections.
Take for instance your last post which glosses over the fact that among traditional Christian denominations, not to mention secular ethicists and virtually every other religion on the planet, there is virtual unanimity that the present pre-emptive war of aggression is immoral.
Of course, the first effort was not pre-emptive, another fact conveniently passed by.
And as for Blood for Oil, I supported the first effort and am here to remind you that it was indeed a war for oil, a war to keep Saddam from getting control of it.
So, try and shake your disgust.....
No Blood for Bush!
No Blood for Wombat's moral and intellectual account!
How much equates to military breach?
Swinging back to moral obtuseness.
Swing low sweet Wombat!
ANGLICAN COMMUNION NEWS SERVICE
ACNS 3265 | IRELAND | 20 JANUARY 2003
"Iraq debate raises serious issues," says Archbishop Eames
[The Church of Ireland] The Primate of All Ireland, Archbishop Robin Eames, has expressed his concerns about the human cost of a possible conflict in Iraq.
In a letter to the Times newspaper, Archbishop Eames said, "Current debate on a possible conflict in Iraq raises serious issues for those who have accepted the traditional definition of 'a just war'.
"No one can doubt that any modern conflict causes immense suffering to a civilian population. Evidence abounds that it is impossible to guarantee all avoidance of death and injury to what Scripture terms 'the poor' in any such conflict.
"In the case of Iraq, no one can estimate with confidence the proportion of such suffering to the innocent. Irrespective of individual views on the rights and wrongs of any proposed military action, it can be argued that the time is opportune to re-examine the traditional principles of the just war.
"Surely there is justification, in the light of experience and the probable consequences of any forthcoming action, to accept an additional requirement to take account of the humanitarian considerations which will inevitably arise.
"Such an addition could embrace a willingness and definite intention on the part of any nation to match military action with humanitarian relief. Only then would the traditional principles stand current scrutiny - whether from the Christian or other stand-point."
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - France said Tuesday it aimed to mobilize the European Union to avert a war against Iraq.
Rejecting mounting U.S. pressure for an early decision on military action, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said: "It is important that Europe speak on this issue with a single voice. We are mobilized, we believe war can be avoided."
He told reporters after talks with his Belgian counterpart, Louis Michel, that a January 27 report to the U.N. Security Council by arms inspectors seeking to eliminate Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction would only be an interim report.
France is chairing the Security Council this month.
[ENS] Marking his fifth anniversary as presiding bishop on January 12, Frank T Griswold told the congregation at the Washington National Cathedral that "the work of repair, rebuilding and renewing" the world is one to which every Christian is called at baptism. That work, said Bishop Griswold, calls for "adopting God's point of view" instead of the limited perspective of self or nation.
"If we are truly a nation 'under God,' as we say we are, then God's perspective rather than our own self-interest will animate both our national life and our being in the world," he stated. "Otherwise we had better abandon that claim altogether and admit that our power is the source of our own divinity."
Subversive love
Bishop Griswold said he came to a deeper understanding of that mission while standing in the dust and ashes filling St Paul's Chapel in New York, three days after the September 11 terrorist attacks. "Behind the altar hung a small brass crucifix, its tiny arms extended in the direction of the site [Ground Zero] I had just visited," he recounted. "In that moment, though numb from all I had witnessed, and caught in a sea of conflicting emotions, it became absolutely clear that the tiny brass arms of the figure on the cross could contain and enfold all the horror, rage, pain and grief that lay so close at hand in an uncompromising and enduring saving embrace of unwavering and death-defying love."
"I'd like to be able to go somewhere in the world and not have to apologise for being from the United States,"
Bishop Griswold's sentiments about the threat of war were echoed by Pope John Paul II in a New Year's statement on January 13. War "is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between states, the noble exercise of diplomacy: These are the methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences," the Pope said, adding his criticism of leaders who "place their trust in nuclear weapons" and armed force. "War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations," he said. 
A war with Iraq has become more likely in the past week. Thursday's discovery of undeclared poison gas shells was insufficient to trigger war alone. But here was the first concrete, and predictable, confirmation that Iraq's co-operation with Hans Blix's UN weapons inspectors has been less than complete. And Saddam Hussein's defiant speech on Friday even disappointed those who still hope that the Iraqi leader might choose comfortable exile in Libya or Belarus.
