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 would lead to an increase in terrorism as Europe's main anti-terrorist agent confirmed within the past few days.

We also know that Bush has failed to capture OBL alive or dead. Ditto Mullah Omar. We know that Al Qaeda has bombed a French tanker and killed hundreds in Bali since Bush began his WOT. We know that Saddam is still in power. We know that the US is more isolated than ever. We know that NK is more dangerous than ever.

What we DON'T know is that bush has been even partially effective against any rogue state.

But at least Afghan women don't have to wear burkas and their men can give each other BJ's in Afghan bathhouses even as the country teeters on the brink of civil war.

2780. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:52:25 AM

And the Mad Hatter is still looking for the anthrax mailman

2781. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:53:50 AM

And We Know Bush is Mental and Mendacious

ElBaradei stood by his inspectors' findings that aluminum tubes the Iraqis had tried to import were for rockets and not for a nuclear program, as [Bush insisted] Tuesday. 'We believe the tubes were destined for the conventional rocket program,' ElBaradei said. He said the tubes could be modified for uranium enrichment but that the process would be expensive, time-consuming and detectable. Bush [also] said: 'Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say, and intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.' ElBaradei said it was unlikely his inspectors 'could be fooled in the nuclear area on who is a scientist and who is not. We know all the scientists from the past and I think our people could easily detect if that person is a scientist or not.'"

2782. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:54:58 AM

And this morning we know that undercover GAO agents repeatedly penetrated US borders at a Canadian crossing, at San Ysidro and at Miami.

2783. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:55:49 AM

using fake documents

2784. concerned - 1/30/2003 11:58:05 AM

What we DON'T know is that bush has been even partially effective against any rogue state.

*ahem*

Regardless of ones position in the political spectrum, Bush Administration policy in Afghanistan has been inarguably successful. No quantity of fanatical spittle can change that.

2785. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:58:30 AM

And we also know that our 50 year alliance with Europe is seriously frayed.

And we know that anti-US sentiment has increased worldwide

The list of what we know is too long to recall in one shot...

2786. jexster - 1/30/2003 12:00:34 PM

I just told you how "successful" the Afghan adventure has been in detail..THIS is "spittle"

Regardless of ones position in the political spectrum, Bush Administration policy in Afghanistan has been inarguably successful. No quantity of fanatical spittle can change that.

2787. jexster - 1/30/2003 12:02:27 PM

I must confess that I didn't bother watching SOTU....why waste time listening to more lies from GWB?

So tell me TD, did Bush mention OBL in the speech?

2788. jexster - 1/30/2003 12:03:20 PM

the anthrax mail man?

Mullah Omar?

2789. jexster - 1/30/2003 12:06:25 PM

And the Little Emperor has just begun to fuck things up...Iraq will be a geopolitical blunder of unimaginable proportions...

2790. jexster - 1/30/2003 12:37:43 PM

On The Eve of Iraq W-ar, Afghan Rebels Send Reminder that Occupation Creates Resistance
As Every Would Be Emperor of the World Sooner or Later Discovers

NY Times reports, "In the heaviest fighting in nine months, American and coalition forces are battling a large group of rebel fighters in a mountainous region of southeastern Afghanistan. Col. Roger King, a spokesman for the U.S. military, said at least 18 rebel fighters had been killed, while no coalition casualties were reported. The fighting began on Monday while U.S. and Afghan forces were searching a compound near Adi Ghar mountain. They came under fire and in the firefight one attacker was killed, one wounded and one detained. Under questioning, the detained man said there was as many as 80 fighters commanded by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a fiery Islamic fundamentalist who has vowed to overthrow President Hamid Karzai's government, in the mountains near the compound."

This is a timely reminder that anyone who thinks an invasion of Iraq will magically bring about peace and democracy (are you listening, Tom Friedman?) is delusional.

2791. jexster - 1/30/2003 2:16:52 PM

Disarming Iraq is important enough to fight for. But is war necessary now?

According to the Bush administration and the United Nations Security Council, the problem we are trying to solve is disarmament. For our own security and that of our friends, we rightly insist on knowing that Iraq does not possess biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

The initial report from Hans Blix and his UN-backed inspectors indicates that this disarmament process is neither succeeding nor failing at this point. It's too early to tell. But the physical threat from Iraq is contained. The powerful military force massing around Iraq and the inspectors beginning to probe wherever they wish have forced Saddam Hussein to lay low. He knows that if he moves to strike or to augment his arsenal, he would be whacked immediately, thanks to the determination of the president.

From a security standpoint, then, the force in the region makes war unnecessary right now. It provides time to let the agreed inspection process proceed. Nevertheless, elements in the Bush administration say they've seen enough. The inspections are a failure; it's time for war.

If you consider the facts, you see this is a rash leap to judgment and war.

Newsday:
George Perkovich - vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Seen any mushroom clouds lately Zan?

2792. jexster - 1/30/2003 2:19:37 PM

But AGAIN Wombat, NOT if this charade has nothing to do with WMD as I have said repeatedly for six months

2793. jexster - 1/30/2003 4:13:03 PM

Up thread I have linked an article from the Guardian (UK) that discusses the conspiracy among the ChickenHawk Warmongers (Cheney Rummy et al) ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco to steal Iraqi Oil.

Powell as the Guardian noted is opposed to these efforts but recall that he has ulitimately failed to prevail ulitimately in each and every battle with the ChickenHawk Neo-Imperialist crowd.

The Guardian is the most comprehensive and least biased source of information on this crisis. Once again the paper leads the field as AP is now catching on to the Bush/Cheney Oil Scam...

Its the OILY EMPIRE STUPID!

2794. jexster - 1/30/2003 4:22:57 PM

Bush Bacillus Buries Blair

Labour MEPs: war is not justified

Thursday January 30, 2003 Guardian UK

Labour MEPs were accused of defying the prime minister this afternoon by backing a resolution declaring that Iraq has done nothing yet to justify war.
Conservative MEPs refused to support the European parliament vote condemning Saddam Hussein, emphasised the need to remove Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and insisted that everything must be conducted through the UN security council.

British MEPs were deeply split on one sentence in the cross-party resolution, which declared that "breaches of UN security council resolution 1441 currently identified by the inspectors with regard to weapons of mass destruction do not justify military action".

The Conservative leader in the European parliament, Jonathan Evans, said: "Labour MEPs' support of this resolution can only be seen as a deliberate snub to the prime minister, weakening his diplomatic and political credibility on the eve of his visit to Washington.

"Today's vote reflects not just a rebellious party but one in open revolt against the government.

THAT is Chirac's game - BLAIRS BALLS....not oil...not some half-assed Charles de Gaulle imitation..Chirac is setting up a European power center in opposition to Bush and undermining Blair's position is the key to his plan.

2795. Cellar Door - 1/30/2003 4:33:29 PM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

2796. Cellar Door - 1/30/2003 4:34:21 PM

Just keep repeating the mantra:"It's not about oil."

2797. concerned - 1/30/2003 5:02:30 PM

Just keep repeating the mantra: "Sqwawk. Sqwaaaaawk. It's all about oil. It's all about oil. Commie want crackdown on freedom. Sqwaaaaawk!"

2798. jexster - 1/30/2003 6:13:30 PM

Bush Violates God's Law - Methodist Church
National Council of Churches Commerical to Air

2799. jexster - 1/30/2003 6:14:16 PM

Sure its about oil unless you are either too stupid to read or to moronized to think. The facts are all there....

2800. jexster - 1/30/2003 6:16:48 PM

The Moronic Mountebank is about to trot out another freshly baked batch of horseapples for Connie's consumption, including the BIG AL Qaeda connection, based primarily on the coerced testimony of a "shadowy, one legged" operative who received medical treatment in Baghdad.

What a fuckin little imbecile you are TD

2801. jexster - 1/30/2003 6:19:17 PM

Hell Fortune Magazine and the WSJ editorial page have been saying it for months. FreeRepublic.com has been saying it for a year.

Fuck WMD, fuck silly assed propaganda about poor suffering Iraqis, fuck nukes - they're in north Korea....

ITS ABOUT OILY EMPIRE

2802. Cellar Door - 1/30/2003 9:59:13 PM

Yesterday's parody is today's reality.

2803. jexster - 1/30/2003 10:04:00 PM

A combination of 11th September, the Israeli lobby and older trends in American history and culture have contributed to a resurgence of American nationalism, directed in the first instance against the Muslim world, but also against Europe and any state or group which resists US policies. To this mixture, 11th September has added justified fear and anger, but also that most intoxicating of all spirits-a sense of righteous and unique national victimhood.
But no one with a sense of history should support aggressive nationalism on the part of any state, whatever the attacks to which they have been subjected. Many nations can claim to have been the victim of unjustified aggression; it does not mean that they are exempt from being judged on the proportionality of their response. We know too well from the history of Europe in the 150 years before 1945 where nationalist machtpolitik can lead. As for "pre-emptive unilateral retaliation," this is a phrase worthy of Orwell. A. Lieven Death of the West

"launching a pre-emptive war is like committing suicide to escape death" Otto von Bismarck

2804. jexster - 1/30/2003 10:05:21 PM

I'd forgotten that CLLR...going to post as SOTU in US Politics thread

2805. jexster - 1/30/2003 10:14:41 PM

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

Oh my Gawd, bring on the Morons!

2806. jexster - 1/30/2003 11:44:36 PM

Blair/Bush v. Chirac/Shroeder - Its Beyond Personal Now

2807. alistairconnor - 1/31/2003 3:51:44 AM

Unless I'm missing something...
Aside from Blair, none of the other 7 signatories of the Times letter are actually offering troops. And there is nothing in the text that Chirac couldn't have signed.

The whole thing is a stunt, orchestrated by Bush's minders, via the Wall St Journal, apparently.

2808. concerned - 1/31/2003 4:36:34 AM

That's a pretty wild surmise, AC. Even jexster might be embarrassed to publicly fabricate that lie.

2809. alistairconnor - 1/31/2003 5:59:35 AM

The Franco-German front in the matter of Iraq has little or nothing to do with personalities. The two governments have a common interest in avoiding the war, and are well in tune with their public opinion.

It also happens to coincide with a crucial period for the EU, where France and Germany are attempting to provide leadership to avoid the thing becoming a formless tepid mass with the arrival of the 10 new candidates (which Blair, on the contrary, is in favor of).

So Chirac will be in no hurry to back down, leaving Schroeder isolated.

2810. joezan - 1/31/2003 7:40:10 AM

Actually, I pray France, Germany and a few others would just continue to bite the hand that's pulled their flaccid, useless wienies out of the fire time and time again.

In the first Gulf War the "coalition" was more trouble than it was worth. Saddam played the weaknesses in that coalition like a fiddle. In fact, his whole purpose in bombing Israel was simply to make it impossible for any of the Arab/Islamic countries to continue as part of the coalition, and maybe even turn against the US.

Can you imagine the wailing from the Old European countries when the first bomb goes astray this time?

Screw 'em.

2811. Wombat - 1/31/2003 8:16:38 AM

In fact, Saddam's actions in the Gulf War did nothing to prevent Egyptian, Syrian, and Gulf State forces from participating in the fighting.

2812. joezan - 1/31/2003 9:01:52 AM

So what?

If Israel had responded with even one retaliatory strike - which is precisely what Saddam was attempting to provoke - every Arab/Muslim country in the coalition would have fallen off like tics off a dead deer, turned around and headed straight for Israel.

2813. marjoribanks - 1/31/2003 9:28:34 AM

This Blix interview is the first thing I've seen that could actually give pause to the US in its so-far successful attempt to steamroller the UN Sec Council into another resolution giving an imprimatur to War.

I suppose the jury will be out until after Powell speaks at the UN next week. The US is going to War, we all know that. But is the US going to get the UN to back it with a resolution that actually goes against the core values of that body? My bet is still yes, but the odds are a little steeper today.

The question, starkly put, is as simple as this. Will China or France veto? It comes down to Chirac, and you will see considerable heat brought to bear on him about his govt's relationship with Hussein, and we will see how far he bends and if and when he finally breaks.

2814. marjoribanks - 1/31/2003 9:31:01 AM

Connor is correct about Germany being in tune with its public opinion. I can appreciate Germany's stance under Scroeder. He said all along he opposed War, he was voted in on that basis, and he is keeping his word. But Chirac has no such principle to stand behind, is vulnerable to public opinion because of his own personal record wrt Hussein, and is very very likely to merely be playing for a better deal for France in the post-Hussein scenario.

We'll see.

2815. marjoribanks - 1/31/2003 9:38:36 AM

Zan's blovaiting is exactly the kind of emptyheaded jingoistic rhetoric that turns off potential supporters of this reasonably just War across the world and in the US.

I often consider that there would be a far more coherent and supportive coalition if there wasn't a simpleton cowboy in the Oval Office, if the US had a more sympathetic character at the helm, someone who could make a persuasive and articulate case for this war (there is one to be made) without struggling to get simple cartoonish sentences out even with the assistance of a teleprompter.

In fact, if the popular vote in the last election were reflected in the leadership, the US would not have idiotically, moronically, short-sightedly, pissed away the tremedous wellspring of global sympathey it rec'd after 9/11/01 and would most likely be head of a righteous coalition taking on Iraq right now. For the simple truth of the matter is that global public opinion (especially in Europe) isn't so much anti-American (though there is some of that) or anti-War (though there is quite a lot of that) but anti-Bush-the-offensive-moron. Frankly, I sympathize.

2816. marjoribanks - 1/31/2003 9:40:58 AM

Did you see Bush refer to Hussein's elite cadre as "henchmen" the other day? I bet you his daily briefings aren't written or even verbal but in the form of luridly colored comic books. I mean, his rhetoric is so ridiculously third-grade.

2817. marjoribanks - 1/31/2003 9:45:17 AM

Re2807:

Havel has contributed crucial troops, and more are on the way. For some reason the Czechs have the world's crack anti-chemical-weapon squads and they are already in Kuwait and signed on to the Bushite War.

2818. joezan - 1/31/2003 9:47:59 AM

Yeah yeah, marj.

We all know about your "sympathies" since 9-11.

Refute anything I've said.

Explain how any country that has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a coalition is going to be of any use, whether it's GWB or Roger Moore in the White House.

2819. Wombat - 1/31/2003 9:52:09 AM

The Czechs were the designated chemical warfare specialists under the Warsaw Pact.

2820. marjoribanks - 1/31/2003 9:56:27 AM

Explain how any country that has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a coalition is going to be of any use, whether it's GWB or Roger Moore in the White House.

First and most important, Mullah Zan, is that it spreads the accountability around. It may not be a concern to you in your backwater, but those of us who live in potential (and proven) US target cities do care that the US is looked at as a unilateral actor even in a relatively just war.

Sign on France, Russia, etc and the picture changes.

Buffoons like you will still imagine the US as a single sheriff acting out your half-baked power fantasies on a global stage but realists will acknowledge that it is the global community acting.

2821. marjoribanks - 1/31/2003 11:00:37 AM

The Czechs were the designated chemical warfare specialists under the Warsaw Pact.,/i>

Interesting, Wombat, thank you for the insight.

2822. marjoribanks - 1/31/2003 11:01:02 AM

Ugh.

2823. jexster - 1/31/2003 11:11:32 AM

This is sure to light a fire under the Wombat...

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

2824. jexster - 1/31/2003 11:11:46 AM

A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE (NYT)
Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, we shouldn't be picking on Iraq on human rights grounds.

Smells like one of those Rape of Belgium, Baby in the Incubator number that the Brits are so adept at.

2825. jexster - 1/31/2003 11:22:58 AM

Pelletiere's closing sentence raises several questions that Kinsley raised and not a few that I have...

Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Why didn't we wage war two decades ago when Saddam destroyed those villages and the United States looked the other way because our bone of contention back then was with Iran?

Why don't we topple other governments around the world that torture their own citizens and do other despicable things?

Bush administration prepared to enforce the no-torturing-children rule by force everywhere?

what happens if Saddam decides to meet all our demands regarding weapons and inspections?

is he then free to torture children and pour acid on innocent citizens without fear of the United States?

If Saddam's human-rights practices morally require the United States to act, why are we waiting for Hans Blix?

if the danger that Saddam will develop and use weapons of mass destruction against the United States justifies removing him in our own long-term self-defense, what does torturing children have to do with it?

And tell us again why we're about to invade Iraq but we're "working with the countries of the region" to pinion North Korea, which is further along the nuclear trail and can't even be bothered to lie about it.

2826. Wombat - 1/31/2003 11:25:56 AM

I can see you now, Jex, in 1938, sneering that Churchill's warnings about Herr Hitler were overblown, and citing the exaggerations and lies put out about the "Hun" in World War I to support your case.

2827. jexster - 1/31/2003 11:31:00 AM

Oh puhleeze can't you do any better than that?

You asked for it....

It is not surprising that crackpot analogies like Mr. Wombats 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 Wombat sounds like real erudition to people who can barely find Canada on a map.

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?

2828. jexster - 1/31/2003 11:32:40 AM

Your case consists exclusively in the HE GASSED HIS OWN people horseshit.

Saddam isn't hitler. God knows Bush isn't Churchill and this isn't Europe 1938

So where were you in say 2000? Where were the Wombat calls to arms then?

2829. jexster - 1/31/2003 11:33:19 AM

I expect that out of Zan but not you and Pelle.

2830. Cellar Door - 1/31/2003 11:34:40 AM

Mark Morford

2831. jexster - 1/31/2003 11:38:01 AM

Ah, for the halcyon days of a year ago, when we fretted about why Arabs hate us. Now the question is: Why does everybody hate us?

Flogging the French
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The macho notion that we'll do what we choose and if the world doesn't like it, it can go [insert expletive here] is both ludicrous and dangerous

I suggest that if you do not wish to be lumped in with the Morons around here or how did you put it, "Bush and his cohorts" you start producing something that sets you apart there Wombat.

2832. jexster - 1/31/2003 11:38:25 AM

If I may be so bold.

2833. jexster - 1/31/2003 11:49:10 AM

Hans Blix: Seen Nothing to Justify War

2834. jexster - 1/31/2003 12:20:10 PM

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq has called on the United States to hand over any evidence of illegal weapons at once to U.N. arms inspectors, so that they can check the claims, the Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

As required by Resolution 1441

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

2835. vonKreedon - 1/31/2003 12:36:52 PM

The US needs to pull out all the stops in sharing its intel with the UNSC. My hope is that the UNSC will then authorize the use of force to support effective discovery and destruction of WMD and associated production resources. I am very fearful of the consequences of unrestricted warfare waged to effect regime change in Iraq and hope that a restrictive UNSC mandate will avoid this while destroying the Iraqi WMD capabilities.

2836. vonKreedon - 1/31/2003 12:37:37 PM

Marj - Yeah, "henchmen", cute bit of comic book jargon for a comic book view of the world.

2837. concerned - 1/31/2003 12:54:59 PM

A sign that those who indulge their predilections toward flowery language are running up against the Peter Principle wrt realpolitik is when they feel obligated to personally attack those who are capable of successfully applying direct action in a way that they find they cannot.

2838. Cellar Door - 1/31/2003 1:03:17 PM

says the man who perpetually refers to our last duly elected president as a rapist.

2839. Wombat - 1/31/2003 1:28:21 PM

Jexter:

My position on Saddam and Iraq hasn't changed a bit since about 1985. Can you say the same?

2840. jexster - 1/31/2003 1:35:24 PM

Yes.

2841. jexster - 1/31/2003 1:38:48 PM

Forty one nobel laureates, 100 ethicists, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Methodist Church (Bush's Church), the National Council of Churches....Unprovoked pre-emptive war is "against God's law"..

So Wombat you have supported removing Saddam by force of arms followed by a 5, 10, 20 year occupation by US forces since 1991 eh?

Too bad we never heard anything until a year ago.

"Forty-one American Nobel laureates in science and economics issued a declaration yesterday opposing a preventive war against Iraq without wide international support. The statement, four sentences long, argues that an American attack would ultimately hurt the security and standing of the United States, even if it succeeds. The signers, all men, include a number who at one time or another have advised the federal government or played important roles in national security. Among them are Hans A. Bethe, an architect of the atom bomb; Walter Kohn, a former adviser to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Pentagon; Norman F. Ramsey, a Manhattan Project scientist who readied the Hiroshima bomb and later advised NATO; and Charles H. Townes, former research director of the Institute for Defense Analyses at the Pentagon and chairman of a federal panel that studied how to base the MX missile and its nuclear warheads."

NyT

2842. jexster - 1/31/2003 1:43:04 PM

Time is Running Out, So is the BullSHit
NyPost

"A one-legged Jordanian terrorist is the man the Bush administration believes could be plotting a biological attack on the US for Saddam Hussein if war with Iraq erupts. He is Abu Mussab al Zarqawi... the mastermind of the London ricin plot, as well as the assassination of American diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan last October. Intelligence officials said Zarqawi is the man Bush was referring to when he warned the nation in his SOTU Address Tuesday night that terrorists could 'bring a day of horror like none we have even known'... Zarqawi was badly injured during U.S. bombing raids on Kabul last year and fled Afghanistan to Iran. Last August, Zarqawi ended up in Baghdad, where he stayed in the hospital for several weeks following the amputation of his leg by Iraqi doctors. U.S. intelligence learned of Zarqawi's presence in Iraq through intercepts of phone calls he made to his family in Jordan."

2843. jexster - 1/31/2003 1:47:17 PM

Since JoeZ seems to have problems with posts citing "peace groups" (war groups are AOK), this from >The Navy Times

"Death, disease and starvation await Iraq's children should war break out, and casualties in the thousands or even in the hundreds of thousands cannot be ruled out, according to a report by... 10 experts from the International Study Team, an independent group of academics, researchers, physicians and child psychologists founded in 1991 to examine the effect of military conflicts on civilians. The report, 'The Impact of a New War on Iraqi Children,' expressed concern not only about casualties among children as a direct result of combat, but more importantly as a result of the results of war - including disruptions of food supplies, lack of medicines, the flight of refugees. Some 500,000 children are already malnourished or underweight, and Iraq currently only has a month's supply of food and three months' supply of medicines. If a war - especially a lengthy one - cuts off supplies or damages Iraq's already decrepit medical infrastructure, then children would see the most suffering."

- 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.

2844. jexster - 1/31/2003 2:27:14 PM

The Anti-Europeans
Anti-Americanism has an evil twin: the neocon campaign to malign the West’s other democracies - The American Conservative

2845. jexster - 1/31/2003 2:28:26 PM

Actually, I pray France, Germany and a few others would just continue to bite the hand that's pulled their flaccid, useless wienies out of the fire time and time again.

Actually it was the USSR that whipped Hitler but what the fuck are you talking about anyway?

2846. jexster - 1/31/2003 2:29:53 PM

At the risk of simplifying, it goes something like this: Churchill good, Chamberlain bad; Democracy good, Tyranny bad; Israel good, Palestine bad; America good, Europe bad; Cowpokes good, Redskins bad; and, listen up, if it hadn’t been for “muscular and unsophisticated Americans,” you Euroweenies would now be speaking Kraut.

2847. Cellar Door - 1/31/2003 3:40:07 PM

Charles Pierce says

"That wasn’t a speech given by a democratic politician. That was an oligarch’s stern lecture, every single miserable syllable of it and every practiced Marlboro Man stare. Was there a word in it that would lead you to believe that this was-don’t start-an elected official speaking in front of a co-equal branch of government and to the people for whom he works? Was there a single gesture that might indicate that he recognizes any limitations, or that he recognizes any imperatives beyond his own increasingly petulant assertion of his own prerogatives? Was there even an inkling that he’d ever take no for an answer?
Find one. I dare you.
Listen how pleased he was at his skill at manipulating the levers of authoritarian power. Listen to a president of the United States take obvious public pride the efficiency of his assassins. (At least Nixon and Kissinger had the good grace not to brag to the country about the murders they orchestrated.) Gaze in awe at the sheer gall of the man, daring anyone to gainsay him, and watch the putative opposition go off mooing idly in response to the biggest wagonload of OK Corral imperial bushwah that ever rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue.

2848. Cellar Door - 1/31/2003 3:40:22 PM

This nation goes reluctantly to war? The nation may, but this administration has been turning handsprings in promiscuous anticipation of it ever since it slimed into Washington two years ago. And I certainly have fait in whatever “the intelligence community” tells me. Do they know the USSR has fallen yet?
And how about that long, touching passage-purse lips, feign concern-about how well “we” know the sacrifices and pain of war? When in hell did he or any of his cabal of chickenhawks learn anything about sacrifice, or pain, or even war, for all that? When he was ducking out of his National Guard duty? When he was getting passed along as the family drunk through the business world? When he slid into Yale and then Harvard Business School on the Idiot Nephews program? When have Wolfowitz or Perle or Cheney or any of them sacrificed anything for any cause greater than the profits of the people who pay their honoraria, and the exercise of power for its own sake?
And there’s no check on them. The press? God help us, no. (Someone please find a derrick and get Howard Fineman off his knees.) The Democrats? Thank you for playing, Gary Locke. We have some lovely parting gifts. The people? Nice Madisonian notion, but nobody’s listening to them.
Maybe Dos Passos was right-we are two countries. I’m just not in the right one, I guess."

2849. concerned - 1/31/2003 5:19:22 PM

What I think is really hilarious about this is that if only as much oil could ever be extracted out of any country as amounts to the barrel or two full that could be pressed out of jexster's and cllrdr's greasy carcasses, they immediately obsess about it being the only motive for US foreign policy to the exclusion of all rational discussion.

2850. concerned - 1/31/2003 7:48:09 PM

The role the French want the Allies to play in Iraq:

What are the benefits of the French way in Iraq? Look at events in the Ivory Coast:

excerpted:

Abidjan - A 5 000-strong stone-throwing mob invaded Ivory Coast's main airport on Friday, storming planes on the tarmac and taunting, slapping and spitting at terrorised French families in flight from their onetime prize West African colony.

"Never come back!" young men, spewing profanities and spitting, shouted after one woman and three children running sobbing under a gauntlet of blows from parking lot to terminal.

France - its decades-old influence in West Africa's economic hub crumbling fast over anger at a French-brokered peace deal here -reluctantly urged its citizens out. The United States, Britain and others did so weeks ago.

2851. concerned - 1/31/2003 7:51:12 PM

Now, who really believes we need the French telling the US what to do in Iraq?

2852. jexster - 2/2/2003 4:29:53 AM

Me.

And what does the Ivory Coast have to do with Iraq or "the French way"?

2853. jexster - 2/2/2003 4:36:34 AM

Lies, lies, more lies - a rerun

Notice how whenever Our Dear Imperious Leader needs to go to the well he never fails to trot out the Al Qaeda lies?

Bush has indulged his obssessions for so long he's become unstable.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — The Bush administration's efforts to build a case for war against Iraq using intelligence to link it to Al Qaeda and the development of prohibited weapons has created friction within United States intelligence agencies, government officials said.

Some analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said.

At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said.

2854. jexster - 2/2/2003 4:36:56 AM

Osama Who?

2855. jexster - 2/2/2003 4:52:55 AM

TD raises the larger question though "who is any one to tell Emperor Moron I anything?" And why bother when he only seems to respond to is "fuck you" and "let's play soldiers"?

As North Korea frantically pulls out fresh plutonium rods from Yongbyan, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, said it might be a matter of only "weeks and months" before North Korea began turning its stockpile of nuclear fuel into weapons.

2856. jexster - 2/2/2003 5:53:31 AM

Start praying for Iraqi people Toronto Star

George W. Bush has conferred an aura of inevitability to a war on Iraq. The only questions are how and when and at what price for whom.

The powerful always have their way. That's not new. The scandal here is that there is no longer even the pretence of a nod to the rule of international law. If the United Nations won't legitimize the war, the U.N. may be dispensed with. That's what the president said Tuesday.
Lost in the stampede for war is its Orwellian rationale:

"Iraq is defying the will of the United Nations," says Powell, so there must be war — in defiance of the majority wishes of the United Nations.

There must be war to bring democracy to Iraq — defying the democratic and popular will of the peoples and governments of Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa and the Far East.

There must be war so Saddam Hussein and his murderous coterie can be charged with crimes against humanity, even if the U.S. does not recognize the International Criminal Court.

There must be war because Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted, even if Bush [has to lie to get it]loses his own credibility in the process.

It didn't have to be this way.
.

What lies ahead?

.... start praying for the poor Iraqis, for whom Bush has just thoughtfully set aside the princely sum of $15 million "for any humanitarian emergency."

2857. jexster - 2/2/2003 5:55:09 AM

War for Iraq who has inspectors and no nukes, but grovel before the Dear Leader who told the inspectors to take a hike, has nukes is making more nukes, and plans to open a plutonium Costco
Nuclear bombs to destroy possible chem bio sites
Aid for Busharraff who sponsored NK's nuke progrm and kill Iraqis
Aggressive unnecessary war for peace
"War for democracy" which will install a puppet military dictatorship

2858. jexster - 2/2/2003 1:47:02 PM

the WashPost reports that Win Without War, a coalition of organizations opposed to invading Iraq, is "accelerating" its ad campaign for TV, radio, and print.

"In the latest ad, actress Janeane Garofalo says she keeps
wondering: Does the US have the right to invade 'a country that's done nothing to us?'

Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, the chief ecumenical officer
of the United Methodist Church, answers: 'No nation under God has that right. It violates international law, it violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Iraq hasn't wronged us. War will only create more terrorists and a more dangerous world for our children.' Talbert...
decided to make the commercial only after Methodist leaders failed in several attempts to obtain a private meeting with Bush. More than 40 bishops and pastors of Protestant and Orthodox churches will issue an open letter today imploring Bush to meet with antiwar religious leaders,"
but Bush refuses.

Bush Fears Avenging Judgment - Refuses to Meet Religious Leaders

"Day of wrath
day of mourning
heaven and earth in ashes burning" Dies Irae

2859. jexster - 2/2/2003 2:06:00 PM

I doubt Bush is ready to rule Mesopotamia
By Lord Patrick Wright, head of the Diplomatic Service from 1986 to 1991 and previously HM Ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia

2860. jexster - 2/2/2003 2:30:16 PM

Easy
Sampurna Chattarji

Death is easy to pronounce.
He deserved to die.
They ought to be shot.
Hanging’s too good for him.
The words fall glib.
Throwaway lines
sentencing them to death.
Distant observer,
you speak without guilt, or fear
of misplaced allegiances.
You just need something to say,
that’s all.
The right sentiment, rightly declared
whichever way your loyalties blow
in the gust of the smoke?lled air.
A country burns.
The death-dealers deserved to die, you say.
Death is easy to pronounce.
It’s the smell of burning children that’s hard.

January 2003, Mumbai, India.

2861. concerned - 2/3/2003 11:15:06 AM

Re. 2858 -

Ms. Garofalo could have more intelligently phrased her question: 'Does the UN ever have the right to authorize military action?'

But then again, Win Without War appears to be pandering to the shallow end of the intellectual spectrum.

2862. concerned - 2/3/2003 11:30:04 AM

Schroeder weighs anti-war stance

This, now that it contributed to his SPD experiencing "...one of its bitterest defeats. At least the bitterest which I have experienced in my political career,", according to Schroeder whose party relied on an anti-US stance to sway voters during the runup to the election.

2863. jexster - 2/3/2003 1:03:54 PM

With polls showing 80%+ support for his position I seriously doubt that CNN is a reliable source..

War Will Produce "One of the Biggest Oil Shocks Ever" -Goldman-Sachs

2864. jexster - 2/3/2003 1:07:27 PM

'A war could drive crude oil prices up by an additional $10-$15, or 30 to 50 per cent [to $46],' says Goldman's report, 'More Perfect Storm than Desert Storm'.

The oil market is currently factoring in a far more benign outlook for oil prices, based on the experience of a rapid drop in prices as soon as US air strikes on Iraq began in 1991. But Goldman points out that there is less excess production capacity now, and that the market is overconfident in the capacity of strategic reserves to bring oil prices down. Use of strategic reserves may dampen near-term prices but will 'prolong price pressures', says the report.

The economic consequences of war

LibDem trade spokesman and former Shell Chief Economist Vincent Cable warns that an attack on Saddam could play havoc with oil prices and create global recession

2865. jexster - 2/3/2003 1:15:43 PM

Yet the potential conflict must be, in significant part, about oil and economics. It is neither irrational nor unworthy to put them at the centre of the debate. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has acknowledged as much. The futures of Iraq and its Gulf neighbours are important, because of oil, in a way that those of Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe and Peru are not.

Not of course to our Iraqi expert-in-residence, the Wombat who believes that the Iraqi people will welcome the neo-colonialist Butcher of Baghdad with open arms and ululating tongues!

The recolonisation of Iraq cannot be sold as liberation

Of course most Iraqis don't want their country invaded and occupied

Well gag me with a spoon Wombat

2866. jexster - 2/3/2003 1:16:54 PM

Tony Blair's government is running scared of the British people and their stubborn opposition to war on Iraq. The latest panic measure is to try to ban what has been trailed as the biggest demonstration in British political history from Hyde Park, where a giant anti-war rally is planned for February 15. As the US administration accelerates its drive to war, its most faithful cheerleader is having to run ever faster to keep up.

Never mind that every single alleged chemical or biological weapons storage site mentioned in Blair's dossier last year has been inspected and found to have been clean..

2867. jexster - 2/3/2003 1:18:23 PM

That's February 15th in Hyde Park. Here in SF we hit the streets on Sunday 2/16 out deference and respect for the Chinese New Year's Parade on the 15th

Gung hay fat choy!

2868. jexster - 2/3/2003 1:49:28 PM

Sent "Easy" Message # 2860 to a friend of mine on the staff of Grace Cathedral...

thanks, John

We've taken to the streets here in protest. We continue to speak out. We've mailed rice packets to Bush with the verse from Romans about feeding your enemy. I took a pilgrimage group to Palestine in Oct and will do so again this Oct.

God bless this planet.

The Rev. ----
Canon Precentor and Associate Pastor

www.gracecathedral.org

2869. jexster - 2/3/2003 1:55:24 PM

Romans 12:17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[4] says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[5] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

2870. Dubai Vol - 2/3/2003 9:42:41 PM

Saddam's bodyguard says:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html

2871. Dubai Vol - 2/3/2003 9:47:37 PM

Sorry,I'm spoiled, let's try again shall we:
Herald Sun

2872. arkymalarky - 2/3/2003 11:37:25 PM

Jex?

2873. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 12:31:48 AM

Dubai - That's great stuff. I assume that the Isrealis will allow him to talk with the UN inspection teams. Hopefully the UNSC will authorize the use of force to inspect/destroy these facilities and to secure interviews with other Saddamite apparatchiks under similar circumstances as this Mahoud.

It is sort of too bad that the Isrealis announced this instead of the UN, as the info is likely to be de-legitimized by much of the Islamic world.

2874. alistairConnor - 2/4/2003 9:37:23 AM

VK - well of course, that's exactly why the Israelis probably won't allow him to talk to the UN inspection teams.

Does Sharon want to legitimize the UN to the Islamic world? No he doesn't. He wants an "us and them" war. That's hardly surprising. What is tragic about the whole business, is that the US has taken the same "us and them" road.

2875. Wombat - 2/4/2003 10:26:58 AM

VK:

The Arab "street" will believe what it wants to believe, regardless of the source. As to Dubai vol's link, I would like to see it run in a few more media sources, before I believe it (much as I would like to).

2876. PelleNilsson - 2/4/2003 10:52:12 AM

That's the feeling I have too. I haven't seen it reported anywhere else. I doubt it's genuine.

2877. concerned - 2/4/2003 11:10:54 AM

Chicks getting it off for war. Don't catch cold now, hear?

2878. concerned - 2/4/2003 11:16:35 AM

Re. 2871 -

I read that yesterday. Now, if France & Germany vote for enforcing 1441 or abstain from voting in the UNSC, Sharon may be able to claim bragging rights for influencing their positions.

2879. concerned - 2/4/2003 11:25:48 AM

Does Sharon want to legitimize the UN to the Islamic world?

There are few people in a poorer position to legitimize anything to 'the Islamic world' in this sense than Ariel Sharon.

2880. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/4/2003 11:30:26 AM

"Chicks?"

Cool, Daddio!

2881. concerned - 2/4/2003 11:30:31 AM

So why should he expend his time in a worthless show?

2882. jexster - 2/4/2003 11:39:32 AM

Thoroughly bogus case for war
Chicago Tribune

2883. jexster - 2/4/2003 11:46:28 AM

Take the Pledge Against Bush War!

Fellowship of Reconciliation
Voices in the Wilderness
American Friends Service Committee,
Episcopal Peace Fellowship
Lutheran Peace Fellowship
Education for Peace in Iraq Center
Interfaith Network of Concern for the People of Iraq Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility

2884. concerned - 2/4/2003 12:13:48 PM

All this pro-Saddam bloviation never ceases to amuse coming from somebody who was such a gung-ho sabre-rattling out and out dog of war in Kosovo.

2885. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 12:16:54 PM

What was your position on Kosovo, concerned?

2886. concerned - 2/4/2003 12:19:39 PM

I was opposed to our unilateral involvement which was in direct opposition to international law and without any UN sanction whatsoever.

Don't take me for some Leftist hypocrite.

2887. concerned - 2/4/2003 12:20:20 PM

I made my position quite clear in the Mote, or perhaps its predecessor, btw.

2888. concerned - 2/4/2003 12:23:42 PM

And to forestall any further misreading of my position wrt Iraq, I would rather not see an armed conflict, but replacing the oppressive Iraqi dictatorship with a responsible democratic government is a higher priority than indulging in mere verbal harangues and worthless UN non-resolutions.

2889. PelleNilsson - 2/4/2003 12:32:42 PM

So, now we see quite clearly that concerned's and jexster's respective stand on crucial international issues has nothing to do with objective realities but solely with considerations arising out of US domestic politics.

2890. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 12:33:31 PM

concerned,

I don't take you for a leftist hypocrite. I take you for an on-message member of the right, part of the vast virtual conspiracy. Everything Clinton did was wrong, everything Bush does is right. And you obviously have not read Wesley Clark's book about Kosovo.

It has really struck me lately how on-message the right is. Not just the politicians, but the media commentators as well. Take joezan's epigraph at the top of the thread. I've heard that countless times from the right wing politicians and mass media commentators. Nobody seems to notice that it's meaningless, unsupported by any evidence, and a distraction from the question at hand.

Yet I read and heard it over and over again.

2891. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 12:34:34 PM

And what Pelle said, too.

2892. concerned - 2/4/2003 12:35:26 PM

Re. 2889 -

Pelle -

My positions regarding US policy in Kosovo and Iraq have nothing to do with domestic concerns.

2893. concerned - 2/4/2003 12:36:18 PM

I wanted US troops out of Bosnia when GHWB was still president, btw.

2894. concerned - 2/4/2003 12:47:12 PM

Re. 2890 -

jayackroyd -

You post nothing that is apposite or particularly true here, in your zeal to categorize me. You cannot create credibility for an administration's failed foreign policies by the shallow subterfuge of claiming that its detractors are automatically part of a 'virtual conspiracy'. In fact, the very recourse to such an attempt is as much evidence of a form of 'groupthink' as is generally seen.

You yourself would admit, if you were honest with yourself, that the last administration has been singularly ineffective wrt most of its foreign policy initiatives. Haiti, Kosovo, Iraq, Mideast Peace Process, Ireland, war on terror, - none have been successes, but many of these have seen serious set backs during the last administration. Given this, one should certainly dismiss such a baseless attempt as you make to deprecate informed dissent.

How about bringing something real to the table instead of simply impugning others without reason?

2895. concerned - 2/4/2003 12:59:04 PM

To see objections to US actions in Kosovo blithely dismissed as merely being the 'talking points' of some 'virtual RW conspiracy' is actually quite an amazing thing to see.

2896. PelleNilsson - 2/4/2003 2:28:20 PM

concerned is scrambling to hide his nakedness.

2897. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 2:31:34 PM

Okay, explain how the Condeleeza Rice quote is meaningful, offer some evidence in support of it and explain how it is relevant to the question of invading Iraq.

2898. concerned - 2/4/2003 2:35:30 PM

Re. 2896 -

Having a bad day, Pelle?

2899. PelleNilsson - 2/4/2003 2:36:55 PM

I'm striving to fill my posts with a rich irony content.

2900. concerned - 2/4/2003 2:38:18 PM

Re. 2897 -

Since the assumed tenets of the requests you make don't really apply to me, I'm not sure I can comply.

2901. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 2:39:13 PM

Fine. Then explain how a NATO action in the Balkans was unilateral.

2902. jexster - 2/4/2003 2:55:55 PM

Powell Won't Republish Bush's SOTU Lies Re: Al Qaeda

2903. concerned - 2/4/2003 2:59:49 PM

Start with the fact that only one country besides the US was peripherally involved in Kosovar military action, that the US violated Section 2 of the UN Charter, that Clowntoon could not have got a vote of approval from the UNSC nor Congress due to the unjustifiable nature of preemptively launching a military assault and thusly broke international law by doing so, plus given the duplicitous nature of the Rambouillet 'Accord' (I use the term loosely) which in actuality allowed Serbia no chance whatsoever at a negotiated resolution of the situation.

Then consider that nearly a million Kosovars were displaced, at least temporarily, by this action, destabilizing the entire region, that thousands of private citizens were killed by the aerial bombardments, that the government that succeeded in Kosovo enacted ethnic cleansing against any remaining Serbs in Kosovo as NATO idly stood by, and that the Kosovo has become a hard drug and white slave distribution conduit and distribution center for the West and probable Islamist hotbed, then it is indeed difficult to discern anything positive that has been achieved in Kosovo by the US action.

2904. jexster - 2/4/2003 3:05:43 PM

The Condo quote is a plagiarism of a quote by Ken Adelman which is now proved to be hokum. Therefore, the condo quote is plaigiarised hokum

2905. jexster - 2/4/2003 3:09:40 PM

that only one country besides the US was peripherally involved in Kosovar military action, that the US violated Section 2 of the UN Charter, that Clowntoon could not have got a vote of approval from the UNSC nor Congress due to the unjustifiable nature of preemptively launching a military assault and thusly broke international law by doing so, plus given the duplicitous nature of the Rambouillet 'Accord' (I use the term loosely) which in actuality allowed Serbia no chance whatsoever at a negotiated resolution of the situation.

All NATO countries were involved it was a NATO action - it was not pre-emptive it was launched after Slobo started mass murder.

You are a simple shit

2906. PelleNilsson - 2/4/2003 3:12:34 PM

The fact is of course that the Security Council road was blocked because Russia, which hadn't then achieved its present level of coziness with the west, would have vetoed any decision that went against its Greek-Orthodox, Slaviv brethren in Serbia.

What concerned is arguing here is that the proper course of action for the US would have been to subordinate its foreign policy to the whims of Russia.

2907. concerned - 2/4/2003 3:15:19 PM

It's been well established that there never was any Serbian 'mass murder' in Kosovo. The only premise for the aerial assault was pure, willful fabrication by x42 and his cronies. And only one NATO country besides the US was involved at all with the military action. There's a reason that NATO was roped into this by x42. Because the UNSC would never have allowed it, nor should they have.

2908. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 3:22:11 PM

Concerned - I'm afraid you're going to have to document for me the establishment that there never was any Servian mass murder in Kosovo, as I am unaware of such a well known fabrication.

My problem with the Kosovo intervention was largely the same problem I expect to have with the Iraqi; we are not willing to risk military casualties in order to reduce civilian casualties. We bomb rather than insert infantry to lay eyes on the potential target.

The other problem that I had with the whole former Yugoslovia mess was that the Europeans should have taken the lead on resolving it, not the US, but they wimped out.

2909. concerned - 2/4/2003 3:22:41 PM

Re. 2906 -

Is Pelle's position so indefensible that he must put words in my mouth in an attempt to form a straw man? It appears so.

There should have been a series of serious negotiations (that never occurred, incidentally) to peacefully resolve the situation wrt Serbia and Kosovo. Unlike Iraq, Serbia posed no particular threat to any of its neighbors and was not a terrorism sponsoring state, nor did it ever have WMD.

As I have already shown, the WH Rapist administration fabricated from mere hearsay a false justification to jump indiscriminately and without a clear sense of what it was trying to accomplish into a completely counterproductive war.

2910. concerned - 2/4/2003 3:24:13 PM

Re. 2908 -

The x42 adminstration was claiming that Serbia was in the process of killing tens of thousands of Kosovars as a justification to bomb Kosovo. Of course, no such ethnic cleansing had occurred.

2911. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 3:27:32 PM

Concerned - You've made that statement twice, at least, now, but I need some citations other than an "Of course, no such..."

2912. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 3:28:08 PM

Concerned - You've made that statement twice, at least, now, but I need some citations other than an "Of course, no such..."

2913. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 3:29:59 PM

Ooops, freaking refresh bug.

Oh well, while I'm here:

Not that I dispute that Clinton engaged in several bouts of vigorous dog wagging, but I'm unaware that actually nothing at all was occurring in Kosovo.

2914. concerned - 2/4/2003 3:32:53 PM

VK -

There turns out to only have been a few hundred deaths (at most) of Albanian Kosovars during Serbian rule of Kosovo that haven't been accounted for by the usual result of insurgent activity.

2915. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 3:33:50 PM

Con - I'm still looking for some citations rather than declarations.

2916. concerned - 2/4/2003 3:35:49 PM

Tell you what. You find me any documented proof whatsoever that I'm wrong about this.

Bet you can't do it.

2917. judithathome - 2/4/2003 3:38:53 PM

Concerned, that is your usual tactic. For shame. You are the one making the claim; show him the cites!

2918. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 3:39:43 PM

Dude, that is a total cop-out. You make a declaration of fact, I ask you for citation of this "well established" fact and then you challenge me to prove the fact's non-existence! Please.

2919. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 3:45:36 PM

At any rate:

Human Rights Watch
US Information Agency
Guardian

Your turn.

2920. concerned - 2/4/2003 3:52:11 PM

Well, geez Louise, VK. This really is old news and everybody should be up on these facts by now.

But just for you, I found this link in about 30 seconds, using Google.

As you can see, I was giving the WH Rapist the benefit of the doubt. The actual lies bandied about by NATO and the Clowntoon administration for his little war were in the 100,000 to 500,000 range, when the article states that the actual evidence shows that 2,500 Kosovar deaths are attributed to Serbian forces, total, not particularized into genocide or firefights.

As can easily be seen, my objections to the US actions in Kosovo in 1999 are well grounded in many areas and depend not at all on domestic politics.

2921. concerned - 2/4/2003 3:54:13 PM

VK -

Two out of your three links are part of the actual early 1999 disinformation, and should be discounted up front, and the third can manage no more than about 3500 total Kosovar deaths, not specifying genocide.

I win.

2922. concerned - 2/4/2003 3:55:15 PM

But thanks for playing.

2923. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 4:08:16 PM

Thank you, yes the citations I provide show ~3,500 deaths, but deaths do not ethnic cleansing make. The citations I give show that approximately one third of the Albanian population was displaced as a result of Serbian para/military actions. They also state that The 593-page report by Human Rights Watch, which is based in New York, lists 3,453 Kosovo killings said to have been carried out by government forces; but it also believes the toll was higher.

Now, please cite your claim that it was claims of deaths "in the 100,000 to 500,000 range" that was used to justify NATO intervention in Kosovo. I am sorry to be so misinformed, but I do not remember claims that deaths of such magnitudes had occurred.

2924. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 4:13:13 PM

On a related note Yugoslovia ceases to exist

2925. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 4:14:01 PM

Dang, where's my link?

Yugoslovia ceases to exist.

2926. judithathome - 2/4/2003 4:19:25 PM

I am sorry to be so misinformed, but I do not remember claims that deaths of such magnitudes had occurred.

I don't recall this, either. But I suppose it is enough that concerned does, right?

2927. magoseph - 2/4/2003 4:28:53 PM

From concerned's World Socialist Web Site,this interesting article:
"The war against Iraq and America’s drive for world domination"
The following is a report given by David North, chairman of the World Socialist Web Site editorial board, to a well-attended public meeting at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor on October 1, 2002.

On September 17, 2002 the Bush administration published its “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” So far, there has been no serious examination of this important document in the establishment media. This is unfortunate, to say the least, because this document advances the political and theoretical justification for a colossal escalation of American militarism. The document asserts as the guiding policy of the United States the right to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or it believes may at some point become, a threat to American interests. No other country in modern history, not even Nazi Germany at the height of Hitler’s madness, has asserted such a sweeping claim to global hegemony—or, to put it more bluntly, world domination—as is now being made by the United States...

2928. concerned - 2/4/2003 5:49:12 PM

Re. 2926 -

Oh, come on, JAH. Are you so ashamed of the behavior of your favorite administration and so craven as to try to pin their lies on me?

It's fact. The Clowntoon administration and NATO not only made those outrageous, fallacious, unverifiable claims, they justified a war based on them. Now, just take the truth like an adult and move on, hopefully a little wiser.

2929. judithathome - 2/4/2003 6:28:22 PM

Jesus, get over yourself, Comcerned. You ought to write for Harlequin Romance...I am neither ashamed nor am I craven and I most definitely am not trying to pin anything on you. I certainly wouldn't expect YOU to have to carry the burden of Clinton's and NATO's nefarious lies and evasions. Heaven forfend! I said I don't recall those numbers, period. I don't.

But you seem to have such a high opinion of your memory and interpretation of almost anything you read, hear, or see that I said it must be enough that you recall it that way. I hardly think I am the one who should be told to take anything like an adult. I'm not the one acting like a child. People ask you for verification and you sneer and tell them to prove you wrong. Very mature.

2930. concerned - 2/4/2003 6:43:44 PM

Re. 2929 -

Well, I admitted my memory wasn't quite accurate, either. I recalled a lower number myself than checking resulted in. There's just something about supposedly responsible adults getting up on their hind legs and evoking 500,000 imaginary deaths.

2931. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 7:02:13 PM

VK wrote:

Not that I dispute that Clinton engaged in several bouts of vigorous dog wagging.

What's funny is that Clinton loses both ways. At the time the cruise missile attack on the Al Qaeda camp was dismissed by the vast virtual right wing conspiracy as a wag the dog attack. And now it's dismissed by the same folks as too little, too late.

The latter, of course, is the proper Monday morning quarterback position. But the VVRWC partisan and unpatriotic refusal to support the president at the time of concerted terrorist attacks against this country's embassies and warships doomed him. Better had he the courage to just ignore the ruckus, but he never really had the courage of his convictions (or perhaps had no convictions) on foreign policy issues. I don't know if that is better or worse than the current administration's lack of principle and reason.

2932. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 7:08:28 PM

concerned wrote is his normal, distant analytical tone:

The Clowntoon administration and NATO not only made those outrageous, fallacious, unverifiable claims, they justified a war based on them.

Better be careful. Substitute "Bush Administration" for your balanced characterization of the last administration, and you may find egg on your face. Weapons of mass destruction, indeed.

2933. vonKreedon - 2/4/2003 7:21:31 PM

Jay - I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the VRWC, but I do hold the views that you ascribe to them as contradictory.

I believe that at least much of Clinton's use of force was dog wagging. I also believe that the military action was too little and I ascribe this to the fact that it was dog wagging rather than actual military action. In dog wagging one has to be careful that there are no politically damaging US casualties and so the most expedient thing to do is throw cruise missiles, and this was Clinton's favorite military action. If cruise missiles won't do the trick then the next best thing is bombing from above AAA range, and this was what Clinton did in Kosovo. If the mission was actually destroying Al Queada or putting an immediate stop to ethnic cleansing then ground troops would have been the means, but this was dog wagging first and military operations second.

2934. concerned - 2/4/2003 7:25:54 PM

American invaders 'will be eaten like rabbits' Mmmmmm-MMMMMMM! Rabbit Stew! Love it. Love it! Loo-ove it!!!

2935. judithathome - 2/4/2003 7:26:22 PM

Well, what do you think the Republicans would have done to him had he decided to follow your advice and sent in troops? They weren't exactly champing at the bit to do so, either.

2936. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 7:28:13 PM

No, VK, it is not the case that holding a view of the shared by the VVRWC makes you a member.

And I take your point that those two positions are not entirely inconsistent. But I do think, in a less vituperative way of putting it, that he would not have been able to accumulate the political capital without a disaster closer to home than the Cole and the Kenyan embassy to have support for a strong enough action to get the Taliban out.

I also think that his inability to accumulate that capital was in part caused by the incessant efforts by the VVRWC to undermine his authority. It is ironic that these are the same people who treat any disagreement with the current president as treasonous.

2937. concerned - 2/4/2003 7:33:12 PM

By sidestepping negotiations and rushing into war, x42 not only completely ignored the diplomatic option, but alienated Russia, and even China when an errant bomb hit the Chinese embassy.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

2938. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 7:36:47 PM

Again, you gotta be careful with these formulations. This administration is in the process of sidestepping negotiations and ignoring the diplomatic options and alienating the Chinese as the North Koreans go into to production mode of actual weapons of mass destruction. Not mustard gas shells. Not biological stockpiles.

Nuclear warheads. Ballistic missiles.

2939. concerned - 2/4/2003 7:40:00 PM

There's no question that NK presents a potentially much touchier situation. However, if NK, for instance, provokes Japan to rearm by its truculence, it will quickly find itself in an arms race it cannot possibly win and without the US having to be significantly involved.

2940. jayackroyd - 2/4/2003 7:43:36 PM

So the principle the administration if following here is?

Is it in American interests to rearm Japan? Do we want the Chinese to have a justification for more nukes? We aren't negotiating because we want to see extended nuclear proliferation in eastern Asis? That's the administration's thinking?

Stupid stupid stupid?

2941. concerned - 2/4/2003 7:57:56 PM

I believe it is short sighted and counterproductive for the US to negotiate unilaterally with NK at present, since doing so tends to perpetuate the Stalinist state's reason for being, i.e. the propagandistic 'great struggle' against the perceived world capitalist power.

Since NK has pulled out of the NPT and violated UN resolutions regarding WMD, including expelling arms inspectors, this is a matter that should be addressed internationally, much preferably under the aegis of the UN.

IMO, the US should make it a non-negotiable precondition prior to any US/NK face to face talks that NK start respecting international law and start guaranteeing basic human rights for its people.

To take this route will make it significantly more difficult for Kim Jong Il to maintain his isolationist path and also score cheap propaganda points with his bluster. He may then find it necessary to do better for his people rather than posture on the international stage (for that is what he is really doing, nuclear arms or no).

2942. concerned - 2/4/2003 8:07:17 PM

Notice how my approach differs dramatically from the Clowntoonian one.

2943. Wombat - 2/4/2003 10:50:43 PM

I love how Concerned uses a world socialist publication to back up his assertions viz. Kosovo.

2944. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2003 11:46:55 AM

What Powell needs to do today is not to convince world opinion but to provide a ladder for the French to climb down on. They are alone now. Schroeder is a spent force after the elections.

2945. jexster - 2/5/2003 11:50:37 AM

Still producing "evidence"....this is like Power Rangers not Adlai Stevenson...

2. When war winged its wide desolation,
And threatened the land to deform,
The ark then of freedom's foundation,
Columbia, rode safe through the storm:

With her garlands of vict'ry around her,
When so proudly she bore her brave crew,
With her flag proudly floating before her

Hard to be a spent force when 70-90% of the voters agree with you Pelle.. fascist cretin

2946. jexster - 2/5/2003 11:53:17 AM

No Causus Belli? Invent One

Been doin it now for 15 months

2947. jexster - 2/5/2003 11:55:28 AM

Jacques Chirac delivered a blunt warning to Tony Blair yesterday that Britain and the US will have their work cut out to persuade France to back a military attack on Iraq.
Laying bare Anglo-French divisions, the French president declared that war was the "worst possible solution" as he called for UN weapons inspectors to be allowed to continue their work.

"I note that the inspection system has proved very effective in the past," Mr Chirac said at the end of yesterday's Anglo-French summit in Le Touquet. "I note that in the first round, more arms were destroyed than in the Gulf war. Therefore the inspection system is very effective."

Chirac Shoves Pole Up Blair's Ass

Pelle you fuckin moron....it Blair that best worry about poles and you better read more Pepys

2948. jexster - 2/5/2003 11:58:39 AM

Can We Justify Killing Iraqi Children?

2949. jexster - 2/5/2003 11:59:19 AM

· Jonathan Glover is director of the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College, London, and author of Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century

2950. wabbit - 2/5/2003 1:07:03 PM

Transcript of Powell's address to the UN

The above link is to my one-page version of what CNN is putting up - I'll update it as they update their site. I just prefer to have it all on one page.

2951. jexster - 2/5/2003 2:08:13 PM

Signs Seen at Last D.C. Peace Rally
As reported by a friend who attended...

1) These colors don't run the world.

2) One nation under surveillance.

3) How did our oil get under their sand?

4) Go Solar, not Ballistic.

5) Who would Jesus bomb?

6) Start Drafting SUV Drivers Now.

7) Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.

8) Buck Fush!

9) It's NUCLEAR, not NUCULAR, you idiot!

10) Patriots are idiots - Matriarchy Now!

11) Resistance is Fertile.

12) (Pictures of sheep carrying flags) Stop Mad Sheep Disease
Now.

13) (UFW sign) Pick Fruit, not Fights.

14) (On a five year old) More Candy Less War.

15) Say can you see my democracy?

16) (With pictures of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld) Asses of Evil.

17) It's the oil, stupid.

18) War is expensive, Peace is priceless.

19) Read between the Pipelines

20) No More Bu.Sh.

21) Smart weapons, Dumb president.

22) The only thing we have to fear is Bush himself.

23) How many Lives per Gallon?

24) Peace Takes Brains

25) Anything War can do, Peace can do better.

26) Negotiation Not Annihilation.

27) Make touchdowns, not war - Go Raiders!

28) Another patriot for peace.

29) Oh Say can You Cease?

30) Star Spangled Bummer

31) Don't Arm a Son of a Bush

32) Don't do it, George, Dad will still love you.

33) Power to the Peaceful

34) The last time we listened to a Bush, we wandered in the
desert for 40 years.

35. Drunk Frat Boy Drives Nation into Ditch. Starts War to Cover up.

2952. jexster - 2/5/2003 2:20:23 PM

UNITED NATIONS - France maintained its opposition to war against Iraq despite Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites)'s presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, instead proposing that weapons inspections be strengthened.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin suggested tripling the number of inspectors and placing a full-time monitor in Baghdad to oversee the process.

"The use of force can only be a final recourse," de Villepin told a special U.N. Security Council session attended by 12 other foreign ministers. "We must move on to a new stage and further strengthen the inspections."

De Villepin said France would carefully review the evidence provided by Powell, but he emphasized that inspections were working and had resulted in major achievements.

Amour sacré de la Patrie
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs
Liberté, Liberté chérie
Combats avec tes défenseurs!
Sous nos drapeaux, que la victoire
Accoure à tes mâles accents
Que tes ennemis expirants
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire!

Aux armes citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons

La Demoiselle D'avignon

2953. jexster - 2/5/2003 2:29:18 PM

A nation may not go to war unless its security is threatened imminently and gravely. A nation is not morally justified in attacking another just because it considers the leader of an adversary "a bad guy" who has announced his bad intentions. If that were so, Iraq would have been justified attacking Kuwait, London, and Crawford months ago

2954. jexster - 2/5/2003 2:29:26 PM

2955. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2003 2:46:12 PM

'fascist cretin'......'fuckin moron'

Aaaah. The wit. The ingeniousness. The sparkling, brilliant intelligence that is able to coin those immortal terms.

What gem can we expect next? 'Eat my runny shit'?

2956. judithathome - 2/5/2003 3:22:01 PM

No, for that you have to go to another forum.

2957. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2003 3:43:32 PM

jexster posts elsewhere too?

2958. judithathome - 2/5/2003 3:53:37 PM

I have no idea...but I thought that line was one Ace's faves.

2959. jexster - 2/5/2003 4:57:29 PM

"The information provided today by the US secretary of state once again convincingly indicates the fact that the activities of the international inspectors in Iraq must be continued." - Igor Ivanov, Russian Foreign Minister

I poop all over the place

2960. jexster - 2/5/2003 4:59:26 PM

What gem can we expect next

Vvedä vittu päähän

Finnish for I am told "Pull a cunt over your head"

2961. concerned - 2/5/2003 6:46:25 PM

Re. 2943 -

And why not? It could hardly be accused of being either pro NATO nor pro RW, now could it?

2962. concerned - 2/5/2003 7:16:55 PM

From AP News: Mandela says Powell is undermining United States

Talk about confused.

Starting with the author of the news item, it's the UN that Mandela is accusing Powell of undermining.

Then there's Mr. Tire Necklace himself who has apparently rotted from the neck up during all those years in prison. Ol' Nellie gleefully shows the world what a puerile, provincial intellectually bereft Marxian racist bigot he really is, fulsomely disseminating his lunatic ignorance based on the apparent belief that the less he knows about something, the more he is compelled to rant at the world about it.

In actuality, Colin Powell is trying to save the UN from marginalizing itself to the point where its use of terms such as 'serious consequences' in binding resolutions mean exactly nothing. GWB may well assist in that effort by applying UN Resolution 1441 to its fullest extent, thus doing the UN a great favor.

2963. robertjayb - 2/5/2003 7:35:06 PM

...fulsomely disseminating his lunatic ignorance based on the apparent belief that the less he knows about something, the more he is compelled to rant at the world about it.

...there's a lot of that going around..

2964. jexster - 2/5/2003 7:36:03 PM

No doubt GWB will do what he has always intended to do - "marginalize" the UN.

Resolution 1441 is working just fine. The Bush Regime had all of the intel it presented today, available months ago, months before it voted AYE on Resolution 1441 which it now says cannot work because of the intel that Bush had all along.

Sounds like a crock of shit to you?

Does to me...

war for peace
unilateral enforcement of UN resolution
nuclear weapons planned to be used to take out chem bio weapons
military dictatorships = democracy
world crusader for democracy ignores 70-90% of world opinio9n

2965. jexster - 2/5/2003 7:36:57 PM

But those little Tonka Toy Trucks we're devastating didn't you think?

A REAL Adlai Stevenson moment if I do say so myself.

2966. judithathome - 2/5/2003 7:37:49 PM

Robert, you took the words right off my keyboard!!

2967. concerned - 2/5/2003 7:45:03 PM

Actually, he took them off of mine. But, at least he had the excuse of making a self referential comment.

2968. jexster - 2/5/2003 7:56:56 PM

When war winged its wide desolation
And threatened the land to deform,
The ark then of freedom's foundation,
Columbia, rode safe thro' the storm:
With the garlands of vict'ry around her,
When so proudly she bore her brave crew,
With her flag proudly floating before her,
The boast of the red, white and blue,
The boast of the red, white and blue,
The boast of the red, white and blue,
With her flag proudly floating before her,
The boast of the red, white and blue

2969. judithathome - 2/5/2003 8:05:30 PM

Concerned, you are grasping at straws when you accuse Robert of anything; he is above all that.

2970. jexster - 2/5/2003 8:11:23 PM

Yes Judith, isn't it maddening! He won't even indulge in a concerned cuffings....what a killjoy

Powell Gets A POLE from UN Security Council - Toy Trucks Flop

2971. jexster - 2/5/2003 8:51:39 PM

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition - organizer of mass protests in San Francisco & Washington Jan. 18 - calls for intensified effort to stop the war

San Francisco mass march set for Sunday, Feb. 16

"The only thing that Secretary of State Colin Powell proved in his speech at the U.N. today was that the Bush Administration is hell-bent on launching a new war on Iraq,"said Richard Becker, a member of the National Steering Committee of the International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) Coalition. "Instead of any 'smoking gun',Powell's 'irrefutable and undeniable' evidence was a series of murky slides, dubious audio tapes and 'testimony' extracted from detainees, many of whom the CIA has boasted of torturing. Powell's case would have been laughed out of any court of law," Becker continued.

Powell's targeted audience today was obviously the people of the U.S. and the world who are growing increasingly doubtful of the unbridled militarism bristling out of Washington,said union and anti-war activist Gloria La
Riva. "Today's charade by Powell was an insult to the intelligence of the broad section of the U.S. population who are in increasing numbers expressing their anti-war sentiments in the streets of cities and towns, coast to coast."

2972. jexster - 2/5/2003 8:53:14 PM

"What Powell didn't mention today was the word 'oil' which the majority of people know is really behind Bush's war drive, stated Student & Youth ANSWER activist LeiLani Dowell. Nor did General Powell mention the fact that the U.S. that has been bombing and blockading the Iraqi people for the past 12 years, not the other way around."

"At the same time that Powell and other administration officials relentlessly promote their fear-mongering campaign regarding Iraq's hypothetical, and in any case much-diminished, weaponry, the Pentagon is preparing to launch a devastating attack on Iraq using very real weapons of mass destruction, possibly including nuclear wapons," Becker pointed out.

Once again on February 16 the streets of San Francisco will be filled with people protesting as part of the world community to say no to war, now, next month or next year. The protest will start at 11 am at Justin Herman Plaza and march to Civic Center at 1pm where notable speakers will include author Alice Walker, actor Danny Glover and many others. This event is being sponsored by International ANSWER, Not In Our Name, Bay Area United for Peace and Justice and Bay Area United Against War.

2973. jexster - 2/5/2003 9:06:50 PM

British Intelligence: BUSH LIED IN SOTU,Blair Gov't Foundering
Insists There are No Links between Saddam and Al Qaeda

Since September 2002, Tony Blair has publicly insisted there are NO links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. But Blair's foreign minister, Jack Straw, has sucked up to Bush by insisting there are links.

Now a top secret British intelligence report has been leaked, confirming Blair's position. "It says al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an 'apostate regime. His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq,' it says. [BBC correspondent Andrew] Gilligan says that in recent days intelligence sources have told the BBC there is growing disquiet at the way their work is being politicised to support the case for war on Iraq. He said: 'This almost unprecedented leak may be a shot across the politicians' bows.'"

2974. jexster - 2/5/2003 11:42:38 PM

Post-War Scenarios: How Many Troops?
Force Requirements in Stability Operations
JAMES T. QUINLIVAN

A 1995 article by RAND asserts that stability operations can demand substantial peacekeeping forces and such commitments can compromise the general readiness of U.S. forces....

2975. jexster - 2/6/2003 12:15:27 AM

San Francisco State University
A.S.P.A. & The Associated Students Incorporated,
of San Francisco State University

PRESENT

"The Coming War with Iraq: How Did We Get Here?"
Scott Ritter

Wednesday, February 26 2 pm
McKenna Theatre

2976. concerned - 2/6/2003 12:29:38 AM

re. 2969 -

JAH -

re. 'being above it all': get real. You and rjb know that jexster owns this thread and yet neither of you ever reference anything he posts for other than acclamation.

2977. concerned - 2/6/2003 2:26:34 AM

Interesting factoid: Sodamn's Baath Socialist Party is never fully named by the mass media.

2978. Macnas - 2/6/2003 3:21:27 AM

And dont forget those lefty labour types as headed by bolshie Blair. How the hell does GWB manage to sleep at night with those reds in the bed, nevermind under it.

2979. alistairConnor - 2/6/2003 6:45:33 AM

It's a pity I didn't watch Powell's razzle-dazzle show on TV. Maybe it would have convinced me.

Didn't seem to impress the important people much though. Three of the five permanent members of the Security Council are saying the same thing : interesting evidence; hand it over to the inspectors, and give them the resources they need to verify it and effectively disarm Iraq.

After all, that is the stated aim of the whole business, and the only issue on which there is concensus on the security council. However much some of the parties may wish for a regime change, democracy, military bases, and/or control of the oil, these are not issues which can justify a UN-sanctioned military operation.

Moral of the story : if the US is in a hurry to go to war, then it will be a US war, not a UN war.

2980. judithathome - 2/6/2003 7:55:54 AM

I don't know why they are bothering with any delays at all...it has always been a US war and Bush intended to have it on from the very first; he is just giving lip service to the UN and once slipped and called them "so-called inspectors". He's never meant for the inspections to work and has enough press behind him to convince this country, anyhow, that he in the right on this.

It has been a foregone conclusion from Day One. And rarely does anyone in his administration speak of the "need" for this war without prefacing it with the words "especially after 9/11". It's like a memo went out insisting it be tied in the minds of the vast unwashed with the Al Qeada attacks on the WTC whether they were in fact and deed connected to Iraq or not.

2981. Trouble - 2/6/2003 8:06:06 AM

Like WWII, it will the American and British military who defeat the enemy. Let the Germans pay for it.

And the big winner will be the Palestians who, with a different government, get their country back.

2982. Trouble - 2/6/2003 8:12:48 AM

will be

2983. judithathome - 2/6/2003 9:20:08 AM

Let the Germans pay for it.

Fat chance. It's going to be our treat, as usual. Stuck with the tab AND the tip.

2984. alistairConnor - 2/6/2003 9:46:40 AM

But you'll get the oil, you lucky people. Enough to keep those SUVs running, for an extra decade or so.

2985. Macnas - 2/6/2003 10:06:43 AM

Or until Big oil manages to monopolise viable alternative energy. A la Shell.

2986. jexster - 2/6/2003 11:55:01 AM

2987. jexster - 2/6/2003 12:01:20 PM

Dear VoteNoWar Member:

Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations was an example of Alice in Wonderland-type propaganda. Reality has been turned upside down. At the very moment that Iraq, hobbled by 12 years of devastating sanctions and ongoing U.S. bombing, is surrounded by a heavily-armed invasion force of more than 100,000 troops, fighter aircraft, warships and high tech conventional missiles, and is threatened with a nuclear strike, Powell argued that Iraq poses a great threat to "peace."

2988. jexster - 2/6/2003 12:01:29 PM

The Pentagon has disclosed its plan to maintain peace by carrying out an opening blitzkrieg on Iraq of more than 3000 bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours. This plan is titled "Shock and Awe" by the administration. 300 to 400 Tomahawk cruise missiles will rip through Iraq on the first day of a U.S. assault, which is more than the number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War. On the second day, another 300 to 400 cruise missiles will be sent.

One of the authors of the Shock and Awe plan stated the intent is, "So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes.'" (CBS News January 27, 2003, New York Times, February 2, 2003)

Is there justification for war? What Bush's war places in jeopardy is enormous. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis may be slaughtered. Tens of thousands of service members will be sent to risk their lives. The economic cost, estimated between $200 billion to $2 trillion will loot the U.S. treasury and mortgage future generations, depleting funds that could provide essential human needs such as education, healthcare, childcare and jobs.

Powell claims that if the U.N. does not support U.S. military aggression and conquest of Iraq, in violation of its Charter, that it will lose its "relevancy." History will remember with great irony Colin Powell's statement that we must stop the leader who "has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows, intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way."

The Bush Administration is not racing to deter an imminent danger posed by Iraq. They are racing to prevent our movement from becoming an insurmountable obstacle to war. Let's all pledge to intensify our work in these crucial coming days and weeks.

In solidarity,

All of us at VoteNoWar.org

2989. joezan - 2/6/2003 12:43:12 PM

Powell claims that if the U.N. does not support U.S. military aggression and conquest of Iraq

Wrong from the gitgo. Agitprop for fevered minds.

2990. jexster - 2/6/2003 12:57:45 PM

I taught him that word!

2991. jexster - 2/6/2003 12:58:27 PM

ANGLICAN COMMUNION NEWS SERVICE
ACNS 3291 | MIDDLE EAST | 6 FEBRUARY 2003

Cyprus and the Gulf issue statement on Iraq

The Synod of the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf met last week and unanimously affirmed the following statement about Iraq:

The Synod of the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf, representing the Anglican Churches within the region, can find no theological or humanitarian justification for the proposed invasion of Iraq. We strongly disagree that is the solution to the present stance of the Iraqi regime or for the suffering of the Iraqi people. The Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf encourages people of all faiths within the region to work together for lasting peace and justice for Iraq.

2992. jexster - 2/6/2003 1:00:39 PM

Pelle's Greasy Pole
Powell Leaves Jury Unconvinced

2993. Cellar Door - 2/6/2003 1:06:19 PM

Terry Jones finds Bush's Iraq policy to be inspirational.

2994. jexster - 2/6/2003 1:07:01 PM

The Case for Not Invading Iraq

By David R. Henderson*

“Saddam Hussein is a madman with weapons of mass destruction, and therefore we need to get rid of him.” We have heard words to this effect from various advocates of invading Iraq. But none of these advocates has ever laid out convincingly why they think Hussein is a mad man. In fact, I know of no evidence that he is insane. We do have a fair amount of evidence that Saddam Hussein is a bad man. I think he’s also a rational man, in the narrow sense of that word. That is, he responds to incentives. And his rational response to the dangerous incentives President Bush has set up for Hussein should make us afraid.

*David R. Henderson is economics professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. This article is adapted from his presentation at The Independent Institute seminar forum, “Secrecy, Freedom and Empire

2995. jexster - 2/6/2003 1:09:46 PM

CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE

Two supreme questions about Iraq: "Why war?" and "Why now?" collapse under scrutiny.

2996. Trouble - 2/6/2003 1:28:38 PM

KUWAIT CITY - Iraq is moving troops and artillery closer to its southern border with Kuwait and deploying them astride highways in preparation for U.S. attacks, according to military officers with access to the region. Iraqi forces also are increasing intelligence activities along the demilitarized border, sending tough-looking "civilians" to visit the area, the officers said

2997. Trouble - 2/6/2003 1:51:56 PM

INACCURATE HEADLINE OF THE WEEK: "Asia unswayed by Powell’s data." The first sentence of this International Herald Tribune story seems to buttress the headline:

"Initial reaction from Asian countries on Thursday indicated that most remained unmoved by Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation of Iraq's noncompliance with United Nations mandates."

If true, this would certainly be newsworthy. Read the story, however. Malaysia is the only country with officials quoted as being unconvinced. In contrast, foreign policy leaders from Australia, Japan and the Philippines are all quoted with expressions of solid support for the U.S. position. The story acknowledges the extent of Japan's policy shift:

"Moving as close as Tokyo has come to backing the use of military force against Iraq, [Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro] Koizumi added: 'Iraq holds the key to whether this matter can be resolved peacefully or not.'"

By my count, then, shouldn't the headline read, "ASIA SWAYED BY POWELL'S DATA"?

To attribute this to the recent New York Times takeover of the International Herald Tribune would just be paranoid.... or would it?

2998. judithathome - 2/6/2003 2:00:05 PM

101st AirBourne Division receives deployment orders for Persian Gulf.

It's on.

2999. jexster - 2/6/2003 2:17:14 PM

Actually Judith, its never been "off"....Charade b4 the Crusade as I said in September!

But as for definitive index of invasion, the Marine Expeditionary Force got its orders a month ago.

3000. jexster - 2/6/2003 2:20:11 PM

U.S. Economy in Worst Hiring Slump in 20 Years

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

If we have no allies with us, Bomb Iraq.
If we're thinkin' someone's dissed us, Bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq.

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

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

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

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

Hey! The Christian God's on our side, Bomb Iraq.
Bless the weapons, take the ride and Bomb Iraq.
Let the innocents be killed,
And lots of heathen blood be spilled,
To get our fuel tanks cheaply filled, let's BOMB IRAQ!

3001. jexster - 2/6/2003 2:22:28 PM

3002. jexster - 2/6/2003 2:36:27 PM

As Powell knows from his Vietnam experience, lies have a way of catching up with you. Years from now, if the U.S. is still spending billions trying to micromanage the Middle East and reaping its rewards in blood, Bush will be marked indelibly, like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon before him, as a leader who went to war on a lie.

Making Up the Case for War

3003. Cellar Door - 2/6/2003 3:09:59 PM

"Shut up! Shut up!"

3004. jexster - 2/6/2003 3:34:55 PM

"New" Europe:

Romania

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Slovenia

Latvia

Lithuania

Estonia

Croatia

Macedonia

Albania

Killer Powell's Killer Flop

3005. Cellar Door - 2/6/2003 3:50:09 PM

Plagarism!

3006. vonKreedon - 2/6/2003 4:57:01 PM

Judith - Would you give me a link to your source for the 10st's deployment orders? Not asking for a cite, just where I can find more information on troop movements for my mast...I mean, to satisfy my curiosty.

3007. judithathome - 2/6/2003 5:11:23 PM

I heard it on CNN...it was on their Breaking News segment at the half hour, around 1pm central time.

Might be on their website.

3008. judithathome - 2/6/2003 5:15:55 PM

Cite

Here ya' go!

3009. Trouble - 2/6/2003 6:20:52 PM

By BARRY SCHWEID
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 6, 2003; 5:05 PM

In the face of stiff opposition from allies, President Bush said Thursday that world leaders "must not back down" from Saddam Hussein and demanded quick action to disarm Iraq.

"The game is over," he declared. "Saddam Hussein will be stopped."

Bush said he would be open to a second U.N. resolution on Iraq, following up one approved last November, but only if it led to prompt disarmament.

"The Security Council must not back down when those demands are defied and mocked by a dictator," Bush said. If the U.N. fails to act, "The United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime," he said.

Bush spoke after meeting with privately with Powell to discuss efforts to win U.N. approval of a resolution specifically authorizing use of force. Powell, who laid out the U.S. case to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, told lawmakers Thursday that the Iraqi situation would be brought to a conclusion "one way or another" in a matter of weeks.

Sticking largely to the case outlined by Powell on Wednesday, Bush said there is no doubt Saddam is not complying.

3010. judithathome - 2/6/2003 6:24:49 PM

"The game is up!"

3013. judithathome - 2/6/2003 6:56:02 PM

He just got one vote from me! ;-)

3014. wonkers2 - 2/6/2003 7:22:25 PM

Clinton was better because he could be relied on to do the smart thing rather than the ideological thing.

Powell did a masterful job with the UN Security Council. But nothing he said convinced me that attacking Iraq without running out the string on inspections and enlisting the support of the international community is the smart thing to do. (1) Iraq apparently is not close to being a nuclear threat, so we can forget Condolezza's Madison Avenue "mushroom cloud" exaggeration. (2) Iraq's chemical and biological capabilities aren't enough of a threat to the U.S. or Europe to outweigh the downside risks and certain disadvantages of an unsanctioned, largely unsupported U.S.-UK attack on Iraq. There is little or no downside of continuing the inspections until they find something or decide further inspections are futile. Or until we have the support of the Security Council. Iraq is not in a position to harm the U.S. and is unlikely to harm its neighbors.

