The Mote Archive - Conflict in the Middle East, pt.1a

Conflict in the Middle East, pt. 1a

2550. jexster - 1/26/2003 2:23:37 PM

FYI ANSWER does not have "members". ANSWER is a coaltion, a Mighty Coalition of the Willing if you will.

It has "endorsers" not members to be precise.

Ramsey Clark - former U.S. Attorney General

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton - Auxiliary Bishop, Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit, Michigan

American Muslims for Global Peace

Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition, NY & NJ

Barbara Lubin -Executive Director, Middle East Children's Alliance

Jews Against the Occupation

Rev. Lucius Walker - Pastors for Peace

Rev. Graylan Hagler - Senior Minister, Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington DC

Rev. Curtis Gatewood - Durham, North Carolina

Rev. Cecil Williams - Glide Memorial Church, Washington, DC

Robert Meeropol -Executive Director, Rosenberg Fund for Children*

Teresa Gutierrez -Co-Director, International Action Center, NYC

Karen Talbot -International Center for Peace & Justice
Trades Union International of Building and Wood Workers, Finland

LEF Foundation, St. Helena, California

SEIU Local 1877, San Francisco, California

Vanguard Public Foundation, San Francisco, California Bündnis Global Gegen Krieg (Global Alliance Against War), From, Germany

Robert Franck - professor, Catholic University of Louvain*, Belgium

Thomas Claesson - Teachers League of Sweden*, Skärhamn, Tjörn, Sweden

raindog - earthling, California

jexster

2551. jexster - 1/26/2003 2:23:41 PM

2552. jexster - 1/26/2003 2:26:09 PM

Next time UR in Skärhamn, Tjörn say hi to Thomas for me

2553. jexster - 1/26/2003 3:01:51 PM

From Iraq - What Next? - Carnegie Institute

Iraq: What Next? | 12

8. Does Iraq pose a threat while inspections are under way?

Not under current conditions.
Saddam is in an iron box. With tens of thousands of troops around Iraq, an international coalition united in support of the inspection process, and now hundreds of inspectors in the country able to go anywhere at any time, Saddam is unable to engage in any large-scale development or
production of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be exceedingly difficult to import significant quantities of proscribed materials or to manufacture longer-range missiles or missile components.
Thus, while there may be legitimate concerns about the ability of the inspection regime to discover hidden caches of weapons, there should be no doubt about its ability to prevent militarily significant industrial production.
Even if inspections fail to provide evidence supporting Iraqi claims that no weapons of mass destruction remain in the country, the inspections will serve a vital monitoring and verification purpose.

2554. jexster - 1/26/2003 3:10:33 PM

Iraq: What Next? | 16

IN CONCLUSION
Initially, the aim of U.S. policy was to prevent an imminent threat of attack by Iraq against the U.S. and allied forces, territory, and friends.
That goal has, for now, been achieved.

The crucial issue before the United States at this moment then is on what grounds it would terminate inspections in midcourse in favor of an immediate invasion. Iraq’s failure to produce a complete declaration does constitute a material breach of Resolution 1441.

The question, however, is whether it constitutes a wise, compelling, and necessary causs belli. We believe that it does not. Only if the administration’s true aim is to remove the current government of Iraq as a matter of principle would a turn to war at this moment make sense. If that is the case, of course the inspection and disarmament process now underway is irrelevant.

2555. jexster - 1/26/2003 3:27:07 PM

Its the OIL Stupid!

Iraq has the world's second largest proven reserves - some 112 billion barrels, and at least another 100bn of unproven reserves, according to the US Department of Energy. Iraqi oil is comparatively simple to extract - less than $1 per barrel, compared with $6 a barrel in Russia. Soon, US and British forces could be securing the source of that oil as a priority in the war strategy. The Iraqi fields south of Basra produce prized 'sweet crudes' that are simpler to refine.

only the oil majors based in Britain and America - now the leading military hawks - that don't have current access to Iraqi contracts.

2556. jexster - 1/26/2003 3:29:11 PM

Richard Lugar, the hawkish chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggests reluctant Europeans risk losing out on oil contracts. 'The case he had made is that the Russians and the French, if they want to have a share in the oil operations or concessions or whatever afterward, they need to be involved in the effort to depose Saddam as well,' said Lugar's spokesman.

A delegation of senior US Republicans was in Moscow last Tuesday trying to persuade Kremlin officials and oil companies that a war in Iraq would not compromise their concessions. A leaked oil analyst report from Deutsche Bank said ExxonMobil was in 'pole position in a changed-regime Iraq'.

2557. jexster - 1/26/2003 3:30:24 PM

Two sets of meetings (re: Iraq Oil Plunder) sponsored by the State Department and Vice-President Dick Cheney's staff have been attended by representatives of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhilips and Halliburton,

War stands to give control over the oil price to 'new Iraq' and its sponsors, with Saudi Arabia losing its capacity to control prices by altering productive capacity.

Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East.

The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies.

Five years ago the then Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'

2558. jexster - 1/26/2003 9:10:41 PM

'The Last Jihad'

Right-Wing Talk Radio Helps 'Christ-Salted' Book Rise on Best Seller Lists

"A well-connected conservative activist/writer develops a storyline 'ripped from today's headlines' featuring simultaneous terrorist strikes on the US, London, Paris and Saudi Arabia, an oil deal between Israel and the Palestinians that threatens to unleash a war with Iraq, and a possible pre-emptive nuclear strike. Largely written before 9/11, Joel C. Rosenberg's new novel, 'The Last Jihad' is charging up the best-seller lists -- with help from right-wing talk radio...A business jet, packed with thousands of pounds of fuel and explosives, attacks the presidential motorcade outside of Denver. At the same time terrorists strike targets in London, Paris and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. U.S. forces go on alert and the CIA traces the attack to Saddam Hussein. Simultaneously, a secret oil deal is being negotiated between Israeli and Palestinian officials. Hussein gets wind of the deal and threatens to use weapons of mass destruction on Tel Aviv, New York and Washington if the deal is consummated."

Sounds like a Bush dossier.

2559. jexster - 1/26/2003 9:11:51 PM

Bet Zan has a copy

2560. concerned - 1/27/2003 2:14:17 AM

From Radio Liberty:

30 June 2000, Volume 3, Number 21

GORE REPEATS THAT SADDAM MUST GO.

U.S. Vice President Al Gore told Iraqi opposition leaders that Saddam Husseyn "must be removed from power," AP reported on 26 June. Among his audience at the Washington meeting were representatives of the Kurdish Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Iraq National Congress (INC), and the Constitutional Monarchist Movement.

London's "Al-Hayat" on 27 June said that the Iraqi participants in the meeting had pressed for a change in the way the U.S. administration now deals with the INC and specifically for the release of funds appropriated by the Congress. The paper added that the INC leadership also called on the United States to change the current rules of engagement given to U.S. forces so that they can strike other targets as well as to continue enforcement of the existing no-fly zones.

Following Gore's meeting with the Iraqi opposition groups, the two sides released a joint statement reiterating the U.S. commitment to removing Saddam Husseyn from power and arguing that Saddam's removal "is the key to the positive transformation of Iraq's relationship to the international community." (David Nissman)

Let's see. Maybe it's that Jexster has no problem with the US removing Saddam. He just wants to wait for a Democrat Administration to do it.

2561. concerned - 1/27/2003 2:41:53 AM

Who believes the world will be a better place if Sodamn is not deposed, but the US is humiliated?

2562. concerned - 1/27/2003 3:35:49 AM

concerned To be honest, when I read those sorts of inflammatory claims about any group, I tend to be sceptical.

So, basically, you're discounting them because of the source.

2563. concerned - 1/27/2003 3:44:20 AM

The new House Minority Leader's two reasons for not taking any action against Iraq (as told to ABC's This Week):

1) The Iraqis have no weapons of mass destruction.

2) The Iraqis will use biological and chemical weapons against our troops.

2564. Dubai Vol - 1/27/2003 3:47:19 AM

no, concerned I'm just not going to play games with you. Say what you mean and I will happily discuss it with you, but sniping and pulling cute debating tricks doesn't interest me. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, why are you trying to put words into mine?

The point of rational discussion isn't to "win" the debate, it's to increase understanding. So far you aren't making that effort with me, and to be honest I don't even know what your position is. I've skimmed through the thread, but there are 2563 posts, after all.

Just to recap my position: Dubya's a moronic menace, and a puppet for the power brokers in the GOP and big oil, but Saddam still needs to be removed; it should have been done a dozen years ago. I say do it now and get it behind us. The region, and ultimately the world, will be a better place for it.

I think that's what they call Realpolitik. Whatever.

2565. Dubai Vol - 1/27/2003 3:52:57 AM

2566. Dubai Vol - 1/27/2003 3:55:39 AM

Oops

Re: 2563

Sounds like typical partisan rhetoric. You're not the only one resorting to cheap debating trick, eh, concerned

2567. concerned - 1/27/2003 3:58:18 AM

You talk about 'being sceptical' of the content of the link you provided. When I asked you to be more specific about one particular paragraph, to either back up your stated skepticism, or otherwise, you become quite coy.

I need to know more, in practical terms, about what you believe merits discussion and what you think is 'extreme' before I can discuss these points with you.

2568. concerned - 1/27/2003 4:02:09 AM

Re. 2566 -

I see you're resorting to unprovoked swipes now, Dubai. I now wonder if you are too prone to personal attacks for me to have a reasonably amiable discussion with.

2569. Dubai Vol - 1/27/2003 4:11:52 AM

Unprovoked? Hardly.You are playing games. I say again: say what you mean and I will discuss it with you. Try to put words in my mouth and I will ignore you.

The quoted editorial is just that, an editorial; a statement of opinion, an attempt to prove a point, not an unbiased news report. That's fine, but when people start calling names and playing games it doesn't impress me.

One bit of the article I do agree with, that a lot of anti-war types just seem to be anti-anything American automatically. As a veteran living in a society full of anti-American sentiment, I tend to be pro-American automatically, but neither stance is really rational, and at least I try to recognise that. (English spelling tend to creep in here what with all the Brits, including the one in my bed.)

I also have a sense of humor, you should try it. All debating tricks and no play makes concerned a dull boy

:p

2570. concerned - 1/27/2003 4:15:10 AM

I ask you, once again, whether you find any factual points with which you disagree in the paragraph I cited from your link several posts back.

2571. Dubai Vol - 1/27/2003 4:26:42 AM

OK, concerned, no, I don't have any problem with the facts. But facts can be slanted, by stating only the ones that agree with your position, and I am not going to bother researching every detail of an obviously opinionated article to get to the bottom of what is and is not strictly true. Yes, there are extremists on both sides of the issue, what else is new? I already said I disagree with the anti-war crowd, what more do you want? Do I have to hate them as well before I am sufficiently on your side?

I say again: demonising the opposition is fun but it is not constructive.