One thing which has been stressed too little in recent weeks is that it is Iraq's choices that have brought war closer. The debate in Britain and Europe continues to focus largely on what America is doing and why. Too often, it is overlooked that it is Iraq which remains, at the eleventh hour, in defiance of the will of its region and the wider world. That will is still to find a sensible resolution to the current crisis without war. The coercive diplomacy that could yet lead to Saddam's disarmament or his disposal by his own side must be pursued. Indeed, the military build-up remains the best strategy for seeking to disarm him, short of war. Yet he still shows signs of frustrating the demands of December's UN resolution. If this continues, few analysts doubt that the United States will seek support for a military attack. It is becoming equally clear that Tony Blair's Britain would participate. Would we be right to do so?
There are good - and bad - arguments for and against military intervention. And there are some on both sides who have relied on weak and intellectually dishonest positions to further their own cause. It devalues debate to belittle Tony Blair as 'President Bush's poodle' - and the crude anti-Americanism which often accompanies this charge also overlooks the nuanced way in which the Prime Minister has sought with some success to influence the approach of his superpower ally. It is similarly unilluminating when detractors dismiss the Bush presidency as 'stupid'. The President, regardless of his own capacities, is surrounded by some brilliant advocates of his visceral beliefs. Equally, however, it does not help casually to conflate any threat from Saddam with that from al-Qaeda, rather than detailing the demonstrable dangers posed by Iraq itself.
The arguments for coercive pressure may well end in war. But they combine two laudable motivations. The first is the nature of Saddam Hussein's regime and the call by many Iraqi exiles and dissidents for him to be overthrown. The appalling 1980s nerve-gasing of the Kurds is well documented. Less widely appreciated is that there are few Iraqi families which have not suffered directly, either in the massacres which crushed the 1991 uprisings, or by the violence routinely deployed by Iraq's secret police. Both Bush and Blair could have emphasised more just how bad Saddam's republic of fear has been for his people and the extent to which ending it is a desirable end in itself.
They could also have stressed more energetically that this dispute is not about oil. For the second motive for displacing Saddam is the danger he poses to the wider world. Western governments must articulate the nature of that potential threat too. The Prime Minister has made the case for the need to deal with Saddam for some years with consistency, though with far less public notice before 11 September 2001. Accused of becoming America's poodle, he, in fact, sticks to a potentially unpopular course because he believes this to be right, and that the threat from Iraqi weapons is real. He does so with courage and clarity.
At the same time, he has thus far managed to insist, and also to persuade the Americans, that we stick to the path of UN endorsement and the framework of international law. This is a considerable achievement.
The world still awaits firm public evidence that Saddam has effective weapons of mass destruction. It is only when their existence is confirmed that the UN will have to decide whether to take substantive military action. And that will be the point at which British public opinion is fully tested.
The Observer has repeatedly argued, and we continue to do so, that any such military action must have multilateral legitimacy. Not only is that right, it is the only way that military action will secure international acceptability. But this does not necessarily mean a unanimous Security Council vote on such action. It might be difficult for some to accept a sole veto from Beijing autocrats, for example, on action which might restore democracy to another nation.
However, if we contemplate war, we should be clear about the dangers. Not only are the lives of British service personnel at risk. (As the last Gulf War proved, even the most clinical military operation does not protect our own soldiers from 'friendly fire'.) The lives of many Iraqi civilians are at risk, too, and must be part of any equation balancing the benefits of an attack, as must the danger of an exodus of refugees from Iraq. Equally, there is a considerable risk that civilians could be targeted in Britain, whether we are part of a UN force or not, either by agents of Saddam or by other terrorists who choose unilaterally to take his side.
Those risks must be set against potentially huge prizes. In London last month, Iraqi opposition groups united around a platform of a federal, democratic state. These people deserve support from those who propound similar values in the West. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people would regard Saddam's removal as liberation, pure and simple.
Some fear that, after the current regime, Iraqis can expect nothing better than 'Saddam lite' and a less brutal dictator. But it is easily forgotten that Iraq is a substantially secular country, which, in the period before its first coup in 1958, was making strides towards constitutional monarchy, with a free press, contested elections and the region's best schools and universities. The historic State Department and Foreign Office view, that democracy is not for the Middle East, is faintly prejudiced. But in the words of Bernard Lewis, the scholar of the Muslim world, the example of Turkey proves two things. First, that establishing democracy in the Middle East is very difficult. Second, that it is possible.
The moral and political advantages of holding to the current course of action are overwhelming. Legitimacy is fundamental to the values of Western powers. Wherever possible, we make law, not war, and where war is unavoidable, we observe the law in its conduct. The prospects for any successor Iraqi regime will be much rosier if it is seen to have come into being through a UN mandate derived from a very substantial majority of members, rather than bilateral Anglo-American action.
