Message # 4472 Sorry to come back to this... Well, if I was a French Jew, I would be in a panic, right now.
Is the irony intended? It would be funny, except that... it isn't. Shall we compare the relative death rates for anti-Jewish violence in France and in Israel?
Having said that... Just last night, I was talking to a friend who's about to embark on a thesis, on the subject of the Jewish population of our region, Rhone Alpes, between 1932 and 1948. It seems that the indigenous Ashkenaz population was boosted in the 30s by refugees from persecution in eastern and central Europe, before being about halved by deportation to the death camps during the war. One problem she has with respect to sources, is the turnover of the population since then : the local Jews are now, in their majority, Sepharads of North African extraction, who arrived in the 50s and 60s, when large numbers of the original Ashkenaz moved to Israel.
(That's just a random side-note to the discussion)
4513. judithathome - 3/9/2003 9:34:54 AM
Haliburton Wins Contract To Fight Iraqi Oil Fires
A Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) has won the contract to oversee any firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any U.S.-led invasion, a Defense Department source said on Thursday.
KBR was widely viewed by many in the oilfield services industry as the likely candidate to oversee firefighting in Iraq's oilfields. Halliburton does extensive logistic support work for the U.S. military.
Vice President Dick Cheney served as Halliburton's chief executive officer from 1995 to 2000
Sur-PRIZE, sur-PRIZE as Gomer Pyle used to say.
4514. judithathome - 3/9/2003 9:45:19 AM
I heard that Iran is starting to boost its uranium reserves but can't find anything to link to...it was on ABC this morning. I'm sure it's just a coincidence and that whatever they are doing, it will turn out to be for energy, not WMD.
4515. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 10:01:13 AM
yes, I'm new here. I was tricked into joining by promises of enlightened conversation and thought-filled posts.
I prefer the rants, myself.
4516. judithathome - 3/9/2003 10:04:53 AM
We used to have an entire thread devoted to rants...
4517. judithathome - 3/9/2003 10:14:49 AM
Colin Powell is on Meet The Press right now and after him, a Democrat with spine, Howard Dean.
4518. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 10:17:17 AM
I think it would be more of a "man bites dog" story if Haliburton DIDN't get the contracts.
Whats the point of being vice-President if you can't get old associates, new contracts?
Its how the entire world works.
4519. judithathome - 3/9/2003 10:24:46 AM
Of course, it's how the entire world works and I'm not insinuating this is anything nearly as DIRE as...oh, say Whitewater or anything. But it just looks so clubby...hey, that's fine with me. Let these guys go all over themselves to prove what everyone thinks about them; it won't matter to the loyal Americans who think Bush is a hero and Cheney has brains to spare and everyone knows the rest of us don't count...we're just unpatriotic traitors who want the USA to fail, anyhow, and we don't count.
4520. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 10:37:10 AM
If Bush succeeds in being a hero by stopping an attack by saddam's weapons, like he is claiming, then I hardly think giving out contracts to capable companies who happen to be associated with Cheney, will diminish said hero-status.
No big deal. Nothing illegal or immoral. Should companies NOT associated with "them" automatically be given contracts just to avoid any potential conflict of interests? Gee. That sounds so democrat. (emphasis on the small "d")
4521. judithathome - 3/9/2003 10:45:27 AM
Bush is already a hero, isn't he?
Hey, they can award contracts to whomever they choose...they won, right?
4522. arkymalarky - 3/9/2003 11:21:06 AM
Welcome to the Mote, LB.
I was tricked into joining by promises of enlightened conversation and thought-filled posts.
I prefer the rants, myself.
Well you're in luck! Here we have both, and for no extra charge you get a few thought-free posts, as well.
The thing about the Haliburton connection isn't whether it's illegal or even unethical, but it adds to the perception that this war isn't really about Iraqi freedom or the threat posed by Hussein in the Middle East. I'm not opposed to an invasion, but what amazes me is that Bush's approach has squandered support of countries I think he could have had at this point. And no, I'm not talking about France.