2572. concerned - 1/27/2003 4:32:58 AM

No, I don't agree with the overall tone of the article you linked to, as a matter of fact. But, obviously, that paragraph has provoked a lively debate among other posters in this thread and was also news to me (I'd only heard of ANSWER a few days ago). I am more sympathetic to GWB than you apparently are, and sometimes getting down to cases in such situations can lead to some surprising differences in interpretation of some fairly basic items. So I apologize if you think I was trying to put you on the spot & I have enjoyed reading your posts in this thread.

2573. Dubai Vol - 1/27/2003 4:50:37 AM

Well thanks at last for actually making a statement rather than just cross-examining me.

Yes, I am a freak of nature, a pro-war Democrat. As an American living in the Middle East, I thought I might be able to contribute some different insights, to stir the pot as it were. But I thought it might be polite (or at least politic) to stir it gently, at least at first!

FWIW I have not yet begun to give my reasons WHY Saddam should go NOW. Maybe tomorrow, as my lunch break is over.

2574. judithathome - 1/27/2003 7:49:24 AM

Thanks, DubaiVol, for expressing your views. I look forward to reading your posts and appreciate your approach. Most people run screaming from some of the "debate technique" that is so prevalent here. ;-)

2575. concerned - 1/27/2003 10:51:39 AM

Re. 2573 -

Ha ha ha. I've hardly 'cross examined' you. You're pretty sensitive for somebody who is so free with the invective.

2576. marjoribanks - 1/27/2003 10:53:21 AM

Just to recap my position: Dubya's a moronic menace, and a puppet for the power brokers in the GOP and big oil, but Saddam still needs to be removed; it should have been done a dozen years ago. I say do it now and get it behind us. The region, and ultimately the world, will be a better place for it.

Well said, dubaivol.

This is exactly the correct and rational position to take given the mountains of evidence on both counts.

It's interesting to see hard-core big-business supporters of the dems take exactly the position that you have (one which I support). It reflects a maturity that is welcome, and it will benefit the US stance. I appreciate a principled stance against War in Iraq. Americans who are unwilling to get into an imperial relationship on good historical grounds also have a sympathetic ear in me.

But, for very good reasons, this projection of US power in a crucial region must be supported by hard-headed realists, especially those who live under and benefit from the American Imperium.

2577. marjoribanks - 1/27/2003 10:56:12 AM

dubaivol,

Welcome to this forum.

Also, take it from the collective wisdom - the buffoon known as concerned is no more than a cartoonishly stupid (racist) right-winger, the worst kind of automaton partisan hack.

Ignore, and post away from your best instincts.

2578. marjoribanks - 1/27/2003 11:00:10 AM

Yes, I am a freak of nature, a pro-war Democrat.

You are not a freak of nature, look at Congress.

In fact, you have correctly identified the two key issues that must engage any intelligent person.

1) Bush is a simpleton puppet who is fucking the American people over.

2) Yet, effecting regime change in Iraq is the correct thing for the US to do now, given its global position (and needs) and given the constant threat Hussein is to world order and peace (and his own benighted people).

2579. marjoribanks - 1/27/2003 11:02:29 AM

By the way, I have (and some others have) some considerable experience of and in the UAE and I'd love to discuss some non-political matters with you over time in other threads.

2580. alistairConnor - 1/27/2003 11:18:44 AM

But, for very good reasons, this projection of US power in a crucial region must be supported by hard-headed realists, especially those who live under and benefit from the American Imperium.

Put nakedly like that, Marj, it puts European opposition to the war in clear perspective.

I don't consider (or I don't like to consider) that I live under the American imperium, nor do I believe that the majority of the world's population benefits from that imperium.

And I don't deny that there are excellent reasons for moving Saddam. But there are also very, very bad reasons for doing so.

2581. marjoribanks - 1/27/2003 11:28:00 AM

Connor,

You do live under the American Imperium, and should consider the fact that your particular shire has not been messed with for very many decades now because of it.

--

The majority of the world's population does not directly benefit from it. However, the majority of the world's population has done better under this particular empire than any previous global-minded regime because the American ethos is founded on some very solid and universal principles which bear international scrutiny - as well as a dynamic commercial reach.

--

Please give me one good reason for not removing Saddam Hussein (by targeted force or otherwise) from office. Give me one viable scenario where the US can be shown to have blundered.

2582. concerned - 1/27/2003 11:28:17 AM

Re. 2577 -

marjoribanks -

Your post is nothing better than a tissue of lies, which is about par for a self-deluded partisan bigot such as yourself. I have never made any pejorative comment based on race, and I have proved you wrong time and again wrt your foolish predictions and bigotry. Frankly, your grasp on reality or even being hold to a consistent interpretration thereof is quite often tenuous, and you have a vile tendency to engage in personal smears and namecalling without provocation.

Dubai Vol -

Among other fatuosities, marjoribanks has advocated 'taking away' guns from 'right wingers' in the aftermath of 9/11 because he, in the depths of his bigotry, thought that they might possibly stage some sort of an insurrection, he claimed he was 'all but certain' that the DC Sniper was a 'right winger' and wrongly proposed that there was an extensive Israeli spy ring in the US that turned out not to exist.

Furthermore, his basis for unconscionably flinging the term 'racist' around, in the present case, is based on comments I have made regarding Islam no more prejudicial than you yourself have recently posted. IAC, Arabs do not belong to a different 'race' than myself, a fact that a divisive Leftist like Marjoribanks is more than happy to ignore to take cheap political shots.

2583. concerned - 1/27/2003 11:33:37 AM

....being held....

2584. concerned - 1/27/2003 11:38:10 AM

Why all this talk of an 'American Imperium' now, when the last administration acted in a much more arbitrary and unilateral fashion than the current one?

One is ineluctably led to the conclusion that such terminology is inspired by nothing more profound that political bias.

2585. concerned - 1/27/2003 11:39:40 AM

2586. alistairConnor - 1/27/2003 12:05:13 PM

Message # 2581 Marj,
I live in a republic, thank you very much. The question as to whether American military hegemony is currently beneficial to that state of affairs is an open one.

If I believed that the war was being prosecuted in order to promote the ideals of freedom and democracy shared by the US and Europe, I might be sensitive to the argument that Europe owes it to the US to participate in it.

As I believe that it is being prosecuted, not only for the exclusive benefit of the US, but for very narrow sectional interests within the US... I think we should sit this one out.

Bluntly, I think the US would be better off in the long run without the oil.

2587. concerned - 1/27/2003 12:14:30 PM

AC -

I happen to believe that a democratic Iraq, bordering both SA and Iran, greatly increases the impetus for loosening the strangle hold that neighboring theocracies impose on their peoples, cultures and economies.

Efforts by the Left to keep Saddam in power are diametrically opposed to this effort.

2588. concerned - 1/27/2003 12:19:20 PM

Oil is, once again, a fungible commodity. I find it humorous that the Left persists in ignoring that it's European and Asian countries that rely most heavily on the Middle East for their oil, as well as their blindly making the baseless assumption that US access to oil can be restricted without affecting that of any other country.

2589. judithathome - 1/27/2003 12:22:17 PM

Oh get off it...being opposed to Bush's actions isn't the same as making an effort to keep Saddam in power.

Your house must be a vision of one color. No subtlies in your decor at all, I'd bet. Anything short of black or white just scares you to death.

2590. concerned - 1/27/2003 12:25:36 PM

JAH -

Somebody needs to lend balance to the discussion when the anti-US accusations are getting past hip boot level.

2592. judithathome - 1/27/2003 12:26:57 PM

Anti-US...I suppose you think because I oppose the war, I am anti-US? It can't just be different philosophical thought?

2593. concerned - 1/27/2003 12:28:01 PM

Sorry, JAH, you're not invited to be anti-US at my party.

2594. judithathome - 1/27/2003 12:28:16 PM

You've bought that "you're either with us or against us" BS hook, line, and sinker, haven't you?

2595. judithathome - 1/27/2003 12:29:32 PM

Lucy, Wolf Blitzer beat him by a week.

2596. concerned - 1/27/2003 12:31:03 PM

Not in the least. I'm just pointing out that actions have consequences. You seem to agree with my case in point regarding Iraq, since you don't reject it specifically. Unfortunately in a spirit of opposition, you seem to be going for the ad-hominem as a fallback.

2597. concerned - 1/27/2003 12:45:42 PM

France: Iraq Has WMD

excerpts showing the total disingenuity and self interested motives driving French actions relating to Iraq:

From the beginning, France has consistently undermined the UN economic sanctions against Iraq. France, after all, is looking out for French interests, and they are Iraq's major western trading partner. Once President Bush escalated the Iraq issue to a war footing, the French forgot about undermining the sanctions and began pushing for continued stalling through the failed inspection process.

In 1996 the French, who now are championing inspections and the no-fly zones, then backed out of its UN obligation enforcing the Northern no-fly zone that protects the Kurds.

In 1998 they left the southern no-fly zone, abandoning the Shiites.

Leftists like the World Worker's Party and A.N.S.W.E.R..
...oddly have nothing to say about France building Iraq's first nuclear reactor or the French political activity designed to keep trade with Saddam wide open. The French are the largest contractors in the UN oil for food program with Iraq. The French seem perfectly satisfied that the money they pay Saddam for oil goes toward WMD programs and supporting the military. Iraq owes France over $8 Billion in oil IOU's and France has huge oil development contracts with Saddam that require cessation of the UN Sanctions to come to fruition.

What the French, and for that matter the Russians want is peace for oil - as long as Saddam is in power the current French and Russian oil contracts remain intact.

2598. concerned - 1/27/2003 12:58:25 PM

Times of London, December 15, 1938:

The war-mongers [Churchill and his supporters], those who would make war against another country without having counted the cost, ought to either be impeached and shot or hanged. There has never been a prime minister in the history of England who has in nine months achieved such agreements as those Mr. Chamberlain has made with Czechoslovakia, Italy… and with Hitler at Munich.

2599. judithathome - 1/27/2003 12:58:42 PM

You seem to agree with my case in point regarding Iraq, since you don't reject it specifically.

In what parallel universe am I doing this? ;-)

2600. Trouble - 1/27/2003 12:59:59 PM

THE BEST CASE: I've been trying to understand better the groundswell of anxiety about the coming war. Leaving aside the extremists, it seems to me that the undecideds simply hold an assumption I don't share. The assumption is that 9/11 was an isolated event that portended nothing more than itself and only legitimized a police operation in self-defense targeted precisely at the group that perpetrated it. If that's your position, then I can see your point about Iraq. It must be baffling to see the U.S. subsequently (and simultaneously) pursuing a target apparently unrelated to that awful event. I think one of the key points the president must therefore make tomorrow night has to relate to this assumption. He should say: look, there are two ways to approach this problem of international terrorism. The first is roughly the strategy of the 1990s: you tackle groups that specifically attack you. You play defense. You take one group at a time. You don't go after the governments behind them. You try and soothe feelings of resentment around the world and stay out of trouble. You don't go around stirring up hornets' nests of state-sponsored terror. The occasional cruise missile attack or covert operation, combined with a hefty increase in domestic security and tightening of civil liberties, is enough.