3015. magoseph - 2/6/2003 7:35:19 PM

Clinton Live on Larry King show tonight.

3016. wabbit - 2/6/2003 7:44:10 PM

3011 and 3012 have been deleted.

Cllrdr, try again...without the name, please.

3017. vonKreedon - 2/6/2003 8:21:56 PM

When I listened to the French Foreign Minister's response to Powell's case I thought that he edged toward endorsing coercive inspections/disarmament, but then he backed away. I'm hoping that this is positioning for the negotiations and that the French are actually signalling that they would go along with a UNSC resolution authorizing force to ensure effective work by the inspectors, but I don't have much faith in any of the parties at this point.

3018. jexster - 2/6/2003 9:25:32 PM

"If Saddam Hussein agreed to let weapons inspectors into Iraq, what grounds would we have for attacking? The United States does not go around making war on countries just because we don't like their rulers." USN Admiral, Naval PG School - Summer 2002.

"Our policy is regime change in Baghdad. That policy will not be altered no matter whether inspectors go in or not - Asst. Secty of State John Bolton, BBC Interview, Summer 2002.

So would someone please tell me what's this big whoop about Weapons of Mass Destruction (chem/bio) and the UN when the plan all along was to render the UN superflous?

3019. Al D - 2/6/2003 11:22:25 PM

Only the U.N. can render the UN superflous?. They screwed up when they passed a resolution they were not willing to enforce. Bush has made foold out of the S.C. He will have his war and destrtoy the U.N.

3020. Cellar Door - 2/7/2003 12:04:35 AM

The Game is Up for Tony Blair.

3021. Macnas - 2/7/2003 3:28:10 AM

Good old Paxman.

3022. judithathome - 2/7/2003 9:17:51 AM

I think the person transposing to print in the Paxman Q&A was listening with half an ear. I just find it hard to believe Blair sounded so...ungrammatical.

Must be all that time he spends with Bush.

3023. Macnas - 2/7/2003 9:44:02 AM

judithathome

I watched some of it last night, and thats pretty much how it happened. Mr.Blair has some great PR/spin people, but in a situation where you have a sartorial fiend like Paxman deconstructing you in front of the nation, they cant put the words into his mouth, much as they want to.

3024. judithathome - 2/7/2003 10:11:34 AM

Well, that's good to know...he sounds so silver tongued in speeches but I guess that's because he's reading them, as Bush does.

Blair does seem to read better than Bush, however. ;-)

3025. Macnas - 2/7/2003 10:12:44 AM

Public school and all that.

3026. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/7/2003 11:32:51 AM

Fascinating! Click on the RealAudio link for excerpts that give a flavor of the verbal/visual intercourse . . . and a very interesting post-broadcast analysis of issues.

Christ, what a contrast between a genuine democracy with a press doing its job with an alert citizenry and our corporatation-rigged version with its pathetic excuse for a free press and a mostly complacent populace!

3027. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/7/2003 11:33:51 AM

3028. Macnas - 2/7/2003 11:47:04 AM

Wiz,

Its an interesting subject, your quality of media reportage vesus others. Looking as I do at CNN and other Big Press organisations, I do not get the same depth of information or alternative view/interpretations that I can get here and from the English media.

Indeed, I find more of interest in the smaller (U.S.) local news and press, as there seems to be more room for in-depth discussion and investigation.

3029. Cellar Door - 2/7/2003 11:48:37 AM

Everybody Loves a Dead Iraqi

3030. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/7/2003 12:35:20 PM

Mac, where are you located?—in England?

With regard to local media, are you familiar with the word: "meretricious?" It comes for the Latin word meretrix =prostitute "tawdrily and falsely attractive" —something done solely for money.

3031. jexster - 2/7/2003 12:49:19 PM

AL QAEDA TO CELEBRATE HAJ WITH ATTACK ON AMERICA

Obergruppen Fuerhrer Trashcroft Has Declared

CONDITION ORANGE

that is all

3032. jexster - 2/7/2003 1:02:00 PM

They asked Trashcroft the question "Is this Al Qaeda threat related to our buildup in Iraq"

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

There's no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq!

Now when did Bush lie to us...today or the other day?

3033. jexster - 2/7/2003 1:02:51 PM

Maybe our moderator or little Eddie Dantes can help me out here....

come here Eddie..come git some

3034. jexster - 2/7/2003 4:42:40 PM

BBC: America's Tainted Image

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.

3035. Trouble - 2/7/2003 5:42:05 PM

Many hawks are inclined to celebrate the fact that yesterday some liberal columnists and editorialists announced themselves convinced by Colin Powell's speech - Mary McGrory in the Washington Post most directly, the New York Times editorial page a little more indirectly. The Times wrote, "Mr. Powell's presentation was all the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober, factual case against Mr. Hussein's regime. It may not have produced a 'smoking gun,' but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."

McGrory wrote she "heard enough to know that Saddam Hussein, with his stockpiles of nerve gas and death-dealing chemicals, is more of a menace than I had thought . . . Colin Powell has convinced me that [war] might be the only way to stop a fiend, and that if we do go, there is reason."

"Three cheers for McGrory," Andrew Sullivan said yesterday on his Web site.

I understand the impulse to cheer. But McGrory and her ilk don't deserve it. They deserve raspberries, not cheers. They deserve ridicule, not praise. We hawks shouldn't feel vindicated by their conversion. Rather, they should feel embarrassed by how long it took them and how patently silly the cause of their conversion is.

A single speech by Powell made all the difference? Whom are they kidding? That would be acceptable for a regular citizen who doesn't read four or five newspapers a day, who doesn't attend panel discussions on world topics and who doesn't make judgments on matters of national import for a living.

Can the editorialists of The New York Times really expect the world to swallow the contention that until Colin Powell spoke, there was no evidence of Iraq's defiance of U.N. resolutions? That there has been no ready evidence of its program to make and hide weapons of mass destruction?

3036. Trouble - 2/7/2003 5:42:47 PM

Every interpretation of the data offered by Colin Powell is a confirmation of the arguments the hawks have been making for more than a year. Much of the information was new. The truth about Saddam Hussein isn't new at all.

In American political terms, the only really new thing is that Colin Powell has emerged as the voice of gathering war when for a year we were told he had been serving as the voice of diplomatic restraint. He was supposedly, the "liberal" in the administration.

So, in essence, liberals in the media are using a liberal fig leaf. Because of a contempt or hatred for George W. Bush that is nothing short of demented, they simply refuse to believe the truth when he speaks it.

So they wait for Colin Powell to speak it, at which point they can use his words as a fig leaf and give in without looking like they are in agreement with President Bush.

This is intellectual dishonesty of the highest (or lowest) order.

Podhertz

3037. Macnas - 2/7/2003 6:24:08 PM

Wiz,

I'm in Ireland.

"Meretricious", thats a good word. Don't know how I'll be able to work it into my day to day conversation though.

3038. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/7/2003 6:28:33 PM

Mac, just call 'em what they are . . . whores!

3039. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/7/2003 6:31:42 PM

Although . . .

3040. Macnas - 2/7/2003 6:34:15 PM

The Mirror still has some traces of its old socialist traditions.

3041. Macnas - 2/7/2003 6:34:52 PM

Not much though, thank you mister Murdoch.

3042. jexster - 2/7/2003 8:15:26 PM

Join 10 Million Worldwide in the Streets to Stop Bush's War
Feb 15-16

3043. jexster - 2/7/2003 8:16:44 PM

Empire Sells Iraqi Kurds to Turkey NyT

3044. jexster - 2/7/2003 8:18:15 PM

NATO Opposition to Aiding Turks

3045. jexster - 2/7/2003 8:40:26 PM

Not in MY Name
Different Man, Different Moment
By ADLAI E. STEVENSON III

CHICAGO — Pundits and officials in Washington have dubbed Secretary of State Colin Powell's attempt to make a case for war against Iraq in the United Nations Security Council an "Adlai Stevenson moment."

I couldn't disagree more. My father was Adlai Stevenson, who in 1962, as President Kennedy's representative to the United Nations, presented the Security Council with incontrovertible proof that the Soviet Union, a nuclear superpower, was installing missiles in Cuba and threatening to upset the world's "balance of terror."

That "moment" had an obvious purpose: containing the Soviet Union and maintaining peace. It worked, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. This moment has a different purpose: war.

3046. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/7/2003 8:51:12 PM

3047. jexster - 2/7/2003 8:52:35 PM

Foreign Policy in Focus
Addressing Iraqi Repression and the Need for a Change of Regime

While the repressive nature of the Iraqi government is all too real, it must not be used to justify increasing the suffering of the Iraqi people through war

3048. jexster - 2/7/2003 8:54:51 PM

Nice likeness of Zan there Wiz!

3049. jexster - 2/7/2003 9:08:03 PM

"Specter of Lebanon Haunts Iraq Occupation Plans"

They better call for some expertise...call for Wombat...what a sorry joke.

3050. jexster - 2/7/2003 9:09:50 PM

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- 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.

3051. Al D - 2/7/2003 9:21:56 PM

The Mirror still has some traces of its old socialist traditions.

No problem for the RDDB Wiz who is left of left and a great lover of Cuba, China, and wishes he had Stalin and Pol Pot back.

3052. jayackroyd - 2/7/2003 9:26:24 PM

This afternoon, I spoke with a friend whose father just came back from Saudi Arabia. She said that he said (and I would like to hear corroboration from anyone in the region) that there is nightly gunfire, that there are no daytime air landings, and that night landings are without running lights.

3053. PelleNilsson - 2/8/2003 4:22:38 AM

jay

I would be surprised if that is true. Right now two million pilgrims are pouring in to Saudi for the Hajj.

3054. PelleNilsson - 2/8/2003 4:24:20 AM

Trouble's Message # 3035 and following are again an unattributed copy and paste job from a post by Ace in another forum.

3055. jexster - 2/8/2003 4:42:22 AM

U.S. Tells Diplomats to Leave Mideast

3056. jexster - 2/8/2003 4:46:11 AM

Downing St admits blunder on Iraq dossier

Plagiarism row casts shadow over No 10's case against Saddam

3057. jexster - 2/8/2003 4:48:15 AM

A Coalition of the New Vassals

Iraq has exposed both the splits in western Europe and the ease with which former eastern bloc states have been drawn into the US orbit

3058. jexster - 2/8/2003 4:53:38 AM

Powell fails to convince Nato waverers

Rift Deepens

America's hawkish appeal to the UN security council has more effect at home than among its erstwhile European allies.

3059. Trouble - 2/8/2003 7:57:22 AM

Not Elegant Enough for Hans Blix

The Times of London has identified the Iraqi man who ran into a U.N. inspectors' truck shouting "Save me!" before being handed over to Saddamite goons two weeks ago. He is 29-year-old Adnan Abdul Karim Enad. "Abidalrahim Al-Nuimi, a relative living in America, said the family was involved with the Iraqi opposition abroad and Adnan may have feared retaliation by Iraqi authorities," reports the Times:

"I believe he did that to get refugee (status) because he cannot wait too long. I know this guy very well. He is aggressive. He ran away from the Iraqi army because he did not think he could serve Saddam. They put him in jail for two years.

"We just want to make sure he is alive. We tried to call. Our relatives in Baghdad cannot say anything." Mr AlNuimi, who asked that his precise relationship with Adnan not be disclosed, said the family feared not just for his well-being but also for the fate of other family members in Iraq. They have written to President Bush and Amnesty International seeking their help.

Inspector in chief Hans Blix was "flummoxed" when asked about the incident, the Times says. "He added that Iraqi scientists could find 'more elegant ways' of approaching UN inspectors."

SIC!

3060. jexster - 2/8/2003 12:04:16 PM

Annan Warns Bush Against Unilateral Attack on Iraq

Bush, Rumsfeld Warn Against Delay on Iraq

The same headlines were seen last August. Can there be any doubt that Bush's UN charade was of a piece with his >12 lies about WMD in Iraq and can there be any doubt that Bush never gave a rat's ass, then or now, about the UN, about WMD, or indeed about anything other than his pathetic obsession with Empire?

3061. jexster - 2/8/2003 12:08:06 PM

France and China Just Say No To Bush's War

Sturmbannfuehrer Rumsfeld Pissed at NATO for Blocking Aid to Turks

Hell they need it to make good on the Empire's gift of the Iraqi Kurds.

3062. jexster - 2/8/2003 12:44:44 PM

More Bush Lies Exposed

Iraq took journalists to a missile production site in Al Moatassem to rebut Powell charges that it was developing long-range missiles in violation of a U.N. ban.

3063. jexster - 2/8/2003 3:36:50 PM

JOURNALIST Sean Boyne and student Ibrahim al-Marashi have attacked Tony Blair for using their reports to call for war against Iraq.

Mr Boyne, who works for military magazine Jane's Intelligence Review, said he was shocked his work had been used in the Government's dossier.

Articles he wrote in 1997 were plagiarised for a 19-page intelligence document entitled Iraq: Its Infrastructure Of Concealment, Deception And Intimidation to add weight to the PM's warmongering.

He said: "I don't like to think that anything I wrote has been used for an argument for war. I am concerned because I am against the war."

The other main source was a thesis by post-graduate student, Ibrahim al-Marashi, the US-born son of Iraqis, who lives in California. His research was partly based on documents seized in the 1991 Gulf War.

He said: "This is wholesale deception. How can the British public trust the Government if it is up to these sort of tricks? People will treat any other information they publish with a lot of scepticism from now on."

REAL AUTHORS OF IRAQ DOSSIER BLAST BLAIR
Don't Trust Anything Bush or Blair Tell YOu
The Daily Mirror Excloo

3064. Edmund Dantes - 2/8/2003 4:48:43 PM

We are all aware of the fact that French companies and the French state are owed immense sums of money by Saddam Hussein. We all very much hope that no private gifts to any French political figures have been made by the Iraqi Baath Party, even though such scruple on either side would be anomalous to say the very least. Is it possible that there is any more to it than that? The future government in Baghdad may very well not consider itself responsible for paying Saddam's debts. Does this alone condition the Chirac response to a fin de régime in Iraq?

Alas, no. Recent days brought tidings of an official invitation to Paris, for Robert Mugabe. The President-for-life of Zimbabwe may have many charms, but spare cash is not among them. His treasury is as empty as the stomachs of his people. No, when the plumed parade brings Mugabe up the Champs Elysees, the only satisfaction for Mr. Chirac will be the sound of a petty slap in the face to Tony Blair, who has recently tried to abridge Mugabe's freedom to travel. Thus we are forced to think that French diplomacy, as well as being for sale or for hire, is chiefly preoccupied with extracting advantage and prestige from the difficulties of its allies.

Christopher Hitchens

3065. jexster - 2/8/2003 5:51:28 PM

Of course not.

As pointed out several times by none other than Richard Lugar, Richard Armitage and Colin Powell, the best course for the French to follow is to follow the Emperor. Take the deal he has offered the Russians -"We will honor all prior agreements of the Iraqi State"

The very worst thing that the French or nation could do, assuming that protection of their financial interests was paramount, would be to do exactly what Chirac is doing.

3066. jexster - 2/8/2003 5:51:56 PM

BAGHDAD/MUNICH (Reuters) - Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix called new disarmament talks with Iraqi officials on Saturday "very substantial," as the United States rebuked European allies for their reluctance to back war on Baghdad. U.N. atomic expert Mohamed ElBaradei opened two days of talks in Baghdad as they prepared to present a fresh report to the U.N. Security Council next Friday that could start a countdown to war.

In Germany, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a security conference the world was serious about disarming Baghdad. He rounded on France, Germany and Belgium for "inexcusable" stalling of NATO (news - web sites) moves to help protect Turkey from any war in its neighbor Iraq.

Apparently undeterred, Germany announced a new Franco-German initiative to try to avert military conflict. A German magazine reported it involved sending thousands of U.N. peacekeeping troops to Iraq and trebling the number of arms inspectors.

3067. jexster - 2/8/2003 5:59:10 PM

Of course the German proposal for coercive inspections is is exactly that recommended last August by the Carnegie Endowment, and similar to that which I proposed in December 1998 right here on the Mote.

Of course the German proposal is a non-starter because the Bush Regime couldn't be less interested in WMD.

3068. jexster - 2/8/2003 6:01:34 PM

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

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'.

3069. jexster - 2/8/2003 6:02:38 PM

Washington is split along hawk-dove lines about the role of oil in a post-Saddam Iraq. 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.

The dovish line, led by Colin Powell, places the emphasis on 'protection' of Iraq's oil for Iraq's people.

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.

3070. jexster - 2/8/2003 6:02:53 PM

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.

But, in the run-up to war, the US oil majors will this week report a big leap in profits. ChevronTexaco is to report a 300 per cent rise. Chevron used to employ the hawkish Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, as a member of its board.

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.'

The Guardian UK

3071. jexster - 2/8/2003 6:04:27 PM

What Will Happen to Iraq's Oil

3072. jexster - 2/8/2003 6:07:03 PM

Iraq dossier assembled by junior aides
By Rosemary Bennett and Elaine Monaghan - Times of London

Downing Street's embarrassment over its Iraq “intelligence” dossier deepened yesterday with the disclosure that key sections were cobbled together by junior communications unit staff

3073. Marc-Albert - 2/8/2003 7:47:24 PM

jexter, jexter, jexter, jexter, jexter, jexter, jexter, jexter,

3074. Marc-Albert - 2/8/2003 8:01:36 PM

I though it was the US, and its lone British 'puppet', who were supposed to be 'isolated' on the Iraqi business, or on everything for that matter.

"La France et l'Allemagne sont de plus en plus isolées dans l'Union européenne (UE), et surtout dans l'Otan, dans leur opposition à un recours immédiat aux armes contre l'Irak, mais continuent à résister aux pressions pour faire fléchir leurs positions." (Le Monde, 2/8/03)

France lost the Ivory Coast this week, but it still has "le véto" ("As long as we have le véto, we're still somebody")

3075. jexster - 2/8/2003 8:16:51 PM

Coincidentally, CBS MarketWatch.com's Weekend Show carries a feature basically confirming the Guardian's analysis above as well as the point that I have made - Cheney and Bush are out to give their cronies at Chevron Texaco, ExxonMobil, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell the Basra Oil fields BUT NOT at a free market price of $10/bbl when the both of them repeatedly exhorted OPEC to RAISE prices that were substantially NORTH of that figure.

No indeed. They're gonna sell that $1/bbl shit for 25-30.

You can take that to the bank.

Unless of course, Weenie Powell, Porch Monkey, prevails with his case that such thievery is against international law.

Fat chance. That would be a first for the Lawn Jockey of Foggy Bottom

ITS THE OIL STUPID!!!

3076. jexster - 2/8/2003 8:18:21 PM

Why all the self-flagellation over at Le Monde? They worried about Estonia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Rumania?

3077. jexster - 2/8/2003 8:20:57 PM

Marc - Je vous assure que Chirac pas le soin.

3078. jexster - 2/8/2003 8:25:42 PM

La Gloire, La Gloire, TOUJOURS La Gloire!

Que veut cette horde d'esclaves
De traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés?
Français, pour nous, ah! quel outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter?
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer
De rendre à l'antique esclavage!
Rouget de Lisle (25 Avril, 1792)

3079. jexster - 2/8/2003 8:42:49 PM

Piteously ripping out your mère's womb MarcA..

Ou sont tes couilles Marc Albert?

AUX ARMES!

Français, en guerriers magnanimes
Portez ou retenez vos coups!
Épargnez ces tristes victimes
À regret s'armant contre nous

Mais ces despotes sanguinaires
Mais ces complices de Bouillé
Tous ces tigres qui, sans pitié
Déchirent le sein de leur mère!

3080. Edmund Dantes - 2/8/2003 9:05:41 PM

Toy check

3081. Edmund Dantes - 2/8/2003 9:06:44 PM

US and Britain will give Saddam just 48 hours to leave Iraq

Britain and America are drawing up plans to give Saddam Hussein as little as 48 hours to flee Baghdad or face war, if UN weapons inspectors report this week that the Iraqi dictator is still refusing to disarm fully.

The proposals will form the framework of a long-awaited second resolution, which could be put before the Security Council by next weekend.

3082. robertjayb - 2/8/2003 9:50:00 PM

Vote France off the island...Thomas Friedman

Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council could be chosen like the starting five for the N.B.A. All-Star team — with a vote by the fans. If so, I would certainly vote France off the Council and replace it with India. Then the perm-five would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United States. That's more like it.

3083. jexster - 2/8/2003 10:47:54 PM

Why Britain? Why any country that doesn't please Tom Friedman?

What an arrogant bag of gas.

3084. jexster - 2/8/2003 10:48:38 PM

Why not Japan?

Germany?
plus India and China?

Kick Britain and France off.

3085. jexster - 2/8/2003 10:52:01 PM

Paris et Berlin s'opposent aux Etats-Unis

Divergences profondes entre Américains et Français

3086. Edmund Dantes - 2/8/2003 10:54:40 PM

Why Britain?

Maybe because Britain hasn't had its head handed to it in every war in which it's engaged since the advent of the repeating rifle.

3087. jexster - 2/8/2003 10:54:59 PM

Message # 3081

And ChickenHawk emeritus Frank Gaffney (of the Perle lunatic claque) predicted flatly that if Bush went for a Saddam exile and of course in the unlikely event that Hussein agreed, there'd be "mass resignations" among the DoD Freikorps, which, when you think about it, would be a REAL boon to world peace.

3088. jexster - 2/8/2003 10:56:08 PM

Is that what constitutes a requirement for membership, in your mind Eddie?

Macho macho man?

Freak

3089. jexster - 2/8/2003 10:58:00 PM

France's ace in the hole of course is that its is that of anywhere from 70 to 90% of the people of Western Europe.

3090. jexster - 2/8/2003 11:36:54 PM

A war's likely toll on Iraqis

One UN report forecasts widespread hunger and disease among civilians
Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD HOSPITAL: Iraqi mothers sat with children, described as malnourished, as European Parliament members toured this week.

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.

3091. jexster - 2/8/2003 11:44:46 PM

tsk tsk...Marc A don't you Europeans know how to act like proper little vassals before your Emperor's emmissary?

Rumsfeld Rebukes U.N. and NATO on Approach to Baghdad

We'll not long tolerate such insolence from WorldHistorical Losers such as the French.

3092. Cellar Door - 2/9/2003 12:48:44 AM

Unless The Count of Monte Crisco kills an Iraqi with his bare hands he should consider himself a Terrorist!

3093. Cellar Door - 2/9/2003 12:52:05 AM

The count can't countenance the True Bravery of the British people!

3094. jexster - 2/9/2003 12:53:39 AM

Porch Negress Condo Rice, the mushroom cloud lady whose quote only JoeZ currently takes seriously - the rest either snicker or howl - well Condo isn't pushing that hokum anymore...no siree, the lady with the Chevron Tanker named after her is tellin us that the Bush War is get this - part of US tradition of helping the less fortunate!!!!

Whaddya think of that Boba?

That's a hoot isn't it.

3095. jexster - 2/9/2003 12:56:08 AM

So's this dontcha think?

3096. jexster - 2/9/2003 5:29:08 AM

3097. jexster - 2/9/2003 5:30:30 AM

Who is this Ace of Spades that has appeared around here and is the moniker's appearance some sort of battle standard?

heheheheehe

3098. jexster - 2/9/2003 11:52:04 AM

Colin Powell cited a "fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities" in his Adlai Stevenson "un-moment".

It of course was pure bunkum, a plagiarised fraud, bad grammar and all.

But there's more, there's Powell's speech itself. A couple of weeks back I listed about 11 lies that Bush made in or in the run up to his September speech. Well now we have caught Powell in two lies and if they give us another four months we'll get him in nine more. First the missile factory lie, now

A Real Edmundo Dantes Weapons Grade Whopper!
Revealed: truth behind US 'poison factory' claim

Sunday February 9, 2003
The Observer

If Colin Powell were to visit the shabby military compound at the foot of a large snow-covered mountain, he might be in for an unpleasant surprise. The US Secretary of State last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.'

Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking.

3099. jexster - 2/9/2003 12:01:39 PM

last Wednesday Powell suggested that the 500-strong band of Ansar fighters had links with both al-Qaeda and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. They were, he hinted, a global menace - and more than that they were the elusive link between Osama bin Laden and Iraq.

This is clearly little more than cheap hyperbole..

A Bush/Republican especialidad de la casa

3100. jexster - 2/9/2003 12:11:18 PM

Marc Albert, Jacques n'est pas seul!
1/2 Million Expected on Icy Streets of London Next Week - Guardian UK

Mass March & Rally:
STOP THE WAR ON IRAQ!
Money for Human Needs--Not War!
No Racist Scapegoating! Defend Civil Liberties!

SUNDAY 02.16.03

San Francisco
Assemble at 11 a.m. at Embarcadero & Market
March at 1 p.m. to Civic Center for 2 p.m. Rally

3101. jexster - 2/9/2003 5:22:15 PM

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=31139
target=new>Vatican Not Convinced by Powell

Vatican officials turned a skeptical eye on Colin Powell's evidence against Iraq. Further, they questioned why the evidence the United States possessed was held back and not given to the Security Council until February 5, 2003 - almost a full three months after the new resolution
took effect. Such evidence, in their opinion, could have assisted inspectors in their efforts and could avoid war. In another turn of events, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, a Christian, has requested an audience with the Pope which has been accepted. They will meet to discuss the
situation in Iraq on February 14, 2003.

3102. jexster - 2/9/2003 5:25:31 PM

target=new>Russia and Belgium Endorse Franco-German Peace Plan

The BBC reports, "Russia has said it will support a Franco-German plan aimed at averting war with Iraq. The plan reportedly calls for the tripling of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, banning Iraqi flights anywhere over the country and deploying UN peacekeepers. German Defence Minister Peter Struck said the proposal would be presented to the UN Security Council on Friday - the same day the chief UN weapons inspectors present their second critical report. The plan seems certain to deepen a growing rift between the United States and European countries over how to ensure
Iraq disarms. Mr Struck said German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder would discuss the plan with the visiting Russian President, Vladimir Putin, in Berlin on Sunday... Russia's Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, said on Sunday that if the plan was presented to the UN, 'I have no doubt that Russia will adhere to it.' Belgium also said it was favourable to the Franco-German plan, according to the French news agency AFP."

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.....

3103. Cellar Door - 2/9/2003 9:33:39 PM

Bush holds a press conference on Iraq

3104. jexster - 2/9/2003 10:01:30 PM

Pope John Paul II Stands With Germany

Vatican Assails Italian Defense Minister in Stepped Up Campaign Against Bush Attack on Iraq

3105. jexster - 2/9/2003 10:03:00 PM

Wonder what the great Republican Slime Machine has in store for Il Papa???

3106. concerned - 2/10/2003 2:03:15 AM

There's no such 'slime machine'.

3107. concerned - 2/10/2003 2:14:05 AM

2984. alistairConnor - 2/6/03 2:46:40 PM

But you'll get the oil, you lucky people. Enough to keep those SUVs running, for an extra decade or so.

2985. Macnas - 2/6/03 3:06:43 PM

Or until Big oil manages to monopolise viable alternative energy. A la Shell.

It's clearly time for Macnas and AC to lead a war of 'Progressives' against the Big Oil oppressors.

Starting with British Petroleum and their heinous solar cell racket.

Sound silly? No more so than their rhetoric.

3108. Macnas - 2/10/2003 3:30:59 AM

Cynical yes, silly rhetoric no.

3109. concerned - 2/10/2003 3:42:30 AM

Why is 'big oil' always wrongly associated with the US by the left when they are primarily international by their very nature and most other countries are replete with their own oil corporations?

3110. Macnas - 2/10/2003 3:50:15 AM

Most folks here are americans, when they say "Big Oil" they mean their own oil companies as they know them I'd suppose.

When I use it, I'm thinking Shell and BP, but it all adds up to the same thing. Or is that just too leftist or "progressive" to make a lick of sense??

3111. concerned - 2/10/2003 4:04:16 AM

Where exactly is merit in preventing so-called 'big oil' from doing energy research? I keep hearing from the left that imposing such restrictions is a good idea but no explanations to justify that unique viewpoint seem to follow.

3112. concerned - 2/10/2003 4:17:14 AM

From the AP:

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb 10, 2003
France blocked the start of NATO military planning Monday to protect Turkey against the threat of Iraqi missile attack, further accentuating the deep divisions in the alliance over the Iraq crisis.

NATO officials said France formally blocked the move an hour before NATO procedures would have started the military planning automatically at 4 a.m. EST.

As expected, Belgium backed the French move. Foreign Minister Louis Michel said Sunday it was too early for the alliance to enter into a "war mind-set."

It was unclear if Germany, which had previously backed French and Belgian hesitation, had also supported the latest delay of the planning to send surveillance planes, anti-missile batteries and units specialized in dealing with germ warfare and poison gas attacks to Turkey.

The French move is a blow to the United States which has lobbied hard for more than three weeks for the alliance to start the military planning, backed by 16 of the 19 NATO allies.

The French and Belgian foreign ministers held a telephone conference early Monday and said they would continue to block the automatic start of military planning."They had their talks and they will continue to block," said Belgian government spokesman Didier Seeuws of the telephone talks between his minister Louis Michel and his French counterpart Dominique de Villepin.

Faced with the latest delay, Turkey was widely expected to call for urgent consultations under NATO's mutual defense treaty. A meeting of NATO's policy making North Atlantic Council was possible later Monday, officials said.

Diplomats said they expected France and the other holdouts to drop their objections to the military planning faced with a direct request from the Turks under the treaty.

The dispute over the planning has dragged on for three weeks, causing increasing acrimony among the allies.

3113. concerned - 2/10/2003 4:17:35 AM

At a stormy weekend meeting in Munich, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned continued delays in responding to Turkey's request were "inexcusable" and risked undermining the credibility of the alliance.

Rumsfeld intensified his criticism in an interview Sunday with Italy's La Republica newspaper. "Shameful, for me it's truly shameful," Rumsfeld was quoted as saying. "Turkey is an ally. An ally that is risking everything ... How can you refuse it help?"

In France, officials countered that it was too early to start military preparations while diplomatic efforts continued to avoid war. However they stressed they would help the Turks if they judged it necessary.

"If Turkey was really under threat, France would be one of the first at its side," French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told reporters in Munich. "Today we don't feel that threat is there."

Other NATO allies expressed confidence the doubters would rally to the plan early this week in response to a direct Turkish request.

"I trust the alliance will stick together and we will help Turkey," Norwegian Defense Minister Kristin Krohn Devold said Sunday. "I have a strong belief in common sense."

As well as trans-Atlantic differences, the deadlock has highlighted deep divisions among European allies with the majority, led by Britain, Spain and Italy, backing the tough line against Iraq taken by the United States against France and Germany.

NATO's military commanders say the planning for the limited support for Turkey can be wrapped up within a few days once they get the go-ahead, but actual deployment of the NATO units will need further approval from the 19 allies.

All NATO decisions require unanimous support from the allies.

France (& Belgium & Doucheland) seems to relish misusing its veto power, regardless of the damage that ensues.

3114. jexster - 2/10/2003 6:35:14 AM

Europe Blocks NATO Over Iraq, Bush Throws Another Hissy Fit

The man is mad and everyone knows it now.

3115. Wombat - 2/10/2003 8:59:17 AM

In reading some of the "alternatives to war" articles such as that of the Carnegie Foundation, and the more "robust" sanctions backed by military force proposed by the French, it seems that some of the proponents do not discuss worst-case scenarios with the enthusiasm that they have reserved for the US's larger invasion plans. Let me offer some:

1) While attacking an installation under the proposed stricter guidelines, a U.S. or British (hell, even a French)jet is shot down, and the crew is captured. Hostage drama redux, with a possibility of a larger war increased.

2) Oops! We thought it was hiding WMD, but it turns out to a school/hospital/mosque/old folks home (multiply this by more than one occasion). What say the Moslem "street" to that?

3) Hurray! A large cache of Sarin has been tracked and is confirmed to be in one of Saddam's "palaces." Following the proposed guidelines, the "palace" is leveled by precise air strikes, with the surrounding neighborhoods left intact. To bad it was in Baghdad, and thousands of inhabitants near the site have been killed by the cloud of Sarin released as a result of the strike. But that's OK, because Iraq has not been invaded.

It is a matter of time before scenario 1 takes place, although with increased patrols over all of Iraq as called for by the "robust" inspections regime, it will be more likely to happen sooner. Scenario 2 will occur under any circumstance, although the "robust" inspections regime makes it likely to occur numerous times over a span of months or years. Scenario 3 would be most likely to take place under the "robust" inspection regime, than during an all-out invasion, when WMD would be more likely to used against the invading military forces or Israel.

3116. iiibbb - 2/10/2003 10:18:53 AM

Kind of an interesting article about all the posturing going on in the UN... he draws some interesting historical observations too.

1

although this article erodes the impact of Powell's speech last Wednesday.

2

Of course, even with Powell's credibility eroded slightly, France and Germany lost more in my eye with this stunt. Seems NATO only matters to them when someone is at their border. Quoting someone I read this week "The French are great. I love the French. They're always around when they need you."

3

Very difficult situation we're in.

3117. jexster - 2/10/2003 11:21:11 AM

Very difficult situation BUSH has gotten us into

But perfectly predictable that he would...

Now he's armed and quite dangerous.

3118. alistairconnor - 2/10/2003 11:34:33 AM

Shameful! Disgraceful! France and Germany refuse to come to the defense of Turkey!

Wait a minute... Is Turkey under threat of attack from Iraq?

Well, it wasn't until a few days ago.

Then the Turkish parliament got strong-armed into allowing the US to station troops on its eastern border, in preparation for an intervention in Iraq. The parliament wasn't exactly keen, and the general population is overwhelmingly against.

What was the parliament told during its closed session that resulted in its reluctant, limited agreement?

Well, previously the head of the US military made a "private visit" to the head of the Turkish military...

Completely irrelevant note : long long ago, in the last century, five years ago in fact, the military deposed the elected Turkish government.

That puts the "shameful" lack of "solidarity" into perspective... NATO must protect its member, Turkey, from the threat posed by... the USA.

3119. alistairconnor - 2/10/2003 11:35:52 AM

Alliance with the US :
Doing what the US damn well says, no ifs, no buts.

NATO solidarity :
See above.

3120. jexster - 2/10/2003 11:50:12 AM

I recommended EXACTLY THIS in Winter '98 and again last September

The Guardian UK:
The Franco-German plan to intensify UN weapons inspections and step up spy flights over Iraq is both a calculated snub to the US and an attempt to derail what is seen as Washington's determination to go to war.
This became clear as deep divisions between the US and France and Germany over Iraq exploded into the open at a high level security conference in Munich. According to one unconfirmed report in the German magazine Der Spiegel, UN blue-helmet soldiers would be deployed in Iraq and the number of weapons inspectors tripled. Some 150,000 US soldiers based close to Iraq's borders would remain in place to ensure the "peaceful invasion" of the blue helmets and secure their mission.

French Mirage reconnaissance planes, German Luna-Drohne unmanned planes, and American U2 spy aircraft would fly over Iraq.

The Russian defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, who attended the Munich conference, said his country had highly skilled inspectors and reconnaissance planes that could take part in a reinforced inspections regime if it was approved by the UN security council.

So bad are the relations between Paris and Berlin on one side and Washington on the other, that Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, was not told anything about the plan, even though his French and German counterparts were at the conference in the Bavarian capital with him.

I linked this plan in September....You can read the summary or any chapter here or download the entire report

CEIP

Who says Jexster spams?

Jexster knows what the fuck he is talking about.

3121. iiibbb - 2/10/2003 12:37:51 PM

I'm convinced... Saddam is our friend...

And Germany and France have always shown how they really know how to keep quell dictators and keep really bad situations from escilating... I mean their track record on these sorts of things is just exiplirary in the past century once you discount those 2 world wars.

3122. iiibbb - 2/10/2003 12:38:50 PM

Explain to me why we need to wait for Saddam to _do_ something? Or why we need to wait for him to supply terrorists with materials for waging a behind the scenes war against the US?

3123. Wombat - 2/10/2003 12:46:39 PM

So we would have all the costs of a long-term military committment in the Gulf, the possibility of a war breaking out at any time, Saddam would stay in power, and sanctions would remain in place, except that the US would need to keep more troops and naval and air assets in the region for an indefinite period of time. So who would actually benefit from this? Not the Iraqis, not the Gulf States, not the United States. None of the "root causes" of Islamic terrorism would be addressed, in fact they would be exacerbated.

Jexter is also assuming that Iraq will accept this proposed plan.

3124. robertjayb - 2/10/2003 12:56:07 PM

Filed at 12:25 p.m. ET

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Iraq sent a letter to U.N. weapons inspectors Monday approving the use of U.S.-made U-2 surveillance planes and pledged to pass legislation next week outlawing the use of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations said.

``The inspectors are now free to use the American U-2s as well as French and Russian planes,'' Ambassador Mohamed al-Douri told The Associated Press.

Iraq had blocked inspectors from using the planes which inspectors said they needed in their search for any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

3125. jexster - 2/10/2003 1:07:20 PM

This is the issue, the question that the war peddlers cannot answer and the reason they need to go to war ASAP.

Drawing up the battle lines for forthcoming arguments in the UN, Mr Fischer asked why Iraq, rather than the threat posed by al-Qaida terrorists, was the priority now. "We have known Saddam Hussein is a horrible dictator for years," he said. "Iraq is now more controlled than ever."

The Iraqi is not now and for the past 12 years has not been a threat, grave, imminent or otherwise to any country, in fact to any but its own citizens.

That question and the inability to answer it goes to the immoral heart of the war peddler's game.

3126. jexster - 2/10/2003 1:11:42 PM

The French and German gambit has also raised grave questions as to whether the Bush regime is capable, whether, in the words of the just war theory, there is a "reasonable chance of success" given the fact that these people would lead the attack and worse be charged with the aftermath.

Even those accept that this aggression is necessary, must question whether these incompetents should carry it out.

3127. iiibbb - 2/10/2003 2:41:53 PM

giving Iraq 12 years to comply is not ASAP.

Powell's strongest point in his speech was that if the UN makes resolutions, but then will not bind people to them... then it has made itself irrelevant.

How are more inspections going to help? What does France and Germany propose be done as an alternative given the evidence that Powell bought forward? More inspections?

If France and Germany settled on a deadline instead of wholesale defense of Saddam, then they might win me over.

As it is, I'm still sitting on the fense and leaning to the side that it's easier to do something about Saddam now, than to wait for him to build strength (which I'm convince he's trying to do).

Article 1 above Message # 3116 makes some good points that if we don't follow through (as a collective that is) in finding a real answer to Saddam, what's it going to tell N.Korea... who apparently is exceedingly close to having nuclear weapons and a delivery system?

The ball is in Iraq's court now... not the US's.

3128. Trouble - 2/10/2003 2:52:43 PM

Saddam Hussein is stationing his military forces amid civilian populations, President Bush said Monday, accusing the Iraqi leader of using his own citizens as "human shields."

3129. jayackroyd - 2/10/2003 2:57:34 PM

"Powell's strongest point in his speech was that if the UN makes resolutions, but then will not bind people to them... then it has made itself irrelevant. "

Yes, but that sword has a very sharp opposite edge. There are several resolutions wrt Palestine that the United States will not be happy seeing Israel bound to.

I really fear that this administration doesn't see what it is getting into, although a story in yesterday's NYTimes was somewhat reassuting. It said that after military action is completed in Iraq, the Saudis will ask US forces to leave, and will begin a program of democratic reform.

However, the next two steps after a successful campaign in Iraq (That is by no means certain, since getting one guy is among the goals, and we still haven't gotten the other one guy. Also, fighting inside Baghdad, trying to minimize American and civilian causalities also is a daunting prospect.) are 1) stabilizing an Iraqi govt that is not seen as an American puppet, and that has a defined path to democratic reforms and 2) Getting the Israelis out of the settlements, and the Palestinians out of the terror business.

I know they are talking about the former, but the latter is also very important, especially if there is success in democratic reforms in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

3130. PelleNilsson - 2/10/2003 3:10:43 PM

France, Germany and Russia issue joint statement

France, Germany and Russia have released an unprecedented joint declaration on the Iraq crisis, demanding more weapons inspectors and more technical assistance for them.

3131. magoseph - 2/10/2003 3:26:44 PM

France and Russia want the money owed by Iraq back. That is the main reason behind their moves. I wonder if it's the same for Germany.

3132. PelleNilsson - 2/10/2003 3:32:51 PM

But how will they get any money while Iraq is still crippled by sanctions for the foreseeable future? I think that explanation is too facile.

3133. magoseph - 2/10/2003 4:10:57 PM

Pelle,
The French and the Russians have been supplying war materials and other technologies to Iraq for many years. They're owed a lot of money. What they fear is that a new government in Iraq dominated by the Americans will repudiate the debts of the Saddam hierarchy and pour the oil money into the population. This, of course, is obvious because the new government will have a strong interest in survival. The reality is it is all about money and power. The price for Russian and French support of the US will be a guaranty that the debts be honored.

3134. jexster - 2/10/2003 4:13:52 PM

God I hate agreeing with Pelle almost as much as I would with concerned but he is right ma cherie

This is calculated and has nothing to do with current business interests which, as Pelle points out, aren't worth terribly much at present and even less under the Imperium unless the doves do an about face and lick Bush's Tony Lamas

No. This is serious shit.

Latest from the Guardian:

3.45pm update

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veto deepens Nato rift over Iraq

Mark Oliver and agencies
Monday February 10, 2003

France, Germany and Belgium today vetoed Nato from planning defence improvements for fellow alliance member Turkey ahead of any potential US-led war against Iraq.
The move triggered a crisis for Nato - an alliance founded on principals of mutual protection - and deepened European divisions over the Iraq crisis.

Turkey responded by becoming the first country in Nato's 53-year history to publicly invoke Article 4 of the alliance's mutual defence treaty. This binds the 19 allies to talks when one perceives a threat to its "territorial integrity, political independence or security".

During a break in a meeting of alliance ambassadors, where he called the atmosphere "very heated", the Nato secretary general, Lord Robertson, said: "I am not seeking today to minimise the seriousness of the situation. It is serious.

3135. jexster - 2/10/2003 4:15:23 PM

What makes it even more serious, IMO, isn't the fact that the disagreement occured - shit happens all the time - but that it was aired publically and not handled behind closed doors is amazing.

They even enlisted the Holy See fer Crissakes

3136. jexster - 2/10/2003 4:33:42 PM

Democracy in the "New" Iraq is A Bad Joke - Guardian UK

3137. magoseph - 2/10/2003 4:33:57 PM

Jex,
There aren't going to be any sanctions after the US takes over. The country is going to be flooded with everything they need. This is the only strategy the US can have to play out a winning hand. The oil money goes for consumer goods, schools, etc. and nothing for war materials and debt repayments--especially if the French and Russians don't go along with Bush.

Actually, it is to Bush's interests that the French and Russians don't go along. It makes it easier for Bush to play savior under those circumstances. The horse can't carry double. The French and Russians have become expensive baggage. Bush can raise the standard of living in Iraq very quickly and he certainly can if he doesn't have to carry the French and Russians with him. To him and his hard-core, this is the end game.

3138. jexster - 2/10/2003 4:38:13 PM

No actually the opposite...he NEEDS the French and the Germans and THAT is what they are afraid of or as the German FM put it "Bush is going to go in, shoot up the place and expect US to clean up his mess"

But the politics are even more sophisticated than that. There remain two camps despite Powell's "conversion" to hawk. Roughly, the State Dept has argued that to declare such obligations null and void would violate international law while the hawks have openly said the opposite, ie that no nation that opposes the aggression can hope to share the spoils, the plunder of their war.

This they have said repeatedly, many sources, many months and we know from recent history who wins those battles.

3139. joezan - 2/10/2003 4:38:54 PM

Alliance with the US :
Doing what the US damn well says, no ifs, no buts.

NATO solidarity :
See above.

New World Order, Froggy. Get used to it.

3140. jexster - 2/10/2003 4:41:30 PM

The French Germans Russians etc are coming to the realization based I think on Blair's dismal performance that cooperating with Bush gains nothing, that European interests are at stake, that BUsh will harm those interests, that Bush is not to be trusted and I believe becoming unbalanced.

Chirac et al are acting accordingly...this was not some slip of the tongue nor some gaullist posturing as some glibly predicted weeks ago.

This was a deliberate trap set for very well considered reasons by one crafty fils de chienne(????)

3141. jexster - 2/10/2003 4:50:10 PM

JoeZ as if on cue...we are witnessing the Death of a Hegemon

not a pretty sight...Chirac is out to cause the collapse of the Blair government and Brit support for Bush's War....

But at least we now know what are the objectives of Bush's Bloody war..they have NOTHING to do with Iraq's weapons

They never did.

Time for everyone to re-read three amazingly prophetic articles....time to get real

The Dilemma of Sustaining an American Empire

The Push for War

and

The Eagle Has Crash Landed

Pax Americana is over

Twice now in the past decade, the overwhelming military and economic dominance of the US has given it the chance to lead the rest of the world by example and consensus. It could have adopted (and to a very limited degree under Clinton did adopt) a strategy in which this dominance would be softened and legitimised by economic and ecological generosity and responsibility, by geopolitical restraint, and by 'a decent respect to the opinion of mankind', as the US Declaration of Independence has it. The first occasion was the collapse of the Soviet superpower enemy and of Communism as an ideology. The second was the threat displayed by al-Qaida. Both chances have been lost - the first in part, the second it seems conclusively.

What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind.

Read those articles and you will have a pretty good idea of the Euro leaders view of this

3142. magoseph - 2/10/2003 4:50:59 PM

Jex,
He may very well be unbalanced but he's controlled by his extreme right-wing advisors and they have had their plans for a long time and they don't include France and Russia.

3143. jexster - 2/10/2003 4:58:18 PM

Well that's right and that's what I tried to say.

Chirac, Shroeder, Putin, and I believe soon Blair, have come to realize just that and are acting accordingly.

3144. jexster - 2/10/2003 4:58:36 PM

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.

3145. jexster - 2/10/2003 5:00:19 PM

Meanwhile DPRK has fired up its breeder and Iran has just announced that it is expediting its program...

Once Bush unilaterally invades, watch for what happens between India and Pakistan as well.

The US will be isolated, alone and the American people will have a shit fit

3146. jexster - 2/10/2003 5:05:45 PM

Iran Shocks the World with Uranium Program Announcement

Reuters writes, "The surprise announcement... may alarm Washington, which accuses the Islamic Republic of harboring secret plans to develop nuclear weapons.... He said the uranium had been extracted near the central city of Yazd and processing facilities had been set up in the central cities of Isfahan and Kashan... Washington has long been at odds with Russia over its help in building an $800 million nuclear power plant at Bushehr, which Tehran expects to come on stream at the end of 2003 or early in 2004. U.S. fears over the project were somewhat assuaged by assurances from Moscow that all spent fuel from the plant would be returned to Russia, ensuring that it would not be diverted to a weapons program. But the discovery of its own uranium supplies could, in theory, make Iran independent of Russia for its nuclear fuel needs."

North Korea is reviving its nuclear weapons program, now Iran is starting one. The nuclear arms race has begun again. Do you feel safer yet?

3147. jexster - 2/10/2003 6:42:27 PM

Declaring a Just War????
On the Obsequious Piety of Rev. George

Basic moral and spiritual values are the lifeblood of this country, and without them the American way of life itself is in grave peril. We must not go to war with Iraq.

By Scotty McLennan dean for religious life at Stanford University.

As Garry Trudeau's roommate at Yale, he served as the model for Doonesbury's Rev. Scot Sloan.

3148. jexster - 2/10/2003 6:50:15 PM

The diplomatic endgame over Iraq was always going to be complicated but it has broken down into confusion.
There are divisions across the Atlantic and disagreements within Europe.

These are symptoms of the deep divergence between those - led by the United States and Britain - who think that Iraq's time is up and those - led now by a troika of France, Germany and Russia - who want an extended system of containment.

As a way of insulting the French proposals for sending more inspectors, the Americans have even introduced the image of the bumbling detective Inspector Clouseau into the testy exchanges.

This all might be just a foretaste of the worse crisis which would develop if the United States and Britain went to war without the authority of the Security Council.

Analysis: BBC News World Edition

3149. Trouble - 2/10/2003 7:09:58 PM

i DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S important for the French to help us liberate Iraq from Saddam. They didn't even want to help us get the Germans out of their country in WWII.

3150. jexster - 2/10/2003 7:40:31 PM

You don't know much.

CNN's European Political Editor Robin Oakley said: "Any hopes of France coming on board the so-called 'coalition of the willing' look like being disappointed.

"The gulf between Europe and the U.S. appears to be widening by the day."

3151. jayackroyd - 2/10/2003 7:41:05 PM

3133

I was told by a journalist I know who covers the UN for a Japanese television outlet that it was going the other way, that the US is threatening France with cutting it out of the oil spoils if it doesn't get in line.

I'm not quite sure why there is a NATO anymore, anyway, and certainly don't understand why we have troops guarding western germany from incursions from eastern germany.

3152. jayackroyd - 2/10/2003 7:49:00 PM

But I agree with Alistair's framing of the US position, and the source of the threat against Turkey.

OTOH, it seems to me that the implication is that the US withdraw from NATO, which I think is a good idea. Let the Europeans work out their own defensive plans. The UN is the venue we should be focusing on.

The point iiibbb made above regarding the irrelevance of the security council is a good one. But I reiterate that if you follow that logic, Israel better be withdrawing from the occupied territories, tout suite.

3153. jexster - 2/10/2003 7:50:53 PM

Declaring A Just War? - Scotty Mclennan

Because the president appeared to be referencing "just war" criteria that have been articulated by the Christian Church for almost 2,000 years, it is important to look closely at whether they will be met in a war against Iraq.

Just cause: First of all, is there just cause? Traditionally this has referred to a defensive response to grave and certain harm to the nation. The Bush administration has not made the case that either Iraq's capacity or intention to use weapons of mass destruction is likely, much less certain. There is no more adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature now than there was five years ago. There are no proven high-level Iraqi links to al Qaeda and international terrorism targeting the United States.

Enough of Bush's half witted, hamhanded foreign policy

Enough of his psychotic obsessions

AND GOD KNOWS enough of his freaky theology

3154. jexster - 2/10/2003 9:20:29 PM

PowellKeeps on Lying

But Did it on Fox So It Don't Count

"TONY SNOW: Is it your view that Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq is, in fact, busy trying to put together factories for the manufacture of such things? POWELL: We do know that the facility that I described in my presentation on Wednesday has been used to develop poisons, and not just from the picture of that facility but a lot of other source material we have shows that things have come out of that facility and have transited through various parts of Europe and Central Asia, reaching Western Europe." Ansar leaders took journalists to visit the site yesterday, and they reported there was no poison-making capability.

3155. Trouble - 2/10/2003 9:41:49 PM

please put quotes around "journalists," jexster.

3156. concerned - 2/11/2003 2:22:57 AM

When one gets down to root causes, most of the current Old European anti-Americanism is due to 1) their Socialist state dug-sucking dislike of non Leftist US administrations 2) the widely held anti-Semitic belief among Europeans that Jews are 'running' the US.

Remember that a top selling book in France recently (maybe it still is) claims that the US faked the 9/11 Pentagon plane crash, and that many Europeans believe that either Jews or the Bush Administration itself destroyed the WTC and is using that as a casus belli in order to 'get' oil. This is ample proof of the essential irrationality of most European anti-US sentiment.

3157. concerned - 2/11/2003 2:39:41 AM

Wit Old Yurrup's boisterous anti-Americanism driving their foreign policies, I am now more in favor than I was before of the US quickly deposing Sodamn Insane and allowing a democratic government to take power in Iraq, because that will be the easiest way to discredit the noisy US-haters and their opportunistic governmental lackeys in Yurrup as well as the Middle East.

3158. concerned - 2/11/2003 2:46:53 AM

I don't see any overwhelming evidence that Old Yurrup has even freed itself to this day of its tendency toward the violent ideological and nationalistic excesses that were responsible for both the World Wars of the last century.

3159. concerned - 2/11/2003 2:59:07 AM

As the French would describe their own national character in a fit of lucidity:

" Primates capitulards et toujours en quête de fromages "

3160. concerned - 2/11/2003 3:13:06 AM

Additional proof that Saddam promotes terrorism: Iraq diplomat linked to (Abu Sayyaf) Zamboanga bombing

excerpt:

A Philippine intelligence report has linked a senior Iraqi diplomat in Manila to a deadly bomb attack by the Abu Sayyaf in Zamboanga City that killed an American soldier and wounded another in October last year, Foreign Affairs Secretary Blas Ople said yesterday.

Ople made the disclosure to reporters after he summoned Iraqi Chargé d’Affaires Samir Bolus and informed him about the report on the diplomat, identified as Second Secretary Husham Hussain.

Citing a "highly detailed" report from the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, Ople said the NICA had traced cellular phone calls made by the Abu Sayyaf to Hussain.

"It appeared that immediately after the bombing, there was a call to the (Iraqi) embassy" by a man identified by the NICA as an Abu Sayyaf guerrilla, he said.

3161. concerned - 2/11/2003 3:22:13 AM

The irrational anti-US cadre would probably be ecstatic if their hate speech resulted in more anti-US terrorism which most of them would probably regard as being somehow deserved and justifiable. OTOH, these same individuals would probably blame the US for any terrorist acts within their own countries.

3162. concerned - 2/11/2003 4:36:04 AM

How many US allies can you count in this map? We already know that jexster can't find a single one, because of all his hyperbole about 'unilateral' US action.

3163. alistairConnor - 2/11/2003 5:46:18 AM

Message # 3127 The ball is in Iraq's court now... not the US's.

I agree, iii... Bush and Powell don't, of course. They think the game's over.

(To which de Villepin replied : it's not a game, and it isn't over.)
(To which Bush and co reply : Same player shoot again.)

3164. alistairConnor - 2/11/2003 5:54:30 AM

As whatsisface said, if you want peace, prepare for war. Words to that effect.

Germany's stand : no war under any circumstances. This is fine sentiment but rather silly in pragmatic terms.

France's stand : all else being equal, peace is preferable to war.

The US military buildup was crucial to enabling the disarmament of Iraq. If disarmament can now be enforced without war, then that is the best outcome.

So the ball is in Iraq's court. Saddam has a gun to his head, and I don't know what he'll do.

France may indeed come around to supporting a war, if all else fails.

3165. alistairConnor - 2/11/2003 6:18:08 AM

Europeans tend to underestimate the extent to which Americans have a principled position concerning war on Iraq.

The inverse is also true.

One difference is that the US hasn't had a war on its territory for, what, 140 years?

3166. judithathome - 2/11/2003 8:21:11 AM

Concerned, how many of those allies are sending troops to help take the heat when war erupts?

3167. iiibbb - 2/11/2003 8:47:48 AM

AC, I agree with your 3 follow ups...

So the ball is in Iraq's court. Saddam has a gun to his head, and I don't know what he'll do.

good line.

3168. Wombat - 2/11/2003 8:47:56 AM

If contributions are anything like the last time around, Britain will contribute or already has on the scene an armored division, several air wings, and warships. Spain already has warships in the area checking shipping to enforce sanctions against Iraq (a Spanish warship stopped the ship carrying missiles from North Korea to Yemen (Iraq), and could also contribute aircraft. Italy would contribute warships, aircraft, and possibly marines or commandos. The Czech Republic already has chemical warfare troops in the region, and they would remain if war broke out. Allies would also provide medical teams, basing and overflight rights, and would assume roles outside of the region, to allow US forces to be shifted to the Gulf.

3169. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/11/2003 9:01:40 AM

"Meanwhile, here's how it looks from Paris: France was willing to put ground troops at risk — and lose a number of soldiers — in the former Yugoslavia; we weren't. The U.S. didn't make good on its promises to provide security and aid to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Those Americans, they are very brave when it comes to bombing from 10,000 meters, but they expect other people to clean up the mess they make, no?"

The Wimps of War
By PAUL KRUGMAN

3170. alistairConnor - 2/11/2003 9:18:14 AM

Italy would contribute warships, aircraft, and possibly marines or commandos.

Do you have specific info on this, 'Batman? My understanding is that Berlusconi was assured that no military participation was required. Which undoubtedly has nothing to do with his eagerness for war. I don't go for national stereotypes.

3171. Wombat - 2/11/2003 10:43:43 AM

Alastair:

I was extrapolating based on the last time around. Haven't the Italians joined the Germans in providing security in Afghanistan?

3172. Trouble - 2/11/2003 10:59:53 AM

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: "If Saddam bows to the UN's demands and co-operates promptly, what is the need for greater numbers of inspectors? If he maintains his refusal to cooperate, how will higher numbers help? Lethal viruses can be produced within an area the size of the average living room. In the absence of Iraqi cooperation, even a thousandfold increase in the UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission's capabilities will not allow us to establish with any degree of confidence that Iraq has disarmed." - Jack Straw, UK foreign secretary, yesterday. Exactly, which is why the Franco-German-Russian gambit is based on nothing but a desire to oppose the United States.

Andrew Sullivan

3173. concerned - 2/11/2003 11:46:29 AM

The only reason that Saddam has budged even the small amount he has is the imminent threat of US military action. There is no way the US will keep 150,000 troops on indefinite Mideast standby as the French, Germans, Belgians and Russians seem to want; it would never work and will have only the effect of tying up a significant part of the US military uselessly - Saddam will soon renege on every small compromise he has made so far if he is not removed soon since he will be quick to ascertain that there is no longer any serious threat to his totalitarian rule, and there is nothing in the plans of Old Europe that will do anything to keep him from continuing to rearm - in fact, they're anxious to sell him the means to do so.

The US should depose Saddam ASAP, by military invasion if necessary, and free both the Iraqi people and the US from what these countries clearly wish and are attempting to turn into an international millstone around the US's neck with their unworkable proposals.

3174. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/11/2003 11:47:02 AM

3175. Edmund Dantes - 2/11/2003 11:53:45 AM

Krapman should stick to writing about economics and leave foreign policy to people who know what they're talking about.

"Meanwhile, here's how it looks from Paris: France was willing to put ground troops at risk — and lose a number of soldiers — in the former Yugoslavia; we weren't.

Bull-fucking-shit. American troops have been on the ground in Bosnia since 1995. Eight years.

What an asshole.

For that matter, why shouldn't the Europeans carry most of the water in Yugoslavia? It is--or was--a European country. When's the last time we asked for European ground troops to help quell violence in the Western Hemisphere?

The U.S. didn't make good on its promises to provide security and aid to post-Taliban Afghanistan.

Another lie, according to yesterday's edition of Krugman's own paper: "Hundreds of American soldiers battled with rebels in southern Afghanistan two weeks ago, and they have spent days since sweeping the mountains and caves to clear the area....The United States has spent more than $840 million in Afghanistan — in aid money, State Department expenditures and some military spending — since October 2001, and Washington would continue the same level of spending through 2003, he said. He added that President Bush would reinforce the American commitment in person when President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan visits Washington on Feb. 27."

Those Americans, they are very brave when it comes to bombing from 10,000 meters, but they expect other people to clean up the mess they make, no?"

Krugman would have you believe that was Bush, when it was in fact his buttboy Clinton.

3176. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/11/2003 12:04:48 PM

Good argumentation, Edmund, if it were true, but guess who'll now be getting the check when the waiter comes?

That's right, the diner with the maxed-out trillion dollar credit card.

3177. robertjayb - 2/11/2003 2:01:31 PM

Mother of God!

The bushies are saying expect a new tape from Osama bin Laden wherein he will declare his partnership with Iraq.

Wow! It's breathtaking...

How much scepticism am I permitted before being hauled off as a traitor?

OTOH, Osama would profit from the the turmoil of Bush War II.

I shall maintain an open mind while being careful of drafts.

3178. jayackroyd - 2/11/2003 2:57:12 PM

Al Jazeera has made such an announcement.

-------------------------------------------------------
DUBAI (Reuters) - The al-Jazeera satellite television channel said Tuesday it had received a statement from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) urging Muslim solidarity with Iraq and would broadcast it later in the day.

Al-Jazeera said the statement "urged Muslims to show solidarity and defend the Iraqi people."

"We have a statement and we will show it later tonight. It has a message," Editor Saeed al-Shouly told Reuters.

Earlier Tuesday Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told the U.S. Senate Budget Committee that he had read a transcript "of what bin Laden, or who we believe to be bin Laden, will be saying on al-Jazeera during the course of the day."

Al-Jazeera has often received audio tapes and statements said to come from bin Laden, blamed for the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities. The United States has accused the Arab TV channel of being a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda propaganda.

3179. concerned - 2/11/2003 3:02:35 PM

rjb -

Looks like you've really got your tinfoil thinking cap one. It's Al Jazeera who is announcing the tape, not the 'Bushies', as you put it, unless you believe that the WH controls Islamic terrorism as well as 'big oil'.

3180. concerned - 2/11/2003 3:03:16 PM

...cap on.

3181. concerned - 2/11/2003 3:04:24 PM

I shall maintain an open mind while being careful of drafts.

Well, don't let your brains fall out, although god only knows what you need them for.

3182. robertjayb - 2/11/2003 4:09:46 PM

Pay attention, concerned. What I wrote was precisely accurate. The bushies, CIA man Tennant and Ari the Liar, were saying this morning that a statement from Osama "bin-gone-511-days" Laden would be issued soon via the Al-whatsis TV net.

I have faith that an intelligence "community" that could scheme the unmaning of Fidel by causing his beard to drop could conjure and place a message calculated to bolster dubya's claim of the bin Laden-Saddam connection.

3183. magoseph - 2/11/2003 4:14:57 PM

Vintage Osama, apparently, Robert.

3184. robertjayb - 2/11/2003 4:15:52 PM

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- AP-- An audio tape purported to carry the voice of Osama bin Laden today called on Iraqis to carry out suicide attacks against Americans and defend themselves against a U.S. attack.

The tape was broadcast on the al-Jazeera Arab satellite station today, the first day of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha. The speaker also urged Iraqis to dig trenches and engage in urban warfare to fend off U.S. troops.

3185. robertjayb - 2/11/2003 4:18:31 PM

Link to AP report above

3186. jayackroyd - 2/11/2003 4:35:13 PM

Or, perhaps, bin Laden believes that his cause is better served if he can insure that this war takes place. He apparently welcomed the war in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of civilian casualties may be something he is in favor of.

3187. Al D - 2/11/2003 10:20:27 PM

UBL is a great fighter, notice how he stayed in Afganistan and fought the infidels to the death. The man is a complete fraud, willing to send any of his men to certain death, but hauls ass when things get rough. Saddam most likely will haul ass also, but not until he has done more damage to his own people than anyone else. With all of his bluster, those who have sufered most have been Iraqies. Will the Wiz and other patriotic Americans cheer him on?

3188. concerned - 2/11/2003 11:53:41 PM

Re. 3182 -

Your hyperventilation was 'precisely accurate'? You would have done a great deal better to have mentioned Al Jazeera up front as the disseminator of the information, if you were striving for accuracy.

3189. concerned - 2/12/2003 12:04:09 AM

Re. 3177 -

Colin Powell made that announcement to a Senate Panel. Care to actually describe what you find wrong with that?

3190. concerned - 2/12/2003 12:57:16 AM

The problem that Germany, France, Russia and China fail to address here is that their approach has already been tried and it has failed. The only demonstrably workable proposals have been offered by the US.

Perhaps if these four nations talked bout sending peacekeeping troops instead of inspectors into Iraq, things might be different;)

3191. concerned - 2/12/2003 1:10:19 AM

From UPI piece 'US Confirms bin Laden audiotape:

Responding in an interview on al Jazeera following the network's airing of the tape, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said bin Laden "threatens everybody in the Arab world except (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein. He says he wants to fight with Saddam Hussein." Boucher later said this "confirmed that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have common cause."

Don't despair, France, Belgium and Germany. You're already more than halfway over to bin Laden's side. The rest is all downhill.

3192. concerned - 2/12/2003 1:17:33 AM

Btw, are we seeing rjb shifting ground with the Al Jazeera publicization of this tape to insist that bin Laden was worm chow all along?

3193. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/12/2003 1:29:27 AM

3194. jexster - 2/12/2003 4:26:13 AM

Carnegie Analysis:
What are the Inspectors Looking For?

There have been thousands of references to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but what exactly are the inspectors searching for? What does the United States think Iraq may be hiding?

Many expected (and resolution 1441 calls for) the United States, the United Kingdom, or other nations to come forth with specific and detailed information after Iraq released its 12,000-page declaration on December 7, 2002. They did not.

They did not because they never wanted the inspections to work. Bush and his ultranationalist lunatics never wanted the UN involved at all. They always wanted war. They are not concerned about "the integrity of the UN" for they are the ones who are undermining it. They never cared about threats to neighbors because Iraq hasn't been a threat for over a decade now. They aren't interested in Weapons of Mass Destruction which is why the US has not provided information to the inspectors.

The Bushies want war. They have always wanted it. The ever changing "justifications" they offer are deceits crafted because the Bush Regime could never sell the real reasons to the US public or to the world.

Not Kurds - they sold them to the Turks

Not democracy - they only just began work on their "nationbuilding" plan three weeks ago

Not "relief for the suffering Iraqi people" - the 2003 budget allots a paltry 15 million for that and the US has not bothered to coordinate its plans with UN and NGO humanitarian organizations.

Not Al-Qaeda which in point of fact wants Saddam out because he is too secular and because his secret police make it impossible for them to operate there.

for suckers are

3195. jexster - 2/12/2003 4:39:50 AM

Responding in an interview on al Jazeera following the network's airing of the tape, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said bin Laden "threatens everybody in the Arab world except (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein. He says he wants to fight with Saddam Hussein." Boucher later said this "confirmed that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have common cause."

There they go again with their Al Qaeda/Hussein lies. Al Qaeda hates Hussein. Hussein's secret police keep them out of Iraq. Al Qaeda WANTS Bush to invade Iraq. OBL said nothing about fighting with Hussein. He wants Hussein dead.

Why does the Bush regime persist in these lies?

Fifty seven percent of the US public believes that Hussein was involved in 9-11.

3196. jexster - 2/12/2003 4:53:12 AM

The problem that Germany, France, Russia and China fail to address here is that their approach has already been tried and it has failed.

No it has NEVER been tried. Coercive inspections is an idea that first appeared December '98 or early '99; in these pages; in a couple of Jexster posts.

Indeed, the less rigorous inspection regime that has been in place for 12 years has worked quite well. Saddam is weak. He contained. His weapons programs to the extent they exist at all are a shambles. He has NO nuclear program and this even though UN inspectors were gone for four years.

The only demonstrably workable proposals have been offered by the US.

WAR? Demomstrably workable?

3197. jexster - 2/12/2003 5:33:07 AM

allowing a democratic government to take power in Iraq

You just make this shit up don't you TD?
The Regime has no plans for democracy in Iraq. The plan is military dictatorship in a satellite state.

The bumbleboys just began work on their nationbuilding "plan" three weeks ago. Actually its not accurate to call what they have come up with a "plan" as Senate hearings yesterday confirmed.

"Democracy in Iraq" is warpeddler propaganda, pure fiction, a fantasy. Another concocted "justification", the notion that the US will be able to quickly democratize Iraq has no basis in the real.

Its a lie and not even a very good one.

3198. jexster - 2/12/2003 6:08:24 AM

Not so fast shit for brains.

1. US reluctance to committ ground troops is a matter of US policy and military doctrine and historical fact. It has nothing to do with Clinton, indeed it has more to do with Colin Powell, Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Cap Weinberger, and GHWB. Now we have a real man in charge tat may change. Lots of bodybags.

2. In fact, the U.S. did not make good on its security and aid promises to Afghanistan. Your quote does not disprove that charge. It doesn't even answer it.

3. The fear that Bush will leave the mess for others to clean up is a very real one. This is the same moron who railed against Clinton's "nationbuilding"???? This is the same Moron whose Regime, on the eve of its bloodletting, doesn't even have a plan for post war reconstruction, doesn't even have a cost estimate on the back of an old envelope much less a budget for the mess it is about to create.

Stick to cheap rhetoric and slime.

Leave foreign policy to people who know what they're talking about.

3199. jexster - 2/12/2003 6:28:39 AM

This article from the Washington Post is but one of hundreds supporting Krugman's conclusion re: Afghanistan.

American diplomatic, military and relief agencies did outstanding reconstruction work in war-torn Bosnia and Kosovo in the late 1990s. In coordination with coalition allies, despite security risks and huge economic challenges, the United States rebuilt tens of thousands of homes, constructed schools and hospitals, restored water and electricity and generated economic activity and jobs for former fighters.

Ten months after the defeat of the Taliban, however, this excellent performance has not begun to be repeated in Afghanistan. The United States has not lived up to either President Bush's Marshall Plan oratory or the misleading claims of achievement by the U.S. Agency for International Development

3200. jexster - 2/12/2003 6:56:33 AM

My visit last month to Kabul, the Shomali plain, the Panjshir valley and Kandahar confirmed the criticisms voiced by Afghans and foreigners alike about the feeble international reconstruction effort. The only reconstruction achievements Afghans reported were about 100 small-scale projects attributed to the U.S. military.

Yet the administration's budget for USAID spending on Afghanistan for fiscal year 2003, which began Oct. 1, is $ 35 million less than that provided to the country in 2001, when it was under Taliban rule.

Extending these dismal trend lines for another 10 months could lead to relapse into radicalism and chaos. An effective reconstruction policy in Afghanistan could, conversely, provide ballast to the Karzai government to revive Afghanistan's unity, national governing institutions and the democratic process that was underway in the 1960s and '70s.

The first step in resolving any problem is to recognize that a problem exists. The effusive praise of American aid programs in Afghanistan, by both White House and USAID representatives, clearly demonstrates their ignorance of the reality on the ground. They appear to be in a time warp, carried by the momentum left from the heady days of military victory. But their failure to implement an effective reconstruction strategy threatens to reverse the impressive military gains and to undermine the Afghan population's welcome for U.S. forces.

3201. jexster - 2/12/2003 7:01:16 AM

As far as "security" is concerned, the US has deliberately ignored the issue against protests from the Afghans, coalition nations with forces in country, NGO's, most of Congress.

Rumsfeld insisted that we chase Talibees and refused to allow US or coaltion peace keepers to operate outside of Kabul providing security. As a matter of fact, Gen Franks announced just recently that the US was reversing policy and would be providing "security assistance" finally agreeing with everyone else on the planet who knows anything about the matter.

Bush promised a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Between 1948 and 1951 the US sent $16 BILLION in aid to 16 nations.

How much aid did Afghanistan get? About 300 million out of a worldwide effort of over FOUR BILLION not 850 million as Edmundo would have us believe.

Edmundo would have us swallow more shit for his Buttboy Bush.

We Motiers are more knowledgeable, more intelligent, and decidedly more rational than the psycho Edmundo.

We Motiers (except for concerned) are not Morons. We can tell shit from shinola.

3202. jexster - 2/12/2003 7:08:25 AM

3203. jexster - 2/12/2003 7:21:31 AM

How many US allies can you count in this map? We already know that jexster can't find a single one, because of all his hyperbole about 'unilateral' US action.

One, Britain.

Garbage in garbage out. "Support" for the war in every case on that map means "will not oppose" and that is very different from support. Moreover every nation listed as a supporter except Great Britain has stated that their support is for the UN process and contingent upon specific UN war authorization. These "supporters" look rather more like neutrals.

Allies? Maybe in your Moron Dislexicon but here we speak english not Moronic.

In the Gulf War, we had Egyptians, Syrians, Saudis, French, Brits, etc fighting with us pursuant to Security Council resoltion. Our "coalition partners" picked up 80% of the cost.

Bush's Obssession and Aggression - Turks to take possession of the Kurds that Bush sold for basing rights and Britain with a PM that may not survive Bush's War.

Hyperbole you say?

Camel crap.

3204. jexster - 2/12/2003 7:37:30 AM

Democracy in the new Iraq is a myth

What will the voting system be - first general past the post? - The Guardian

There is, alas, something ludicrous here. The prime minister who brought you Lords reform prepares to bring true democracy to Baghdad; the president of the hanging chads sees Iraq as the Switzerland of the Middle East, exporting freedom's ways to its neighbours. And yet nobody laughs out loud.

I do.

3205. jexster - 2/12/2003 9:07:35 AM

Ed is right about one thing...Clinton did send ground troops to Bosnia and at the same time negotiated the Dayton Accords both of which stopped the Serb massacres.

France and Britain and other EU nations had troops in the UN peacekeeping contingent and France was very active in lobbying for NATO involvement to replace UNPROFOR but could not have mustered sufficient forces to do the job without US help. It was US help that was decisive.

So is the Yugo criticism fair? In specific, as phrased, no. But in substance it is accurate - the US up to the present lunacy has been most reluctant to deploy ground troops anywhere without a demonstrably grave situation and risk to peace. We prefer high altitude sorties and cruise missile attacks as a matter of military doctrine and in Bosnia, it was GOP doctrine as well.

3206. joezan - 2/12/2003 10:33:23 AM

US public backs Bush to go it alone - 'Coalition of willing' more important than UN approval

3207. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/12/2003 11:27:31 AM

That should be: "Complacent and Uninformed U.S. Public backs Bush . . ."

3208. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/12/2003 11:32:27 AM

3209. magoseph - 2/12/2003 11:55:56 AM

What really bothers me about Chirac and Schroder and their stand on Turkey is this: they know the Americans are going irrespective and that the inability to move from the North and South simultaneously will result in a substantial increase of civilian and military casualties on both sides. History will hold them responsible. Ben Laden is cheering them on.

3210. joezan - 2/12/2003 12:02:15 PM

Not to worry, maggie.

We're just gonna go right ahead and place the stuff in Turkey anyway.

Watch...

3211. magoseph - 2/12/2003 12:05:45 PM

In normal times, Joe, I'd worry if you'd agree with me.:-)

3212. jexster - 2/12/2003 3:35:05 PM

b>The Regime Scrambles to Save Bush War
- With duct tape, a funky tape and organge alerts

Did Bush Fabricate the Bin Laden Tape???

3213. Wombat - 2/12/2003 3:38:41 PM

A group of international experts has found that Iraq is building missiles that exceed the 93-mile range specified by the UN. They were called in to investigate by Hans Blix.

Iraq's approval of U-2 and other surveillance flights is contingent upon them receiving advance notice of the flights. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

3214. jexster - 2/12/2003 3:40:54 PM

Not to worry Mago, Bush has already closed the deal with the Turks selling Kurds for bases.

Chirac & Shroeder aren't trying to stop Turkey's involvement, they're trying to stop Bush from using NATO for his Big Adventure....They don't want to go down with the Moron and neither do the British it seems

ICM POLL - SUPPORT FOR WAR W/OUT UN DROPS TO 9%, ONE THIRD OF OUR ONLY REAL ALLIES CITIZENS BELIEVE THE US A GREATER THREAT THAN SADDAM

Coalition of the willing better not be the linchpin of US public support cause there aren't going to be very many in it and none of them terribly willing.

3215. magoseph - 2/12/2003 4:33:06 PM

Jex,
I don't believe Bush cares anything about the polls at this time. He believes what his military people tell him and perhaps that the British and Irish bookies are laying odds of fifty-fifty that Saddam Hussein doesn't last through the end of March. What Bush believes is that a big win solves everything and he's probably right. Since his advisers are telling him any delay beyond March 1st begins to detract from the probabilities of a quick low casualty win, there exists very little chance for any delay beyond that timeframe.

As a matter of fact, recent developments make an early war move even more probable than a week ago. The tax scheme to deliver huge amounts of money to his likely supporters in the next election has been delivered a knock-out blow by Greenspan. This makes it more imperative that he score a big success in Iraq as his financial hole card for a second term has evaporated.

3216. jexster - 2/12/2003 4:44:11 PM

Oh sure he does! God has yet to make a politician who doesn't care about a 90% approval rating.

His "Big Bye Victory" that Edmundo has been trying to get me to notice now for months, that was won with 3 a day war speeches for months. The UN charade - an election ploy that resolution that the Bushies turned to scrap paper within a day or so after it was adopted (election week).

Spend 10 minutes on any US news website or listening to any US network newschannel noticing the content. Then ask yourself which bad news for bush headline do you think would be prominent were it not for this perpetual war.

He certainly isn't listening to his generals who have been leaking and I have the pleasure of NOT knowing Bush much less what's in his mind but his actions speak loudly.

3217. jexster - 2/12/2003 4:46:07 PM

NATO Allies Stand Firm, Reject Bush Compromise

Just say "fuck you and the quarterhorse you rode in on" is the only way to deal with a Texas con artist

3218. jexster - 2/12/2003 4:47:27 PM

Iraq's approval of U-2 and other surveillance flights is contingent upon them receiving advance notice of the flights. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

No.

Next dumb question

3219. jexster - 2/12/2003 4:49:38 PM

Unless you want one of their SAM batteries to take a pot shot at the plane you tell them where and when.

3220. jexster - 2/12/2003 4:50:41 PM

Even a half blind Eye-raki can bring down a U-2. Very slow. Not maneuverable. Ask Gary Powers

3221. jexster - 2/12/2003 4:58:02 PM

Iraq: What Next? details concerns over Iraq’s weapons capabilities and assesses the status of inspections. In brief Q&A format, it addresses the effectiveness of intelligence sharing, site visits, use of technology, and Iraq's willingness to cooperate. Far from being exhausted, the report concludes, the inspections process has just begun, and must be allowed a realistic timeframe – without ruling out future use of force.

With Saddam Hussein currently under close watch, there is no need for a rush to war. Helloooo U-2. Overflights might not be necessary if the US and Britain only lived up to THEIR 1441 duty to provide intel and not save it for the next Bloody Dog and Pony show.

Before the United States goes to war, we should consider once more whether war is necessary. The facts suggest that it isn't.