Those who demanded a multilateral route have responsibilities, too. They must recognise that the much-maligned Bush administration has dutifully pursued a multilateral approach over both Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. The world asked America to work through the UN. The UN and its members must now show that its decisions and resolutions can be effective.
Some will still argue that because the world contains other unpleasant dictators, it would be wrong to get rid of this one. We disagree. The recent past contains several examples of military intervention against sovereign states where the outcome, if not ideal, has certainly been much better in humanitarian terms than what went before: Vietnam's removal of Pol Pot from Cambodia; Nato's Kosovo campaign, with the subsequent indictment of Slobodan Milosevic; the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan.
War with Iraq may yet not come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government, we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force. That is not because we have not agonised, as have so many of our readers and those who demonstrated across the country yesterday, about what is right. It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world.
Authorities in Kuwait launched a search Tuesday for an assailant or assailants who shot and killed an American civilian and wounded another as they were traveling on the main road leading from the U.S. military's Camp Doha.
The U.S. ambassador to Kuwait called the shootings "a terrorist attack".
Maybe the peaceniks are opposed to the war because after we risk American lives to save the people of a country, this is the thanks we get. Although I guess that is an unfair statement since it seems to be terrorists who are just living there who did it...as in previous attacks, these guys probably came over from Saudi Arabia and scuttled back there after the shooting.
"Bush Says 'Clear to Me Now' Iraq Not Disarming"
What a charade. Time running out for the Moronarch. He's got his Grand Armee in the Gulf gettin suntans
Nice editorial. Now tell me why not invade North Korea?
Sudan? Nigeria? Myanmar?
What would Jesus say?
You appear to be arguing that it is morally bankrupt to oppose the likely killing of thousands of Iraqis because the Iraqi regime has killed thousands of Iraqis and further because the Iraqi people would really rather we killed thousands of them in return for the removal of Saddam's regime. This seems a pretty weak argument for either war or the moral bankruptcy of the opposition to this war.
First off, your contention that the Iraqis would welcome the death of thousands of civilians at our hands in return for the removal of Saddam amounts to mass mind reading. Maybe so, maybe not; but I would tend to think that if so then we would be receiving that message in non-telepathic form from within Iraq, such as words on roof tops for our sattelites/Recon planes, or other grass-roots covert expressions of support. I would also expect that the US would be trumpetting such expressions as part of their PR campaign. The silence is eloquent.
Second, are we taking the position that we should go about the globe removing the yoke of brutal dictatorships from the shoulders of the peoples of the world? I doubt this very much and our response to NK is instructive in this regard.
(Cont.)
All this is not to say that there are not "morally bankrupt" portions of the "Peace Movement", that many of the signs are simplistic, strident and foolish, but it would be a mistake to simply tar the "Peace Movement" as morally bankrupt.
HORSESHIT!
He was dragged kickin and screamin to the UN. He never wanted to be there. He was never interested in disarmament. He has lied repeated to the American people.
And now that inspectors are there, this regime that never was a threat to anyone, is even less so.
Bush knows that world opposition to his hairbrained immoral war, his war of aggression is growing daily and that is why he wants the war he has always wanted, a war for empire, a war for prestige, a war for political salvation, a war for oil
To see--with many caveats--an attempt to gauge Iraqi public opinion, free of police state minders, check out the following link: http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=837
Also review the editorial above.
I get no sense from the peace marchers and their organizers that they have any idea of the type of regime that their actions may be bolstering; and quite a bit that it is of little concern to them. As someone who has dealt with "regular" Iraqis and Iraqis who worked for Saddam, I find the incuriousity of many in the peace movement to be disgusting.
1/ Saddam is an aggressor. He has invaded two neighboring countries, Iran and Kuwait.
A: Yes. When Saddam attacked and occupied Kuwait in 1990, the US declared him an aggressor, rallied the UN Security Council, led a military Coalition against Iraq, and expelled the Iraqi from the Emirate. In contrast, when he invaded Iran in September 1980, Washington declared itself neutral in the war. At the UN Security Council, putting the aggressor and its victim at a par, it supported a resolution which called for a ceasefire. Actually, using back channels, the administration of US President Jimmy Carter had encouraged Saddam to attack Iran, whose military plans were known to the pro-American rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait weeks before the invasion. See Chapter 3, pg. 29. For further details, see Dilip Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict (1991), pp. 71-72.
See also, Bogus Historiography Exposed: An Unnecessary War Foreign Policy
2/ Saddam is once again threatening his neighboring countries.