--andrewsullivan

2601. judithathome - 1/27/2003 1:02:55 PM

Well, Andrew, I guess it IS better to approach it in a way that pisses off half the world and brings even more attacks over to our shores. Yeah, that makes much more sense.

2602. concerned - 1/27/2003 1:44:09 PM

excerpts from Hans Blix's UN testimony:

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek.

While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests.

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current unresolved disarmament issues and key remaining disarmament tasks in response to requirements in the Resolution 1284, we find the issues listed in the two reports I mentioned as unresolved professionally justified.

These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to a lack of evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks which must be straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq, rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM.

Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number.

2603. concerned - 1/27/2003 1:44:43 PM

Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the president of the Security Council on 24th of January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called air force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi air force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her (ph) by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs

by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I'm encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

2604. concerned - 1/27/2003 1:45:08 PM

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assumed that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122-millimeter chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

2605. concerned - 1/27/2003 1:45:19 PM

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 1,093 pages which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons programs. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places.

On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

There's much more than what I've excerpted, and even the transcript I'm working from is partial.

2606. PelleNilsson - 1/27/2003 1:47:13 PM

The more thoughtful commentators on this side of the Atlantic seem to agree that (1) the point of no return has passed; (2) the inspectors will be given more time, perhaps 4-6 weeks; (3) France will eventually get on the train.

There is some dissent on (3), though. Some do not exclude the possibility that Chirac will actually do a De Gaulle in order to demonstrate l'independance and la gloire de France, but most think that France's cirrent position is a tactical gambit to secure a favoured place at the post-war picking at the carcass.

2607. jexster - 1/27/2003 2:07:17 PM

I raised a few questions, problems I see with Cheney's scheme to grab Iraqi oil that came to mind when I read the Gaurdian's article above, with an old friend who works in the Unocal exec offices on these sorts of ferrin affairs -yes BIG OIL has divided the world in to spheres of influence

Posed as hypo - Got an offer from Chevron to triple salary..

Real cute she dodged "there are laws on the books against erl and gas plays with EyeRAK"

Which means that she didn't want to answer my question - bitch and also means that there is a Congressional as well as international legal firebreak which means that Bush cannot decide this one all by himself

2608. jexster - 1/27/2003 2:09:24 PM

Good PELLE...I sent the following to a Frenchie friend just this am:

What do you make of the French/JC's latest stuff.

Specifically there are two views bandied about...the first is the cynical one - the French are conniving doubledealing untrustworthy arrogant grandstanders. They are never to be trusted and they will leave you high and dry. This is a German view primarily but also Brit would have been mine in most circumstances because it has solid history behind it (what those scumbags did pre-WWI especially to the Russians). Frankfurter Allegemine Zeitung thinks for instance that Chirac is going to trade his dislike for Bush & Blair for bucks 0- a slice of Iraqi carcas just like they did in mandate days.

I would have bought that but my view

He hates Blair and wants to fuck the brits for EU purposes
he hates Bush and his unprecented hostility to Allied interests
he WOULD be open to a deal if the thought he could get something significant BUT he is now of the mind based on Bush's record with others (Blair) that no matter how much ass you kiss you will wind up giving bush everything he needs and get shit on
He is now too far out publically. Politically it would not be easy at this point for him to backpedal (sense from a Le Monde Editoria)..he managed to jack public opposition up into the 75% range and it would cost too much even if he wanted to.
Now I have no idea. My alternate is more fact based - the other more emotional

Which do you think?

2609. jexster - 1/27/2003 2:11:22 PM

I wish Jacques Chirac was president of the US..

He could be...if Scalia wanted it, the Constitution is no probleme

2610. PelleNilsson - 1/27/2003 2:16:50 PM

God forbid. His illusions of grandeur coupled with the military might of the US would be a deadly cocktail.

2611. jexster - 1/27/2003 2:19:12 PM

Can't trust a Communust as far as ya can spit

Here I thought that ANSWER had me down only as a volunteer lawyer...(gotta have some cover story for when Herr Trashcroft's SS knock at my door!)

Now they say I am also a member of their Front Group "Vote No on War!"

Shit..I am a dead man...nice knowin yall..probably name already on transport manifest to concentration camp in Idaho

NO BLOOD FOR OIL! NO BLOOD FOR BUSH!

Dear VoteNoWar Member,

We are now in a countdown to a US war against Iraq. The next few days - and possibly weeks -- are crucial. The people of the world are organizing with great energy to prevent a needless catastrophe.

On January 18, 500,000 people marched in Washington DC and 200,000 demonstrated in San Francisco. There were coinciding anti-war activities in over 35 other countries that day called in solidarity with the anti-war movement in the U.S..

What all of us achieved on January 18 is without historical precedent. That such a massive anti-war movement could emerge before or prior to the outbreak of full-scale war is a sign that something new is happening. No demonstration of similar magnitude occurred during the Vietnam war until 1969, five years after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and after thousands of U.S. GI's, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, had been killed.

The outpouring of the January 18 demonstrations is a measure of the depth of opposition to a war of aggression and it is a global reaction. The limitless arrogance of Bush's foreign policy has created a whirlwind of opposition in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and here at home. Governments around the world have not been able to ignore the anti-war political climate created by our global movement...Let us not hesitate for a moment as we mobilize public opinion into a powerful political force that can restrain the warmakers.

2612. jexster - 1/27/2003 2:20:32 PM

Yea he's a Gaullist but at least he has brains

On second thought...

2613. Trouble - 1/27/2003 2:44:37 PM

"Mr. Blix will no doubt confirm that Iraqi scientists thought to be involved with weapons of mass destruction have been refusing to talk to inspectors. Mr. Wolfowitz says "we know from multiple sources" that the scientists and their families have been threatened with execution if they do so. Meanwhile, two would-be defectors have jumped from the streets into the hands of U.N. inspectors, who have turned them over to the tender mercies of Saddam's police."

(from today's WSJ)

SHAME, Mr. Blix! SHAME, UN!

2614. concerned - 1/27/2003 2:47:41 PM

I should mention that somebody like Marjoribanks, who has called GWB a 'chimp' and other similar terms and who disparages blacks, has no right to fabricate false charges of 'racism' out of whole cloth against other Motiers such as myself.

2615. jexster - 1/27/2003 2:51:09 PM

FUCK THE RIGHT WING THOUGHT POLICE OF WSJ!

I think it is the opinion of most of the members [of the UN security council] that since we have started this process [of weapons inspections] and there is no clear reason to stop it, that we should continue.
The Chinese deputy UN ambassador, Zhang Yishan

"I don't think that [Wednesday's UN security council] debate will necessarily be conclusive ... most members of the security council if not all members ... regard this as a part of an ongoing process."
Britain's ambassador to the UN, Jeremy Greenstock

"You'll declare war against an Iraq that that has surrendered and that has taken out its white flag ... Iraq right now is saying peace. Iraq is in a position that it has surrendered everything ... Why are you going to make a war like this against someone who has surrendered? What are your interests in this war?"
Turkey's deputy prime minister, Ertugrul Yalcinbayir

2616. jexster - 1/27/2003 2:54:24 PM

On September 13th the day before Bush's Phoney Baloney speech to the UN I stated without reservation the view that this was all "a charade b4 the crusade"

And so we now know it was....

The Bloodlust War Party that rules the roost of the Bush Empire Builders always planned to ignore world opinion, didn't give a rat's ass about Resolutions 1441 or any lower number for that matter because the goal was something entirely different, one they didn't have the guts to state honestly.

2617. jexster - 1/27/2003 2:58:45 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.Anatol Lieven, The Push for War

2618. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:02:37 PM

The Dilemma of Sustaining American EmpireLieven, The Financial Times

Since September 11 2001 and the expansion of US military power that followed, Americans have begun to feel more comfortable with the idea of their country as an empire - something that previously most would have fervently denied. Talk of America as the "new Rome" is common on comment pages. At the same time, Americans have always been anxious to believe that theirs is a new kind of empire and uniquely beneficial.

In the words of Elihu Root, secretary of war, "the American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the world began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order and of peace and happiness". Root was speaking in 1899 but one could imagine his words in the mouth of George W. Bush. As a result of this belief in American exceptionalism and singular benignity, the US foreign policy and security establishment is not very good at drawing lessons from the experience of former empires.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a distinguished former US officer, addresses this deficiency with striking success. He debunks the notion that the US has been historically averse to using armed force to expand its power and spread its values - with that power and those values usually seen as identical.

But empires come in different forms and US power is exerted not by direct rule but by indirect influence backed up by military force when necessary. As Bacevich points out in a chapter entitled "Gunboats and Gurkhas", this follows one old imperial tradition. Like America today, most of the European empires of the past at least began by trying to run empires on the cheap.

2619. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:02:52 PM

This was especially true after the rise of mass democratic politics in 19th- century Europe, when it became politically impossible to send conscripts to die in far-off campaigns in places their families had never heard of. For Bacevich, America's cruise missiles and stealth bombers are the contemporary equivalent of 19th-century gunboats.

The other way of saving money and avoiding domestic protest is to use not your own troops but native auxiliaries such as the Gurkhas. As Bacevich points out, this is essentially the strategy the US followed in the former Yugoslavia and ...
The question is whether the US can go on fighting wars in this way, or will have to employ its own troops in long-running wars of conquest and occupation; and, if the latter, whether the American people will tolerate it.

Beyond this lies a wider question: whether the US can go on exercising hegemony by indirect means, or will be inexorably drawn into the business of direct imperial rule. For up to now, one of the reasons there has been so little real opposition to US hegemony in most of the world is precisely that this hegemony is distant and indirect.

2620. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:06:50 PM

The inflammation of US nationalism since 11th September has blinded it to the potential strategic disaster of a split with Europe. If an American strike against Iraq were to go badly wrong, the resulting international discord could spell the end of the cultural entity known as "the west"

The End of the West - Lieven

2621. concerned - 1/27/2003 3:09:38 PM

Re. 2616 -

What say we get France back to honoring its obligation to enforce the Iraqi no-fly zones, for starters.

2622. concerned - 1/27/2003 3:10:43 PM

Then let's make sure that an opposition political party or two is established in Iraq - give the people a real choice, and hold free and fair elections in Iraq. Sound like a plan?

2623. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:12:00 PM

The Wilsonian Veneer of US Foreign Policy

Hypocrisy a better term

2624. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:16:34 PM

Now that Bush's lies and cheap hyposcrisy have been laid bare and beyond doubt..time to hit the streets!

The notorious communist front org ANSWER has put out the call...

- emergency action the day the first cruise missile is launched in the War of Bush Agression

- 11 am UN Plaza Saturday following - Mass Mobilization

2625. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:17:43 PM

Idiot - there is no obligation to enforce no fly zones another charade and lie

2626. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:19:59 PM

Then let's make sure that an opposition political party or two is established in Iraq - give the people a real choice, and hold free and fair elections in Iraq. Sound like a plan?