Why? Our current policy is working. Saddam Hussein has been contained. That is, Hussein has not used weapons of mass destruction against anyone who could retaliate with either weapons of mass destruction or overwhelming conventional military power. His use of weapons of mass destruction in the past came when we were supporting him (before 1991) and supplying him with the materials to construct the weapons.

It has been clear to Hussein since he invaded Kuwait and was defeated in the Persian Gulf War that the United States no longer supports him. Since then he has neither threatened to use weapons of mass destruction nor threatened conventional military attacks on his neighbors. So the evidence proves that he has been contained and he can continue to be contained.

Morton Halperin

3222. jexster - 2/12/2003 5:13:18 PM

talk about piling camel crap on top of steer shit Wolf Blitzer with an evident lack of anything to talk about today asks the question....

"If Bin laden is now an ally of Iraq does this mean we are losing the WOT?"

That's a compound shit sandwich

3223. jexster - 2/12/2003 5:16:41 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saying the world was watching the U.S. commitment to post-Taliban Afghanistan (news - web sites) as a sign of what would happen in post-Saddam Iraq, key senators on Wednesday criticized the Bush administration for glossing over difficulties it still faces in Afghanistan.

The chairman and top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said the administration appeared to be losing interest in Afghanistan, even as neighboring countries vied for influence over regional warlords and Afghan President Hamid Karzai struggled to establish a central government.

"I find a sense of quietude about this, as the ranking member pointed out, a sliding almost off the radar screen of the situation," Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, told administration officials after they gave fairly upbeat assessments of progress in Afghanistan.

"This has got to move, it seems to me, into a much more successful, confident pattern," Lugar said. "Our credibility is on the line."

I'll say its on the line.

Look what's left of Edmundo the Butt Boy of Bushville Message # 3198et seq

3224. concerned - 2/12/2003 7:46:45 PM

Oh sure he does! God has yet to make a politician who doesn't care about a 90% approval rating.

I have to

....blecccch......

agree to a certain extent

.....blurrgh!......

with jexster here.

However, one big difference between GWB and x42 is that people won't be making movies parodying this adminstration like 'Wag the Dog'.

3225. concerned - 2/12/2003 8:01:13 PM

Brookings Scholar Says Franco-German Iraq Position "Nonsensical"

Brookings Institution.....ah yes....Left leaning think tank. Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

The reason that is a nonsensical position, Pollack
said, is that neither time nor inspectors are going to be able to disarm Iraq.

"A hundred inspectors aren't going to be able to make Saddam disarm," Pollack said. "Nor are 300, nor 3,000, nor even 30,000 inspectors. The only way it will happen is for Saddam to voluntarily disarm," he said. The Franco-German position could only make sense if they were to argue
for more time in hope of a radical transformation of position by Saddam Hussein to one in which he genuinely wanted to disarm, he said.

Moreover, Pollack said, Saddam Hussein has publicly said that he believes that if he can simply string the current process out until the summer, support for the U.S. position will crumble and he will never face the threat of U.S. forces again. He believes, therefore, that he needs only to play for time.

So way to go, France and Germany. Your delusional thrashing of the US and NATO solidarity, not to mention the implicit encouragement of Islamic terrorism thereby, is already being widely recognized as the colossally selfish monumental idiocy it is.

3226. Edmund Dantes - 2/12/2003 11:08:56 PM

Follow up to Joe's link

A majority of Americans support attacking Iraq even without the approval of the United Nations, provided that the United States has the backing of some key allies, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they would endorse military action to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over the objections of the U.N. Security Council if the United States is supported by close allies such as Britain, Australia and Italy....

Bush's job approval rating...has rebounded and now stands at 64 percent. Support for military action is far broader and deeper than opposition to it. A growing majority say negotiating with Iraq won't work. And the proportion of the public that wants the war to begin in a few weeks rather than a few months has never been higher....

The survey shows how the public has rallied around Bush during this time of national crisis. Six in 10 approve of the way Bush is handling the Iraq situation, up 11 points in three weeks....

3227. Edmund Dantes - 2/12/2003 11:27:22 PM

Bush promised a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Between 1948 and 1951 the US sent $16 BILLION in aid to 16 nations.

How much aid did Afghanistan get? About 300 million out of a worldwide effort of over FOUR BILLION not 850 million as Edmundo would have us believe.

NY Times says 840 million, pudge, who'm I gonna believe--you or them? They're not exactly a Bushie paper.

The Marshall Plan was five years, we're talking 18 months in Afghanistan.

Western Europe has maybe 300 million people now, say 200 million in 1947. Afghanistan has something like 25 million.

Western Europe had a genuine infrastructure to be rebuilt. Wanna compare GDPs, for example?

You're just being silly, aren't you?

Yuckety yuck.

3228. jexster - 2/12/2003 11:54:20 PM

To quote the Last President of the US

I feel your pain there Boba...

3229. jexster - 2/12/2003 11:57:14 PM

And May the Farce Be With You

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -Missile experts called in by U.N. arms inspectors believe the engines for Iraq's Al Samoud missile probably should be destroyed as the rocket's range exceeds U.N. limits, diplomats said on Wednesday.

The Al Samoud 2 rocket repeatedly tested up to 40 km (24 miles) beyond the permissible range according to council diplomats familiar with the experts' report.

Shitfire let's give the bastards a shock and awe on the rocks...make it a double and make it quick before Saddam starts butt fuckin Osama

3230. concerned - 2/13/2003 2:18:46 AM

bin Deadman is becoming positively chatty after his demise:

"I pray my demise isn't on a coffin bearing green mantles. I wish my demise to be in the eagle's belly," he continues.

I believe it was under a rock in Tora Bora.

3231. alistairConnor - 2/13/2003 4:41:21 AM

Schroeder Says World Can Still Avoid War in Iraq

He said a majority of members of the U.N. Security Council backed the view that greater efforts were needed to disarm Iraq by peaceful means.

Come to think of it, even without the three potential vetos, the US would need nine votes out of 15 on the security council. Even with the threats-and-blandishments machine running at full tilt, that looks like a long shot.

I wonder if Marj is around? He predicted 15-0 a week or so ago.

3232. Wombat - 2/13/2003 7:42:29 AM

Jexter:

The UN resolution called on Iraq to allow U-2 surveillance flights, which Iraq has until recently refused.

The strict inspection regime that you approve of so heartily calls for unfettered surveillance flights at any time, anywhere in Iraq, with immediate military action in the event of Iraq firing on the surveillance aircraft.

Iraq, as usual, was acceding to the demand and then adding conditions that would make the demand unworkable (while allowing them to continue evading surveillance). Typical for Iraq, typical for you.

3233. Trouble - 2/13/2003 7:46:30 AM

Secretary of State Colin Powell says he intends to ask France and Germany whether they are opposing war with Iraq in order to get President Saddam Hussein "off the hook."

The confrontations are set for Friday in New York when chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report on searches that have not turned up what the Bush administration has characterized as hundreds of concealed and illicit biological and chemical weapons.

U.S. and Russian officials on Wednesday said international missile experts this week did find that an Iraqi missile exceeds the maximum 93-mile range allowed under U.N. resolutions. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said it was now up to Blix to recommend what to do about the violation.

In the meantime, Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are pressing for congressional support for action against Iraq.

Powell planned a third consecutive day of testimony, this time before the Senate Budget Committee. Rumsfeld was testifying at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

In addition, Turkey's foreign minister, Yasar Yakis, was holding talks in Washington on basing American troops in Turkey for use against Iraq.

And Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., asked President Bush to consider convening debtor and donor conferences to pay for a smooth, post-Saddam transition.

In a letter to the president, Lieberman said he was "in full agreement that we must put an end to the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq pose to the U.S., the region and our allies."

3234. alistairConnor - 2/13/2003 8:35:11 AM

Hey Trou-de-balle, perhaps France and Germany could ask Powell if he is advocating war to get Bush off the hook.

He'd be in bad trouble if he didn't have the twin props of war and terrorism to keep the people's minds off the stupid economy.

But that's not just a domestic US problem. The trouble is, all this talk of war is damaging economies all over the world. Economic growth has stopped, and the price of oil is through the roof.

And this is perhaps not entirely unrelated to the massive opposition to a war by Europeans (91% against, in "key ally" Spain). The war talk is hurting us in our everyday lives.

3235. Trouble - 2/13/2003 9:47:20 AM

Attn: Saddam.

Burn your love letters before you die.

3236. concerned - 2/13/2003 10:47:22 AM

Re. 3231 -

Speaking of safe bets, Schroeder has it right that the world will certainly avoid war in Iraq.

3237. concerned - 2/13/2003 10:49:59 AM

I had a good laugh at 3196-3198 when I noticed a minute ago they were directed toward me. I give jexster credit for spinning himself into an alternate dimension of unreality, but my points stand.

3238. jexster - 2/13/2003 11:32:44 AM

Am DE-lighted you had a good laugh but been better if you had the balls to answer the posts.

3239. jexster - 2/13/2003 11:35:33 AM

By 11-4, UN Security Council Majority Wants More Inspections

All but four of the 15 United Nations Security Council members support prolonging U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq, a senior German government source said on Tuesday. The source denied that Germany was isolated in its desire to intensify weapons inspections in Iraq and noted strong
support from Russia.

"The German government in no way stands alone in its position," the source said. The countries supporting the U.S. position that "the game is up" for Iraq are Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, the source said. "But the rest of the members of the Security Council support the position of the German government."

3240. concerned - 2/13/2003 11:41:36 AM

Re. 3238 -

Well, wrt 3196, I cannot agree that the previous program worked 'well'.

Working well would have meant willing cooperation by Iraq in a program of disarmament to the extent that sanctions could have been dropped, and in a time period measured in months, not years.

That's worlds apart from what happened. And what occurred over the last decade were supposed to be 'coercive inspections'. It's hardly the current adminstration's fault that the UN and the x42 administration were cut from a similar chickenshit mold.

3241. jexster - 2/13/2003 11:56:10 AM

Working well means that no body died.

3242. jexster - 2/13/2003 11:57:45 AM

Not that your racist bloodlust was fed

FEAR
Be afraid, they say
soon bombs will explode again
somewhere, sometime.

Close your windows and doors, they direct
trust no one
especially if bearded.

Be prepared, they order
terror will erupt again
ubiquitous, unexpected.

Watch your neighbor, they whisper
he may be a spy, especially
if he speaks broken English.

Stay alert, they warn
disaster may strike again
suddenly, unpredicted.

Have faith, they decree, in your government
even as it seals your lips
and cuts out your tongue.

3243. concerned - 2/13/2003 12:02:07 PM

Re. 3241 -

That's an insufficient standard.

3244. jexster - 2/13/2003 12:07:12 PM

That's what I said!

"Not that your racist bloodlust was fed"

3245. jexster - 2/13/2003 12:09:06 PM

BUSH REGIME BACKS OF OBL BULLSHIT

Trying to Unring a Bell?

Double decker Bush shit sandwich

3246. jexster - 2/13/2003 12:10:31 PM

Maybe the standard is truthfulness, maybe the standard is unprovoked aggression....or nobody's died.

I want my cow pie supersized

3247. concerned - 2/13/2003 12:11:01 PM

Re. 3242 -

But apparently yours was, jex. How about all those starving Iraqi children thru the '90's that died because of the Clowntoon administration dirtbags?

3248. jexster - 2/13/2003 12:12:07 PM

Or perhaps the standard is whether your pathetic Scud missile can miss a target 24 miles further than it should have?

3249. concerned - 2/13/2003 1:00:06 PM

Btw, I've always preferred that Sodamn resign peacefully. So much for any 'blood lust' that others may accuse me of.

Save the children.

3250. jexster - 2/13/2003 1:01:17 PM

You mean you are against the sanctions Poppy Bush negotiated and implemented but for war?

Choose your standard:

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

History will not be kind to France and Germany concerned

3251. concerned - 2/13/2003 1:04:59 PM

They are UN sanctions, jexster. Go whining to Kofi Annan if you don't like 'em.

3252. jexster - 2/13/2003 1:08:59 PM

Buffalo Soldier Speak With Forked Tongue

WASHINGTON -Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), on the eve of another faceoff at the United Nations (news - web sites) over disarming Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), said Thursday the American people should be "prepared for a fairly long-term commitment" in Iraq.

Appearing before the House Budget Committee, Powell said he could furnish no estimate of the cost of any war with Iraq. But he did say he thought that Arab nation should be able to adjust quickly after a war — in contrast to the slow pace of recovery in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

o you know?

Who in the early 1990s worried that:

1. "Ruling Baghdad" would come only at "unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships?"

2. Addressing the "inevitable follow-up," who also asked whether Americans would really learn to live with "major occupation forces in Iraq for years to come?"

3. Finally, who argued that, "fortunately for America, reasonable people" would think such a scenario "would not have been worth the inevitable follow-up?"

You shittin us then or now?

3253. jexster - 2/13/2003 1:09:16 PM

Buffalo Soldier, Dreadlock Rasta
There was a Buffalo Soldier
In the heart of America
Stolen from Africa, brought to America
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival

I mean it, when I analyse the stench
To me, it makes a lot of sense
How the Dreadlock Rasta was the Buffalo Soldier
And he was taken from Africa, brought to America
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival

Said he was a Buffalo Soldier, Dreadlock Rasta
Buffalo Soldier, in the heart of America

If you know your history
Then you would know where you coming from
Then you wouldn't have to ask me
Who the heck do I think I am

I'm just a Buffalo Soldier
In the heart of America
Stolen from Africa, brought to America
Said he was fighting on arrival
Fighting for survival
Said he was a Buffalo Soldier
Win the war for America

Dreadie, woe yoe yoe, woe woe yoe yoe
Woe yoe yoe yo, yo yo woe yo, woe yoe yoe
(repeat)
Buffalo Soldier, trodding through the land
Said he wanna ran, then you wanna hand
Trodding through the land, yea, yea

Said he was a Buffalo Soldier
Win the war for America
Buffalo Soldier, Dreadlock Rasta
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival
Driven from the mainland
To the heart of the caribbean

Singing, woe yoe yoe, woe woe yoe yoe
Woe yoe yoe yo, yo yo woe yo woe yo yoe
(repeat)

Trodding through San Juan
In the arms of America
Trodding through Jamaica, a Buffalo Soldier
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival
Buffalo Soldier, Dreadlock Rasta
Singing, woe yoe yoe, woe woe yoe yoe
Woe yoe yeo yo, yo yo woe yo woe yo yoe

3254. concerned - 2/13/2003 1:13:32 PM

Another reason for Sodamn to have them shot using US weapons....

European 'Human Shield': We're Worth More Than Arabs-

Western peacenik "human shields" in Iraq are so very special. Just ask them.

"We want to stop the war. If they kill one European, the cost is higher. If they kill an Arab, the cost is very low," Marino Andolina, an Italian doctor enjoying genocidal dictator Saddam Hussein's hospitality in Baghdad, told United Press International today.

So, Europeans are far superior to Arabs? If the Iraqis read this, the "human shields" just might see their death wish come true.

3255. jexster - 2/13/2003 1:19:30 PM

Human shields my ass!

Defending one's country against unprovoked and immoral aggression is just per se.

Sure these chickenshit liars and morally bankrupt fascists want the Iraqi army to line up in the desert for death by cruise missile.

How much shit can eat TD?

3256. jexster - 2/13/2003 1:21:24 PM

Of course Bush doesn't want US troops fighting in the streets of Tikrit, Basra, Baghdad...

He doesn't give a rat's ass about human shields...

He is going to kill thousands of em

3257. Wombat - 2/13/2003 1:21:52 PM

Bureau chief of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein`s son defects to west, sez Haaretz.

Try reading what Concerned posted, Jexter.

3258. concerned - 2/13/2003 3:21:04 PM

hey jexster -

Those 'human shields' will be up shit creek without a paddle if the Iraqis get to them before the Allied troops do when Sodamn is out, assuming that Sodamn hasn't had them all executed before then.

And your side will deservedly take blame for all that.

3259. concerned - 2/13/2003 3:24:42 PM

All the blame.

3260. jexster - 2/13/2003 3:45:25 PM

My side - the Pope, the Anglican Communion, the National Council of Churches...me and God

You and the Bloody Moron can take credit for every death in what is the moral equivalent of mass murder

Top Iraqi official Aziz in Rome for meeting with pope, other talks

ROME - Amid mounting fears of war, a top Iraqi official came to Italy Thursday to make a case in Europe against a U.S.-led attack and to hold talks with Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II, one of the most respected and vocal opponents of the possible conflict.

Aziz was also meeting over three days with opposition politicians who have condemned conservative Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi's support for the U.S. position on Iraq, and possibly with a government minister.

Most significant was Aziz's meeting with the pontiff on Friday — the day U.N. weapons inspectors were to issue what could be a decisive report to the Security Council on Iraq's cooperation.

The pope has urged both sides to do everything to avoid war, arguing that the United States should not launch a "preventative" war, and that Iraqi authorities must cooperate thoroughly with United Nations (news - web sites) inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction.

The Vatican (news - web sites) has strongly opposed a new Iraq conflict, with the pontiff saying such a war would be a "defeat for humanity." The pope was also a vocal opponent of the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), and has frequently spoken out in opposition to U.N. economic sanctions imposed on Baghdad after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

3261. jexster - 2/13/2003 3:46:58 PM

The pope sent peace envoy Cardinal Roger Etchegaray this week to Baghdad, where he held talks Wednesday with top Iraqi officials, including Aziz. Asked if it was still possible to avoid war, Etchegaray said Wednesday: "Until the end, you must always hope, always. We're in the hands of God."

Aziz's meeting with the pontiff was certain to attract wide international attention, .
Aziz was meeting on Thursday and Friday with opposition parliament members as well as the Lombardy region's president, Roberto Formigoni.

In addition to the papal audience, Aziz was scheduled to hold a news conference Friday and he may meet with Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. On Saturday, Aziz, who is Christian, was to travel to Assisi for peace prayers with Franciscan monks.

3262. jexster - 2/13/2003 3:49:08 PM

Choose Your Standard - Choose Life or Choose Bush Death

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill," [Mt. 5:21] our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. [Cf. Vatican II, Guadium et spes 81, 4] All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed." [Cf. Vatican II, Guadium et spes 79, 4]

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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

I am very clear about my "side"

3263. jexster - 2/13/2003 3:50:37 PM

If those so-called "human shields", George W. Bush will be the full, sufficient and proximate cause of their death.

Their blood on your hands and his

3264. jexster - 2/13/2003 3:51:13 PM

If...die

3265. wonkers2 - 2/13/2003 4:49:54 PM

I heard a Palestinian point out today that Israel is more bellicose and in violation of far more UN resolutions than Iraq. If we are going to force Iraq to comply why not Israel?

3266. wonkers2 - 2/13/2003 4:52:06 PM

The ambassador from Israel, also on the Diane Rehm show for a half hour came across like a lying apologist bastard. Except he never apologized for anything or acknowledged the slightest contribution by Israel to the current situation.

3267. concerned - 2/13/2003 5:18:57 PM

Re. 3265 -

Maybe we can play 'Let's make a Deal'. If the UN Security Council unanimously supports the US to the hilt re Iraq and NK, the US will vote for French and German Troops to occupy Israel and the Palestinian territories if Israel doesn't comply with relevant UN resolutions.

3268. concerned - 2/13/2003 6:09:33 PM

Jimmuh Cahtuh - step away from that peanut with your hands up - you may succeed the Saddamite as leader of Iraq

3269. concerned - 2/13/2003 6:11:57 PM

We could even work Clowntoon in there somehow to snarf all the oil - that would shut up the Left about 'big oil' pretty fast.

3270. concerned - 2/13/2003 6:13:59 PM

Selling points for Jimmuh: The Baath Party is socialistic, just like the ruling cliques in Cahtuh favorites Cuba and North Korea!

3271. alistairconnor - 2/13/2003 6:19:16 PM

French and German Troops to occupy Israel and the Palestinian territories if Israel doesn't comply with relevant UN resolutions

Sometimes you have brilliant ideas, Conne.

That would make a lot of people happy : the French, the Germans and the Palestinians for a start. The Israelis of course would have a screaming fit. Sold out by the US for oil.

3272. concerned - 2/13/2003 6:27:32 PM

But it should warm the cockles of a lot of cold little socialist hearts in Europe. Constant frustrating interventionist minutiae, no economic interest to dirty socialist ideological purity with and you get to demonstrate solidarity with your growing Muslim minorities by kicking the Jews around in their home state.

3273. concerned - 2/13/2003 6:42:45 PM

A word of caution about turning Cahtuh loose on Iraq: he is the godfather of Islamism, so powers that could be used to encourage Muslim nutburger factions should be kept out of his purview.

3274. Cellar Door - 2/13/2003 8:28:05 PM

Senator Byrd

3275. wonkers2 - 2/13/2003 9:22:11 PM

I'm not a Byrd-lover, but he got this one right.

3276. jexster - 2/13/2003 9:25:03 PM

Yes write your CongressThing - Support the Kennedy/Byrd Resolution requiring Bush to get approval for an ACTUAL war instead of an imaginary one.

3277. jexster - 2/13/2003 9:29:54 PM

THIS IS AN ALERT
ATTENTION: ALL MORONS, BUSH BUTT BOYS & CHICKEN HAWKS
SUBJECT: CHICKEN LITTLES TO EAT

The Council on Foreign Relations and The James A. Baker III Institute @ Rice University have issued a report on Bush's War of Aggression, the Likely Result:

"A U.S.-led attack on Iraq threatens to be a traumatic event throughout the Muslim world. In the Arab world especially, there is a serious risk that war in Iraq will stir up further trouble for the United States, including terrorist attacks against the United States and its partners."

LISTEN UP ZAN YOU DIM WIT:
"Refugee flows toward Turkey and especially Iran of up to 1.5 million people are likely."
"Strong U.S. backing for an emergency government will be needed to fill the vacuum left by Saddam. Without an initial and broad-based commitment to law and order, the logic of score-settling and revenge-taking will reduce Iraq to chaos."
"If a large-scale, prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq becomes necessary, or if the United States appears to be taking over Iraq's oil sector, guerrilla attacks against U.S. military personnel guarding oil installations are likely."
"Leaving aside immediate humanitarian needs, experts estimate that reconstruction will cost between $25 billion and $100 billion. . . . rebuilding Iraq's electrical power infrastructure could cost $20 billion to restore its pre-1990 capacity."
"There has been a great deal of wishful thinking about Iraqi oil, including a widespread belief that oil revenues will help defray war costs and the expense of rebuilding the Iraqi state and economy. . . . If no facilities were damaged, Iraq's total oil revenues would still only likely average around $10 billion to $12 billion annually."

Looks as if Professor Krugman was fuckin dead on right again, eh Edmundo?

3278. jexster - 2/13/2003 9:35:24 PM

FROM THE BBC:
Powell and the Media Call This a 'Partnership'?
Read Osama's Views on Iraq

"First, showing good intentions. This means fighting should be for the sake of the one God. It should not be for championing ethnic groups, or for championing the non-Islamic regimes in all Arab countries, including Iraq... Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons... Fighting in support of the non-Islamic banners [like socialism] is forbidden... Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists. The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago. Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden."

3279. jexster - 2/13/2003 9:41:44 PM

NBC-3 San Jose - this Sunday's Demonstration could well be the most massive in Bay Area history

NO War on the World
NO Detentions
& Round-ups
NO Police State
Restrictions

notinourname.net

"We believe that as people living in the United States it is our responsibility to resist the injustices done by our government, in our names. Not in our name will you wage endless war..."

3280. jexster - 2/13/2003 9:42:51 PM

I mean it, when I analyse the stench
To me, it makes a lot of sense
How the Dreadlock Rasta was the Buffalo Soldier
And he was taken from Africa, brought to America
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival

Said he was a Buffalo Soldier, Dreadlock Rasta
Buffalo Soldier, in the heart of America

3281. jexster - 2/14/2003 10:45:16 AM

HANS BLIX stands tall before the lofty mast - Inspections Have Revealed Nothing That Substantially Contradicts Iraqi Declarations

3282. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:02:06 AM

Blix: "Powell's TonkaToy Pictures Bogus"

Republic or Empire?

Iraq is the linchpin for a broader assault on the region

3283. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:03:43 AM

"This is NOT the statement that [Bloody Bush Butcher of Baghdad] Wanted to Hear" Richard Butler

3284. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:04:40 AM

Fightin for survival win the war for America....

3285. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:06:39 AM

"If Bloody Bush wants to go to war in a few weeks, this report isn't a good way to start it" Gen Barry McCaffery

3286. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:14:53 AM

3287. Trouble - 2/14/2003 11:17:11 AM

A JUST WAR: This war is a just one. We didn't start it. Saddam did - over twelve years ago. We responded at the time with a restraint and patience and deliberation that would have made Aquinas proud. After victory, we acted with a magnanimity utterly unreciprocated by the dictator we routed - even to the extent of leaving Saddam in power, even to the point of betraying in grotesque fashion the millions who dreamed of freedom - only to see slavery instead. (If only to right that horrifying wrong, we have a moral responsibility to finish the job.) We made a truce with the tyrant, with conditions that the entire world has witnessed him routinely violate. Our enemy, moreover, has no moral compunction whatsoever - he has violated every maxim of a just war imaginable. He has murdered opponents; he has gassed innocent and defenseless civilians; he preaches genocidal hatred and practises torture; he has laid waste to the environment; and made a mockery of religion. He has refused to disarm; and lies through his teeth. When fanatical murderers from that region developed a terrorist network and massacred thousands of Western civilians, we realized that Saddam's weapons couldn't be contained in his lair with any guarantee of security. So we made a belated attempt to live up to the truce of 1991, to finish the unfinished job. We could have destroyed him and his regime at any point. We didn't. We waited; we sent in inspectors; we were forced into sanctions. We went to the U.N. again to beg for help and support. The U.N. complied, provided a clear resolution, with the burden of proof finally on Saddam. Just as clearly, Saddam has violated it, and continues to violate it.

--Andrew Sullivan

3288. concerned - 2/14/2003 11:23:49 AM

If the US is being too 'unilateral' now, how were we not wrong when we were so much more extreme in that direction in WWI and WWII? What say France, Germany and Canada to that?

3289. concerned - 2/14/2003 11:25:07 AM

And when are these countries going to replace the 150,000 US troops that are the only reason that Saddam has budged an inch so far?

Their deafening silence on the matter alone totally discredits their position.

3290. concerned - 2/14/2003 11:25:38 AM

...is the only reason...

3291. Wombat - 2/14/2003 11:28:49 AM

Re 3288:

What the hell are you talking about?

3292. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:31:40 AM

"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
--President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953

Up to 10 million people on five continents are expected to demonstrate against the probable war in Iraq on Saturday, in some of the largest peace marches ever known. Yesterday, up to 400 cities in 60 countries, from Antarctica to Pacific islands, confirmed that peace rallies, vigils and marches would take place. "The internationalism of the opposition is the most powerful weapon people have. It's all we have. We think that Bush and Blair are well aware that global opposition is mounting fast and that they are now desperate to start the war before they are completely isolated by world opinion," said a spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, a US coalition.

10 million to Join World Protest RalliesBE THERE!

Andrew Sullivan - What army did he serve in?

CHICKENHAWK HEADQUARTERS
Name Employer YearBorn Conflict Avoided Lame Excuse
Bush, George W 1946 Vietnam A.W.O.L.
Cheney, Dick 1941 Vietnam "had other priorities"

BARKING HEAD BRIGADE

Hume, Brit
Keyes, Alan
Limbaugh, David
Limbaugh, Rush 1951 Vietnam anal cysts

3293. concerned - 2/14/2003 11:35:37 AM

Re. 3291 -

You've probably seen the rhetoric emanating from these nations about how the US is 'not to be trusted'. This is a question intended to place that attitude into historical context, given the events of the 20th Century. It's the kind of question that would be ignored by their governments, but shouldn't be.

3294. Trouble - 2/14/2003 11:35:45 AM

Blix: Prohibited Materials 'Not Accounted For'

FNC
Inspectors present reports that may determine whether U.N. asks for more time or gives U.S. green light to move against Iraq

3295. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:37:20 AM

"Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions."
--Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson,
the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials,
in his opening statement to the tribunal

I hear there's an open cell right next to Slobo with The Moron King's name on it.

Wanna join him TD, Rose Zan, Edmundo, Wombat?

3296. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:39:33 AM

You've probably seen the rhetoric emanating from these nations about how the US is 'not to be trusted'

Actually those nations never said any such thing and I dare you to look for it.

People in those nations feel that way. Majorties, super majorities feel that way. Many in this country feel that way.

3297. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:41:59 AM

And you will see MILLIONS of them in streets around the world this weekend.

Hell you wanna get your cornpone racist "patriot" hackles up...

I don't trust anything Bush or his people say about anything. I believe that Bush has obsessed and prevaricated so long about Iraq that he has become mentally unbalanced, even psychotic.

3298. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:43:17 AM

Bush and supporters, buttboys like TD are a menace to world peace and should be locked up

3299. jexster - 2/14/2003 12:27:19 PM

When I analyze the stench....

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -
"We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq," International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.

3300. jexster - 2/14/2003 12:31:30 PM

Le Veto in the Bag

France: Force Against Iraq Unjustified at This Time
16 minutes ago
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told the U.N. Security Council on Friday that U.N. inspections in Iraq were showing results and the use of force was not justified at this time.

"God bless Iraq" Pope John Paul II

3301. jexster - 2/14/2003 1:14:55 PM

VATICAN CITY - Strong war opponent Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II held a private meeting with a top Iraqi leader Friday, urging the government of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to commit fully to U.N. weapons inspections in hopes of averting a U.S.-led attack.

Latest news:
• Powell Asks Allies to Threaten Iraq
AP - 9 minutes ago
• Blix: No Weapons of Mass Destruction Seen
AP - 9 minutes ago
• Iraq Bans Weapons of Mass Destruction
AP - 29 minutes ago
Special Coverage

The pontiff's hopeful words came hours before chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix reported to the Security Council that his team had so far not found weapons of mass destruction. He spoke at a meeting that could determine whether the United States gets U.N. backing for a possible military action.

The pope met with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz for about 30 minutes Friday, gripping the Iraqi's hand firmly at the end. "God bless you. God bless Iraq," John Paul said.

3302. wonkers2 - 2/14/2003 2:35:15 PM

There will be no Big Iraq Attack. The momentum is running against Bush. The U.S. would have to be crazy to go ahead. Clearly, the best option is strengthening and continuing the inspections. Attacking Iraq without the blessing of the UN would be suicidal for the United States and UK.

3303. joezan - 2/14/2003 2:54:48 PM

Keep dreaming, bonkers.

We will be in country before the end of this month.

3304. magoseph - 2/14/2003 2:59:12 PM

3305. magoseph - 2/14/2003 3:00:21 PM

Oh, sorry, you already answered that.

3306. joezan - 2/14/2003 3:00:34 PM

But you are partially correct: the best option is "strengthening" and continuing the "inspections" - if what you are interested in is gaining the goodwill of the French - who have none themselves.

Or, if you believe -contrary to the actual wording of the resolution - that the whole point is for the inspectors to try and find what Saddam is hiding.

Are you aware that when South Africa agreed to inspections of its WMD, the UN sent a half-dozen inspectors and got the job done in a matter of weeks?

Do you know why that is, bonkers?

3307. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:05:16 PM

God bless you Tariq Aziz and God bless Iraq"John Paul II, Bishop of Rome.

This is end of the line for the Emperor Moron.

Napoleon and George W. Bush: A French Warning for Today’s America
What could the United States learn from French history?

3308. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:08:47 PM

Bush is going to go ahead with his lunatic schemes. Thousands will perish in a war of aggression in a war against God and against mankind.

But even if I am wrong, and the Butcher Boy beats a cowardly retreat, the Bush War against world has already spelled the political death of this megalomaniacal moron..

3309. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:10:27 PM

Are you aware that when South Africa agreed to inspections of its WMD, the UN sent a half-dozen inspectors and got the job done in a matter of weeks?

Do you know why that is, bonkers?

Because they weren't threatened with by a maniac with a pea brain, because it doesn't matter WHAT Iraq does, because Saddam Hussein wants to humiliate GWB

3310. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:11:15 PM

Its time to put paid to Zan and his bloodthirsty, cornpone patriot ilk

3311. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:11:24 PM

Its time to put paid to Zan and his bloodthirsty, cornpone patriot ilk

3312. joezan - 2/14/2003 3:18:29 PM

You're blabbering, jasper.

New meds?

3313. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:20:58 PM

"God bless Iraq" Zan....

Either Bush will retreat or he will invade and in either case he's done for...let's just hope God blesses us and the former happens...

I'd rather not see millions of refugees, thousands of dead, the decency and world standing of our country in ruins because Bush wants an Empire

3314. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:21:55 PM

you cornpone patriot, you counterfeit christian, you bloodthirsty boob

3315. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:27:31 PM

War and rumors of war expose contradiction and bullshit:

By any measure, totalitarian North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons is more dangerous than the mere possibility that Iraq is trying to develop them. The North Korean state, which is hard to distinguish from a cult, is also more repressive and disciplined than the Iraqi state, and has caused the death of more of its own people--through starvation. Yet in the weeks that followed the North Korean disclosure, the Administration, in a radical reversal of the President's earlier assessments, sought to argue that the opposite was true. Administration spokespersons soon declared that the North Korean situation was "not a crisis" and that its policy toward that country was to be one of "dialogue," leading to "a peaceful multilateral solution," including the possibility of renewed oil shipments. But if the acquisition by North Korea of nuclear arms was not a crisis, then there never had been any need to warn the world of the danger of nuclear proliferation, or to name an axis of evil, or to deliver an ultimatum to disarm it.

For the North Korean debacle represented not the failure of a good policy but exposure of the futility of one that was impracticable from the start..

The failure and the futility of an incompetent and menace to the world

3316. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:28:15 PM

When I analyze the stench...

3317. robertjayb - 2/14/2003 3:45:03 PM

OhmiGod! John Le Boutellier (The Boot) is on CNN and I'm agreeing with him.

What about Osama bin-gone-so-long-the-bushies-just-want-you-to-forget-about-him Laden?

3318. wabbit - 2/14/2003 3:47:52 PM

Disarming Iraq

text of the Blix Briefing of the Security Council

3319. wonkers2 - 2/14/2003 4:39:38 PM

Zan, Nobody cares much about the goodwill of the French. We'll never have that no matter what we do. However, I do worry about stirring up 50 million or so fanatical fundamentalist Muslims and providing a recruiting tool for Al Qaida which seems to be alive and well despite our efforts in Afghanistan.

3320. wonkers2 - 2/14/2003 4:56:07 PM

Logic suggests that what is really in American interest would be to grab Sharon by the balls and get him under control and in a frame of mind for peace while keeping Sadaam Hussein pinned down and neutralized by inspections, no-fly zone, a few troops in the area, etc., but WITHOUT KILLING A BUNCH OF INNOCENT IRAQUI WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND EVEN SOLDIERS.

3321. alistairconnor - 2/14/2003 5:23:56 PM

Key allies!

I heard on the news that, all things considered, Italy will only back a UN- approved war.

I haven't laughed so hard in days. Thanks Berlu, I needed that.

3322. alistairconnor - 2/14/2003 5:37:30 PM

Quote from Blix:

We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist. The US Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.

That's about as blunt as he can get: he's telling Powell to put up or shut up.

I can only see three possible interpretations:

* Powell has red-hot intelligence that he's not giving Blix (why?)
* Blix is actually an Iraqi agent
* Powell is full of shit, he made that stuff up.

Votes?

3323. magoseph - 2/14/2003 5:43:40 PM

Snopes says the quote is true. Interesting!
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

More about Goering...

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

3324. judithathome - 2/14/2003 5:54:26 PM

Oh no Magos, I'm afraid you are wrong. Ace has already decreed in the Politics thread that it is a fake, despite links showing otherwise.

3325. concerned - 2/14/2003 7:12:26 PM

Re. 3322 -

You forgot to add that there's documentation and/or WMD that are still being concealed from US intelligence and the UN inspectors, which would be my first choice. an obvious one since much wmd known extant in 1998 has never been accounted for. And if Iraq is pulling that off, there's no reason whatsoever that they wouldn't be concealing WMD production since that point in time.

Elementary, my dear Watson. Very elementary.

3326. concerned - 2/14/2003 7:16:34 PM

What I think is amusing is that the Left is expending more energy puling about a possible US incursion to Iraq than the incursion itself will require.

Then, when things settle down and the clearly improved situation becomes obvious to even the most narrow intellect, there will be a mass neuronal implosion among leftists and they will emphatically deny that they ever were pulling the shameful stunts or mouthing the idiocy that they currently are.

3327. concerned - 2/14/2003 7:27:53 PM

Tendentious narrow minded Leftist:

Iraq has no WMD because Blix & 400 of his sidekix says he couldn't find any when running up & down & back & forth thru Iraq for 11 weeks.

Reasonable person:

That's no reason at all for jumping to such a conclusion, given the plethora of Iraqi underground and otherwise hidden sites known, suspected & possible as well as the hundreds of never accounted for WMD that existed a few years ago.

3328. jexster - 2/14/2003 8:07:04 PM

The lead-in for the hawkish local news NBC-3 tonight: Will Bush have to invade all by himself?

Nothing like changing the question

Stop Bush's War Against the World - Now 450 cities all over the world this weekend take to the streets against Bush's empire

3329. jexster - 2/14/2003 8:10:51 PM

, given the plethora of Iraqi underground and otherwise hidden sites known

Funny none have been found!

Funny if they are "known" who are they "known" to?

To you?

To Bush?

To Blair?

Funny how every time, EVERY time Bush or Blair have told us there is mischief afoot at this or that place, turns out to have been a lie.

Funny, isn't it, how the US and Britain aren't giving their full and complete cooperation as called for by Res 1441

Funny, how Powell makes a handful of charges and two have been proved false...Funny how they want to go to war before we can find out how many lies they have told us

Funny isn't it?

Can't you smell the stench?

God Bless Iraq

3330. jexster - 2/14/2003 8:12:01 PM

All news channels now carrying "Bush by himself"

God Bless Iraq.

3331. jexster - 2/14/2003 8:12:37 PM

And God Bless M. Dominque of Villepin!!!!!

3332. jexster - 2/14/2003 8:13:24 PM

Hey I see Osama out front! Quick gimme some duct tape, I'll go git him - dead or alive!

3333. jexster - 2/14/2003 8:40:19 PM

A Warning on Iraq - From a Friend - The French Ambassador to the Armadillo Court

and the Council greeted M. of Villepin with a standing ovation

God bless Iraq.

3334. alistairconnor - 2/14/2003 9:28:36 PM

I don't believe Iraq has no WMD.

I think they've probably got some pretty bad stuff hidden, and I think the inspectors will find and destroy them, given time and resources. Even if Powell doesn't co-operate (the UN resolution calls on all parties to co-operate... apparently the rule is, the one who doesn't co-operate gets invaded...)

(Just a joke...)

3335. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:24:08 PM

Ever think of joinin up with the Gaullists AC??

(Just a joke..)

Anyway we don't need Le Veto anymore

A case for war?
· Yes, say US and Britain(4)
· No, say the majority(11)

And with nearly 1,000,000 expected in Hyde Park tommorrow in the dead of winter, Greece setting up an EU ambush for him, well you have to wonder how much longer b4 ole Jexie prediction comes true, how long before Chirac completes casstration of The Poodle????

3336. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:48:25 PM

Turns out one the SF Chronicle's DC correspondents, agrees - on KQED's This Week in NoCali

"as I listened to blix this am I had this picture of Bush and Blair at the end of plank...I could almost hear the sawing....they'll go it alone and the Blair govt will fall"

Jacques you snake!

3337. concerned - 2/15/2003 1:59:39 AM

All these alleged protesters are directing their attention toward the wrong parties. They should be protesting the unwillingness of the Saddam regime to disarm so that the external solution need not be imposed.

3338. concerned - 2/15/2003 2:00:58 AM

Since they aren't, they are effectively pro totalitarian.

3339. concerned - 2/15/2003 3:00:33 AM

Blix: Iraq Not Disarming

Effectively, this is to say that Iraq has done little or nothing to comply with UN Resolution 1441. I don't count playing 'musical WMD' with Blix's sidekix as cooperation.

3340. concerned - 2/15/2003 4:50:28 AM

The US will probably remind France and Germany shortly that 'serious consequences' for Iraqi noncompliance does not mean more inspections.

3341. jexster - 2/15/2003 5:49:57 AM

No doubt Bush will begin his War Against the World soon. The Butcher of Baghdad is really quite mad you know! That'll be the end of The Armadillo Emperor.

3342. jexster - 2/15/2003 5:55:21 AM

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of people poured on to the streets in New Zealand and Australia on Saturday to march for peace, beginning a day of global protests against a looming U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The demonstrations are part of massive rallies planned throughout different time zones around the world with the peace movement expected to spread to more than 600 towns and cities stretching from the far south to Iceland in the north.

Organizers expect large crowds in New York and London, while protesters in Rome said they expected more than a million people to attend Saturday's peace march.

3343. jexster - 2/15/2003 6:07:16 AM

From the Guardian UK some helpful hints for TD as he leads the peace protest in Bumfuck, Moron Land....
And the world WON't hold its breath this time!

A beginners' guide to marching
Interactive: New to peace protests? Find out all you need to know with our click-through guide.

Millions to march in hundreds of cities - a global protest begins
February 15: More than 10 million people are expected to take to the streets in 600 cities today as part of global demonstrations against a war in Iraq.

3344. Trouble - 2/15/2003 8:29:22 AM

sTART THE BOMBING

3345. jexster - 2/15/2003 11:22:29 AM

LONDON CALLING

3346. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:11:42 PM

Anti-war protesters gather in London at the start of a demonstration against Bush's war on Iraq, February 15, 2003. Millions of people are expected to take to the streets of towns and cities across the globe to demonstrate against a looming U.S.-led war on Iraq in the biggest protests since the Vietnam war.

3347. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:12:18 PM

What does TD mean these "alleged" protesters?????

3348. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:12:47 PM

The World United Against Bush

3349. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:14:16 PM

The worldwide resources of CNN FINALLY being put to some use other than Wolf Blitzer's war fevered froth

3350. Trouble - 2/15/2003 12:55:34 PM

Yes, CNN realizes its lost its US audience and now reaching out to the dish-antenna maniacs of Europe.

3351. jexster - 2/15/2003 3:53:30 PM

Melbourne - STOP BUSH WARS

3352. jexster - 2/15/2003 3:56:44 PM

Protesters fill St. John Lateran square during an anti-war rally in Rome, Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003. Millions of protesters around the world demonstrated Saturday against Bush plans to attack Iraq

That's the Bishop of Rome's church

"God bless you Tariq Aziz and God bless Iraq"

3353. jexster - 2/15/2003 3:59:48 PM

Boy the worldwide hatred of Geore Duhbya is awesome!

3354. Trouble - 2/15/2003 4:05:45 PM

A real peach march would look like this: Signs demanding: Sadamm disarm. Feed the Children not the army. Equal rights for Kurds. Iraqi Arms Freeze now! Mr. Hussain I don't want to died in a chemical attack. Hussain enviro monster Iraqi flags would burn Students would hold signs like S.O.S. (Student oppose to Sadam) Until I see these I know that the peace marches now are not anti war just anti American

3355. wonkers2 - 2/15/2003 4:40:49 PM

I just got home from the peace march from Grand Circus Park to Cobo Hall in Detroit. The crowd was small but enthusiastic. The turnout probably would have been bigger but for the 15 degree temperature and 20mph wind.

I didn't notice anything anti-American about the demonstration. Why would anyone claim it's anti-American to exercise one's constitutional right to protest a policy that you believe is not in the interest of this country? That's as American as apple pie and Chevrolets.

3356. wonkers2 - 2/15/2003 4:43:48 PM

Opponents of the war could just as easily and more accurately call Bush and Trouble and Concerned anti-American. But we don't so why should you call us anti-American? In fact, none of us is anti-American. We simply differ on what policy is in the interest of this country.

3357. arkymalarky - 2/15/2003 5:35:17 PM

Unquestioning fealty to an administration's policies is un-American (not agreement with them). The real patriotic Americans are those exercising their American freedoms and their duty as citizens to assert their opinions about what a current administration does when they disagree with it. Why, Concerned has done that relentlessly wrt Clinton and he may have been called everything from stupid to pathologically obsessed, but not un-American.

3358. jexster - 2/15/2003 5:57:48 PM

London: One Million and Still They Come
Protest Against Bush War Surpasses Organisers Wildest Dreams, Blair's Worst Nightmares
The Guardian

3359. jexster - 2/15/2003 5:58:37 PM

Blair's choice; Bail now, bail later

3360. jexster - 2/15/2003 6:08:00 PM

The chances of anything coming from Mars
Are million to one they said
The chances of anything coming from Mars
are a million to one
AND STILL THEY COME
Justin Hayward, Moody Blues in
Jeff Wayne-War of the Worlds

3361. jexster - 2/15/2003 7:04:11 PM

LONDON, Feb.15 – Several million demonstrators took to the streets of Europe and the rest of the world today in a vast and unprecedented wave of protest against the prospect of a U.S.-led war against Iraq.

BERLIN - 500,000

GLASGOW

3362. robertjayb - 2/15/2003 8:17:58 PM

The Belgian Protocol...

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Belgium offered a compromise Saturday to end a bitter dispute within the NATO alliance over providing military aid to Turkey in advance of a possible war against Iraq.

Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said Belgium, France and Germany would endorse a U.S. proposal for such help if NATO makes clear the aid is defensive in nature and it must not be seen as making the alliance a participant in war preparations against Iraq.

NATO called an urgent session of the ambassadors of its 19 member states for Sunday to discuss the proposal.

Verhofstadt said his government has been consulting with France and Germany on language that would let the three countries drop their vetoes against plans to deploy early warning aircraft, missile defenses and anti biochemical units to Turkey, the only NATO country bordering Iraq.

3363. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:35:22 PM

Well that was the objection. It was clear all along. Why did it take so long for the Bush Regime to recognize that France, Germany, and Belgium whose governments represent the opinion of ALL of Europe weren't going to let the Emperor back door a NATO endorsement of his war?

3364. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:47:58 PM

The latest Bush Regime bribe to turkey:

the Iraqi Kurds
6 Billion in Aid
20 Billion in loan guarantees

3365. jexster - 2/15/2003 9:05:16 PM

Lexis Search 12/15 -

1. The Associated Press, February 15, 2003, Saturday, BC cycle, 11:27 AM Eastern Time, International News, 1062 words, Mass marches in London, Rome, Berlin and Damascus, clashes in Athens on day of global protest, By ROBERT BARR, Associated Press Writer, LONDON
2. BBC Monitoring International Reports, February 15, 2003, 668 words, ANTIWAR MARCH HELD IN LATVIAN CAPITAL; POLL SHOWS MAJORITY OPPOSED TO WAR
3. XINHUA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE, February 16, 2003, Sunday, 11:42 AM Eastern Time, WORLD NEWS; POLITICAL, 161 words, Anti-war protest held in Brussels
4. XINHUA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE, February 16, 2003, Sunday, 11:13 AM Eastern Time, WORLD NEWS; POLITICAL, 123 words, Thousands march in Paris against war on Iraq
5. Agence France Presse, February 15, 2003 Saturday, International News, 222 words, Thousands in New Zealand march peacefully against Iraq war, AUCKLAND, Feb 15
6. BBC Monitoring International Reports, February 15, 2003, 72 words, UKRAINIAN ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS MARCH ON US EMBASSY
7. Agence France Presse, February 15, 2003 Saturday, International News, 574 words, London braces for huge march against Iraq war, PETER KONONCZUK, LONDON, Feb 15
8. Agence France Presse, February 15, 2003 Saturday, International News, 469 words, Australia facing weekend of mass anti-war protest, SYDNEY, Feb 15
9. BBC Monitoring International Reports, February 15, 2003, 276 words, CROATIAN ANTIWAR PROTESTERS BURN US FLAG WITH FASCIST INSIGNIA AT ZAGREB RALLY
10. Agence France Presse, February 15, 2003 Saturday, International News, 275 words, Thousands rally against Iraq war in Thailand, BANGKOK, Feb 15

Documents 1 - 15 of 200

3366. concerned - 2/15/2003 9:51:39 PM

As jexster enumerates the Leftist idiots and blockheads....

Aziz: Destroying missiles would be 'unacceptable'

Iraq turns down UN peacekeepers and refuses to destroy the missiles known to be violating UN Resolution 1441.

Now that France and Germany have been kicked in the teeth by the dictator they are trying to save they might use the words 'very disappointed' in their planned 18th UN Resolution regarding Iraq. Serious consequences indeed.

Of course, the US will probably be administering Baghdad before things get to that point.

3367. concerned - 2/15/2003 9:53:45 PM

re. 3363 -

What crap. The governments of those three countries represent only themselvees.

3368. jexster - 2/15/2003 10:07:38 PM

Yea right..in alternate universe....millions of people on the street to stop Bush's War....ALL of Europe 70-90% in any country agree with Chirac and Shroeder and of those that don't many will soon fall

That's called DEMOCRACY!

3369. concerned - 2/15/2003 10:14:57 PM

The US would not be fighting Iraq, IAC. This is part of the war on terrorism.

3370. concerned - 2/15/2003 10:16:42 PM

Saddam no more represents the Iraqi people than bin Laden did Afghanistan.

3371. jexster - 2/15/2003 10:16:48 PM

Oh yeah right...is that cow pie #145 or 146 I forget.

3372. jexster - 2/15/2003 10:18:18 PM

Bush can sure turn em out....millions marchin...just for him

3373. concerned - 2/15/2003 10:18:35 PM

The US wants to free Iraq, something worth fighting for.

3374. concerned - 2/15/2003 10:20:35 PM

Let's see what kind of staying power your totalitarian weekend warriors have, jex.

3375. jexster - 2/15/2003 10:33:02 PM

We've now been out 3 times em masse, millions in the dead of winter...600 cities...we've got more staying power than Bush. Bush knows it, and that's why he has to strike soon

Its all grass roots and its unprecedented and its all thanks to GWB..nobody else could have accomplished this...

Must make you VERY proud

Anti-war protesters march through narrow streets during a demonstration against war on Iraq in Berne, February 15, 2003

3376. concerned - 2/15/2003 10:41:02 PM

Such a waste of effort. All these people stay home for much worse.

3377. concerned - 2/15/2003 10:42:10 PM

I look forward to all the protestors admitting that they did the wrong thing when Iraq is freed.

3378. Cellar Door - 2/15/2003 11:45:38 PM

"I look forward to all the protestors admitting that they did the wrong thing when Iraq is freed."

I look forward to the overthrow of the Bush Crime Family too.

3379. concerned - 2/16/2003 3:52:44 AM

From the Irish Independent: 'Liberty, equality, fraternity, enmity' by Ruth Dudley Edwards

The self-serving French have made war inevitable and managed to raise US dislike for them to an all-time high, writes Ruth Dudley Edwards

SADDAM Hussein dancing a triumphalist jig; Nato in mortal danger; the United Nations possibly in meltdown; the EU hopelessly split; and a peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis now almost impossible: you certainly have to hand it to the French. But to be fair, they're consistent: you can always rely on them to let you down. Shortly, they'll be letting down the Germans and the Belgians.

French foreign policy is notoriously visionary, daring and self-serving and its diplomatic service is the most disliked and also the most admired in the world. As negotiators, the French are notorious for their complete ruthlessness and cunning. There is a famous story about the stalemate reached in the lengthy negotiations between the French and the British about whether their jointly-developed aeroplane should be called 'Corcorde' (French) or 'Concord' (English). Suddenly, the chief French negotiator burst into tears, causing his deeply embarrassed English opposite number to say, "Oh, my dear chap, let it be Concorde". If this really happened, you can bet that the tears were a cynical ploy and that the negotiators laughed at the gullible British all the way home.

3380. concerned - 2/16/2003 3:53:10 AM

When it comes to their relationships with other countries, the French are bastards and proud of it. Over centuries they have been the consistent and skilled practitioners of what the distinguished international relations expert, Martin Wight, describes as Machiavellian diplomacy. Wight divided diplomacy into three types: Grotian (after the seventeenth-century theologian Hugo Grotius) is directed at finding common ground with the other side. Machiavellian (after the sixteenth-century pragmatist) is instinctively hostile and relies on coercion, bribery and lies. Kantian (after the eighteenth-century philosopher) assumes with suicidal optimism that mankind is fundamentally benevolent and will respond to unilateralist gestures of goodwill. Traditionally the British are Grotian, the French (like the old Soviet Union) Machiavellian and anti-war campaigners like our present peace activists are Kantian.

(Throughout the peace process, the Provos have been Machiavellian and the Irish and New Labour governments Kantian towards republicans, Grotian towards nationalists and more often than not Machiavellian towards unionists. This is understandable in the case of the tribal Irish; in the case of the British it demonstrates their rulers' tendency to be more perfidious towards their own people (see Gibraltar) than towards their enemies.)

The US is in an uproar over France: emails are flying around in their millions asking incredulously how the French could have forgotten that Americans died to save them in two world wars. Yet there is no surprise in Britain, where it is well-known that gratitude is not an emotion the French understand; in the Foreign Office, it is equally well-known that the only interest the French have in anywhere is how much money or prestige can be gained from it.

3381. concerned - 2/16/2003 3:56:27 AM

France snuggled up to Saddam before any other Western power and became his biggest supplier of arms, including the nuclear technology no other country would supply. The French were indulgent about the invasion of Kuwait, have undermined all UN attempts through sanctions or inspections to bring about disarmament and are creating mayhem at present in order to preserve their substantial share of the oil-for-food trade. They've emboldened Russia to play a similar game and the German Chancellor to the consternation of his diplomatic service to follow suit in the hope of winning back some electoral popularity. Now, they've thrown a moral fig-leaf to all those UN countries who were desperate to avoid doing anything brave.

Faced with a united voice from the EU, Nato and the UN Security Council, Saddam would have caved in and almost certainly avoided war. That anti-war strategy of the UK and the US is now gravely damaged. Helped by the Kantian peaceniks, the Machivellian French have made war almost inevitable. In the end, of course, as with Afghanistan, France will secure the best possible deal for herself in exchange for coming down on the side of the US at the last possible minute.

3382. concerned - 2/16/2003 3:56:46 AM

Still, bastards don't always play it right. The German establishment blames Chirac for seducing Schroeder down a suicidal path and so at diplomatic level in the EU the Franco-German alliance is damaged. The new countries coming into the EU and Nato see Americans as benefactors and the French as spoilers. If Nato with which France has had a form of external association for years survives, France will not easily be forgiven for alienating the great power on which the institution has for so long depended. And the sense of betrayal in the United States is so great now that Bush will be encouraged to find ways of punishing France in the long run. But the main victims of France's latest exercise in selfishness will be the Iraqis who will die in a war made necessary because the French threw a life-line to a drowning Saddam Hussein.

3383. concerned - 2/16/2003 4:58:46 AM

Germany's leading role in arming Iraq

Chirac is scum, Shroeder is scum. Both France and Germany are playing a two faced game, lying to the world about everything while violating UN resolutions banning the sale of weapons and WMD precursors to Iraq, and neither has any sort of workable plan regarding Iraq.

3384. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:45:53 AM

Anti BushWar Rallies Raise Chorus Across Europe

Times of London: Blair, First Casualty of Bush War

Largest Public Protest in British History - Times of London

The Great Unheard Hit the Streets

Bush managed to squander a surfeit of good will and turn out the largest worldwide protest in history against him.

Keep up the good work!

3385. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:48:03 AM

BAY AREA LINKS TO IRAQ

Bay Area companies are mentioned in Iraq's weapons declaration.

-- Hewlett-Packard sold $1.7 million worth of computers and electronic testing equipment to the Iraq government in the 1980s.

-- Bechtel sold products related to Iraq's conventional weapons program in the 1980s.

-- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories (Livermore and Albuquerque) helped train Iraqi nuclear weapons scientists in the 1980s.Source: Andreas Zumach, German newspaper reporter

3386. alistairconnor - 2/16/2003 10:48:40 AM

Faced with a united voice from the EU, Nato and the UN Security Council, Saddam would have caved in and almost certainly avoided war. That anti-war strategy of the UK and the US is now gravely damaged.

Cloud cuckoo land (or rather, a Machiavellian manipulation). If the US hadn't been openly, explicitly hell-bent on war for months now, then there could have been a common, negotiated position to deal with Saddam and avoid war. This is, indeed, what France and Germany have been striving for.

3387. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 10:49:35 AM

CNN's headline says it all (almost): "Antiwar rallies delight Iraq."

Iraq was gloating Sunday...

Why not put "Saddam" in there instead of "Iraq" to be totally honest?

3388. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:50:39 AM

Link

3389. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 10:51:28 AM

Cloud cuckoo land (or rather, a Machiavellian manipulation). If the US hadn't been openly, explicitly hell-bent on war for months now, then there could have been a common, negotiated position to deal with Saddam and avoid war. This is, indeed, what France and Germany have been striving for.

Yep, just like for the last 12 years prior to the the "hell-bent on war for months now."

"We were this close, you American fools!"

3390. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 10:53:28 AM

In actuality, before American pressure began, there were no inspectors in Iraq and all the talk was how long before sanctions would be lifted.

3391. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:56:55 AM

God bless Iraq.

I am gloating too!

3392. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:58:53 AM

Gonna march again today Eddie. Of course you remember the one I joined last summer don't you?

That one had about 3000....today 300,000 expected.

Fine job Moron

3393. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 11:02:47 AM

Associated Press 6-6-2001: US Wants to Pressure Iraq But Many Countries Balk

Compared with a decade ago, Saddam is looking strong. He has been able to avoid U.N. weapons inspectors since late 1998. Powell suspects Saddam is at work on forbidden weapons.

Russia Questioning Premise of New Iraqi Proposals

Iraq, in protest against the entire revision of the sanctions, halted oil exports on Monday. Baghdad wants the embargoes lifted or at least made ineffective and objects to any system that would perpetuate them. On Thursday Iraqi President Saddam Hussein urged Russia, as a permanent council member, to use its veto power to kill the resolution.

3394. jexster - 2/16/2003 11:06:03 AM

Compared with a decade ago, Saddam is looking strong.

As I said in Fall 2001, all Bush would accomplish by his blather and bluster is to increase Saddam's strength and prestige in the world.

"God bless Iraq" Pope John Paul II

3395. jexster - 2/16/2003 11:09:26 AM

As Condom Rice tries to salvage the disaster on Meet the Press, Russert follows with a new and vocal opponent, Gen Wes Clark

3396. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 11:12:08 AM

"God bless Iraq" Pope John Paul II

Jasper One-note: Why don't you quote us some John Paul II on homosexuality?

You know, how it's an "offense to Christian values"? Or that homosexual acts are contrary to the laws of nature?

3397. Cellar Door - 2/16/2003 11:13:22 AM

Hooray For Hollywood!

3398. jexster - 2/16/2003 11:18:00 AM

Bush is dead meat either way:

"If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired." - Henry Kissinger

Anatol Lieven considers what the US Administration hopes to gain

The most surprising thing about the Bush Administration's plan to invade Iraq is not that it is destructive of international order; or wicked, when we consider the role the US (and Britain) have played, and continue to play, in the Middle East; or opposed by the great majority of the international community; or seemingly contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism. It is all of these things, but they are of no great concern to the hardline nationalists in the Administration. This group has suffered at least a temporary check as a result of the British insistence on UN involvement, and Saddam Hussein's agreement to weapons inspections. They are, however, still determined on war - and their power within the Administration and in the US security policy world means that they are very likely to get their way. Even the Washington Post has joined the radical rightist media in supporting war.

The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless.

These risks are not only to American (and British) lives and interests, but to the political future of the Administration. If the war goes badly wrong, it will be more generally excoriated than any within living memory, and its members will be finished politically - finished for good. If no other fear moved these people, you'd have thought this one would.

3399. jexster - 2/16/2003 11:18:29 AM

HK's line cost the US 30,000 deaths in Vietman

3400. jexster - 2/16/2003 11:26:08 AM

In New York City, the people defied police refusal to grant a march permit by turning the upper east side broad boulevards into a sea of humanity. Hundreds of thousands filled First Avenue, Second Avenue and Third Avenue. On First Avenue the rally stretched from 52nd St. past 80th St. Second and Third Avenues, and even over to Lexington Avenue, were clogged with demonstrators who were prevented by police barricades and checkpoints from reaching the main assembly site.

Demonstrations took place in scores of cities throughout the United States. In Los Angeles, 100,000 demonstrated in the largest anti-war protest in many years. 5,000 marched in Houston, 7,000 in Chicago, more than 7,000 in Sacramento, thousands marched in San Jose and Detroit. In San Francisco, the demonstration is taking place on Sunday, February 16.

3401. jexster - 2/16/2003 11:27:16 AM

I am fired up Eddie how bout you....I am going to go to Mass at 9 and then take the War Against Evil to the streets at 11

God bless Iraq

3402. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 11:33:54 AM

Jasper's pal, Wesley Clark

No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if Nato's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war.

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital.

3403. jexster - 2/16/2003 11:41:39 AM

And Russia's gonna go to war over Pristina! And here I thought you thought Clinton a pussy for not risking US ground troops.

Turns out you just don't know what you are talking about.

If you have some slime for Norman Schwartzkopf whose views are identical then have at it.

3404. jexster - 2/16/2003 11:42:47 AM

Let's revisit your Krugman bladder err. blather after the march...

I have better things to do than slap you down again

3405. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 12:07:29 PM

And Russia's gonna go to war over Pristina! And here I thought you thought Clinton a pussy for not risking US ground troops.

Don't "think" about what I think, Jasper. You're too deranged to approach such intellectual heights without guide and compass.

My post regarding "Mad-dog" Clark is just to point out your never-ending hypocrisy regarding Kosovo versus Iraq.

3406. vonKreedon - 2/16/2003 12:52:02 PM

ED - My view is that if the US administration had not contracted Mad Cowboy Disease we would have a united UNSC putting pressure on Iraq. From the beginning Bush's rhetoric was that we were going to effect regime change in Iraq no matter what anyone else said. This was diplomatically counterproductive. If the administration had been less arrogant, more polite, more...diplomatic, then we could have arrived at a more effective position. At this point the US really is more and more fettered by the lack of international legitimacy for any war of regime change. Despite our cowboy rhetoric we find ourselves working for UNSC resolutions, we should have started from that position.

3407. OhioSTOPAS - 2/16/2003 12:56:33 PM

On the other hand, Von, President Bush has done well. We have inspectors back in Iraq, we've extracted concessions from Iraq, and the UN has shown a little backbone. The President could rightly declare victory here, and I hope he does so and pulls our troops back out of danger.

3408. jexster - 2/16/2003 1:12:30 PM

Mysterium Fidei!

Lord make me an instrument of your peace....

Protesters Agains Bush's War Clog Hollywood Boulevard

God bless Iraq

3409. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2003 1:22:02 PM

jexster

You have marginally contributed to a marginally increased chance for Saddam to stay in power and continue to repress, torture, murder and starve the Iraqi people. But don't lose any sleep over it. But what does the Iraqi people matter against the opportunity to give Bush as slap in the face?

And what did the deaths of Serbs matter when Clinton was the CIC?

You bloody hypocrite.

3410. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/16/2003 1:24:01 PM

An excerpt from:

NOTEBOOK Light in the window By Lewis H. Lapham

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” — Leon Trotsky

As a promotional venue for any season's collection of worthy thoughts and tasteful sentiments, the Sunday New York Times Magazine commands the authority of the show windows at Bergdorf Goodman. Of the moment and with the trend, the editors arrange the sociopolitical merchandise in ways meant to attract discriminating shoppers in the markets of received opinion-well-informed and right-thinking people, competently educated and decently affluent, alive to the similarities in the works of Versace and Matisse, fond of animals and the several shades of beige. Although the editors occasionally make space for ideas a trifle too advanced for some of their less sophisticated readers in Oklahoma or eastern Queens, they don 't take chances with the big-ticket items or with what they judge to be the consensus of up town money and downtown style. Which is why, on first glancing at the no-nonsense cover lines for the issue of January 5-"The American Empire (Get Used to It)"-I knew that I was in the presence of an important fashion statement. The United States Army ( very with it, very now) was on its way to an invasion of Iraq, there to exhibit a modish line of summer weapons at the military equivalent of a runway show, and the Times had gone to the trouble of furnishing a helpful program note: What to watch for, when to applaud, how to think about this year's new and exciting look in geopolitics. Michael Ignatieff, a brand-name foreign-policy intellectual recruited from the faculty of Harvard University, matched the assertive tone of his lead article to the red, white, and blue block lettering (not fussy, very bold) of the magazine's cover art:

3411. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/16/2003 1:25:28 PM

“Americans are required, even when they are unwilling to do so, to include Europeans in the governance of their evolving imperial project. The Americans essentially dictate Europe's place in this new grand design. The United States is multilateral when it wants to be, unilateral when it must be; and it enforces a new division of labor in which America does the fighting, the French, British and Germans do the police patrols in the border zones and the Dutch, Swiss and Scandinavians provide the humanitarian aid.”

. . . The government in Washington makes no secret of its wish to eliminate the freedoms of speech, thought, and movement synonymous with the workings of a democratic republic, and where is the senator or syndicated columnist who gives voice to an intelligible objection? To the civilian populations of Basra or Islamabad it might not make much difference whether the United States styles itself hegemon or republic—the bombs fall from the same clouds, the buildings collapse into the same ruins, and who doesn't know that an F-16 by any other name is still an F-16 ? For the residents of Philadelphia and Colorado Springs, the words should matter; despite Ignatieff's bland assurances to the contrary, so should their supporting connotations. A government that becomes accustomed to thinking of itself as an empire falls easily into the habit of issuing imperial decrees and soon acquires the characteristics that Secretary of State Colin Powell last February attributed to a failed state, "unrepresentative of its people. . . rife with corruption," blighted by "a lack of transparency," thinking that "it can achieve a position on the world stage through development of weapons of mass destruction that will turn out to be fool's gold. . ."

3412. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 1:25:32 PM

My view is that if the US administration had not contracted Mad Cowboy Disease we would have a united UNSC putting pressure on Iraq.

(I assume this is in response to my post in International.)

The fact is, there was no united UNSC pressure on Iraq prior to US ratcheting. Any "strength" the UN exhibited subsequently has always been to placate the US, not to do something meaningful about Saddam. Further, Saddam would have ignored (and will resume ignoring) whatever the UN promulgates regarding his weapons programs as long as he doesn't see it as the only alternative to US attack.

Tariq Aziz was just yesterday pooh-poohing the French-German "plan" and the notion that Iraq would allow UN blue helmets on Iraqi soil. Further, he also ridiculed the notion that Iraq needed to eliminate its over-range missiles because they were just a "few miles" over what was allowed by the UN and to expect Iraq to destroy them (and conform to the actual wording of the agreement) was unreasonable.

At this point the US really is more and more fettered by the lack of international legitimacy for any war of regime change.

I fail to see how not seeking regime change in the beginning would have us less "fettered" to seek regime change now. It seems akin to saying, "If only the car dealer hadn't asked for such a high price to start with, he'd be in a better position to ask for a high price now."

3413. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/16/2003 1:26:09 PM

The secretary was speaking of North Korea and Iraq; he might as well have been talking about Vice President Dick Cheney's vision of a reconfigured United States. If not as a concerted effort to restrict the liberties of the American people, how else does one describe the Republican agenda now in motion in the nation's capital? Backed by the specious promise of imminent economic recovery and secured by the guarantee of never-ending war, the legislative measures mobilized by the White House and the Congress suggest that what the Bush Administration has in mind is not the defense of the American citizenry against a foreign enemy but the protection of the American oligarchy from the American democracy. In every instance, and no matter what the issue immediately at hand, the bias is the same-more laws limiting the rights of individuals, fewer laws restraining the rights of property:

1- The systematic transfer of the nation's wealth from the union of the poor to the confederacy of the rich. President Bush's new plan to exclude from taxation all corporate dividends received by individual~, at the same time lowering the income-tax rates previously scheduled to take effect•between now and 2009, assigns the bulk of the refund (64 percent) to the wealthiest 5 percent of the nation's taxpayers, more than half of the award to people earning at least $200,000 a year, a quarter of it to people earning more than $1 million a year.

2- The easing of environmental regulations on the energy industries in New England.

3- The opening of the national forests in the Pacific Northwest and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to further expropriation by the oil, gas, mining, and timber industries.

3414. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/16/2003 1:26:30 PM

4- The persistent issuing of health insurance regulations intended to subvert and eventually overturn the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that recognized a woman's freedom to decide whether or not she will give birth to a child.

5- The reinforcing of the monopolies held by the big media syndicates on the country's systems of communication.

6-Outfitting the banks and credit card agencies with the privilege to sell to the highest bidders any or all of the personal data acquired from their customers.

7- The broad expansion of the government's police powers under the USA Patriot and Homeland Security acts, the Justice Department reserving to itself the right to tap anybody's phone and open everybody's mail.

8-A series of bills in Congress meant to reduce the nation's health care costs by denying medical services to people too poor to pay for the upkeep of the insurance companies.

9- The nomination to the federal appeals courts of judges apt to find legal precedents in the pages of the Bible rather than in the Constitution.

3415. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/16/2003 1:29:10 PM

Still anal, Indiates?--try the looking at the bigger picture and stop picking you butt as a distraction.

3416. jexster - 2/16/2003 1:29:39 PM

Screw you Pelle....I haven't time to fuck with you either but I will do so later on.

You moral cripple.

God bless Iraq

3417. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/16/2003 1:29:58 PM

~~the~~ you=your

3418. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 1:34:38 PM

If you want anal, WizzoOfWitless, try Jasper.

BTW, does any of your blather above have anything to do with Iraq (i.e., the topic of this thread)? Instead of advising others about "the big picture," why don't you try reading the BIG TYPE?

3419. vonKreedon - 2/16/2003 1:39:52 PM

Ed - Regime Change was a foolish goal to announce, particularly a unilateralist context. As far as the US and international needs regime change without a change in WMD policy/capability really doesn't accomplish anything. In addition regime change as a goal in itself is a dangerous precedent. No, the US administration should have worked within the UNSC to ensure international support for substantive and effective disarmament of WMD. As Ohio points out, we have this now and we could have had it with international support and built on the international post-9/11 sympathy. Instead we are becoming international pariahs and are going to have difficulty with our future diplomatic maneuverings. It was unneccessary and seems to have been based on playing to the admin's cowboy base. Yipee-kaway mother-fucker.

3420. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/16/2003 2:12:57 PM

Indiana-Idiotantes-

The Lapham excerpt has everything to do with Iraq and the motivations behind the push for war— as well as a media that capitulates to that push--but you'll never see the connection, Eddie, because your head is still too far up your anal canal.

3421. magoseph - 2/16/2003 2:14:58 PM

If Iraq wants to avoid war and the inspectors want to avoid war, the only way, I think, it can be accomplished as follows--The inspectors must uncover or be led to caches of the materials in question. In other words, on an almost daily basis, mustard gas, nerve gas, anthrax, and other such weapons of mass destruction have to be uncovered and destroyed. To date only, fifty liters of mustard gas and about three hundred illegal missiles have been uncovered. The present pace is totally unsatisfactory and unless it accelerates immediately, war will quickly follow. It should be made absolutely clear to the Iraqi military that if they use these weapons against the Americans and their allies, they will receive the same treatment that MacArthur inflicted on the Japanese defenders of Manila who were found guilty of massive violations of the rules of war. Proceedings were quickly instituted against responsible officers and enlisted personnel followed by summary executions. Even the general in charge of Manila's defense was hung.

3422. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2003 3:00:36 PM

I take credit for leaving "Megaword" jexter speechless.

3423. Cellar Door - 2/16/2003 4:07:24 PM

My two cents

3424. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 6:18:06 PM

NATO, sans France, approves defense plan for Turkey.

3425. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:14:17 PM

Now for Pelle.
1999
After years of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia, the Serbs turned their tanks on an entire province forcing hundreds of thousands to flee to the Macedonian plain where they faced sure death until NATO rescued them.

The aggressor: Serbia, Milosevic

2003
The aggressor: George W. Bush, USA

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;

No threat of aggression imminent or grave from Iraq
Bush administration allegations of WMD proved untrue in at least fifteen particulars
the aggressor - George W. Bush would violate the UN charter

3426. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:14:32 PM

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

can't end an Iraqi aggression that hasn't happened nor that is remotely likely to happen
The aggressor George W. Bush has been and continues to be openly contemptuous of all efforts to resolve conflict peacefully
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the delusions of the "democracy fairies" notwithstanding, the chances that this will end in a prolonged and bloody occupation of a hostile arab nation are substantial
- given the ineptness of the Bush administration in the crisis thus far, the likelihood of further bungling mitigates against probable sucess
- unilateral operations even LESS likely to succeed
-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
from NGO's, to the UN, to the James Baker Institute - thousands will die, millions will be made refugees
terrorism likely to increase
threats of violence elsewhere have already increased
the threat of nuclear proliferation has already increased
the war on terrorism will suffer
the precedent of pre-emptive war will have been firmly established
"suicide for fear of death" Bismarck
All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
--President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953

3427. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:15:46 PM

I have been perfectly consistent as has Pelle. Pelle has consistently stood with the aggressor nation, I against

3428. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:18:41 PM

Anti-War Marches Reveal Gulf Between Leaders and People

3429. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:19:14 PM

3430. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:22:15 PM

Sign of the Day

A tie

Only a MORON Could Turn the Whole World Against US in 12 Months

Can't We All Just Get a Bong?

3431. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:29:01 PM

SF: Two Hundred Thousand Protest Bush War Against the World

3432. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:29:51 PM

3433. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:32:07 PM

"God bless Iraq" Pope John Paul II

Like a used car salesman trying to sell crap, Eddie ALWAYS changes the subject but then again so does his Butt boy bush

3434. Edmund Dantes - 2/16/2003 8:14:52 PM

[T]he only way to avoid war is to convince Saddam Hussein that he has no choice left but to disarm. He has successfully avoided that conclusion for 12 years. Not unreasonably, the United States is not prepared to give him more time, whatever we may think. Peace is not impossible, but it is almost inconceivable unless Iraq disarms. Therefore any action which encourages Saddam Hussein not to disarm is extremely dangerous; it makes war more likely.

Beyond question, the Franco-German stand in the United Nations has encouraged Saddam Hussein.

In all honesty, Jasper is still Saddam's useful idiot

3435. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:22:30 PM

What this is supposed to bother me? This half-witted slur from a half wit. I am supposed to take this seriously, to comment on it.

God bless Iraq.

3436. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:23:46 PM

Leave matters of substance to those who know something about them Ace.

Stick to the cheeseball slime

3437. jexster - 2/16/2003 9:27:01 PM

http://indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=237093&group=webcast target=new>Global Day of Peace: Reports from Around the World

200,000 people gathered in Melbourne Australia on Friday to kick off a massive global protest. Read first-hand reports from many of the 603 cities where rallies were held, courtesy of Indymedia.org.

3438. jexster - 2/16/2003 9:28:37 PM

Link

3439. wonkers2 - 2/16/2003 9:39:31 PM

Atta boy Jexter. I'm still convinced Pelle is somehow connected to the military-industrial complex or the CIA.

3440. magoseph - 2/16/2003 10:48:59 PM

The global peace movement was too late--The US is now almost fully deployed on Iraq's southern border. Arrangements with NATO were completed today in respect to the defense of staging areas in the north (Turkish border with Iraq). Bush has simply gone too far and said too much to back down now. In addition, it is believed a firm position with Iraq makes the North Korean situation doable. In my opinion, Iraq must immediately begin to reveal the location of their caches, or at least those that are presently known to the Americans.

I see only one other possibility to avoid a full-fledged war and that is as follows--The Americans in the South are on the border in full strength and in battle formation. They could move across the border about fifty miles after notifying the respective Iraqi defensive formations of their intentions not to move any further. This places Saddam in the position of ordering an attack on the Americans which may not be obeyed and if not, will weaken his government significantly. The Iraqis really can't attack the Americans because they'll be wiped out in less than one hour and at almost no cost to the Americans.

My premise is a simple one--the Iraqi military won't move on American formations and basically they'll be forced to withdraw little by little to metropolitan Baghdad. Of course, there may other be other things to say about that. I have had my shot at trying to be a Jeanne d'Arc today.

3441. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:49:26 PM

"Powell's long dossier of Iraq's alleged non-compliance came under withering attack from the chief UN weapons inspectors yesterday. They said they found several elements of his evidence either false or unconvincing.

Hans Blix picked on two satellite images of a chemical warfare site, which the US secretary of state told the security council, in his 90-minute presentation last week, proved Iraq was engaged in deception...But Mr Blix made it clear he found the pictures unconvincing. 'The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection,' he said...Mr Blix also cast doubt on Mr Powell's claims that Iraqi officials had been tapping the inspectors' telephones and hastily moving material from sites shortly before the inspectors arrived. 'In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming,' Mr Blix said."

Lies, damned lies and duct tape!
Blix and El Baradei Punch Holes in Powell's 'Evidence'

I'm just a Buffalo Soldier
In the heart of America
Stolen from Africa, brought to America
Said he was fighting on arrival
Fighting for survival
Said he was a Buffalo Soldier
Win the war for America

3442. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:56:03 PM

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2956 target=new>Jexster Item in Democrats.com - No More Exits for Colin Powell

Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace asks in a recent issue of The Globalist: "Do you know who in the early 1990s worried that: 1. 'Ruling Baghdad' would come only 'unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships?' 2. Addressing 'inevitable follow-up, who also asked whether Americans would really learn to live with 'major occupation forces in Iraq for years to come?' 3. Finally, who argued that, 'fortunately for America, reasonable people ' would think such a scenario 'would not have been worth the inevitable follow-up?'" That's right. Our newly minted hawk and hypocrite, Colin Powell.

3443. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:56:45 PM

God bless Iraq.

3444. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:59:29 PM

Since Pelle no doubt missed the point to 3442:

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition

3445. PelleNilsson - 2/17/2003 1:18:37 AM

jexster: I have been perfectly consistent as has Pelle. Pelle has consistently stood with the aggressor nation, I against

No, I have consistently stood with the people of Iraq.