4523. Cellar Door - 3/9/2003 11:31:42 AM
"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."
Sing Out Louise!
4524. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 11:43:12 AM
I dunno. Most things aren't THAT easily explained.
If I wanted to start a war for fun and profit, I would most certainly take the time to compile enough support and disinformation to have the most profitible war EVER!!!
Everybody knows Bush is just a dope with an MBA from Harvard who couldn't do this, but everybody also recognizes that Cheney could. He's the evil "mr. big" behind all this war for oil for stuff. Everybody (?) knows that, right?
Either he's just as stupid as W, or France, Germany, China and Russia are really noble world leaders with nothing but peace and prosperity for all on their agendas.
Or, This was isn't about oil.
4525. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 12:10:22 PM
Maybe I was wrong.
maybe they CAN be easily explained.
and thank you for the welcomes. I feel as safe as a WW1 doughboy about to peek his head over the rim of the trench........
4526. judithathome - 3/9/2003 12:24:28 PM
Oh, don't worry...you have compatriots here. They just sleep late on Sundays.
4527. Cellar Door - 3/9/2003 2:45:53 PM
Howard Dean was most impressive on Me -- The Press.
4528. judithathome - 3/9/2003 2:48:22 PM
Wasn't he, though?
"I don't consider the political implications before I speak; I just say what I believe."
Refreshing, to say the least.
4529. Al D - 3/9/2003 2:58:36 PM
judith
Your mentioning Halaburton is a great example of your knee jerk, anti-administration reactions. I am not claiming there was no chicanery in the deal-that would just be knee jerk acceptance of administration's actions. But do you have some proff you could offer that Halaburton did not win the bid fair and square? If you do, I would be interested in seeing it. Then I would take back my kree jerk charge.
4530. Cellar Door - 3/9/2003 3:07:01 PM
Al you're a fine one to accuse Judith of having a jerked knee.
Google yourself some Haliburton, then demand that an Independent Counsel investigate the matter.
Throw in an investigation of Laura Bush's murdering her ex-fiance while you're at it.
4531. Al D - 3/9/2003 3:20:58 PM
cellar
Sorry, old fellow, to see you've gone round the bend.
4532. judithathome - 3/9/2003 3:50:09 PM
Al, is there nothing I can post that you won't jerk around and turn into some sort of sneer at me? I don't have to follow up my previous post because it said it all. It doesn't matter if it is above board; it gives the appearance of cronyism.
You should know by now that it doesn't matter if any laws are broken or if people mean what they say...it's how it LOOKS that counts.
4533. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 3:51:31 PM
wow. that cellar door is silly.
Everybody knows only democrats murder their partners in crime. (or let them rot in Arkansas prisons, at least.)
4534. judithathome - 3/9/2003 3:53:17 PM
Hello Rosetta.
4535. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/9/2003 4:26:49 PM
Did you notice how Timmy's respectful questioning style and deference to Powell mysteriously transformed into tougher questions and badgering follow-ups when Dean was in the same chair?
4536. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 4:27:35 PM
go easy on me, I'm new and untested here.
Who's Rosetta?
4537. judithathome - 3/9/2003 4:32:26 PM
Rosetta is someone you remided me of there for a minute...but he's busy at another forum entertaining the troops right now.
So who or what drew you over here, Downtown? Regardless of the answer, welcome aboard. Sorry I forgot to say that earlier.
4538. judithathome - 3/9/2003 4:34:43 PM
Wiz, Dean was very impressive, despite Tim's attempts.
I think Powell will lose all of his voice in the next few days; by the time he showed up on Blitzer's show, he was really gravelly. He's been talking non-stop for days, I'd bet.
4539. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 4:52:40 PM
rosetta's a HE!?!?
I had good reason for my trepidations about this place, I see.
I was coerced by a long standing member. (that doesn't sound quite right, does it?)
If Rosetta's a he, then I assume you Judith, might be him, and I'm in real trouble here.
4540. judithathome - 3/9/2003 4:59:56 PM
No, I'm a she.