Sounds like a joke!

Nation builder social engineer...

The Imperium hasn't got a plan....they haven't even got a front like Stalin had to give a veneer of legitimacy..

2627. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:20:54 PM

What Bush is about to do and what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe is about as tight an historical analogy as you can find

2628. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:21:58 PM

Thank YHWH we're moving past the nonsense about threats to US security on to the crux of the matter and into the shit

2629. concerned - 1/27/2003 3:28:09 PM

Jexster the jokester.

2630. jexster - 1/27/2003 3:38:13 PM

Running for Cover: Bush Warmongers Frantically Scramble for Allies and Contributors to 50 Billion a year dictatorship OE

2631. jexster - 1/27/2003 6:28:09 PM

Welcome to Life in The New Empire of Greater Moronia - A Taste of Things to Come

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks sagged on Monday, sending the Dow index below 8,000 for the first time since mid-October, as investors ignored upbeat data on brisk home sales, opting to sell amid growing uncertainty over Iraq

2632. jexster - 1/27/2003 6:28:43 PM

"Uncertainties"???? What are they UNCERTAIN about?

2633. jexster - 1/27/2003 8:54:48 PM

Time's Up - Bush More Isolated than Ever Following Blix Report (Before the Lofty Mast)

"First we're gonna isolate it then we're gonna kill it"

That's how that famous PantyWaist line goes from GWI right?

Think of it as a "Time OUT"

2634. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/27/2003 9:59:02 PM

2635. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:43:19 AM

Leave No Child Behind:Death, Disease for Iraqi Children With Arrival of BloodLust Bush, Butcher of Baghdad

(AP)...The grim picture of Iraqi children dying in a war gained added impact from new NGO Report

No Dead Babies for BUSH!

2636. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:50:40 AM

Why you can almost hear the little shit now...

I grieve deeply grieve for these young victims and I want the world to know that they didn't die in vain. Let us pray

2637. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:58:04 AM

- 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.

2638. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 3:40:09 AM

A question for you jexster

Who's to blame for the Iraqi children dying now? I think you know my opinion, Saddam is.

And another Q if I may: just what WOULD you do about the Iraq situation? Lift sanctions, pull out the troops and leave Saddam to do as he pleases, and his neighbors to deal with him?

It's all well and good to criticise current policy, but I am interested in your ideas for alternate policies.

2639. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 3:42:15 AM

And please remember, I hate dubya even more than you do. I am SO not looking forward to his state of the union address tonight: he's just painful to watch.

2640. joezan - 1/28/2003 8:16:55 AM

Fareed Zakaria Sees Many Upsides to Whupping Saddam

Of course, not everyone would be helped by a successful war. The ruling elites in the Middle East—particularly those that remain stubbornly set in their old ways—will be challenged, threatened and eventually overturned. For these potentates and their courtiers it would mean the end of one of the richest gravy trains in history. That is why they will fight change as fiercely as they can. But for the people of the Middle East, after the shock of the war fades, it could mean a chance to break out of the terrible stagnancy in which they now sit.

There are always risks involved when things change. But for the past 40 years the fear of these risks has paralyzed Western policy toward the Middle East. And what has come of this caution? Repression, radical Islam and terror. I’ll take my chances with change.

2641. RickNelson - 1/28/2003 8:29:30 AM

Joe the article mentions the "oil for food" failure. Mr. Zakaria suggests that Saddam has built palaces instead. To your awareness, can this be corroberated somewhere?

2642. joezan - 1/28/2003 8:52:14 AM

Rick:

Saddam has built at last count something like 27 palaces since the end of the Gulf War. No one disputes this - google it.

But this fact has become parable by now - much more egregious imo is how he has continued building up his military, keeping his crony system intact, etc. -which has cost many times more than his palaces.

As for the oil-for-food program implemented by the UN: in December of 2001, an Iraqi ship was stopped in the Gulf with a huge load of food. Which would be nice if it were heading for the stomachs of starving Iraqis. Unfortunately though, it was being exported - most likely for more weapons.

2643. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 9:42:35 AM

Wow, there are actually people who don't know that Saddam has used the money he has to build his military and palaces instead of feeding and caring for his people? You mean nobody knows that he sells the humanitarian aid for cash to buy guns?

Probably nobody knows that GM sells trucks to Iraq under the UN oil for food program, either, huh? Am I the only one who thinks these trucks will be used by the military then?

Saddam is deliberately starving his own people as a propaganda tool to argue for the lifting of sanctions. Duh.

2644. joezan - 1/28/2003 9:48:15 AM

Here's a USAToday article which mentions at least 78 palaces.

The push for inspections of the palaces — there are as many as 78 by one U.S. estimate — stems from diplomatic as well as military concerns. Inspectors want to establish the principle of unrestricted access to Iraqi facilities. And the Bush administration wants to humble Saddam, who regards the palaces as symbols of Iraqi sovereignty, off limits to arms inspectors.

...and a quote from a UN official:

"The fact that Saddam Hussein is spending hundreds of millions to build palaces and refusing to use the humanitarian programme the United Nations has authorised shows the hypocrisy of his claims that he is concerned about his people's suffering." - UN official

2645. judithathome - 1/28/2003 10:07:37 AM

I don't think anyone disputes he is indifferent to his people's suffering; that's obvious. But the war isn't going to be waged because of that...it's because Saddam is a threat to the United States. So let's not throw in points that aren't being made as reasons for the war this late in the game. Stick with the arguments you first made and don't keep changing the arguments. It looks too much like grasping at straws.

2646. joezan - 1/28/2003 10:51:58 AM

1. It is not my argument - I have merely answered Rick's question.

2. You have no idea what you're talking about. The conditions set at the end of the Gulf War were put in place specifically to keep Saddam from continuing a military bulld-up with which to continue threatening others. The oil-for-food program was put in place specifically to insure that the sanctions put in place to prevent a military build-up would not impact too negatively on the people of Iraq. He has circumvented nearly every one of the conditions for the sole purpose of retaining power and building up his military. The fact that his people have suffered as a result does not mitigate any of that. It's just a bonus argument.

You will see, once we have gone back in there and bombed him out, that his palaces - and perhaps even these "mosques" he is suddenly so fond of building - are concealing some very nasty stuff.

If anything, he is more of a threat now than he was in '91.

2647. judithathome - 1/28/2003 11:08:05 AM

I was speaking of the "editorial you" not you personally.

You know, like speaking to the UN or GW. I don't think I'm addressing them personally but I can still address them in the editorial sense. Sorta like you when addressing "peacefairies".

I do know what I am talking about; you simply refuse to believe anyone who thinks differently than you do can't possibly understand.

2648. joezan - 1/28/2003 11:11:01 AM

You're babbling, judith.

2649. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/28/2003 11:15:10 AM

Now how would you or Ronald Reagan be able to know, joey?

2650. joezan - 1/28/2003 11:25:40 AM

First item on Mr. Zakaria's list of reasons why whupping Saddam is a good thing:

A major producer of weapons of mass destruction would be eliminated. Since there are very few states that have set out to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, taking one off the list is a big step toward safety. Other would-be weapons producers will likely think twice before going down a similar path.

Are you trying to say that preventing Iraq from continuing development of such weapons is not a stated goal (the MAIN goal, in fact) of a potential war? Or are you saying you don't accept that?

2651. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 11:25:47 AM

Oh meow. Handbags at dawn, then?

I really would like someone to propose a viable alternative to getting rid of Saddam. OK, stipulating that current policy is flawed, suggest an alterantive.

2652. jexster - 1/28/2003 11:33:13 AM

This Time He Isn't Convinced
Schwarzkopf is Skeptical About U.S. Action Against Iraq
But not to worry - In effort to boost war support, Bush will make intelligence on Iraq public.

Aaaah some more freshly half-baked intel from Mama Rummy's Oven - wonder how many lies the Little Emperor's gonna tell us this time to MAKE THE CASE!

How long have we been making cases and connecting the dots?

Been so damn long I've forgotten.

2653. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/28/2003 11:33:28 AM

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Some of [the present attitudes of France and Germany], however, I think is the product of some of the rather demagogic, almost warmongering statements that were coming out of the administration periodically. The president made a very good speech to the U.N. on September 12. But some of his off-the-cuff remarks may go over well in the United States, but they seem to convince the Europeans that he's really eager for war and that he doesn't give a damn about anybody else. And I think that fed into the equation and created a sense of resentment and maybe even conviction that the whole U.N. business is a charade, that we are seeking an excuse, almost at all costs, to go to war. Now this may not be justified on their part, but we have to take it into account. --Lehrer News Hour, 01.26.03

2654. jexster - 1/28/2003 11:34:13 AM

Hey Zan lets go kill some kiddies for krist eh?

Fuckin loons

2655. jexster - 1/28/2003 11:36:59 AM

78 palaces joey?

Sheesh that'll take til June...I hear Bush plans to swear in his new dictator, be sleepin in those palaces by then

2656. jexster - 1/28/2003 11:38:52 AM

By June we're gonna have an opposition political party or two is established in Iraq - give the people a real choice, Dictatorship or Puppet regime - free and fair - Sound like a plan?

2657. jexster - 1/28/2003 11:39:44 AM

GOOOOOD MORNING BAGHDAD!

How y'all doin out dere!

2658. jexster - 1/28/2003 11:42:11 AM

"First we're going to cut it off. Then we're going to kill it."

2659. jexster - 1/28/2003 12:04:46 PM

question for you jexster

Who's to blame for the Iraqi children dying now? I think you know my opinion, Saddam is.

A: I have been of that view myself against all the complaints. But with all the horsehit we now know that Bush has fed us low these how many months (????? - question for you!), I am not so ready to accept at face value anything that is said by the War Peddlers. The burden of proof is on them and damn well past time that we held them to it and not accept what they tell us. For instance, there is now a growing body of evidence that many deaths are the result of the UN sanctions program itself (the debate about smart sanctions was both to stop Saddam from skimming funds AND to improve the food distribution program - recall that the food exception was not in the original resolution). There is also information now coming out that a large number of child deaths were caused during post GWI rioting between Shiites and Shia's and also by depleted uranium (why so much cover up about Gulf War Syndrome???)

The long and short of it is this -yes with an asterisk. I haven't looked into that matter because that's not the issue now. The issue is how many children will WE kill and to that I say

2660. jexster - 1/28/2003 12:13:22 PM

2. And another Q if I may: just what WOULD you do about the Iraq situation?

I have said it before - circa 12/1998..I support a coercive inspection process. I said it again recently when the Carnegie Institute for International Peace released early last September Iraq: A New Approach

But since the inspections have achieved the objectives of assuring against any grave or imminent threat (prescinding from the fact that there never WAS such a threat to begin with) for the time being we can proceed exactly as we are doing now and do indefinitely at vastly lower cost in lives lost, persons maimed, property destroyed, US tax dollars saved, returning our focus to the guy who Bush forgot, to North Korea, to a rapidly deteriorating relationship with our allies, to a domestic economy in the tank, and to crying domestic needs not addressed.