A: Which ones? As it is, in early September 2002 the Arab League's foreign ministers rejected 'the threat of aggression on Arab nations, in particular Iraq', and reaffirmed 'that these threats to the security and safety of any Arab country are considered a threat to Arab national security'. Later when the George W. Bush administration turned to the UN in its conflict with Baghdad, Iraq listened to the advice of Arab capitals and accepted the unconditional return of UN inspectors, thereby keeping intact the Arab League support. Unlike in 1990, this time Iraq has not occupied a fellow Arab state.
and of course 3/ Saddam gassed his own people.
Bolstering what?
That's that same old "with us or against us" puerile palaver, that baby shit you always retreat to.
This is about WAR you half wit
EU Just Says NO to War Without UN Approval
easy, or when circumstances do not challenge the mettle of your beliefs. Convictions are tested when standing on your principles causes inconvenience and pain. If you are able to withstand the test with your convictions intact, you come away with a clearer knowledge of your own strength. There are thousands and thousands of Americans today who can say their convictions passed intact through a small but significant testing.
They came by bus, by car, by rail and by plane to the nation's capitol to shout down a push for war in Iraq. Citizens from as far away as Alaska and Oklahoma made the trek, a sacrifice of time and money that is noteworthy. Moreover, these people endured for an entire day temperatures that lingered several degrees below freezing down on the Mall... It bears notice, again, to point out that the war has not even started yet.
There is something happening here, and it is getting clearer by the day."
Its About Moral Conviction
Take a chill pill. How many Iraqis have you met in your many years on earth, argued and talked with about their regime with? I may not be the most qualified person in the world to speak on behalf of Iraqis, but I will gladly place myself with Kanan Makiya (sp?) and others who speak out for Iraqis under Saddam and describe what life is like there.
On what do you base your knowledge on conditions in Iraq?
The UN will not approve Bush's war. The EU, not known for its boldness, has made that clear.
Robert Novak, Mark Shields from Capitol Gang.
Novak:"The last thing that the hawks inside the administration, and their friends outside the administration, want is a coup d'etat that would replace Saddam Hussein. They want a war as a manifestation of U.S. power in the world and as a sign that the United States is capable of changing the balance of power and the political map of the Middle East."
Mark Shields: "You're saying that there are people, I mean, who almost have a blood lust in this administration.
Novak: "This war, I just trust it comes off easily. But I have trepidation that it won't be easy, and there's going to be terrible consequences from it."
Frank Gaffney, a member of the ChickenHawk Shadow Government confirmed Novak's observations on Sunday when he predicted mass civilian resignations at DoD if Bush didn't get his war.
Anatol Lieven - "The Push for War"
Pitt knows whats what, the EU knows, the world knows, I believe if you were honest Wombat, you'd admit that you know it too.
With that and two bucks fifty, I could get a latte
Hans put both the moral and the geopolitical strategic choice quite well IMO.
I get no sense from the Bush administration that they have any coherent reason for going to war; and quite a bit that it is of little concern to them.
Front-line troops disproportionately white, not black Numbers refute long-held belief
WASHINGTON -- The American troops likeliest to fight and die in a war against Iraq are disproportionately white, not black, military statistics show -- contradicting a belief widely held since the early days of the Vietnam War.
The UN will not approve Bush's war. The EU, not known for its boldness, has made that clear.
Words spoken by a true dilettante.
"The potential for white Western body parts flying around with the Iraqi ones should make them think again about this imperialist oil war," organizer Ken Nichols, a former U.S. marine in the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), told Reuters.
His "We the People" organization will be sending off a first group of 50 human shields from the London mayor's City Hall building Saturday, part of a series of departures organizers say will involve hundreds, possibly thousands, of volunteers.
Takes a dilletante to steal my lines.
sug min kuk
But Bush cannot do that. He would lose his "base" of ultraright wing nationalists and fundies not to mention a goodly part of his DoD
Irak : la France menace d'utiliser son veto contre une guerre américaine
Le Conseil de sécurité s'est profondément divisé, lundi 20 janvier, à une semaine du rapport que doivent présenter les inspecteurs du désarmement de l'Irak. Alors que les Etats-Unis estiment que "le temps est compté" et déploient des troupes supplémentaires dans la région, la France a sèchement signifié qu'elle s'opposerait à ce stade à toute opération militaire. "Aujourd'hui, rien ne justifie d'envisager l'action militaire. (...) Le travail des inspecteurs est satisfaisant", a déclaré le ministre des affaires étrangères, Dominique de Villepin, soutenu par l'Allemagne, la Chine et la Russie. La France brandit la menace d'utiliser son droit de veto au Conseil pour bloquer une résolution américaine qui ouvrirait la voie à la guerre. Washington a paru surpris par cette opposition, Colin Powell annonçant de nouvelles "conversations".