3446. alistairConnor - 2/17/2003 3:37:17 AM

Message # 3407
The President could rightly declare victory here, and I hope he does so and pulls our troops back out of danger.

No and no. Bush has snatched defeat, and humiliation, from the jaws of victory.

But this is certainly no time to be pulling troops back. They should stay there until Saddam has been coerced into disarming.

And if Saddam continues being Saddam, and the inspectors conclude that they are making no progress, then Mago's scenario looks like a good one, and a broad coalition of nations would sign on for it.

3447. alistairConnor - 2/17/2003 3:38:16 AM

When Bush's economic team turned out to be out of their depth and leading America into deep shit, he fired them. He should do the same now to his international affairs team. That would go some way towards restoring the lost prestige of the US.

3448. Macnas - 2/17/2003 5:10:05 AM

Pelle

Then you are in the minority. Nobody cares.
Saddam is easy to hate, he gives us all those reasons, and they are good ones, no need to list them here again, we know he is an evil man.

The people of Iraq though, just who are these pawns, these suffering masses. We don't know or care much. The neighbors of Iraq, do they care about the people of Iraq? no they do not. The rest of the arab nations, are they crying out for fair treatment of the people of Iraq? No they are not.

Europe then, any takers here? no not really beyond some useless lip service.....but wait, a spark of light glimmers in the distance, up there in the land of Saab-Scania, it is Pelle. I'm not lampooning you Pelle, I'm not good at that kind of thing anyway. I am saying that nobody cares about arabs, especially arabs. And invading the country and deposing Saddam, while ostensibly a good thing (because he is so evil) will not "make everything better".

So far I have not seen any feasible (in my poor opinion) plan to restore power to....another arab within Iraq. All pretty wishywashy so far, unless theres a plan out there I have not read yet. This is a blueprint for destabilising a huge arab nation, it will split up into virtual enclaves under the control of fundamentalist or tribal or whatever power figures. This is happening in Afghanistan right now. It happened, albeit in different circumstances, in the Leb.

In the long run, the west will not succeed in the middle east, it will turn into a meat grinder if it persists. The arabs are crap at set piece war, they are depressingly good at attrition.

3449. joezan - 2/17/2003 7:28:36 AM

Anti-War Marches Reveal Gulf Between Leaders and People

Oh yeah?

99.7% of Americans Stay Away From Protests, Go About Their Normal Business, Revealing Overwhelming Support and Confidence in their Country's Leadership and Military

3450. stostosto - 2/17/2003 9:11:08 AM

concerned #3383

Chirac is scum, Shroeder is scum. Both France and Germany are playing a two faced game, lying to the world about everything while violating UN resolutions banning the sale of weapons and WMD precursors to Iraq, and neither has any sort of workable plan regarding Iraq.

You're quick to declare certain people "scum". But how about the British involvement in providing Iraq with "super gun" parts and sophisticated machine tools for Iraqi weapons factories? These happened during both Thatcher and Major governments. Are these people then "scum" too? They transacted through an Italian bank. Is Berlusconi "scum" also? (I wager he comes close, but not for that reason). A Canadian weapons specialist was head of the Iraqi "super gun" project. Is the Canadian government "scum"?

Are you aware what involvement Mr Schröder and Mr Fischer had in the German government's shady dealings with Iraq and others? I trust you remember the German government at the time was led by Helmut Kohl, and that this man was of a different party than either Schröder or Fischer.

Also, and quite apart from all this: Is it your contention that German or French foreign policy is driven by concerns for their arms trade with Iraq? I ask because it is frequently asserted on these internet boards.

Germany is, like, the world's third largest exporter, France ranks fourth, fifth or sixth. How much economic importance do you think a medium-sized middle income country like Iraq could ever truly have for economies their size? Are we talking half the GDP here? Or, is it perhaps more like 0.1% of GDP?

It's essentially the "It's all about the Texas oil lobby" argument, and just as silly.

3451. stostosto - 2/17/2003 9:22:07 AM

For the record, I wouldn't reject a charge that Chirac is "scum", by the way. He was involved in deep corruption shit and had to be elected a second term in order to preserve his immunity from prosecution. I don't generally trust the French in their foreign policy either. Quite possibly there have been kick-backs involved with the dealings with Iraq (which involved that nuclear reactor that Israel bombed in 1981).

But neither the USA nor Britain, nor a host of other countries go free of such charges, not on Iraq, and not in many other cases. What's more, you know this very well. Aren't you the type liable to rant at Clinton's dealings with North Korea? Oh yes, you voted for his opponent, and there has since been a change of government. But how is that different from other countries that have also changed governments? If Schröder is "scum" for what Kohl did, then Bush is also "scum" for what Clinton did, right? Right.

3452. jexster - 2/17/2003 10:40:07 AM

Blair Increasingly Isolated

That's Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain NOT France Edmundo.

3453. jexster - 2/17/2003 10:41:40 AM

"The real question is not about intervention," said John Game, 38, a doctoral student at London University, gesturing to the crowd around him as he marched Saturday. "It's about why Tony Blair is not listening to the people of Britain. That's not democracy; this is what democracy looks like." Among the demonstrators' posters were some that read, "Regime change begins at home."

3454. jexster - 2/17/2003 10:48:30 AM

It was great to march this weekend knowing you were in solidarity with democratic movements for peace, against Bush's war all over the world, knowing that the enemy of peace was also the enemy (dare I say, with the Pope) of God and humanity, seeing the six pro-bush demonstrators surrounded by 30 policemen in riot gear, and knowing that the whole world was watching.

3455. jexster - 2/17/2003 10:49:11 AM

God bless Iraq.

3456. jexster - 2/17/2003 10:49:15 AM

God bless Iraq.

3457. jexster - 2/17/2003 10:53:45 AM

As Pelle twists slowly in the wind Blair's Moral Cause for Bloody Bush's War of Aggression Shot Full of Holes - Gaurdian UK

3458. jexster - 2/17/2003 10:57:47 AM

Bush is running out of excuses for blood and out of time to get it.

3459. jexster - 2/17/2003 10:57:51 AM

Bush is running out of excuses for blood and out of time to get it.

3460. jexster - 2/17/2003 11:15:15 AM

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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition

A gainst those who have suffered under Saddam in the past must be set the humanitarian catastrophe that the UN says may leave up to 10 million hungry. The World Health Organisation estimates that 100,000 Iraqis could be casualties and another 400,000 affected by disease and displacement.

Expert NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty utter similar warnings - concerns candidly shared by Clare Short. From within Iraq itself, meanwhile, come first-hand accounts of the terror and anger that the prospect of attack elicits. Yet from the US, at least, comes little but vague promises of minimised civilian casualties and "post-liberation" nation-building. To gauge the value of such pledges, one need only look at Afghanistan

Again, if humanitarian con cern is now the prime motivating factor in international intervention, there are many more urgent candidates, such as Congo, or North Korea, or southern Africa where millions are starving (and misgoverned) right now. On the other hand, it is clear that Iraq is not a Kosovo, where ethnic cleansing was an immediate, urgent horror or a fledgling East Timor, crying out for external assistance.

3461. jexster - 2/17/2003 11:16:03 AM

- 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

The two main US-British arguments in favour of launching a war on Iraq next month - that Saddam currently possesses deployable weapons of mass destruction and poses an immediate or near-term threat to the region and to us -already had few takers before Friday's UN meeting. In his peculiarly dispassionate, persuasive way, Blix further undermined and, for many, destroyed the credibility of the Anglo-American case for an early, pre-emptive attack

3462. jexster - 2/17/2003 11:27:31 AM

Turkey Delays Deployment Decision - Holds Out for More $$$
$26 Billion and Gift of Iraqi Kurds Insufficient

3463. PelleNilsson - 2/17/2003 11:55:23 AM

A gainst those who have suffered under Saddam in the past must be set the humanitarian catastrophe that the UN says may leave up to 10 million hungry.

More than 10 million are already hungry. 60% of the population live off meagre government food rations. The infant mortality rate has doubled. Hospitals lack equipment and medicines. The infrastructure is crumbling. The most worrying part is the water distribution. It is a wonder that we have not yet seen any serious outbreaks of cholera, a real killer if it hits an ill-nourished population. Those who want to prolong this situation for the indefinite future take on an awesome reponsibility. May God rescue their souls.

3464. judithathome - 2/17/2003 12:06:27 PM

60 Minutes last night had a really disturbing report on how ill equipped we really are for this war in terms of properly functioning chem gear and they made one point that seemed staggering: where are we going to get the water to detoxify (or whatever the proper word for it is) the troops if they are hit by bio/chem weapons?

3465. judithathome - 2/17/2003 12:09:17 PM

Here's the link to that story:

60 Minutes Report

3466. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:17:22 PM

You will see the outbreaks of cholera when Bush invades. That per the very organization charged with feeding the Iraqi people.

3467. judithathome - 2/17/2003 12:19:51 PM

Jex, you should read my link...it's very interesting.

3468. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:22:24 PM

Or can't you read the several posts I have made on the subject?

If your concern is those already suffering, lift the sanctions now?

There is no way this bloody pre-emptive war can be considered as in any way equivalent to the Kosovo invasion - not in terms of the evil to be eliminated; not in terms of the means used to eliminate it; not in terms of the imminence or gravity of the threat; not in terms of exhaustion of peaceful means of resolution, and certainly not in terms of the evils that will be unleashed.

Moreover, Bloody Bush doesn't care about nor has he planned for the post-Iraq humanitarian disaster.

So spare me your cheap moralizing and even cheaper "knowledge"....

God bless Iraq

3469. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:25:47 PM

I saw the story last night.

The notion that war is moral, that it will be cheap, easy, painless is nonsense.

Pure Pelle piffle.

Right now, the UN food programs are working. Abandoned of course in Bloody Bush's post-911 push for Empire was the efforts pre-911 to improve the oil for food program.

Is it any surprise then that those charged with that program stand in horror of war against the Iraqi people?

3470. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:33:03 PM

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition

A revealing glimpse into the burdens and responsibilities we will incur by invading Iraq is available in a recent report co-sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Foreign Policy and the Council on Foreign Relations.

"There should be no illusions that the reconstruction of Iraq will be anything but difficult, confusing and dangerous for everyone involved," concludes the report, which then goes on to detail just how complex things will get.

According to that report:

> "A U.S.-led attack on Iraq threatens to be a traumatic event throughout the Muslim world. In the Arab world especially, there is a serious risk that war in Iraq will stir up further trouble for the United States, including terrorist attacks against the United States and its partners."

> "Refugee flows toward Turkey and especially Iran of up to 1.5 million people are likely."

> "Strong U.S. backing for an emergency government will be needed to fill the vacuum left by Saddam. Without an initial and broad-based commitment to law and order, the logic of score-settling and revenge-taking will reduce Iraq to chaos."

> "If a large-scale, prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq becomes necessary, or if the United States appears to be taking over Iraq's oil sector, guerrilla attacks against U.S. military personnel guarding oil installations are likely."

> "Leaving aside immediate humanitarian needs, experts estimate that reconstruction will cost between $25 billion and $100 billion. . . . rebuilding Iraq's electrical power infrastructure could cost $20 billion to restore its pre-1990 capacity."

3471. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:33:41 PM

> "There has been a great deal of wishful thinking about Iraqi oil, including a widespread belief that oil revenues will help defray war costs and the expense of rebuilding the Iraqi state and economy. . . . If no facilities were damaged, Iraq's total oil revenues would still only likely average around $10 billion to $12 billion annually."

The report is by no means intended as an argument against war. Among its authors was Ken Pollack, who wrote a highly influential book called "The Threatening Storm: The Case For Invading Iraq." The report treats the debate over war as settled, an approach that makes its findings all the more sobering.

In addition, the report assumes a couple of things that may not prove valid. First, it accepts as highly unlikely that Iraqi officials will blow up hundreds of oil wells as they retreat, as they did in Kuwait in the Gulf War. To me, that optimism seems, well, optimistic. If the panel's assumption proves incorrect, the report concedes that it "could leave Iraq's population of 23 million largely dependent on international donor aid and could portend a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions."

The report, which was published Jan. 16, also assumes that the United States will be able to draw broad international support and U.N. assistance to support its effort in Iraq. Today, a month later, that level of support seems unlikely.

Pre-emptive war - suicide for fear of death.

God bless Iraq

3472. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:36:56 PM

If memory serves, Pelle opposed military action against an overt aggressor who threatened to exterminate an entire people and create a humanitarian disaster of unprecendented proportions (Kosova)

And now Pelle supports military action BY an overt aggressor that will create a humanitarian disaster of unprecedented proportion.

Pelle is morally disordered and has no business calling me a hypocrite.

Do you Pelle?

3473. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:41:54 PM

The Bush Regime has not even bothered to study the post war situation in any depth for fear that Congress might focus our attention on the disaster that their invasion portends. We do know however that the Regime has budgeted FIFTEEN MILLION dollars for humanitarian aid; that the Regime sent LESS aid to Afghanistan after the Taliban than it did while the Taliban was in power, and that the Bush Regime never even pretended to fulfill their promise of a "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan.

We know then that the Bush Regime cares nothing for the suffering of the Iraqi people and will only make it worse

3474. PelleNilsson - 2/17/2003 12:46:30 PM

I supported the NATO intervention in Kosovo but I didn't agree with your debating style back then either.

3475. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:46:41 PM

REFERENCES:

"The United States may lose the peace, even if it wins the war” Rice University News

3476. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:48:21 PM

Well then my memory did not serve and I apologize. I also apologize for mistaking a dispute about style, which I can certainly appreciate, for one of substance which I cannot.

3477. jexster - 2/17/2003 12:49:00 PM

Anyway I can't continue to put off this statistics project any longer

God bless Iraq.

3478. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:01:11 PM

Oh hell I'll never be able to calculate a Z score without a table.....

President Bush and his hawkish advisers speak blithely about a U.S.-led invasion leading to a garden of democracy blooming in the desert soil of Iraq. I wouldn't reach for my gardening tools too quickly.

What the administration has been unwilling to tell the public is the truth about some of the implications of war with Iraq — first and foremost, the bloody horror
of men, women and children being blown to smithereens in the interest of peace, and then the myriad costs and dangers associated with a long-term U.S. military occupation>

In point of fact, the Bush Regime has repeatedly lied and is not to be trusted by anyone with half a brain. They have lied about Al Qaeda; they have lied about WMD; they have lied about relations with other nations. Its more difficult to find something they've said that is truthful.

3479. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:01:15 PM

3480. joezan - 2/17/2003 1:05:30 PM

It took 12 minutes to complete a statistics project?

3481. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:06:28 PM

Don't Break Out Your Hoe: Even Saddam Opponents Vow to Fight Aggressor

Surprised? What credibility would ANY opposition group have that supported the killing of Iraqis by George W. Bush?

Fuckin idiots.

3482. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:08:06 PM

Still other critics place the emphasis not on oil but on political reform of Iraq and even the entire Middle East. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is prepared to support Hussein's overthrow, but only if we "do it right"--which is to say that we devote the "time and effort" to creating "a self-sustaining, progressive, accountable Arab government" in Iraq. And this delightful government (can we have one at home, too, please?), in turn, must become "a progressive model for the whole region." "Our kids" can grow up in "a safer world" only "if we help put Iraq on a more progressive path and stimulate some real change in an Arab world that is badly in need of reform."

The United States must mount "an imperial operation that would commit a reluctant republic to become the guarantor of peace, stability, democratization and oil supplies in a combustible region of Islamic peoples stretching from Egypt to Afghanistan." We arrive at a new formula that has no precedent for dealing with nuclear danger: nonproliferation by forced democratization. Ignatieff acknowledges that a republic that turns into an empire risks "endangering its identity as a free people"--thus menacing democracy at home by trying to force it on others abroad. Nevertheless, he wants the United States to take on "the burden of empire."

The Bush Administration, however, has given little encouragement to the evangelists of armed democratization. Notoriously, it has kept silent regarding its plans for postwar Iraq and its neighbors

Link

3483. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:11:24 PM

The hatred of the government in the south is clear, and there is little question that a change of government would be welcomed. But "we don't want the change to come through America's bombs," said another individual who requested anonymity. "Some people see it as enduring bombing, hoping to survive and then starting over without him [Saddam]. But most of us want a peaceful change brought about from within. We don't want anymore misery here."

Hundreds of Iraqi imams, including those at the holy shrines at Najaf and Karbala, have signed on to a fatwa (a religious decree) calling for jihad against any invading forces. "This is not a war against Iraq, this is a war against Islam," says Abdul Rihad, the imam at the biggest Shiite mosque in Basra. He adds, "We don't like to fight. But if war is imposed on the Iraqi people, they should fight for their land, their blood, their family. But we do not want that, because this war will be a loser for both sides."

3484. concerned - 2/17/2003 1:13:26 PM

No wonder the Left loves Saddam so much. He's the closest thing to a real Nazi there is nowadays.

The Nazi Background of Saddam Hussein

By Chuck Morse

February 17, 2003

Kharaillah Tulfah, Saddam Hussein's uncle and future father-in-law, along with Gen. Rashid Ali and the so-called "golden square" cabal of pro-Nazi officers, participated in a failed coup against the pro-British government of Iraq in 1941. Operating behind the scenes in Baghdad at the time, and arranging for Nazi weapons and assistance was the notorious pro-Nazi Haj Amin al-Husseini the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Mufti had been on the Nazi payroll, according to testimony at the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, since 1937 when he had met with Adolf Eichmann during Eichmann's brief visit to Palestine. Saddam Hussein was born in 1937.

The Mufti, after instigating a pogrom against Jews in Palestine in 1920, the first such pogrom against Jews in the Arab world in hundreds of years, went on to inspire the development of pro-Nazi parties throughout the Arab world including Young Egypt, led by Gamal Abdul Nasser, and the Social Nationalist Party of Syria led by Anton Sa'ada. After the failure of the 1941 pro-Nazi coup in Iraq, the Mufti fled to Berlin where he spent the war years heading a Nazi-Muslim government in exile and using confiscated Jewish funds in a largely successful effort to further pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic propaganda in the Arab world. While in Berlin, the Mufti also helped form pro-Nazi Muslim Hanschar brigades in Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia.

3485. concerned - 2/17/2003 1:13:54 PM

Kharaillah Tulfah, participant in the 1941 pro-Nazi coup and an advocate of a pan-Islamic Nazi alliance along with the Mufti, raised and educated his nephew Saddam Hussein from age 10. In 1959, the 22-year-old Saddam failed in an attempt to assassinate Iraqi leader Abdel Karim Qassim. He subsequently fled to Egypt where he received refuge from fellow Mufti disciple Nasser. At the time, Nasser, along with the Mufti himself, who resided in Cairo after the war and his conviction by the Nuremberg Tribunal of war crimes, was spearheading what was known as the Odessa Network, which facilitated the settlement of thousands of Nazi criminals in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. In 1962, Saddam married Sajidah Tuffah, the daughter of his uncle and mentor.

Saddam triumphantly returned to Baghdad in 1963 after a successful coup by the Ba'ath Party against Qassim where he assumed control of State Security. The Ba'ath seizure of power in Iraq was followed by firing squads and murder of political opponents reminiscent of Castro's seizure of Cuba. Saddam was chief interrogator and torturer at the infamous Palace of the End set up as a torture chamber under the auspices of State Security.

3486. concerned - 2/17/2003 1:14:04 PM

Saddam became absolute ruler in 1979 after assassinating over 20 leaders of his own party. He immediately proceeded to implement the Nazi vision of his uncle and the Mufti. In Iraq, Saddam annihilated of his opponents and, using his absolute power, developed a personality-cult around himself reminiscent of the Nazi Furherprincip. Like the Nazis, who sought to implement a new social order based on socialist and nationalist principles, Saddam has sought to develop a united Arab order under his personal control. Imitating the example of Hitler, Saddam set up concentration camps and began to carry out a planned program of genocide against the Kurds.

Saddam, in control of weapons of mass destruction, is today's chief disciple of the infamous Grand Mufti, the Nazi war criminal. Like the Mufti, he will stop at nothing in his quest to annihilate the Jews and defeat the western democracies. His regime is the Nazi principle manifested today in all its horror and inherent evil and like the Nazi's before him, he must be utterly crushed if there is to be any peace.

3487. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:14:52 PM

"God bless you Tariq Aziz and God bless Iraq" Pope John Paul II, Nazi

3488. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:15:35 PM

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

(Hermann Goering, interviewed by a writer just before his suicide while awaiting trial at Nuremberg)

3489. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:17:42 PM

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

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?

3490. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:19:03 PM

The jig is up..Bush has run out of excuses, Blair is about to be run out of office, Bush is about to be left without any real allies and Bush has run out of time

He has to invade and soon

3491. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:19:45 PM

Good morning shallow, ill-educated TD!

3492. jexster - 2/17/2003 1:19:48 PM

Good morning shallow, ill-educated TD!

3493. jexster - 2/17/2003 3:01:13 PM

A Perfect Storm of People Power
TWO MILLION in London - A flood of emotion and anger

Somebody called it a movement. It was not a movement. It was a feeling. A feeling that drove wave after wave of people in a great river which began to flow a few minutes before noon and was still in full flood long after nightfall.

3494. joezan - 2/17/2003 3:12:53 PM

3467. judithathome - 2/17/03 12:19:51 PM

Jex, you should read my link...it's very interesting.

Please pay attention to me, Jex? Nobody else will.

PLEASE????????!!!!!!!!

3495. judithathome - 2/17/2003 3:15:59 PM

Ha...yes, I'd much rather YOU pay attention to me, as you never cease to do!

I really appreciate it, joezy but my heart belongs to another so just shuffle off, now, and give up this fruitless quest. It's very flattering but nothing will ever come of it. I know it breaks your heart but it's only fair to tell you the truth.

3496. jexster - 2/17/2003 3:28:00 PM

To be fair 300 did turn out in Denver to support the Moron King's War.

30,000,000 to 300

3497. jexster - 2/17/2003 3:32:56 PM

I did read the link JAH..I told you I saw the program last night...

I've heard this several times now that Bush is lying to the troops about the protection that they will have.

I also noted on last night's broadcast that notorious Clinton hater from the Kosova conflict, David Hackworth, also says Bush is lying.

Why does he lie so much?

Could it be that he fears what would happen if the People knew the truth?

As the NyT said this morning WE THE PEOPLE are the new superpower on the planet!

And don't blame me...Pelle called me a hypocrite yesterday just as I was leaving to march. I stewed all the way up Market Street. On top of that a scant 2 weeks quit smoking and I'm as mean as goats' guts

3498. jexster - 2/17/2003 3:50:29 PM

But as far as I am concerned it doesn't matter whether a US serviceman or woman dies from gas or a bullet.

The war in which she dies lacks justification in morality or international law. It is unnecessary. The one who launches such a war is a mass murderer responsible for every death, injury, and all destruction that ensues from whatever cause.

3499. judithathome - 2/17/2003 4:09:07 PM

Jexter, that wasn't me posting about the link again, it was our vaunted host of this thread, contributing not to the thread but to his reputation of being so obsessed with me and what I do and post that he cannot leave it be. Joezan has betrayed ONCE AGAIN his fascination with all I do and say.

3500. judithathome - 2/17/2003 4:13:25 PM

Actually, it looked suspiciously like he was faking a post from me but I'm sure that wasn't his intent...as he well knows, faking posts can get one in trouble. But even so, as host of this thread, he can do whatever he wants, right?

3501. concerned - 2/17/2003 4:15:05 PM

Hey. It was good enough to snooker jexster.

3502. judithathome - 2/17/2003 4:23:58 PM

Yes, it was. That's the point.

3503. joezan - 2/17/2003 4:25:06 PM

That ain't saying much, concerned.

It was cute that jasper took some pity on poor judy and tossed her a bone, though.

3504. judithathome - 2/17/2003 4:29:17 PM

Joezan, what do you think of the peace rallies over the weekend? What do you think of the latest on the troops being ill-trained for bio/chem warfare? When do you think the war will start in earnest?

Don't you think those things are more interesting to discuss in YOUR thread than whether I am getting any attention?

3505. wabbit - 2/17/2003 4:29:44 PM

Or, Joe, you could use a <blockquote> tag and avoid the confusion to begin with.

3506. joezan - 2/17/2003 4:46:34 PM

I think that much more significant was the fact that 280,000,000 Americans avoided the demonstrations.

As for chemical warfare, what are you worried about? Your guru jasper has assured us many, many times - on the good authority of Scotty Meet-me-at-McDonald's-and-watch-me-play-with-myself Ritter - that Saddam has no WMD.

3507. judithathome - 2/17/2003 4:49:20 PM

Well, excuse the hell out of me for trying to start a discussion.

3508. vonKreedon - 2/17/2003 5:03:25 PM

Joe - Given your formulation on how those who did not attend the demonstrations is more significant than the number who did, what do you make of the fact that well over 280,000,000 Americans avoided the Pro-War demonstrations?

3509. judithathome - 2/17/2003 5:08:30 PM

From FOX news, where the question of the day, Should we go ahead with the war? is running over 80% saying yes:

U.S. May Seek Second U.N. Iraq Resolution

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Sunday it was becoming more obvious that the Iraqi president would not disarm voluntarily, and that the U.N. Security Council was letting him get away with it.

"The Security Council has to be an instrument of peace, but it has to be an instrument of peace that has teeth, or it is never going to be able to deal with the myriad difficult actors out there in international politics who intend to disturb that peace," Rice said.

The White House had a long holiday weekend to weigh options after being rebuffed Friday as most members of the Security Council lined up behind France's call for more weapons inspections and against military action.

Rice said on Fox News Sunday that the administration may ask the council to take up a new resolution authorizing force against Iraq, although she said that wouldn't be necessary to take action to forcibly disarm Saddam.

3510. joezan - 2/17/2003 5:11:23 PM

vonK:

Which demonstrations received more advance press?

I never even heard of any pro-war demonstration being planned.

3511. vonKreedon - 2/17/2003 5:30:27 PM

There were several around western washington, and they had decent advanced coverage in at least the Seattle Times. But very few people showed up for these demonstrations, while tens of thousands showed up for the anti-war demonstrations. According to your methodology there is intense antipathy for this war, which interestingly is also what the size of the anti-war demonstrations show!

3512. concerned - 2/17/2003 8:08:32 PM

Re. 3463 -

A gainst those who have suffered under Saddam in the past must be set the humanitarian catastrophe that the UN says may leave up to 10 million hungry.

The trick is to pretend that things are not already as bad or worse than this unduly negative projection so that a cornucopia of anti-American feeling can be generated, never mind that this is probably getting it exactly backwards.

3513. lemwalker - 2/17/2003 8:12:15 PM

My wife brought home a "No Iraq War" sign and I threw it in the trash. The public is not being asked to vote on war. Nor is it being asked to pay for it.
The world is 70% percent ocean and the US has the Navy. So I guess that makes us responsible for the dirt too.

3514. jexster - 2/17/2003 9:02:26 PM

The Whole World Is Against Bush's War

Wearin my "War on the World?
Not in My Name!" button right now

30,000,000 people -dead of winter

God bless Iraq.

3515. joezan - 2/17/2003 9:30:35 PM

vonK:

Don't be an idiot - there are more than enough of those in this tiny little place.

1. The pro-war position is being very nicely forwarded by my President and his administration - thankyouverymuch - so no pro-war "demonstration" is needed.

2. The anti-war position has been abandoned by the loyal opposition, so those opposed to Bush are forced out on the street, doing anything they can do - including getting naked - to get some attention.

3516. Cellar Door - 2/17/2003 9:30:46 PM

What do you mean we're "not being asked to pay for it"? We're being asked to pay BIG TIME! The economy is tanking, and the unelected "Preisdent" wants the poor to pay taxes and the rich to pay NONE.

We have no National Health Care!!!!

The Big Question iright now is whether Dubbya's going to suspend the next election for reasons of "security."

WAKE UP PEOPLE --WE'RE LIVING UNDER A DICTATORSHIP!!!

3517. joezan - 2/17/2003 9:36:53 PM

BTW, jasper: Whatever happened to the Scott Ritter argument? You know - the one you were puking two months ago, about how Scott Ritter said that when he left Iraq in '98 Saddam's WMD material and capabilites were virtually destroyed, so GWB was making up all that stuff about Iraq never having given up its dirt, so there was no reason for the US to go in?

Why haven't we heard any more about that?

It wouldn't be because your other hero - the UN - has been forced to admit that there are tons and tons of VX, Botulinum, Anthrax, etc, etc, yet to be accounted for, would it?

3518. vonKreedon - 2/17/2003 10:10:44 PM

Joe - You are the one who postulated that those who did not go to a demonstration were opposed to the demonstration. I'm just pointing out that there were opportunities to actually go to other demonstrations and few did.

Feel free to put your hands over your ears and go Lalalalala...I can't hear you about the size of the demonstrations and the broad based population of the demonstrators. Such resolute denial of political reality is likely to work in our favor.

3519. robertjayb - 2/18/2003 1:37:19 AM

The Great Media Divide...(Paul Krugman)

There are two possible explanations for the great trans-Atlantic media divide. One is that European media have a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on Iraq. The other is that some U.S. media outlets — operating in an environment in which anyone who questions the administration's foreign policy is accused of being unpatriotic — have taken it as their assignment to sell the war, not to present a mix of information that might call the justification for war into question.

So which is it? I've reported, you decide.

3520. ronski - 2/18/2003 7:36:29 AM

vonKreedon,

It's not called the silent majority for nothing, you know.

3521. joezan - 2/18/2003 7:55:45 AM

vonK would like to completely ignore the fact that protests are by nature demonstrations of opposition to the government's position. This is why they are called protests.

People who are for the war have nothing to protest, vonK. What the hell would we demonstrate against?

We stayed home and minded our business, vonK. And by doing so, we demonstrated our belief that our President and his administration know what they are doing and have things well in hand.

3522. Edmund Dantes - 2/18/2003 9:22:24 AM

My address book is the first casualty of war

It is a shocking experience to realise that your friends are either mindless, deluded or malevolent.

I used to think that 9/11 was the most important day of my life. It was indeed a day which transformed the world; its influence will be felt for decades, if not centuries. But however foul the “America had it coming” refrain, that came mainly from the usual suspects. This is different. This time the words come from friends.

I have many friends with whom I disagree politically; it would be a small-minded person who could not say that. But this goes beyond mere politics. This is about fundamentals. And what makes it truly shocking is how many normal, apolitical, otherwise decent people are so deeply wrong, so stridently misguided.

3523. lemwalker - 2/18/2003 9:36:55 AM

Cellar
My grandkids have to pay for it. I doubt if all the taxes I pay in a year would provide one meal for a carrier crew. Can't argue about the rest....been wondering myself if we'll have the opportunity to kick dubya out.

3524. Edmund Dantes - 2/18/2003 9:52:21 AM

Postulating that the 2004 US elections might be "cancelled" disqualifies a person as too silly for conversation with adults.

Perpetually adolescent Hollywood celebrities perhaps, adults no.

3525. jexster - 2/18/2003 12:58:39 PM

What's it with you and adolescence? "adult administration"

You wanna be a big girl or somethin?

3526. jexster - 2/18/2003 1:00:48 PM

From the Washington Post we now know what we adults always have known - Bush doesn't give a shit about the UN or about whether or what WMD Saddam may have. He wants blood in Two Weeks - War of Aggression Against the World

3527. jexster - 2/18/2003 1:02:46 PM

At least Eddie has taken my advice. He's sticking to cheeseball slime and not talking about things he knows nothing of - like WMD, geopolitics, military affairs, morality

He wants to be a big girl!

3528. jexster - 2/18/2003 1:15:51 PM

30,000,000 last weekend....how many during the Ides of March???

Nice to see too how well the adult administration is doing with North Korea

I hear they have nuclear bombs!

3529. jexster - 2/18/2003 1:24:40 PM

Blair Silent on Iraq Democracy

SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3530. jexster - 2/18/2003 1:30:26 PM

Hey Eddie..isn't it amazing how the New Superpower - the People of the World in the streets - took Tony Blair down

See international thread.

God bless Iraq

3531. Edmund Dantes - 2/18/2003 2:07:02 PM

Saddam could use another human shield, Jester Saddamite. When you heading out?

Human shields arrive in Baghdad

Squabbling peace activists were recovering from a chaotic overland journey yesterday after limping into Iraq aboard two London buses, a day late for the worldwide series of anti-war demonstrations.

Three double-deckers, all crammed with "human shields", had set out from London on Jan 25 to reach Baghdad in time for the day of global protests. But only two of them, with 65 activists, including 18 Britons, made it to the Iraqi capital late on Saturday.

The third was abandoned in Italy after breaking down. Everyone crammed aboard the others, one of which had to be dug out of snow drifts near Istanbul. Several activists dropped out on the way.

The rest endured bitterly cold weather, illness, poor living conditions and a great deal of bickering. When they arrived at Iraq's border with Syria on Friday, Iraqi officials held them overnight, which made them miss Saturday's peace demonstration in Baghdad.

"There were lots of group squabbles," said Benjamin Joffe-Walt, 23, an American paramedic. "Very few people knew each other. I did not know any of them and it was difficult to organise it. There were lots of different ideas on when to go to bed, how long to spend on the bus." The activists, aged from 20 to 68, slept in cheap hotels, youth hostels, tents or on the buses.

Ken O'Keefe, their informal leader and a former American marine, burned his US passport and designed himself new travel documents proclaiming him a "Citizen of the World". As a result, he was detained in three countries.

Mr O'Keefe has yet to arrive in Baghdad and Mr Joffe-Walt last heard of him in Syria.

3532. Edmund Dantes - 2/18/2003 2:07:16 PM

(more)

A blonde Norwegian activist created a sensation in Turkey and her picture appeared on the front pages of several tabloids. A typical headline read: "Who would bomb this angel?" Mr Joffe-Walt said: "It was not exactly the kind of coverage we were hoping for." Peter Vandyke, a self-styled "reiki master and spiritual healer" from Portsmouth, drove a London taxi with the convoy.

He described the journey as "horrific" and said: "A lot of people are really sick. They have been sleeping on the buses in sub-zero temperatures...."

3533. Edmund Dantes - 2/18/2003 2:08:01 PM

(more)

Among the British contingent is a married couple, Helen and Kevin Williams, 34-year-old vegans from Newport, south Wales. They kept strictly to their diet throughout the bus journey. "It was very important to us," said Mrs Williams, who wore a T-shirt saying, "Animal Killers, close them down."

Mr Vandyke said the group would camp inside hospitals, schools, power stations and other buildings "needed for basic human living". He said the presence of vegans and spiritual healers would shield the buildings from harm if war broke out.

3534. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/18/2003 2:25:02 PM

He'll Be Remembered as an Asshole

Hey, gang! We won, if you don't mind Pyrrhic victories. I feel like the guy at Hiroshima who was in a fart-lighting contest just as the A-bomb went off. His last words were "beat that". In a topsy-turvy way that would baffle the Cheshire Cat, we who desire peace will triumph in the event of war. You see, if there's a clear loser in the pending savagery, it's George W. Bush and his administration of barking scrotum monsters.

3535. joezan - 2/18/2003 2:35:45 PM

Does anyone ever click on any of Whizzzzz'es links?

Has anyone ever heard of any of them?

3536. Edmund Dantes - 2/18/2003 2:44:54 PM

Sure. Ben Tripp, Linda's screenwriter brother.

3537. jexster - 2/18/2003 3:07:48 PM

http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,896554,00.html
target=new>SUCKERS!
Bloody Bush's Post-War Plan Betrays Iraqi Democrats and Kurds

Kurdish democracy leader Kanan Makiya writes, "The US is on the verge of committing itself to a post-Saddam plan for a military government in Baghdad with Americans appointed to head Iraqi ministries, and American soldiers to patrol the streets of Iraqi cities. The plan, as dictated to the Iraqi opposition in Ankara last week by a US-led delegation,
further envisages the appointment by the US of an unknown number of Iraqi quislings palatable to the Arab countries of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia as a council of advisers to this military government. The plan reverses a decade-long moral and financial commitment by the US to the Iraqi opposition, and is guaranteed to turn that opposition from the close ally it has always been during the 1990s into an opponent of the US on the streets of Baghdad the day after liberation... The government of the United States is about to betray, as it has done so many times in the past, those core human values of self-determination and individual
liberty."

3538. joezan - 2/18/2003 3:12:58 PM

...then, of course, we have jasper's links.

3539. jexster - 2/18/2003 3:39:01 PM

"This autumn and winter, nuclear danger has returned, in a new form, accompanied by danger from the junior siblings in the mass destruction family, chemical and biological weapons. Now it is not a crisis between two superpowers
but the planned war to overthrow the government of Iraq that, like a sentence of execution that has been passed but must go through its final appeals before being carried out, we have talked to death. (Has any war been so lengthily premeditated before it was launched?) Iraq, the United
States insists, possesses some of these weapons. To take them away, the United States will overthrow the Iraqi government. No circumstance is more likely to provoke Iraq to use any forbidden weapons it has. In that event, the Bush Administration has repeatedly said, it will itself
consider the use of nuclear weapons. Has there ever been a clearer or more present danger of the use of weapons of mass destruction?"

Bush is Mad

3540. jexster - 2/18/2003 3:42:01 PM

Saddam could use another human shield, Jester Saddamite. When you heading out?

At least Eddie has taken my advice. He's sticking to cheeseball slime and not talking about things he knows nothing of - like WMD, geopolitics, military affairs, morality

He wants to be a big girl!

3541. jexster - 2/18/2003 3:53:43 PM

According to Colin Powell, Buffalo Soldier, Abu Musab al Zarqawi is the "missing link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But extensive information gleaned from Shadi Abdullah, a 26-year-old gay Jordanian with close ties to al Zarqawi, finds no links at all to Iraq, but extensive links to Iran. For example,
40 al Qaeda members fled from Afghanistan into Iran, and then tried to get to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, U.A.E. and Australia - but not Iraq. Al Zarqawi was in Iran in April 2002, where he plotted terrorist attacks against a Jewish target in Germany. Once again, Powell's "missing link" is
simply "misinformation."

The Lies Keep Piling Up:
Abu al Zarqawi is Further Linked to Iran, not Iraq

3542. jexster - 2/18/2003 4:05:50 PM

The World Hates Bush
Chicago Tribune

"The millions who flooded the streets of Europe over the weekend were protesting more than the prospect of a U.S.-led war against Iraq. With passion and vituperation, they were decrying the policies of Resident Bush--and the man himself. 'Bush murderer' and 'Bush terrorist' read some of the signs carried by the varied crowds of Europeans appalled by actions in Washington... 'It's not anti-Americanism; it's anti-Bushism,' said Kristof Scheller, a 26-year-old graduate student in Berlin, in words that are echoed across the continent... Bush's style has been a gift to European cartoonists, who often lampoon him as a missile-slinging cowboy from Texas. 'They regard him as an idiot; a lot of people in this country do,' political editor Andrew Marr reported on the BBC in Britain."

France -Opposition to Bush's War = 87% up from 77%

Britain - Oppose Bush War Under Any Circumstances - 52%, Support - 29% (highest recorded)

3543. jexster - 2/18/2003 4:09:31 PM

"The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and
the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion. In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war
if necessary, Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand. Mr. Bush's advisers are telling him to ignore them and
forge ahead, as are some leading pro-war Republicans, [including] Senator John McCain... The fresh outpouring of antiwar sentiment may not be enough to dissuade Mr. Bush or his advisers from their resolute preparations for war. But the sheer number of protesters offers a potent
message that any rush to war may have political consequences for nations that support Mr. Bush's march into the Tigris and Euphrates valleys."

The New York Times

3544. jexster - 2/18/2003 4:26:13 PM

If a doctor handed you a strong medication--saying you had no choice but to swallow it--but didn't talk to you about the host of new ailments and problems that might be caused by the medication, that would be damn irresponsible. Well, meet George W. Bush, M.D. He has been claiming the United States must take the most extreme measure--war--to keep itself safe and healthy. Yet he has refused to address the knotty matters (post-op complications?) that will follow in the wake of war.

This dereliction of duty--or presidential malpractice--was readily evident on Tuesday when top administration officials appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss the future of Iraq

A Study in Foreign Policy Incompetence
Bush's Dereliction of Duty

3545. jexster - 2/18/2003 4:26:54 PM

Still think Edmundo is gonna save your rat ass Zan?

3546. Cellar Door - 2/18/2003 4:31:34 PM

Where's Osama?

3547. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/18/2003 5:23:05 PM

3548. jexster - 2/18/2003 5:59:49 PM

Joining Gen Schwartzkopf, Clark and Zinni...another Saddamite Against Bush War!

We've heard all the moral arguments against attacking Iraq, but there's a military one too. We just haven't got enough soldiers, writes David Ramsbotham. And he should know - he's a veteran of Borneo and the Gulf war ...

The Thin Khaki Line

3549. jexster - 2/18/2003 8:10:12 PM

Iraq's Neighbors Cry To World for Help: [Reuters]

3550. Edmund Dantes - 2/18/2003 11:14:33 PM

Joining Gen Schwartzkopf, Clark and Zinni...another Saddamite Against Bush War!

Jester Saddamite: Try to bestir your diseased hump out of those dirty winding-cloth sheets once in a while and read what's going on in the real world as opposed to the delusional stupor induced by your drug-laced enemas.

Schwarzkopf says President Bush has "taken charge" for America

Retired Army Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf is giving President Bush high praise for his leadership skills.

"Here is a man who has been placed in command by the American people, and by golly, he has taken charge," Schwarzkopf told a crowd of 350 assembled at a benefit dinner in Melbourne on Saturday night.

Schwarzkopf calls evidence effective, 'scary'

Schwarzkopf said that even if the United States cannot garner enough international support, it should be prepared to go into war in Iraq alone.

Wake up and smell the Poopstain, sonny!

3551. jexster - 2/19/2003 12:17:24 AM

Well there you go again....

The General's pep talk doesn't quite square with this does it?

Daily News (New York)

January 29, 2003, Wednesday SPORTS FINAL EDITION

WASHINGTON - Desert Storm hero Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf launched a salvo against his old White House buddies, saying they should slow the race to war against Iraq.

The retired four-star Army general said he doesn't have all the information privy to President Bush's inner circle, but he doesn't see the need to attack before UN arms inspectors finish their hunt for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's arsenal.

"I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive," Schwarzkopf told The Washington Post yesterday. The leader of the 1991 Gulf War forces said the hawks in the Bush administration - particularly Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - make him uneasy.

Of course it doesn't. I wonder what scary evidence? Do you know?

Take a stab at it. The missile trucks? The Al Qaeda link?

The "oooo how did they miss that one" intercept?

You won't find it and you've stopped talking about evidence since I rammed aluminum tubes up your sorry fat ass

3552. jexster - 2/19/2003 12:25:45 AM

Maybe Stormin Normin is afraid of his shadow....Maybe he is "frightened" of the nuclear weapons program that is no more advanced than it was in 1998, the one that Bush has racked up at least 3 lies about....

BODY:
WASHINGTON - The general who led U.S. forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War said yesterday that nukes aren't needed to defeat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

As Secretary of State Powell repeated administration warnings the U.S. would not rule out sending nuclear weapons into Iraq, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf said that threat is too much. "I don't think it's necessary, okay, to include nuclear in the response," said Stormin' Norman, who answered to Powell during the Gulf War and has criticized the latest moves toward war.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright agreed. She urged President Bush to keep all options open with Saddam, but added, "I can't imagine that [a U.S. nuclear strike] is an appropriate response."

Still, Schwarzkopf told NBC the thought of Saddam having his own nukes is "frightening" because unlike other nuclear powers, "he'll use them."

No Stormin Norman's playin word games cause the Boys Bush didn't like his comments on the Emperor Wacko's state of the empire address....

You're dumb as dirt...nothin's changed.

Stick with

Jester Saddamite: Try to bestir your diseased hump out of those dirty winding-cloth sheets once in a while and read what's going on in the real world as opposed to the delusional stupor induced by your drug-laced enemas.

How many slimy adjectives and metaphors can you mix in four lines?

Like a fat teenager who can't even get laid by the class pig.

3553. jexster - 2/19/2003 12:29:14 AM

Last week we were treated to much French bashing and crocodile tears from the Butcher Brigade over the Turks...

This week we've some new bullshit:

ANKARA, Turkey/BAGDDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. preparations for war with Iraq suffered a new setback Tuesday when Turkey dug in its heels in negotiations over its role as a launch pad for an invasion.

Reuters Photo

AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein

Bush Says War Protesters Won't Deter Him
(AP Video)
Iraq Appeals to U.N. During Debate
(AP Video)

Latest news:
• Bush: Protests Won't Change Iraq Policy
AP - 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
• Nations Speak At U.N. Against Rush to War
AP - 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
• U.N. Inspectors Visit Iraqi Rocket Sites
AP - Tue Feb 18, 3:25 PM ET
Special Coverage

Washington, embroiled in a broader diplomatic battle at the United Nations (news - web sites) over its war plans, indicated it had issued Ankara with an ultimatum and would do without it if necessary.

Edmundo or Ace or whatever voice is speaking today: Try to bestir your diseased hump out of those dirty winding-cloth sheets once in a while and read what's going on in the real world as opposed to the delusional stupor induced by your drug-laced enemas.

3554. jexster - 2/19/2003 12:33:10 AM

BODY:
Retired Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf has softened his skepticism about going to war against Iraq.

Last week in an interview with the Washington Post, the former commander of the first Gulf War said he "would like to have better information" before launching the attack. But this week, after U.N. weapons inspectors criticized Iraq's cooperation and President Bush's harsh denunciation of Saddam Hussein in his State of the Union speech, Schwarzkopf said: "I think the time has come."

He was interviewed by "Hardball" host Chris Matthews on MSNBC Tuesday night after Bush's speech. This was the exchange:

Matthews: "General, in your gut, do you believe we have to fight that war now?"

Schwarzkopf: "I think the time has come. In my gut, I do. I think that up until now we haven't made enough of a case to the American people. I have thought all along that the administration had information that was based upon intelligence gathering that one of these days they would bring forward when the time was right, and that's supposedly going to happen this week, and that's going to make an awful lot of difference. But, Saddam's got to go, and particularly now that there's this linkage between him and the terrorists. That's just one more reason why the man's got to go."

Looks like someone made a phone call doesn't it.

Keep tryin Eddie...someday you'll be ready to play with adults

3555. jexster - 2/19/2003 12:37:16 AM

General were ya shittin us yesterday or the day before..,,

Reckless Bush Policies Portend a Permanent State of Antagonism with Europe - the Globalist

3556. jexster - 2/19/2003 2:07:24 AM

Or maybe Stormin Norman was "afraid" of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, another Buffalo Soldier lie....

Al-Zarqawi is not an al-Qaeda operative. If there is a link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein he is not it. His story is the story of modern Islamic militancy. It is also the story of why the American-led 'war on terror' risks backfiring badly. Al-Zarqawi is not even, on close examination, an 'al-Qaeda associate', as Powell claimed. ... Focusing on individuals, even bin Laden, is a ludicrous oversimplification.

Or maybe they didn't appreciate his candor.

Got Osama?

Got Duct Tape?

Powell doesn't know who he is up against

3557. magoseph - 2/19/2003 6:01:02 AM

Iraqi defence minister 'under house arrest'
Iraqi opposition newspapers, citing sources in Baghdad, yesterday claimed that the head of the Iraqi military, Lieutenant-General Sultan Hashim Ahmad al-Jabburi Tai, was now effectively a prisoner in his home in the capital.

3558. OhioSTOPAS - 2/19/2003 6:55:12 AM

Something that's been bugging me for a while:

All of the cited reasons for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam - he's a brutal dictator, he invaded his neighbors, he gassed his own people, he wants to develop weapons of mass destruction, inspections won't work - had just as much merit, if not more, as far back as 1991. Certainly we have less to fear from Iraq today then we did in, say, 1999, when no inspections were going on and Saddam's offenses were more recent.

So of the unanimous chorus of Republican politicians and conservative pundits and thinktankers who today say we must invade Iraq, and who sneeringly denounce the naivete and question the patriotism of anyone who has a different view . . . Where have they been the last twelve years? How many of these people were urging President Clinton to invade Iraq or, before that, urging President George H. W. Bush to march on to Baghdad? I'd say approximately zero.

When President Clinton ordered military strikes agasint Iraq in December 1998, the people urging invasion of Iraq today should have been shouting "Attaboy!" and "Do even more!" But instead, all we heard from them was "Wag the Dog!"

So why do we have this unanimity of Repub/conservative opinion in 2002 from people who didn't have anything to say about the subject from 1991 to 2001? Obviously, it's because a Republican President endorsed the idea in 2002.

3559. magoseph - 2/19/2003 7:24:51 AM

I am attempting to formulate a strategy which is satisfactory to both the war hawks and the peaceniks. It is generally understood that the oil revenues are essential to the maintenance of the Saddam power structure which controls Iraq. Everybody who counts is on the payroll. Control of the oil-fields is vital and must be accomplished early. In conjunction with this move, units have to be moved up and Baghdad surrounded. Any attack against American forces in defensive positions would be crushed with very few casualties. There should be no attempt to move into Baghdad and fall into the trap of street fighting.

A high percentage of the population are on the dole. The crumbs of the oil revenues sustain a system of supplemental food rations which are essential to the people. The US should immediately increase these rations significantly. I do not believe the Iraqi army would be able to refuse to allow the rations to be distributed to the people. At this point, coalition forces would be in control of Iraq, except for the Baghdad area. They would also be receiving information as to the location of hidden weapons' caches throughout the country from people, with information to sell, escaping from the city. I doubt that the Iraqi power structure could be sustained for more than a few weeks. It would simply self-destruct.

3560. Edmund Dantes - 2/19/2003 10:07:53 AM

When President Clinton ordered military strikes agasint Iraq in December 1998, the people urging invasion of Iraq today should have been shouting "Attaboy!" and "Do even more!" But instead, all we heard from them was "Wag the Dog!"

So why do we have this unanimity of Repub/conservative opinion in 2002 from people who didn't have anything to say about the subject from 1991 to 2001? Obviously, it's because a Republican President endorsed the idea in 2002.

No, the problem with Clinton's strikes were 1) timing and 2) duration.

The timing was suspect in that they occurred right as he was being impeached. As your own post points out, Saddam's intransigence had been occurring for seven years when Clinton decided--the week the House voted to impeach--that he needed to spend four days lobbing some cruise missiles into Baghdad. In fact, because of the attack the debate and vote on impeachment was delayed.

As for duration, Clinton--without any UN approval, I might add--shot his wad for four days and then had no followup whatsoever. Afterward, there were no inspectors in Iraq and no plan at all as to what to do next.

As for whether Republicans had anything to say between 1991 and 2001, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, to name two, were advocating regime change in Iraq during this time. They just weren't in power. Even so, Republicans spearheaded passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998. Of course not all Republicans wanted then or want now military intervention in Iraq. Just as there is diversity on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Though you see even foreign policy purely in terms of party politics, this isn't a party line issue.

3561. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/19/2003 10:17:37 AM

Ohio-

So why do we have this unanimity of Repub/conservative opinion in 2002 from people who didn't have anything to say about the subject from 1991 to 2001? Obviously, it's because a Republican President endorsed the idea in 2002.

They would say: "Things are different after 9/11."

And of course things are different—but some things aren't—they will habitually seize every opportunity to maintain and extend their power and manipulate yet another exploitable area of the globe. It's in their nature to exploit—these are people who will always trump democracy with a greedy and Darwinian form of capitalism.

3562. Edmund Dantes - 2/19/2003 10:41:59 AM

It's in their nature to exploit—these are people who will always trump democracy with a greedy and Darwinian form of capitalism.

3563. jexster - 2/19/2003 10:52:12 AM

SPECIAL ORDER: Pouch, human remains, type II. Nylon; chloropene.

3564. jexster - 2/19/2003 10:55:52 AM

Last week: Old Glorified French Bashing On Behalf of the Poor Turks

This week: A senior Western official close to the talks said: "This is it — it could all be over.... Relations between Turkey and the United States are basically heading south."

3565. jexster - 2/19/2003 10:57:10 AM

The depth of deceit, insincerity, incompetence and rank hypocrisy of the Bush Regime is astonishing isnt' it Edmundo?

3566. Edmund Dantes - 2/19/2003 11:03:22 AM

SPECIAL ORDER: Jumbo size depends, type II poopstain.

Stat!

3567. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:11:01 AM

Bush to World: DROP DEAD

"Bush said today that he is still determined to use force, if he must, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and that a weekend of worldwide protests by millions of people did nothing to change his mind. 'Democracy is a beautiful thing. People are allowed to express their opinion, and I welcome
people's right to say what they believe.' But he continued, 'Evidently some in the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace; I respectfully disagree.' Bush said again that Mr. Hussein is 'providing links to terrorists.' He said, 'Saddam Hussein is a threat to America, and we will deal with him.' ... Coming on the heels of the biggest antiwar protests since the Vietnam era, Mr. Bush's words were significant because they indicated no change in his thinking despite vigorous opposition - especially overseas - to his aggressive approach in dealing with Iraq.

Bush said he would base his decisions not on protests or opinion polls but on what he thinks is right for history." LOL! W is now a historian!

A Moron Gone Mad

3568. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:13:58 AM

The so-called willing coalition is collapsing.
Coaltion of the Willing Headed for Dust Bin of History

Bush's chicken hawks who drone on about some 30 countries supporting the war will soon have to face the fact that many of these nations will soon join France, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Mexico in opposition... Bulgaria's monarchist-based conservative government is on the verge of
collapse and will be replaced by one opposed to Bush's war plans. A newly resurgent Dutch Labor Party is now within striking distance of the conservatives... Spain's pro-war conservative government has united the opposition against it with 65% of Spaniards opposed to a war... Only 24%
of Czechs favor Bush's war, while 62% of Slovenians and Poles are against their governments' support for Bush... Italy's scandal-plagued Silvio Berlusconi... may soon be voicing his support for Bush from an Italian prison."

3569. joezan - 2/19/2003 11:18:49 AM

Boy...all that's gonna happen within the next coupla weeks?

3570. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:24:03 AM

Oh you're one of the Morons who believe that Grand Emperor Idiot is gonna waltz in, kick ass and leave by the end of June eh?

Or will Jaysus carry him on firey chariot to heaven?

What it shows Moron is that you're being fed another load of shit on yet another issue. More precisely, we are both being fed, but only you and idiots like Edwina here are eating.

"The European declaration was marked most by what it did not say: It set no deadline for the inspections to be called off; it did not commit European countries to using force to back up U.N. resolutions on disarming Iraq; and it did not say Hussein is already in 'material breach' of
the resolutions... [This was] a victory for French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. They came to this summit emboldened by Friday's interim report of the U.N. weapons inspectors...
and by Saturday's outpouring of protests against war.... Officials went
to great lengths to say their emphasis on finding a peaceful solution
to the crisis was prompted by the huge demonstrations, which saw close
to a million people marching in London and similar numbers in Rome,
Madrid and Barcelona. 'These were not only young, politicized people,' said
Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, the EU's executive
body. 'This was the whole society that took part in a spontaneous
way.'"

EU Declaration is a Huge Victory for Chirac, Schroeder, and the People of Europe

There is NO coalition of the willing just of the walking dead...

This a war for democracy isn't it?

Or is it?

Open wide

3571. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:25:59 AM

distrust of the U.S. overseas has reached such a level, even among our British allies, that a recent British poll ranked the U.S. as the world's most dangerous nation — ahead of North Korea and Iraq.

The World v. Bush
Behind the Great Divide - the Professor

3572. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:31:59 AM

Blair in Behind the Scenes Effort to Restrain the Butcher of Baghdad

Tony sees the light at the end of his tunnel.

Desperate but not serious.

3573. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:34:37 AM

Bush Bullies His "Good Friend" Turkey

How can anyone trust anything these clowns say is beyond me.

3574. alistairConnor - 2/19/2003 12:22:50 PM

It seems to me that Bush (not a great chess player, I would guess) is now in serious time trouble.

It's not so much a matter of summer heat making the hardware unreliable; it's more a problem of the hastily improvised intervention scenarios turning to shit in his hands.

He sold out the Iraqi Kurds to the Turks; in the end, that wasn't enough to get the Turks on board, but the Kurds have woken up to it, and are screaming blue murder.

The Shiites of the south, lest we forget, already know what a reliable ally the US is.

3575. alistairConnor - 2/19/2003 12:27:16 PM

From the LA Times : Instead, he said, U.S. officials would argue that the Turks stand to gain greatly from the removal of Hussein's regime and would "remind them of their responsibilities as a member" of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

That's really cute! France, Germany etc have a NATO obligation to come to the defense of Turkey... and Turkey has a NATO obligation to, to, to do what exactly?

3576. jexster - 2/19/2003 12:55:52 PM

Good question for discussion....better than mine but I don't think we'll get many answers.

You're lucky though AC- the Turk is holding out for more bucks and Bush is threatening to cut his dear friends off entirely.

If the Emperor caves, as he likely will, we have to pay the bill, and children (those of us who have them)..and children's children to the 5th generation....

sigh

3577. jexster - 2/19/2003 12:58:51 PM

Maybe Edmund would like to comment on this one.

former General Norman Schwarzkopf of Gulf War I--who had not, long before, shared his heartfelt opposition to US military action in Iraq with The Washington Post--pulled a quick retreat on Meet The Press perhaps after having heard from the Bush clan.) Ref

Maybe not but

QUESTIONS:

Did the Bushies get to Stormin Norman?
Was he lying then or is he lying now?

3578. jexster - 2/19/2003 1:10:46 PM

With "Friends" Like George Duhbya Who Needs Enemies?

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- Turkey and the United States failed again Wednesday to agree on the size of an economic aid package that would open the way for Turkey's parliament to approve the deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. combat soldiers.

3579. OhioSTOPAS - 2/19/2003 2:32:01 PM

Responding to Edmund Dantes' Message # 3560 (in quotes), which discusses the "Desert Fox" bombing of Iraq in December 1998:

"No, the problem with Clinton's strikes were 1) timing and 2) duration.

"The timing was suspect in that they occurred right as he was being impeached. As your own post points out, Saddam's intransigence had been occurring for seven years . . ."

Differences with Iraq regarding the UN inspections increased significantly in 1998. We threatened military action in February and November.

". . . Clinton decided--the week the House voted to impeach--that he needed to spend four days lobbing some cruise missiles into Baghdad. . . ."

Desert Fox was a joint US-UK military operation that had to be planned for weeks or months. Clinton didn't, and couldn't, decide on Monday to whip up an airstrike for Tuesday. (Furthermore, what was involved was not just "lobbing missiles", but rather a precise strike on a number of identified targets.)

"As for duration, Clinton--without any UN approval, I might add--shot his wad for four days and then had no followup whatsoever."

The bombing stopped because Ramadan began. Ramadan also influenced the timing of the operation, since the choice was either to do it in December or wait a month.

"Afterward, there were no inspectors in Iraq and no plan at all as to what to do next."

All the more reason for an invasion. That's my point - where were the calls for an invasion from those who call for one today?

3580. OhioSTOPAS - 2/19/2003 2:33:09 PM

(continued)

"As for whether Republicans had anything to say between 1991 and 2001, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, to name two, were advocating regime change in Iraq during this time."

Agreed that there have always been a few who have consistently (if wrongheadedly, in my opinion) called for invasion. What about the hundreds of Republicans in Congress who today nearly unanimously endorse invasion? Why were they silent?

"Even so, Republicans spearheaded passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998."

Please. That was an act to finance aid to dissidents in Iraq. Even the Quakers endorsed this Act. It did not authorize military action, much less an invasion.

3582. jexster - 2/19/2003 4:02:04 PM

Saddamites Are Everywhere! Must be the Worldwide Saddamite Conspiracy.

Edward Hamm is peeved. He not only voted for George W. Bush, he gave half a million dollars to the Republican campaign—and now he wants a refund. On Jan. 13, Hamm and a group of Republican businessmen placed a full- page ad in the Wall Street Journal. Headlined “A Republican Dissent on Iraq,” it gave voice to their complaint: “The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions. That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back.”

American Anti-War Movement Takes Shape
The American Conservative

3583. Cellar Door - 2/19/2003 4:02:49 PM

Why we're going to war with Iraq.

3584. jexster - 2/19/2003 4:03:44 PM

SUCKERS!

(some day the Mote may have sound effects. Until then, imagine, Texans often whistle their S'es)

God bless Iraq.

3585. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:08:28 PM

US-Turkish Tensions Mount

3586. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:12:14 PM

President George W. Bush said: "I think it affects the (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) alliance in a negative way when you are not able to make a statement of mutual defence."

"Upset is not the proper word," he said when reporters asked for his views on France's diplomacy.

"I am disappointed that France would block NATO from helping a country like Turkey to prepare."

February 12, 2003

BULL-POOPSTAIN!!!

Wouldn't you agree Edwina?

3587. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:17:40 PM

Finally we're beginning to get some honest reporting from the major US media even if its still just a trickle there Cllr.

Maybe Edmund Dantes isn't the only guy who read

PAUL KRUGMAN
Behind the Great Divide
Why don't other countries see the world the way we do? News coverage is a large part of the answer.

Maybe the NBC News execs read him too?

Whaddya think there Eddie?

3588. jexster - 2/19/2003 7:07:24 PM

Here's an interesting piece, an account of the millions in Madrid this weekend. It seems that the Coalition of the Willing is just another, how shall we say Eddie, another poopstained lie?

Sound good to you?

Check it out sonny:

MADRID, SPAIN -- At Saturday's anti-war rally here --with chants of "No a la Guerra!" filling the city's central square, and film director Pedro Almodovar and actress Leonor Watling reading an anti-war manifesto -- air-raid sirens began to blare from loudspeakers. In response, the crowd of a million or more sank to its knees in a massive wave, young and old covering their heads as if taking shelter while the sounds of simulated explosions filled the air.

Liberation Lie
Spanish protesters, many of whom have known real dictatorship, aren't convinced that this war is about freeing Iraq

You aren't fooled, are ya Eddie?

3589. jexster - 2/19/2003 7:07:48 PM

'course not..

3590. concerned - 2/19/2003 7:24:42 PM

What's the difference between Hans Blix and the proverbial blind squirrel?

Nobody's hiding the nuts from the squirrel.

3591. Cellar Door - 2/19/2003 7:52:13 PM

What's the difference between Osma Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Rummy hasn't mey Bin Laden. As far as we know.

3592. jexster - 2/19/2003 8:54:25 PM

Coalition of the Trivial

U.S. STILL LACKS SUPPORT FOR WAR RESOLUTION

France's support extended well outside of the 15-member council. Opposition to the war reached a crescendo among dozens of U.N. members from all parts of the globe, with South Africa, Brazil, New Zealand, India and all Middle East countries arguing that inspections should continue.

Of the 27 envoys who spoke on Tuesday, only four supported the U.S. position -- Australia, Japan, South Korea and Peru.

Among the 36 delegates who spoke on Wednesday, Washington received varying degrees of support from about half

Macedonia,
Albania,
Uzbekistan,
Iceland,
Serbia and Montenegro,
Latvia, Nicaragua,
South Korea,
the Marshall Islands
and Georgia. [Reuters]

3593. jexster - 2/19/2003 8:55:45 PM

Latvia uber alles - 65% of Latvians oppose Bush's War Against the World

God bless Iraq.

3594. Cellar Door - 2/19/2003 9:12:36 PM

Dubbay and Osama -- like Butch and Sandance?

Let's review:

1. Bush Financial ties to terrorists. The Saudis are long time patrons of the Bush family. For example, Salim bin Laden, a known terrorist and brother to Osama, bailed out W when Arbusto was going under.

2. Bush clamped down on Saudi investigation prior to 9/11. FBI agents investigations into terrorist funding by prominent Saudis was blocked from high up in the administration.

3. Some of the highjackers were known terrorists, yet efforts to track them into the U.S. were stymied.

4. Bush lied about his reaction to the news of 9/11. Plus, his true reaction to the news was incongruous with surprise, or indeed a determination to protect the country.

5. Bush flew members of the bin Laden family out of the U.S. two days after attack, and before the FBI was finished interviewing them.

6. Bush kissed the butt of Prince Abdula only months after the attack.

7. Bush lied about the specificity of pre-attack chatter and intelligence briefings.

8. *Most importantly* Bush barred investigation into the 9/11 attacks, blocking an independent comission for a year. When he finely caved on it, he put Kissenger in charge. When Kissenger was ousted, an oil man was put in charge. An oilman who is a business partner with an *Al Qaeda financier*.

10. Bush benefited politically form the attacks. Without Osama, he is an assured 1 termer.

9. Osama's amazing escapes. Does he have a connection in U.S. intelligence today? He certainly used to.

10. Bush distracts the countries attention (and the military's) by mounting a campaign of unprovoked aggression against an *enemy* of Al Qaeda.

Circumstancial? sure, but that's alot of circumstancial

3595. wonkers2 - 2/19/2003 10:53:55 PM

But where are the blowjobs from interns? Where's our vast or even half-vast leftwing conspiracy when we need it?

3596. concerned - 2/19/2003 11:13:45 PM

Of course, everybody knows that the so-called UN Iraqi arms inspections are only a stupid charade that accomplish nothing in reality. All the sites that have been or will be inspected have already been agreed upon by Saddam and the UN as being the only sites that will be investigated. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Saddam and his minions managed to sucker the UN into including numerous sites for inspection that were mocked up to appear to have military, biological or industrial significance that they never had in reality.

Thus, all Blix's inspections amount to for Saddam is a slight inconvenience. The current Iraqi government is not prevented from engaging in any military or WMD development program whatsoever by this idiot charade. It makes no difference how many inspectors there are nor how often they inspect. Saddam has been forewarned where not to stash the evidence, and knows it will not be investigated except at these agreed upon sites, and that it can engage in virtually any research, development or stockpiling of weaponry 'forbidden' by the UN anywhere else.

3597. concerned - 2/19/2003 11:24:47 PM

Re. 3594 -

cllrdr -

Your innumeracy is one of the lesser problems revealed by your faltering efforts to deal with reality, as evidenced by the fact, for instance, that you are blaming GWB for events that occurred before he was elected president.

3598. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/19/2003 11:50:07 PM

FYI Depatment:

The War Behind Closed Doors, PBS, FrontLine, Feb 20, 9:00pm.

Check Here for local listings . . .

FRONTLINE examines the hidden story of what is really driving the Bush administration to war with Iraq. The investigation asks whether the publicly reported reasons--fear of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction or a desire to insure and protect America's access to oil--are only masking the real reason for the war. Through interviews with well-placed sources in and outside of the administration, FRONTLINE unravels a story known only to the Washington insiders.

3599. jexster - 2/20/2003 1:42:46 AM

We are seeing only the tip of a foreign policy disaster unprecedented in US history....

Look what that lying sack of shit George Bush is up to with his Turk "friends"...

With friends like the Moron, lying sack of shit, who needs enemies?

Turkey Throws Iraq Invasion Plans Into Doubt

Bush Pessimistic Turks Will Heal at His Command

News Analysis: The Turkish Headache

And if anyone believed that horseshit about the evil French and poor Turkey, variously posted by Concerned, Edmundo and other semi-sentient wack jobs....have the balls to say so!

Then I will disembowel you.

Step right up and take a number

3600. jexster - 2/20/2003 1:55:04 AM

ASHINGTON, Feb. 19 — Though the Bush administration is withholding public judgment, the potential loss of Turkey on the northern flank of a military campaign against Iraq is regarded within the government as a potentially serious political calamity.

Ankara's decision to put off a parliamentary vote inviting American forces into the country put Turkey on the roster of states expressing reservations about going to war in the next several weeks. It also raised the question of who would secure northern Iraq in the event of war between opposition groups and Islamic extremists vying for territory and influence.

Vive La France!

Vive Le Vrai President!

God help us, there's a mental moron in the White House

3601. jexster - 2/20/2003 1:58:25 AM

So Eddie, still waiting to hear from ya?

Did they get to Stormin Norman?

Was he lying on 1/29 or the following Sunday or both?

Although I truly hope otherwise, I doubt that Edmund Dantes will show up much more around here.

We can always hope that I am wrong for once!

3602. alistairConnor - 2/20/2003 5:37:28 AM

From a strictly military perspective, a decision by Turkey to ban American ground operations from its territory could erase Ankara's ability to count on United States forces to help protect its borders in the chaos of regional combat

I'm confused. What about the US's NATO obligations?

3603. Macnas - 2/20/2003 6:48:28 AM

You mean Turkey would no longer be a member of the coalition of the biddable? Quel dommage.

3604. alistairConnor - 2/20/2003 8:36:09 AM

I'm not naturally inclined to conspiracy theory : I believe that when looking at the way things turn out, we often don't give enough credit to incompetence, and to the randomness of electrons.

But I'm starting to come round to the idea that recent events make a lot more sense if we consider that the Bush administration is actively working to destroy multilateral institutions : in particular, the UN and NATO.

If this is the case, then a veto on a Security Council war resolution would be playing into their hands. Inability to get a majority is better : currently, it looks like 11 to 4 against "war now".

But best of all is the evaporation of the coalition of the "willing". I am more and more optimistic that they will pull back from the brink.

Bush and Blair:
"You and me against the world.
Sometimes it feels like you and me against the world."

3605. jexster - 2/20/2003 11:31:41 AM

Pretext???
NO! Not Our George!

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia, in a clear attack on U.S. policy, said on Thursday U.N. arms inspectors were being put under pressure to leave Iraq or to produce reports that could be used as a pretext for military action.

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov's remarks were Moscow's strongest yet, though he did not name the United States. He had previously accused "certain circles" in Washington of exerting pressure.

"Inspectors are being subjected to very strong pressure in order to provoke their departure from Iraq, as occurred in 1998, or to present to the Security Council assessments which could be used as a pretext for the use of force against Iraq," he said.

3606. jexster - 2/20/2003 11:37:43 AM

Church leaders doubt morality of war

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, issued a rare joint statement last night, warning that doubts still persisted about the moral legitimacy of a war in Iraq.

Are the Arcbishop and Cardinal Archbishop "Saddamites" Eddie?

What are your views on whether Bush's war is moral or murder?

3607. jexster - 2/20/2003 11:38:29 AM

God bless Iraq.

3608. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 11:45:21 AM

Concerned in Message # 3596 makes the following startling claim:

Of course, everybody knows that the so-called UN Iraqi arms inspections are only a stupid charade that accomplish nothing in reality. All the sites that have been or will be inspected have already been agreed upon by Saddam and the UN as being the only sites that will be investigated.

Could you provide a citation or two for this claim? I feel so out of the loop for not knowing these facts that are known to everybody. In fact my understanding from statements made by Powell and others is that the list of sites is based on a day-to-day assessment of intelligence data from a variety of sources, including the US.

3609. jexster - 2/20/2003 11:52:07 AM

Iraqis Will Not Be Pawns in Bush and Blair's War Game

An American attack on my country would bring disaster, not liberation

· Kamil Mahdi is an Iraqi political exile and lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter

God bless Iraq.

3610. jexster - 2/20/2003 11:56:14 AM

The present Iraqi regime's repressive practices have long been known, and its worst excesses took place 12 years ago, under the gaze of General Colin Powell's troops; 15 years ago, when Saddam was an Anglo-American ally; and almost 30 years ago, when Henry Kissinger cynically used Kurdish nationalism to further US power in the region at the expense of both Kurdish and Iraqi democratic aspirations

To me the most foul of the many pretexts is the "humanitarian, liberation" lie

3611. jexster - 2/20/2003 11:57:26 AM

Message # 3608

Damn TD's renewed his Militia Membership!

3612. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:04:24 PM

Hey TD how bout this for your Commie-TowelHead-SnailEater-BeurreNoir conspiracy!

__UN Missions are Flooded with Anti-War E-mails

Reuters reports, "France's U.N. Mission was flooded with electronic fan mail after Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin urged the Security Council to 'give peace a chance' in Iraq, French officials said Tuesday. Some 5,000 e-mails --overwhelmingly favorable and the vast majority from Americans -- were logged Friday, the day de Villepin delivered a speech stressing that use of force was not justified at this time against Baghdad, the officials said. Another 12,000 messages were received over the weekend... 'What is at stake here is war and peace and our common responsibility,' de Villepin said. 'We are willing to try to give peace a chance.' The responses included: - 'Merci merci merci. Thank you thank you. Remain firm. Continue to oppose the Bush administration. PLEASE!' a Los Angeles woman wrote... - 'Please stand strong and do not allow the United Nations to be used as a puppet for my so-called government,' wrote a Chicago, Illinois, man."

3613. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:06:24 PM

The Vast Vile Vichyssoise Conspiracy???

3614. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:16:56 PM

Re.3608 -

The salient point here is, of course, that Iraq knows ahead of time which sites the UN may inspect, and which the UN will not inspect. That is all the information necessary to allow hiding or moving the disallowed r&d&m prior to any inspection.

3615. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 12:19:32 PM

Con - Please cite how it is that Iraq knows ahead of time what sites will be inspected. Again, this goes against my understanding of the protocol for these inspections.

3616. magoseph - 2/20/2003 12:20:40 PM

But I'm starting to come round to the idea that recent events make a lot more sense if we consider that the Bush administration is actively working to destroy multilateral institutions : in particular, the UN and NATO.

It is apparent to anyone who has listened to the right wing of the Republican party for any period of time that all extreme nationalists are opposed to a world order they cannot dominate. The Bush administration is obviously no exception.

The thing that really frightens me about these people is that they embrace the same religious fanaticism that they decry in the Moslem fanatics. How can a secular government have a president who reads the bible everyday and little of anything else? Is it possible we are being guided by someone seeking advice on policy decisions from above? I wonder.

3617. Cellar Door - 2/20/2003 12:24:35 PM

Letter to MWO:

Horse,

Thanks for your France-bashing edition. If there is a classic example of the right-wing media (and I include nutcase Tom Friedman in that category) bias, this is it.

The French in general love and idealize "America," and NYC is the city of dreams for most young French. Ft. Greene, Brooklyn was recently written up in a French magazine as the "hottest neighborhood in Paris," and they come here by the thousands to scrape by, working "au noir," not unlike the Americans of my generation (and before) used to go to Paris.

I work with a lot of French -- and even right-leaning bourgeois French abhorred Bush -- they expect a certain level of intellectual achievement in their public figures, or at a minimum the ability to speak one's native language well. The media in spinning out its "the French hate us" narrative is ignoring the fact that the French loved Bill Clinton -- his intelligence, his eloquence, his sexiness, his charm, his multi-lateralism, his internationalism. Hell, had he been able to stand for election, he would have been elected President de la Republique in the last sorry elections they had.

The media has conveniently forgotten, as we Americans never should, that Jacques Chirac (whatever one may think of his politics) was the first foreign leader to come, in a state of visible shock, to the WTC site after 9/11. And I, as a New Yorker, will never forget the hordes of French (identifiable because of those snappy shirts) who, because of 9/11, came and ran in the New York Marathon not long after 9/11, a time when most Americans were too terrified to come anywhere near New York City.

Rooney, Will and the rest who are bashing the French without any context, just to advance their pro-war agenda, are beneath contempt.

Thanks again.

Leiser in NYC

3618. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:26:34 PM

Re. 3615 -

Simple. The UN informs them of which sites may possibly be inspected, not which will be next inspected. Do you understand the distinction I'm making?

3619. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:29:44 PM

Re. 3616 -

magoseph -

Look out! There's a Republican under your bed, and he's a gonna GITCHA!

3620. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:30:20 PM

He'll force you to vote for lower taxes or something equally horrible.

3621. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:49:11 PM

Blair's Spokesman Says Saddam Can Stay in Power if He is Disarmed

"Tony Blair's 'moral' case for war in Iraq appeared to be in tatters last night after Downing Street admitted that Saddam Hussein would be allowed to stay in power if he disarmed fully. The Prime Minister told the Labor spring conference at the weekend that it would be 'inhumane' to 'leave Saddam in place'. But his official spokesman stressed that government policy had not changed to the moral argument for 'regime change', and its focus remained Iraq's failure to comply with UN demands over weapons of mass destruction. The confusion came as a new opinion poll showed the first clear majority of Britons opposing a war against Baghdad. The Guardian/ICM poll shows 52% do not want military action, while Blair's personal approval rating plunged to minus 20 points...'"

3622. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:50:24 PM

Bush's Personal Assistant

3623. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 12:57:15 PM

Con - Your statement seems to go against what the inspectors are saying, see IAEA Statement to the United Nations Security Council.

...All inspection activities have been carried out without prior notification to Iraq, except where notification was needed to ensure the availability of required support.

...These investigative inspections focus on areas of concern identified by other States, facilities identified through satellite imagery as having been modified or constructed since 1998, and other inspection leads identified independently by the IAEA.

...First, we have inspected all of those buildings and facilities that were identified, through satellite imagery, as having been modified or constructed over the past four years. IAEA inspectors have been able to gain ready access and to clarify the nature of the activities currently being conducted in these facilities.

...We have begun helicopter operations, which increase the inspectors’ mobility and their ability to respond rapidly to new information, and allow wide-scale radiation detection surveys.

...One example of how Iraq could be more proactive was illustrated by the inspection of a private residence just two weeks ago, which resulted in the retrieval of a sizeable number of documents, some of which were classified, and related, in part, to Iraq’s pre-1991 efforts to use laser technology for enriching uranium. Note: If the Iraqi's knew that this site was going to be inspected it is unlikely that these documents would have still been there.

3624. magoseph - 2/20/2003 1:12:16 PM

Look out! There's a Republican under your bed, and he's a gonna GITCHA!

One look at me and he sings the Marseillaise, concerned.

3625. judithathome - 2/20/2003 1:29:08 PM

Is it possible we are being guided by someone seeking advice on policy decisions from above? I wonder.

Why not? Their hero Reagan sought advice from the zodiac. Or at least let his wife do so and then tell him what dates were auspicious.

3626. magoseph - 2/20/2003 2:17:01 PM

You know, Judith, in my cynic moments, I believe that it is just a ploy to reach the electorate disgusted of Clinton's propensity at fooling around.