2661. jexster - 1/28/2003 12:20:53 PM

Only if the administration’s true aim is to remove the current government of Iraq as a matter of principle would a turn to war att this moment make sense. If that is the case, of course the inspection and disarmament process now underway is irrelevant.

Iraq: What Next? - CEIP

No Blood for BUSH!
No Dead Babies for The Bush BASE!

2662. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2003 12:24:05 PM

I am glad to announce that The Friends of Appeasement (a member of the ANSWER coalition) has awarded jexster of the Mote the Joseph Chamberlain medal with gilt edge.

2663. jexster - 1/28/2003 12:24:06 PM

Lift sanctions, pull out the troops and leave Saddam to do as he pleases, and his neighbors to deal with him?

That's rhetorical a statement not a question.

So I will ask you a question: what threat did Saddam pose during the 12 years before Bush's Imperial Army arrived and what did his neighbors have to do to deal with it?

2664. jexster - 1/28/2003 12:29:07 PM

The Friends of Appeasement (a member of the ANSWER coalition) has awarded jexster ..

Oh joy we're now getting redbaiting and Munich, two for one historical nonsense.

Puts me in mind of a scathingly scarcastic blast at George Will...

From "The Third Reich Syndrome: George Will and the Collapse of Historical Knowledge":

As the conservative political scientist Michael Oakshott wrote, historical analogies must be drawn with sensitivity and attention to historical facts, because an analogy is not a mathematical proof or a logical syllogism:

There is no process of generalization by means of which the events, things and persons of history can be reduced to anything other than historical events, things and persons without at the same time being removed from the world of historical ideas … In history there are no "general laws" by means of which historical individuals can be reduced to instances of a principle, and least of all are there general laws of the character we find in the world of science.

Let us heed Mr. Oakshott's caution. Otherwise, a tendentious or partisan reading of history could derive any number of Third Reich analogies. For example, future generations of shallow and ill-educated people might conclude that since both Josef Göbbels and George Will never served in the military, and both wrote tirelessly in favor of war, and both practiced the lower forms of journalism, there must be a functional equivalence between the two. But who would now suggest such a far-fetched analogy?

A shallow, ill-educated Swede whose father, grandfather and uncle served so well in Viking SS

2665. jexster - 1/28/2003 12:30:56 PM

Since we're playing 20 questions, here two for you:

1. How is anything I have urged appeasement?

2. What threat precisely from Saddam are we appeasing?

2666. judithathome - 1/28/2003 12:31:57 PM

Dubai Vol, I have said before I think we should send in operatives to assasinate him. Since we need to get rid of him, get rid of him nad spare the Iraqi people and our people.

But since our goal was to get Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive, and we seem to have run into a few roadblocks there, I guess my suggestion is not going to be implemented. Mainly because if we did do that, it would be illegal and bad and we might bring the hatred of the world on our heads for being underhanded....hmmmm.

2667. jexster - 1/28/2003 12:32:01 PM

"a tendentious or partisan reading of history could derive any number of Third Reich analogies"

Partisan Pelle goose steppin his way into the shit

2668. jexster - 1/28/2003 12:36:02 PM

Don't play with the big boys Pelle, you'll just get hurt.

Why don't you and Wombat go off to some corner and tell yourselves how fuckin smart you are- rövhål

2669. jexster - 1/28/2003 12:38:31 PM

Everyone I am sure will be delighted to learn that classes started yesterday and that I am carrying a bitchin course load this semester.

2670. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2003 12:47:51 PM

You are getting neurotic jexster. I post a joke and you respond with cites from learned authorities. By the way, my father was a Master Sergeant in the Swedish air defence during WWII. My grandfather (paternal) was a communist.

Concerning the children. The high mortality among Iraqi children is not an US propaganda piece. If it is, indeed, propaganda it has been disseminated by Iraq and various UN agencies like WHO and UNICEF.

But there is a wider issue at stake. More than half the population, at least in the cities, depends on food rations distributed by government. A few days ago they got rations for two months. If the war is not very short and sharp, the distribution dystem will be disrupted. The warehouses will probably be taken over by hoarders and prices will rise beyond the means of the poor. This is a very real problem.

2671. Cellar Door - 1/28/2003 12:49:04 PM

Not if Dubbya uses nukes. They'll all be dead. No problem.

2672. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:02:31 PM

But Duhbya IS planning to use nukes! Nukes the world for peace.

It is not surprising that crackpot analogies like [Pelle's] have gained traction in the United States anno 2002. A recent National Geographic survey found that in the dumbed-down post-literate age "only about one in seven—13 percent—of Americans between the age of 18 and 24, the prime age for military warriors, could find Iraq" on a world map. (3) The adage says that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Accordingly, a half-educated discourse on the Weimar Republic by a kennel-fed establishment literatus like [Pelle] sounds like real erudition to people who can barely find Canada on a map.

2673. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:03:28 PM

What's even more scary, our Dear Imperious Leader couldn't find Iraq on a map until he hired condo rice

2674. PelleNilsson - 1/28/2003 1:03:48 PM

jexster's preferred solution is to allow Saddam to continue, for the indefinye future, to oppress the Iraqi people politically and economically while the UN inspectors criss-cross the country in their white jeeps vainly searching for Something.

This, in jexster's view, is a price the Iraqis will have to pay in order to minimize Bush's chances to get re-elected. But then we all have our priorities.

2675. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:08:49 PM

Had a conversation last nite with a young guy who just landed a nice job with GAO through the new director of Homeland security investigations ....watercooler talk at GAO is that Bush is goin down on Iraq

2676. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:11:55 PM

Friends Committee on National Legislation writes that in Tuesday's State of the Union, Bush "is expected to put forward the case for why the U.S. should invade Iraq (but not North Korea), increase spending for the military and homeland security, cut taxes further for the wealthy, and yet maintain 'fiscal discipline' (i.e., frozen or reduced funding) in most other areas of discretionary federal spending. He will likely call upon all the U.S. public (except the wealthiest) to sacrifice in the face of continuing threats at home and abroad... Please contact your representative and senators. Let them know that you think Bush is leading the country in the wrong direction. Tell them that you do not want the U.S. to go to war with Iraq and urge them to communicate this to the President."

National Friends Service - First we're gonna cut it off, then we're gonna kill it

2677. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:13:16 PM

Neville Chamberlain we hardly knew ye

2678. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:17:32 PM

January 29 Protests Will Answer Bush's State of the Union

International ANSWER writes, "Bush's State of the Union address will be a 'war speech.' The speech has one function: to prepare the population for war. That night, Bush will dominate the air waves and the media coverage. The very next day, however, it is crucial that people demonstrate in cities and towns throughout the United States in coordinated actions to show that the people reject Bush's State of the Union message. Possible locations for rallies include the Federal Building, other federal government facilities, or in a crowded central shopping area (actions can be held during the day or in the evening). High schools and college activists should plan actions at their school on January 29." http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/j29/j29events.html
target=new>Here is a (growing) list of J29 events

2679. joezan - 1/28/2003 1:17:40 PM

...post GWI rioting between Shiites and Shia's...

????

'Nuff said.

Idiot.

2680. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:19:00 PM

Maybe the RNC ought to organize another of its "spontaneous booboisie riots"

There were only 15 of em at the last SF march, mostly militia in fatigues

2681. jexster - 1/28/2003 1:20:14 PM

Well its been gay folks..off to class

2682. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 1:55:04 PM

Thank you, Jexster for giving straight answers to straight questions. For that you have my respect. As I stated in my initial posts, people of good conscience can disagree. Which I do. But we can talk about that tomorrow, as it's late here.

Meanwhile, I would relate a quote from the former chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler:

"I am astonished at the nonsense taking place about whether or not Iraq has a weapons of mass destruction program. It does.That's beyond doubt. Anyone with any expertise in the field knows that."

From today's local paper, the Gulf News.

Somehow, I tends to hold his opinion in higher regard than that of people who have never been involvd in the field. Considering that Hans Blix has said essentially the same thing, that Iraq has not accounted for weapons known to exist, and is not cooperating to his satisfaction, I think it's clear that Saddam is playing hide and seek as he did during the last round of inspections.

And I for one am not very happy about being within SCUD range of Saddam with chemical and bio weapons. If you were, maybe your attitude would be different.

FWIW I was a prime target in my Army days (half a mile from half the tactical nukes in Europe), and feel a lot safer here, as Dubai is no target for any Arab: this is where all their money is.

2683. jexster - 1/28/2003 2:13:29 PM

he's Baaaaaaaaaaaaaackkk!

In Econ lab waiting for the stats prof to show..ooops here he is..

Finally a way to shut me up!

2684. jexster - 1/28/2003 2:24:27 PM

I may get in trouble for this but this is too good to pass up...

Joshua Micah-Marshall, is also having doubts about his pro-war position...

among his reasons -

4. It's hard to ignore the fact that Norman Schwarzkopf isn't convinced we should go to war right now. And believe me, he speaks for lots of career officers at the Pentagon who's job it rightly is -- since they're still in uniform -- to give candid advice in private but follow the orders of their civilian superiors.

2685. jexster - 1/28/2003 2:32:12 PM

Syllabus

I must confess that the current state of affairs on Iraq fills me with equivocation and no small bit of uncertainty

2686. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 2:34:33 PM

One last thing jexster, because it's keeping me awake:

You stated that his neighbors don't consider Saddam a threat, or words to that effect. FYI, the UAE (the country I live in) had virtually no army to speak of before 1990. Since the invasion of Kuwait the UAE has engaged in a massive military build-up, to the point that the UAE now has more French main battle tanks than the French army, with comparable numbers of F-16s (they are still negotiating for block-60 versions) and I have personally laid eyes on one battalion of self-propelled howitzers, although my guess is that they don't have nearly enough artillery, it's not glamorous. But as Napoleon said, an army without artillery is a mob.

Point is, they consider SOMEBODY a threat, eough to spend billions on defense.

What's the difference between the US Army and the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts have adult leadership! Oh, and the Army welcomes atheists....

Econ lab? Stats? "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics...."

2687. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 2:35:56 PM

oops

2688. joezan - 1/28/2003 2:37:47 PM

Not your oops, Dub.

Just jasper, leaving his usual mess.

2689. jexster - 1/28/2003 2:57:13 PM

Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

on U.N. Report on the Iraq Inspections

Washington, DC – The U.N.’s Chief Arms Inspector, Hans Blix, today gave a report on the status of inspections into Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations Security Council. The following is Senator Feinstein’s statement on the Blix Report:

“The report released today by Hans Blix on Iraq inspections contains many different shades of gray. It seems that Iraq is cooperating on the process of inspections, but not on the substance. Given the stakes of a potential war with Iraq, however, I believe the inspectors should be afforded more time to continue their investigation.