In economic language the marginal social cost of war is not reflected in its price which is why the US overproduces it.
The dilletantism lies in assuming that Simitis speaks for the EU.
The Security Council is deeply divided, monday January 20, a week from the report of the Iraqi disarmement inspectors. While the US says "time is running out" and deploys further troops in the region, France has dryly indicated it opposes stage any military operations. "Today, nothing justifies envisioning military action. (...) The work of the inspectors is satisfactory", declared the forein affairs minister, Dominique de Villepin, supported by Germany, China and Russia. France brandishes the threat of using its veto right in the Council to block an american resolution that would open the way to war. Washington gave the impression of surprise at this opposition, Colin Powell announced new "discusions".
The Security Council was profoudly divided Monday Jan 20 a week before inspectors were to present a report on the disarment of Iraq. While the US considered that time had run out and deployed more troops in the region, France curtly stated that she would oppose at this stage anyll military operation.
"Today, nothing justifies contemplating military action. (...) The work of the inspectors is satisfactory", declared the minister of the foreign affairs, Dominique of Villepin, who was supported by germany, China and Russia. France brandishes the threat to use its veto power on the Counsel to block an American resolution that would open the way to the war. Washington appeared surprised by this opposition...PantyWaist Powell said he was going do some congitation and conversations ( that last VERY loose)
European Report
January 22, 2003
EU/IRAQ: EU COUNTRIES MOVE TOWARDS A COMMON POSITION
HIGHLIGHT:
The European Union's main objective in the Iraq crisis at the moment seems to be to move towards a co-ordinated position between the Member States while keeping the whole process in the hands of the United Nations. That, at least, seemed to be the main conclusion to emerge from a meeting between the High Representative of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Javier Solana, and Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, on January 18 in Athens. The two men also came out in favour of voting through another Resolution in the UN Security Council to decide on the follow-up to the latest events in Iraq. And whilst in Baghdad on January 18, Hans Blix, head of the United Nations' weapons inspectors, said the Iraqis had agreed to collaborate more closely with the UN inspectors.
It's despicable for these people to act in collusion with Saddam on his nickel while the Iraqi people suffer.
"Many of the punditry—of course, not you (laughter)—but other punditry were quick to say, no one is going to follow the United States of America."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2003.
You aren't one of those fruit cakes who thinks the Little Emperor wants to help anyone but himself are you?
From the New Yorker, linked in the AP thread
The C.I.A. report remained unpublicized throughout the summer and early fall, as the Administration concentrated on laying the groundwork for a war with Iraq. Many officials in the Administration's own arms-control offices were unaware of the report. "It was held very tightly," an official told me. "Compartmentalization is used to protect sensitive sources who can get killed if their information is made known, but it's also used for controlling sensitive information for political reasons."
It's despicable for these people to act in collusion with Bush on his nickel while the Iraqi people suffer.
Iraq's military capacity has been vitiated by its defeat in the Gulf War and years of inspections, but North Korea is one of the most militarized nations in the world, with more than forty per cent of its population under arms. Its artillery is especially fearsome: more than ten thousand guns, along with twenty-five hundred rocket launchers capable of launching five hundred thousand shells an hour, are positioned within range of Seoul, the capital of South Korea.
Who will be so foolish? Come ...
But I find it hard to imagine that the French vote would be used counter to an EU concensus.
The UK vote will continue to be a proxy for the US.
SURPRISE SURPRISE!!
Interfax news agency's specialist military news wire AVN quoted an unnamed high-ranking source in the Russian general staff as saying U.S.-led operations would be launched anyway once an attacking force had been assembled in the Gulf.
"According to the information we have, the operation is planned for the second half of February. The decision to launch it has been taken but not yet been made public," the source told the agency, which has generally authoritative contacts in the Russian military and political establishment.
What a crock
BERLIN (AP) -- Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has made plain that Germany will refuse to back an Iraq war resolution in the U.N. Security Council, ending weeks of hedging and aligning himself more closely with his main European partner, France.
Schroeder's clearest position yet is likely to further displease President Bush, who this week scolded countries -- like Germany -- that are seeking more time for U.N. weapons inspectors to search in Iraq.