3627. magoseph - 2/20/2003 2:39:38 PM

It is really hard for me to understand what is going on in these media conversations about Iraq. I do not believe that anyone does not accept the fact that the first objective of the American assault will be to control the oilfields, the Hundred and First Airborne will take care of that.

Now, there are only two possibilities: The Americans will take control of the oilfields or the oilfields will be destroyed by the Iraqis. In either case, the flow of money that insures Saddam's control of the country evaporates overnight and the process of self-destruction and internal collapse begins. The Americans have but to hunker down outside of Baghdad to watch and wait. The option of attacking the Americans does not exist.

3628. wonkers2 - 2/20/2003 4:04:28 PM

I'm not sure that it matters a whole lot who controls Iraq's oil. Whoever it is, the oil gets pumped into a common worldwide pool of oil into which all users dip their straws to draw from at the same price. It is important that any single country or oil company (or oil company cartel) not control too much of the oil. That's why Bush I was quick to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and prevent Iraq from taking control of Saudi Arabia. All U.S. interest requires is that Iraq be willing to continue pumping oil into the international market and leave its neighbors alone (and not build up a supply of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons).

3629. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 4:20:11 PM

3630. concerned - 2/20/2003 4:25:27 PM

The Americans have but to hunker down outside of Baghdad to watch and wait.

I doubt that this is the course that the US would take, if for no other reason than its heightened level of humanitarian consciousness.

3631. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 4:30:55 PM

Con - Why would a "heightened level of humanitarian consciousness" lead us to engage in high-intensity urban warfare? Besieging the cities, letting those who wish to exit to UNHCR camps do so through designated inspection stations seems like a good strategy to me.

3632. Al D - 2/20/2003 4:40:57 PM

alistairConnor
You may be right. There is much doubt in the U.S. as to the value of the U.N. However, to fool oneself by thinking all who feel that way are on the so called religious right falls short of true understandoing, IMO.

It is not the U.S. alone who insisted that Saddam disarm or face serious consequenses; the entire S.C. passed that resolution. There is only one country in the world that can enforce it. And yet so called allies, France, Russia, China can block the U.S., at least they think they can. The point is, the U.N. is a paper tiger, and maybe not worth the cost.

And, by the way, I haven't darkened the door of a church since 1985 when I lost a bet.

3633. concerned - 2/20/2003 4:56:37 PM

Re. 3631 -

I don't see that the US need engage in such battles. While an entire city need not be interdicted, I don't see why certain concentrations of enemy soldiers can't be isolated for periods of time. I just don't think 'hey diddle diddle, charge up the middle' is necessarily the answer here.

3634. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 5:08:23 PM

Con - I think that we are in agreement, but it's hard to tell.

3635. concerned - 2/20/2003 5:40:35 PM

Just think: France's attempted destruction of the UN and NATO will have been for nothing once the US moves against Saddam.

3636. concerned - 2/20/2003 5:49:01 PM

But whatever its shortcomings, the UN has exhibited more than saintlike patience and tolerance of Iraqi violations of its 'binding' resolutions. There is no question, that conducted under purely UN auspices, Saddam could spend the rest of his natural lifetime, and his offspring could then continue to do their worst wrt WMD and military aggression with any UN tongue lashings billed as the promised 'serious consequences' just as likely to metamorphose into French kisses.

3637. magoseph - 2/20/2003 5:54:01 PM

Message # 3268

I don't know if you have attempted to answer my post. However, if I understand what you are saying, it does not matter who controls the oilfields, all the proceeds continue to accrue to the bank accounts of the Saddam Hussein regime. I have difficulty believing that the US in possession of the fields can't make certain that the Saddam Hussein regime does not see a penny of the money

3638. concerned - 2/20/2003 6:21:57 PM

From Agence France-Presse:

Miss Germany lands in Baghdad hoping to meet Saddam for peace

BAGHDAD, Feb 20 (AFP) - Miss Germany, Alexandra Vodjanikova, landed in the Iraqi capital on Thursday hoping to meet President Saddam Hussein on a mission to help avert a US-led war.

"I want to meet Saddam Hussein about peace," the 19-year-old blonde beauty told reporters at Saddam International Airport after flying in from Amman.

Vodjanikova said she also wanted to visit patients at hospitals and charity organisations during her week-long stay in Iraq, according to an AFP photographer.

Although shunned by most of the world's leaders, Saddam was Vodjanikova's choice when asked which head of state she would most like to meet after winning her title in January.

Her manager has said she hopes to help persuade the Iraqi leader to cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

Vodjanikova, an economics student from Munich in southern Germany, was chosen from 18 regional winners to represent her country in the Miss Universe finals next May.

IMO, she could do better yet by eloping with Saddam.

3639. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 7:31:55 PM

Pictures Con! We must have pictures of the young idealistic Ms. Vodjanikova!

3640. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:35:37 PM

Btw, has anybody considered the fact that the UN Iraq inspectors are almost certainly infiltrated by Saddam's agents?

Little wonder they're coming up empty. Why isn't it up for discussion that such weapons inspections only have a chance of succeeding when the government involved wants to disarm?

3641. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 7:42:15 PM

Con - You are getting quite black helicoptery with your uncited pronouncements about the activities of the inspectors.

3642. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:42:33 PM

Hereya go, VK:

3643. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:45:09 PM

Re. 3641 -

VK -

Have you any reasons that Saddam would not exploit such an immediately accessible information source?

3644. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:45:27 PM

....waiting.....

3645. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:45:46 PM

....waiting....

3646. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:46:05 PM

....waiting....

3647. Cellar Door - 2/20/2003 7:47:31 PM

Is this what you were waiting for, dear?

3648. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:47:53 PM

It's purely naive to think Saddam would behave like an Eagle Scout wrt this.

3649. Cellar Door - 2/20/2003 7:49:50 PM

Well certainly not like a drunken coke-snorting Eagle Scout.

3650. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:50:47 PM

Re. 3647 -

Blaming the US for their own ineffectivness? An implicit admission that I am right about the uselessness of the UN inspector's methods.

3651. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 7:54:20 PM

Con - No Saddam would certainly exploit whatever he could, but what are you talking about?

3652. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 7:55:17 PM

And have a little patience, I'm doing a little more than hanging around waiting to see who responds to me.

Thanks for the picture, who is she boxing?

3653. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:55:56 PM

The assumption with this article seems to be: "If the US doesn't tell us where to look, we're fucked." A tragic attitude, given that the US has no obligation to provide such info to the UN inspectors.

3654. Cellar Door - 2/20/2003 7:56:29 PM

J.R. disses G.W.

3655. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:57:03 PM

Re. 3651 -

Then you would appear to largely agree with my post 3640, right?

3656. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:58:19 PM

Even if you don't, how can you discount the (strong) possibility that this is sabotaging Blix's ability to find anything of substance?

3657. concerned - 2/20/2003 8:02:31 PM

Re. 3652 -

Maybe Saddam, if that's what he's into.

3658. concerned - 2/20/2003 8:06:08 PM

Problem is, if Blix neither finds any WMD nor any evidence that the WMD Iraq was known to possess recently have been destroyed, he comes out looking exactly as if he and his inspectors have been thoroughly outmaneuvered by Saddam.

3659. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 8:07:21 PM

Con - You need to tell me what you are talking about. You refer to "The assumption with this article..." What article? I agree that Saddam is a cold ruthless dictator who will attempt to exploit whatever he can, but I doubt that this is that same as agreeing that the inspectors are witting/unwitting saddamite tools. And what am I discounting is sabotaging Blix et al?

3660. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 8:09:54 PM

Blix in his report states that Iraq needs to account for the missing anthrax/VX, that simply saying, "Oh, we got rid of that nasty stuff a while ago." doesn't pass muster. If the UNSC allows Saddam to get away with it that Saddam will have maneuvered the UN into being the League of Nations.

3661. jexster - 2/20/2003 9:14:10 PM

Two weeks ago, I listed about 10 Bush allegations that the UN found to be false.

They continue to pile up, including Powell's allegation that Saddam has a missile that can hit Israel.

CBS News LEAD

UN Inspectors Increasingly Angry With US "Leads" That Turn Out to Be Lies

3662. jexster - 2/20/2003 9:18:59 PM

Inaction in the face of increasing danger is not an option Butcher Bush, Moron of the US

nspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'

What threat is that exactly?

3663. jexster - 2/20/2003 9:19:56 PM

open wide suckers....

I bet even a demented imbecile like Edmundo doesn't believe that crap any longer.

Do ya Eddie?

3664. Edmund Dantes - 2/20/2003 10:30:25 PM

Rummy: We're ready

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Public Television's "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" that the military build-up in the Gulf had reached the point where U.S. and British forces were now ready to invade Iraq if the order was given.

"I would characterize it as ample," Rumsfeld said of the force of tens of thousands of U.S. and British troops massed in the area. "We are at a point where, if the president makes that decision (to attack), the Department of Defense is prepared and has the capabilities and the strategy to do that."

Asked if the U.S. and British forces were ready to go to war now, Rumsfeld replied: "Yes."

3665. jexster - 2/20/2003 11:30:13 PM

3666. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:32:16 AM

Blair/Bush Butchery
Major Christian Charity Joins Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Archbishop of England and Wales in Blasting Blair's Fatuous Moral Case for Aggression

Opposition to the war against Iraq intensified yesterday after a charity joined Church leaders in challenging the legitimacy of military action.

In a fresh blow to Tony Blair's efforts to argue the moral case for war, Christian Aid said conflict was likely to cause "significant chaos and suffering" to ordinary people long after the fighting had ceased.

The charity added that the international community's preparations to deal with the aftermath appeared to be "woefully inadequate

God bless Iraq.

3667. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:45:42 AM

Feb 26
2 p.m.

Lecture: Scott Ritter
Sponsor: San Francisco State University
Location: McKenna Theatre, CA Building
Cost: SFSU students free, $10 general
Web Site: aspa-sfsu.org/events/ritter.html
Contact: Scott Davey
E-mail: scottdavey@telocity.com
Phone: (415) 338-2444

Details:
Lecture by former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter: "The Coming War with Iraq: How Did We Get Here?"

3668. concerned - 2/21/2003 1:48:42 AM

Re. 3659 -

The article linked in 3647.

3669. concerned - 2/21/2003 2:35:35 AM

3670. magoseph - 2/21/2003 4:48:03 AM

Conditions for a quick, clean war. The writer, a former senior Australian defense official, directs the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra. These are his personal views.

There are four key questions about any war in Iraq.
First, where will Saddam Hussein deploy his troops?
Second, how good is America's targeting intelligence?
Third, how well prepared are U.S. and other coalition forces for urban warfare
But will the Iraqis fight? This is the fourth big question.

3671. alistairConnor - 2/21/2003 5:34:09 AM

Message # 3632 You may be right. There is much doubt in the U.S. as to the value of the U.N. However, to fool oneself by thinking all who feel that way are on the so called religious right falls short of true understandoing, IMO

Al, I think you have the wrong man. I have never claimed, nor believed, that religious motivation was a prime element of US foreign policy. Clearly, the unilateralist position is a right-wing Republican one, irrespective of religion.

Sometimes it seems that they want to use religion as an alibi; this would indeed be disastrous for world affairs if it caught on. Already, a large part of world opinion is convinced that the US is on a crusade against the moslems, which clearly isn't the case (however much Con yearns for it). A major benefit of the current US/Europe spat is to defuse this issue, by showing that christian nations oppose the "war at all costs" scenario, too.

3672. magoseph - 2/21/2003 5:34:32 AM

The post above outlines the same war issues I have commented upon on previous posts, folks!

3673. alistairConnor - 2/21/2003 5:55:03 AM

Yes Mag, I apologise for not giving you due credit. Royalties perhaps?

3674. alistairConnor - 2/21/2003 5:58:21 AM

Message # 3635 cornered
Just think: France's attempted destruction of the UN and NATO will have been for nothing once the US moves against Saddam.

Well, if Nato survives, I believe that France, Germany and Belgium will have been its saviours. If it doesn't, it will be because the US has decided that it has no further use for it.

3675. magoseph - 2/21/2003 6:05:46 AM

Well, you could show up for me at a family reunion this summer and present my regrets.

3676. alistairConnor - 2/21/2003 6:18:58 AM

Boycotting France, are you, Mago? Stopped buying the perfume and the smelly cheeses?

3677. magoseph - 2/21/2003 6:22:32 AM

Am I crazy? I don't think so!

3678. alistairConnor - 2/21/2003 6:50:33 AM

To address your other point, Al :
It is not the U.S. alone who insisted that Saddam disarm or face serious consequenses; the entire S.C. passed that resolution. There is only one country in the world that can enforce it. And yet so called allies, France, Russia, China can block the U.S., at least they think they can. The point is, the U.N. is a paper tiger, and maybe not worth the cost.

We all know (unless we have forgotten already) that the US administration decided months ago to conduct military action against Iraq, and that it fought against the return of arms inspectors. It agreed reluctantly to their return, and now it does anything it can to discredit the inspection process.

This is pretty clear evidence that disarming Iraq is not their primary concern.

But you are quite right, there can be no disarmament without the threat of force to back it up, and the willingness to use it as a last resort. However, logically, the threat of force alone should be enough... if the Iraqi side behave rationally.

I honestly don't think we should be in a hurry to start a war, as long as there is a chance of avoiding it. I honestly believe that the SC is capable of a clear majority in favour of war, if the Iraqi government behaves irrationally by refusing to disarm. I think it's too early to tell; I think that six months would not be too long to wait, if it allows the stated aim of disarmament to be achieved without a war.

I really don't like war.

3679. alistairConnor - 2/21/2003 6:56:14 AM

So : if I have understood your point, it's something like : "the UN is useless to the USA, if it refuses to rubber-stamp the USA's predetermined course of action".

And I can't argue with that. That's your President's call.

If, on the other hand, disarmament is brought about without war, then that would be a major boost to the credibility and the effectiveness of the UN. It would also be good for the US's image, because it would rightly be credited for bringing it about.

3680. jexster - 2/21/2003 10:56:54 AM

As the Butcher of Baghdad closes in on a deal with the Turk for some combination of aid between 26 and 30 billion, a quiz from the professor for Edmund Dantes.

So how much money for Afghan reconstruction did the administration put in its 2004 budget?

None. The Bush team forgot about it. Embarrassed Congressional staff members had to write in $300 million to cover the lapse

The Martial Plan
Paul Krugman

Sorry to interrupt the discussion but Eddie is "slow".

Remedial work ya know....

3681. jexster - 2/21/2003 11:00:33 AM

The Butcher of Baghdad may have forgotten to put this year's installment of the "Martial Plan" into his budget but he didn't forget:

SPECIAL ORDER: Defense Personnel Support Center - "Pouch, human remains, type II. Nylon; chloropene."

3682. concerned - 2/21/2003 11:06:40 AM

Re. 3674 -

So, you're saying that it is up to the US to heal the great rift that Old Europe created in NATO?

3683. jexster - 2/21/2003 11:25:37 AM

No I think he's saying what he said Concerned....that Bush has destroyed NATO and more deeply our relations with Europe which is the point of the article I posted from Asia Week and he has done so in his psychotic push for a war with Iraq that, after over 12 months, he still cannot produce a consistent and credible justification for.

3684. jexster - 2/21/2003 11:41:14 AM

Bloody Bush's First Murder Victims?

Sean Logan, 22, of San Francisco, center, joined other foreign volunteers in Baghdad to protest plans to attack Iraq. Some of them are planning to serve as human shields at potential bombing targets.

3685. jexster - 2/21/2003 11:44:00 AM

Bush's War: A Tragedy for Religion - Pope John Paul II

3686. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:17:03 PM

WRT the UN Mago, I can put it no better than J. Schell in "Will of the World":

One more element has been of the first importance. Not only has the human species made its will known; it also possesses an institution--now in session--for effectuating that will: the United Nations. The UN is often denigrated as a "debating society." One reason is that a "democratic deficit" is built into its very structure. No one elects its representatives. Like agency heads or cabinet ministers, they are appointees, creatures of government. To national publics, therefore, the UN often seems remote, abstract and, above all, powerless. The clear expression of the world's will repaired the UN's democratic deficit. It is entirely fitting at this moment that South Africa has invoked a provision of the Charter that permits the voices of countries of the General Assembly to be heard in the elite Security Council. The great majority have expressed opposition to war.

The UN delegates are still not elected, and the public is still not invited to sit at their councils, but now they have the wind of public opinion at their backs. They are "representatives" in a way that they have never been before. For the first time in the history of the institution, the "we the peoples of the United Nations" invoked in the UN Charter is not an abstraction. The "we" has spoken--not through its governments but directly to its representatives in the international body. Moreover, it has done so in the name of the goal that is the UN's prime reason for existing: peace. The United States and Great Britain have sought to use the UN as an instrument of war.

The world has said No.

3687. concerned - 2/21/2003 12:19:12 PM

Re. 3683 -

You're spouting total bullshit again, jexster. The NATO dissension exists almost entirely within the European continent and is a result of France and Germany attempting to intimidate the other fifteen or so members.

3688. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:20:58 PM

No indeed. The NATO dissension as you put it is merely a reflection of the will of all the people of Europe, which is overwhelmingly opposed to your war of aggression - without exception.

3689. concerned - 2/21/2003 12:22:44 PM

An imaginary opposition to a war that hasn't occurred. I see jex is truly operating in his milieu now.

3690. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:29:38 PM

"Imaginary"???

Try extraordinary. Before the first victim of Bush Murder is placed in a body bag, the Colossal Bungler and Moron King has managed the greatest outpouring of committed opposition in history, a virtual revolution that has been likened to the Revolutions of 1848 and 1989

3691. concerned - 2/21/2003 12:31:29 PM

You really need to lay it on much much thicker, jex.

3692. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:31:35 PM

Seems that today is taken up with remedial learning...

Futher to the remedial education of the challenged, The Moron Edmund Dantes:

Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that a war against Iraq could be mounted now. Not so, according to Michael Evans, Defence Editor, Times of London

3693. vonKreedon - 2/21/2003 12:31:41 PM

Opposition to a war before it begins gives the opposition the opportunity to prevent the war. Con seems to imply that there is something inconsistent or foolish about this position, but I don't understand why or how.

Regarding NATO, certainly both the US/UK and the French/German sides have to take responsibility for the disagreement and the ways that they have pursued them. Both sides, particularly the US and the French, have been arrogant and short sighted.

3694. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:32:27 PM

15-30,000,000 people (too many to count!), 650 cities, speaks for itself

3695. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:33:08 PM

Bush had better attack before the weather gets better!

Time is running out.

3696. concerned - 2/21/2003 12:33:42 PM

re. 3963 -

vk -

You missed what I was responding to, it appears, since your assumption about my post is incorrect.

3697. concerned - 2/21/2003 12:34:57 PM

How did vk transform 'imaginary' to 'inconsistent' or 'foolish' in this context?

3698. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:37:35 PM

I am not sure what you mean Vk. The better argument it seems to me is that this was a seminal break, an irreparable one in fact or nearly so. The Europeans fundamentally oppose US hegemony and militarism, at least this misbegotten iteration of US.

NATO is only a symptom of something much deeper.

3699. vonKreedon - 2/21/2003 12:38:42 PM

Well, the "imaginary" part of your post was so...imaginative that I skipped right over it. I must have imagined the tens of thousands of people I was with in Seattle on Saturday. I must have imagined the CNN coverage of the hundreds of thousands of people around the country and millions around the world marching on Saturday. I must have imagined the polls showing strong opposition to a non-UN authorized war.

Or you're imagining that none of this exists.

3700. vonKreedon - 2/21/2003 12:42:00 PM

Jex - Yes the NATO situation is both a symptom and a vector for the differences between a hegemonic US and an anti-hegemonic Europe. The situation could have been finessed, but both sides preferred (assuming competence on both sides) to push the issue.

3701. concerned - 2/21/2003 12:43:43 PM

Re. 3699 -

I mean 'imaginary' in its literal sense, as in the 135,000 protesters that apparently weren't there in SF.

You still want to play beyond the looking glasss games with the meaning of 'imaginary', vk?

3702. concerned - 2/21/2003 12:46:07 PM

3700 -

France clearly is the only one whose 'pushing' is significant, given threats against and orders to dissenting NATO nations to shut up. The US has not stooped to anything remotely so overbearing or manipulative.

I see that you & jex are circle jerking in your intellectual dishonesty.

3703. vonKreedon - 2/21/2003 12:53:56 PM

Con - A couple things:

Your move from a blanket statement of imaginary opposition to arguing that the SF march only had 65,000 demonstrators pretty much removes the imaginary opposition portion of your initial post. That's why I ignored it at the time.

The US arrogance in all but ordering NATO and the UNSC to do the US's bidding, the outraged expressed over France/Germany/Belgium exersicing their rights under the NATO charter cannot be ignored in the current situation. As I said further up, France in particular has exacerbated the situation, including the ways that you cite.

3704. vonKreedon - 2/21/2003 12:56:00 PM

And another thing Con, please do not insult my honesty or integrity. I am as honest as I can be. I may be mistaken, but I am not dishonest. If you cannot disagree with my arguments without insulting my honesty then I will have to stop talking with you.

3705. concerned - 2/21/2003 1:03:24 PM

Re. 3703 -

vk -

Here. I'll spell it out for you, because you are either too lazy to read back or maybe not intellectually gifted enough to interpret what was posted.

Jexster made the blanket statement in 3688 in a crude attempt to dismiss the fact that there were no anti-US demonstrations in Eastern Europe NATO countries.

He posted: The NATO dissension as you put it is merely a reflection of the will of all the people of Europe, which is overwhelmingly opposed to your war of aggression - without exception.

There's a great deal about that excerpt that is pure fabrication, and that is obviously what I was calling imaginary to any person with normal intelligence, that is.

Still confused?

3706. concerned - 2/21/2003 1:04:44 PM

Ok, vk - I won't impugn your integrity, if you stop impugning mine.

3707. concerned - 2/21/2003 1:06:47 PM

vk -

Even though you automatically put on your bullshit filter when scanning through jexster's crap, try not to forget that I will sometimes pick it apart as if he posted in seriousness.

3708. vonKreedon - 2/21/2003 1:11:44 PM

Jexster's post was typically over the top. I did not, and still do not get your response that the opposition to the war is "imaginary", your post Message # 3689:
An imaginary opposition to a war that hasn't occurred. I see jex is truly operating in his milieu now.
is also quite broad and unspecific. I hope you can read this and see how I might have been confused into thinking that you were saying that opposition to the war was "imaginary", as opposed to what you appear to be saying which is that Jex, and only Jex, is imagining that whole world, or at least all of Europe without exception is opposed to the war. This of course is as imaginary as the position that significant opposition does not exist.

Part of the problem here is that I read very very little of what Jex writes. So, please don't assume in anything that I write that I have read anything that Jex wrote.

3709. vonKreedon - 2/21/2003 1:13:03 PM

Con - Fair enough on the integrity thing. Show me where I have insulted your honesty/integrity so that I may make amends.

3710. jexster - 2/21/2003 1:13:30 PM

Do you think I am joking?

You're more disconnected from reality than I had imagined.

3711. jexster - 2/21/2003 1:16:47 PM

And so is Bush, who I am coming to believe is not only piss ignorant, but clinically delusional.

A recent op-ed in Le Monde by the Carnegie Endowment's chief non-proliferation expert argued persuasively that the US would not go to war over Iraq - Why We Won't Go to War
By Joseph Cirincione, Senior Associate and Project Director
Friday, December 13, 2002
A war with Iraq could ruin a fragile American economy and the political future of Republicans

Cirincione concludes with this caveat:

For these reasons, it is not likely that the United States will go to war anytime soon. Two miscalculations could change the equation: Saddam could do something stupid that provides the excuse for war, or Bush could be persuaded by the siren songs of his hard-line advisors that war is both necessary and easy. History shows that illusions of grandeur can overcome even the most persuasive factual analysis

3712. jexster - 2/21/2003 1:18:30 PM

Cirincione - Correct link

3713. concerned - 2/21/2003 1:18:31 PM

Vk -

I respect your contribution and generally enjoy reading it, even if I don't always agree on specifics.

OTOH, I know I sometimes indulge in posting at least quasi bullshit, myself. But I at least try to make it somewhat obvious that I'm doing so by the context and style which I use. When I give Leftism its well deserved noogies, I usually leave an out, since I'm aware that good intentions are the rule among people left of center, even though their average perspicacity leaves more than a little to be desired.

3714. concerned - 2/21/2003 1:18:41 PM

3715. jexster - 2/21/2003 1:19:38 PM

"quasi"???

how bout "imaginary quasi bullshit"

3716. concerned - 2/21/2003 1:22:19 PM

Re. 3709 -

Never mind. You haven't, really, although I wasn't sure where you were coming from wrt the 'imaginary' item at the time of my post.

3717. concerned - 2/21/2003 1:36:58 PM

Defiance on missiles could be war trigger

excerpted:

Several westerners who have been working privately to avert conflict expressed desperation yesterday at what they see as a hardening of Iraq's stance.

They point out that Baghdad has made no positive moves on disarmament since last Friday - which they fear is due to a misreading of the disarray in the UN security council and the anti-war demonstrations last weekend.

Iraq's getting a message from the appease demonstrators all right, and it looks like that'll give the US the needed excuse to do a Saddam extraction.

jex - are you a GWB administration mole, by any chance?

3718. concerned - 2/21/2003 2:04:20 PM

Council Votes to Extend Inspections of Rogue Restaurant

What life would be like if we had UN style leadership in our local governments.

3719. magoseph - 2/21/2003 2:35:08 PM

Try again 3712, please Jex.

3720. Cellar Door - 2/21/2003 3:05:57 PM

Huey RULES!

3721. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:10:25 PM

So, is McGruder going to 'walk the walk' and assassinate GWB? Or just mad at the world with a megaphone?

3722. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:12:23 PM

Exactly what kind of soft headed mental aberration does it require to go around spouting that 'Republicans' killed Paul Wellstone, anyway?

3723. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:14:55 PM

Maybe Macnas can weigh in here and explain how believing that does not amount to abject conspiracymongering, hmmm?

3724. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:16:10 PM

Leftists that go around fabricating these Republican execution conspiracies out of whole cloth......

No wonder they are totally lacking in credibility.

3725. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:17:20 PM

That's at least one thing that Aaron McGruder has in common with Hitler. They both are wholehearted believers in 'the Big Lie'.

3726. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:19:19 PM

I think Ronski stole all my snow. Now, if it would stay dry for, say, the next eight weeks, and then have good consistent rains up until summer, that should work out great for me.

3727. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:19:45 PM

Oops. wrong thread.

3728. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:41:01 PM

McGruder said Gore should have fought for the presidency that he rightfully won. "He would've gone out like a soldier," he said. "He would've gone out for real. He would not have been a punk."

I'd love to hear specifics on this howler. Any resident Lefties want to fill in the blanks on this one? Or was McGruder noising about it just because he likes to smell his own farts?

3729. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:44:22 PM

It seems like almost everything Aaron McGruder has to say about Republicans assumes a conspiracy of one sort or another. You get that, Macnas?

3730. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:50:07 PM

He said he considered dropping "The Boondocks" two years ago. Then the Sept. 11 attacks happened, and the strip was one of the few voices resisting Bush's War on Terror.

Most Americans don't at all appreciate McGruder's willingness to sacrifice their lives for crackpot Leftist ideology.

3731. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:53:28 PM

McGruder said he's impatient with half-way measures to changing the world. Voting doesn't work, he said — Bush's election shows that. Writing letters and debating doesn't change minds.

Take action that's effective, he said, or you're wasting your time.

The problem with McGruder here is he's all mouth, no action. One of those 'do as I say, not as I do' people who likes to kick back and use the lumpenproletariat as cannon fodder given the chance.

3732. concerned - 2/21/2003 3:55:12 PM

Put 150,000 American lives on Aaron McGruder's tab, for starters. That's what his type of ideas would cost over the next couple years.

3733. Wombat - 2/21/2003 4:12:00 PM

The same sort of soft-headed aberration that totes up the death toll of people allegedly killed by Bill Clinton.

3734. concerned - 2/21/2003 4:46:56 PM

I can see that you have never been significantly involved in any sort of strategic planning involving personnel, Wombat.

3735. jexster - 2/21/2003 6:32:55 PM

World History 101 - Mid-term exam

This test consists of one (1) multiple-choice question (so you better get
it right!)

Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end of
World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Congo 1964

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Grenada 1983

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1980s

Nicaragua 1980s

Panama 1989

Iraq 1991-99

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful of
human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose one of the following:

(a) 0

(b) zero

(c) none

(d) not a one

(e) a whole number between -1 and +1

3736. jexster - 2/21/2003 6:34:33 PM

I can see Mr. Wombat that you've never been involved in the strategic planning of hog slopping and animal husbandry

3737. vonKreedon - 2/21/2003 7:14:15 PM

Apparently Blix is not the spineless Saddamite toady he has been made out to be, UN Tells Iraq: Start Destroying Missiles by March 1. This is a substantial stake in the ground for measuring Saddam's willingness to disam. It seems unlikely that he will do so and then, hopefully, the UNSC will authorize force to destroy the missiles.

3738. concerned - 2/21/2003 8:28:31 PM

Of course, Blix has his own motives to issue this ultimatum, in that he needs to show that Saddam can still be made to obey UN mandates by some means short of force.

It seems that Iraqi compliance wrt destroying weaponry is already falling far short of what it was in the early post-Gulf War period. Not to mention the much higher success rate of UNMOVIC inspectors in uncovering such weapons in the early '90's. Which goes to show, I suppose, that recently applied decisive force is more effective than any amount of pressure that the mere presence of US troops can summon up, and also that Saddam is pretty much trying to take as much advantage of whatever situation presents itself as he ever has(ie: the absolute minimum of cooperation that Saddam thinks will keep him from being deposed).

3739. concerned - 2/21/2003 8:47:38 PM

Bush Confers With Annan on Plans for New Iraq Resolution

Ohhhhhh, nooooooo! What would Nelson 'ring of tirefire' Mandela say?

3740. jexster - 2/21/2003 9:00:14 PM

Bird Brains
On the Dangerous Delusions of Bush &

3741. jexster - 2/21/2003 9:01:36 PM

[Their] strategy is one part Woodrow Wilson ("make the world safe for democracy") and one part Winston Churchill -- not the aging bulldog who stood up to Hitler in 1939, but the Churchill who, as colonies minister in 1921, redrew the map of the Middle East and installed friendly monarchs.

3742. jexster - 2/21/2003 9:24:51 PM

Butcher Bush Headed for Disaster - John Major

3743. jexster - 2/21/2003 9:30:07 PM

Keeping the Mote ahead of the curve.

The johnny come latelies in the prior two posts were anticipated months ago right here in the Mote.

Liven - Push for War

Wallerstein: The Eagle Has Crash Landed

Wallerstein: Iraq War - The Coming Disaster

3744. concerned - 2/21/2003 9:31:49 PM

jexster -

I have to congratulate you & your ilk. It looks like you have succeeded in convincing Saddam that he can get away with ignoring all UN binding resolutions.

3745. jexster - 2/21/2003 9:38:49 PM

Fine. Whatever.

3746. jexster - 2/21/2003 9:41:50 PM

No war can be holy warns the archbishop

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the leaders should lay off "heavy artillery of a religious kind" in their speeches

3747. Cellar Door - 2/21/2003 9:54:32 PM

Wonder if he slept in the Lincoln bedroom.

3748. vonKreedon - 2/21/2003 10:02:23 PM

Con - Why do you assume such duplicity on the part of Blix/UNMOVIC? This appears to play very well for the US/UK position, they claim to be looking for significant signs that Iraq is/is not complying with the inspection/disarmament regime. (why is that sentence so very full of /?) I would think that the assumption, based at least on Aziz's statements earlier this week that there was no way that these missiles would be destroyed, that Iraq will fail to meet the March first deadline.

Then we will have to see if the French/Russians/Chinese are willing to impose those serious consequences or not.

Regarding the French oil contracts with Iraq, I wonder if anyone knows if there is any conflict between what is covered in those and what is covered in contracts between Russia/Iraq and Haliburton et al/Iraq. Might bring the Russians over to the US position if they see France trying to cut in on their action.

3749. concerned - 2/21/2003 10:05:40 PM

jexster's clearly desperate - he links an article that even the delusional Wallerstein disavows in another article he links in the same post!

3750. Wombat - 2/21/2003 10:06:11 PM

Jexter:

We bombed the Congo in the 1960s? Evidence, please.

Correct Answer: (4)

Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama are all democracies, and if not as respectful of human rights as--say--the United States, they are considerably more so than they were before the US "bombed" them

3751. concerned - 2/21/2003 10:07:37 PM

Re. 3748 -

What makes you think such a position by Blix indicates duplicity?

3752. Cellar Door - 2/21/2003 10:10:36 PM

You have NOTHING to say about Dubbya welcoming a terrorist into the White House connie?

3753. concerned - 2/21/2003 10:11:24 PM

For the record, I have not explicitly criticized Blix's actions since he attempted to supply only a redacted initial inspector's report to the UNSC.

3754. concerned - 2/21/2003 10:14:48 PM

Re. 3752 -

How about: 'He was invited before 9/11, otherwise there would really be something to complain about.'?

3755. magoseph - 2/22/2003 9:17:02 AM

The ultimatum delivered by the UN (H. Blitz) has probably done more to avert war than all the ravings of the peaceniks. The hierarchy of support surrounding Saddam cannot help noting that their cause is deteriorating rapidly. At some points, it becomes obvious that the survival of his entourage depends on getting rid of him one way or another.

There will be another discovery made in time followed by another capitulation. A refusal by Saddam to destroy the missiles is not an option he has. If he refuses, there is no basis for any further peacenik support. On the other hand, if he destroys the missiles, that show of weakness is not acceptable in the world he commands.

3756. Cellar Door - 2/22/2003 10:43:30 AM

Not good enough, dear.

Here's a Preview of Coming Attractions.

3757. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:51:58 AM

War for Democracy - The World v. the Moron King

Italy - 85% opposed to Bush War that lacked UN sanction; 70% even if the Butcher of Baghdad were authorized

Australia - 75% against a Bush war without UN backing. 40%40% opposee it even with UN approval.

3758. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:53:04 AM

3712 link works..Mag

3759. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:54:07 AM

and no TD I do not work for the Bush Regime. I just know who and what they are very well.

3760. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:59:42 AM

CBS) While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.

BUSH-SHIT????

3761. jexster - 2/22/2003 11:01:55 AM

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and Deputy
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime, claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide. This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush Administration's desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush's future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?"

BUSH SHIT????

3762. Edmund Dantes - 2/22/2003 12:12:37 PM

Speaking of Bush shit

When's your bus departing, Jasper?

Or don't you libruls provide handicapped access for the bedpan-disabled?

3763. jexster - 2/22/2003 12:15:56 PM

yawn

3764. jexster - 2/22/2003 12:17:03 PM

6321. jexster - 2/22/03 5:13:30 PM

Isn't it heartening to read about the BILLIONS Bush is spending to buy off Turkey, "his good friend"?

Deficits hitting record levels, tax cuts for the super rich, states going begging, Medicare/Medicaid getting savaged, Aids Drug Assistance being cut in several states to the point where in Texas and others there are waiting lists....but the Turk is doing very well thank you.

That dimwitted immoral bucket of piss

6322. jexster - 2/22/03 5:14:07 PM

and what about the Martial Plan for Afghanistan there Edmundo?

Idiot.

3765. Edmund Dantes - 2/22/2003 12:17:44 PM

Saddamites: The Second Front needs you

Damn human shields are gonna be spread as thin as a poopstain on size 44 depends, Jasper.

Turkey to base US liberators and freedom fighters

3766. jexster - 2/22/2003 12:18:26 PM

"garbage after garbage after garbage' - stick to what you know best little girl

3767. Edmund Dantes - 2/22/2003 12:20:19 PM

Let that be a lesson, Saddamites. Don't mess with Texas

President George Bush has outlined an expansive vision of a postwar Iraq and said toppling Saddam Hussein would be a lesson to other foes of the United States.

He also spoke of transforming Iraq into a model of Middle East democracy and prosperity.

Poopstain!

3768. Edmund Dantes - 2/22/2003 12:25:52 PM

Who cares about Iraqis?

Not Jester and his Saddamite buddies.

We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Baath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990.

"Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year old Salima demanded.

The reverend was not pleased.

"Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's goons closed in to protect his holiness.

Poopstain!

3769. jexster - 2/22/2003 2:31:54 PM

It is indeed wonderful that we have Eddie's profound insights. He screws up his courage in the Perfect World and spews forth in the Mote until he gets his Moronic ass slapped and the cycle begins all over again.

We are blessed indeed.

3770. jexster - 2/22/2003 2:43:21 PM

Coalition of the Damned, the Doomed, the Dumb and the Bought

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope John Paul (news - web sites) on Saturday urged British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), one of Washington's staunchest allies in the Iraq crisis, to make every effort "to avert the tragedy of war."

During a private audience that lasted about 30 minutes, the pope appealed for peace, saying he hoped that "in the grave situation in Iraq, every effort be made to avoid new divisions in the world," the Vatican (news - web sites) said in a statement.

Blair, who is an Anglican, shook the pope's hand and sat next to him during their discussions. The 82-year-old pontiff received Blair's wife Cherie, a devout Catholic, and their children at the end of the audience, the Vatican said.

Faced with strong opposition in Britain to U.S.-led military action in Iraq, Blair became the latest of several world leaders to visit the pope to discuss the crisis.

3771. jexster - 2/22/2003 2:58:04 PM

Time for a little roach repellent.

Sami Al-Arian, holding daughter Lama, 6, center, with son Abdullah, 19, left, daughter Laila, 18, foreground left, daughter Leena, 14, center, wife Nahla, center right, and son Ali, 9, foreground left, pose for a photo with presidential candidate George W. Bush and wife Laura in this March 12, 2000 family photo in Plant City, Fla. Others, extreme right, are unidentified.

3772. jexster - 2/22/2003 5:56:49 PM

Mancha Mi Chimichanga
Mexico Refuses to Bend to U.S. on Iraq

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - In defiance of the United States and Spain, U.N. Security Council member Mexico vowed on Saturday to maintain its opposition to an attack on Iraq.

3773. Edmund Dantes - 2/22/2003 6:57:52 PM

Jasper, get ye to a human-shield zone, you old Saddamite.

Don't take any cojones to bitch slap you now and then...just some rubber gloves so as not to catch any of your viral load, Professor Bedpan.

Richard Butler says it's eight days until your buttbuddy gets spayed, toots.

COURAGE!

3774. Cellar Door - 2/22/2003 7:47:51 PM

The Count will doubtless be celebrating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqui peasants.

3775. concerned - 2/22/2003 7:54:25 PM

Saddam says: 'Buck Flix!' regarding UN demand to destroy al-Samoud-2 missiles.

3776. concerned - 2/22/2003 7:55:24 PM

Re. 3774 -

How late-90's.

3777. Edmund Dantes - 2/22/2003 8:08:47 PM

I won't even be celebrating the deaths of these Western morons, Bottom Drawers

Fifteen volunteers from the first 200 shields are moving into a bunker at the South Baghdad Electricity Plant in an effort to deter attack by America and its allies. However some of the shields yesterday questioned Iraq's selection of the power plant, after discovering that it is situated next to an army base.

Surely Saddam wouldn't twist and betray their peace-luvvin' principles!?

3778. concerned - 2/22/2003 8:20:42 PM

human shields=ablative shock absorbing material

3779. Etom - 2/23/2003 1:59:02 AM

Recommended:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21POLL.html?pagewanted=2

3780. concerned - 2/23/2003 3:16:55 AM

Can you excerpt?

3781. magoseph - 2/23/2003 4:26:47 AM

Power and Leadership: The Real Meaning of Iraq

Saddam Hussein is nobody's hero in this story. Although many Americans are puzzled about why the Bush administration chose to pick this fight now, it's not surprising that in the wake of Sept. 11, the president would want to make the world safer, and that one of his top priorities would be eliminating Iraq's ability to create biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Of all the military powers in the world, Iraq is the one that has twice invaded its neighbors without provocation and that has used chemical weapons both on its military foes and some of its own restive people. North Korea may be a greater danger, but North Korea has not been told by the United Nations to disarm and stay disarmed. And, although the administration is careful to steer clear of this argument, the very fact that North Korea has the international community in a bind is a cautionary tale for making sure that no other despotic governments run by irrational adventurers get hold of nuclear arms.

3782. concerned - 2/24/2003 11:49:48 AM

More bad news for Saddam-lovers: Turkish Cabinet OKs U.S. Troop Deployment

3783. PelleNilsson - 2/24/2003 2:06:41 PM

From the same source:

Government spokesman Abdullatif Sener said the measure was being sent to parliament Monday. A vote on Tuesday is widely expected, but passage of the bill is not certain.

Don't sell the skin until the bear is shot as we say here. But odds is that it will pass.

3784. magoseph - 2/24/2003 4:00:07 PM

Hussein wants to debate Bush: Is there more someone knows about that?

3785. judithathome - 2/24/2003 4:47:51 PM

Yes, two things:

It would be a hoot and it will never happen.

3786. Al D - 2/24/2003 5:20:30 PM

Judith
And if it did, would you by any chance be cheering for Saddam?

3787. judithathome - 2/24/2003 5:52:52 PM

Al, would you get it out of your head that I am in ANY way whatsoever in favor of Saddam? It is more than insulting that you continue to act like the president and assign things to people who have never once said anything in support of the man. If you are joking, it's not very funny and if you are not, it is beyond stupid to say something like that.

I don't sit around talking about how much I loathe and detest the leader of North Korea but that by no means I support the bastard. I don't want war...it does not mean I support Saddam and for you or Geoprge Bush or Rumsfeld or anyone to assume that those who are against the war are FOR Saddam is just ridiculous.

3788. judithathome - 2/24/2003 5:53:57 PM

but that in no WAY means....

3789. magoseph - 2/24/2003 6:07:43 PM

I just read in the CNN trailers that Sharon had just put together a new government. The significance of this is that he had to do it with the help of the secular anti-religious party (Shinui) which made big gains in the recent election. Shinui is opposed to the settlements and helped bring down the last government by refusing to fund them. Shinui, among other positions, is opposed to any exemptions from military service for the Orthodox.

I consider this development to be of extreme importance and if this trend continues, there is a glimmer of hope for an eventual peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

3790. vonKreedon - 2/24/2003 6:12:29 PM

I am perplexed by the current activity in the UNSC. The US/UK introduce a new resolution which appears to be nothing more than an updated version of 1441. It doesn't authorize force, it doesn't do anything, so why are they offering it?

OTOH, France et al are failing to take the opportunity handed to them by Blix's missile destruction order. I am making the assumption that much of the resistance to the US/UK has to do with wanting to use the UNSC to rein in the power of the US. Simply being antagonistic will not do this and may indeed have the contrary result. Instead they should, IMO, be using the UNSC to authorize very specific uses of force by the US. In this case, they should authorize the use of force to enforce UNMOVIC's missile destruction order. This reins in the US agenda of regime change, reins in the level of appropriate force that could be used, and finally it would cement the precedent on the use of force being contingent on UNSC authorization. I don't understand how they are missing this opportunity.

3791. concerned - 2/24/2003 6:15:48 PM

France will veto UN resolution because of oil, says US official

excerpted:

'I think they will exercise their veto, and in other ways obstruct unified action by the Security Council: they're lobbying furiously now,' said Mr Perle, who is the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board chief.

Maintaining that the five permanent members of the Security Council sought essentially to advance the respective interests of their countries, he said that when the French ambassador gets up and expresses the position of France, 'what you are hearing is what the French President perceives to be in the interests of France.

In Mr Perle's view, the French position against regime change in Iraq is fatally undermined by its multibillion-dollar oil interests negotiated since the last Gulf war, the Observer said.

'There's certainly a large French commercial interest in Iraq, and there are contracts that a new government in Iraq may not choose to uphold, partly because they're so unfavourable to the people of Iraq.

'Saddam has been prepared to do deals to keep himself in power at the expense of the people.

'My understanding of the largest of these deals, which is the French Total-Fina-Elf contract to develop certain oil properties in Iraq, is that it is both very large and very unfavourable to the Iraqis,' the Observer quoted Mr Perle as saying.

He dismissed suggestions that America wished to topple Mr Saddam for the sake of its own oil interests and described it as 'bizarre'.

And there you have it. France is being its usual greedy inconsiderate self and is actively opposing US efforts to free Iraq from tyranny and poverty for nothing better than the most venal motives imaginable.

3792. concerned - 2/24/2003 6:18:15 PM

Re. 3790 -

Consider that France and Germany want to continue to do business with Saddam personally, and their position starts to make sense.

3793. concerned - 2/24/2003 6:22:00 PM

I think that the US will not expose itself to the likelihood of excess casualities that a 'limited' use of force would likely entail - particularly one that is planned by the tactical geniuses at the UN.

3794. magoseph - 2/24/2003 6:22:09 PM

vonKreedon,
I agree completely with your premise. I saw somewhere yesterday that France had warned Saddam that a refusal to destroy the missiles would be a distinct error and Iraq could not depend on France to defend that positon.

3795. concerned - 2/24/2003 6:26:01 PM

A 'distinct error' presumably would not lead to any very serious consequences - by France's estimation.

3796. concerned - 2/24/2003 6:28:14 PM

Which means that France might subject Iraq to a reprimand rather less severe than it subjected the NATO countries who expressed support for the US to.

Pretty fluffy stuff there.

3797. vonKreedon - 2/24/2003 6:40:12 PM

Con - If the UNSC authorised a specific use of force, to destroy the non-compliant missiles, I would think that it would be hard for the US to decline and then attack on our own. I would anticipate that we would push the envelope as much as possible; destroy all Iraqi air defenses, target troop concentrations in the vicinity of our disarmament targets etc.

But this is not the same as an operation to effect regime change and the consequences for the Iraqis would be better. Under a regime change war, effectively an unconditional surrender total war, we would target civilian infrastructure, something that we did in GWI unfortunately. Also, the destruction of Iraqi military units would be a goal, meaning both the loss of Iraqi soldiers and that we would find ourselves fighting high intensity battles in urban areas. These things would be very bad for the Iraqi population and thus bad for our strategic interests.

If we take out the missiles we will find ourselve at times in high intensity combat in urban areas, but not as often as destroying military/governmental units will not be a goal. Also, under such an authorization the destruction of civilian infrastructure; e.g., water supply, bridges, will not be appropriate.

Further, assuming that everything we've been told about the desire of the Iraqi people and military to be rid of the Saddamite regime we would be in a position to then assist the Iraqis in much the same way we assisted the Afghanis. If there is no such uprising once we are on the ground then obviously our intel is mistaken and we need to revisit the whole situation.

3798. vonKreedon - 2/24/2003 6:48:10 PM

According to recent articles in both Petroleum World and The Washington Post the TotalFinaElf contracts are unsigned and non-binding,per UN sanctions. Also the Post article says,
TotalFinaElf SA said its knowledge of the oil fields and its contacts with Iraqi officials would overcome any hostility it might face from a new regime in Baghdad because of the French government's resistance to a U.S.-led invasion.

So for the French company to actually be able to sign contracts and get to work in Iraq requires the lifting of sactions. The only way to do this is by Iraq complying with its disarmament obligations. TFE is cited as having a big advantage over the competition in any regime because of there Iraqi energy contacts, not necessarily Saddamite, and the pre-work that they have done on the fields (computer simulations and such). So, the French seem to be in a better position in terms of oil revenue if they had thrown in with the US and helped effect rapid regime change and lifting of the sanctions. They did not and so I propose that they have other reasons for their resistance to the US position.

3799. concerned - 2/24/2003 7:05:22 PM

It's unlikely that leaving Saddam in power is in the interests of the Iraqi people. If he's out, the sanctions can be immediately dropped, all WMD can be conclusively located and eliminated and Iraq gets a fresh start.

Simply put, there's no reason to keep Saddam in power and many, many strong reasons to usher him out.

3800. concerned - 2/24/2003 7:31:41 PM

Re. 3798 -

These articles only indicated that what France wants is Saddam in and the sanctions out. There is also no indication in either article that indicates that requiring competition between oil corporations wouldn't allow a freed Iraq to make a better deal for itself than if it were restricted to contracting only with one French outfit.

3801. concerned - 2/24/2003 7:33:28 PM

Let's try that again

.Re. 3798 -

These articles only indicated that what France wants is Saddam in and the sanctions out. There is also no reason to believe that requiring competition between oil corporations wouldn't allow a freed Iraq to make a better deal for itself than if it were restricted to contracting only with one French outfit.

3802. vonKreedon - 2/24/2003 7:46:58 PM

Con - Two points 1) Pre-emptive Regime Change 2) The Position of TFE WRT Saddam/non-Saddam Iraq.

1) You state, "Simply put, there's no reason to keep Saddam in power and many, many strong reasons to usher him out." Indeed, but this is a matter for the Iraqi people, not for nations that Iraq has not attacked. It is a very dangerous precedent that would be made if we were to attack Iraq with the goal of regime change. This is, IMO, an overwhelming reason against supporting regime change as a goal of any military action. I would hope that the Iraqi people would take the opportunity to begin to effect regime change and that the UN would then support them, but that is a different precedent then attacking another country because we do not approve of their government.

2) Perhaps in an ideal world for TotalFinaElf Saddam would remain in power and the sanctions would be lifted. Perhaps. But in the real world TFE would have been in a better position if it had done the pre-work, had unsigned contracts, and the French had gone full bore with the US/UK to effect swift regime change. Then TFE would quickly be in a position to claim that it is in the best position to develop the Iraqi Majnoon and Bin Umar oil fields, for the Iraqi people of course, and already has verbal contracts to do so that should be respected by the alliance's viceregal government of Iraq. This would be a much surer and quicker way of acheiving the objective of creating oil revenue for TFE than the current French policy.

3803. vonKreedon - 2/24/2003 7:48:43 PM

In my first paragraph above,please mentally remove the Indeed, but from the sentence Indeed, but this is a matter for the Iraqi people, not for nations that Iraq has not attacked. Thank you.

3804. alistairConnor - 2/25/2003 7:26:49 AM

France and Germany have proposed a strict timetable for disarmament to the UN (something which the US has opposed in the past, and will oppose this time no doubt).

This contrasts with the vague waffle of a resolution proposed by the US/UK.

The reason it has been written as a vague waffle (instead of the short, clear uncompromising resolution we were promised) is that they have no chance at all of getting a majority for a resolution that says "the SC authorises the use of force against Iraq".

The logical conclusion is that, even if the US/UK resolution passes, it will not constitute an authorisation for the use of force.

3805. alistairConnor - 2/25/2003 7:27:53 AM

Meanwhile, the US is handing out goodies to the poorer members of the SC.

This is an interesting precedent, and deserves to be institutionalized. Sort of like directors' fees.

3806. jexster - 2/25/2003 9:42:41 AM

US Embassies Report - Bush Greatest Menace to Peace WPost

Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes world opinion shifted dramatically against Bush when, after the new year began, he signaled he was not committed to supporting continued inspections. Cirincione said U.S. allies had been relieved when Bush appeared to embrace resolving the issue through the United Nations last fall.

"It now appears to be an elaborate con job," he said. "Other leaders feel manipulated and deceived."

What's the big surprise?
I said that last September.

3807. jexster - 2/25/2003 9:47:15 AM

Scott Ritter lecture at State tommorrow. Will report as much as I can. Have a class and might have to cut short.

Signs are up for Day X - the first day of classes after Bush starts his war - calling for walkout.

3808. jexster - 2/25/2003 10:32:55 AM

New Axis of Peace Growing at United Nations

3809. jexster - 2/25/2003 3:39:01 PM

The World v. The Emperor
French Disarmament Plan Gains at UN
China Joins Triple Alliance Against Butcher of Baghdad

3810. jexster - 2/25/2003 7:24:17 PM

And Bush's Lies Just Keep on Coming!
Army Chief of Staff Suddenly Raises Estimate of Occupation FOrce to Several Hundred Thousand

3811. jexster - 2/25/2003 7:30:27 PM

ASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — The Army's chief of staff said today that several hundred thousand American troops could be required to provide security and public services in Iraq after a war to oust Saddam Hussein and disarm his military.

The magnitude of the postwar troop commitment described by the Army's top officer, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, is much larger than what other American officials have outlined. Pentagon officials have said that about 100,000 American troops may be needed in the post-Saddam phase, along with tens of thousands of additional allied forces.

I guess he knew time was running out for the truth, first casualty of a war that hasn't even begun.

This will be the end of George W.

3812. jexster - 2/26/2003 1:14:01 AM

Ret. AF General Who Directed GWI Air Campaign Blasts Bush's Military "Plan"

3813. joezan - 2/26/2003 8:05:02 AM

3814. Edmund Dantes - 2/26/2003 9:21:37 AM

Jester Poopstain is so desperate he just posts any negative headlines without bothering to read the story. From his link in 3812:

But "we've absolutely got to force ourselves to develop a strategy that isolates the Republican Guard and those special forces and we've got to have the patience to let that isolation and that destruction take place," he said.

The Republican Guard should be "obliterated," he added.

Glosson also argued strongly against attempts to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties if it meant incurring more losses among U.S. and allied military personnel."I don't believe there is ever a situation when that is acceptable," he said.

So Professor Bedpan, this guy you're quoting wants Bush to be more bloodthirsty. I thought you were the promotor of "just" war, caring for the Iraqi people, etc.? Or are you just a monomaniacal obsessive who doesn't even know what the fuck he's posting?

Hee-hee-hee.

3815. Edmund Dantes - 2/26/2003 9:22:18 AM

promotor = promoter

3816. Edmund Dantes - 2/26/2003 9:34:48 AM

If antiwar protesters succeed

Will you also demonstrate and demand "peaceful" actions to cure the abysmal human rights violations of the Iraqi people under the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Or, will you simply forget about us Iraqis once you discredit George W. Bush?

Will you demand that the United Nations send human rights inspectors to Iraq? Or are you only interested in weapons of "mass destruction" inspections, not of "mass torture" practices?

Will you also insist that such human rights inspectors be given time to discover Hussein's secret prisons and coercion as you do for the weapons inspectors? Or will you simply accept a "clean bill of health" if you can't find the thousands of buried corpses?

3817. jexster - 2/26/2003 11:13:29 AM

I don't know Eddie..You guys are the one's that keep changing your fucking story.

Stories

3818. jexster - 2/26/2003 11:17:39 AM

France - Bush's War Against the World Will Be "Illegitimate"

There's your answer! "Illegitimate", "gravely immoral", "defeat for humanity"

Take your pick

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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

3819. jexster - 2/26/2003 11:20:59 AM

I am glad you read my links Eddie for in addition to learning that the Bush military strategery is bastard, bogus, dangerous, political, cobbled together compromise of ChickenHawks and professionals that won't do the job, you will also have learned that Bush has lied to us yet again when his representatives misrepresented the number of troops that will be required to enforce US Imperialist Order - back a factor of 200-300%

3820. jexster - 2/26/2003 11:21:37 AM

come back soon....I love slappin you around

3821. jexster - 2/26/2003 11:22:42 AM

xoxoxoxo

3822. jexster - 2/26/2003 11:45:23 AM

But if it were only those "anti-war protesters" (wake up the sixties were 40 years ago!), Eddie and his Buttboy, the Butcher of Baghdad, wouldn't have so much to worry about.

The Greater Moronic Empire wouldn't have to suck up to BULGARIA as it tries to build its Coalition of the Doomed, the Damned, and the Billing:

Bush's Warsaw War Pact

The diplomatic motorcade pulled up to the White House yesterday with great fanfare. The two Marine guards at the door of the colonnaded West Wing saluted smartly. TV cameras pressed close to get pictures of the vital American ally alighting from the black sedan for his one-on-one with President Bush.

It was a summit of the two great strategic partners, America and Bulgaria.

Bulgaria?

As the world's only remaining superpower was conferring honor upon one of its only remaining friends, America smashed through the global looking glass.

But isn't the sixties, and this war and the bungler who is pathologically obsessed with waging it, have attracted the largest, most broad-based, most active, most energized opposition in history all before the first shot is fired.

And the fact that opposition even among our bought and paid "allies" runs anywhere from 60-95% means that when Bush finally does launch his malignant adventure, his problems will only have begun.

3823. jexster - 2/26/2003 11:45:54 AM

poopstain

3824. jexster - 2/26/2003 11:47:06 AM

The Bulgarians were such sycophants to Russia that in the 60's they proposed becoming the 16th republic of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Bush will not be the only one having trouble with the Bulgarian prime minister's name. We all will. In some press reports it's spelled Simeon Saxcoburggotski, and in others Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The tall, balding, bearded prime minister was formerly King Simeon II, a deposed child czar. He is a distant relative of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's consort, but not Count Dracula. That's our other new best friend, Romania.

3825. jexster - 2/26/2003 11:51:02 AM

3826. Edmund Dantes - 2/26/2003 12:07:30 PM

Mr. Bush will not be the only one having trouble with the Bulgarian prime minister's name. We all will. In some press reports it's spelled Simeon Saxcoburggotski....He is a distant relative of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's consort, but not Count Dracula. That's our other new best friend, Romania.

I don't even have to click the link. It's Maureen Dowd.

So what will supply the "humor" for her next column? How Robert Mugabe chucks a spear?

3827. jexster - 2/26/2003 12:10:52 PM

That doesn't even make any sense there Eddie. You are incoherent

3828. jexster - 2/26/2003 12:14:31 PM

This makes a great deal of sense though.

1 Piles of Poopstains
Bush Lies Keep on Coming - Iraq War Cost Could Soar, Pentagon Says
When planners add the expense of an extended occupation and aid to allies, estimates could hit $100 billion, or twice those of a month ago

2 A Huge Postwar Force Seen
Army chief's estimate of 'several hundred thousand soldiers' is a surprise to lawmakers

As I've said, the fun will begin APRES le deluge

3829. Edmund Dantes - 2/26/2003 12:22:28 PM

Jasper Poopstain: "Show me das Boot!"

The horror of tyranny is that it truly is a horror: an immense, endlessly bloody, endlessly painful, endlessly varied, endlessly endless crime against not humanity in the abstract, but a lot of humans in the flesh.

Today is Liberation Day in Kuwait

3830. Edmund Dantes - 2/26/2003 12:34:57 PM

More inspections mean more death for the Iraqis

The moral vacuousness of the United Nations doesn't, however, only afflict an international bureaucracy; it affects the lives of Iraqi people yearning to be free from the despotic rule of Saddam Hussein.

In one of the most under-reported stories of the past month, television cameras on Jan. 25 captured an Iraqi man with a notebook struggling to get into the jeep of a U.N. weapons inspector as he screamed, "Save me! Save me!" in Arabic. The inspector sat unmoved, physically and emotionally, as Iraqi security forces pulled the man away by his arms and legs.

3831. Macnas - 2/26/2003 1:14:59 PM

Kind of like the situation in East/West Berlin, where people were trying to get out. If only GWB had a time machine so he could go back and free those people as well, I'm sure he would.

3832. jexster - 2/26/2003 2:02:11 PM

The National Council of Churches Urges You to Take Action to Avert Bush's War of Aggression

3833. jexster - 2/26/2003 2:04:21 PM

Today is the Virtual March on Washington....telephone traffic is so heavy all circuits to Capitol Hill are busy

3834. Edmund Dantes - 2/26/2003 2:13:36 PM

Kind of like the situation in East/West Berlin...

These inspectors are supposed to be conducting interviews in private with Iraqi scientists as part of their investigation. I'm sure this incident impressed those scientists that should they be forthcoming, the UN inspectors will make certain that Saddam and his secret police don't do anything to the scientists or their families.

As far as historical comparison/universal applicability, I think there's a difference between acknowledging that hunger has and will always exist in the world and refusing food to a starving person who shows up on your doorstep.

3835. jexster - 2/26/2003 2:37:07 PM

Reshaping the Middle East -
The new American colonialism

Joseph Cirincione

Begrudgingly, senior administration officials are beginning to discuss prospects for post-war Iraq. While publicly they are as cheery about Iraq without Hussein as they are dire about the risks of leaving him in power, privately, they harbor grave doubts. As one senior official told a New York Times reporter, "We still do not know how U.S. forces will be received. Will it be cheers, jeers or shots? And the fact is, we won't know until we get there."

We should not be surprised at the uncertainty, for what they're planning is unprecedented in U.S. history. This will not just be our first pre-emptive war, but it will be followed by a massive, indefinite occupation. President Bush intends to send more than 200,000 American men and women to invade and occupy a large, complex nation of 24 million people half a world away. The last time any Western power did anything similar was before World War II. The last time any nation did this was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

As retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former head of NATO forces, says, this war will "put us in a colonial position in the Middle East following Britain, following the Ottomans. It's a huge change for the American people and for what this country stands for."

There will certainly be a regional reaction to the U.S. invasion, but it almost certainly will not be a wave of democratic revolutions. How can we know? We just have to look back at the previous efforts of empires with the best of intentions -- the British, the French, and the Germans -- to understand what happens when Western nations try to bring "civilization" to the Middle East on the points of their bayonets.

3836. jexster - 2/26/2003 2:37:20 PM

Joseph Cirincione, author of "Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction," is a senior non-proliferation analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

3837. jexster - 2/26/2003 3:00:59 PM

Finally got through to Feinstein's office but Boxer and Daschle, Frist -fugit aboudit!

I worked on the Hill during Watergate and late Vietnam....nothing like this...

3838. joezan - 2/26/2003 3:33:45 PM

Glad you're impressed, jasper - none of the major news carriers...CNN, FOX, MSNBC - are reporting this momentous event on their websites.

3839. concerned - 2/26/2003 4:21:04 PM

Iraq to its citizens: 'Don't pick up US leaflets because they are treated with a chemical that will cause you to mutate into a Yassir Arafat lookalike!'

3840. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:10:01 PM

Bush's War of Imperialist Aggression - Idleworm Game

3841. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:15:40 PM

Then you haven't been listening Zan. Try calling Capitol Hill if you don't believe me. My dad even heard the story about clogged phone lines on the all news station in Houston.

Senate offices close at 6 EST so hurry. Maybe you can get through now. BTW, I even tried calling Senator Boxer's local office - 25 times a busy signal.

Here is the Virtual Anti-WarRoom

3842. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:19:19 PM

More than 200,000 people have registered for the February 26th Virtual March on Washington, sponsored by The Win Without War Coalition. Please click here to join us. Go to our "antiwar room" to see the comments as they are phoned in.

Welcome. MoveOn.org is hosting the online headquarters for the Virtual March on Washington on February 26th, sponsored by the Win Without War Coalition. Please join us NOW for the march. As of the day of the march, more than 200,000 individuals have signed up to make more than 400,000 phone calls and send 100,000 faxes to Washington -- to their Senators and the President.
Hundreds of thousands of constituents from across the country are sending the collective message: Don't Invade and Occupy Iraq. Every Senate switchboard will be lit up throughout the day with our message -- a powerful reminder of the breadth and depth of opposition to a war in Iraq. Media can visit the "antiwar room" online to monitor this constituent march throughout the day.

We need your help NOW to make the Virtual March a reality. You can (1) prepare a free fax for transmission, and (2) make phone calls to Congress. Faxes are very easy and phone calls are the most effective. Do both or do whatever you can.

We are getting reports from around the nation of busy switchboards. If you wish to make your calls to local Senate offices, you can look them up on the Congress Merge website. You can also try this alternate number for the White House: 202-456-1112.

3843. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:21:35 PM

Now to be fair about this, the NeoColonialists, Fundie Freaks, and Assorted nuts did have a major march last weekend in support of the war.

OH didn't hear anything about it?

Well maybe that's because it took place in 3-4 towns and drew about 3,000 total.

3844. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:27:32 PM

THE WIN WITHOUT WAR COALITION
Win Without War is a coalition of 32 national organizations that have joined together to advocate alternatives to war in Iraq. This coalition offers a mainstream, patriotic voice for engaging opinion makers, activating concerned citizens, and communicating to policymakers and the media.

THE "ANTIWAR WAR" ROOM

More than 400,000 calls will be made the day of the march. See the comments as they're being phoned in by constituents, in our "antiwar room." The comments are just a random selection from every state for every minute. There are far too many comments to display all of them. (Flash 6 required for this page.)

View our TV ad
featuring Martin Sheen.
Real Media

3845. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:29:08 PM

Stick with me Zan and in five six years we may just be able to cure you of IBS (Ignorant Bubba Syndrome)

Then again..maybe not

3846. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:32:03 PM

The Moron Emperor Tells Canada to Get Bent

3847. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:32:30 PM

I think he's clinical don't you Eddie?

3848. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:41:53 PM

The World v. the Moron Emperor
Labour MPs revolt over Iraq

· Biggest revolt of Blair's premiership
· 122 MPs break Labour whip

Time is running out, don't you agree Eddie?

BTW - What in the 'ell is a "three line whip"?

3849. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:47:47 PM

Damn Joey, you need more work than I had first calculated:

NEW YORK TIMES 02/26/03 - An Antiwar Demonstration That Does Not Take to the Streets

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 — The Mall was quiet, but the switchboard on Capitol Hill was swamped today as anti-war protesters conducted what they called the first "virtual march" on Washington. The organizers, a coalition called Win Without War, said that hundreds of thousands of people were sending messages by email, fax and telephone to the Senate and the White House.

3850. jexster - 2/26/2003 5:48:33 PM

Maybe you can get your Buttboy Eddie to stop playing with his toy M1A1 long enuf to give you an assist!

3851. jexster - 2/26/2003 7:11:13 PM

US Conference of Catholic Bishops Again Slams Bush War - Vatican Calls it "A Crime"

God bless Iraq

3852. jexster - 2/26/2003 7:11:17 PM

US Conference of Catholic Bishops Again Slams Bush War - Vatican Calls it "A Crime"

God bless Iraq

3853. jexster - 2/26/2003 7:24:27 PM

Yo Zan!

CNN is Cable 50 where I live; MSNBC 25 and we are spared FOX's nutter propaganda.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Anti-war protesters made their voices heard in Washington D.C. Wednesday, swamping Senate and White House telephone switchboards, fax machines and e-mail boxes with hundreds of thousands of messages opposing military action against Iraq.

Activists hold 'virtual march' on Washington

3854. jexster - 2/26/2003 7:25:00 PM

Swamp ain't the word for it Joey!

All those phone calls and email missives!

3855. jexster - 2/26/2003 7:26:25 PM

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat who has supported military action in Iraq, said her office got so many calls Wednesday she assigned six staff members to answer phones. The hundreds of calls received Wednesday added to about 40,000 she's already gotten in the last 30 days.

"I've learned when they get up over 30,000 to 40,000 from California, then I know there is really a movement," Feinstein said. "These 40,000 phone calls we've received is probably the highest number of phone calls we've gotten for anything."

3856. Edmund Dantes - 2/26/2003 9:54:06 PM

Sixteen in a row, but who's counting?

A History of Terror

Warning: Graphic images that Jasper doesn't want you to see

3857. vonKreedon - 2/26/2003 11:07:46 PM

I counted seventeen in a row, must mean I'm counting. Useful pictures, but the idea that "Pictures Don't Lie" is of course incorrect.

At any rate, the precedent that would be set either by the US/UK pre-emptively attacking a country with unconditional surrender as the goal, or by the UN authorizing a war to remove a regime that has not at this time attacked another nation, the precedent is not one we should be willing to set so blithely.

Hopefully the Saddamites will fail to destroy the contraband missiles and the UNSC will authorize force to ensure their destruction. The results of this, assuming that the Iraqi people are anything like as anxious to rid themselves of Saddam as we are told, the results will be regime change, but a more organic and obviously legitimate regime change.

3858. Edmund Dantes - 2/26/2003 11:43:51 PM

The 16 in row referred to the number of Jasper's posts, not the pictures.

At any rate, the precedent that would be set either by the US/UK pre-emptively attacking a country with unconditional surrender as the goal, or by the UN authorizing a war to remove a regime that has not at this time attacked another nation, the precedent is not one we should be willing to set so blithely.

Iraq did attack another country and as part of cessation of hostilities agreed to certain conditions. If the UN finds that Iraq hasn't lived up to the conditions which it agreed to, then that's certainly justification according to international law.

As far as the first case, the only thing precedent-setting would be the "unconditional surrender as a goal." We've already done it otherwise in Kosovo and Iraq (1998).

Questions: 1) Do you believe the people of Iraq have the right to overthrow Saddam? 2) Do you believe it would be okay for the US government to assist through financial and other forms of aid the Iraqi people in overthrowing Saddam? 3) Do you think it is acceptable for individual US citizens to volunteer and join an "army of liberation" in Iraq comprising mostly Iraqis? 4) Do you draw the line at direct US military involvement with US forces? If so, why?

3859. concerned - 2/27/2003 1:14:13 AM

by Bill Gertz for Geostrategy Direct:

NATO memo says Iraq planning preemptive strike with missiles near Kuwait

A classified memorandum from NATO Secretary General George Robertson states that Iraqi military forces have moved missiles close to Kuwait.

The memo said NATO intelligence indicated Iraq could use the missiles near Kuwait to conduct a preemptive attack in advance of U.S. military action.

"Today's (NATO) intelligence reporting ... shows that Saddam has moved CBW-capable ballistic missiles close to the Kuwait border," Robertson stated in the memo, which was first reported by Belgian state television.

The NATO secretary general asked in the memo why Iraq would move the missiles to a position where they can be attacked. "There can be only one reason: that Saddam is planning to use these weapons preemptively," he stated.

"He is giving himself the choice of using them or losing them. I have no doubt which he will choose," Robertson said in the memo marked "NATO Confidential." The memo was derived from speaking notes of a NATO meeting of ambassadors Feb. 12.

3860. alistairConnor - 2/27/2003 3:03:39 AM

A Three-line whip is a strict party vote, where all MPs are summoned for the vote, no excuses are accepted, they send helicopters to the Himalayas if someone's on holiday, sick MPs are wheeled in on their hospital deathbeds to vote the party line...

Contrast with the French parliamentary debate yesterday. No vote, because foreign policy is a presidential prerogative, but this saved the government from embarassment, as the only opposition comes from within its own ranks... Some on the right are atlanticists, others believe France should not use its veto. To muzzle dissent, the government benches were represented by a single, reliable orator.

3861. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2003 6:39:34 AM

So now the reason for invading Iraq is to liberate their people from a dictator. Certainly a noble cause, but not one worth spending American lives on. Furthermore, in order to save the Iraqis, we're going to have to kill a lot of them.

3862. judithathome - 2/27/2003 9:47:37 AM

Maybe they will find the true lord and be saved before they die.

3863. vonKreedon - 2/27/2003 10:31:50 AM

Ed - Certainly the UN, not the US, could declare that Iraq is in violation of the cease-fire agreement and could further authorize the use of force to ensure that the agreements are fulfilled. This is different from the UN authorizing the use of whatever means necessary to overthrow Saddam because of what he might do in the future. And it is certainly very different from the US on its own going to war with Iraq to effect regime change because of the principle of pre-emption.

Regarding your questions:
1) Yes, the people of Iraq have a right, perhaps even a duty, to overthrow a regime that they detest and that violently oppresses them.
2) Yes, the US can support such a movement.
3) I'm not sure, but I think that it violates some law(s), to no I am opposed to US citizens enlisting as soldiers of fortune/freedom fighters in someone else's war.
4) I do not draw the line at the use of US forces. Like Kosovo, if there was a liberation movemen in Iraq, for instance the Kurds, who were under threat of genocide then I would likely support the use of US military to assist them in not being exterminated. Now, this is different than assisting them in overthrowing Saddam.

3864. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:37:26 AM

Only a Moron Would Believe that Bush's War Will Bring Democracy. Look at Kuwait!
Masoumah Mubarak, Professor of Political Science, Kuwait U

3865. wonkers2 - 2/27/2003 10:49:16 AM

"Iraq could use the missiles to conduct a preemptive strike against Kuwait."

Well, looks like Bush's preemptive strike policy may be catching on! Unfortunately, the future may bring lots of preemptive strikes.

3866. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:37:54 AM

Tens of Bush Supporters Take to the Streets

Four loyal Americans from Freerepublic.com break the will of 850,000 peacenik protesters with their spirited invective.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A PRESS RELEASE PROVIDED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE BY THE WHITE HOUSE

While this nation's pansy assed, love bead wearing liberal media delighted in reporting this weekend's sad spectacle of millions of hippie communists loitering on streets throughout the world to show their support for America-hating terrorists, there is another, more important story that was not reported to the American people. To rectify this intentional oversight, the White House Press office has prepared this "information release" to give heart to all those who love President Bush enough to go along with killing any man, woman and little baby for whom he has a smart-bomb surprise up his sleeve.

[NOTE TO FOX NEWS: Start TelePrompTer here]

3867. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:41:45 AM

The Zan Clan Sans Gas Masks for Jaysus

3868. concerned - 2/27/2003 11:44:56 AM

Re. 3866 -

So, who doctored the second photo, jexster?

3869. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:53:26 AM

Here's one of you!

3870. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:55:08 AM

Hey Al where's Evie?

3871. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:59:18 AM

Over the weekend, throngs in numbers approaching almost 80 people worldwide took to the streets to provide a poignant counterpoint to the fringe-position presented by over 6,000,000 anti-war protesters. Enjoying a courteous distance from one another that was eschewed by the dense crowd of America-hating cowards that filled the streets, sometimes almost a baker's dozen of counter-protesters gathered on street corners and otherwise desolate gas stations in some of America's larger medium-size towns and villages. They came to taunt the Saddam-loving anti-war vermin with placards that tended to dispense with all the geo-political mumbo-jumbo and cut to the heart of the matter by lobbing personal attacks on the traitors who are rude enough to disagree with our blameless President.

As counter-protester Wanda Jenkins pointed out: "Our boys in the armed services didn't give up their lives so these parasites of freedom could go around openly questioning our godly President. They'd all be speaking German right now it wasn't for us and then almost nobody on CNN could even read their silly signs in English. There were about 150,000 America-haters that walked by me with their stupid Osama-loving signs about peace and stuff. I yelled back at them 'Ya pack of light-in-the-loafers socialists!' You should have seen the look on their faces. I mean to say, that really showed them! I couldn't wait to get back to my computer to tell the gang at Free Republic about my victory over the dirty Libs!"

3872. jexster - 2/27/2003 12:00:33 PM

Hell Eddie the Moron could have written that for all I know.

Did ya Eddie?

3873. concerned - 2/27/2003 12:04:21 PM

jexster -

why are you pulling all of those photographs from the Betty Bowers site? Everybody but the Left Wing morons you hope to fool and mislead knows that it's a blatant anti right wing parody site that doctors virtually every image that on it.

3874. concerned - 2/27/2003 12:05:03 PM

...that's on it.

3875. concerned - 2/27/2003 12:06:45 PM

You know, Jexster, it's always a good idea to cite your source. But, since you're a self-discrediting LW clown, you apparently figure nobody with half a brain cares about all the irresponsible bullshit you pull, anyway.

3876. jexster - 2/27/2003 12:19:43 PM

Truth hurts doesn't it. My how that shit sounds JUST like you Morons!

And the pics ARE real (except for the homo one - faces changed to protect from lawsuit)

The Turk Deals Fresh Blow to Butcher of Baghdad's War Plans

3877. jexster - 2/27/2003 12:21:13 PM

They'd all be speaking German right now it wasn't for us and then almost nobody on CNN could even read their silly sigs in English. TDaschole

I can't stop laughin!

3878. jexster - 2/27/2003 12:32:20 PM

That's OK TD. Don't fret. I am off to stats class. You'll have recovered by the time I get back.

3879. Cellar Door - 2/27/2003 1:08:53 PM

Hey connie, your crowd sure knows a lot about good manners, don't they?

3880. jexster - 2/27/2003 2:22:32 PM

Despite Bush Rhetoric, Some Say War Not Inevitable

BUSH-SHIT!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his push for war against Iraq, one of President Bush's most important weapons has been his ability to create an air of inevitability around military action.

But most in the Washington political establishment and the U.S. media think the conflict is a done deal and most Americans seem to agree that within the next month, the bombs will start falling on Baghdad and that there is nothing anyone can do to stop them.

"Cultivating an air of inevitability has been a conscious and important part of the Bush administration's strategy, which has kept the focus on the military buildup and moves at the United Nations and off issues like the costs and consequences of the war," said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Relations.

Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think-tank opposing the war, said Bush had effectively burned his own bridges with his rhetoric.

"When the head of the most powerful nation in the world says over and over that this is going to happen and dispatches an enormous military force to the region, to many people it seems very difficult and perhaps useless to try to stop it," she said.

"The downside for Bush is that he's now boxed into a corner where the possibility of negotiating a dignified and acceptable way out that achieves the disarming of Iraq is virtually closed off," she said.

3881. PelleNilsson - 2/27/2003 2:35:19 PM

This Phyllis Bennis is really deep, isn't she? That institute múst be seriously short of talent.

3882. judithathome - 2/27/2003 2:52:15 PM

Yes, she's just a typical ignorant liberal making simplistic remarks that even Bush could understand without having someone explain them to him.

Jeez, Pelle, I had to check your post to make sure Eddie hadn't written it.

3883. PelleNilsson - 2/27/2003 2:59:03 PM

Haven't you and I and jexster and all the other good liberals known this for months? Do we need Phyllis to tell us the obvious? I don't object to her views but their paucity.

3884. PelleNilsson - 2/27/2003 3:01:39 PM

... but to their ...

3885. judithathome - 2/27/2003 3:08:34 PM

Well, like I said, maybe she is writing to the great unwashed who don't know what words like "paucity" mean. Or maybe she gives credit to those out there who already know what she's saying is true.

3887. PelleNilsson - 2/27/2003 3:40:48 PM

Pressed the wrong button.

3888. jexster - 2/27/2003 3:41:56 PM

3889. jexster - 2/27/2003 3:44:45 PM

Which button do we press to find the answer to these questions:

Do you disagree that "When the head of the most powerful nation in the world says over and over that this is going to happen and dispatches an enormous military force to the region, to many people it seems very difficult and perhaps useless to try to stop it"

and or with
that bush "is now boxed into a corner where the possibility of negotiating a dignified and acceptable way out that achieves the disarming of Iraq is virtually closed off"

I am just fucking dying to know.