At this point, I believe that it would be a tremendous mistake for the United States to unilaterally attack Iraq. The U.N. inspectors have not finished their job, and the United Nations has not fully considered the matter. It is my hope that the Administration will show patience and allow the weapons inspectors more time.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, I have seen no intelligence that suggests that the threat from Iraq is imminent. The United Nations has inspectors on the ground, and more are on the way. For me, this means that Iraq is essentially contained. War should be a last resort, and I do not think we are at that last resort at this time.

2690. jexster - 1/28/2003 2:58:16 PM

Just jasper, leaving his usual mess.

Thanks Z for cleaning up after me...you have some use around here after all

2691. jexster - 1/28/2003 3:01:07 PM

Message # 2682 I believe that the ~16 pp. Carnegie Report linked up thread answers your points decisively

2692. jexster - 1/28/2003 3:04:56 PM

Thanks to Blix/Baradei we know:

There are no nukes now nor are there any procesess in place related there to.

there maybe chem bio weapons but there is no evidence one way or the other-

Bush has repeatedly lied on each point

Saddam does not threaten anyone with either

there is no grave or imminent threat from Iraq now and there hasn't been since 1991

2693. jexster - 1/28/2003 3:14:57 PM

Coercive inspections - take for instance the flap over U2 flights...Iraq claims it cannot assure safety given the US increased bombings and CAP's in no fly zones...

Now if Bush was REALLY interested in chem bio, if this whole thing wasn't a poorly constructed pretext for the installation of a Bush dictatorship we could fly CAP in protection of the UN U-2's

Why hasn't that been proposed?

Because Bush is lying through his teeth

2694. jexster - 1/28/2003 3:57:45 PM

The Global Conspiracy of Chicken Littles, Communists, Appeasers and Old Europeans Claims Another Victim

TAMPA--Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.

The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.

And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Start me up
if you start me up I'll NEVER stop

2695. jexster - 1/28/2003 4:00:59 PM

Message # 2686

1. The Emirs now have an army to keep them in power thanks to the USA

2. The USA now has a bunch of emirs beholden to it for its largesse.

3. Saddan is a tin pot dictator who is not a threat to UAE because the emirs are armed to the teeth

Why do I and other US taxpayers have to cough up 200 billion dollars down payment and the privilege of dumping 50 billion more a year for the next 20 years?

2696. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 7:56:31 PM

Um, jex, are you under the impression that the US gave those F16s to the UAE? Or that France donated the tanks?

And you are now footing the bill for Dubya's daddy' mistake a dozen years ago. Of course if you don't like paying for it you could do what I did :p

I would argue that without the large military buidup and the convincing saber-rattling, UN weapons inspectors would almost certainly not be on the ground today. And if you want to argue cost, well, I think it's cheaper in the long run to get rid of Saddam now than to have to keep watch over him indefinitely. While you may think the UAE could stop Iraq, I don't; they have the same problem Saddam has, his tanks and planes are manned by Arabs. And we've all see how bravely they fight.

Fun fact: the rank and file of the UAE Army are not UAE citizens, they are Omanis. Emiratis are too good to be soldiers below the rank of major.

2697. concerned - 1/28/2003 8:01:39 PM

I don't believe that Sodamn should be assassinated. My preference is that he be captured and then be displayed in a cage by some traveling Yurrupeon circus for a period of time after undergoing a trial for war crimes by an international tribunal.

2698. concerned - 1/28/2003 8:05:04 PM

Dubai - have you yet noticed what jexster's primary objective appears to be in the Mote?

2699. concerned - 1/28/2003 8:08:48 PM

I mean, I might have it wrong here, but I don't really think so.

2700. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 8:25:02 PM

Hey, I'll argue with anybody; I argued with you didn't I? You should hear me and my mother when we get together.

Jex is goofing off in class, that's what he's doing here! :D

And yes they should have got Saddam for war crimes during the last war, but Bush senior wimped out. And now let's all go hear what dubya has to say (shudder)

2701. jexster - 1/28/2003 8:44:39 PM

Tell us concerned...tell us

2702. jexster - 1/28/2003 8:48:54 PM

No they were sold for sure...you can't get em at Walmart..I suppose you could have bought some from Russia..naaaa..

I would be less worried about Saddam if I were you and more worried about democracy in that region...of course only a real Pollyanna would believe that Bush is interested in that either but the day may come when the people of the Middle East will be able to vote and we'll see what they think of current governments and unfortunately the US....

Schwartzkopf knows what's what... Bush is a liar, a megalomaniac and a menance and don't get him started on Rumsfeld.

2703. jexster - 1/28/2003 8:50:50 PM

Send some of the emirate youth into Iraq...into the streets of Baghdad to kill fellow Arab soldiers, women, children THEN I'll be convinced that Saddam's neighbors are afraid of him and not Bush

2704. jexster - 1/28/2003 8:53:25 PM

I was goofing off in class...got me there TD...the central limit theorem...didn't understand it the first time, didn't understand it the second time, and this time I've one of Marj's countrymen teaching me...couldn't understand a word he said....they'll let anyone into this country these days..

That's a joke Marj ....Sudip CHATTOPADHYAY ROCKS!

2705. jexster - 1/28/2003 8:56:29 PM

I was joking too Pelle...Its a cultural thing ya know loud brash rude Americans....

2706. Dubai Vol - 1/28/2003 11:01:56 PM

What me worry?

To be honest the UAE has made me a believer in the effectiveness of a benevolent dictatorship. I think democracy in the Gulf would result in a lot of theocratic regimes, which would be a bad thing IMO. As it stands the ruler of Dubai can just do the right thing and not worry about opinion polls. And because the rulers are enlightened men of vision, it works pretty well.

Democracy in a country without intelligent well-informed voters is mob rule, America being a perfect example.

Off to work. :)

2707. jexster - 1/29/2003 12:53:23 AM

Warning to Pelle - I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Smells like....like victory"

2708. jexster - 1/29/2003 12:57:07 AM

Counting the Dead

In the event of war, how many Iraqi civilians will die? And how many will starve, or be displaced? In secret, the UN has been doing the sums

With as much secrecy as the Pentagon, the United Nations has been busily counting the likely casualty toll of a war on Iraq. While the Pentagon focuses on its troops, the network of UN specialist agencies is trying to estimate what would happen to Iraqis.

The assessments are dramatic, though for reasons of internal diplomacy or because of American pressure the UN is unwilling to go public with the figures. But a newly leaked report from a special UN taskforce that summarises the assessments calculates that about 500,000 people could "require medical treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries", according to the World Health Organisation.

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.

2709. jexster - 1/29/2003 12:59:23 AM

2710. jexster - 1/29/2003 1:00:40 AM

Smells pretty fine in the evening too.

2711. jexster - 1/29/2003 1:08:09 AM

If the Dilletante in Residence felt so fuckin strong about being a savior of the Iraqi people, write the god damned king of sweden whatever the hell his name is have him send a few of those spiffy jets no one wants to buy to Incirlik PDQ - must have a surplus these days eh?

Frankly, though be cause Pelle is a rat fuck of a dilletante he thinks he can hold forth inflicting his insufferable ego on the nation that is really going to shed blood and treasure and it doesn't cost him a thing.

So I am ready to increase Pelle's marginal cost of useless palaver by inflicting what pain I can.

2712. Cellar Door - 1/29/2003 1:08:13 AM

Fait Divers: The State of the Bush

2713. RickNelson - 1/29/2003 8:35:20 AM

Dubai Vol,

Your nickname; before I guess, if it has one will you give its meaning?

Interesting comments you've made regarding the UAE rulers. Continuing you make a parting remark about intelligence and voting (taking a joking jab at US voters). The jab aside, and not looking at the US, I've had the same thoughts you have now presented. Do you have some further insite, studies, learned consideration for the topic?

2714. Dubai Vol - 1/29/2003 10:09:26 AM

Learned? That's a bit much, but I am very opinionated, as you notice.

As for the screen name, that's the one I use all over the net, so you never have to wonder, yeah, that's me on the VW sites, and the F1 sites...but my first post was on a Tennessee football site, where I picked the unimaginative name "Dubai Vol," and I've just stuck with it. For those not familiar, Tennessee is the "Volunteer State," and the university sports teams are known as the "Vols" for short.

Kinda dull, but descriptive. Sorry to cut it short, but it Australian comedy night tonight, and the start of the weekend, so I'm outta here. You all play nice while I'm gone:p

2715. alistairConnor - 1/29/2003 10:26:34 AM

Vol :
Um, jex, are you under the impression that the US gave those F16s to the UAE? Or that France donated the tanks?

France damn near does donate those tanks. The region where I live has been famous for arms manufacturing for at least five centuries : originally swords, then rifles, lastly tanks; and the industry is thrashing around in its death throes. The Saudis and the Emirates, who are practically the only clients left, seem to take endless pleasure in delaying and renegotiating the contracts, which has the effect, I suppose, of driving the prices ever downwards. The French government, desperate to avoid losing the contracts and throwing thousands out of work, ends up accepting all their conditions.

2716. concerned - 1/29/2003 10:55:38 AM

Which also explains the French govt.'s antipathy to US actions re. Iraq. Economics, as I have maintained.

2717. judithathome - 1/29/2003 11:16:43 AM

Ha! Like economics is the furthest thing from this country's mind...military contracts, oil money, jobs jobs jobs!

2718. concerned - 1/29/2003 11:18:59 AM

2719. concerned - 1/29/2003 11:21:42 AM

That looks like jexster with the 'God Bless Iraq' sign.

2720. concerned - 1/29/2003 11:24:22 AM

2721. concerned - 1/29/2003 11:28:18 AM

2722. jexster - 1/29/2003 12:45:31 PM

Anyone who believes anything Bush says about Iraq ought to have his head examined. The man is pathologically obssessed.

Asked about flight's of democracy fantasies, Joe Biden said "I don't see any Thomas Jeffersons crawling out from behind the rocks"

2723. jexster - 1/29/2003 1:15:57 PM

After removing the super-rat, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Libby and their fellow hawk Richard Perle can turn his country into a laboratory for democracy in the Arab world — creating a domino effect to give Israel more security. Once they have planted Athenian democracy on Mesopotamian soil, they envision orchestrating more freedom throughout the Middle East — as long as the region plays ball with the new sheriff. They'll put pressure on Syria and Iran to abandon their support for terrorism. And then, with an American spigot, the oil will flow free — except to the French, who will pay dearly. Mo Dowd

This would be funny if these clowns weren't so mental.

2724. jexster - 1/29/2003 1:49:12 PM

CAIRO, Jan. 29 — President Bush's belligerent recapping of the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power sounded to Middle Eastern ears today more like a domestic pep rally for war than a convincing argument to validate such a drastic step.