ANSWER -> Time is running out for Bush
Dominique of Villepin
"Nous sommes mobilisés"
Give War a Chance
excerpts:
The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, played all his cards by threatening in advance to veto any U.S. attempt to get the Security Council to enforce the unanimously-approved Resolution 1441; and by promising to lead European diplomatic opposition to unilateral U.S. action. In a theatrical press conference, he topped this off with a demand to give the farcical inspection effort of Hans Blix an indefinite amount of time, and spoke condescendingly about U.S. "impatience".
If nothing else, the French had just pulled the rug under them (the current US administration). The U.S. policy of going to the U.N. last September, instead of directly to Baghdad, is now a shambles. The position Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney took against this, at the time, has now been fully vindicated. You take the battle to your enemy when you want a resolution; you go to the U.N. when you want to swim in molasses.
The French do not believe what they preach. They hardly stopped off at the U.N. on their way into the Ivory Coast, where they recently sent troops to rescue French citizens and save a client regime. Their opposition to U.S. action in Iraq has nothing to do with principles, but rather with politics, and fear.
Christian Science Monitor
administration's plans because of the shock of Sept. 11 and that many harbor serious doubts about his march toward war... Millions of Americans who did not march share the concerns... These protests are the tip of a far broader sense of concern and lack of confidence in the path to war
that seems to lie ahead."
Nous sommes mobilises aussi, M. de Villepin!
The New York Times
A poll in Germany shows that 76% opposes invading Iraq even with U.N. backing. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder says unequivocally that Germany will not take part in a military intervention in Iraq. In France, a recent poll shows 82% oppose W-ar. Senior French officials say France will
use its seat on the Security Council "to restrain U.S. militarism." Opinion surveys in Britain show a slim majority support military action, but only if the U.N. authorizes it. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been warned by members of his Labour Party that he faces a full revolt if he continues to support Bush's W-ar. Bush's coalition for W-ar isn't exactly falling apart -- it never existed.
Euro Leaders Listen When Their People JUST SAY NO TO BUSH WARS
The Chicago Tribune
My apologizes.
France and Germany's Forge Iron Alliance Against Bush Aggression -NyT
So
LET'S ROLL!!!
Das Lied der Deutschen
[original words]
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das Deutsche Vaterland.
Danach laßt uns alle streben,
Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand.
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Sind des Glückes Unterpfand.
Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Blühe deutsches Vaterland.
La Marseillaise
Verse deuxieme
Que veut cette horde d'esclaves
De traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés?
Français, pour nous, ah! quel outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter?
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer
De rendre à l'antique esclavage!
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons
Das Lied der Deutschen
[original words]
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das Deutsche Vaterland.
Danach laßt uns alle streben,
Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand.
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Sind des Glückes Unterpfand.
Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Blühe deutsches Vaterland.
La Marseillaise
Verse deuxieme
Que veut cette horde d'esclaves
De traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés?
Français, pour nous, ah! quel outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter?
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer
De rendre à l'antique esclavage!
Aux armes citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons
Bush Warns Iraqi Military of War Crimes Trials
Which forum praytell? One of his SS military tribunals?
Certainly not the International War Crimes Tribunal.
Bush has lost his mind
A nice piece of advice, not from me, but from 17th century diarist Samuel Pepys:
Be most slow to believe what you most want to be true.
That little turd might well find himself in the dock!
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
It was not the New York Times but the liberal Web site Salon (www.salon.com) that took notice of the "creative energy" that went into attacking the Bush administration at Saturday's anti-war march, Andrew Sullivan observes.
Among the posters brandished by the crowd, Salon spotted one depicting President Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney and top administration officials as Nazis. The poster labeled Mr. Cheney "The Fuhrer, Already in His Bunker," while Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was "House Negro — Fakes Left, Moves Right," and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was "Minister of Dis-info — Ari Goebbels."
Mr. Sullivan, who writes a weekly column for The Washington Times, noted on his Web site (www.andrewsullivan.com) that most in the media have ignored the extremist roots of the anti-war protests. Saturday's march was organized by International ANSWER, affiliated with a Marxist splinter group, the Workers World Party.
"A few readers have complained that by fixating on the extremes, I'm misrepresenting the marchers. The trouble is: the extremes organized the march," Mr. Sullivan said. "Can you imagine if a massive gay rights rally had been organized by NAMBLA, the pedophile group? But NAMBLA is to gay rights what ANSWER is to legitimate anti-war sentiment. And no-one in the liberal establishment seems to care."
I am a member of A.N.S.W.E.R....and the percentage of socialists (they were there) was about .005%
I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Communust party Senator McCarthy!
So slime all you want as millions of regular folk hit the streets.
Come get me.
Resentment Against US Colonialism Building
Maybe GWB should send Wombat as a missionary. 