3890. jexster - 2/27/2003 3:48:52 PM

For the record, Pelle has used the same slime before.

He has said the SAME thing about the head of the International relations section of the University of Chicago's Political Science department, and the head of IR at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School

Boy we are sure lucky to have such a fine mind among us.

Swedenborgian U scholars generally do not speak to any but Wotan

3891. jexster - 2/27/2003 5:25:30 PM

George W. Bush Committment Hearing
EXHIBIT I

Bush sees wide peace after war
He calls Hussein's fall necessary for future of civilized world
- Anne E. Kornblut, Boston Globe

3892. wonkers2 - 2/27/2003 6:00:55 PM

I agree with Phyllis Bennis. I don't know anything about her, but IPS is/was not just another liberal think tank. Unless it's changed it's a very far radical left D.C. think tank which had connections to some very radical left wing pro Soviet groups in Amsterdam and elsewhere in Europe which at one time were up to considerable mischief if my memory serves me correctly.

3893. jexster - 2/27/2003 6:52:15 PM

(Washington, DC, February 26, 2003). As U.S. officials intensify their arm-twisting offensive to gather support for a war on Iraq, the Institute for Policy Studies is releasing a new study today that examines the specific levers of U.S. military, economic, and political power.

The study, entitled "Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?," looks at how this leverage applies to each current member of the UN Security Council. It also analyzes the power the U.S. government exerts over the broader group of countries that the Bush Administration has dubbed the "Coalition of the Willing." Although the Administration refuses to release a list of the members of this coalition, the authors compiled a list of 34 nations cited in press reports as supporters of the U.S. position on Iraq.

Major findings:

Although the Bush Administration claims that the anonymous "Coalition of the Willing" is the basis of genuine multilateralism, the report shows that most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery.

The pursuit of access to U.S. export markets is a powerful lever for influence over many countries, including Chile and Costa Rica, both of which are close to concluding free trade deals with the United States; African nations that want to maintain U.S. trade preferences; and Mexico, which depends on the U.S. market for about 80 percent of its export sales.

The populations of the countries in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" make up only about 10 percent of the world's population. Opponents of the U.S. position currently include the leading economies of four continents (Germany, Brazil, China, and South Africa).

President Bush could make or break the chances of Eastern European members of the "Coalition of the Willing" that are eager to become members of NATO.

3894. jexster - 2/27/2003 6:52:28 PM

The authors of the 13-page study include: IPS UN and Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis, IPS Director John Cavanagh, and IPS Fellow Sarah Anderson.

According to Bennis, "It's hardly a new phenomenon for the U.S. to use bribes and threats to get its way in the UN. What's new this time around is the breathtaking scale of those pressures -- because this time around, global public opinion has weighed in, and every government leaning Washington's way faces massive opposition at home."

3895. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/27/2003 6:56:08 PM

A little U.S.-Iraqi history By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes. An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

3896. concerned - 2/27/2003 6:59:31 PM

So, Phyllis Bennis represents the bleeding edge of innovative far left thought?

3897. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:01:02 PM

How much has Bush paid YOU?

3898. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:05:05 PM

Questions: 1) Do you believe the people of Iraq have the right to overthrow Saddam?

Yes

2) Do you believe it would be okay for the US government to assist through financial and other forms of aid the Iraqi people in overthrowing Saddam?

Perhaps
3) Do you think it is acceptable for individual US citizens to volunteer and join an "army of liberation" in Iraq comprising mostly Iraqis?

Their decision

4) Do you draw the line at direct US military involvement with US forces? If so, why?

Because the unilateral unprovoked invasion of one country by another under the circumstances, the actual circumstances that have obtained for over 12 years is a violation of the UN charter, American tradition, and Christian moral teaching.

Idiot

3899. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:07:22 PM

Do you think it is acceptable for individual US citizens to volunteer and join an "army of liberation" in Iraq comprising mostly Iraqis?

I wonder Eddie do you think your new Lafayette Espadrille would have more volunteers than the Human Shield Brigade - the real human shield brigade.

You are as thought provoking as ever - not ready to play with the big girls

3900. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:08:41 PM

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. [Cf. Vatican II, Guadium et spes 81, 4] All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

3901. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:16:31 PM

3902. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:35:51 PM

Don't like pinks, lefties, commies, fags?

Swedes make ya laugh?

Eddie make ya giggle?

Try the cover of the current American Conservative

The Madness of Empire

3903. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:38:53 PM

Now Eddie, a question for you.

Do you see the difference between five carrier battle groups, 250,000 troops, 10,000,000 refugees, 200,000 occupation troops on station indefinitely in a hostile country, tens of thousands dead, the lasting emnity of the world on the one hand and your pathetic attempt at a first year law hypo?

3904. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:47:12 PM

On Sunday March 2, 2003, a broad coalition of those who support a multilateral and peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis will gather for a "Poverty March for Peace" prayer service at 3:00 PM at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.
(Call 415-369-2122 for details or check out www.workingassets.com/interfaith>Working Assets - Interfaith

3905. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 9:49:02 PM

Do you see the difference between five carrier battle groups, 250,000 troops, 10,000,000 refugees, 200,000 occupation troops on station indefinitely in a hostile country, tens of thousands dead, the lasting emnity of the world on the one hand and your pathetic attempt at a first year law hypo?

And Professor Bedpan says I'm incoherent.

3906. Wombat - 2/27/2003 9:51:51 PM

The Lafayette Espadrille? Now there's a Freudian slip.

3907. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 9:56:23 PM

So now the reason for invading Iraq is to liberate their people from a dictator. Certainly a noble cause, but not one worth spending American lives on.

A truly noble sentiment. Why is that? Why were Kosovar lives worth risking American lives? Why were French lives worth risking American lives? For that matter, why were black slaves worth killing other American whites for?

Of course your post is silly anyway. Try wrapping your brain around the idea that there might be reasons--with an "s". Or is the only reason (singular) you oppose liberating Iraq that you don't like Bush?

3908. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 10:02:05 PM

vonk: This is different from the UN authorizing the use of whatever means necessary to overthrow Saddam because of what he might do in the future.

So even if the world community as represented by the UNSC decided that Saddam needed to be taken out, you would oppose it?

Does that mean you place national sovereignty as the highest principle of international relations and that the only time regime change is legitimate is if the country in question has already attacked first?

3909. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 10:04:12 PM

Jeez, Pelle, I had to check your post to make sure Eddie hadn't written it.

More pathetic passive-aggression from Judy.

3910. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:28:16 PM

Escadrille - UR right as usu. Wombat....far right

;)

3911. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:29:10 PM

X on the one hand y on the other

And to incoherent add not terribly bright

3912. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:29:52 PM

Now answer the damn question Edwina you fat sack of shit

3913. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2003 10:30:58 PM

Re Message # 3907: Yeah, reasonS. But like all the other reasonS (except the ones that are just bullshit, like "Saddam's in league with bin Laden" or "Saddam is buying aluminum tubes" or "Look at this British dossier"), this reason is just as compelling as it was 12, or even 20, years ago.

Where were all you Iraq hawks a year ago? Or five? Or ten?

When did you start deciding we should have our soldiers killed to liberate victims of dictators? (Even if we lose a few hundred thousand liberatees in the process.)

I was against marching our soldiers into Baghdad in 1991, and I am today. Don't tell me I'm against the war because Bush is for it. Can you tell me you'd be for the war if your Republican leader was against it?

3914. judithathome - 2/27/2003 10:31:02 PM

Look, Snidely, no one asked for your sucko opinion so shut the hell up. Or don't...after all, it's you idea that I crave attention and lo and behold, here you are, giving it to me!

Sap.

3915. judithathome - 2/27/2003 10:32:32 PM

Forgot to address my last post to the Count of Motely Crisco.

3916. judithathome - 2/27/2003 10:33:59 PM

Can you tell me you'd be for the war if your Republican leader was against it?

Ten to one he gives some overblown excuse that will work as well as Sominex on all of us.

3917. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 10:35:46 PM

Now answer the damn question Edwina you fat sack of shit.

I'm neither fat, nor do I comprise the same material as in the poopstain load sagging your current cracker-factory-issue Depends.

As to your question, anything you post is less relevant than a first-year law school hypothetical. Most law professors are marginally sane and occasionally venture out into the real world.

3918. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:40:05 PM

blather. and you are rotund

3919. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:40:32 PM

Answer the damn question.

3920. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:43:11 PM

I'll make it easy for you.

Do you see the difference between five carrier battle groups; 250,000 troops; 10,000,000 refugees; 200,000 occupation troops on station indefinitely in a hostile country; tens of thousands dead, and the lasting emnity of the world, on the one hand, and your pathetic attempt at a first year law hypo?

[see your message above - I can't bear to read it twice. After the article on the Big Bush Freeper March, I don't think I can take any more laughter today]

3921. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 10:46:19 PM

Where were all you Iraq hawks a year ago? Or five? Or ten?

Your argument is, then, that you don't believe in ever correcting a mistake?

When did you start deciding we should have our soldiers killed to liberate victims of dictators? (Even if we lose a few hundred thousand liberatees in the process.)

Which of my previous examples did you think were unworthy of liberation? Is it your position American soldiers should be put at risk only to defend the territorial integrity of the USA? When did you become an isolationist? (When a Republican became President?)

Don't tell me I'm against the war because Bush is for it.

I will certainly say you would be singing a different tune if Gore or Clinton were in. I've seen you fall all over yourself for four years now covering for those two, and I don't think for a minute you'd change your tune. You were fine with Desert Fox, weren't you?

3922. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 10:51:26 PM

Can you tell me you'd be for the war if your Republican leader was against it?

That is not, of course, an equivalent question. The equivalent question is, "Would I be for the war if a Democrat proposed it?" You will note that the Democratic leadership has expressed support for the war, so it's not as though your party has come out against it (which is the question you are asking me).

I have been in favor of the removal of Saddam Hussein from power since 1991. (And incidentally, I originally did think the 1990-91 buildup to military action was extremely risky, but the easy victory then proved me wrong; I was also not very old.) Since 911, I've believed we should accelerate the process of his removal.

3923. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 10:53:57 PM

Look, Snidely, no one asked for your sucko opinion so shut the hell up.

You are wrong, Judy.

Your beloved Prof. Poopstain asks me for my opinion all the time.

Now go watch some fascinating TV and then tell us all about it.

3924. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:55:16 PM

So has Al Gore. So have I. So what?

Don't answer my question then. I think I am going to cry.

3925. judithathome - 2/27/2003 10:56:29 PM

Now go watch some fascinating TV and then tell us all about it.

It would probably be much better than reading your posts. Good idea.

3926. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:56:41 PM

Fuzzy Math Redux

By now an all too familiar pattern from the Bush Regime - lies and manipulation. We should see an accurate estimate sometime next year along with another re-estimate of the ever increasing deficit which now extends "as far as the eye can see".

Democrats attacked the White House yesterday for withholding details about the likely cost of a war in Iraq, even as some internal administration estimates soared past $100 billion.

White House officials said they would ask Congress to fund a war in Iraq only after hostilities began. Lawmakers complained that the policy would essentially lock them into a pay-as-you-go war. (PAYGO!)

PAYGO - the now expired budget enforcement and reconcilliation act requirement that new entitlement additions be matched with revenue.

Not exactly PAYGO

3927. Al D - 2/27/2003 11:11:43 PM

Can you who oppose Iraq war say you would have the same strident view if Gore were President. Why it so predicable what your opinions will be?
judith
I do not enclude you in the above statement because I'm not sure you wouldn't just as soon see Saddam removed. As I remember, you did not oppose the Afgan action. As you may know, I argued against attacking Iraq (on TPW)as I had reservations about our removing rulers we didn't like. Reading King of Terror by Con Coughlin made me change my mind.

I cannot believe that Edmond is IJ.

3928. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:47:29 PM

I can't believe that Edmund is [fill in the blank]

I don't give a fuck WHO Edmund is.

3929. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:50:24 PM

Yo Eddie

Make that do you know the difference between SIX CARRIER battlegroups....and your shitty little hypo?

Your fat ass and a hole in the ground?

Anything?

3930. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:51:57 PM

God bless Iraq

3931. concerned - 2/28/2003 3:53:13 AM

Bad news for jexster from the WT: Iraqi Soldiers Surrendering

Morale is low in the Iraqi army and many soldiers are preparing white flags of surrender, we are told by someone in northern Iraq who recently interviewed two defectors from Saddam Hussein's army.
One was a captain who defected from the 5th Mechanized Division of the 1st Corps, based near the northern city of Kirkuk. The captain told our informant that the heavy division was only 35 percent combat-effective. The captain said morale was so low that younger soldiers are speaking openly about surrendering — before the first shot has been fired.
A second soldier, a senior noncommissioned officer, defected from the same division's 34th Brigade, based south of the northern city of Mosul.
This soldier said that of the 28 tanks in his care, only six were working. The others were broken down or otherwise in need of repair.
"He said the whole division was at about 25 percent effectiveness and most soldiers were hiding their white flags," said our source, who spoke recently to both defectors.
Intelligence sources in northern Iraq, where both CIA Special Operations Group officers and Army Special Forces are active, said there have been dozens of defectors in the past several weeks. There also are reports that Saddam's henchmen have issued orders to commanders to shoot any deserters they can catch.
The poor state of Saddam's regular army recalls that of some units in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when Iraqi soldiers were so eager to surrender that some gave up to an Italian film crew that was covering the war.

This helps explain why the French don't want to send military personnel to Iraq: They're afraid they wouldn't find anybody to surrender to or collaborate with, and the French wouldn't have the faintest idea what to do with prisoners of war anyway, never having dealt with them before in French military history.

3932. concerned - 2/28/2003 3:56:16 AM

Maybe the first thing the US should do upon occupying Iraqi territory proper is to set up 'surrender centers'. Who knows, that might be all the push needed to start the collapse of Saddam's house of cards.

3933. concerned - 2/28/2003 3:57:58 AM

US forces could broadcast 'how to surrender' videos in Iraq featuring French military specialists.

3934. concerned - 2/28/2003 4:13:53 AM

France and Germany have proposed a strict timetable for disarmament to the UN (something which the US has opposed in the past, and will oppose this time no doubt).

Worth about as much as the 'strict timetable' that petered away to nothing after seven years in 1998.

3935. concerned - 2/28/2003 4:18:34 AM

The French/German rigid timetable calls for hide&go seek weapons inspections for another seven years or whenever Saddam expires from natural causes, whichever comes first.

3936. concerned - 2/28/2003 4:25:33 AM

The problem here is Old Yurrup's restricted definition of 'consequences' that they apply only to their own economies when formulating foreign policy.

3937. Macnas - 2/28/2003 4:58:47 AM

concerned

Give it a rest, you hate France, big deal. Whatever about their record during WW2, I wouldn’t like to be the country trying to invade them today.

The information regarding the state of the Iraqi armed forces is interesting. It not only bodes well for the imminent invasion, but also raises the question of just how much of a threat they really are.

3938. OhioSTOPAS - 2/28/2003 6:09:42 AM

Message # 3921: "You were fine with Desert Fox, weren't you?"

Surely the difference between targeted airstrikes and an invasion and occupation is apparent to you.

3939. judithathome - 2/28/2003 9:58:17 AM

but also raises the question of just how much of a threat they really are.

An excellent point.

3940. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:38:40 AM

Rumsfeld's connection with the North Korean reactor program was yesterday's news. Today ....

For more than a decade, yellowing paper files in a government store have hidden the story of the way £1bn of Whitehall money was thrown away in propping up Saddam Hussein's regime and doing favours for arms firms.
It took place when many in both the British and US administrations were covertly on President Saddam's side. But as yet another war against the Iraqi dictator looms, what may be the final skeleton in Britain's arms-to-Iraq cupboard has been uncovered.

Tommorrow?

3941. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:39:41 AM

God bless iraq.

3942. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:41:04 AM

The State Dept tried to spin Russia into a no veto yesterday. Russia's now wise to that game (been going on since about Sept last)

Ivanov now says Veto according to CBS

3943. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:44:43 AM

Too bad. Time has run out.

From the Guardian UK:

Coalition of the Billing:
Brits Do the Diplomacy, US Writes the Checks

What Blair Needs NOW - A UN Resolution

Support Builds For Revolt Across Labour Party

3944. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:45:55 AM

"the mood around the Commons after the 198-vote rebellion was like the morning after a boisterous office party: broad sheepish grins, a few regrets and unmistakable high spirits amid the broken political crockery. "

3945. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:47:55 AM

Anyone know what a "three whip line" is???

3946. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:48:18 AM

Wombat???

3947. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:50:22 AM

Mr Blair cannot say so himself, but widespread hostility to his White House ally, George Bush, is a crucial element of the current refusal to accept the possibility of any military attack on Iraq that does not have international sanction

3948. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:55:36 AM

Now there can be NO doubt where US foreign policy is made:

From the Washington Post:

In his speech Wednesday evening on postwar Iraq, President Bush signaled a shift in the administration's policy on the controversial issue of Israeli settlements, apparently embracing the Israeli government's view that substantial concessions by the Palestinians are necessary before Israel must begin to rein in the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories

That should do Blair.

3949. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:56:07 AM

It's far more probable, therefore, that most members of the Bush and Sharon Administrations hope that the crushing of Iraq will so demoralise the Palestinians, and so reduce wider Arab support for them, that it will be possible to force them to accept a Bantustan settlement bearing no resemblance to independent statehood and bringing with it no possibility of economic growth and prosperity.

How intelligent men can believe that this will work, given the history of the past fifty years, is astonishing. After all, the Israelis have defeated Arab states five times with no diminution of Palestinian nationalism or Arab sympathy for it. But the dominant groups in the present Administrations in both Washington and Jerusalem are 'realists' to the core, which, as so often, means that they take an extremely unreal view of the rest of the world, and are insensitive to the point of autism when it comes to the character and motivations of others. They are obsessed by power, by the division of the world into friends and enemies (and often, into their own country and the rest of the world) and by the belief that any demonstration of 'weakness' immediately leads to more radical approaches by the 'enemy'.

Sharon and his supporters don't doubt that it was the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon -rather than the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories - which led to the latest Intifada. The 'offensive realists' in Washington are convinced that it was Reagan's harsh stance and acceleration of the arms race against the Soviet Union which brought about that state's collapse. And both are convinced that the continued existence of Saddam Hussein's regime of itself suggests dangerous US weakness and cowardice, thus emboldening enemies of the US and Israel across the Middle East and beyond.

ANATOL LIEVEN

3950. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:17:09 AM

Time is running out....violence in the streets of Bahrain

Wait til the Imbecile gets to Baghdad!

[Reuters]

VILLEPIN VERSUS BLAIR

Blair said he was confident the draft resolution would win Security Council support. Its backers need at least nine votes in favor and no veto from the five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

But Villepin, speaking after talks in Paris with his Greek counterpart George Papandreou, disputed Blair's assertion.

"There is no reason to discontinue the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. We are opposed to the draft second resolution, as is a majority of the Security Council, and notably Russia," he said.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, another opponent of war on Iraq, said in Brussels that the weapons inspectors "are making progress and we should continue on this path."

Bush, who has said he will attack Iraq without Security Council backing if necessary, told USA Today that regardless of any Security Council vote, "the most important part about whatever happens is that Saddam be disarmed."

Foreign ministers preparing for an Arab League summit in Egypt on Saturday dismissed U.S. pressure to urge Saddam to resign, and several said there was broad agreement to search for peace and avoid interfering in Iraq's affairs.

Angry demonstrations against the U.S. threat to attack Iraq erupted in Bahrain, headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, in the Yemeni capital Sanaa and in Cairo.

3951. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:34:26 AM

This one's for Eddie (I haven't forgotten ya. I am not like all those nasty boys at the prom last year. Poor fat dear)

Saddam's Plans for World Domination

3952. magoseph - 2/28/2003 11:37:06 AM

My take this morning:
The only alternative for the US at this time is to bring charges against Saddam Hussein and take him to the Hague for war crimes committed in Kuwait and against the Kurds. Going to war in the face of a veto by Russia is not an option for the US. It must be obvious to all realistic observers that Saddam has been weakened significantly. Indications are that army elements are waiting in the wings to take him down for a deal. There are strong signs that the Russian military has been in touch with the military power structure in Iraq. A potential deal in respect to oil has probably already been cut.

3953. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:52:59 AM

Russia already HAS a deal for oil.. What's going on is MUCH simpler. Occam's razor mags.

Russia knows what Blair now knows - they ain't gon git shit from Bush regardless of what they do. Bush will need all the help he can get after he stumbles into the hell that awaits.

They're burning American flags in Bahrain, right in front of the the 5th Fleet - no sane leader wants to be a part of this.

3954. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:07:28 PM

Mago one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

3955. PelleNilsson - 2/28/2003 12:54:44 PM

Anyone know what a "three whip line" is???

Yes. So?

3956. magoseph - 2/28/2003 1:52:21 PM

Mago one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

To me the situation is much more complicated than I could possibly express in a magazine article, much less a post. Everybody is dealing with everybody else and unfortunatelly for the US, we have a person in control who is rapidly spiraling out of touch.

3957. robertjayb - 2/28/2003 3:12:54 PM

Since things are not going too well well with Iraq and Korea I expect the bushies to expand the shell game to include Columbia and the Philippines. Keep your eye on the pea, folks. It could be anywhere... But don't worry. We know what we're doing. We have the best information.

3958. jexster - 2/28/2003 4:19:32 PM

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — Iraq said today that it would comply with a United Nations demand to destroy an entire class of ballistic missiles. And Russia's foreign minister, Igor S. Ivanov, asserted that progress on disarmament in Iraq had stiffened Moscow's opposition to war to the point that it might veto any resolution that would hasten the onset of military actionNyT

3959. Al D - 2/28/2003 4:24:51 PM

We will gas you when US bombs fall, Kurds told
(Filed: 28/02/2003)

If war comes to Iraq, the Kurds of Kifri will be right in the line of fire. Iraqi officials have threatened that the moment the first American bomb lands, they will reply with a chemical assault on the town.

How is this possible if Iraq does not have WMD? Any thoughts about this Herr jexster?

3960. Wombat - 2/28/2003 4:29:35 PM

The US has weapons of mass destruction and (most likely) won't use them. Iraq claims it does not, but (most likely) will use them. Go figger.

3961. jexster - 2/28/2003 4:33:37 PM

The US has plans to use nuclear weapons. Go figger.

Or didn't you know?

3962. jexster - 2/28/2003 4:37:00 PM

I don't know whether Iraq has any such Al D.

This is what I know:

= none have been found
= Resolution 1441 requires the US and Britain to provide intel to UNMOVIC
= the US and British claims and such intelligence as they have provided have proved to be, in the words of the UN inspectors, "garbage upon garbage upon garbage"
= Iraq is no threat to anyone
= Bush has repeatedly lied to the American people about the WMD program in Iraq and connections to terrorists
= Bush's war is illegal, immoral, and has nothing to do with WMD

THAT is what I know Al.

3963. jexster - 2/28/2003 4:38:22 PM

Spain Begs Emperor to Muzzle Sturmbannfuehrer Rumsfeld

3964. jexster - 2/28/2003 4:39:36 PM

I also KNOW that the article in the American Conservative is absolutely inerrant in its discussion of Bush's plan for Empire.

Have you had the chance to read it Al?

It is as disturbing as it is flawless

3965. jexster - 2/28/2003 4:43:40 PM

Al I am sure you are familiar with this. Your buddies at Freeper were talking about it six months ago.

A new war against Iraq was a gleam in the eye of a small but influential group long before 9/11.

Only recently has it become commonplace (outside of the Marxist Left) to call this new policy imperialist. President Bush himself still shuns the word, telling a Veterans Day audience, “We have no territorial ambitions. We don’t seek an empire.” But a surprising number of foreign policy analysts, in the neocon orbit and beyond, have picked up the “I” word and run with it. Max Boot, a former Wall Street Journal editor who wrote a book about America’s splendid little wars writes in the Weekly Standard about “troubled lands [that] cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.” Kristol co-author Robert Kagan prefers the term “hegenomy” to empire, and many neoconservatives stress that the new American imperialism will differ from the bad old European sort because it will be welcomed by its subjects. The American Enterprise Institute’s Joshua Muravchik has written a primer on “exporting democracy” whose phrases now pop up regularly in Bushite rhetoric.

The war for democracy is meant to bring about eternal peace. A television sound-bite of the neo-imperialists is “democracies don’t fight one another,” though the generalization seems to ignore the bloodiest war in the 19th century (America’s Civil War) and arguably the one that brought about the end of Europe’s global pre-eminence (World War I). Never mind. The coda is always Wilsonian, a claim that pre-emptive war will bring forth a springtime of power to the people of the politically stagnant region.

3966. jexster - 2/28/2003 4:44:54 PM

So AL fess up...you know that this WMD noise is a total crock.

Its war peddler crap meant for mental midgets

3967. alistairconnor - 2/28/2003 4:47:14 PM

What's your source, Al?

3968. Al D - 2/28/2003 4:50:05 PM

The US has plans to use nuclear weapons. Go figger.
It is interesting how a statement can be the truth and a lie at the same time. Why do you suppose the U.N S.C. voted 15 to zip that Saddam must be disarmed or face serious consequences? Did they intend to deprive him of Cuban cigars? I know Israel will feel more comfortable knowing that Saddam is no threat to anyone.

Have you noticed that many Democrats in the Congress favor taking Saddam down, and many are Jewish? Do you suppose they think Saddam is a threat to Israel, and that peace might be obtainable in Israel if Saddam and some of the groups he supports were weakened?

3969. jexster - 2/28/2003 6:55:09 PM

MidEast Scholar Thinks Bush's Flowers of Democracy So Much Steer Shit - SF CHRON

Although President Bush believes a war with Iraq will bring democracy to the country and foster democratic reform throughout the Middle East, a scholar of the region says the conflict would create more authoritarianism among Arab regimes desperate to quash dissent, lead to more anti-American sentiment and foment more "demand" for terrorism.

Speaking to the World Affairs Council in San Francisco, Shibley Telhami, a University of Maryland professor, said millions of Arabs would be angered by a post-Hussein Iraq where U.S. troops are keeping order --and that this resentment would drive more people to lash out at Washington and support groups like Hamas that advocate suicide bombings in Israel and other forms of violence.

"The reality is that, after a year-and-a-half of the most powerful country in the world putting all of its resources on the line. . . most of al Qaeda's fighters (are) hiding not in the states of the 'axis of evil' but in unstable regions of friendly countries -- in Pakistan, in Afghanistan."

He's not in the same league as Pelle and Wombat but he's the best I can do.

3970. jexster - 2/28/2003 6:56:00 PM

Shibley Telhami
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
Anwar Sadat Professor, University of Maryland

Expertise
Arab-Israeli conflict, ethnic conflict, international negotiations, media and political identity, Palestinian and Israeli politics, Persian Gulf politics, U.S. policy in the Middle East

Education
Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley, 1986; M.A., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, 1978; B.A., Queens College of the City University of New York, 1974

Background
Current Positions Anwar Sadat Professor, University of Maryland; Member, Council on Foreign Relations Previous Positions Associate Professor, Cornell University; Assistant Professor, Ohio State University; Lecturer, Princeton University, Columbia University, Swarthmore College, University of Southern California, University of California at Berkeley; Advisor, U.S. Mission to the United Nations; Advisor, Congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.)

3971. jexster - 2/28/2003 6:56:54 PM

War for peace Wombat - go figger

3972. jexster - 2/28/2003 7:00:05 PM

On Feb. 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that 'raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist,' the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims... CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow angrily denied the Newsweek report. 'It is incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue,' Harlow told Reuters (2/24/03). But on 2/26/03, a complete copy of the Kamel transcript - an internal UNSCOM/IAEA document stamped 'sensitive' - was obtained by Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who revealed that Tony Blair's 'intelligence dossier' was plagiarized from a student thesis. In the transcript (p. 13), Kamel says bluntly: 'All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed.'"

Bush's W-ar is a lie - 'All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed

3973. jexster - 2/28/2003 7:03:48 PM

I've put the question before and will do so again.

Has there ever been a more inept, stumbling, bumbling, march toward war?

US Diplomat Resigns over W-ar

"A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq. The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation letter, 'Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson.'"

And again, has there ever been a more unpopular war before the first shot is fired?

3974. concerned - 2/28/2003 8:58:29 PM

At lunch today, I read a rather frustrating editorial by a WP columnist named Jim Hoagland regarding the current US/French relationship wrt Iraq.

He goes into some detail about factors that are presumably contributing to Chirac's obdurate anti-US posture, such as a peculiarly French belief that Saddam is the best choice to rule Iraq, that any American action would 'inflame' Arab, Muslim and African opinion against the West in general, that France would be rocked to its core by protests by French Muslims if the US harms a hair on Saddam's head, etc., most of which falls short in the plausibility department.

But, even if these fears were well grounded, France has not made even a token attempt to address how to transition from the pressure that 200,000 mostly US allied troops are placing on Saddam to a substitute that would be equally effective but under other than US auspices. Until Chirac seriously develops & commits to process that promises to effectively resolve the existing problem in Iraq, which will likely require a major show of force commensurate to that of the Americans who have no intention of spending months in the desert while Old Yurrup fritters away any impetus that the US approach has given the process of disarmament so far (which has so far failed to move Saddam to willingly disarm to any extent whatsoever but is the only thing keeping him from throwing the UN inspectors out again), in the final analysis, Chirac's just posturing.

3975. concerned - 2/28/2003 9:21:49 PM

From the Sun Online UK: Iraq Scud Boss Poisoned

Iraq Scud boss poisoned
By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON

SADDAM Hussein’s top missile expert has been murdered to stop him blabbing to the UN.

General Muhammad Sa’id al Darraj died on Thursday after Saddam’s men poisoned his drink.

Relatives say he was ordered to hide details of Iraqi Scuds from the UN — but devious Saddam did not trust him.

General al-Darraj was murdered hours before Saddam agreed to the destruction. The engineer had been called to a meeting at one of Saddam’s palaces for talks about how to mislead UN scientists over Iraq’s Scud programme.

Moments before he died, he managed to tell his family Saddam’s officials had spiked his drink with poison.

British intelligence chiefs said the murder was another example of Saddam’s ruthlessness.

They said it underlined his total disregard for human rights.

Saddam had his own son-in-law assassinated when he exposed the tyrant’s weapons of mass destruction.

In other news, Hans Blix is telling the UN that Saddam is showing 'new signs' of cooperation.

*sigh*

3976. jexster - 2/28/2003 9:32:43 PM

*sigh*
When Hussein Was Our Ally

He was one helluva lot more dangerous than he is now. Right Eddie?

Newly released documents reveal U.S. talk of regime change in the early 1980s - except then it was language condemning Iran for attempting to overthrow the government in Baghdad.

In an interview Tuesday with the Arab-language television network Al-Jazeera, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld laid out again the case for war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Among other crimes, he said, Iraq "used chemical weapons on its neighbor Iran."

The defense secretary has reason to remember that crime. It was taking place in December 1983, when Rumsfeld met with Hussein as a special envoy of President Ronald Reagan

3977. concerned - 2/28/2003 9:33:10 PM

Hans Blix is a happy camper. He likes his job and he wants to believe.

3978. jexster - 2/28/2003 9:50:45 PM

Crusader Babbitt - On the Strange Connection Between Bush's War and Freaky Fundamentalists

3979. jexster - 2/28/2003 9:56:01 PM

3980. Al D - 2/28/2003 10:25:48 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson022803.asp
I would urge all to read this article by Victor Davis Hanson. I would link if I knew how.

3981. arkymalarky - 2/28/2003 11:45:50 PM

Hanson

3982. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/1/2003 2:01:46 AM

oderint dum metuant: Let them hate so long as they fear. (A favorite saying of Caligura.)

Rummy's Special BBQ Apron

Product Number: 4947680

$17.99

Whether you're frying burgers or people, you'll look in control!

3983. concerned - 3/1/2003 2:28:25 AM

Hey, jex -

What do you think the chances are of Sodamn and his puke sons hanging off sticks in Ragdad before this time next month?

3984. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:28:11 AM

Bush has now admitted that his UN speech etc was just a charade, a lie, a contrivance to get him through the election.

But we all knew that didn't we.

3985. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:29:21 AM

I think the chances of Saddam doing Bush's bidding are roughly equal to the converse

3986. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:32:37 AM

What do you think TD, has there ever been a more inept, transparent, stumbling, bumbling toward a more unpopular war than this? This is not a rhetorical question. I can think of no historical examples but I only claim serious knowledge of Euro history. Maybe the Bantus or the Zulus or Apache.

3987. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:35:03 AM

And another question.

What do you make of Bush admitting that the UN was all just a charade before the crusade and endorsing the settlements in the West Bank while Blair is fighting for his political life?

Can't Bush be trusted to do anything but payback his crony capitalist contributors?

3988. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:35:39 AM

I LIKE questions. Don't you Eddie.

That was rhetorical

3989. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:54:57 AM

Good questions as well in this comment from the Guardian UK:

Normally in a war crisis, government and people converge as they did in 1914 and 1939. This time, they have grown further apart. Perhaps three-quarters of the British people do not support a war. At least 30% have said they will not support a war under any circumstances, even with a second UN resolution. The government says the facts need to be explained and then people will form correct views. Well, the message has been elucidated; the spinners have spun; the plagiarists have plagiarised; and the people are more hostile than ever. Why is that? Have we suddenly turned uniformly into Trotskyists and pacifists? People find the government's case unconvincing; they simply do not believe it.

Him and us

The spinners have spun, the plagiarists plagiarised: we are still opposed to Blair's war

3990. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:01:13 AM

People deeply suspect the motives of the US. That is not just anti-Americanism; we are not anti-American. But there is great hostility to and distrust of an extreme rightwing administration. People distrust the unilateralism of American foreign and external policy in relation to the environment, armaments, the international criminal court and many other issues.

There is mass popular distrust about the American concern with oil and the hypocrisy of not acting against an aggressive Israeli regime with an extremely rightwing government that consistently defies the UN's edicts and denies fundamental human rights to Palestinians. There is disbelief that the US, rather late in the day, has decided that this is a crusade for human rights. What human rights, when the Kurds, for example, are specifically omitted? Why are they omitted? Because it would upset the Turks and a large number of Kurds live in Turkey, which is a valuable base.

It is also recognised that the US has for decades propped up and continues to prop up some of the most atrocious regimes in the world, which have flouted human rights - at present, Uzbekistan, which provides virtually no human rights, but is a convenient base.

The British people believe in the UN. Admirably, our prime minister also believes in the UN. We suspect that the Americans do not -at any rate, to nothing like the same degree. Our Commonwealth background makes us attuned to dialogue and international discourse, whereas the history, background and outlook of the US are different.

People see the US apparently overruling or ignoring UN resolutions and probably not wanting to use the UN at all, had it not been pressurised into it by Tony Blair.

3991. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:08:42 AM

"As a historian, I worry about the crude use of history, particularly our old friend the 1930s. Time and again we hear that this crisis is the 1930s come again - what nonsense. Saddam is not another Hitler. Where is his Mein Kampf? Where is his dream of universal conquest? George Bush is certainly no Churchill; it would be a calumny on the reputation of that great man to suggest it. It is a facile argument, and it disturbs me that Downing Street produces it, all the more because I taught one or two of them. My efforts were clearly in vain. "

This article is based on Lord Morgan's speech in the debate on Iraq in the House of Lords on Wednesday. He is a fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, and his many books include biographies of Keir Hardie, Lloyd George and James Callaghan, and a history of the Attlee government.

3992. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:32:59 AM

And here's a question for AlD and his friend Wombat.

Why is it that with millions of exiles, the Iraqi's cannot form a coherent democratic opposition after all these years and with lavish support from the US?

And what does this portend for the US military dictatorship and occupation?

Summit of Splintered Iraqi Opposition (another one) Ends In Bickering and Confusion

3993. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:35:30 AM

And here is a question for Eddie.

Can the Iraqis trust Bush in his 11th hour promise to aid them "during and after the war" anymore than Afghans could trust him when he promised a Marshall Plan for their country?

Another -

Is your Abraham Lincoln Brigade headed to join the Iraqi Exile Army?

Where is it exactly?

Secret location you can't disclose?

3994. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:37:19 AM

Now you know just one of the things I meant when I answered one of yours with "depends". Depends on an opposition movement.

3995. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:49:02 AM

YES PELLE what IS a three line whip?

I love those British parliamentary terms...so arcane.

3996. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:49:40 AM

I'll be nice...for a week.

3997. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:57:46 AM

Message # 3957
Robert - Bush may wish to deflect attention from failures in North Korea, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, Uzbekestan, and soon Iraq, with Panama, Colombia (and Iran?), but he's going to have 6 carrier battle groups and a couple hundred thousand troops tied up in the middle east for a long time.

Unless he reinstitutes the draft, there's no way he can manufacture another problem to solve.

3998. Edmund Dantes - 3/1/2003 12:15:02 PM

More bad news for the Saddamites

Turkish Parliament Approves U.S. Troop Deployment

Parliament's decision, which is crucial to U.S. military planners, paves the way for stationing 62,000 U.S. soldiers in Turkey to establish a "northern front" which experts say would shorten any war.

3999. jexster - 3/1/2003 12:23:52 PM

More bad news for Morons

Experts See High Risk of Strife If Saddam Is Deposed

"Bush's war will be a defeat for humanity". Pope John Paul II

4000. jexster - 3/1/2003 12:24:52 PM

And a crime against.

Still waiting for you to answer a growing backlog of questions little fella.

And to see what schoolyard name you come up with for the Holy Father.

4001. jexster - 3/1/2003 12:27:46 PM

Yet More Bad News for Morons

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) - Arab leaders on Saturday said they opposed an attack on Iraq as a threat against Arab national security, and said their countries would not participate in any war, a final communique said.

Still waiting Edwina, take your time.

4002. Edmund Dantes - 3/1/2003 12:29:11 PM

I would offer congratulations on the millennial, Professor Bedpan, but given the laws of probability, it's not really much of an accomplishment in your case on this thread.

4003. jexster - 3/1/2003 12:34:01 PM

Thank you.

I hate to add to your already ponderous burden, your backlog of unanswered questions, but I have to explain something to a precocious 12 year old.

How come the Arab nations declare BUSH, not Saddam, a threat to their national security?

Is Bush, not Saddam, a menace to world peace as the people of the world claim?

If Bush's war will be a defeat for humanity, can it also be a crime against humanity?

Sorry to burden you.

4004. jexster - 3/1/2003 12:34:53 PM

So many questions. So few answers. So much garbage.

4005. jexster - 3/1/2003 12:39:20 PM

In further answer to TD's from the NyT article

But experts on Iraq say the chances that Mr. Hussein will leave, on his own or because of a coup, remain very remote. The Iraqi leader has appeared composed and shows no sign of any readiness to go or any nervousness at the extent of internal opposition.

But if he does leave, the outcome may be messy, unpredictable and very violent as old scores, suppressed by the governing Baath Party for more than three decades, are settled

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 use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

God bless Iraq.

4006. Edmund Dantes - 3/1/2003 12:48:34 PM

It's infectious.

Prof. Bedpan says: "Do you see the difference between five carrier battle groups; 250,000 troops; 10,000,000 refugees; 200,000 occupation troops on station indefinitely in a hostile country; tens of thousands dead, and the lasting emnity of the world, on the one hand, and your pathetic attempt at a first year law hypo?"

Ohio says: "Surely the difference between targeted airstrikes and an invasion and occupation is apparent to you."

Yes, anyone sees the difference between the two, but you are dodging the question. Why do you support one and not the other? Your previous reasoning for opposing Bush was that Iraq was not worth risking American lives over. Is it your contention that Desert Fox posed zero risk to American lives?

It seems to me that your response is, "No, I'm not a partisan hack and the fact one president was a Democrat and one was a Republican has nothing to do with my flipflop. Rather, I prefer American soldiers entering Iraq fly their way in instead of driving in."

If Bush were not committing ground troops, you'd then support an air campaign against Iraq?

Your resistance now seems to be purely a question of military strategy, not a question of political policy.

4007. Dubai Vol - 3/1/2003 12:48:44 PM

Hello all, been locked out for a while.

Jex, I think you are vastly oversimplifying the Arab summit. For example:
"(The Iraqis must) do more --and quicker, transparently," said Prince Saud Al Faisal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, before the meeting began. "If they have weapons of mass destruction, show them. If they don't have weapons of mass destruction, account for them. That's what they have to do."

Also, the UAE submitted a proposal for Saddam to go into exile:
" Earlier, the United Arab Emirates caused a stir when it submitted a written proposal calling for Saddam Hussein to surrender power and leave Iraq.

"The Arab League, in cooperation with the U.N. secretary-general, should supervise the situation in Iraq for an interim period during which all necessary measures are taken in order to return the situation to its normal situation according to the will of the brotherly Iraqi people," the proposal said."

Also, UAE troops are on the ground in Kuwait. You said earlier that when UAE troops got involved with the war you would believe they considered him a threat. Well, there you go. Surprise me and keep your word.

4008. jexster - 3/1/2003 12:56:21 PM

I don;t think so. They said an attack on Iraq would be an attack against Arab security.

That's what they said. UAE troops on the ground in Kuwait doesn't mean they are involved in the war. That would violate the terms of the summitt resolution the UAE just voted FOR.

Or am I assuming too much. I assume they are Arab; attended the summitt, voted for the resolution but have no specific information on that.

4009. Edmund Dantes - 3/1/2003 12:57:12 PM

As for your questions, Professor Bedpan, you must first decide if you think Bush's policy is bad because it's too unilateral or too multilateral. It's hard to take someone seriously who posts links arguing both at the same time.

Regarding the Pope, he also says homosexuality is unnatural, and I don't think you buy his argument there.

David Duke, BTW, is also against the war.

Although I respect the opinion of the former more than the latter, neither man's stance supplants my own ability to reason.

4010. jexster - 3/1/2003 1:04:40 PM

I think what you are seeing here are a bunch of anti-democratic regimes with their asses caught between a bush and a hard place.

From the Guardian UK:

The summit comes at a time when Arab leaders are hopelessly trapped between fear of their people and fear of the US, on whose good will they will feel themselves, post-Saddam, more than ever dependent....popular disgust with governments - failed, corrupt, tyrannical - runs incomparably deeper in this region than almost anywhere else.

One answer commentators come up with is the ruthless repression with which such governments would counter any serious manifestations of the popular will.

Another is the apathy induced by the knowledge that, with such regimes, demonstrations never change anything. Unless, that is, they assume so massive and explosive a form that they change the regimes themselves.

That they very well could is the fear haunting pro-American regimes such as Jordan's and Egypt's; both know that the outward calm is no measure of the pent-up anger that lies beneath the surface, and that what Palestine on its own failed to ignite, Iraq and Palestine together could. "One missile on Baghdad," says the Egyptian journalist Amira Howeidi, "and things are going to go crazy, especially in the universities."

No I think that the Arabs came out against Bush's war much stronger than most had anticipated.

Its one thing for them to have said something like "We oppose war and hope that Iraq will disarm" and quite another to say what they actually said Dubai.

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

4011. jexster - 3/1/2003 1:07:31 PM

So a question for you Dubai.

Why should mothers and fathers of US servicemen and women send their children to die in Iraq when the Arab neighbors who are supposedly threatened by Saddam won't?

So many questions. So few answers.

4012. Dubai Vol - 3/1/2003 1:08:03 PM

Jex, all I'm saying is that the Arab position is not as monolithic as you want to portray it.

Again, I really hope this discussion can be about genuine understanding and not scoring debating points.

And I think you are setting an unreasonable standard for the UAE troops. If they are not there to support the US's (small) coalition, why send them at all. Sending those troops is as strong a statement as any reasonable person could expect.

And again: every GCC country is hosting US troops. Actions speak louder than meaningless resolutions which really amount to nothing. Nobody who understands the Aran pscyche would be surprised at them saying one thing while doing another.

4013. jexster - 3/1/2003 1:09:11 PM

Why should Eddie and his comrades in the New Abraham Lincoln Brigade die on the streets of Baghdad when the millions of Iraqis in exile can't stop bitching among themselves long enough to form an Army of Liberation for themselves?

4014. jexster - 3/1/2003 1:10:34 PM

UAE in Kuwait my ass.

Pardon my french but there are some Westerner human shield volunteers with more balls than you guys.

4015. jexster - 3/1/2003 1:20:13 PM

4016. jexster - 3/1/2003 1:25:07 PM

Its only a headline but it says EVERYTHING Americans need to know about this bungled, misbegotten, crime against humanity, this war for Bush, for oil, for Empire

Arabs Oppose Any War on Iraq, Refuse to Take Part

Don't you agree Eddie?

4017. jexster - 3/1/2003 1:26:35 PM

Cat got your tongue?

4018. jexster - 3/1/2003 1:43:22 PM

BAD NEWS FOR EDDIE and Other Assorted Lunatics and War Criminals - US Seeks "Clarification" of Turk Vote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is seeking "clarification" of a Turkish Parliament vote on Saturday first accepting and then rejecting deployment of 62,000 American troops for possible war with Iraq, a U.S. spokesman said.

4019. Dubai Vol - 3/1/2003 1:57:47 PM

Just FYI, jex, I'm an American, not a UAE national, and you make my point perfectly: Arabs are a bunch of cowards. As the famous Kuwaiti saying goes:"We have Pakistanis to drive our taxicabs, and Americans to fight our wars."

Word on the street here is that Kuwait is empty, the Kuwaitis have buggered off to London etc, as they did last time. Even the UAE troops are not UAE nationals, the rank-and-file are Omani. Point is, the UAE and all his other neighbors in the region want Saddam out, they just hope it can be done without upsetting their business interests. After all, Tiger Woods has said he won't come to this month's Dubai Desert Classic if there is a war on. Now there's a chickenshit!

So while "refusing to take part," they allow US troops to be based in their countries, and send troops to garrison safe areas. That's not a moral stand, it's cowardice. No surprise there.

Come on Jex, quit debating and start discussing. I hate dubya more than you, but even a blind pig fnds the occasional acorn.

4020. Dubai Vol - 3/1/2003 2:19:25 PM

Here's a good one:

FBI arrests more Al Quaeda in Pakistan

Some highlights:
"Pakistani police and intelligence officials say FBI agents have been involved in nearly every important terror arrest in Pakistan.

The Pakistani government says it has handed over more than 420 al-Qaida and Taliban suspects to U.S. custody."

It's a war on many fronts, folks, and contrary to some claims, the US has not abandoned the hunt for al Quaeda while it goes after Iraq.

4021. Edmund Dantes - 3/1/2003 2:40:13 PM

Dubai Vol, allow me to point out IMO the most important part of your link:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, was arrested Saturday in Pakistan, a senior Pakistan government source told The Associated Press.

4022. PelleNilsson - 3/1/2003 2:45:32 PM

jexster

YES PELLE what IS a three line whip?

I love those British parliamentary terms...so arcane.

Anyone who follows European politics knows that term. Your question reveals your ignorance.

And your recent exchange with Dubai Vol shows that you are ignorant about Arab politics as well.

I suggest you confine your posts on Iraq to American Politics because that's where they belong. That will free up this thread for people who actually know what they are talking about.

4023. Al D - 3/1/2003 2:56:03 PM

Come on Jex, quit debating and start discussing. I hate dubya more than you, but even a blind pig fnds the occasional acorn.
That is not possible. You see, jex would rather see U.S. troops slaughtered in Iraq than for Bush to have a victory. All that is important to those of jex and wiz's ilk is that Democrats take back power. If a Dem. was running this war he would sing a different tune.

Those of their ilk will not bew happy to hear of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's arrest as it gives a lie to their claim the war on terrorists has come to an end.

4024. Al D - 3/1/2003 2:59:01 PM

arky
thanks, that was very nice of you. Did you read the article?

4025. arkymalarky - 3/1/2003 3:19:35 PM

Hey Dubai! Good to see you back!

Al,

I haven't yet. I'm so overloaded at the moment I've just been popping in and out. I glanced at it last night and I I'll read it this week, or maybe this evening or tomorrow if I can get caught up. To be honest, I haven't kept up much with the Iraq situation because I have absolutely no sense for what Bush is doing or plans to do, if he has a plan. My little world has absorbed me the past couple of months.

4026. Al D - 3/1/2003 3:33:51 PM

arky
Maybe all of us would be better off in we tended our gardens, since there is little to nothing we can do.

4027. arkymalarky - 3/1/2003 3:58:24 PM

I was just talking about that phrase to my students the other day wrt Candide.

4028. magoseph - 3/1/2003 6:19:03 PM

Will it pass or not??

Turkey's parliament has narrowly failed to approve the deployment of US troops on its territory for a possible war with neighbouring Iraq.
MPs voted 264-250 in favour of the deployment, but the motion fell four votes short of the required majority of deputies present in the chamber.

The vote came amid mounting pressure from Washington, which has ships laden with tanks anchored off the Turkish shore.

In its first reaction, the State Department asked for "clarification" of the Turkish vote.

Turkey will receive $15bn in aid and loans from the US if it allows the deployment.

The motion - if passed in a subsequent vote scheduled on Tuesday - would also authorise the government to send Turkish troops to Kurdish-populated northern Iraq in the event of war.

The US urgently wants to deploy 62,000 troops and more than 250 planes in Turkey as part of its military plans.

Turkey could send twice as many troops to northern Iraq.

The BBC's Jonny Dymond in Ankara says the knife-edge vote is a massive blow for the four-month-old Turkish Government which has a massive majority in parliament.

But he says, it is in accord with overwhelming popular disapproval of a war against Iraq - thousands took to the streets as the vote was being taken.

4029. jexster - 3/1/2003 6:51:06 PM

Good News for Sodomites

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. defense officials said on Saturday they could quickly adjust their war plans for Iraq after the Turkish parliament refused to grant U.S. troops access to the country's bases for a possible invasion.

4030. jexster - 3/1/2003 6:55:11 PM

Then if you won't answer Pelle, I won't be nice.

For now I must assume that you do not know the answer and further that I know more about Arab politics than you do since you have not deigned to show me one single error in my analysis.

Or maybe you could answer a simple questio for me:

Why should the US send its children to die in Iraq when the Arabs think that in so doing we will be violating their security?

And why has Turkey decided not to allow US troops on its soil?

4031. jexster - 3/1/2003 6:56:14 PM

Eddie, another question:

How many times can you play the fool in one day?

4032. magoseph - 3/1/2003 6:58:20 PM

...people deeply suspect the motives of the US. That is not just anti-Americanism; we are not anti-American. But there is great hostility to and distrust of an extreme rightwing administration. People distrust the unilateralism of American foreign and external policy in relation to the environment, armaments, the international criminal court and many other issues.

For you, Jex.

4033. jexster - 3/1/2003 6:58:59 PM

Oh I understand THAT Dubai. I might not be a Pelle class scholar but even I know that.

Hell even Eddie knows that, and Eddie don't know shit.

I sense though a stiffening of the Arab position, although it is difficult to see how those governments could be any wimpier.

4034. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:02:42 PM

Yes indeed Mags.
A point that I have made REPEATEDLY for months.

Bush has screwed his poodle six ways from Sunday and left him twisting slowly in the wind to die. Bush confirmed in his speech on Saturday, something we all knew anyway, that his policy toward the PALS was identical with that of Sharon which is what Arik told Blair a month ago.

The actions of Chirac and Shroeder as well as Putin's recent hard line against Bush's war ALL make perfect sense when you realize that these guys know full well that Bush is incompetent, delusional, and untrustworthy.

The rest follows...

4035. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:07:13 PM

The arab position was, of course and as I said, much stronger than anticipated

Arab League Snubs UAE Position on Saddam Exile

Just this morning the speculation in the NyT was that a "unified front" would plea for Saddam to leave.

Well today is FULL of unpleasant surprises for the Imperialists and Disciples of Thor

4036. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:09:23 PM

Certainly NOT monolithic

But why should Eddie die to free the Arabs and Iraqis when the Arabs and Iraqis won't die to free themselves?

4037. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:12:05 PM

See Pelle, I know what I know and what I don't. Unlike you, I don't speak of things I know little or nothing about.

4038. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:13:33 PM

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq (news - web sites) started destroying its banned al-Samoud missiles on Saturday under the gaze of U.N. inspectors, complicating a U.S. push to win international support to go to war against Baghdad for failing to disarm.

U.S. preparations for war suffered a further blow when Turkey's parliament rejected a long-awaited motion that would have allowed the United States to deploy 62,000 troops in Turkey for a possible invasion of Iraq.

4039. magoseph - 3/1/2003 7:21:49 PM

You know what I think: Osama, Saddam, and Kim Jong Il must be vanquished, Jex.

4040. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:28:00 PM

Bush's problems today began last spring/summer when he lost/never gained control of his internal decision making process. When that happened and when it became public, other players - the media, Shroeder, Blair, Chirac, the generals, the CIA/DIA, the Turks, the New Superpower, the president of Cameroon - joined in an ever widening circle of decison makers with decision points.

I said this last spring. Perhaps no one quite understood the point.

This is the most inept Administration in US history and the making and the execution of its Iraq foreign policy will be a case study in National Policy seminars for years to come

4041. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:30:53 PM

You know what I think?

I think Bush is a greater menace than any of em, including Bin Laden, because he is brainless, obsessive, and I believe clinical, and in charge of the most powerful military force on the planet

4042. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:31:54 PM

I think Mags the world would be a much safer place if Osama, Kim, Saddam, and George were sittin in the Hague with Slobo

4043. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:38:12 PM

How COULD Bush fuck up the Turk deal Eddie?

4044. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:39:37 PM

Shocked the shit out of me...hell I thought 15 Billion and a gross of Iraqi Kurds would do it.

We are all in deep shit with this Idiot in charge....real deep shit

4045. jexster - 3/1/2003 7:51:36 PM

Thank Allah for the Paki Police eh Eddie? Bush's boys can't find their way to the bathroom without a roadmap

4046. jexster - 3/1/2003 8:04:40 PM

The World Against George Bush

Turkey Refuses to Accept G.I.'s

A legislator held a "No to war!" sign Saturday before a debate in the Turkish Parliament, which rejected a measure that would have allowed U.S. troops to use the country as a base for attacking Iraq

Even I didn't think he could fuck Turkey up

4047. jexster - 3/1/2003 8:07:26 PM

I guess the Turk thinks that 15 bn isn't enough to compensate them for hosting the World's Menace!

March 15th White House MASS CONVERGENCE - also in SF.

See ya there Eddie

4048. Al D - 3/1/2003 8:28:16 PM

jexster
Check out the new Rules of Engagement. Why don't you try responding to posts that exist, you know, have an extant reality, other than ones that exist only in your befuddled

4049. Edmund Dantes - 3/1/2003 8:58:41 PM

Saddam kills General to thwart UN team

Gen Muhammad Sa'id al-Darraj, who was in charge of Iraq's mobile Scud missiles until three months ago, died 24 hours after talks with Saddam's officials, according to Arab newspaper reports. The officials wanted to discuss how the general would conceal his knowledge if he were called for interview by the UN.

The London-based Al-Zaman newspaper said that Gen al-Darraj told "indignant" relatives shortly before he died that he had been slipped a poisoned drink during the meeting at one of Saddam's presidential palaces.

4050. Edmund Dantes - 3/1/2003 9:01:57 PM

Good thing the old professor saved his bus fare

Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.

4051. jexster - 3/1/2003 9:49:16 PM

I am TRYING AL. Trying to get you people to answer my questions. To defend your cause but apparently you cannot.

Of course, I knew that. Which is why I asked them but the burden for war is on you not me so I continue to ask.

I have been responding ALL DAY to Eddie's message this morning.

I have been asking how it is that Bush could fuck up the Turkish deal. Wasn't fifteen billion and several thousand Kurds enough? What about all those thousands of Turks celebrating in the streets that their Parliament listened to 95% of the people?

If Saddam is such a "grave and imminent threat" why won't the Turks and the Arabs fight him? Why won't the Iraqi exiles?

Lotsa questions Al..

4052. jexster - 3/1/2003 9:51:08 PM

Now you Eddie lost in slime Message # 4050 - What am I supposed to say about this post? Is there even a bus to Baghdad from San Francisco? Does Eddie have any idea what he is talking about? Who is Eddie and why should anyone care?

4053. jexster - 3/1/2003 9:52:44 PM

Say Al while you're here, what is the significance of "breaking a three whip line"?

4054. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:07:11 PM

Now Eddie says Baghdad is dangerous place and indeed it is because the Butcher of Baghdad isn't going to pull his troops out of the region before he establishes his Imperium

On the other hand, Ankara, one of Saddam's neighbors that Bush tells us is threatened, is a very safe place and its people do not feel threatened by Saddam. They feel threatened by George W. Bush.

4055. Al D - 3/1/2003 10:12:53 PM

Well, since Turkey has a voting body, and while more voted aye than nay, with the abstentions, the measure did not carry. Might it carry next Tuesday? Let's wait and see. You give Bush more credit than he deserves. It it passes next week, will you praise him. Of course not. Your style lacks reason.

The case for war does not need to be made by me; it was made by Saddam who decided to defy the of 15 to 0 by the S.C. What did they think face serious consequences was/ Having to read all your posts on the Mote.

Party tonight in an hour, so can't respond for long.

4056. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:28:15 PM

STOP THE PRESSES!

Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war [Guardian UK]

Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members

READ THE MEMO

4057. Al D - 3/1/2003 10:55:31 PM

I read it jexster, and it's a big so what. Get real, even if true, governments spy on each other. Oh no, that just can't be!

4058. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:44:50 PM

That's the end of Bush.

4059. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:49:18 PM

The stupid clown right in the middle of trying to gain UN Security Council votes he shits on Blair and pulls this stunt.

The question you have to ask, and most assuredly those Middle Six are asking tonight - "Why should we trust this guy? Why should we believe him?"

He has no regard for God or man. He is a mess and he is grossly unfit for office.

"The relationship is spoiled," said Murat Mercan, a member of Turkey's Parliament from the majority party. "The Americans dictated to us. It became a business negotiation, not something between friends. It disgusted me."

Big so what? I'll tell you what the so what is AL. The Coalition of the Willing - exposed as yet another Bush lie.
I'll tell you another so what - he can forget the UN. Britain is even at risk now.

And you want this goof ball in charge of the lives of our men and women?

We all are in deep shit. Not just that sillly criminal in the White House..that's so what

4060. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:58:03 PM

Joshua Micah Marshall, a war supporter writes:

The more I think about this Turkish rejection of US troops the bigger a deal it looks like.

Perhaps it can be salvaged next week, though that seems unclear. But if you want some evidence of this administration's diplomatic incompetence, consider this. We publicly sold out the Kurds to get this deal. We really should have made sure we had a deal before we tipped our hands to the Kurds about the price we were willing to pay for it.

Now we have no deal and no Kurds. I don't think we should have sold out the Kurds regardless. But if we were going to do so we should have been clearer with ourselves about who we were in bed with, the Turks or the Kurds.

The administration has a stiff wind of anti-anti-Americanism at its back which has thus far allowed it to weather each of these storms. Every one of the administration's diplomatic debacles is the fault, not of the administration, but of our conniving friends: the Germans, the French, the Turks, the Canadians, Gerhard Schroder, Noam Chomsky, Bono, Elmo, you name it. (The dog ate my homework, and so forth.) But the list of #$&@-ups is really becoming mind-boggingly long.

-- Josh Marshall
And he doesn't yet know about the Dirty Tricks.

Bush is dead meat

4061. jexster - 3/2/2003 12:01:39 AM

Josh Marshall knows now. We have a sometime email missive relationship.

4062. jexster - 3/2/2003 12:27:48 AM

and are exchanging even now....

4063. jexster - 3/2/2003 12:30:25 AM

Well Professor Bedpan is gonna call it an evening...good night Eddie sleep tight....

4064. concerned - 3/2/2003 1:59:47 AM

Re. 4032 -

magoseph -

The author of that piece is dissembling. He knows full well that the goals of the US are as they always have been throughout both World Wars and the Cold War, and that there is nothing reasonable or even consistent about his ilk's total acquiescense to the foreign policy bumbling of the Clowntoon administration and hypocritical whingeing about the more effective Bush foreign policy except inherent knee-jerk Leftist anti-Americanism.

4065. concerned - 3/2/2003 2:03:07 AM

re. 4058 -

I suspect jexster will be repeating this mantra until 2008.

4066. concerned - 3/2/2003 2:19:49 AM

From Le Monde via Babelfish:

PyongYang ready to offer asylum to Saddam, according to a businessman of Macao

An owner of casino of Macao, certain Stanley Ho Hung-sun, transmitted an offer of asylum of the North Korea to Saddam Hussein, reports Sunday South China Morning Post.Ho Hung-sun specified with the daily newspaper that high persons in charge north-Korean had proposed to the head of Iraqi State and with its family a sanctuary perched on a mountain in this State stalinien."Nous must seize all the chances to arrive at peace, in particular if the good news come from the east ", indicates the newspaper quoting Ho Hung-sun."Ils (the senior officials north-Korean), continues Ho, said to me that there was really to avoid the war and that to withdraw two days before the USA and Great Britain undertake their bombardments and to decide for elections démocratiques."Ho Hung-Sun were not able to give other details on the north-Korean offer nor to say if this proposal had been formally addressed to Bagdad.Le newspaper does not specify either why it is Ho, which, in 1999 open a casino close seat of the Communist Party to Pyongyang, which was selected to play the role of messenger in this affaire.Plus recently, the minister émirati of Information Abdallah Ben Zayed Al Nahyane had affirmed Saturday evening that countries like Koweït and Saudi Arabia approved the initiative of its country calling with a departure in exile of the president irakien.Dans a declaration with the press with El-sheik in Egypt, sheik Abdallah deplored that this initiative was not discussed during the sommet.

A peek into jexster's world:

Tin pot dictatorships led by murderous totalitarian butchers who use casino owners as diplomats.

4067. concerned - 3/2/2003 2:33:27 AM

'Anti-war 'shields' in Iraq go home', or '2003 Darwin Award candidates withdraw from competition'

Philip Sherwell, LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

BAGHDAD — Almost all the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home yesterday after deciding that their much-heralded task is now too dangerous.
Two red double-decker buses, which symbolized the hopes of anti-war activists when they arrived to a fanfare of publicity two weeks ago, slipped quietly out of Baghdad on the long journey back to Britain, carrying most of the 11 protesters with them.
Nine out of the 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials yesterday to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country. Two left immediately by taxi, and six more were on the buses last night, bound initially for Syria.
Among those departing yesterday was 68-year-old Godfrey Meynell, who received an emotional farewell from workers at the Baghdad power plant where he has slept for the past week.
Mr. Meynell, a former high sheriff of Derbyshire,said he was leaving out of "cold fear." He had been summoned, along with 200 other shields from all over the world, to a meeting at a Baghdad hotel yesterday morning. Abdul Hashimi, the head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organization that is officially host to the protesters, told the shields to choose between nine so-called "strategic sites" by today or leave the country.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday that the deliberate use of human shields by Iraqi officials would be grounds for war-crimes prosecution.

Jexster - Saddam's calling.

4068. Al D - 3/2/2003 2:34:38 AM

I read it jexster, and it's a big so what. Get real, even if true, governments spy on each other. Oh no, that just can't be!

4069. concerned - 3/2/2003 2:41:04 AM

Dubai Vol posts:

I hate dubya more than you (jexster)...

Sorry, Dubai. I don't think so.

4070. concerned - 3/2/2003 2:55:04 AM

Iraq destroys missiles - but Bush and Blair don't blink

The thinking is:

UN Resolution 1441 calls for full, rapid and complete disarmament of Iraq.

Saddam will never comply as long as he remains in power.

Therefore, he must be removed from power.

4071. magoseph - 3/2/2003 5:29:28 AM

...there is nothing reasonable or even consistent about his ilk's total acquiescense to the foreign policy bumbling of the Clowntoon administration and hypocritical whingeing about the more effective Bush foreign policy except inherent knee-jerk Leftist anti-Americanism.

Pardon me, concerned, but I do not recall hearing anything about Al Queada, homeland defense, etc. from the fascist wing of the Republican party during the Clinton administration.

4072. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 5:59:12 AM

I'm with you, magoseph. At least I think so. This is beyond partisan politics. As much as I hate the GOP and especially dubya, (YES even more than jex, REALLY!) getting rid of Saddam is an ugly job that needs to be done ASAP. Should have happened 12 years ago, but dubya's dad wimped out.

Oh sure NOW they talk about prosecuting him for using human shields. He used them in '91 also, and worse, he used POWs not volunteer morons. Asleep at the switch or too busy celebrating their hollow victory? Saddam is still claiming HE won the war.

4073. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 6:08:50 AM

From today's local paper:

League 'lacks courage to discuss UAE plan'

The salient points:
"...the Iraqi regime has brought woes to the Arab nation and the entire world over the last two decades which makes this proposal applicable only to Iraq and not to any other Arab country.

"Another reason for not considering the UAE's initiative is that certain Arab countries are looking for a way to launch a war against Iraq."

So there are at least three camps in the Arab League:
Some oppose ousting Saddam because it sets a frightening precedent
Some want Saddam out peacefully, but they want him out.
And according to the UAE information minister, some Arabs want a war.

4074. jexster - 3/2/2003 9:57:37 AM

Some Arabs - hell the Kuwait Times wants a war for the pathetic reason that if Bush backs down now and Saddam humiliates him, which is his objective, their shitty little regimes are over. The most "warlike" of the states' attitude can best be summed up "Bush got us into this mess and only Bush can get us out". The fact is that they aren't afraid of Saddam. They are afraid of their own people who, if Saddam wins and the US is forced to leave, will eat them for lunch

Which brings us full circle to two points:

- the flowering of democracy is a crock of shit if for no other reason Arab democracy is not in US national interest

and

- With friends like Bush who needs enemies?

And

- Why should American parents send their kids to die for Iraqis who won't fight and Arab potentates who fight either

4075. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:01:00 AM

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the ruling party, described the parliament's decision as "a completely democratic result." "What more do you want?"

Well Recep democracy ISN't what Bush wants! He isn't your friend either. As your MP said, he "disgust me"

ANKARA, Turkey -Turkey's ruling party has no plans in the "foreseeable future" to seek another parliament vote for the deployment of U.S. troops on Turkish soil for a war with Iraq, a party leader said Sunday [AP}

4076. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:04:47 AM

But the list of #$&@-ups is really becoming mind-boggingly long.

Josh Marshall

What do you think TD, has there ever been a more inept, transparent, stumbling, bumbling toward a more unpopular war than this? This is not a rhetorical question. I can think of no historical examples...ME

4077. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:15:30 AM

"lack the courage" HA!

That was the UAE rep's comment yesterday when the Arab League refused to discuss the plan.

Think about that for half a second. That the Arab shieks have no balls, that any Palestinian will tell you. But they aren't stupid. UAE wants the Arab League to go on record setting a precedent that whenever George Bush threatens to invade a sovereign Arab country, the Arab League will dutifully call for the removal of that country's leader to exile.

Pretty sad I grant you but not a question of courage at all. Fact remains the declaration that did pass was clear and it was stronger than anyone expected.

Arab leaders registered "complete rejection to any aggression on Iraq or threatening the security of any Arab country and considering it a threat to Arab national security and (reiterate) the necessity of resolving the Iraqi issue through peaceful ways."

_ Called for giving weapons inspectors enough time carry out their mission and called on inspectors to use objectivity in their work.

_ Called on Arab countries to refrain from "participating in any military action that targets the security, safety and unity of Iraq or any other Arab country."

Again the question, why should we send our kids to die when the Arabs won't?

Again the question, if the UAE and others will not send troops even token troops to fight Iraq, how are we to believe Bush's wild claims that Saddam is a grave and imminent threat to his neighbors?

4078. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:20:46 AM

Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery.

The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations.

The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation.

The disclosure comes at a time when diplomats from the countries have been complaining about the outright 'hostility' of US tactics in recent days to persuade then to fall in line, including threats to economic and aid packages.

Every one of the administration's diplomatic debacles is the fault, not of the administration, but of our conniving friends: the Germans, the French, the Turks, the Canadians, Gerhard Schroder, Noam Chomsky, Bono, Elmo, you name it. (The dog ate my homework, and so forth.)

And of course, the only answers we get from the lunatics from Eddie the Echo and TD - HEY SADDAMITE, friend of dictators and bogus crap like that..

As we will see in Eddie's case, in my next post...

4079. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:23:42 AM

Prof. Bedpan says: "Do you see the difference between five carrier battle groups; 250,000 troops; 10,000,000 refugees; 200,000 occupation troops on station indefinitely in a hostile country; tens of thousands dead, and the lasting emnity of the world, on the one hand, and your pathetic attempt at a first year law hypo?"

Yes, anyone sees the difference between the two, but you are dodging the question. Why do you support one and not the other? Your previous reasoning for opposing Bush was that Iraq was not worth risking American lives over. Is it your contention that Desert Fox posed zero risk to American lives?

It seems to me that your response is, "No, I'm not a partisan hack and the fact one president was a Democrat and one was a Republican has nothing to do with my flipflop. Rather, I prefer American soldiers entering Iraq fly their way in instead of driving in."

If Bush were not committing ground troops, you'd then support an air campaign against Iraq?

Your resistance now seems to be purely a question of military strategy, not a question of political policy

Well apparently Eddy cannot understand because my opposition is moral first, geopolitical second and military third.

4080. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:28:06 AM

{cont}

MORAL: The invasion of Iraq is a frave moral evil because Saddam Hussein does not pose a grave or imminent threat to anyone; because all peaceful means of resolving the conflict have not been exhausted; because war would unleash evils more grave than those sought to be remedied; because the war is a war for empire; because war would not have serious prospects for sucess -long term sucess which leads to my second objection

4081. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:34:44 AM

toys

2. GEOPOLITICAL - The war will and has already damaged vital geopolitical interests of the United States. It has destabilized the region. It has given North Korea an opening to play its nuclear games. It has caused an exponential growth in anti-Americanism worldwide. It has split the West. It has made a hostile Arab region even more so. It has revealed the US as an unreliable and even dangerous partner in world affairs. It is a violation of international law. It will contribute to the growth of terrorism. It will hurt the war on terrorism. It will wreak havoc on the US and the world economy. IT will require the US to station hundreds of thousands of troops in a hostile region indefinitely. It will cost the US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It will be the first step in a necon ultranationalist, ultraright wing delusional and dangerous plan for US world empire.

4082. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:37:14 AM

3. Military: It will tie up substantial portions of our forces leaving us vulnerable to other threats. It has already impaired our ability to act against North Korea. It has left us dangerously vulnerable to far greater threats to US security from Pakistan's highly unstable nuclear arsenal as well as North Koreas. It will increase, not decrease, and has already increased the incentive for countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

4083. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:41:18 AM

And finally, I am not sure which category to put this in because it is unprecendented in several respects.

Let's call it

4. The Unprecedented:

- unprecedented pre-emptive war which aptly fits Bismarck's quote "suicide for fear of death"

- unprecendented in that the US has never launched a pre-emptive war

- unprecendented because it will establish a precedent for any nation to attack any other nation simply because it does not like another country's ruler

and lastly and most significantly there has NEVER been such a fouled up, bumbling, stumbling, inept execution of foreign policy in the history of the US or indeed in the modern history of any Western country

4084. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:43:08 AM

Now I don't Eddie, who calls me a "Saddamite" (get it? clever huh?) to give me lectures on the morality of this war, on the geopolitical aspects of this war, or on the military wisdom of the conflict, and every time he tries I will humiliate him

4085. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:48:44 AM

And frankly, I am disgusted, just as the Turk MP was disgusted, I am disgusted that my country would spy on its guests at the UN, would launch a campaign of dirty tricks, and perhaps blackmail against those it publically calls friends, would engage in tactics such as those described in the Guardian article linked in Message # 4056.

Donald Rumsfelds attacks on our European friends disgusted me and all the more now that I know what he and his criminal crowd were up to all the while.

I find repulsive the lengths that the President of the United States has gone towards undermining the democratic will of the people of the entire world, that he has set himself against the entire world, that he undermines democracy in the name of democracy.

4086. jexster - 3/2/2003 10:49:05 AM

And everyone here should too.

4087. PelleNilsson - 3/2/2003 11:33:10 AM

jexster

My little finger knows more about Middle East politics than you do . You are just a naive amateur with an agenda.

4088. PelleNilsson - 3/2/2003 11:39:24 AM

And, after having read up to this point, let me ask you something: how long does the manic phase usually last?

4089. jexster - 3/2/2003 11:42:00 AM

That's two more messages from you that say absolutely nothing.

4090. jexster - 3/2/2003 11:43:05 AM

"takin your meds Saddamite?"

"the hair in my butthole know more about the middle east than you do"

Fucking impressive

4091. PelleNilsson - 3/2/2003 11:47:34 AM

Thank you.

4092. jexster - 3/2/2003 11:58:10 AM

I will educate you on the significance of "breaking a three line whip" when I return from Mass. The Rector is Brit, St. Stephen's House Oxford

4093. jexster - 3/2/2003 12:02:31 PM

I have long promised a precis of my objections to Bush's War of Aggression and was just waiting for the opportune Moronic post to launch it.

Thank you Eddie....you aren't good for nothing after all.

4094. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 12:14:53 PM

Hi jexster

You keep asking the question, and I keep trying to answer, but my ISP is an Arab phone company monopoly. Talk about a triple whammy!

"Why should American soldiers fight this war when Arabs are too cowardly to do it?" Or words to that effect...

First I'll give you the simple answer: The US government has determined that it is in the interest of national security to do so. That's all the justification a soldier needs or deserves. They signed up to fight when and where told, and that's all they need to know. You're obviously a civilian, because otherwise you'd know that support for this war is overwhelming among the military and their families.

Actually, jex, on further consideration, the simple answer is the only one YOU deserve. Get over it.

SGT Danner, USA (ret)

4095. jexster - 3/2/2003 1:22:09 PM

The Three Line Whip:

Each Member receives one of three cards from her Whip:

1. "Your attendance and vote are recommended" (Underlined once)

2. "Your attendance and vote are strongly urged" (Underlined twice)

3. "Your attendance and vote are REQUIRED" (underlined thrice -The Three Line Whip

Now Pelle knows what a 3 line whip is.

4096. jexster - 3/2/2003 1:29:36 PM

Regarding the Pope, he also says homosexuality is unnatural, and I don't think you buy his argument there.

That's not what he says precisely but of course regardless of what he says, this is no answer to the moral question he poses here, no answer to his charge that Bush's War is a war against religion and humanity, no answer to the nearly universal condemnation by religious leaders of all denominations both in this country and worldwide, no answer to the moral challenge I put today, have put for months.

Indeed you will hear no answer or such as you may hear, as in the case of Tony Blair's feckless attempt, are quickly silenced by the inescapable truth that Bush's war is gravely immmoral and as such will be nothing but a mass murder.

4097. PelleNilsson - 3/2/2003 1:30:55 PM

jexster

1. I did know what a three-line whip is. What is news to you is not necessarily news to the well-informed. I also know that it wasn't invoked for the Iraqi vote in Parliament.

2. Your spamming is destroying this forum. Please restrain yourself or face the consequences.

4098. Al D - 3/2/2003 2:39:57 PM

Pelle
I really hope that is no empth threat.

4099. Edmund Dantes - 3/2/2003 4:16:48 PM

Well apparently Eddy cannot understand because my opposition is moral first, geopolitical second and military third.

Apparently you do not understand that the part of my post beginning "Ohio" is a response and question to OhioStopas, not you.

4100. jexster - 3/2/2003 5:28:36 PM

I really don't care.

A Very BAD Day For Morons Eh Eddie

WASHINGTON, March 2 — Turkey said today that it had no plans to reconsider "for the foreseeable future" its rejection of the United States request to stage troops on the Iraqi border, codifying an important setback for America's war plans.

The vote on Saturday was just one in a host of discouraging weekend developments for the Bush administration, which has yet to react to Turkey's decision.

The Arab League, concluding a fractious conference for the leaders of 22 Arab nations, agreed on a final statement expressing "complete rejection of any aggression on Iraq" while also promising "refusal to participate in military action." The Arab leaders declined even to discuss an initiative from the United Arab Emirates calling for Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, to step down to spare the region from war.

In Paris today, Foreign Minister Dominque de Villepin issued a forceful new rejection of the resolution intended to authorize war that the United States and Britain have offered to the United Nations Security Council.

Have you ever seen such a collection of bunglers and boobs Eddie?

4101. jexster - 3/2/2003 5:41:09 PM

Screw you Pelle

4102. jexster - 3/2/2003 5:44:39 PM

You can make that#1, #2 #3, #4, and #5

Everytime I fuck you up, I get a threat like that and a couple of times you've had the balls to act

Do it you fuck....

4103. Cellar Door - 3/2/2003 6:24:01 PM

The Bold and the Restless

4104. wonkers2 - 3/2/2003 7:19:18 PM

And you, Pelle, how long does the anal retentive, obsessive compulsive phase last!

4105. robertjayb - 3/2/2003 8:11:00 PM

Is that your final answer?

ANKARA, Turkey, March 2 — Under intense American pressure, a senior Turkish official indicated today that his government would ask Parliament a second time to allow American troops to use the country as a base against Iraq, a day after lawmakers here rejected such a plan.

Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis said after a marathon meeting of senior officials that his government would take a resolution to Parliament later this week, after the government completes an assessment of the first vote.

4106. wonkers2 - 3/2/2003 9:08:01 PM

Zbig said today that our insistence on using Turkey will cause serious problems for the Turkish government.

And it may also result in problems for the Kurds in northern Iraq.

Might be better to leave the Turks out of it.

4107. jexster - 3/2/2003 9:47:28 PM

Extremely costly. I know a more than a few disabled Americans facing cuts in housing and medical benefits because Bush is assembling a A Coalition of the Bought (and threatened)

VERY few willing.

And Turkey's ruling party may not be able to play now that the NewSuperpower has struck

We are all Iraqis and we will not kill Shouted tens of thousands in the streets of Ankara.

Nothing like a little grass roots democracy to make a politician think twice.