Those Arabs actually paying attention to the speech found troubling both the lack of damning evidence against Baghdad and the lack of any articulated plan for postwar Iraq, leaving them bracing for yet another American misadventure in a region they think has seen far too many.

Arab Nations Unconvinced by Bush's Reasons for War

a domestic pep rally

That's all you're ever going to get from an ex-pep squad leader....

Boolah boolah

2725. jexster - 1/29/2003 2:04:29 PM

"In the Name of..."

An online music project organized by Eclectic Connection - listen to over 50 music tracks contributed by artists in support of Not In Our Name.

2726. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2003 3:04:33 PM

Former prime minister of Sweden and High Representative in Bosnia Carl Bildt:

Regime change in Iraq isn't optional

Excerpts:

Let's face it: There can be no going back when it comes to the confrontation over Iraq.

The policy (although that is a generous name for it) that has been pursued since the end of the Gulf War has been a miserable failure both for the people of Iraq and for the international community.

As they normally do, sanctions have solidified support for the local dictator, brought suffering to ordinary people and destroyed some of the foundations for a normal economy and society in the possible post-dictatorship period.

Thus, the only way to get out of a policy that has failed is to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad.

The alternative of just backing down, returning to the profoundly failed and damaging policy of the past and waiting for the next eruption of tension could not be seriously contemplated by any sensible actor.

2727. jexster - 1/29/2003 3:31:11 PM

Count on Pelle to produce piffle. More cheap rhetoric from a kennel fed literatus.

Now for the beef...

Al Gore - Right again!

In Paris, France's top terrorism investigator said today that Islamic extremists are winning recruits in Europe because of tensions over Iraq.

Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, one of Europe's most prominent anti-terrorism fighters, also said the risk of new attacks "will be one of the costs" of war against Iraq.

"It cannot be excluded that in the next few months there will be a chemical attack, with hundreds of dead," said Bruguiere, who has broad powers of investigation and arrest and is well-known for tracking down the infamous Venezuelan-born killer Carlos the Jackal

2728. jexster - 1/29/2003 3:31:45 PM

Pelle conqueror of strawmen

2729. jexster - 1/29/2003 3:38:29 PM

Two supreme questions still demand convincing answers: "Why war?" and "Why now?" The reasons that have been offered collapse under scrutiny.

The threat posed by Iraq is contained for now. Any attempt at external aggression would be instantly overwhelmed. Inside the country, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

A war at this moment, however, regardless of the outcome, will bear one of history's harshest judgments: an unnecessary war

Jessica Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

2730. joezan - 1/29/2003 3:49:35 PM

jasper considers anti-war pronuncements from international peace agencies worthy of posting?

2731. Wombat - 1/29/2003 3:50:53 PM

Jex:

Did you read the whole Mathews article, or just the parts that you cited?

2732. concerned - 1/29/2003 4:30:00 PM

Re. 2725 -

Any metal, or is it all corn pone pabulum and whiny rants?

2733. jexster - 1/29/2003 5:06:00 PM

While picking up textbooks for my courses, noticed "WALZER -
JUST and UNJUST WARS" for Poltical Science 561 -Jurisprudence
Description: Philosophy of law. Relationship between law, morality, social and political institutions. Various schools of jurisprudence.

How timely.

2734. jexster - 1/29/2003 5:13:24 PM

Sure I've read the entire article. I have read just about every Carnegie policy brief and op ed published since August and quite a number published before then.

The only criticism I have of any of them is that they do not acknowledge the obvious to wit that none of this charade, this folderol about weapons has anything to do with the intentions and objectives of the Bush regime.

Her comments are useful only for the purpose of putting paid to such nonsense.

I note too that CEIP has moved their Policy Brief #20 up to the top of their list no doubt in answer to Wilsonian naif's such as yourself...

I have linked before but in case you missed it

2735. jexster - 1/29/2003 5:15:55 PM

Here it is

Democratic Mirage in the Middle East

Policy Brief 20

Marina Ottaway, Thomas Carothers, Amy Hawthorne, Daniel Brumberg

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.

About the Authors
Marina Ottaway, senior associate in the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment, is the author or editor of more than ten books on comparative politics including the forthcoming Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semiauthoritarianism (Carnegie Endowment, January 2003). She is also the coauthor of Rebuilding Afghanistan: Fantasy versus Reality (Carnegie Endowment Policy Brief No. 12)

Enuf of the cheap rhetoric and bunk about poor oppressed Iraqi people, wars for peace, democracies blooming like flowers in the desert, mushroom clouds and manifest destiny

Its all so much manifest hokum

2736. jexster - 1/29/2003 5:17:26 PM

I didn't want to toot my own horn again but since you raised the point, nota bene her reference to the U2 overflights, a question I addressed at length in yesterday's lecture....

2737. jexster - 1/29/2003 7:08:13 PM

Emperor Moron Fails to Sway Former US Allies on Security Council
Snickers Heard at Pep Rally

GIMME AN M....

2738. jexster - 1/29/2003 7:40:23 PM

Thinking About Iraq (3)
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
A memo to President Bush, from a pro-American Arab leader: Would you consider a deal for Saddam Hussein's exile?

2739. jexster - 1/29/2003 7:41:24 PM

Dear Pelle Pollyanna:

That's what's known as a pre-emptive piffle strike

2740. concerned - 1/29/2003 7:49:35 PM

Enuf of the cheap rhetoric and bunk about poor oppressed Iraqi people.....

About par for the Left - after all, the Iraqi and NK people can't vote Leftist candidates into office, so fuck 'em, right?

2741. concerned - 1/29/2003 7:59:38 PM

From Arabicnews:

France, Saudi Arabia stress objective of disarming Iraq, not regime change

In conclusion of the talks held by the Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal with high ranking French officials, France and Saudi Arabia yesterday stressed that the objective concerning Iraq remains to dismantle its weapons, rather than change its regime.

What clearer demonstration could be asked for that Old Europe has no higher objective than its own economic interests to justify its stance wrt Iraq? They wouldn't care in the slightest if Saddam murdered half the Iraqis and attacked all his neighbors once again. Their motives are corrupt and their plans are deceitful.

2742. jexster - 1/29/2003 8:29:44 PM

No all you've established you idiot is that France opposes Bush's war....

Again, with Sen Lugar and a high-level GOP delegation - the only way France can lose is to do what it is doing now

2743. jexster - 1/29/2003 8:34:59 PM

Reductio ad absurdum

Since I also oppose Bush's aggressive war, I must stand to gain ....help me figure out how TD, I need the cash.

Truth Squad Alert!

Two sets of meetings sponsored by the State Department and Vice-President Dick Cheney's staff have been attended by representatives of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhilips and Halliburton, the company that Cheney ran before his election.

While the State Department is mindful of cynical world opinion about US war aims, officials do not always stick to the script. Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary at the US Department of Commerce, said war 'would open up this spigot on Iraqi oil which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers'.

The US economy will announce zero growth this week, prolonging three years of sluggish performance. Cheap oil would boost an economy importing half of its daily consumption of 20m barrels.

But a cheaper oil price could have been reached more easily by lifting sanctions and giving the US oil majors access to Iraq's untapped reserves.

Instead, war stands to give control over the oil price to 'new Iraq' and its sponsors, with Saudi Arabia losing its capacity to control prices by altering productive capacity.

Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East.

To this end, control of Iraqi oil needs to bypass the twin tyrannies of UN control and regional fragmentation into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish supplies. The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies.

2744. jexster - 1/29/2003 8:36:02 PM

Now THAT is evidence from which you can make a credible inference but TD has always had problems stringing two thoughts together coherently.

And why is this?

Gimme an M!

2745. Cellar Door - 1/29/2003 8:46:46 PM

Following connie's logic, since jex opposes Bush's war -- he must be French!

2746. jexster - 1/29/2003 8:51:48 PM

C'est bon!

The second half of President Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday night, about Iraq, was a model of moral seriousness, as it should be from a leader taking his nation into war. Bush was brutally eloquent about the cause and—special points for this—about the inevitable cost. It may seem petty to pick apart the text. But logical consistency and intellectual honesty are also tests of moral seriousness. It is not enough for the words to be eloquent or even deeply sincere. If they are just crafted for the moment and haven't been thought through, the pretense of moral seriousness becomes an insult..

Mountebank of Moronia - Morally Decrepit Kinsley

2747. jexster - 1/29/2003 8:52:40 PM

Affirming the Consequent
AKA:
Asserting the Consequent
Affirmation of the Consequent
Type: Fallacy of Propositional Logic
Form:
If p then q.
q. Therefore, p.

Similar Validating Forms: Modus Ponens: Modus Tollens:
If p then q. p.
Therefore, q. If p then q. Not-q. Therefore, not-p.
Example: Counter-Example:
If it's raining then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it's raining. If it's snowing then the streets will be covered with snow.
The streets are covered with snow.
Therefore, it's snowing.

2748. marjoribanks - 1/30/2003 9:17:56 AM

Another diplomatic coup for Powell and the Bushites -

Euros formally shuck off Germans and French.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people.

Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq's current brutal regime.

Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction.

Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat.

Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security.

To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions.

We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions.

If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

Jose Maria Aznar, Spain
Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Vaclav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark

2749. marjoribanks - 1/30/2003 9:22:42 AM

So, the stage is set. The UN is over a barrel and the European community is under the threat of being broken.

Within two weeks, perhaps less, you will see the Security Council issue an imprimatur for war with Iraq on the lines of the 15-0 vote on the first resolution. France may abstain - it will not veto - and the US will then have everything it needs to satisfy its own people (and mollify some Euros) as it moves to war. I predict that Hussein will flee some time soon after and the Yanks will have Iraq and I promise that there will be Kabul-like scenes featuring a riotous welcome for Allied troops.

2750. marjoribanks - 1/30/2003 9:24:54 AM

More from the letter:

Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism.

Thanks, too, to the continued co-operation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent.

The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion.

A masterpiece of coersive politics, complete with good cop/bad cop acts, produced this document. Give full marks to Powell and the Bushites, having the SoS make those warlike noises this week was a masterstroke.

2751. alistairConnor - 1/30/2003 9:37:01 AM

15-0 on the security council?

Rant away, Marj.

It has probably escaped your attention, but...
Germany is currently chairing that august institution.

They seem to have bought off Putin, he's making bellicose noises; but what about the Chinese?

2752. marjoribanks - 1/30/2003 9:39:43 AM

I have given up domestic political prognostication ever since I completely misread the debates between Bush and Gore. I thought at the time that Gore thrashed Bush, showed him to be a simpleton, and that the American people would seize on this and kill off Bush's candidacy. Turned out that most Americans thought Bush actually won those debates, something so far from my conception that I decided that I do not, at all, have my finger on the pulse of the American electorate.