Coalition of the Drooling
French President Jacques Chirac, right, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder lead the opposition to the possible war with Iraq
Germany will use its power as incoming president of the UN Security Council to try to head off war with Iraq by proposing a second report by weapons inspectors, The Times of London has learnt
So, you belong to this pack of clueless wingnuts and nitwits, Jex?
A.N.S.W.E.R. says they believe that all weapons of mass destruction should be banished from the planet, but adds that the U.S. should be the first to do so: "This is impossible until the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction – the one at the disposal of trigger-happy George W. Bush and Co. – is eliminated. Any other call for disarmament will not be viewed as legitimate by the rest of the world."
Powell also sought to allay fears that America’s military build-up in the Gulf was aimed at securing Iraq’s oil reserves for itself.
He said Washington was examining different ways of managing Iraq’s oil fields if America invaded, including holding them “in trust” for the Iraqi population.
“If we are the occupying power, (Iraq’s oil fields) will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people,” he said."
In trust, I like that, that mans got a good line in patter.
China, Russia Join US Allies to Isolate the Bacillus Bush
Such 'fears' are groundless, IAC, since anybody remotely familiar with world economics knows petroleum is a fungible commodity.
Not if the commodity is controlled by a state hostile to you though, I would think. Or is World Economics more complicated than that....
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Once the Empire has stolen Iraqi oil and installed its puppet regime under a US military dictator, it will then be in a position to call the shots to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and set oil prices worldwide.
This is no radical Chomskyesque fantasy. This was the very subject of the Perle sponsored briefing to the ChickenHawk nutters who have taken power in the Regime.
I just do not agree that this war is for the liberty of Iraq. I do not agree that the weapons Saddam has, whatever they may be, are a threat to the rest of the world/the U.S., so the only reason to wage war with Iraq, sorry, with Saddam's forces, is for long term strategic control over arab oil in general.
OPEC controls only 63% of the world's oil but that's enough. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Iraq could well form enough of a block to prevent the "cheating" that has kept prices down. Remember both Bush and Cheney before the coup brought them to illegitmate governmental power were vocal advocates of HIGHER oil prices because that benefited Texas oil interests and the interests of Chevron et al who control virtually ALL the world's refining and distribution and profit handsomely when prices rise. 
Oppo Builds in Turkey to Bush Empire
Demonstrators at commuter train station wave "No War" signs.
Savasah Hayir!
Iraqi Opposition Falling Short of U.S. Expectations
Bush officials say the groups have failed to be a strong force in making case against Hussein
Worthless as an opposition, that we've known for a long time but recall that in the fall Bush sent the lot over to his Ministy of Propaganda for re-tooling. Looks like that flopped as well.
Let's hope for their sake that they fare better in their current role -cannon fodder.
'control of middle east oil' is little more than a cant phrase, given that it's a commodity. The only 'control' that has ever been effected is to cut back production, and anything the US would do would have, if anything, the opposite effect, unless in the improbable case of Saddam attempting and succeeding at setting Iraq's oil well heads on fire, perhaps.
Given an international open market, how would a non-exporting country 'control' oil, anyway? That's the question that never is answered by those who bleat that 'we're only doing it for the oil'.
Sheesh.
Moronocracy in action....the untermenschen will adore us
I'm concerned with the reason, the reason why war should be waged against Saddam. I have'nt seen any that make sense, or that are credible other than the economic one.
Sorry, but what guarantee can one provide when the situation changes. None, of course. For example, those who were averring that there was no terrorist threat before 9/11 are only now taking up the old refrain (i.e.: Iraq "is not" any threat, therefore "can never" be any threat (but why not?)), relying on peoples' forgetfulness. Why, for instance, can not dirty bombs be made with Iraq's uranium ore reserves? No reason at all.
Btw, any ricin scares in your neck of the woods lately?
This is exactly your problem Given an international open market, how would a non-exporting country 'control' oil, anyway
The market is not open assuming you mean competitive. I do not know what you mean by "non-exporting" country. OPEC -Organization of Petroleum EXPORTING countries. Iraq is a member and used to be a cheater with Iran from time to time. An oligopoly's conspiracy to set prices falls apart when one country cheats by selling more of a commodity than it promised it would do hoping to capture as much of the resulting and declining producer surplus as it can.
Effective market share for oligopoly power can be quite tiny as the Bushron rip off of Cali consumers shows. Under 10% the conspirators had as I recall. Depends on supply and demand conditions.
And since when does the U.S. go around waging war in place of a guarantee? And nobody I know of, in Europe at least, had thier head up thier ass when it came to recognising terrorist threat, look at the last 30 years, we've had the fucking lot.