4108. concerned - 3/3/2003 12:30:13 AM

Re. 4071 -

Firstly, there is no such 'wing' of the Republican Party. Secondly, you haven't been paying attention, IAC. There were numerous warnings about the likelihood of Islamist terrorism ever since Jimmuh Cahtuh acquiesced to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, a tradition that Clowntoon followed closely wrt to bin Laden and al Qaeda who installed themselves into Afghani power during the mid '90's.

4109. concerned - 3/3/2003 12:33:19 AM

I'm with you, magoseph. At least I think so. This is beyond partisan politics. As much as I hate the GOP and especially dubya, (YES even more than jex, REALLY!) getting rid of Saddam is an ugly job that needs to be done ASAP. Should have happened 12 years ago, but dubya's dad wimped out.

Your omission of the Clowntoon administration here is interesting. Could it that you agree with me that his foreign policy was generally so misguided and ineffective that any effective solution for world terrorism was laughingly dismissed even by his supporters?

4110. concerned - 3/3/2003 12:35:45 AM

Re. 4076 -

I have to agree that the surface impression is that this moment is not the GWB administration's finest wrt Iraq, but this situation is particularly volatile, so don't start counting any chickens just yet.

4111. concerned - 3/3/2003 1:58:33 AM

The so-called 'anti-war' crowd would gain a lot of credibility if they pressed for Saddam to step down and for practical steps to be made to keep the pressure on Iraq to disarm until he does with at least the fervor that they currently exhibit in opposing US policy.

4112. concerned - 3/3/2003 2:01:53 AM

What I'm suggesting is that the Left enhance its credibility by seriously trying to resolve the problem instead of lying about the nature of what is really just opposition to US policy.

4113. Dubai Vol - 3/3/2003 4:02:03 AM

Gulf states say Saddam should go

And here's the email I sent to dubya:
"You may be aware that the UAE proposed in the recent Arab League summit that Saddam's government go voluntarily into exile and that the Arab League oversee an interim government. While I have no illusions that Saddam will voluntarily give up power, I see a golden opportunity for the US to sway Arab opinion by publicly and enthusiastically taking up and supporting the suggestion that the Arab League be involved, in a leadership role, in an interim Iraqi government.

Hoping you're not all asleep at the switch on this one."

And think of all the money the US would save if they can get the Arabs to pay for administering the regime change!

4114. judithathome - 3/3/2003 8:44:54 AM

Concerned, you might enhance the understanding of your posts a bit by linking to the post to which you are responding...I know you feel your posts are so interesting that the reader will sift back 30 to 40 posts to see what prompted them but believe me, no one will. Not more than once or twice. I know you provide the post number; it's still a pain to search them out even using the "go to post #" feature. However, if you provide a link, it is much easier to follow your logic.

Now you can call me lazy and go off in a huff, I don't care...but if you want your posts read in the manner you intend them, you really should link to posts or quote portions of what you're responding to as you did in Message # 4109.

4115. magoseph - 3/3/2003 9:21:18 AM

My answer to the following is in American Politics
Message # 6537 in thread 137

Firstly, there is no such 'wing' of the Republican Party. Secondly, you haven't been paying attention, IAC. There were numerous warnings about the likelihood of Islamist terrorism ever since Jimmuh Cahtuh acquiesced to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, a tradition that Clowntoon followed closely wrt to bin Laden and al Qaeda who installed themselves into Afghani power during the mid '90's.

4116. Cellar Door - 3/3/2003 10:37:20 AM

About those "No Fly Zones"

4117. jexster - 3/3/2003 12:19:14 PM

With "Friends" Like Bush Who Needs Enemies?
The Reasons Turkey Rejected U.S.: Ultimatums and insensitivities may have doomed access for ground forces.

4118. jexster - 3/3/2003 12:19:31 PM

toys

4119. jexster - 3/3/2003 12:26:25 PM

Middle East Experts Fleeing US Security Establishment Under ChickenHawk Reign of Terror and Intel Cookery

Thank Allah some people will stand up to Bush's lies.

4120. jexster - 3/3/2003 12:38:46 PM

Message # 4115

Of the many absurd contentions Concerned has made, THAT is the most ridiculous. Even the Conintern cone of silence cannot erase the fact that the Bush Regime's foreign policy decision process has been hijacked by a bunch of incompetents and ultra-right wing nationalists.

It is the reason middle east experts, career civil servants, are leaving in droves (supra).

Perhaps more than any other reason, that is why Bush's Iraq policy is a shambles.

4121. concerned - 3/3/2003 2:11:37 PM

Turkish markets plunge after vote

excerpt:

ANKARA, Turkey (CBS.MW) - Turkey's stock market and currency plunged Monday after the parliament voted not to allow the deployment of U.S. troops in a surprise move that could delay a war with Iraq and lead to a cut off of aid to the economically struggling nation.

In recent action, the main stock index had tumbled 12.5 percent, or 1,445 points, to 10,128. The lira crumbled as much as 5 percent to 1,675 to the dollar from Friday's close of 1,597.

"Despite the prospect of a massive U.S. aid package, the Turkish parliament rejected the government's motion to allow U.S. troops access to south-east Turkey. Not only does this have implications for Turkey, but also globally," said Tolga Ediz, analyst at Lehman Bros.

Ok, predictable USA haters - spin this as being the fault of the US. I expect nothing better from those infesting the cheap seats.

4122. concerned - 3/3/2003 2:31:57 PM

Btw, what occurred in Turkey in Monday's trading is equivalent to the DJIA dropping over a thousand points in one day.

4123. concerned - 3/3/2003 2:35:46 PM

Remember, the Bush Administration is not pro-war. They're anti-Saddam.

4124. Max Macks - 3/3/2003 2:41:29 PM

concerned,

but don't forget Afganistan, North Korea, Panama,
terrorism all over the world , ..
or course they are not "pro-war",..they are pro-
Military actions and National Emergencies

....sheeeeeeeessssssss

4125. Dubai Vol - 3/3/2003 2:54:15 PM

I was disgusted with the Turkish demand for bribery and more disgusted with dubya for acceding to it. Nothing but joy for the negative fallout for the Turks, who still occupy northern Cyprus. Time to let them sink from heir own weight. Filthy bastages.

4126. Dubai Vol - 3/3/2003 2:56:17 PM

Oh, and this one's especially for you jexster

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. "

Robert A. Heinlein

4127. concerned - 3/3/2003 3:14:51 PM

Well, if Turkey's parliament votes to allow US forces to operate on its soil tomorrow, I suppose the anti-capitalistic Left can claim that the offer by the US of loan guarantees and assistance is somehow inappropriate.

4128. judithathome - 3/3/2003 3:42:44 PM

No, it's just what I expected.

4129. alistairconnor - 3/3/2003 4:00:16 PM

I was disgusted with the Turkish demand for bribery and more disgusted with dubya for acceding to it.

The Turkish government did what it could to make a hugely unpopular war palatable for its public opinion, and its parliament, by asking for some insurance. In 1991 Turkey backed the Gulf War and its economy suffered hugely from it. US promises turned out to be hollow on that occasion. I don't blame them for wanting the cheque in the bank (and cleared) before they signed.

But democracy is a funny thing, and in the end there was no majority in parliament despite the US aid package. You have to respect them for their integrity. In the end, they can't be bought.

Or the price wasn't right.

4130. concerned - 3/3/2003 4:01:35 PM

So why the Turkish stock market crash today?

4131. alistairconnor - 3/3/2003 4:04:07 PM

Can the US afford unilateralism?

Cheque-book diplomacy looks like becoming an expensive business for American taxpayers. With balooning budget and trade deficits, and no guarantee that the $US will continue to be the world's currency of reference...

4132. concerned - 3/3/2003 4:04:40 PM

That doesn't indicate a society uniformly opposed to American action in Iraq. Surely, the Turkish people could not expect this magnitude of American aid for no return at all.

4133. alistairconnor - 3/3/2003 4:05:52 PM

Clearly, the fear of economic revenge by the US put the frighteners on the stock market.

4134. alistairconnor - 3/3/2003 4:09:38 PM

Uniformly opposed?

No, only about 95%.

Of course, the stock market is much more important than elections.

4135. Dubai Vol - 3/3/2003 4:10:31 PM

Concerned:

It is in fact possible to be anti-Republican, pro-war, and pro-capitalism.

I love disagreeing with EVERYBODY!

My only point is: don't make the brush so broad. There are in fact people who can think for themselves and find fault with both parties' platforms. Personally I disagree with almost every plank of the GOP platform, but that doesn't stop me from knowing when they are right, which is almost never, but on Iraq I just pray they don't lose their nerve as they did in '91.

And in answer to your earlier post re: Clinton, by the time he took office Iraq was off the radar, and there was no politically viable way to get it back on the agenda. Blaming Clinton for not making an extraordinary and politically suicidal effort on the issue of Iraq is just partisan politics. The Democrats didn't clear up a mess left by the Republicans and so the GOP is stuck with it again. Hard bananas. At least dubya (who is a know-nothing hand puppet with a GOP fist stuck up his rectum) is being told to do the right thing in this instance. No credit to dubya or the GOP, just because I don't like them. But like Ronald Alzheimer, if the end result is good, then I'll give them the credit they deserve

4136. OhioSTOPAS - 3/4/2003 6:35:33 AM

I disagree that President Clinton was given a "mess left by the Republicans" in Iraq. A bigger mess would have been trying to hold Iraq with an occupying American military government, with the negative effects that would have had on our relations with the rest of the Middle East.

The Bush (the elder) plan of containing Iraq with UN inspections, no-fly zones nad the rest requires work to maintain, but I still think it was then, and is now, the best approach.

4137. judithathome - 3/4/2003 9:13:20 AM

Clinton, by the time he took office Iraq was off the radar, and there was no politically viable way to get it back on the agenda.

Yes, too bad Saddam didn't threaten to kill his mom.

4138. Macnas - 3/4/2003 9:28:03 AM

How can you blame Turkey?

The U.S. government began by waving loads of cash at them, somehow thinking that that’s all it would take to sway the peoples elected representatives (now where could they ever get that idea from??).

The fact that it has not is just one of those quirks of democracy.

4139. PelleNilsson - 3/4/2003 12:24:26 PM

No, we cannot blame them. Since I want Saddam toppled I think it was a pity Turkey didn't go along. But blame? No.

4140. PelleNilsson - 3/4/2003 12:25:34 PM

On the other hand Turkey is a member of NATO so there will be repercussions.

4141. alistairconnor - 3/4/2003 1:15:41 PM

?? I don't understand, Pelle.
Nato is a defensive alliance. Turkey is bound by it to come to the aid of its allies if they are attacked. This is not currently the case.

Repercussions in bilateral US/Turkey relations, for sure. But in Nato/Turkey relations, I don't see why.

Unless it causes the US to pull out of Nato, which is a possibility in the current climate.

4142. Cellar Door - 3/4/2003 2:37:25 PM

"Remember, the Bush Administration is not pro-war. They're anti-Saddam."

Sure. Just like Michael Jackson. He's not a pedophile -- he simply loves having sex with children.

4143. Al D - 3/4/2003 10:12:22 PM

Why don't we send jexster and cellar over to disarm Saddam? Isn't disarming Saddam what the resolution called for? And if he didn't comply, serious consequesces would follow. Would inspectors be in Iraq if Bush had not gone to the U.N. to get the resolution and then started putting troops over there? Hell no. Now, do any think Saddam is going to disarm willingly? Next time when the U.N. makes threats they aren't willing to back up, they might think twice. If the U.N. stops the removal of Saddam, we should pull out of both the U.N. and NATO

4144. jexster - 3/5/2003 3:00:08 AM

Turkey's Courageous Stand for Democracy Emboldens Opposition -Russia Will Not Abstain - Ivanov

White House leaves door open to withdrawing U.N. resolution on Iraq if defeat in sight

4145. jexster - 3/5/2003 3:13:22 AM

Why don't we send jexster and cellar over to disarm Saddam? Isn't disarming Saddam what the resolution called for? And if he didn't comply, serious consequesces would follow.

Seems like he IS disarming. Seems like Bush doesn't care that his "evidence" was cooked garbage. Seems like Bush wants to overthrow Hussein. Seems like WMD and the UN are and have always been a sham, a charade.

Would inspectors be in Iraq if Bush had not gone to the U.N. to get the resolution and then started putting troops over there?

Sure. You'd be hard pressed to find an example of a more bungled foreign policy decision and execution process. Pre-911, before the Chickenhawks found their "big opening" for empire, Iraq was a very low priority for the Bush Regime. Aside from some desultory attempts to get a "smart sanction's" resolution, Bush did zilch, zero. Then all of a sudden he starts this nutty talk about regime change and WMD and nukes etc. This continued for nine months but what is more remarkable is the fact that he could not control warrring factions in his own house and force any kind of decision until Powell caved in late January 2003. Leaks from State, from DIA, from the CIA, from top military ranks, open dissent from prominent Republicans, and an upcoming election forced Bush to the UN.

Had Bush been serious, had he been competent, had he been able to control his foreign and defense policy makers, he could have pursued a diplomatic strategy not a spasm.

Cheney & the ChickenHawks have no use for NATO or the UN not now, not in 1990, not tommorrow either.

Hell no. Now, do any think Saddam is going to disarm willingly? Next time when the U.N. makes threats they aren't willing to back up, they might think twice. If the U.N. stops the removal of Saddam, we should pull out of both the U.N. and NATO

4146. jexster - 3/5/2003 3:16:11 AM

If the U.N. stops the removal of Saddam, we should pull out of both the U.N. and NATO

Take our marbles and go home!

It is going to take our next President years and a great deal of skill to undo the damage this idiot and old freeper fart flag waving like this have caused.

4147. jexster - 3/5/2003 3:27:46 AM

I don't for a minute buy into the "adverse repurcussions" handwringing.

The Bush Regime doles out threats like Holloween candy. In point of fact, they are idle. The only victim in GWI was Yemen! The US is able to do without Cameroon or Yemen. But several dozen of em along with France, Russia? Hell the entire damn planet is against this lunacy. The US isn't ready for autarky. The US needs Euro investment to finance our trade deficits, our budget deficits, and our foreign aid deficits. Tthe US needs a stable Turkey to shore up the mess Bush is about to make in the region. The US needs a stable Turkey because it needs Turk troops to police the half-built Islamic nations Bush leaves behind.

4148. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:06:14 AM

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

A sign of the times, a sign of trouble and disordered times when the pacifist is singled out for ridicule. Actually it takes a great deal of courage and discipline to be a true pacifist. The pacifist is to be honored because she reminds us of our higher calling and our better nature in a world that has a surfeit of violence, war, and strife.

I am not a pacifist. I could never cultivate the requisite inner peace of a Buddhist or a Quaker. Yet isn't it rather bizzare, rather sad, ludicrous even, that this most unpopular war of any in the past 100 years; that this most unpopular of wars in the most violent death dealing 100 years in history should prompt such an attack?

"Wars for peace", "diktats for democracy" "nuclear bombs to destroy a few useless chem weapons" I guess it all makes a certain sort of absurd sense. The sense of the asylum.

PS - Perhaps the quote's self righteous ring appeals to some but strictly as a matter of political economy the indictment stings like a butterfly and floats like a bee.

Imagine if we applied that test to say the Bush Chickenhawks? to Bush? to the rich? to those arm chair generals like me who find war sort of thrilling? to the millions who can't wait for another neato TV war on CNN? to the people betting on when the war will start?

To the "grave and imminently threatened" Gulf States - afraid of their people - afraid of Saddam - afraid of Bush - those craven billionaires whose greatest fear is falling oil prices; whose troops will guard Kuwait as Iraqis and US citizens die, and who'll not even part with money much less blood leaving the bill to be paid by you, your children and grandchildren.

4149. jexster - 3/5/2003 5:06:57 AM

Democracy of the Diktat: Democratic Norms a Major Obstacle for Bush Empire Builders

4150. jexster - 3/5/2003 6:48:51 AM

In Defeat of U.S. Plan, Turks See a Victory and a Milestone for Democracy

4151. jexster - 3/5/2003 9:38:15 AM

The WarPeddler's Favorite Defector

Rummy and his chickenhawks regularly cite Hussein Kamel for the proposition that Saddam cheats and lies.

They don't mention his most vital testimony. UNMOVIC says US intel is "garbage upon garbage upon garbage"

Saddam isn't the only cheat and liar on the block.

Wealth of information: Hussein Kamel, former Iraqi minister of military industry

Exclusive: The Defector’s Secrets and Bush's Lies

Before his death, a key defector told the CIA that Iraq had destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons but had retained the design and engineering details of its WMD

4152. jexster - 3/5/2003 10:17:58 AM

PARIS (Reuters) - Foreign ministers from anti-war powers France, Russia and Germany agreed on Wednesday not to allow a resolution authorizing war in Iraq (news - web sites) to be passed in the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council.
Announcing the decision, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said the three countries also agreed to back more United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq.

"We will not allow the passage of a planned resolution which would authorize the use of force," he said after a meeting in Paris with his counterparts Igor Ivanov of Russia and Joschka Fischer of Germany.

"Russia and France as permanent security council members will fully assume all their responsibilities," he added at a joint news conference with Ivanov and Fischer.

Asked whether France was ready to use its right of veto to block a U.N. resolution giving the green light for force in Iraq, Villepin added: "We are totally on the same line as Russia."

Ivanov said in London on Tuesday Moscow would not abstain on the resolution, which the United States and Britain may introduce next week, and warned it could use its veto power.

Russia and France are both veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council.

Ivanov also said that China, another veto-wielding Security Council member which last month supported a memo by the three anti-war powers urging more inspections, "shares our approach" on the Iraq crisis.

The ministers said in a joint declaration: "We strongly encourage the Iraqi authorities to cooperate more actively with the inspectors toward the full disarmament of their country. These inspections cannot continue indefinitely."

4153. concerned - 3/5/2003 1:16:45 PM

Reporter flies home as human shields flee

excerpt:

Nobody thought that living in Iraq while it was bombarded was going to be easy.

But few of the human shields I met had given real thought to the fact they may not survive the coming weeks.

What they did not count on - and until the very last hours, refused to believe - was that their whole trip may have been planned by the Iraqi government.

All the hotel and food bills were being paid for by the Iraqi Government. Our visas were processed in hours when for everyone else it was taking months, if at all.

Former college lecturer Dave Howarth said he had decided of his own free will to sleep at the South Baghdad Power Station because the electricity was essential for the civilian population.

We jumped in a taxi and within 30 minutes we were standing alone on the roof of the power station with the sound of industrial clatter ringing in our ears.

Dave told me that he felt safer in Baghdad than Lincoln. Despite this, I booked myself on the next available flight out of the country.

Then 36 hours later everything changed.

Doubts about the credibility of Dr Abdul Hashimi's Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organisation which had invited the human shields to Baghdad, began to emerge.

Rumours reached their ears that it was actually the Iraqi Government that was behind their trip and not charity peace campaigners who had acted spontaneously.

Oh, come on! Doesn't every good Leftist know that an 'organization' whose name includes words such as 'Friendship', 'Peace' and 'Solidarity' couldn't be possibly be a front for Saddam? Just like ANSWER couldn't ever be a Stalinist front with all its peace babble and politically correct terminology? It's all a vast conspiracy by the ee-vile Bushies.

4154. jexster - 3/5/2003 1:49:04 PM

Answer isn't a Stalinist front. There are no Saddamite fronts. Its not a vile conspiracy of Bushies, its just another vile Conintern slander.

But its not working!

Courage is Contagious!

The World Is Uniting Against Bush Imperialist War
Bush Ploy to Spin Lies and Intimidation in Into Votes Backfiring

U.N. Resolution for War Still Lacks Votes

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and Britain still have not won enough support to pass a U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq (news - web sites) and now face new resolve from France and Russia to veto such a resolution.

Despite official optimism from Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) that votes were falling into place, a senior Security Council diplomat said Wednesday that Washington and its allies had much more work to do.

The United States hopes to bring the resolution to a vote by the end of next week but so far only has the public support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria in the 15-member Security Council. It needs nine votes to pass and no vetoes.

France, Russia, Germany, China and Syria will definitely not support the resolution and the first three of these said on Wednesday they would block it. A "no" vote from France, Russia or China, who hold veto power, would kill the draft resolution.

The diplomat said the other six -- Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea and Angola -- were still uncommitted and all had expressed unhappiness at talk by President Bush (news - web sites) that his aim was now to get rid of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

Chilean envoy Cristian Maquieira told reporters on Wednesday: "They say that Chile is in. It's not."

4155. PelleNilsson - 3/5/2003 1:58:47 PM

In this case I have to agree with concerned. The thing has been exposed over here. It is not originally, it is thought, neccessarily a front for Saddam but he has been quick to jump on the bandwagon. The more established peace movements here are very critical of the whole thing.

4156. jexster - 3/5/2003 2:14:24 PM

I must confess to piss ignorance of the organization. We don't have it here in SF as far as I know. Its generally sound practice to believe exactly the opposite of concerned's smears. He is a mediocre black propagandist.

4157. Cellar Door - 3/5/2003 3:28:17 PM

Support Slips!

4158. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:22:48 PM

Blix is on to something -WAR DISCREDITS CONCEPT OF INSPECTIONS

Blix also regretted that inspections would probably be curtailed through military action and said war would discredit the concept of disarmament through inspections, not just in Iraq but elsewhere.

"If war breaks out, I think that it is a serious failure for the approach through inspections to disarmament," Blix said.

Relatedly, it also lends an urgency to nuclear weapons programs creating a "duct tape" demand for nukes; is politically destablizing both regionally and globally; complicates the proliferation problem, and makes the world a more dangerous place.

But of course no sane person could support this grim adventure.

4159. Cellar Door - 3/5/2003 4:50:02 PM

"In an impassioned speech, Mr Powell said Iraq's effort must fail, because no one wanted to live in a world where the United Nations meant nothing. "

4160. jexster - 3/5/2003 5:07:40 PM

Doublespeak alert!

Honesty died months ago. Sanity fading fast

4161. concerned - 3/5/2003 5:24:29 PM

It's obvious that those who believe mere weapons inspections by a few dozen volunteers can significantly curtail Iraq's WMD/arms productions haven't the faintest clue about these things, since they clearly are not aware that, for instance, during WWII Nazi Germany had no great difficulty maintaining its armaments and munitions production in the midst of intensive and sustained Allied carpet bombing.

4162. concerned - 3/5/2003 5:25:13 PM

re. 4160 -

jexster was never on speaking terms with either.

4163. jexster - 3/5/2003 5:45:43 PM

US planes weren't flying over 2/3 of Hitler's airspace, there was no inspection regime, no U-2 flights but most importantly there is NO evidence that the weapons exist and considerable doubt that they have for a number of years.

Bush never wanted the inspections to work. Neither did you.

Only difference is you said so.

4164. jexster - 3/5/2003 5:48:00 PM

We knew about Pennemunde, we knew where Hitler's Tiger and Panther assembly lines were located, we knew where his airfields were

Iraq is not Germany and we are not fighting a war for freedom.

4165. concerned - 3/5/2003 5:51:52 PM

Wrong. I think the inspections cannot work as they are now implemented since that process was only ever developed to be effective with a country that intended to rapidly and fully cooperate.

Those who profess to believe that mere weapons inspections are to be relied upon to determine anything useful with an uncooperative regime such as Saddam's are among the most ignorant and/or dishonest people to pollute the face of the earth.

4166. concerned - 3/5/2003 6:00:56 PM

Only jex would as much as say that we could have defeated Nazi Germany with weapons inspectors.

4167. Cellar Door - 3/5/2003 6:02:27 PM

And you, needless to say, would have supported Nazi Germany.

4168. jexster - 3/5/2003 6:04:59 PM

I never said any such thing. I said your analogy is worthless.

Only you could say that War in Europe and Bush's War have anything in common besides death and destruction

4169. concerned - 3/5/2003 6:05:05 PM

I couldn't have, never having been a Socialist.

4170. concerned - 3/5/2003 6:05:49 PM

4169 was re 4167.

4171. concerned - 3/5/2003 6:07:00 PM

Re. 4168 -

You've absolutely got it backwards there, and you fully merit the drubbing I gave you in 4166.

4172. jexster - 3/5/2003 6:08:18 PM

WRONG - I think the inspections cannot work as they are now implemented since that process was only ever developed to be effective with a country that intended to rapidly and fully cooperate..

.at least 95% of all weapons were destroyed, 100% if Hussein Kemmel's statements are true, NO possibility of deploying or using anything NO nuclear program NO threat of anything from Iraq...

Dovoyai no provoyai Trust but verify worked in Russia, worked in Iraq

4173. jexster - 3/5/2003 6:10:06 PM

It would have been a mighty fine drubbing if I had said that.

But I didn't. You did. You made it up.

Self flagellation?

4174. concerned - 3/5/2003 6:14:15 PM

Re. 4172 -

The inspections didn't work, given seven years in the '90s. Now, after a couple months, you proclaim them a success after UNSCOM hasn't found jackshit?

The hell with the hipboots. I need a fucking bathysphere. The bullshit is oceanic subduction zone deep coming from the Left Field cheap seats here.

4175. Cellar Door - 3/5/2003 7:09:10 PM

connie you're a National Socialist to the manner born.

Meanwhile your God, Ken Starr, has hit the bottle!

4176. jexster - 3/5/2003 8:56:06 PM

The Road to Babylon Louis Lapham, Harper's

4177. jexster - 3/5/2003 9:10:38 PM

No- I claim success for several reasons:

- The UN destroyed substantial quantities of prohibited weapons before 1998, generally thought at the time to be on the order of 90-95%
- The highest ranking official to defect, Hussein Kemmel who ran Saddam's Weapons Ministry and whose veracity has been extolled repeatedly by WarParty officials, in an extensive briefing to the CIA recently made public and analysed by Newsweek, stated that Saddam decided to destroy all WMD after the Gulf War and did so 100%
- IAEA has concluded that Iraq has no current operational nuclear weapons program and that Bush propaganda to the contrary was false
- UNMOVIC has not found any weapons of mass destruction even though the US and Britain were required to cooperate in the sharing of WMD intel data
- UNMOVIC has publically stated that numerous British and US claims about Iraq's "clandestine" weapons activity are false
- If Saddam has any chem bio weapons at all, he certainly can hide them for a time but he cannot hide delivery capability from UNMOVIC
- If as you claim it is folly to proclaim "after a couple month..a success after UNSCOM hasn't found jackshit" the only prudent course is to continue the inspections not end them "after a couple of months"

UNLESS you never wanted the inspection process to work in the first place.

You didn't. Bush didn't. You told the truth. Bush lied.

4178. jexster - 3/5/2003 9:19:03 PM

A War Policy in Collapse catalogues the numerous failures of Bush's War Policy that provide considerable factual detail for my post of the same theme in the AP thread.

This is no surprise to me for as I explained in considerable depth last summer, the chronic inability of Bush to direct and control his foreign policy establishment would inexorably lead to slipshod execution and confusion.

It has happened. Let's hope that I am wrong about the war and its aftermath but it would not be wise to bet against my track record without long odds.

4179. jexster - 3/5/2003 9:20:13 PM

All of this points to an administration whose policies are confused and whose implementations are incompetent. The efficiency with which the US military is moving into position for attack is impressive; thousands of uniformed Americans are preparing to carry out the orders of their civilian superiors with diligence and courage. But the hollowness of that civilian leadership, laid bare in the disarray of last week's news, is breathtaking.

4180. jexster - 3/5/2003 9:21:00 PM

Take Jex and give 35 points.

4181. concerned - 3/5/2003 10:20:23 PM

re. 4175 -

Sounds like you'd better make a confessional to your Fuehrer, cllrdr.

4182. concerned - 3/5/2003 10:22:53 PM

re. 4177 -

Wow.

So, Saddam is "thought to" have done this or that, or, rather, you hope like hell he has done what you want us to believe, or you've expended your non-existent credibility in an exhaustive wild goose chase once again while the Mote laughs itself sick.

Pathetic.

4183. jexster - 3/5/2003 11:43:06 PM

Dubai, Mote War Correspondent in theater, safely in the rear, this bud's for you!

I figure that one bad quote deserves a profound other, from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Check it out from Louis Lapham's Harper's piece above (a brilliant polemic, ripping and dripping with classy sarcasm -HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for substance, style, and entertainment value) his profound close:

Mark Twain remarked on [such] stupidity in 1905 during the American occupation of the Philippines. Objecting to the fraudulent piety of statesmen who don't know what they're saying, Twain wrote a story, "The War Prayer," in which an "aged stranger" enters a church where the congregation has been listening to an heroic sermon about the glory to be won in battle by young patriots armed with the love of God. Motioning the startled minister to stand aside, the aged stranger improvises a bitter peroration that makes clear the true meaning of the prayer:

4184. jexster - 3/5/2003 11:45:02 PM

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

The story didn't see the light of print until 1923, thirteen years after Twain's death. The editors to whom he tendered the manuscript thought it "unsuitable" for publication at a moment of high and patriotic feeling.

Even the most ardent supporters of Bush's war should enjoy Lapham if for no other reason than his mastery of the English language and his sense of humor.

I cannot recall the last time I read an author of this genre who writes this well.

4185. jexster - 3/5/2003 11:46:56 PM

Saddam has thought of doing what? Where is the threat? Of what does it consist? Where is the evidence?

Nice fluffy bun. Big fluffy bun.

WHERE's THE BEEF?

4186. Dubai Vol - 3/6/2003 1:47:38 AM

Jex, I should have known you were a bud drinker. Awful stuff. Thanks for the thought, though; I'll stick to my Carlsberg, $2.19/6 pack!

And you betcha I'm safely in the rear, I did my time in the front lines, now retired and selling air conditioning to Arabs. Much easier than selling refrigerators to eskimos.

Glad to see that SOMEONE in the US knows how safe Dubai is, my frinds, family, and Tiger Woods are all sure I'm about to die.

I'm a huge Twain fan, have his complete works on my nightstand, I'll have to look for that.

As for this "95%" figure, the only person claiming that is Scott Ritter, and he has thoroughly discredited himself as a reliable objective source, in my view.

More persuasive to me was Hans Blix, who in his last UN address, cited multiple cases of proscribed weapons development sites, destroyed by UNSCOM and since rebuilt by Saddam. Blix asked why, and I'm still waiting for an answer other than the true one: Saddam is not disarming, he is continuing his WMD programs.

WHile people of good conscience may believe inspections can disarm Saddam, I am more inclined to believe tha many experts in the field who say that it is impossible to disarm a country by insections if that country is not completely willing to cooperate. Saddam has failed that test egregiously and repeatedly.

Mabe it didn't make the news there but all his Gulf neighbors are on board with the UAE plan for exile and interim government by the Arab League. I like the Arab League interim government part of the idea well enough that I wrote dubya AND his puppeteer Cheney and suggested it.

Think of all the money the US would save if the Arabs get stuck with the bill for rebuilding Iraq, as they should.

4187. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:47:38 AM

The real pea is under Democrats' heads

Once again, Ann Coulter brilliantly skewers the 'Rats' gangrenous guts and hangs their moronic hypocrisy out to dry.

4188. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:49:05 AM

" If impeached former president Bill Clinton had ever caught a fish as big as Mohammed, he would still go down in history as America's worst president, but at least he would have a single foreign policy accomplishment"

Hear here!

4189. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:51:30 AM

I think Dubai Vol just ruined jexster's day.

4190. alistairconnor - 3/6/2003 4:26:31 AM

It's time for a compromise on Iraq.

Verifiable disarmament of Iraq can be achieved by a combination of vigorous inspection and military threat. Both are necessary.

This requires a timetable and deadlines, with a clear threat of military action. France/Russia/China are not ready to concede the military action part. US/UK are not ready to concede the timetable.

In a rational world, each side would be prepared to make concessions to avoid a confrontation which will damage international relations for decades to come.

4191. magoseph - 3/6/2003 5:09:25 AM

Them Too
Britain's dirty secret

David Leigh and John Hooper
Thursday March 6, 2003
The Guardian

A chemical plant which the US says is a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985 behind the backs of the Americans, the Guardian can disclose.

4192. Dubai Vol - 3/6/2003 8:10:34 AM

magoseph
From the article you quoted, THIS is the relevant point:

"The Falluja 2 chlorine plant, 50 miles outside Baghdad, near the Habbaniya airbase, has been pinpointed by the US as an example of a factory rebuilt by Saddam to regain his chemical warfare capability."

I'm not condoning the actions of the Brits, or for that matter the US, in helping him develop WMD in the 80s,(under Thatcher and Reagan, please note) but the issue here is that Saddam is rebuilding plants destroyed by UNSCOM to continue his WMD program. In short he is not actively and willingly cooperating with disarmament. On the contrary, he is actively and willfully thwarting and resisting disarmament.

4193. magoseph - 3/6/2003 11:08:47 AM

In short he is not actively and willingly cooperating with disarmament. On the contrary, he is actively and willfully thwarting and resisting disarmament.
Dubai,
Yes, I know that and that is why I am a proponent of the war against Iraq. I made this fact abundantly clear in my posts in this thread, ask anybody. I even have lost Jex's unconditioned love on this issue. Now he calls me French bashing Mago.

4194. Dubai Vol - 3/6/2003 11:33:17 AM

Hi there magoseph
Didn't mean to step on any toes; generally I prefer discussion to hurling of invective, unless I've had a bad day or too many Carlsbergs, tho I never mind disagreeing. And I rarely keep track of who's on what side, unless they are so rabid as jex or concerned that it's impossible not to notice. Me, I have feet firmly planted on both sides of the partisan fence, not straddling it (painful) but making up my own mind on issues of right and wrong, and IMO neither party has a monopoly, tho, again, IMO, the Democrats have a clear majority.

And yes, you guessed it: this week's featured beer!
Tuborg Gold Label De Luxe Beer. For the review, visit the Cafe.

4195. jayackroyd - 3/6/2003 11:53:39 AM

This piece in Slate succinctly and clearly states my views better than I could:

Kaplan on Bush Diplomacy

4196. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:12:56 PM

On Ash Wednesday, Pope John Paul II made several emphatic appeals for a peaceful resolution to the conflict with Iraq.

4197. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:16:04 PM

Bud - no hell no...good comercials but I drink Pilsner Urquell, Spaten, Grolsch, Chimay, Tiger, Bohemia, Negro Modelo and nothing American unless its CA or Washington micro

4198. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:16:45 PM

I live in SF for Chrissakes

4199. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:20:19 PM

Air conditioning to Arabs..good one...thought you'd be in the erl 'n gas bidniss and I know what Mago's up to...has something to do with concerned's shorty running shorts and it ain't purty

Besides why should I care? I am on the side of the fuckin Pope of Rome and every leader of every real religion on the planet..my bases are well covered

Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

4200. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:22:13 PM

Me too Jay!

the Bush administration is in no shape—diplomatically, politically, or intellectually—to wage it or at least to settle its aftermath

And this is a HUGE problem....Take Jex give 5 touchdowns

4201. concerned - 3/6/2003 12:23:35 PM

Re. 4195 -

Jay -

Mind if I call you Alden Pyle?

4202. concerned - 3/6/2003 12:31:11 PM

Re. 4195 -

There's a common thread that runs through those who are quoted as criticizing GWB in this article - they run toward being self-glorifying layabouts, many of whom want the US to promote their ideas to the exclusion of existing agreements and without consideration of viable options.

4203. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:31:26 PM

Bully bush bloody moron

4204. jayackroyd - 3/6/2003 12:33:11 PM

Do you have a point, connie?

Can you defend the diplomatic path the administration has followed? After all, they went to the UN. Having done so, do you think it makes sense that they now say it doesn't matter what the UN says?

Does it leave you unconcerned about their ability to manage the aftermath given that they forgot to put the Afghan aid money into their budget?

Does it bother you not at all that the US has told the security council and the UN that if they don't vote the way we tell them to, we won't pay any attention?

Does it not bother you that the democratically elected Turkish parliament's vote, reflecting the opposition of over 90% of its citizens to Turkish participation, is not considered acceptable by the administration, and they are turning to an "influential general" (NYT) to overturn the result?

Does it not bother you that there is no NATO support for this action, and that the administration doesn't care?

These institutions have been a source of stability for decades. Does it not bother you that we are pissing on them because Paul Wolfowitz thinks that Iraqis will embrace democracy? Or, still worse, because God has spoken to the president?

4205. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:34:31 PM

Think of all the money the US would save if the Arabs get stuck with the bill for rebuilding Iraq, as they should

Now what's wrong with this picture?

Oh to begin with think of all the money we'd save if we brought the boys home...

Think of all the money we won't save because its ALL our fault and we SHOULD pay every damned dime to every country adversely impacted by our Moron's criminal idiocy

Think of...

THINK

4206. concerned - 3/6/2003 12:35:42 PM

The Slate article that tries to take GWB to task for not mobilizing for war against NK and other links from Jay's cite that criticize him for mobilizing against Iraq puts me in mind of a cartoon where one character is attempting to distract another by indiscriminately pointing and crying out "Here!" "No, here!" "No, here!"

GWB is right to ignore the cartoon diplomacy of his critics.

4207. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:36:15 PM

TD can defend anything....when in doubt pull it out your ass

4208. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:36:41 PM

Where's little Eddie I'm feelin RANDY this am

4209. judithathome - 3/6/2003 12:39:43 PM

As for the president's own depths, two recent news articles reinforce long-standing doubts. In Monday's New York Times, David Sanger quotes "an administration insider" as saying, "Of course, in our internal discussions, we raise the Yugoslavia analogy"—i.e., the possibility that Iraq could fall apart, in bitter feuds or civil wars, after Saddam's ouster. "But," the source continues, "this isn't the moment for the president to be talking about that risk." Two questions here: First, if this isn't the moment, then when is? Second, does the president take part in these "internal discussions"? Is he fully apprised of this risk? In last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, George Packer reports that when Bush met in January with top Iraqi exile-dissidents, they had a hard time explaining the differences between the Sunnis and the Shiites. The president seemed surprised that the two groups existed, much less that they had conflicts.

So it doesn't bother you that this man is proposing a new regime for Iraq and he seems to be woefully ignorant of the most basic information about that country?

4210. concerned - 3/6/2003 12:43:05 PM

Good thing he has better advisors than x42, eh, JAH?

4211. judithathome - 3/6/2003 12:46:58 PM

Oh yeah, good thing. They seem to be doing SUCH a bang-up job.

Jesus H. Christ...are you completely blind?

4212. concerned - 3/6/2003 12:49:09 PM

Wrt NK, I think that GWB is doing nothing more egregious than rejecting Pyongyang's ham handed attempts to manipulate US actions and coerce aid for the NK totalitarian dictatorship from the US government.

I personally see it as a big problem if GWB succumbs to NK attempts to exclude other nations and the UN from negotiations with NK and applaud GWB's refusal to do such a shortsighted thing.

4213. concerned - 3/6/2003 12:53:33 PM

In a nutshell, GWB's detractors are running interference for Pyongyang and Baghdad. How very admirable of them.

4214. concerned - 3/6/2003 12:55:57 PM

Particularly since they advise that the US shut the international community out of participation in the NK situation, then turn right around and whine that twelve years of international 'participation' is not nearly enough in Iraq.

Puhleeze.

4215. OhioSTOPAS - 3/6/2003 12:58:21 PM

There's a picture on page 1 of USA Today of a pro-war rally. USA Today's caption? "Supporting troops."

Hey, some support: "Send our troops into combat!" If I were in the military I think that's "support" I could do without.

Although pro-war demonstrators like to characterize themselves as supporting our servicemen and women in the Middle East, I think the better way to support them would be to bring them home.

4216. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:00:33 PM

The UN and US should never have acquiesced in 1998 to allowing Saddam to toss out arms inspectors. The US appears to be doing now what the rhetoric then called for.

4217. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:03:32 PM

Re. 4215 -

Actually, I agree. I would be perfectly happy to see US forces around Iraq replaced with cheese monkeys and Krauts intended to enforce continued inspections.

4218. mikeurl - 3/6/2003 1:06:19 PM

GWB has yet to prove he is a person possessing more than an IQ of 100. However, in some ways I think this plays to the Administration's benefit. They get to play a variation on the Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. In the case of the Bush Administration it is more of a Stupid/I'm with Stupid routine. It throws everyone off balance. "Can he really be this moronic?" "They can't be dangerous." Then WHAM, Colin Powell whacks you upside the head with a killer speech. While you are reeling Bush comes out and says "One year ago today, the time for excuse-making has come to an end." You relax a little, remembering what a moron he is and WHACK, Rumsfeld hits you right in the chops. Followed up by another devistating Powell attack supplemented by a Rice undercutting. Holy shit, before you know it you are signing on to a resolution authorizing the use of force just to stop the insanity.

4219. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:07:43 PM

But, since they're wankers, not serious playas, the US reserves the right to implement UN Resolution 1441 to close out this untenable situation.

4220. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:08:44 PM

4219 is wrt 4217.

4221. mikeurl - 3/6/2003 1:09:48 PM

4222. judithathome - 3/6/2003 1:11:39 PM

rejecting Pyongyang's ham handed attempts to manipulate US actions and coerce aid for the NK totalitarian dictatorship from the US government.

So it's bad when North Korea tries to coerce the USA but good when the USA tries to coerce Turkey?

Some values.

4223. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:11:56 PM

Actually, it's too bad that we're not seeing French peacekeepers in Iraq. They could practice surrendering to each other.

4224. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:12:05 PM

mikeurl hits a home run! The fools who signed on for congressional and UN resolutions just to stop the Bush insanity are nearly as much to blame that the Bloody Moron himself...Bush has worn everyone's last nerve with his antics over the past year...many are worn out but I'll tell who aren't..

The anti-war movement's morale is sky high...there is going to violence here I fear

4225. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:12:24 PM

to be.....

4226. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:13:32 PM

How exactly is economic aid 'coercion', JAH? If Turkey says 'no' to it, then the US moves on with plan B. Nothing could be more equitable.

4227. judithathome - 3/6/2003 1:14:50 PM

Oh I see, it's "offering aid" not trying to bribe them into it.

Must be nice in your little loolipop world, Concerned.

4228. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:15:06 PM

You want equity Moron?

Pay Turkey the damage YOU caused by fighting a war that nobody wants.

Who appointed you fuckin King of the Universe?

4229. judithathome - 3/6/2003 1:15:17 PM

And in the lollipop one, too.

4230. jayackroyd - 3/6/2003 1:15:22 PM

4216

Neither I, nor, I strongly suspect Kaplan, would disagree with you on your first sentence. In fact, I bet Chirac would agree.

But that sentence merely justifies reinstituting inspections or going to war.

It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable response to say that we need to reinstitute the inspections, that we are in the process of doing so, that the threat of force is necessary to make it happen.

That's what our allies are saying, almost all of them.

The administration's response is we don't care what you think. We don't care what your voters think. We don't care what the international institutions think. All that is relevant is our view of the situation, and we will act on our view of the situation because we can.

That is the position I've asked you to defend. Sneering at cartoon, diplomacy, calling people names, making snide remarks, and otherwise deflecting the issue does not constitute a defense.

Can you defend the administration's diplomatic strategy?

Can you make a case that they are really prepared to deal with the aftermath?

4231. concerned - 3/6/2003 1:16:14 PM

Re. 4224 -

If the LW 'kill for peace' crowd smokes SF, those imbeciles would try to blame GWB. Most of them got false positives on their IQ tests, at best.

4232. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:20:43 PM

"Kill for peace" LW funny ....a moron first class..I am here to tell you that Bush has screwed the pooch..and the shit is about to hit the fan.. but that's really not news...I told you so last summer

take Jex and give 6 touchdowns

US Position Increasingly Perilous, Opposition Building, Isolation Mounting

4233. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:22:15 PM

"Between Turkey and the German-French-Russian statements that hint at a veto, it doesn't look good," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. "There are two dangers" that could result from the events of the past week, he said. "There is a mindless war conducted by us. And Saddam [Hussein] is encouraged not to give in."

The operative word - MINDLESS

If I wasn't the first to coin the term moron, I was at least the 10th one to use it

4234. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:23:52 PM

Bush Imperils Rule of Law - France

The poulet be comin home to roost on the PouletHawks

4235. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:29:52 PM

PARIS, March 5 -- As the Iraq crisis moves closer to war, France finds itself fighting a battle that officials see as far more important than what happens to a dictator in Baghdad. The issue now is the rule of law in international affairs and the danger that one country will exercise unchecked power over the world, French leaders say.

4236. mikeurl - 3/6/2003 1:32:44 PM

Re:4235

France is quite right but, for reasons that will become apparent over the next decade, France is spitting into the wind. Their choice now is whether to spit a little or to hock up a big gooey lugey.

4237. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:33:30 PM

Who's the menace? Not Saddam Hussein.

God bless Iraq and Sing it Mireille!

4238. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:35:10 PM

Non. That's what Bush wants everyone to believe.. that they are powerless.

But we aren't unless we let him pick us off one by one.

Sharon and Kim Jung Il showed the way...

4239. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:35:48 PM

We aren't going to stop Bush from his insanity but we are going to be there to pick up the pieces

4240. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:36:44 PM

People say "Oh we can't piss off the US"

Well newsflash - Bush isn't the US

4241. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:38:38 PM

Just watch the news a week from next Saturday or better yet if you are near DC converge at the White Palace (SF and LA events too)

4242. jexster - 3/6/2003 1:47:38 PM

Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'étendard sanglant est levé
Entendez-vous dans nos campagnes....

Allons Mago..Le jour de gloire est arrivé !

4243. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2003 2:17:05 PM

jexster

Your #4237-41 were posted in a time frame of five minutes. Would it be possible for you to collect your thoughts a bit? Or do you have to post in real time whatever pops up in your mind because otherwise it will disappear again?

4244. magoseph - 3/6/2003 3:25:04 PM

Pelle, if you were posting often, I would understand why you are scolding Jexster every time you get a chance. I remember a time when you thought that it was a pity that I did not post as much as I should. Jexster posts and I do post, I should say in dire times and you do not appreciate us. You don't post nowadays as much as we do. Please let him do, as he wants. Give him credit when he deserves it. He tries to answer posts now more than he did before. He gives us another stance on things versus Concerned and Dantes' posts. Jexster posts links and links, so what? We use them or we scroll past them. What's the big deal? We regret that people left us. We appreciate that Dantes posts. We are trying to keep the Mote going. We hope that some of our Moties come back and that we attract new posters. We are grateful that Jay permits us to still communicate, very grateful. We are doing the best we can, Jexster and all the others. Don't act the same way you did when the Mote was in its prime. Come and post and comment, please don't be so negative toward us.

4245. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2003 3:43:05 PM

magoseph

As one of the founding members of this forum I'm quite concerned about it. Because I keep my ear to the ground in cyberspace I know for a fact that jexster's posting style, which tends to drown out everything else when he gets going, keeps people away from here. I emphasize his posting style, not his opinions.

4246. jexster - 3/6/2003 3:57:58 PM

Sue me for believing in something.

Bay Area students join global anti-war moratorium /Thousands strike, hold teach-ins, march for peace

Thousands of Bay Area college and high school students walked out of class or held teach-ins Wednesday as part of a nationwide anti-war protest on more than 350 campuses. These demonstrators were arrested for blocking traffic at 10th and Market streets during the afternoon commute.

4247. Wombat - 3/6/2003 3:59:07 PM

Trying to sort out anything substantive from Jexter's stream of repetitive claptrap, let alone trying to conduct a dialogue with him, is like trying to pan for gold under a waterfall. There is no point to it. God bless Iraq.

4248. jexster - 3/6/2003 4:01:35 PM

Pelle:

Advice please. What do you think? Should I go to Direct Action's civil disobedience training and get arrested on Day X*? Collect my thoughts in jail? Will you pay the fine?

Voie ton triomphe et notre gloire

*- Day X, first calendar day following start of Bush's war of aggression

4249. jexster - 3/6/2003 4:05:46 PM

Wombat

In the spirit of discussion

Trying to sort out anything substantive from Jexter's stream of repetitive claptrap,

If anything I give more substance per minute than you have any right to expect for free

let alone trying to conduct a dialogue with him

What do you wish to have a dialogue about? How about the morality of this war? How about your reasons for supporting it?

Oh been there done that..been there done you.

is like trying to pan for gold under a waterfall.

Never done that. Wouldn't know.

4250. judithathome - 3/6/2003 4:06:42 PM

Because I keep my ear to the ground in cyberspace I know for a fact that jexster's posting style, which tends to drown out everything else when he gets going, keeps people away from here. I emphasize his posting style, not his opinions.

Some of the places you are keeping your ear to are laying bets on when the Mote goes belly up, too...so I'm not sure what you're lisyening to is completely fair and unbiased. They also dislike far more of us than just Jexster. If they were to come back here, how long do you think it would be before someone else offended them? Not long, I'll bet, since they seem to delight in reposting things we write and ridiculing almost everyone here.

4251. jexster - 3/6/2003 4:07:56 PM

Wombat - I'd love to have your thoughts on Louis Lapham's article in Harper's

4252. alistairconnor - 3/6/2003 4:08:54 PM

Well, Pelle, I think you've chosen the wrong moment to play the nasty cop. To me, the change in Jex's style has been quite perceptible over recent days.

Dare I say, containment is working?

4253. jexster - 3/6/2003 4:09:34 PM

Its all Wiz's fault. The only nice guys around here are Robert of Humble, TX and Dubai

4254. alistairconnor - 3/6/2003 4:10:46 PM

4252 with respect to 4245... but four different posters intervened. You see, Pelle, there is real, multi-participant debate going on. So don't piss on the parade.

4255. jexster - 3/6/2003 4:10:59 PM

Pelle's on everyone's case...he just pasted my buddy TD in the AP thread, wasted mikeurl for believing in God...that's OK that's his job

4256. Cellar Door - 3/6/2003 4:11:24 PM

"There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know," Mr Rumsfeld said

4257. concerned - 3/6/2003 4:14:08 PM

Re. 4250 -

Where can I find some of the dialogue that you refer to?

4258. Wombat - 3/6/2003 4:15:29 PM

If citing Anatole Lieven 200+ times in the last two months is substance, well, I guess you are right. As to the rest of it, the Internet is a great place to read newspapers and other sources of information. Almost everything you post, I have already read, minus your logorrheic asides.

4259. concerned - 3/6/2003 4:16:35 PM

It would be a tragedy, in its own way, if the Left manages to get more people killed in America during its organized protests than any deaths resulting from US military action in Iraq.

4260. judithathome - 3/6/2003 4:19:32 PM

Well, do the Left have weapons of mass destruction? If so, they haven't sent out the memo yet as to where we pick them up before our killing sprees at the peace rallies.

4261. jexster - 3/6/2003 4:22:05 PM

Daschle: Bush Failing on Iraq

Powell: We Have to Deal With Iraq Now

Why?

Because if Bush waits a few more weeks, the only way out for our troops will be the way home

4262. jexster - 3/6/2003 4:23:37 PM

It would be a tragedy, in its own way, if the Left manages to get more people killed in America during its organized protests than any deaths resulting from US military action in Iraq.

20-30,000 dead americans in the streets of New York, LA, SF would be a tragedy

4263. alistairconnor - 3/6/2003 4:24:59 PM

Message # 4236 Mike,
France is quite right but, for reasons that will become apparent over the next decade, France is spitting into the wind. Their choice now is whether to spit a little or to hock up a big gooey lugey.

No, I think that France is driving a stake in the ground. Not always an easy thing to do, and with no quick and easy payoff, but in the long term, it had to be done.

It's a matter of checks and balances. No rational person should want any single country to have overwhelming dominance over the planet. Mediation, negotiation, compromise, are vital to any sort of international co-operation or governance.

4264. jexster - 3/6/2003 4:26:00 PM

Yes I think that Anatol Lieven cited 300 times is worthwhile. Had I done so. Even better, had you managed to come up with a reasoned response.

But you haven't

You cannot

4265. jexster - 3/6/2003 4:26:47 PM

So don't blame me for your intellectual shortcomings. I have enough fuck ups of my own without being burdened with yours

4266. judithathome - 3/6/2003 4:27:11 PM

Mediation, negotiation, compromise, are vital to any sort of international co-operation or governance.

And a tad of diplomacy doesn't hurt, either.

4267. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/6/2003 4:32:48 PM

My fault?

4268. alistairconnor - 3/6/2003 4:54:47 PM

The thread description is revealingly dated. "Mushroom cloud". Nobody's pretending that Iraq has nuclear capability any more. Inspection has achieved that much, we can all sleep easier.

4269. concerned - 3/6/2003 5:21:48 PM

I haven't heard that the inspectors have uncovered any of Iraq's uranium ore.

4270. jexster - 3/6/2003 5:47:29 PM

If you wanna know why we are in this mess, why Bush's foreign policy has been a disaster, look no further than any of posts on the subject of PantyWaist Powell v. the ChickenHawks and Bush's total inability to manage the foreign policy apparatus of this government.

I read somewhere that the reason Powell conducts "speed dial diplomacy" is that he fears leaving Washington because Cheney and the nutcases at the Pentagon will skewer him

Its happened before. Too little too late, the Good Buffalo Soldier and dreadlock rastaman has tried to grown yellow feathers and talons but

Powell's Ass is Grass

4271. concerned - 3/6/2003 5:49:50 PM

One thing I do agree with the author of one of the Slate pieces linkable through DA's cite about is that faced with the current situation with NK, x42 would have already caved, folded and spindled himself and would have promised even more giveaways to Kim Jong Il for meaningless NK assurances that they would respect the promises they ignored nine years ago. Meanwhile, the Lefty Greek Chorus would be praising x42's wisdom to the heavens for saving us from a confrontation with NK.

4272. jexster - 3/6/2003 5:54:11 PM

That's because they have any you idiot.

The IAEA exposed Bush's lies on that score two months ago.

I am glad the mushroom cloud quote is still there.

Its a reminder that Bush cannot be trusted nor any of representatives in anything they say to peddle this war...

Which raises the questions, why are we fighting anyway?

- to rid Iraq of WMD, if so where are they?
- to bring democracy to Iraq? If so, why are we installing a military dictator and ignoring the overwhelming popular will of nations in the region and the world?
- to pre-empt a grave and imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, if so what is this threat?
- to prevent this evil man from possibly doing something 5 10 years from now? What's he gonna do to ya?
- to enforce international law, if so, why are going to violate that law?
- to stop evil dictators who might in the indeterminate future have WMD, if so, why are we acquiesing to Kim Jung Il's nuclear program?

The answer to all of these questions is - we have no credible reason to go to war, we have a bunch of shit and lies and fear mongering...we have no reasons, no justification, no business doing what we are about to do

4273. concerned - 3/6/2003 5:55:00 PM

The Bush Administration has done their part to support Powell's UN initiatives regarding Iraq. I think it's just too bad that Irresponsible Old Yurrup doesn't mind shitting all over Powell in an effort to attack Bush.

4274. judithathome - 3/6/2003 6:01:02 PM

Concerned, what the hell does it matter what Clinton MIGHT hae done? In case you hadn't heard, Clinton is not in office any longer...he has no impact on what is going on right now. It's your boy Bush who has the reins now. Got that...Bush is in office now. He's the guy we need to worry about, not Clinton.

Try this: Clinton...unemployed; Bush...making half the country unemployed.

4275. concerned - 3/6/2003 6:09:08 PM

JAH -

I was commenting on a reference to x42's interaction with NK in '94 in one of Ackroyd's links. Plus, I didn't know that there was a code of omerta regarding x42 in the Mote.

4276. judithathome - 3/6/2003 6:17:14 PM

There isn'a a code of omerta regarding him but it gets tiresome seeing you drag him in to everything as often as you do.

There is a wealth of things to complain about in THIS administration, the one which is screwing us over NOW. Just give it a rest with the Clinton crap, please.

And speaking of which, watch the mafia references or you might find yourself sleeping with the fishes. ;-)

4277. judithathome - 3/6/2003 6:17:56 PM

isn'a = isn't.

4278. concerned - 3/6/2003 6:24:32 PM

History can be your friend, JAH.

IAC, I prefer not to restrict myself to the moment, nor to discussing the behavior of only one political party or administration.

4279. OhioSTOPAS - 3/6/2003 6:29:42 PM

". . . faced with the current situation with NK, x42 would have already caved, folded and spindled himself and would have promised even more giveaways to Kim Jong Il for meaningless NK assurances that they would respect the promises they ignored nine years ago."

The current situation IS what Clinton faced nine years ago. North Korea had built up a store of spent fuel rods, material for nuclear weapons, and was manufacturing more. (By the way, "concerned", how was it possible that NK could have been allowed to do this through 12 years of Republican Presidential administrations?) The resolution reached by the Clinton administration (the "Agreed Framework") included placing the spent fuel rods under international watch and shutting down the reactor that was manufacturing more.

Well, now North Korea has taken back the spent fuel rods and re-started the old reactor. Fortunately, there's a Republican in charge now to show us what Clinton SHOULD have done. Let's watch.

4280. arkymalarky - 3/6/2003 6:37:49 PM

...nor to discussing the behavior of only one political party or administration.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Ahem. Hmmm. Sorry.

I'm ok now.

4281. OhioSTOPAS - 3/6/2003 6:38:10 PM

A Republican Catholic (Rod Dreher of National Review magazine) on Crossfire

"DREHER: I'll tell you what bothers me a lot, is the church, the bishops, the cardinals, even the Holy Father presuming to tell President Bush, who has to protect 280 million of us, what his moral duties are in that regard, while these guys couldn't even protect Catholic children from their own robed priests."

Listen to this little shit! A self-professed Catholic, he nevertheless takes a cheap shot against the entire Church because the Pope has the effrontery to question a Republican President and his war plans. To Republicans, NOTHING is more important than Bush's war.

4282. OhioSTOPAS - 3/6/2003 6:38:51 PM

(Well, except maybe tax breaks for rich people.)

4283. judithathome - 3/6/2003 6:40:22 PM

Yes, Concerned, I agree history can be our friend, as Ohio has so adroitly pointed out...seems it swings both ways, friendwise.

4284. arkymalarky - 3/6/2003 6:41:03 PM

Our only Republican rep (one too many) says that the increasing deficits make him more certain than ever that a tax cut is just what the nation needs.

4285. Al D - 3/6/2003 6:54:46 PM

No rational person should want any single country to have overwhelming dominance over the planet
True-but if it were only one, how far down the list would the U.S. be?

4286. wonkers2 - 3/6/2003 7:16:48 PM

Re: Dreher and the Pope. I wonder where the idiot stands on capital punishment, abortion, gun control and therapeutic/research cloning? Anybody care to guess?

4287. LadyChaos - 3/6/2003 11:38:24 PM

jexter,

You're still a predictable, party hack.

4288. concerned - 3/7/2003 1:17:19 AM

re. 4230 -

Sorry not to have responded before now. You ask:

Can you defend the administration's diplomatic strategy?

Can you make a case that they are really prepared to deal with the aftermath?

Wrt the first question, my opinion is that the GWB administration committed itself to a policy wrt Saddam that it probably would not have chosen if 9/11 had not occurred. For the rest of the participants in the UNSC, 9/11 is really a non-factor. After all, besides 9/11, only the US (and to some extent GB) has spearheaded the overthrow of the Taliban and orchestrated the war on terror. The US is still responding to a terrorist actuality that most of the rest of the first world has not recently experienced, if ever. Now the US has a quarter million troops in and around Iraq with many UNSC nations frankly trying to exploit this situation to their exclusive benefits. There's a number of reasons that the US wants to close out the Iraq chapter on the war on terrorism and get US troops home in the near future, and risking another decade or two of negative results from an inapt inspections program won't suffice.

Wrt your second question: I believe the UN intends to be involved in a post-Saddam administration of Iraq. Are you suggesting you don't trust the UN?

4289. concerned - 3/7/2003 1:38:26 AM

Iraq strengthens air force with French parts

There's no doubt that this is one cause of Saddam's continued intransigence in the face of UN weapons inspections.

Thanks, France, for throwing a whole toolbox worth of spanners into efforts to get Iraq to disarm.

4290. magoseph - 3/7/2003 4:14:34 AM

I believe the big surprise of the Bush speech was his assertion that his resolution would be put to a vote, no matter how the tally looked prior to the vote. This, I think, was totally unexpected. The opponents will be forced to show their cards.

4291. OhioSTOPAS - 3/7/2003 7:04:15 AM

Georgie Anne Geyer's most recent column:

". . . There is no question now that President Bush's intention in invading Iraq -- along with his unlikely band of gray but gleamy-eyed compadres -- is based primarily on religious obsession and visions of personal grandiosity.

"The final confirmation was revealed in President Bush's speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 26, when he made it clear that his primary intention was to transform the Middle East. Earlier motives of disarmament were all but dropped."

Even middle-of-the-road commentators (see my quote of David Gergen a few days ago) are aware that Bush's war is ". . . based primarily on religious obsession."

4292. alistairConnor - 3/7/2003 7:56:53 AM

Hey LadyK!

If you don't want to discuss with Jexter, there are easily a dozen other people in this thread to talk to.

Me, for instance.

4293. alistairConnor - 3/7/2003 7:58:51 AM

Or Con. No party hack he...

I think it's just too bad that Irresponsible Old Yurrup doesn't mind shitting all over Powell in an effort to attack Bush.

That's a scream! Now you're inviting Europe to take sides in an internal war within the Bush administration? I'll remember that for a future occasion.

4294. alistairConnor - 3/7/2003 8:05:13 AM

Message # 4285 Al,
True-but if it were only one, how far down the list would the U.S. be?

Can you try rephrasing that? I don't understand.

Obviously, the US is going to remain the world's largest econonomic and political power for the next few decades (how long before China catches up?)

Hey, what happens when there are two superpowers again, and no instances of international mediation any more, because the US destroyed them all when it was top dog?

4295. quakeii - 3/7/2003 9:08:16 AM

Tom Shales in the Washington Post:

"The contrast between the foggy Bush of last night and the gung-ho Bush who delivered a persuasive State of the Union message to Congress not so long ago was considerable. Maybe Bush thought he was, indeed, coming across as cool and temperate instead of bored and enervated, and this was simply a rhetorical miscalculation. On the other hand, it hardly seems out of order to speculate that, given the particularly heavy burden of being president in this new age of terrorism -- a time in which America has, as Bush said, become a "battlefield" -- the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.

He would hardly be the first president ever to take a pill.

There were brief interludes during the news conference -- especially the long languid pauses -- when some viewers might have flashed back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. That is, the Nixon Years at their most tumultuous and Twilight Zoney, when the old Trickster would come on TV and you'd sit there not just fascinated but a trifle terrified of what he might say, who he'd accuse of persecuting him, and whether he might come completely unglued or just melt into a hideous puddle right before your horrified eyes."

4296. RickNelson - 3/7/2003 9:24:34 AM

quakeii,

I can't help it, your bit about Nixon is funny. Thoughtfully it's sad, but I just can't help but think it close to a zany Nixon.

4297. wabbit - 3/7/2003 9:33:44 AM

I usually refuse to watch Bush speak, he makes my teeth ache, but I did manage to get through the entire press conference last night. I don't know if he's just *really* uncomfortable doing press conferences or maybe Shales is right and someone slipped him something, but he did seem a bit...off. He was good about using people's names, but he'd start to speak and then shift his weight and start gazing around the room. I don't know, he just didn't look right.

Not that the press was much better, they mostly looked like they were ready for a nap.

Here is a transcript of the press conference.

4298. jayackroyd - 3/7/2003 9:34:12 AM

Nicholas Kristof's quiz of the day:

What nut from the LW wrote the following?

"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter day Arab hero assiging young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge the world into even greater instability."

I've dropped some ellipses.

4299. RickNelson - 3/7/2003 9:46:14 AM

Must be the infamous left-winger- laughing, Lefty Willinggangofwillinglefties.

4300. magoseph - 3/7/2003 10:34:41 AM

Just heard on WWBBM, Chicago, that two sons of Bin laden were arrested.

4301. magoseph - 3/7/2003 10:45:48 AM

Untrue.

4302. alistairConnor - 3/7/2003 10:46:01 AM

Yes, BBC mentions this.

Nice there are some things we can all be happy about.

4303. alistairConnor - 3/7/2003 10:46:40 AM

?? Can't be untrue. BBC said so.
(smile)

4304. magoseph - 3/7/2003 10:57:06 AM

The Pakistanis will get them, one of these days.

4305. alistairConnor - 3/7/2003 11:04:57 AM

Blix presents his report :

Mr Blix says in matters related to process the inspectors have faced few difficulties. This may be due to strong outside pressure, he says.

Inspection plus pressure is working.

Why won't the US hand over all their hot intel about Iraq's illegal weapons?

Simple : because if they did, inspection would work even better...

4306. jayackroyd - 3/7/2003 11:29:20 AM

CNN is reporting that there are rumors that 1) bin Laden's sons have been captured and 2) That special forces units are close to finding bin Laden. They cannot confirm those rumors through official sources.

The IAEA guy is making it quite clear that there is no evidence of nuclear weapon capability, clear enough that I walked from the tv to get some work done.

I do want to hear what Powell and Vallepin (sp?) have to say before I go off to a 1 pm meeting.

4307. Cellar Door - 3/7/2003 11:35:31 AM

Why We Fight

4308. wabbit - 3/7/2003 11:38:35 AM

CNN Breaking News: U.N. diplomat tells CNN amended resolution would give Iraq 10-day deadline to comply with inspectors or face military action. Details to come.

4309. magoseph - 3/7/2003 11:58:00 AM

From Wabbit's link: Click arrow top right corner and see the positions of Security Council members on the use of military force in Iraq.

4310. jayackroyd - 3/7/2003 12:10:08 PM

Powell is going through the inspector's document, and reading out details of deception, resistance and outright lies.

4311. concerned - 3/7/2003 12:16:18 PM

The US has a standard that they believe UN Resolution 1441 imposes on Iraq. Those who deliberately misconstrue Blix's comments act as if any measurable progress toward that standard, regardless of how trivial, is an acceptable substitute for the standard itself.

4312. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 12:36:36 PM

Jay, Message # 4298, Who is George H.W. Bush?

4313. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 12:45:11 PM

Con - I listened to the Blix and Baradei reports this morning. It is hardly a misconstruction to say that Blix's statement was one of increasing and measurable Iraqi cooperation. Blix statement also says that UNMOVIC's follow up on intel regarding mobile bio-weapon labs, underground facilities and such has simply not panned out. Baradei's statement was even more clear, there is no evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program and all the evidence put forward by the US/UK has proven out to be false.

This was a disaster for the US/UK position at the UNSC. Not only did Blix and Baradei state that Iraq is increasingly cooperative and forthcoming, but they both stated that none of the intel provided by the US/UK has proven out to be what we claimed it was. The US/UK continue to claim that they have definitive proof of Iraqi WMD programs, but somehow when the inspectors look were we tell them to look there is nothing there.

I have to change my position on this war. I was formerly in favor of UNSC sanctioned use of force to ensure inspection and disarmament. Inspections appear to be working and there does not appear to be a need for the use of force.

4314. wabbit - 3/7/2003 12:58:40 PM

Transcripts of today's presentations to the U.N. on Iraq

4315. concerned - 3/7/2003 1:18:55 PM

Re. 4313 -

That wasn't what I said was a 'misconstruction' of Blix's statements. The 'misconstruction' is believing that what is called 'measurable progress' is a substitute for what UN Resolution 1441 requires.

4316. concerned - 3/7/2003 1:21:18 PM

I don't think that a statement by Blix that 'none' of the info provided by the US and the UK has 'proved out' particularly meaningful since he also has failed to account in any way for the known WMD that Iraq possessed when UNMOVIC inspections were terminated in 1998. It's called a 'shell game'.

4317. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 1:22:41 PM

Con - Thanks for the clarification. That is certainly a matter of opinion on the purpose of 1441. If the purpose is to ensure that Iraq does not have WMD programs then 'measurable progress' meets the purpose. If the purpose of 1441 is to serve as an ultimatum leading to Iraqi capitulation then it does not.

4318. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 1:28:46 PM

Con - But we claim to have some knowledge of which shell the target is under, yet Blix stated that when they looked for mobile weapons labs they found mobile water quality labs and when they looked with ground penetrating radar at locations suspected of containing underground labs they found nothing. Further, Baradei stated that they had inspected all of the places that the US had indicacted were re-built/newly built nuclear facilities and found nothing. Our intel has to date revealed nothing, and yet we claim to have definitive proof. The claim is wearing extremely thin.

4319. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 1:29:24 PM

Wabbit - Your links to the Blix and Baradei statements doesn't work for me.

4320. concerned - 3/7/2003 1:32:32 PM

I certainly have no confidence that Iraq does not have WMD programs based on what UNMOVIC has found during the last two months? After all, since Iraq destroyed WMD for seven years during the '90's while UNMOVIC staged inspections, yet still had both the programs and WMD in place when the UN inspectors left in 1998, I haven't heard even a hint of a suggestion that what Blix & Company are doing now is any more effective or less ineffective than the largely wasted effort during that protracted time frame.

To put it another way:

UN inspections continuously during '91,'92,'93,'94,'95,'96,'97,'98=failure

Two months of more of the same in '02/'03 = failure, in all probability

Could it be that all you're doing is grasping at straws?

4321. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 1:35:15 PM

Con - It appears that what you are arguing is that only regime change, and a US military governorship, will provide the surety you require regarding the Iraqi WMD programs. Is this your position?

4322. wabbit - 3/7/2003 1:46:55 PM

VonK,

Sorry, those links won't work for anyone, my bad, I'll repost here:

Presentations to the U.N. on Iraq

4323. concerned - 3/7/2003 2:23:51 PM

Re. 4321-

Not necessarily. As I've stated before, I would consider acceptable adding a force of UN monitors and peacekeepers stationed within Iraq for an indefinite period of time who are assigned to monitor the ongoing plans and actions of Iraq's military on a much more extensive scale than a simple inspection program could do.

Saddam must be made to accept this, probably by countries such as france, germany and russia if Saddam is personally that valuable to them. IAC, it's completely untenable for the US to keep a substantial number of military personnel at the ready in neighboring countries for any length of time whatsoever while Blix fiddles.

4324. concerned - 3/7/2003 2:27:09 PM

IMO, any UN resolution proposed, other than by the US needs to include a specific description of an alternative means of applying the pressure necessary for Saddam to continue complying.

4325. concerned - 3/7/2003 2:28:12 PM

Otherwise, they're just wanking.

4326. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 2:47:47 PM

Con - Why is keeping US/UK troops in Kuwait etc. less viable than keeping them in Iraq? We appear to be committed to a military governorship of Iraq should we invade, something that is likely to cost us more money/casualties than keeping the same troops next to Iraq.

4327. judithathome - 3/7/2003 4:11:29 PM

Does anyone know if we are planning to have any authorities on Iraqi culture in this military government?

4328. alistairconnor - 3/7/2003 5:03:36 PM

I feel sorry for Powell tonight.

Blair, I have no pity for. He's getting what he asked for.

But Powell must be bitterly regretting he didn't resign a couple of months ago. I suppose he felt he had a duty to try to mitigate the damage the Cheney clique were hell-bent on doing. If the war now goes ahead, he will have actually have worsened the damage, by raising the stakes for everybody : the UN as a body, and every constituent nation, now feels intimately concerned, and the US is now poised to disregard that concern, and the concensus for peaceful resolution.

4329. magoseph - 3/7/2003 5:42:55 PM

Alistair,
All the forecasting, all the whining, all the recriminations, are really of no value as of today. What matters now is the outcome and nothing else. If Iraq folds quickly and casualties are minimal, Bush becomes the hero and Chirac the goat, even more so if stocks of biological and chemical weapons are uncovered. On the other hand, if casualties are significant, and nothing much is found, it goes the other way. Best thing to do is wait and watch. As for Powell, I believe history will treat him kindly. After all, he gave it his best shot.

4330. Cellar Door - 3/7/2003 5:47:52 PM

The Press Conference Rag

4331. Cellar Door - 3/7/2003 5:48:38 PM

History will treat Colin Powell like the bottom-feeding House Nigger that he is!

4332. alistairconnor - 3/7/2003 6:02:17 PM

What matters now is the outcome and nothing else.

I wish that were true. I find it hard to see a scenario where multilateralism survives without heavy damage, whatever the outcome in Iraq.

In a way, this is what the crazy men wanted : explicit humiliation of the UN, to make it perfectly clear that the US, and no-one else, is calling the shots. The irony is that they have vastly over-estimated their ability to build one-off coalitions to attain their goals. Which means that the Imperium is unlikely to last beyond the next US elections.

4333. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 6:06:35 PM

Mag - Yeah, if the war is short, sharp, with minimal casualties (both US/UK and Iraqi) and WMD are found in significant amounts (significant in this case would be a pretty low threshold, particularly if weaponized), then the admin will get a big bounce, at least in the US. But, as AC is saying, the long-term effects on what will be an unmistakeable US Imperium are likely to be not what we'd hope.

4334. magoseph - 3/7/2003 6:45:17 PM

Alistair, Von,
I think that the long term effect on multilateralism will be minimal. What I believe is that more than likely the Democrats will take control of Congress in the next election. It is my opinion that the tax cut has doomed the Republicans. The Iraqi and North Korean episodes have alarmed the American public much more than most people realize.

Multilateralism along the Clinton lines will come into vogue again to solve the current US economic crisis and become viewed as essential to a functioning curb on religious fanaticism. And I refer to religious fanaticism not only of the Moslem variety but Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc.

4335. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 6:54:10 PM

But the question is, will anyone be willing to engage in multilateralism with the US empire? The multilateralism that we see in the future may well be anti-US, not US led.

4336. concerned - 3/7/2003 7:04:54 PM

One. The US no more has an 'empire' than it did pre 9/11.
Two. The usual suspects (i.e., France, Germany) wrt 'multilateralism' will choose, as always, their allies on what the ruling coalitions of the moment perceive as a politico-economic cost/benefit ratio.

If three or more of the following six occur before the 2004 US elections: Saddam is expeditiously deposed, Iran frees itself of its theocracy, NK starts coming around diplomatically, Schroeder falls, Chirac falls or the US economy starts a significant upswing, the whingeing and rhetoric about an 'American Imperium' will be widely regarded as little more than yesterday's LW totalitarian influenced kvetching.

4337. concerned - 3/7/2003 7:06:16 PM

...as having the best politico-economic cost/benefit ratio....

4338. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 7:08:57 PM

Con - Can you deny that US behavior post-9/11 appears more Imperial than prior? It appears that way to me, and to much of the world. Given that so much of diplomacy is appearance, does it matter if it appears so to most of the world?

4339. concerned - 3/7/2003 7:11:24 PM

While I don't go with magosephs particular slant, I do believe that the Bush Administration risks losing big with the American public if it allows itself to maintain large numbers of troops on standby around Iraq. Of course, Old Yurrup wants precisely this to happen because their current leaderships are little better than zero-summing moral-equivalencing LW political hacks.

4340. concerned - 3/7/2003 7:16:39 PM

Re. 4338 -

Yes, it does. But, it's self limiting because the US appears to be planning no high profile military excursions after Iraq. Soon after this, the world will be back to having to listen to the likes of me pointing out that at least GWB doesn't wag the dog.

Of course, if Old Yurrup thinks that it's to its benefit to maintain itself in a high-tension oppositional stance with the US because they thinks it sells at home, they might have a chance of giving their divisive approach to world diplomacy some legs. I don't know.

4341. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 7:16:45 PM

Why is it a bigger political risk maintaining troops next to Iraq than to maintain troops occupying Iraq?
[EndOfConcernedPostRantStyle]
It's only RWingnut warmongering oil capitalists moral poseurs that need the US to invade.
[/EndOfConcernedPostRantStyle]

4342. concerned - 3/7/2003 7:26:12 PM

Re. 4341 -

Because:

1) The sponsoring countries have not agreed to protracted stays by US troops; it could eventually destabilize the region politically.

2) Being on such a footing is almost as expensive as simply starting military operations, with the difference that there is no prospect of it ending soon. In fact, that is probably the worst case scenario wrt the US Federal budget.

3) It's the worst thing the US could do, short of pulling out immediately wrt to the US world image in the long run.

4) It's likely to drive voters away from the administration come next election if the US troops are still dallying then.

But most of you Lefties likely suspect that much of what I posted above is true which is why you are probably evilly chortling when you're not wiping the drool of your monitors.

4343. alistairconnor - 3/7/2003 7:30:13 PM

If three or more of the following six occur before the 2004 US elections: [...] Schroeder falls, Chirac falls

... you've significantly lengthened your odds there Con. Neither face elections within the next 4 years.

or the US economy starts a significant upswing

Well, you're pushing shit uphill with a sharp stick on that one.

Which leaves you needing a full score on :
Saddam is expeditiously deposed, Iran frees itself of its theocracy, NK starts coming around diplomatically

I wish you luck.

4344. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 7:34:31 PM

Con - Point #1 is good, but not blocking. If we can get them to agree to allow us to launch an attack on Iraq from their soil, we can probably get them to let us NOT launch an attack from their soil while pumping dollars into their economies.

Point #2 seems false to me, given the estimates that I have seen for the cost of a war and the occupation we appear to be committed to.

Point #3 also seems quite false to, please expand on why it would be worse for our world image to participate in disarming Iraq by NOT attacking? It is counter-intuitive given that the rest of the world appears to be very anti-war at this time.

Point #4 shouldn't come into the equation right? I mean, the administration isn't doing focus groups on our policy, we are just doing what is right and letting the chips fall where they may, correct.

[EndOfConcernedPostRantStyle]
But really you Rightist cryptofacist troglodytes really only care about the elections anyway...well that and the oil.
[/EndOfConcernedPostRantStyle]

4345. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 7:34:35 PM

4346. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 7:35:30 PM

Damn, while wiping the drool off my monitor I hit the refresh button. Sorry.

4347. alistairconnor - 3/7/2003 7:41:52 PM

North Korea would seem to be a regional problem, according to Mr Bush. He says it's up to Japan, China, South Korea, Russia to solve it. That's what he said in his press conference.

So if it gets solved, why should any of the credit go to Bush?

4348. concerned - 3/7/2003 7:50:44 PM

Re. 4345 -

re point 3 - Your interpretation may be that inspections are working, but most people don't really buy that, therefore my point stands.

re point 4 - Glad you concede.