However, recent events in this country, and the political repercussions lead me to start to think I have the picture after all. What I see is that the Bushites have very cleverly manouevered into a position where they are trusted (and no one else has nearly the gravitas necessary) to be strong for and in America and to provide security. This, combined with the lack of viable-looking Dem candidates, could well set the Republicans up to mirror Blair's situation in the UK. That is, they will be unassailable for at least a decade, holding both Congress and the White House pretty much indefinitely. It's not a healthy picture, just as Blair's stranglehold in the UK is not healthy, but it is certainly realistic.

2753. marjoribanks - 1/30/2003 9:43:08 AM

On the lines of 15-0, AC, and I'm not ranting.

How about 13-0 or, at worst, 12-1?

The Chinese are one of the biggest collateral beneficiaries of this whole 'War on Terror', as I've pointed out repeatedly since 9/11/01. They get to be totally left alone, no one fucks with them or their own criminal internal record, and they can squash dissent without a peep from the powers in the West.

In other words, they will sign on or abstain, I don't have the slightest doubt.

2754. marjoribanks - 1/30/2003 9:46:52 AM

By the way, lest my comments here be misinterpreted, I am not at all gung-ho about War in Iraq and cannot be included among the hawks.

I can see that there are very positive scenarios that can emerge from the conflict at this time in history (given US military hegemony, the global political climate, etc) and I am convinced that the US can, effectively, take Iraq very cheaply at this juncture. But I simultaneously deride Bush and his mendacious argumentastion and shallow, even juvenile, manner in calling for a serious move from America's natural ethos, and I can see a scenario or two where this effort may be a disaster for the world and for the US both. The potential benefits, at this point, outweigh the potential costs. That is all.

2755. RickNelson - 1/30/2003 9:50:20 AM

Did anyone get out of Jex's link yesterday, that if the US goes to war to remove Saddam as its sole purpose that the Eruopean and other countries and councils will view this as having wasted the efforts of the UN. Quite obvious, but stated within the contents of the piece Williams wrote it read well.

2756. RickNelson - 1/30/2003 9:55:42 AM

It was also noted that the councils, we're led to believe, have unanimously stated the UN needs a minimum 6 mos and perhaps 1 year or even 2 years to be satisfied with this new round of inspections.

When I consider concerned's cartoons of yesterday, where Saddam yells through a window at the UN, Germany and France that he'll work with the inspections and Bush is characterized variously, then yells about it having been 11 years already! The consideration is that Saddam has already had his day in court, Iraq is wasting all this money, time and people. This is rediculous.

I say kill the fucker and be done! But, then what, will that create more trouble than being there in force to control things? I think so. So, I back down. Step away from murder and think about the war. Damn war!

2757. jexster - 1/30/2003 10:17:30 AM

Al-Qaida and Iraq: how strong is the evidence?
Freshly Half-baked
Sources say case pushed by Bush and Blair linking Saddam and Bin Laden is not based on hard facts

President Bush used his state of the union address to paint a terrifying picture for the American people of another attack like September 11 - but this time with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Tony Blair reinforced the message yesterday by telling the Commons: "We do know of links between al-Qaida and Iraq. We cannot be sure of the exact extent of those links."
However, a number of well-placed sources in Whitehall insisted there was no intelligence suggesting such a link. "While we have said there may possibly be individuals in the country [Iraq] we have never said anything to suggest specific links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein," said one.

2758. jexster - 1/30/2003 10:19:57 AM

Bush will say anything, do anything to sastisfy his lust for blood.

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's renewed assertions of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda are based largely on the murky case of a one-legged Al Qaeda suspect who was treated in Baghdad after being wounded in the war in Afghanistan Los Angeles Times

2759. jexster - 1/30/2003 10:35:56 AM

Europe "Old" and "New" Is Wary of Bush War
Los Angeles Times

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's catchy phrase "Old Europe" had the French and Germans apoplectic last week. It was hard to fathom the reaction. After all, blithe belligerence is a hallmark of the Bush administration style. It's been provoking transatlantic discord for more than two years.

2760. jexster - 1/30/2003 10:36:35 AM

From the standpoint of an American living in Europe, I would suggest that French and German opposition to rushing into a U.S.-led war against Iraq is hardly Old Europe. Old Europe is two world wars and a continent left in deprivation and shock. Old Europe is Cold War paranoia for 50 years, relying on the United States' nuclear threat to hold back the Russians. European war dissent is actually New Europe. New Europe is united under a currency that's stronger than the dollar. New Europe is filling up with an influx of refugee Muslims. New Europe is where Mohamed Atta and company hatched their plot, and where Islamist terrorists are even now stirring up batches of poison in suburban London and hoarding weapons in the banlieues of Paris.

In France, the home of 8 million Muslims, Islam is the second religion, demographically speaking, right after Roman Catholicism. French culture is infused with Arab influences, from couscous shops to the Arabic dance and protest music called rai.

European countries, historically homogeneous, have their own social and political problems with Islam. The difference is they live cheek by jowl with it. The Paris suburbs are crawling with armed North African gangs, and the Parisian police are said to fear entering the high-rises. The politics of Germany, Holland, even Britain, are profoundly affected by their growing Islamic communities.

2761. jexster - 1/30/2003 10:37:02 AM

Europeans also hold in living memory the real effects of wartime on their own soil. They might have learned a little about bombs, occupation and the dogs of war. Perhaps that is what Rumsfeld meant by Old Europe. These people are in no giddy rush to sign on to a conflict that will surely bring suffering to the Iraqi civilian population, if not other parts of the world.

To Europeans, the United States looks like the Old World. Instead of cultivating negotiation and patience and a sense of global impact, everyone knows the Bush administration has been "hellbent," as one magazine cover put it, on war for months now. Aside from terrifying Americans with vague notions of imminent nuclear or bioterror attacks on U.S. soil, the Bush administration has done nothing to assure anyone that it fathoms the structure of Islamist terrorism or cares about the concerns of moderate Muslims.

A retrograde pall prevails at the White House. According to Newsweek, the elder George Bush was seen wandering through the offices of the chief advisors last week ("I'm just here to give a little adult leadership," the former president cracked), while former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger "sat patiently in the West Wing lobby."

We Americans living abroad are constantly confronted by people who stop us to opine about what a disaster this war will bring to the world. In the United States, even though "the war on terror" is a logo in every newspaper and on every television news show, the topic of war feels muted. People go about their business, pacified with the Bush administration's indifference to dissent.

2762. jexster - 1/30/2003 10:37:15 AM

During a brief trip to New York this month, I caught a few minutes of the "Today" show. Katie Couric was with the troops somewhere in the Middle East and regaling Matt Lauer with her high-energy pep via satellite. Standing before a backdrop of American servicemen and servicewomen ripped from their families, Perkosaurus rex described an F-16 flight she'd experienced. "Let me tell you, Matt, it was a two-bagger!" Gales of giggles. She proceeded to hold up a camouflage apron with the "Today" show logo, made specially for the cooking segment, "coming up next!"

Living abroad, I had forgotten the deliberate lack of gravitas that infuses morning television; it was appalling to behold. Couric and her peers are forbidden by ratings to disturb bleary-eyed Americans with the bitter, hard truth about what war is. As Rumsfeld pointed out last week, ugly images like that belong to Old Europe now.

2763. Wombat - 1/30/2003 11:04:59 AM

Jexter:

Finally, you've got it! I am quite happy to be labled a Wilsonian Naif. Congratulations! It also beats partisan hack and pseudopacifist.

2764. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:17:14 AM

"partisan hack and pseudopacifist" I reserve for myself, proudly so...hehehe

2765. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:22:23 AM

I also reserve JoeZ's ass for myself

For your information the World Health Organization is not a peace agency

But aside from the obvious, it speaks volumes that Zan would think peace agencies incredible!

jasper considers anti-war pronuncements from international peace agencies worthy of posting?

You damned right I do! Damned straight you half wit. We've been harangued with lies from GWB for six months that would make Sad-am green with envy, and little Zanie soldier boy trots his sorry ass in here with a question that answers itself.

What a moron

2766. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:24:58 AM

and don't get him started on Rumsfeld

Stormin Norman's got it easy....he doesn't post on this thread.

2767. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:25:28 AM

Where's Pelle, that kennel fed literatus....

2768. magoseph - 1/30/2003 11:26:02 AM

Jex, how about a link for this, please?: Europe "Old" and "New" Is Wary of Bush War
Los Angeles Times

2769. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:30:40 AM

White House Lashes Out at Critics

Bush Presidency Consumed by War

Bush Plans Use of Nukes in Iraq

we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men

Sound mental to you?

2770. concerned - 1/30/2003 11:31:24 AM

The success that the GWB Administration has had to date with Afghanistan and Iraq would not have materialized under a Bore presidency. Albert would still have been 'negotiating' with the Taliban amidst a backdrop of increasing Islamist terrorist activity against Western targets, probably have abandoned all efforts to control Sodamn as 'futile' by now and would still have been concealing NK's extensive violations of the 'Agreed Framework' at this juncture, and the International Left, amongst whom would be jexster and marjoribanks would have been cheering him on all the way as a great international statesman.

Muwahahahahaaa!

2771. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:33:31 AM

(Reuters) - Former South African President Nelson Mandela lashed out at U.S. President George Bush's stance on Iraq on Thursday, saying the Texan had no foresight and could not think properly.

"It is a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing in Iraq," Mandela told an audience in Johannesburg. "What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust," he added, to loud applause.

2772. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:34:32 AM

As Bush grovels before the Mighty Dear Leader Concerned tells us what Al Bore would do....

mental as anything

2773. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:36:10 AM

Couldn't link mags..LAT told me it was $$$ so I picked it up from Lexis...I think that's odd because the article isn't that old but..that's what their site said..

2774. Macnas - 1/30/2003 11:40:42 AM

The international left, go on you wanker.
I cant decide which is worse, Marjoribanks making out that Bush and co are some kind of far-seeing Machieavellian stratagists or Concerned just being himself.

2775. concerned - 1/30/2003 11:40:53 AM

It's actually quite predictable, jexster. I'm not saying anything but that Bore would have been fully as effective as Clowntoon against rogue states.

2776. concerned - 1/30/2003 11:43:45 AM

Macnas -

I apologize for not specifically mentioning you in 2770.

2777. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:45:16 AM

Remember those rockets everyone got excited about....well buried in the back pages as it were

"U.N. arms inspectors have concluded that the 122 mm chemical rocket warheads found in an Iraqi bunker earlier this month did not contain any chemical agents. The inspectors had sent one of the warheads that appeared to be filled to a laboratory for tests that turned out negative, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix told U.N. Security Council members, the envoys reported. Iraq said the rocket warheads were overlooked from a 1991 batch of some 2,000 warheads." Will Fox News apologize to its viewers for hundreds of hours of hyperventilation about these warheads? Don't bet the house on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/29/sprj.irq.un.rockets.reut/

2778. magoseph - 1/30/2003 11:46:18 AM

Thanks, Jex.

2779. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:51:25 AM

We don't know about Gore. We do know, however, that Gore's prediction that Bush's "monomaniacal" obssession with Iraq wo