And no, there has been no ricin scares here. You mean the U.K. I'm sure.
Taylor, Microeconomics 2E
Chapter 11: Product Differentiation, Monopolistic Competition, and Oligopoly
OPEC discussed in OUTLINE CHAPTER 12
Price and Output Determination: Monopolistic Competition & Oligopoly
"Cant" it maybe. You'll have to take that up with Slack. but the more common name - microeconomics...
Further, the RAND staff believes, "Pumping millions of additional barrels of oil into the world market everyday would cause world oil prices to plummet. It is very unlikely that key OPEC members would agree to cut their own oil income by accepting significant cuts in their production. OPEC could plunge into a death spiral."
(Cont.)
It seems clear to me that Iraqi oil is seen by many credible sources as a significant player in the global energy economy.
I am not about to retrieve my HS french to translate, but the basic story is that 100,000 are gathering in Brazil at the Porto Alegre Social Summit (NOT Socialist!) to protest the Bush War.
The significance, aside from the summit itself, is that this news item leads Le Monde not US media a reflection of the burgeoning anti-Bush war sentiment in France.
Chirac is fucking Bush and is politically secure in doing so.
I only wonder whether his public may wind up even more anti-war than its president.
He may be an elitist Gaullist butthole but damn I do love a sharp politico and JC is about the best there is right now.
There was a war protest in Ougadougo just the other day which you haven't reported. Losing your touch?
From Porto Allegre to San Francisco to Washington DC to Ougadougo to Stockholm -TIME's RUN OUT FOR BUSH
France and Germany turn against Washington
European leaders reject America's 'moral imperative'
GERMANY and France closed ranks against war with Iraq yesterday, signalling the beginning of an increasingly public opposition to the aims and values of the Bush Administration.
Fine. Maybe 5% of global output, tops, at some unforseeable point in the future, versus 3% in the past. Nothing, however, like the be all and end all factor that some insist on pretending shapes US policy.
Chirac and Shroeder let him play his little UN election scam. Everyone knew it was a big lie. Everyone knew what Bush and his band of right wing nationalist nuts would do. C&S suckered the little nitwit making nicey nice kissy kissy through November to early December.
Shroeder, the WH spin machine leaked, was trying to kiss and make up properly chastened by Our Emperor, he was going to let the US use German bases. Chirac let fly some nonsense about deploying the Charles de Gaulle to the Gulf. The two laid low letting Blair and Bush make their own noose with their lies and arrogance. Throughout december til this week, C&S kept their own counsel laying in wait.
They weren't going to let Blair the Poodle make pilgrimage to the Throne next week. They sprung the trap,
Bush's arrogance has created a world of enemies foreign and domestic who are now emboldened for payback, payback for his arrogance and his ignorance.
The only way to deal with that scuzzbag is to say FUCK YOU.
vas te faire foutre
The fuckin world thinks he's an arrogant imbecile and he going down hard.
France and Germany have both signed on to UN Resolution 1441 authorizing the use of force against Iraq in case of material violation of the UN mandated disarmament, which has now been amply demonstrated.
The best light that can be placed on France's and Germany's present actions is that they are attempting to go back on their agreements. Unfortunately for their current disingenuous efforts, they've already given the US and its allies full permission to depose Saddam.
Let's hope you've done a better job "showing" how craven France and Germany are than you have analyzing OPEC.
I explained in depth how and why to use Tom Friedman's words "this is all about oil. To deny it is laughable" See Message # 2425 et seq.
With the second largest oil reserves in the world and Iraq as a military dictatorship and base, the US will be able to exercise total control over world oil prices. They will not go down either. Bush and Cheney do not like low oil prices.
They will be set just low enough to keep the world hooked and just high enough to make Bush's paymasters wealthy.
The only way to deal with the Colossus of Crawford on any issue is to tell him to get fucked.
Its escaped notice in all this warmongering pigshit but Charles Grassley seems to be stirring in that direction against the Ashcroft New SS Order..
Its the new coming thing and it has nothing to do with ideology....anyone can do it
Now tell us again how noble the Iraqi oppo is since we are talking about things ignored and persons ignorant - Message # 2420
But since Sodamn's Sycophants are so predictable in making such patently simplistic and improbable assertions they do rational people the favor of highlighting their intellectual bankruptcy every time they open their pie holes.
No I think its nauseating.
But you know what?
The people of the world don't give a rat's ass about this Rush Limbaugh slime crap.
Not even if you parrot it Wombat.
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top