4349. concerned - 3/7/2003 7:55:05 PM

Re. 4347 -

Don't fool yourself. The US has hardly opted out of interacting with NK. Besides, aren't you glad for the multilateralist US policy re NK?

4350. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 8:00:40 PM

Let's put to bed the notion that the U.S. is somehow less "multilateral" than other countries. No other country has done more to promote multilateral institutions.

I'll say it one more time.

NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS DONE MORE TO PROMOTE MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS.

The problem is that Americans, as a general rule, tend to think that words should be given their plain meaning and effect. Multilateral institutions therefore become a mechanism for effecting the policy judgments of their signatories. Europeans and post-modernist types in the U.S., on the other hand, seem to believe that having a "process" in place is enough. As long as all sides are talking, then why bother, right?

The problem with the UN Security Council is that, for twelve years, it has avoided giving real meaning and effect to the words of the some eighteen resolutions it has passed demanding Saddam to get rid of his WMDs. The French-German axis has taken this from mere shirking of responsibilities to active hostility to anyone seeking to enforce the UNSC's resolutions; indeed, the French have admitted as much, that the whole purpose of their current policy is not the containment of Saddam, but the containment of American power.

Too bad, I say. France has lapsed into a decadent, post-historical mentality, and has failed to maintain the kind of military force that would bequeath it with the sort of world power status that it lost long ago.

4351. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 8:00:56 PM

But the security of the U.S. is not dependent on what the French say. If someday some terrorist group sets of a radiological bomb in the Port of Miami, or releases smallpox in Hartsfield airport, the media talking heads, the congress and the American people aren't going to wonder why France was asleep at the wheel. No, the POTUS has the ultimate responsibility in this regard. As the Washington Post so aptly put it, if it's worth defeating Saddam for the sake of our national security, then it shouldn't matter what France thinks (although it would be helpful if they would agree). Conversely, if we should only go to war if a majority of the UNSC approves, then perhaps the reasons for war are not all that compelling, after all.

Why should our national security depend on what 26-yr. old Belgian college students in clown make up and walking on stilts determine what is good for our national security? I have a great love for Europeans (even married one), but I have to say that, from everything I have seen and read, they have their heads up their collective asses. None of them have proposed what would happen next if the U.S. and the world climbed down from the current confrontation with Saddam still in power. What signal would that send to other dictators?

I think that those other dictators would come away quite satisfied that the world is too decadent to show any resolve toward them, much as the League of Nations in the 1930s, and that they are free to do as they please. Certainly, Saddam would take the greatest pleasure of all, and the Iraqi people would have to be collectively appalled at being abandoned once more by the West (our failure to support the 1991 uprising remains a stain on our national honor that we now have the opportunity to correct).

4352. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 8:01:34 PM

Con - How is it that you come to the conclusion that, "...most people don't really buy that [that inspections are working]..."? The responses from the non-US/UK members of the UNSC to Blix/Baradei indicates that they at least think that inspections are working.

4353. alistairconnor - 3/7/2003 8:03:45 PM

Well, I wish that the US would insist on sending the IAEC inspectors back. It would be helpful if the Chinese and the Russians said the same thing; there are three powers with troops on the ground in the region.

4354. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 8:15:21 PM

As for Colin Powell, I think that he is a failure of a diplomat. In order to understand why, one has to realize what has actually happened, here.

The Bush administration began beating the drums for "regime change" in Iraq, last year. The thinking was, based on the writings of influential scholars such as Fouad Ajami and Bernard Lewis, as well as mid-level officials such as Richard Perle, that 9-11 was primarily rooted in the lack of freedom and economic progress in the Middle East. If the Arabs could have democracy and economic growth, then the centrifugal forces of frustration that drives young, educated Arab men to commit unspeakable acts of terror would be counter-balanced by the "centripedal" forces of democracy, and the pursuit of personal success.

September 11 opened up this thinking to President Bush, who had previously resisted it, apparently. He began to see the validity of this strategic vision. But how to go about it?

It began to look like a chess game. It wouldn't do to go directly after the Saudis. That would open up too many other problems. Besides, they only represented an ideological (and, to some extent, an economic) problem, not a military one. It would also do no good to just unilaterally withdraw our forces from Saudi, as that would appear to be appeasing al-Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein, however, was vulnerable. If we could get rid of him and help establish democracy in Iraq, then that could possibly create a model for the region. The Iraqi people are known to be relatively secular, urbane and educated, with good minds for business and administrative matters.

4355. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 8:15:55 PM

Helping to establish a friendly regime in Iraq would have the added benefit of ending the pretext for keeping our bases in Saudi Arabia, which had become the principal irritant to the jihadists. As well, simply from a strategic standpoint, a friendly regime in Iraq could also possibly bring some balance to OPEC.

Last but certainly not least, removing Saddam would be a just thing to do. GWB could hardly say it out loud, but his father's failure to support the 1991 uprising was beginning to look more and more like a key policy miscue, as well as an ongoing humanitarian disaster. To right that wrong would certainly help to put the U.S. in better stead in the minds of many Arabs.

Colin Powell, however, saw a problem of pretext in all of this. And this is where his appeals to Bush to go the UN route come into play.

(to be cont'd)

4356. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 8:52:27 PM

(cont'd)

Sec. Powell apparent persuaded the president to consider the fact that the UN had Saddam on the hook for failing to disarm under a series of UNSC resolutions. Pursuing Saddam in this context would be the best way of robing regime change in the fabric of "multilateral legitimacy." That was about the time you began to hear the rhetoric shift from, "We seek to change the regime in Baghdad," to, "If Saddam disarms, then the regime will have fundamentally changed."

There was a fundamental flaw in this strategy, one which Powell (and the administration) should have anticipated. (In fact, Rumsfeld and Cheney did anticipate it, but were overruled.) That problem was and continues to be the fact that the Europeans were not willing to give UN sanction to a U.S.-led effort at regime change in Iraq.

Powell's problem is that he seemed to believe in the fundamental integrity of all mankind; that, faced with evidence that Saddam had once again defied a UNSC resolution giving him "one last chance" to fully and completely disarm, the members of the UNSC could hardly fail to support action. He was proven wrong. When Villepin sandbagged him in late January, Powell was said to have been furious. More than that of a woman spurned, no fury is like that of a self-defined statesman seeing his vision of reality turned on its ear.

Apparently, Powell honestly believed that the French would be, well, honest.

This has brought us to the brink of a diplomatic meltdown. Even for Rumsfeld hawks like me, it has been an ugly thing to watch. But it's all at Powell's doorstep. He's supposed to take responsibility for our diplomatic successes and failures. He has failed miserably.

4357. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 9:02:57 PM

(cont'd)

I can see now at least part of what went wrong. Besides Powell's naive belief that no one can deny the meaning of words nor deny the evidence before them (he forgot about the O.J. jury -- the human capacity for denial of facts can be astounding), I think that he simply failed to do the basic legwork that diplomacy requires.

Reports have indicated that Powell has not traveled much during this period. I think that this is correctly alluded to as a flawed approach to diplomacy, especially when dealing with the European political class. They need to be wined and dined, cajoled, flattered; they need to be led to believe that your own policies were actually their idea.

This is no easy task. It requires guile, which Americans generally lack as a rule. But here the failure of guile has been particularly astounding to watch. Perhaps Powell's military training made him susceptible to thinking that information should be enough. I don't know.

Needless to say, the whole espisode makes me rather sad. Not just the anti-American rants that I hear from the Continent, but also the incredible level of anti-semitism, which is particularly vile.

But I believe that the president's policy will be ultimately vindicated by history.

4358. RickNelson - 3/7/2003 9:28:37 PM

LadyK,

Something feels wrong about one point.

That is that Powell would not be travelled and that his lack of Syrupian Savy has failed to show diplomatic progress. Where was Bush with the lead? What is policy but that which is followed. What did Powell do other than act like a Texan and talk like a straight shooter, which as you say doesn't appeal to the guileful Syrupian.

The funny picture is what Powell did outside of Bush policy. Which I don't know. I'm asking to address a particular, for which I cannot know the answer at present. You perhaps do.

4359. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 9:43:19 PM

Rick,

Powell is the Secretary of State. It's his job to use diplomacy to effect the president's policies. The example of James Baker prior to PG1 has been frequently cited. He visited something like nine heads of state, in their own countries, in a relatively short number of weeks. These sorts of high level visits show lesser powers that the United States doesn't just care about their agreement, but that it cares about what they think.

It strikes me that Powell has failed to do this. But history may vindicate him. I don't know. Nobody will know until the ink is dry on this whole episode. The above synopsis is based on what I have been able to glean from reading between the lines over the last several months. But I think that it will be borne out as being pretty close to the truth, eventually.

4360. RickNelson - 3/7/2003 9:56:02 PM

I can appreciate your observations. I'm habitually a bit-observer. I'm usually on the net when I could be reading up on current political and world issues. That's kinda funny, me- reading up on political issues. Well, maybe someday.

That's not to say I don't care, but as a bit-observer and nothing but a cog in the vast enterprise that is America, I don't see much point in knowing all the myriad issues pertaining to these United States. It's just to much.

Makes good conversation though.

Jex commented not long ago that poets don't know a damn thing about politics. Ha, the man's right.

4361. Al D - 3/7/2003 9:56:37 PM

LadyChaos
This is the best read on the Mote since the discussion of JUry Nullification. Well done, my man.

4362. judithathome - 3/7/2003 9:59:12 PM

But I believe that the president's policy will be ultimately vindicated by history.

Well, I respectfully disagree...I think he will go down as one of, if not the, worst President ever and that this fiasco will be seen for what it is: a colossal blunder.

4363. Al D - 3/7/2003 10:11:38 PM

Remember when I sugested we all post our thoughts on a post war Iraq? I think the reaction of the Iraquis will be much like we saw in Afganistan, and Iraq will fall as quickly as in the Gulf War. The horror stories the Iraq people will tell will be a mild version of the holocaust. Massive supplies of chemical weapons will be found.

Judith
I know you do not wish ill for U.S. soldiers, but your dislike of Bush and most conservative leaders might color your thinking. I hate to say it, but I feel there are some who wish the worst for the U.S. because of their intense hatred of Bush.

4364. RickNelson - 3/7/2003 10:27:26 PM

How the hell is Karzai, haven't heard a damn thing in months. For Minnesotan news Afghanistan doesn't exist anymore, unless and American is killed or we capture someone big. Pretty much the same for Pakistan. All the network news spews is what their told, no commentary like LadyK.

And Al, I hope you're correct surmising that the Iraqi will welcome vast change. I'm speculating that most main stream Iraqi will be very pro national and therefore have strong negative reaction to the U.S. victory which is inevitable. It's some game in that part of the world to be the martyr so I'm watching out for that prospect. The Kurds and southern Iraqi have been said to welcome us, but we betrayed them before.

4365. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 10:34:50 PM

Al,

I think you're right about Bush hatred. Many on the Left, especially in Europe, can no longer even conceive of the legitimacy of a conservative government.

judith,

I think that the next several months will at least give a strong indication of which one of us is right, so I won't argue with you so much as say that I have reached my above conclusions after careful consideration of a great many factors, and reading everything from the virulently anti-American The Guardian to Fouad Ajami and the incomparable Victor Davis Hanson, not to mention the "dean" of Middle East scholarship,Bernard Lewis, and a host of other sources.

It seems to me that the pro-interventionists have the better argument. In fact, I have really not seen much of an argument made against intervention (not to say that such an argument cannot be made) other than ad hominem attacks against Bush and Western civilization in general. And I really do believe that we are in a fight for the future of Western civilization. As much as it often disappoints me, I still believe that it's worth preserving.

4366. Al D - 3/7/2003 10:40:37 PM

Rick Karzi was on C-Span testifing before a Senate committee. While some Senators tried to get him to say he felt abandoned by Bush, he insisted that was not the case. He realized Afganistan had a long way to go, but progress was being made. In a previous post you said you enjoyed helping people. You can take pride in the fact that America helped the Afgan people a whole bunch.

4367. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 10:46:04 PM

Not much doubt about which side the terrorists are on.

4368. LadyChaos - 3/7/2003 10:51:29 PM

I love this picture of the UN building in NYC:

4369. vonKreedon - 3/7/2003 10:54:05 PM

LC - Marvelously written analysis, really a pleasure to read. I'm not up at the moment to responding on that level.

I also think that you touched tangentally on a very interesting point with, "Many on the Left, especially in Europe, can no longer even conceive of the legitimacy of a conservative government." And that has to do with the way that the Bush administration has ignored its obvious legitimacy issue. This lack of legitimacy being granted by many on the left seems to get interpreted from the right as near, if not overtly, treasonous. In turn this fuels the fears of McCarthyite repression and further delegitimzes the administration in the eyes of its domestic opponents.

4370. jayackroyd - 3/7/2003 10:58:20 PM

VK-

Your answer to the quiz was close. But it wasn't GHWB, but GWB.

At this point, I believe that he would say anything.

4371. RickNelson - 3/7/2003 11:08:58 PM

Al,

I approve most heartily the actions taken against Alqaeda. And I would welcome more news as to those actions. I'm very proud of the soldiers and go to the Veterans day and Memorial day events when I can, always wearing a poppy I purchase. On memorial day I visit my uncle in Fort Snelling National Cemetary and have listened to Paul Welstone laud praises upon the vets in attendance. It chokes yah up.

4372. RickNelson - 3/7/2003 11:10:08 PM

Jay,

I thought the LW of the quiz had somehting to do with it. If not Left Wing, then what was it?

4373. concerned - 3/8/2003 2:40:59 AM

Marvelously written analysis, really a pleasure to read. I'm not up at the moment to responding on that level.

I think we already know that. Don't even try.

4374. vonKreedon - 3/8/2003 3:19:58 AM

Fuck you Con, get a fucking life.

4375. concerned - 3/8/2003 3:47:17 AM

vK -

Chill, dewd. I was jes' funnin' you a bit.

4376. concerned - 3/8/2003 4:34:03 AM

Looks like the Camembert slid off of French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin's cracker when he said:

"War is always an acknowledgment of failure."

Could he have subconsciously been referring to the US acknowledging what an embarrassing failure his country was in WWII while saving it from the tender mercies of the Nazis?

4377. OhioSTOPAS - 3/8/2003 6:31:23 AM

VIETNAM 2 PREFLIGHT CHECK
1. Cabal of oldsters who won’t listen to outside advice? Check.
2. No understanding of ethnicities of the many locals? Check.
3. Imposing country boundaries drawn in Europe, not by the locals? Check.
4. Unshakeable faith in our superior technology? Check.
5. France secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.
6. Russia secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.
7. China secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.
8. SecDef pushing a conflict the JCS never wanted? Check.
9. Fear we’ll look bad if we back down now? Check.
10. Corrupt Texan in the WH? Check.
11. Land war in Asia? Check.
12. Right unhappy with outcome of previous war? Check.
13. Enemy easily moves in/out of neighboring countries? Check.
14. Soldiers about to be dosed with *our own* chemicals? Check.
15. Friendly fire problem ignored instead of solved? Check.
16. Anti-Americanism up sharply in Europe? Check.
17. B-52 bombers? Check.
18. Helicopters that clog up on the local dust? Check.
19. In-fighting among the branches of the military? Check.
20. Locals that cheer us by day, hate us by night? Check.
21. Local experts ignored? Check.
22. Local politicians ignored? Check.
23. Locals used to conflicts lasting longer than the USA has been a country? Check.
24. Against advice, Prez won’t raise taxes to pay for war? Check.
25. Blue water navy ships operating in brown water? Check.
26. Use of nukes hinted at if things don’t go our way? Check.
27. Unpopular war? Check.

Vietnam 2, you are cleared to taxi.

(From Eric Alterman's "Altercation" at www.msnbc.com)

4378. RickNelson - 3/8/2003 8:04:10 AM

Yah know Ohio,

Your post has a point in it that is striking. The use of chemical and nuclear weapons by the U.S.

So, we give our soldiers, proud and experts they are, the belief that our infallable human technology experts have a pill to help them if they're attacked by nerve gas. They take the pill per orders and have at least done something.

Well that something is harming them according to YES! articles I recently read. Those chemicals though, which disrupt some of the natural chemical reactions our bodies perform. I can't tell you the science, I'm no scientist, but doubt is doubt and the article was informative.

Then another article, about depleted Uranium projectiles. These were used to literally penetrate the heavy armor tanks and burn the shit out of the occupants. Not blow them up, but incinerate them. Well sure, why not! Why not is the depleted Uranium then affects our troops. Those who investigated the fallen tanks or other armored vehicles this projectile was used upon. The parts per billion of this need to be very low to avoid damage to our body and recorded data showed that instead of something like 35ppb soldiers had 1200ppb. Or something like that.

So are these casualties?

I think so.

The vets are said to be having a hard time with the VA because the VA doesn't recognize their claims of DU exposure, nor does it have a plan to investigate it. At least that's the gyst of the YES! article. The source was the man who was responsible for analyzing the problem of DU exposure and recommending how to minimize it via training to Desert Storm troops. He said that his plan, once presented went unheralded and lost in the beauracracy.

4379. magoseph - 3/8/2003 8:09:37 AM

Lady Chaos,
I share your convictions in respect to removing Saddam Hussein from power for the reasons you put forward. On the other hand, I fail to see what has been lost by the Powell attempt to force Saddam out without a war. The concept of multilateralism required the effort. I believe that will be the verdict of history.

4380. RickNelson - 3/8/2003 8:18:46 AM

Well I'll be, YES is online and so is that article. It's micrograms not ppb.

Here is the YES article I refered to.

4381. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 10:06:08 AM

magoseph,

No, if the attempt at multilateralism was a charade--that the US would try it to see if it would work, but would not listen to any other answer other than "Yes, and on your schedule.", then a great deal has been lost.

Now, I'm all for NATO's dissolution. But I'd like to see it done in a thoughtful and controlled manner, especially wrt the interests of central europe.

I'm not for proving what was until now an exaggeration, that the security council and the UN are american fronts. By following this route, the US now stands guilty of a number of charges--imperialism, hegemony, arrogance etc--that until this administration's actions, one could plausibly argue were, if not entirely false, tempered by a concern for the rule of law, respect of rights, acceptance of the principle of representative government.

LC can blame Powell, if she likes, for promising the president that europe and the security council would toe the line, eventually. (They still may do so, of course, as the car approaches at high speed, the driver having thrown the steering wheel out the window.) But the administration's response to NATO and the security council's not toeing the line did not have to be "screw you. we're going anyway. We, not the UN, decide how, where and when to enforce UN resolutions."

So, you can blame Powell for not doing the spadework to avoid this situation, and,perhaps, for mis-gauging the situation. But, having failed to gain support initially, the decision was made to not bother to try to gain support, or to find a compromise position. One can not lay that decision at Powell's door.

Finally, the fact that it turns out to have been a charade finishes Powell. He can no longer speak authoratively for the administration, and has no choice but to resign as soon as is practically possible.

4382. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 10:07:52 AM

Rick,

The LW was a joke, because, of course, the quote sounds like a current opponent to the conquest of Iraq, but, is, in fact, the words of the putative conqueror five years ago.

4383. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 10:48:45 AM

Pravda admits that Iraq Nuke "Evidence" was Faked!

4384. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 10:57:56 AM

Saletan in Slate has a pretty good response to my argument. However, the essence of the argument is the UN has always been a charade.

4385. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 10:59:38 AM

"So, you can blame Powell for not doing the spadework to avoid this situation,"

Oh he's done the spade work alright!

4386. judithathome - 3/8/2003 11:01:06 AM

I know you do not wish ill for U.S. soldiers, but your dislike of Bush and most conservative leaders might color your thinking. I hate to say it, but I feel there are some who wish the worst for the U.S. because of their intense hatred of Bush.

No, Al, I do not wish ILL FOR U.S. SOLDIERS any more than you wish for them to die but I have the grace not to insinuate that you do wish just that every time I open a post to you. I do not wish the worst for my country, either, though I will admit I believe the man in charge is about the worst that could have happened to this country and I don't think we're going to have to wait for history to show that...we'll be seeing it soon enough.

But I am sure you think my hatred of Bush is blinding me to all that is good and pure in this world and once again, you are wrong. It is because I love this country and all it stands for that I detest what Bush has done to it.

You know, you have been telling me for years now that I am wrong...wrong to support Clinton, wrong to detest Bush, wrong to question the war. You have given me a lesson, Al...I now see how the opposition came to be called the RIGHT: it is because they feel everyone else is wrong.

4387. magoseph - 3/8/2003 11:07:41 AM

jayackroyd,

Perhaps my problem is that I feel if even parts of the planet are under the control of psychopaths and mad men, such as Iraq and North-Korea are, civilization faces eventual obliteration (not to mention the myriads of religious fanatics, such as Bin laden or for that matter, Jerry Falwell types grasping for power). Because of this belief, I tend to welcome the strife and crisis that exist today. Out of this turmoil and even war, the germs of rational solutions are bred. At any rate, this is what I believe. For me, the uproar over whether Powell should resign or not resign, is music to my ears.

4388. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 11:16:28 AM

I agree that the Cold War institutions need to be shaken up, and would concede that the power of inertia in governmental agencies is daunting. I'd like to believe that it takes something less than 300,000 troops, and 3,000 bombs dropped in 48 hours to effect change.

The madmen you will always have with you.

And there is some indication that you have a Jerry Falwell type in the White House.

4389. magoseph - 3/8/2003 11:36:46 AM

The French bashing by the right-wing radio talk-show hosts and the rest of the media, apparently has drawn a response from the target. I just heard on the radio that France is calling for an emergency meeting of the Security Council to shape a compromise on the Iraq situation. No details yet, of course, but it is obvious, at least to me, they will propose an extension of perhaps a couple of months, which will appear to be quite reasonable to the American public. The pressure on Bush should be intense. A delay of even six weeks beyond mid-March is probably unacceptable because of the temperatures at that time and what it could do to casualties.

I don't believe the French can do more than wound Bush but I presume they figure correctly that he is falling apart in the polls regarding his economic policies and any damage they can inflict with the help of the peaceniks compounds his problems to the extent that he may make serious mistakes.

4390. judithathome - 3/8/2003 11:47:13 AM

He's not even going to wait 6 days, Magos..he's going to attack next Thursday or Friday. Spring Break...once a frat boy, always a frat boy.

4391. magoseph - 3/8/2003 12:04:27 PM

Oh, I know, Judith, and I hope he does. I am tired of going down to my bunker each time I get scared and feel I should practice my get-away, just in case.

4392. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 12:04:50 PM

LadyK :
Yours is an admirably cogent expression of the "Rumsfeld hawk" position. There are, obviously, numerous points that I take issue with. I'm strongly opposed to that position, which is one thing; but also, there are numerous strawmen, mostly arising from your unwillingness to ascribe any sort of good faith to those holding an opposing view.

4393. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 12:08:51 PM

Mago: The French bashing by the right-wing radio talk-show hosts and the rest of the media, apparently has drawn a response from the target.

Don't kid yourself dear. The Froggie-basing is making no impact at all : water off a duck's back. One FM radio station I listened to the other day, as their running gag of the day, was translating anti-French items from Fox news. People here think it's a scream.

I guess in the long run, it may have an impact on the level of respect and esteem which ordinary French people have for Americans.

But foreign policy isn't really determined on that level.

4394. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 12:09:50 PM

Mags--

Yeah. It's either wait several months or go shortly. But the French are between a rock and a hard place too. They've got their electorate with a very clear view, but if the UN becomes irrelevant, or, rather, is exposed as an American front, then they become really irrelevant.

So I don't think it is the right wing bashing that's doing it. They need to find a way to save the UN if they want to have a voice in world affairs.

Can you imagine getting the American contribution through this Congress, signed by this president, now?

The stakes keep rising for Bush as well, though. He keeps doubling down, like a blackjack player desperately trying to cover his losses.

You know, they could wait a year. Rotate troops out but keep enough there exert pressure, increase the inspector force as requested by Blix, keep destroying missiles. Set a Feb 15 2004 deadline. That much time, with that many inspectors would accumulate a lot of intelligence, and would reduce the ability of the Iraqis to resist even more.

So, in that scenario, are you helping or hurting the ordinary Iraqi citizen?

4395. judithathome - 3/8/2003 12:19:39 PM

Well, considering fewer of them would be bombed to death, I guess the answer is helping.

4396. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 12:22:56 PM

But aren't you gonna bomb them a year later, anyway? Hundreds of thousands, or even a hundred thousand troops can't be permanently posted to force inspections.

Or, iow, what is the French/German/Russian solution for the long haul? Trust Saddam not to rebuild his weaponry?

4397. judithathome - 3/8/2003 12:23:26 PM

But saving Iraqi citizens lives isn't the objective of this administration...the point is, you'd be hurting the chances of Bush sweeping into a second term on a tide of upbeat war fever. And that is very important because after the dust settles and Americans look around at their lack of money, services, jobs, etc. they just might wake up and decide he needs to go. Most of the country is caught up in war lust and he needs to strike while that fervor is hot.

4398. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 12:27:40 PM

Sure. And the French and Russian oppostion is about preserving their status quo economic ties to Iraq.

But nobody can use those as justifications, and they don't matter anyway wrt the questions I'm asking:

1) Is it so bad under SH that the Iraqi citizen is better off having the regime deposed now, rather than a year from now?

2) Is the French/Russian/German position permanently sustainable?

4399. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 12:29:31 PM

LadyK :
Strawman #1
Let's put to bed the notion that the U.S. is somehow less "multilateral" than other countries.
That's not the argument. The argument is that the Rumsfeld clique want a radical break with the US's habitual multilateralism -- which is undeniable. They are succeeding pretty well too, but not in the way they intended, I guess.

Strawman #2
Why should our national security depend on what 26-yr. old Belgian college students in clown make up and walking on stilts determine what is good for our national security?
Obviously, it shouldn't. Clearly, US national security is not the issue that has the Belgian college kids up on stilts. What they are objecting to, is preventive war being waged in their name, i.e. with a UN rubber stamp. That is obviously within their purview to object to. If it's a matter of US national security, then it is dishonest to ask for UN approval.

Strawman #3
Besides Powell's naive belief that no one can deny the meaning of words nor deny the evidence before them
This is predicated on the postulate that Powell was telling the truth to the UN. It's been clearly established since then, that large parts of the "evidence" presented consisted of forgeries or outright fiction.

4400. concerned - 3/8/2003 12:39:42 PM

But the administration's response to NATO and the security council's not toeing the line did not have to be "screw you. we're going anyway. We, not the UN, decide how, where and when to enforce UN resolutions."

That is absolutely not the case. In fact, I have hope you're too intelligent to actually believe it to be. There are at least three scenarios at the present time in which the US would not initiate any military action in Iraq.

1)Saddam steps down voluntarily.
2)Saddam is removed by dissenting Iraqis.
3)Saddam fully cooperates with the disarmament process.

Besides this, your premise is also wrong in that the US is not telling the UN that it is deciding 'when to enforce UN resolutions' in general. We're talking about one isolated case.

The intransigence is on the side of those who, based on the direct experience of the last twelve years, will never call for any consequences whatsoever, let alone the serious consequences that UN Resolution 1441 requires given Iraq's refusal to disarm.

As I said before, unlike the US, France, Germany and Russia have really contributed nothing at all to enforcing UN Resolution 1441 to date except for voting for it. There's no good argument, to put it mildly, for them to egregiously overstep themselves by insisting that UN Resolution 1441 never be enforced by anybody else.

4401. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 12:40:44 PM

To Lady K continued...
Strawman #4
Needless to say, the whole espisode makes me rather sad. Not just the anti-American rants that I hear from the Continent, but also the incredible level of anti-semitism, which is particularly vile.
Ah yeah, the opposition is inspired by anti-Americanism, or even anti-Semitism. Cute.

How about documenting some of these anti-American rants? Somebody? Anybody?
Sure, I get to hear some myself. They come from the usual suspects : the hard left; and their language and rhetoric hasn't varied a bit in the 18 years I've been in Europe. There is, on the other hand, widespread, principled opposition to the policies of the Bush administration. But the next Democratic president (or even the next multilateralist Republican) is likely to be as popular as Clinton was over here.

As for your article : I honestly fail to see the relevance of your experience of anti-semitism in one of the immature democracies of central Europe (and the Czech republic is on Rumsfeld's team now, remember...) - unless you intend to somehow smear France, Germany and Belgium by tenuous association?

4402. concerned - 3/8/2003 12:49:44 PM

Re. AC's strawman #1: If the allies depose Saddam, they are doing nothing more than fulfilling the unanimously approved UN Resolution 1441. There's no language anywhere that requires any further resolution or vote before such action as the allies are contemplating may be taken, and no amount of Old Yurrup blustering will ever change that.

Re AC's strawman #2: The UNSC has already given its approval to remove Saddam.

Re. AC's strawman #3: Powell's evidence is at least substantially true, and was given as the best available at the time. Perhaps you have no concept of the nature of such 'intelligence'. There's no reason to assume that Powell's sources, and certainly no basis to presume that his personal integrity are not at least as good and probably better than those who are attempting and failing to gainsay the evidence he presented.

4403. concerned - 3/8/2003 12:55:46 PM

AC's Strawman #4 -

Too bad for his arguments that AC's 'usual suspects' include the anti-Semitic French diplomat Daniel Bernard that referred to Israel as 'that shitty little country'.

4404. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 12:56:33 PM

Strawman #4

The most recent issue of the NY Review of Books notes that by the ADL's measures, the US is more anti-semitic than Europe, and the bulk of the European anti-semitic protest episodes have involved islamic immigrants.

I too did not understand why one guy in Prague constituted a widespread movement in western Europe.

4405. judithathome - 3/8/2003 12:57:46 PM

probably better than those who are attempting and failing to gainsay the evidence he presented

I would say that finding nothing where he said there was something is pretty good refutation.

4406. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 1:03:07 PM

There are at least three scenarios at the present time in which the US would not initiate any military action in Iraq.

1)Saddam steps down voluntarily.
2)Saddam is removed by dissenting Iraqis.
3)Saddam fully cooperates with the disarmament process.

A) We don't know this to be true. The United States has steadily raised the bar as Iraq has increasinly complied. Just two weeks ago, the bar went from disarmament to removal of Saddam. They are now actually destroying weapons, but now the line is "too little too late."
CNN quoted a security council member as saying that he has a better chance of getting a date with Julia Roberts than a disarmament in ten days.

B)On 3, my point is that the US is saying that only the US can decide what compliance consists of. Saying that the US would pull back if they complied begs the question.

Besides this, your premise is also wrong in that the US is not telling the UN that it is deciding 'when to enforce UN resolutions' in general. We're talking about one isolated case.

The first time that the UN bucks the US, the US says screw you. That's not an isolated case. It's proof to people in other countries that we do not view the UN as an independent agency, but as a front for US policy-making.

4407. concerned - 3/8/2003 1:03:43 PM

Nope. The Iraqis have been repeatedly shown to have transported their WMD stockpiles, and to have even delayed UN inspectors heading out to sites until they completed the task. For that matter, UNMOVIC has not even found either evidence or records of destruction of the WMD that Iraq is known to have had in 1998. So, if they're pretty much provably ineffective anyway, trying to shift blame by lashing out at those who are attempting to help them becomes psychologically important for these failed inspectors.

4408. concerned - 3/8/2003 1:06:24 PM

We don't know this to be true.

It's a pretty safe bet that it is, and if you act as if they aren't true, you've pretty much obliterated any rational basis for assessing the situation.

4409. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 1:10:56 PM

What do you mean? The US has changed the rules for compliance as the process has moved on, and refuses to accept the recommendations of the experts who are reporting on compliance. Iraq is actually destroying missiles, and that is not considered complying. And, as I said, Bush raised the bar two weeks ago from "compliance with disarmament" to "regime change."

It's also easy to think of scenarios where Saddam leaves, or is overthrown, but the US doesn't find the follow-on government acceptable. If his son takes over, is that okay? If he's overthrown by elements of the Baath party known to have engaged in torture, is that okay?

4410. concerned - 3/8/2003 1:10:57 PM

The first time that the UN bucks the US, the US says screw you.

BS. The UN has passed plenty of anti-US resolutions over the years. Besides, what you posit has not yet occurred, may not even happen at all, and any nations who might vote against or even veto a future resolution wrt Saddam have, perhaps unfortunately for their internal politics, unanimously approved 1441 which is all the authorization needed to remove Saddam, truth be told.

4411. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 1:14:28 PM

Right, the French may blink.

And I should have said "on a major initiative."

unanimously approved 1441 which is all the authorization needed to remove Saddam, truth be told

And now we're back to my original point, which is the US is claiming the sole right of deciding whether 1441 has been violated. That is, the US is overriding the UN on the determination of the status of a UN resolution.

But, as you say, it has not happened yet. Either side may blink. At this point, the cost of blinking to either side is high.

4412. concerned - 3/8/2003 1:18:18 PM

and refuses to accept the recommendations of the experts who are reporting on compliance

Compliance how? Even Hans Blix said of Saddam's near total lack thereof:

"Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed 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,"

This, after 12 years of Saddam's shell games, would be classifiable as an understatement.

IAC, UNMOVIC are not 'experts', they're inspectors. Even Hans Blix admits that it is only for him to report, not recommend policy.

4413. concerned - 3/8/2003 1:21:01 PM

....sole right of deciding whether 1441 has been violated.

Not true. Every member of the UNSC agrees that Iraq has repeatedly violated 1441. The differences lie in how many sequential 'last chances' Saddam should be granted. It just so happens that the US, GB, Spain etc. have opted to stop playing that game.

4414. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 1:28:39 PM

". Even Hans Blix admits that it is only for him to report, not recommend policy."

I watched him recommend policy, connie, yesterday.

4415. concerned - 3/8/2003 1:32:39 PM

As I recall, the extent to which 1441 is ambiguous about the nature of the 'serious consequences' should Saddam fail to comply was largely due to French influence in crafting the resolution in the first place. No doubt the French counted on a second resolution being required to permit any military action against Iraq, but there's no language in 1441 that I've seen that mandates such.

The Allies and their UNSC opponents may be mutually frustrating each other today as a result of that, but it seems apparent enough to me, at least, that the most damage is now being done by those who are undermining any possible implementation of 1441.

4416. concerned - 3/8/2003 1:34:26 PM

Re. 4414 -

Then Blix went back on his own word. Nothing that can be done about that.

4417. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 1:39:39 PM

Alistair:

"...there are numerous strawmen, mostly arising from your unwillingness to ascribe any sort of good faith to those holding an opposing view."

I think I was pretty clear in stating that there are reasonable arguments to be made against war, but that most anti-war expressions have consisted merely of ad-hominem attacks on Bush and his administration. In such situations, I always come down to this simple question: It's easy to show what you are against, but please show me what you are for? So far, no one in the anti-war crowd has given me a satisfactory answer.

"Let the inspections work" is not an answer, because they're not working, they haven't worked for 12 years, and the only time Saddam gives a little ground is when he is faced with the credible threat of military force (a point on which the Europeans have been decidedly unhelpful).

Moreover, keeping up the inspections "process" will mean maintaining the sanctions against Iraq, perhaps interminably. Remember that it wasn't too long ago that the French were unilaterally dismantling the sanctions while much of the world screamed that the U.S. insistence on maintaining the sanctions amounted to genocide against the Iraqi people. How long would it take into this inspections process before the French and other "allies" would start cheating all over again? How long would it take before what little collective resolve the UNSC has shown thus far will begin to flag in the face of Saddam's intransigence. My guess is not long.

4418. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 1:39:51 PM

I have read and listened carefully the voices of the Iraqi diaspora, as well as Iraqis in the region who feel free to speak their mind, and the overwhelming opinion seems to be: We don't care who gets rid of this guy, as long as someone does it, and now!

To me, that is the public opinion that matters most. I really don't understand how people like Cellar Door, who have been outspoken in the cause of expanding the umbrella of civil rights in our own society, can blithely ignore the fact that their position would leave an extremely brutal thug in power, safe in the knowledge that he had once again shown the will of the international community (and the U.S.) to be a hollow shell.

And let us not forget how such a climb-down would embolden the Islamists. UBL himself reached the conclusion, by observing U.S. military actions throughout the eighties and nineties, that we would always back down when faced with the possibility of real sacrifice. More than disarming Saddam, more than bringing democracy to the Arab world, U.S. credibility is on the line. The mullahs are watching carefully for signs of weakness, for signs that we are too comfortable, too decadent to take a stand. We'd best not show it to them.

4419. concerned - 3/8/2003 1:40:49 PM

Personally, I hate to see Powell give himself gray hair over this, but Ol' Yurrup's got to love him, in their condescending way, for giving them something tangible to oppose with his attempts to craft a second resolution.

4420. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 1:46:14 PM

"I too did not understand why one guy in Prague constituted a widespread movement in western Europe."

I thought that the article showed an example of what I increasingly hear coming from the mouths of Europeans -- 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy; America is run by the Jews; the Jews control the American media; America is doing this to Saddam just to help the Jews.

Such comments have entered the realm of mainstream opinion in Europe, these days.

4421. concerned - 3/8/2003 1:50:10 PM

And let us not forget how such a climb-down would embolden the Islamists. UBL himself reached the conclusion, by observing U.S. military actions throughout the eighties and nineties, that we would always back down when faced with the possibility of real sacrifice.

I believe that a good part of Ol' Yurrup's rationale for opposing Allied policy specifically in Iraq as well as their stated intentions to act more independently of the US in general has to do with their hoping to deflect potential Islamoterrorist action away from themselves and to cozen their own unassimilated Muslim populations. I make no statement as to how fair or rational the above motivations would be.

4422. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 1:52:13 PM

Forgeries!

"I really don't understand how people like Cellar Door, who have been outspoken in the cause of expanding the umbrella of civil rights in our own society, can blithely ignore the fact that their position would leave an extremely brutal thug in power, safe in the knowledge that he had once again shown the will of the international community (and the U.S.) to be a hollow shell."

I have long been in favor of Regime Change in the U.S. --ridding us of the Bush Crime Family and its allies.

That's what you're talking about, isn't it?

4423. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 1:52:42 PM

concerned,

I think that's a fair statement. If current demographic trends continue, Holland will be a majority Muslim country in about twenty years. This could well spell the doom of one of the great cradles of Western tolerance in our lifetime.

4424. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 2:06:38 PM

Cellar Door,

Well, your post is an example of the sort of ad hominem attacks I was discussing. It makes it easy for you to avoid taking responsibility for what would surely be a disastrous climb-down from enforcing the will of the international community. I'm sure that turning your back on the hopes of the Iraqi people for the second time in twelve years will go down much more easily because you can claim to have done so in opposition to Bush.

4425. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 2:20:56 PM

The "hopes of the Iraqi people" are not the concern of CIA shills like the one whose propaganda screed you linked.

And why this sudden concern for ad hominem argument? Were you asleep during the Clinton administration?

Don't start changing the rules in the middle of the game.

The "will of the international community" ius against Bush's war. This not a war against Saddma Hussein, but a war for the benefit of Bush's corporate allies.

And nothing else.

Are you comfortable with the blood of thousands of Iraqi peasants on your hands?

I'm not.

4426. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 2:29:57 PM

"The 'hopes of the Iraqi people' are not the concern of CIA shills like the one whose propaganda screed you linked."

Well, that pretty much slams the door shut on any hopes of a rational discussion. It now occurs to me why I haven't been here in many a long month.

I enjoyed your book, and I'll choose to keep that as my memory of you.

See ya'.

4427. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 2:54:46 PM

But to be fair, I'll answer your question.

We undoubtedly killed thousands of civilians in WWII. Many were probably killed needlessly. On the other hand, we defeated a determined enemy, and from that destruction arose a prosperous and peaceful democracy that is now the cornerstone of European economic and political integration (the jury's out on whehter the latter will be ultimately workable, but it appears to be a good thing on balance).

On an anecdotal note, I can say that although the firebombing of Dresden, for example, was of dubious tactical value, it allowed my father-in-law to escape from where he was being held as a slave laborer, and he was eventually able to link up with the American army, where he became a translator for Patton's liberation of southwest Bohemia.

I offer this example simply because violence has often proven to be the only effective means of removing tyranny. The question is not whether people will be killed; of course, although we will make every effort to spare innocent life, people will be killed. The question is whether the greater strategic goal of removing the tyrant is worth unleashing violence for a short period of time.

Where history has judged us harshly in this regard is where we have failed to totally defeat the enemy. In Korea, for example, we left the war in a stalemate that continues to this day, and now threatens to embroil the entire region in a modern conflagration. Why? Because the North Korean government was never defeated, and they never gave up their long-term goals in the region.

4428. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 2:55:06 PM

The same in Iraq with Saddam. We failed to finish the job in 1991, and that failure has bred ongoing misery and death. There is no doubt that, left in power, Saddam will continue to oppress his people and inflict great violence on the region. Why? Because in his mind he has never lost. As long as he is in power, he has a chance to win. And he has been winning, as he sees it.

On the other hand, wars in which we have completely vanquished the enemy -- WWII and our own Civil War come immediately to mind -- have given birth to incredible peace and prosperity.

Thus, history strongly indicates that Saddam must be defeated in order to bring real peace to the region, and to our own interests. Peace is desired by all, of course, but the question is: peace at what price, and one whose terms? Based on what I have heard from the Iraqi people, and from the lessons of history, peace on Saddam's terms is no peace at all.

4429. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 3:00:23 PM

"We failed to finish the job in 1991"

And why was that?

A much more difficult question to answer because in order to do so an entire range of U.S. foreign policy decisions -- both long and short-term -- have to be examned.

And that examination would bring with it some rather distressing questions as to why Saddam was once our ally.

Right at the time he was so famously gassing his own people.

4430. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 3:02:22 PM

The "lesson of history" shows we have no interest in "bring ing Democracy to the region" as the Bush Crime Family keeps whining.

We haven't brought Democracy to Afganistan, have we?

Hell -- we don't have it HERE!

4431. concerned - 3/8/2003 3:10:13 PM

Do tell, cllrdr.

4432. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 3:23:05 PM

"And why was that?"

Ask the house slave, Colin Powell. Read his book. It's all spelled out there, in black and white.

This "discussion" is over.

4433. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 3:30:28 PM

If you say so.

4434. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 3:38:03 PM

Therefore this Josh link is not for LadyChaos to read.

4435. concerned - 3/8/2003 3:57:35 PM

This is so good, I have to share

excerpts:

Their (Blix & Al ElBaradei) rebuttals of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's documented evidence of such things as mobile chemical labs were purely tendentious; what they amounted to is that they hadn't themselves found supporting evidence -- or, in the course of nature, would be likely to. Since their research method has consisted almost exclusively of making repeat visits to sites where weapons were known to have been stored in the past, their failure is remarkably easy to explain.

Moreover, the little that has been accomplished -- almost all of it the direct result of some Iraqi mistake or act of incompetence, such as failing to realize the inspectors would actually test the engines of their supposedly short-range missiles -- has been accomplished exclusively due to U.S. pressure. The inspectors would not even be in Iraq had it not been for the Bush administration's military threat, which the French, Germans and Russians have been labouring to remove.

The resolution expressly contradicts the position now taken by France, Germany, and Russia; the onus from the beginning was not on the inspectors to find, but on the Iraqis to disclose.

It was expressly presented as a last chance. By now requiring the indefinite extension of inspections, placing the onus of discovery upon the inspectors, they have broken faith with the resolution they signed. Vetoing the confirming British-French-Spanish 18th resolution will constitute a formal and definitive breach of faith.

The rest was mere grandstanding around the Council table. To quote the various positions enunciated would be to morbidly exhaust a catalogue of shame.

4436. concerned - 3/8/2003 3:57:57 PM

The joke of it is, the UN's inspectors have found no sign of the existing presence of U.S. and British forces in Iraq, although these latter are even more numerous than the inspectors' Iraqi minders. The surprises to come in the opening hours of the impending public (as opposed to the continuing secret) war will be the speed at which various Iraqi positions are taken.

4437. concerned - 3/8/2003 4:28:38 PM

Iraq tutorial for jexster & cllrdr:

1) “The United States is taking unilateral action against Iraq.”

So far, it`s a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.

2) “We are in a rush to war.”

An 11-year rush?

3) “Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without our having to invade Iraq.”

Eleven years of inspections have done wonders so far.

4) “We should let the inspectors finish their job.”

We did. They didn`t. We will.

5) “Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.”

But their biological and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.

6) “There`s no proof of those weapons.”

We know they have `em, we know they hide `em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen`s pocket?

7) “If we invade, Saddam might use those weapons of mass destruction against us.”

I thought you said Iraq didn`t have them?

8) “But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq.”

Oh — so if we don`t attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

9) “We shouldn`t go to war without a UN resolution.”

ANOTHER resolution? What about the last 16 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or shall we use the same resolutions Bill Clinton used in Bosnia?

10) “We don`t have a real declaration for war.”

It`s called "Joint Congressional Resolution #114.

11) “If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren`t we invading them first?”

Uh, hello, isn`t that the point?

12) “The French don`t support the war.”

Oh — did they surrender already?

4438. concerned - 3/8/2003 4:30:07 PM

13) ;Germany objects to this war.

Germany objected to Reagan`s "attitude" toward the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.

14) Belgians are against the war.

I can live without waffles and ice cream.

15) The Russians don't support the war.

They’re still angry over Reagan`s brilliant Cold War victory.

18) “Polls show Europeans are against this war.”

Polls show Europeans believe their freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with American blood, not fabulous wine and Brie.

19) “Tom Daschle says George Bush has a ‘credibility gap’”

When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth?

20) “These problems didn`t happen under Clinton.”

Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now Bush will clean up his mess.

21) “But Clinton didn`t start a war.”

Not unless his girlfriend was testifying before Congress.

22) “The first President Bush should have taken out Hussein in `91.”

That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?

23) “Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the march to war.”

Millions of Iraqis are begging for us to start the war.

24) “Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from Al Qaeda than the threat from Iraq.”

It`s not a war against Al Qaeda. It`s not a war against Iraq. It`s a war against terrorism. Anywhere we find it. One nation at a time.

25) “American opinion is against the war.”

No, it`s not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later.

From: 'Snappy Answers to Stupid Antiwar Soundbites'

4439. jayackroyd - 3/8/2003 4:46:48 PM

LadyChaos asks a good question when she wants to know what the French/German/Russian alternative is. It is certainly true that without the threat of force there has been no compliance with disarmament.

Is there to be no time limit? And if there is, what is the case for delay? Does anyone really expect the regime to change its ways or fall in the near term?

4440. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/8/2003 4:50:07 PM

" HEDGES:. . . At the end of the Vietnam War, we became a better country in our defeat. We asked questions about ourselves that we had not asked before. We were humbled, maybe even humiliated. We were forced to step outside of ourselves and look at us as others saw us. And it wasn't a pretty sight. But we became a better country for it. A much better country. Gradually war's good name if we can-- between quotes, can say was resurrected. Certainly during the Reagan Era. Granada, Panama. Culminating with the Persian Gulf War. We're in a war — the very essence of war was hidden from us. And the essence of war is death. War is necrophilia. That's what it is. MOYERS: Tell me, having covered the first Gulf War, what the men and women who are about to go into Iraq are going to experience. HEDGES: Well, the ones who are up on the front line are — especially as they prepare to go into battle — are going to have to come face-to-face with the myth of war. The myth of heroism, the myth of patriotism. The myth of glory. All those myths that have the ability to arouse us when we're not in mortal danger. And they're going to have to confront their own mortality. And at that moment some people will be crying, some people will be vomiting. People will not speak much. Everyone will realize that from here on out, at least until the fighting ends, it will be a constant minute-by-minute battle with fear. And that sometimes fear wins. And anybody who tells you differently has never been in a war."

4441. concerned - 3/8/2003 4:51:03 PM

Jay -

I've mentioned that omission several times in this forum.

From Reuters:

Iraq demands lifting of sanctions after Blix report
Reuters

BAGHDAD, March 8 (Reuters) - President Saddam Hussein called on the U.N. Security Council on Saturday to lift 12 years of sanctions against Iraq, declaring Baghdad had met its disarmament commitments.

In a statement after a meeting chaired by Saddam, the Iraqi leadership made a set of demands it said the Security Council should implement after the reports by chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday.

"The embargo against Iraq should be lifted totally and comprehensively after America's motives were revealed to the world and after Iraq abided by Security Council resolutions," the statement said.

It also demanded that the Security Council denounce the United States and Britain as "liars", strip Israel of its alleged weapons of mass destruction and force it to pull out of "Palestine and occupied Arab land".

Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council on Friday Iraq's cooperation fell short of Council demands but applauded Baghdad's scrapping of al-Samoud missiles.

What say you, jex? Sound like Saddam's got the plan?

4442. concerned - 3/8/2003 4:56:33 PM

What hath France wrought?

4443. concerned - 3/8/2003 4:59:02 PM

Saddam just pulled the rug out from under the 'disarmament is working' crowd here.

Bwahahahaha!

4444. concerned - 3/8/2003 5:07:41 PM

The hilarious part is that France, Germany and Russia probably don't have the gumption to say 'boo' to Saddam after this outburst.

4445. concerned - 3/8/2003 5:18:04 PM

'Iraq demands lifting of sanctions......'

Oh, this is precious!

4446. judithathome - 3/8/2003 6:07:53 PM

Just heard on CNN that we are moving all nonessential people from the area between Kuwait and Iraq.

Guess we'll be in the thiick of it in 72 hours.

4447. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 6:14:13 PM

And let us not forget how such a climb-down would embolden the Islamists.
This is the essential demagogic leap of logic that the Cheney/ gang expected to get a free ride on.

Something like 65% of US citizens believe that Saddam was behind the Twin Towers atrocity (if that's not an urban legend?) -- this is the foundation of the current war. We have this righteous moral rage, somebody has to pay. Afghanistan? Not enough. Who's next? Well, who ya got?

4448. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 6:15:13 PM

I thought that the article showed an example of what I increasingly hear coming from the mouths of Europeans -- 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy; America is run by the Jews; the Jews control the American media; America is doing this to Saddam just to help the Jews.

Such comments have entered the realm of mainstream opinion in Europe, these days.

OK lady, put up or shut up. I'm waiting for cites, no more bullshit, no more hearsay.

4449. judithathome - 3/8/2003 6:32:07 PM

The reason so many people in this country believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 is that Bush never misses an opportunity to connect the two in his daily speeches around the country. He will say "Since 9/11, we've learned we can no longer trust people like Saddam" and the majority of the listeners hear only 9/11 and Saddam. There's our President, saying Saddam is involved! We need to go to war!!

4450. Edmund Dantes - 3/8/2003 6:40:48 PM

How about the French Minister of Education?

Education Minister Luc Ferry said in a press conference last week that the formation of ethnic communities among students has caused an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in France....

Last September, a group of teachers published a book saying it has become impossible to teach about the Holocaust in some French classrooms where there are large populations of Muslim students.

The French government is very sensitive about signs of creeping anti-Semitism since last year, when a number of Jewish cemeteries were desecrated and synagogues were burned.

Education Minister Luc Ferry said anti-Semitic and racial slurs had become so common that they often went unreported.

4451. Edmund Dantes - 3/8/2003 6:42:07 PM

Luc Ferry said anti-Semitic insults of a new kind were becoming a feature of everyday life.

Teachers and school officials would no longer be allowed to turn their heads when Jewish students were being harassed, he said.

Some 455 racist and anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in French state schools in the autumn term alone of the current academic year.

4452. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 7:10:43 PM

Cute, Monty, but clearly irrelevant to what the Lady was talking about in Message # 4420.

The sort of North African kids the article talks about, who dramatise ther own (rather trivial) disadvantages by identifying with Palestinians, and associate French Jews with Israel, are very far from mainstream opinion in Europe.

People who express the sort of opinions LadyC quotes :America is run by the Jews; the Jews control the American media can undoubtedly still be found in, for example, France; they would be mostly either well over sixty, or card-carrying members of the extreme right. I wouldn't be at all surprised if such opinions were held more frequently in the USA than in Western Europe.

By the way, I agree with Ferry, the French minister of education, when he says in the linked article :
"In an explosive situation we should be able to say to all students: 'Drop the crosses, the veils, the skull caps, we are going to stop that and play by the rules of the republic'."

4453. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 7:14:41 PM

Some 455 racist and anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in French state schools in the autumn term alone of the current academic year.

Lest this leave a misleading impression : The majority of these, undoubtedly, would be anti-Arab incidents (this is pretty well automatic, as Arabs outnumber Jews 10 to 1 in France). Racism in all its forms, including anti-Semitism, must be fought without fear or favour.

4454. arkymalarky - 3/8/2003 7:21:21 PM

I wouldn't be at all surprised if such opinions were held more frequently in the USA than in Western Europe.

Those opinions read like a page from the far right screeds that have been spouted here since I can remember, until 9/11 shifted the focus of that bunch. That kind of talk has never been rare here, at least until those same buzzards found a new scapegoat in Muslims.

4455. arkymalarky - 3/8/2003 7:27:46 PM

And btw, I have heard some of that Jewish conspiracy stuff since 9/11 and more than a few times I've heard similar arguments about why we get so involved in Middle East.

4456. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 7:42:21 PM

Gleaned from various news sources...

In Belgium thugs beat up the chief rabbi, kicking him in the face and calling him a dirty Jew. Two synagogues in Brussels were firebombed, a third in Charleroi was sprayed with automatic weapons fire. In Britain the cover of the New Statesman, a left wing magazine, depicted a large Star of David stabbing the Union Jack. An Oxford professor Tom Paulin, a noted poet, told an Egyptian interviewer that American Jews who moved to the West Band and Gaza should be shot dead. A Jewish yeshiva student reading the Psalms was stabbed twenty seven times on a London bus. A member of the House of Lords stated that the Jews have been asking for it and now, thank God, we can say what we think at last.

In Italy, the daily paper La Stampa published a cartoon: A tank emblazoned with a Jewish star points its gun at the baby Jesus, who pleads: “Surely they don’t want to kill me again?”

In Germany, a rabbinical student was beaten up in downtown Berlin and a grenade was thrown into a Jewish cemetery. Thousands of neo-Nazis held a rally, marching near a synagogue on the Jewish sabbath. Graffiti appeared on a synagogue in the western town of Herford: “Six million were not enough.”

4457. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 7:42:35 PM

In Ukraine, skinheads attacked Jewish worshippers and smashed the windows of Kiev’s main synagogue. Ukrainian police denied that the attack was anti-Jewish.

In Greece, Jewish graves were desecrated in Ionnina and vandals hurled paint at the Holocaust memorial in Salonica.

In Holland, an anti-Israel demonstration featured swastikas, photos of Hitler, and chants of “Sieg Heil” and “Jews into the sea.”

In Slovakia, the Jewish cemetery of Kosice was invaded and 135 tombstones destroyed.

Nowhere have the flames of antisemitism burned more furiously than in FRANCE: In Lyon, a car was rammed into a synagogue and set on fire. In Montpellier the Jewish religious center was firebombed; so were synagogues in Strasbourg and Marseille; so was a Jewish school in Creteil. A Jewish sports club in Toulouse was attacked with Molotov cocktails, and on the statue of Alfred Dreyfus in Paris, the words “Dirty Jew” were painted. In Bondy, fifteen men beat up members of a Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars. The bus that takes Jewish children to school in Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last fourteen months. According to the police, metropolitan Paris has seen ten to twelve anti-Jewish incidents per day since the Spring. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been defaced with slogns proclaiming “Jews to the gas chambers and Death to the Jews.” The weekly journal Le Nouvel Observateur published an appalling libel: It said Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian women, so that their relatives will kill them to preserve family honor. The French ambassador to Great Britain was not sacked and did not apologize when it was learned that he had told guests at a London dinner that the world’s troubles were the fault of “that shitty little country, Israel.”

4458. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 7:46:12 PM

From the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights: Fire and Broken Glass: The Rise of AntiSemitism in Europe

4459. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 7:46:18 PM

Lady : why don't you link the web site you cribbed this stuff from? That often clarifies matters.

4460. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 7:52:29 PM

None of the above has shit to do with "mainstream opinion in Europe".

There has been a sustained campaign in France over the past year or so, by leading and estimable Jewish intellectuals, to convince public opinion that
a) there has been a huge upsurge in anti-Semitic incidents (there has certainly been an increase in incidents, no deaths as far as I know, and temporally it tracks pretty well with the intensity of the Intifada in Israel)
b) any criticism of action by the Israeli government should be considered anti-Semitic.

This second point is an attempt to censor political expression. (continues...)

4461. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 7:53:51 PM

So we're bombing Iraq because of outbreaks of anti-semitism in Belgium, Holland, Slovaki and France.

Brilliant!

4462. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 7:59:27 PM

The stuff that I "cribbed" was a summary of well-known media reports from the past year or so.

For a more in-depth examination of the issue, I suggest seeing the link in Message # 4458.

I have no idea what Message # 4460 is saying. Do you mean to say that Jewish groups are exaggerating anti-semitism in Europe?

I don't think that any serious person contends that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, but certainly comments like those of Tom Paulin are anti-semitic.

4463. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 8:00:35 PM

4459, obviously, cross-posted with 4458. Thank you.

About a month ago, the head of the CRIJF (federation of French Jewish associations) gave a speech at their annual dinner, where he criticised a "Red/Brown/Green coalition" of anti-Semites. The secretary general of the Green party walked out, which created a sufficient fuss to enable a clarification via the press... there was eventually a joint press conference, where he backed down from his unspeakably insulting, and completely unfounded, allegation that the Left and the Greens were anti-Semitic and allied with fascists.

The fact is that the lasting difficulties of coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians has daily, concrete repercussions in France (France in particular, because it has the largest Jewish population in Europe, and one of the largest Arab populations too) : but this has fuck-all to do with anti-semitism.

4464. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 8:04:14 PM

So it's come to this: the supporters of the Bush Crime Family and their plans for MASS MURDER in Iraq are

(drummroll please)

PLAYING THE JEW CARD!!!!

4465. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 8:18:47 PM

I don't think that any serious person contends that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic

That is the thrust of the campaign we've lived through in France. One well-known left-wing broadcaster, Daniel Mermet, was taken to court for revisionism (denying or excusing the Holocaust is a crime in France) because he had tracked down, and interviewed, a German doctor who had supervised genocide at Dachau. I remember listening to the interviews, they were pretty harrowing.

Those broadcasts led to the doctor being prosecuted for war crimes (he had inexplicably been acquitted at Nueremberg).

Nobody who had listened to the broadcasts could have imagined that the journalist's intention had been to excuse the genocide.

The intellectuals who testified against Mermet admitted at the bar that they hated him because he had previously expressed pro-Palestinian positions when reporting on the Middle East.

That's just a personal appreciation of a part of what the "upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe" is about.

I hasten to add that the dialogue between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian activists is very much alive in France. Within my own party, the Greens, a number of the leading anti-Zionist activists are Jewish, as has always been the case (it seems silly to feel obliged to say this).

4466. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 8:18:55 PM

I'm sorry, but that last paragraph is so much dissembling. Any "lasting difficulties of coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians" can be boiled down to one word: terrorism. The Israelis tried Oslo, and they got the Second Intifada. Barak withdrew from southern Lebanon in a gesture of good-faith, and the Palestinians interpreted it as weakness.

All Israel can do now is show the Palestinians that, though Israel may not defeat them, the Palestinians cannot win with terrorism.

But even if Israel was completely in the wrong, that would not justify anything that has occurred toward Jews in Europe. You blame the French Arab population? Why? France doesn't take responsibility for the behavior of its immigrants?

4467. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 8:20:35 PM

My last post refers to Message # 4463.

4468. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 8:21:50 PM

For the same reason that the U.S. doesn't take responsibility for its murderous bigots!

It would rather pay them hommage by speaking at Bob Jones University.

4469. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 8:26:51 PM

Re: Message # 4465

As a libertarian, I oppose regulations on speech, in part because they invite the sort of abuse you describe. I think that Europeans make a huge mistake in trying to regulate speech. French hate speech laws were used to try to ban Oriana Fallaci's polemic, The Rage and the Pride.

I am aware that there are Jewish "Anti-Zionists." We have them here, too. Perhaps I risk mischaracterizing your point, but appeasing Palestinian desires to drive Israel into the eastern Mediterranean is not exactly what I define as "dialogue."

4470. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 8:27:12 PM

Do you mean to say that Jewish groups are exaggerating anti-semitism in Europe?

In short, yes.

I often listen to Radio Judaica, a local Jewish station, on the way to work. They run frequent ads for emigration to Israel. This is part of a big campaign launched a year or so by the Sharon government, aimed at attracting French Jews (with rather limited success, looking at the net migration figures).

It has been conjectured that the "anti-semitism" campaign, in addition to attempting to sway public opinion in favour of Israel, was aimed at provoking a panic reaction among French Jews.

4471. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 8:28:35 PM

I'm no friend of Bob Jones Univ., but I'm not aware of that institution supporting "murderous bigots."

What "murderous bigots" are you talking about, Cellar Door?

4472. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 8:30:56 PM

Well, if I was a French Jew, I would be in a panic, right now. And I don't listen to that radio station, obviously.

There may be Jews who exploit anti-Semitic violence for their own agendas. But that has to pale in comparison with the way the Arab governments exploit the Palestinian situation.

And none of this denies that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe.

4473. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 8:36:24 PM

Message # 4466 I won't address the bulk of this post, because it isn't pertinent to the issue in hand. But:

You blame the French Arab population? Why? France doesn't take responsibility for the behavior of its immigrants?

??? What are you thinking? That Arab immigrants are indoctrinated in anti-Semitism when they arrive in France?

Well shit, certainly, as an immigrant myself, I feel that everyone in France is responsible, and should be held accountable, for all my political opinions and actions.

There is certainly a specific problem of anti-Jewish racism in France, on the part of the Arab minority. There are even people who attempt to minimize it, emphasising that the Arab population is itself victim of racism.

Does that sound familiar at all? Ring any bells with respect to the USA?

Hardly a strategic problem in geopolitical terms.

4474. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 8:39:20 PM

And none of this denies that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe

I can only speak of what I know, but I think I've debunked the notion pretty comprehensively with respect to France.

4475. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 8:42:59 PM

What "murderous bigots" are you talking about, Cellar Door?"

Have you been asleep for the past -- oh let's give you thirty -- years?

Really that's not a serious question, Lady C. I expect much better of you.

4476. Dubai Vol - 3/8/2003 9:01:51 PM

There was a major article on the rise of anti-Semtism in Europe in the Financial Times just in the past few months. Been a while, but it wasn't restricted to Muslims. Sorry i can't provide a link, but I read it in hard copy.

So Lady Chaos isn't imagining things, unless of course the FT is part of the evil Jewish media conspiracy as well.

And I get to read the "Jews control America's media/government" and "Israel is the reason America is after Saddam" arguments daily in letters to the local paper.

Funny, but i had a lot more sympathy for Palestinians when I was being "duped" by the Jewish controlled American media than I do now that I get the "truth" from Arab newspapers

4477. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 9:02:00 PM

Lady, I'd like to come back to what you actually said in Message # 4220, because the material you've posted since then isn't actually very pertinent to that.

It's worth decomposing, because it's not a bad example of the sort of amalgam that has been widely used in France in the campaign to censor anti-Israel opinon :

I thought that the article showed an example of what I increasingly hear coming from the mouths of Europeans -- 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy;

I've personally never heard that from anyone. What sort of Europeans have you been talking to? I can believe that Arabs living in Arab countries might hold such opinions -- typically they don't have access to good media information.

America is run by the Jews; the Jews control the American media;
as discussed above, this is plain old-fascioned anti-semitism;

America is doing this to Saddam just to help the Jews.

Manifestly (and everyone including the entire Israeli political class has expressed this clearly), helping Israel is one of the aims of the US intervention in Iraq. And, in my view, one of the more praiseworthy of the multiple reasons we have been given for it (though whether it will actually help, is a huge crap-shoot).

So what is such a statement doing here? Just a cheap shot at enrolling pro-Jewish sympathies in the war against Iraq.

Such comments have entered the realm of mainstream opinion in Europe, these days

You still haven't provided the slightest trace of evidence of such.

4478. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 9:07:13 PM

Cross-post, Dube : you illustrate my point about the Arab media.

Sure as hell, you can find small bands of neo-Nazi cretins in any country in Europe, keen to spray swastikas or desecrate cemetaries. Anti-semitism is a traditional part of that, but not the whole of it: Last month, a Resistance museum was sprayed with nazi graffiti in the Vercors in France.

I'm prepared to believe there's been an upsurge in that sort of activity over the last couple of years, too, but again : hardly mainstream European opinion!!

We're stuck on "put up or shut up", lady.

4479. alistairconnor - 3/8/2003 9:07:52 PM

I just realised that this is the wrong thread for this discussion. Apologies to war freaks.

4480. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 9:10:29 PM

Here's how we're gonna Nuke'em

4481. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 9:16:10 PM

Spudboy has a Blog.

Very much worth reading in regard to today's racism.

4482. Dubai Vol - 3/8/2003 9:19:33 PM

hard to have any discussion without going off-topic sometimes.

FWIW the local paper is quite good. Only on the editorial page is the bias apparent, and that's hardly surprising or lamentable, that's what the editorial page is FOR.

And while Arabs aren't as miskled by their media as you might imagine, they do hold some crazy ideas regardless. The vast majority (by poll) don't believe Arabs were involved in 11 Sept; I have often heard the "Jewish conspiracy" theory.

Another good one, the US deliberately caused the last Gulf War to use up old bombs and get paid for them by the Arabs. That's right, I've been told the US made a profit on Desert Storm, by a Christian Jordanian educated in the US!

I could go on forever, but I'm off to watch Michael Schumacher make it look easy....

4483. Edmund Dantes - 3/8/2003 10:06:54 PM

Mother of eight set ablaze by Iraqi border guards

As she stepped up to the Iraqi checkpoint, a military policeman suddenly pulled a knife, slashed open the flimsy plastic containers and splashed petrol all over her.

Then the head of the Iraqi border guard casually walked up to her, pulled a lighter from his pocket and set her ablaze. Soaked in fuel, she began to burn like a torch.

4484. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 11:04:11 PM

Cellar Door,

"Have you been asleep for the past -- oh let's give you thirty -- years?

Really that's not a serious question, Lady C. I expect much better of you."

Sorry to disappoint, but I really don't know what you're talking about. What "murderous bigots" do you mean with respect to Bob Jones Univ.?

4485. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 11:25:54 PM

I give up!

4486. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 11:26:38 PM

WHAT MURDEROUS BIGOT?

GEORGE W. FUCKING BUSH YOU MORON!!!!!

4487. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 11:28:59 PM

OOOoolook! Al Queda agents, trained by Saddma Hussein, must have slipped into the NYT and written this!!!

4488. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 11:32:59 PM

alistair,

Referring to Europeans who claim 9-11 was a Jewish conspiracy, you ask:

"I've personally never heard that from anyone. What sort of Europeans have you been talking to?"

Perhaps I have been misled by the fact that a book espousing that very theory has been a bestseller in France for the last year.

Oh, don't tell me. It's the Arabs, right?

Respecting the oft-heard statement that the U.S. is moving against Saddam just to help the Jews, you ask:

"So what is such a statement doing here? Just a cheap shot at enrolling pro-Jewish sympathies in the war against Iraq."

It is a statement that hear all the time in the sort of "man on the street" interviews that are occasionally conducted in various European cities. And by the tone of their voices, I get the feeling that, unlike you, they don't see helping Israel as a good thing. I most recently heard it spoken by a number of interviewees in Spain.

Of course, those same people also expressed lingering resentment over America taking away their empire in the Spanish-American war! Hah! Get a grip!

4489. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 11:33:57 PM

Message # 4486

Temper, temper....

4490. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 11:36:48 PM

alistair,

It seems to me that Tom Friedman, in his February 26 column of late, summed things up quite well when it comes to European anti-semitism:

". . . . There is only one group of Arabs for whom Europeans have consistently spoken out in favor of their liberation -- and that is those Arabs living under Israeli occupation, the Palestinians. Those Arabs who have been living under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or other Arab dictators are of no concern to President Jacques Chirac of France and his fellow travelers.

"We all know what this is about: the Jewish question. 'For too many Europeans, Arabs are of no moral interest in and of themselves,' observes the Middle East analyst Stephen P. Cohen. 'They only become of interest if they are fighting Jews or being manhandled by Jews. Then their liberation becomes paramount, because calling for it is a way to stick it to the Jews. Europeans' demonstrations for a free Palestine -- and not for a free Iraq or any other Arab country -- smell too much like a politically correct form of anti-Semitism, part of a very old story.'"

I'm not sure if this is completely fair, but I have to say that it comports with my own experience and observations.

4491. LadyChaos - 3/8/2003 11:38:27 PM

Message # 4487

Yes, the NYT has been a ringing voice of stunning moral clarity for the last year or so.

4492. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 11:42:24 PM

As has the Pope.

4493. Cellar Door - 3/8/2003 11:46:23 PM

So instead we're to rely on the moral clarity of a drunken, coke-snorting, teenage Mexican whore-fucking COWARD!!!

(And don't turn your nose up at the ad hominem after 8 years of Republican jihaad!)

4494. concerned - 3/8/2003 11:59:14 PM

Drudge reports that Iraqi soldiers are already crossing the Kuwait border....to surrender.

Must be that French military training.

4495. Cellar Door - 3/9/2003 12:49:48 AM

"Say Goodnight, Tucker."

4496. Cellar Door - 3/9/2003 1:23:11 AM

(from another board):

This has NOTHING to do with liberating the people of Iraq. People who believe this are either ignorant or liars. Unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning people are falling for this crap.

IF Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al really gave a flying fuck about the people of Iraq, why the HELL did they normalize relations with Saddam in the 80s and sell him all the stuff he needed for his Chemical and Biological weapons. AFTER he gassed the Kurds. AFTER he was identified as one of the worst torturers in the world. Why? Simple: M*O*N*E*Y and P*O*W*E*R. These bastards don't give a sh*t about the "people" of any place. To quote Robert Novak, when reminded that 60% of Haiti VOTED for their leftist leader, "oh, that's just the riff-raff."

If these bastards really cared about the "people" of anywhere, why have they left Afghanis high and dry now that the news media have gone? (See recent UN report indicating conditions outside Kabul haven't changed for women, and inside Kabul are only slightly better than before. Note that the promised money for Afghanistan was "forgotten" in Bush's budget.) Liberate the people, my ass.

If they really cared about "people", why haven't they supported the international treaties on human rights and land mines? Why do they continue to support vile dictatorships over the world, which treat their peoples as bad or worse than in Iraq?

4497. Cellar Door - 3/9/2003 1:23:26 AM

When Bush & co. talk about bringing "democracy" to Iraq, you can be sure what brand we're talking about. Bush, Sr., made that clear when he toasted Ferdinand Marcos, in the 1980s, as being a beacon of democracy. Yeah, "democracy" as defined by the Heritage Foundation: a puppet gov't which fully supports US business interests and keeps their people under tight control. Good for the stock market.

It's already been promised that only the top few officials will be replaced by Bushistas in Iraq ... that the rest will be left in place to assure a smooth transition. It's already been announced that Bush has sold out the Kurds in order to placate Turkey. And you can be damn sure any "election" will have as much validity as what happened in Kabul.

4498. concerned - 3/9/2003 1:26:43 AM

The French, Germans and Russians are still worse, even by cllrdr's standards.

4499. concerned - 3/9/2003 1:28:40 AM

IRAQ REMOVES ENGINES FROM DESTROYED AL SAMOUDS

excerpt:

U.S. officials said the regime of President Saddam Hussein has not destroyed any Al Samoud missile deployed in forward bases in southern Iraq. Instead, they said, Iraq has brought out missiles from military warehouses and replaced the engines with those from the Soviet-origin SA-2 surface-to-air missile, developed in the 1950s.

"From recent intelligence, we know that the Iraqi regime intends to declare and destroy only a portion of its banned Al Samoud inventory and that it has, in fact, ordered the continued production of the missiles that you see being destroyed," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies on Wednesday. "Iraq has brought its machinery that produces such missiles out into the daylight for all to see. But we have intelligence that says, at the very same time, it has also begun to hide machinery it can use to convert other kinds of engines to power Al Samouds."

4500. concerned - 3/9/2003 1:40:00 AM

This is important because it's the engines that made the Al Samouds violate UN resolutions. So, it appears that Blix and Co. were overoptimistic when they thought that Saddam was complying to even the small extent they hoped wrt destroying these missiles.

4501. alistairconnor - 3/9/2003 6:58:49 AM

Message # 4488
Perhaps I have been misled by the fact that a book espousing that very theory has been a bestseller in France for the last year

I'll take a wild guess that you're talking about crackpot journalist Thierry Meyssan's book L'effroyable imposture, where he claims that the US did 9/11 to itself, and that the Pentagon was struck, not by an aeroplane, but by a missile...

But what surprises me is that I've never heard that Meyssan claims Jewish involvement. Obviously, I haven't read the book, but there was a brief flurry of press interest when it came out, and I'm sure that aspect would have been mentioned. A cursory look at the web site reveals no obvious traces of anti-Semitism.

But you've piqued my curiosity, I'm looking into Meyssan's methods and motivations...

On the other hand, maybe you're talking about some other French best-seller about 9/11 that I've never heard of?

4502. alistairconnor - 3/9/2003 7:16:06 AM

No, I haven't found any allegations of anti-semitism surrounding Meyssan or his book : apparently his thesis is that 9/11 was a conspiracy by far-right elements in the US military. In general, his obsessions are the far right, the Catholic church in general, and Opus Dei in particular.

I can forgive you for assuming that this sort of conspiracy theory would be founded on anti-semitism, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

So yes, you have been misled by the misconception "that a book espousing that very theory has been a bestseller in France for the last year."

And it turns out that you haven't been talking to Europeans who espouse that theory. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

4503. alistairconnor - 3/9/2003 7:26:21 AM

Message # 4488 Lady C, forgive me for belabouring this point, but I'm convinced that you are in good faith, and that you sincerely believe that Europeans' attitudes towards the Middle East are founded in anti-semitism.

This is a mistaken belief. Reality is complex.

4504. RickNelson - 3/9/2003 7:43:19 AM

This anti-semitic issue must be near its end, eh?

I've another issue for to look into. That link cllrdr posted to the CNN Tucker and whoever crosstalk brought back some of my ire.

France has been selling Iraq weapons parts. They have also been doing business with them toward oil production and purchases. Well no shit, duh, that's what the fucking business' do. I get sick of hearing that someone is doing business. Oh my gawd it's with Saddam.

Amurica did the same thing during the Iran, Iraq war.

This is all bask side crap to me.

What I really care about is what the big picture is. It's business. Just as it always is. It's big OIL and big military contracts. It's all about these and these alone.

If yah wann talk about conspiracy then get real and give up the comments about the fucking military contracts. The huge waste is one thing, it's the fucking economy that gives me the shits. We're going straight back to Ronnie Raygun days! Fucking military contracts!

4505. RickNelson - 3/9/2003 7:53:00 AM

Of course someone will show me that NO we haven't increased military spending far beyond, blah, blah...

But, sure we have, show me all you want, it's up!

And will continue to go up, and that's the point of the topic I'm mentioning.

When the people lose things, the military gains things. That's the way I see it.

What are the people losing? Well they might be losing sleep over Social Security. Is everyone happy with it? UH?! They might be losing the secure thoughts about the environmental policy that had momentum toward sustaining things, like the Alaskan tundra Bush wants to open to oil, or has he already? What else, just chose something you'll be right.

What is gained, and let's look at this like an accountant shall we?! Loss and gain, or would it be easier if it were finance?! Nah, debit and credit, that's the ticket.

Now what's to be credited to Bush? Military spending and BIG OIL. uh hum, yup.

4506. RickNelson - 3/9/2003 7:59:35 AM

Fucked up Ronnie!
Fucked up Ronnie!

Ronald Reagan you're fucked up!

Some punk band in the 80's sang that. I've got it on tape somewhere.

Everytime I get the Ronnie Raygun blues I think of that song.

Bush is another revisit to those damn bitchin' years of military build up and Raygun waste! Social spending was cut to the bone it is now and Bush will do more cutting. He's got to! Iraq and our soldiers aren't the only causualties, the homeless, the poor children and the environment are the other.

4507. RickNelson - 3/9/2003 8:17:58 AM

dammit,

alistair, I know you were there, and I just pounced all over the place with this tirade. I did it incoherently. If there's a thread of an issue to take from it, maybe someone will find some information, or have a comment. Sometime.

I'm sorry to get so huffy. The posts have been really meaningful of late.

4508. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 9:08:55 AM

Wow. huffy is such a benign term. Doesn't do those posts justice.
Start by destroying all tapes with those types of messages Rick, and the world will get better almost immediately.

4509. RickNelson - 3/9/2003 9:15:24 AM

One more thing makes me irate.

Because it's quiet I'll rant one more time.

It's about Bush, his cronies and all the pundits who use the glib remark of approval "American People!" Well fuck you!

If their going to invade Iraq then don't say "American People" in the same sentence supporting it!

Everytime I hear it on the telly I wanna smash that mouth!

dammit, violence is catchy!

One pundit had the gall to say "American People" every sixth word of his remarks. The American People this, The American People that and so on ad-nausium!

This is a politically bankrupt move of the Bushite Empire. Unilateral crackpotism, hackney, sack-o-swine twitistic mealy mouthed bunch of crapola ever invented! I'm sick of it I tell you, sick of it!

The Iraq invasion is about Oil and military spending. Not about Saddam's mistreatment of his people, nor his threat to the safety of the "Amurican People"! It's about the supply and demand of OIL and the weapons industries need to sustain its massive torturous iron strong clamp upon the purse of The United States.

4510. RickNelson - 3/9/2003 9:18:40 AM

First time visit LB?

Read others this morning. I'm having a meltdown episode. A rarity of mine to be sure.

4511. alistairconnor - 3/9/2003 9:21:27 AM

Beware of simple explanations Rick. Oil is part of it. Israel is part of it. The desire for democracy of part of it. But the fantasies of empire of the Cheney clique are the driving force.

Hi, LB. Are you new here?

Conflict in the Middle East 1 | Conflict in the Middle East 2

The Mote | Mote Archive

back to top