Rosetta's being a he is the least of his problems, though. ;-)
4541. Al D - 3/9/2003 5:07:29 PM
I was going to tell downtown that he might as well say who he really is, because nobody new comes on the Mote, but Judith beat me to it. If it is Stone, everyone will figure it out soon enough. It is quite easy to post on two forums or on two Threads at the same time. Trust me, I know.
Judith
I still maintain that you have a predictable reaction to anything concerning the current administration. Some people look bad, but that doesn't make them a bad person.
4542. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 5:17:11 PM
I'm telling you I'm the real deal. As new as new gets.
Look at me like your messiah then, if it'll make you believers.
(oh god I'm done for now)
Honest Injun. You ain't never met (the likes of) me on this site before.
You have a member here who has been championing this place for decades, it seems. Probably started right about the time algore was inventing it all.
4543. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 5:36:40 PM
If I have to chose though, Stone is a much cooler name than Rosetta.
...but you can call me Larry.
4544. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/9/2003 5:48:51 PM
I agree Judith and I relished telling John Kerry's phone person that I wasn't giving him any more money— that I'd switched to Dean because he, Dean, hadn't misplaced his backbone with regard to Bush's War on Iraq!
4545. arkymalarky - 3/9/2003 5:58:52 PM
I'm in real trouble here....Look at me like your messiah then
Well then, all I can say is Bon Jour.
4546. arkymalarky - 3/9/2003 6:00:54 PM
I've been so busy I haven't seen Dean. Wesley Clark's still getting a lot of attention in my neck of the woods. How each of them conducts himself through this Iraq situation will be very important for a 2004 nomination, imo.
4547. judithathome - 3/9/2003 7:20:42 PM
I still maintain that you have a predictable reaction to anything concerning the current administration. Some people look bad, but that doesn't make them a bad person.
Al, it should come as no surprise how I feel about Bush and let me assure you, I will not change my feelings. So live with it. You needn't "maintain" anything; I've got a flash for you: everyone at the Mote and elsewhere knows how I feel
and so does everyone here where I live. They all seem to be able to accept it; why can't you? Are you hell bent on saving my poor, little lost soul? Get in line.
He screwed over Texas and he's doing it to the entire nation now. Yes, I agree, just because a person looks bad doesn't make them a bad person but in the case, looks are NOT deceiving.
If we continue to spar about Bush, maybe we should do it in the Politics thread? After all, he doesn't rule the entire world...yet.
4548. Al D - 3/9/2003 7:25:18 PM
Judith
Hey, it's fine with me that your detest Bush. concerned detests Clinton and cannot make a rational statement about him. But you are so much more inteligent than either concerned or me that I thought I might suggest you judge matters on a more factual basis. But, as usual when it comes to the fair sex, I fall far short in understanding.
4549. judithathome - 3/9/2003 7:29:41 PM
You can't get much more factual than Texas about to do what Bush's other business ventures have done in the past: lose money and go belly up.
And don't try that flattery BS on me.;-)
4550. Al D - 3/9/2003 7:32:26 PM
unilateral-adj.doe by or affecting only one person or party.
Democrats are bothered when Bush when asked why he wants to go to war mentions 9/11, making it seem that Saddam had something to do with it. It bothers me too, because it does seem to show linkage, and if that is his intent, it is not honest.
However, it also bothers me to hear Democrats constantly talk about his actions in regard to Iraq as unilateral, which, of course, they are not. Every Democart, or Liberal of any party, does so. It might be effective, but it is dishonest. Wouldn't you all agree?
4551. Al D - 3/9/2003 7:34:30 PM
You can't get much more factual than Texas about to do what Bush's other business ventures have done in the past: lose money and go belly up.
I taught English for 8 years, but I can't parse that sentence.
flattery? moi? Never!
4552. judithathome - 3/9/2003 7:37:02 PM
Al, I'm off to watch Clinton and Dole parse some sentences...have a nice evening!
4553. Al D - 3/9/2003 7:39:28 PM
Another thing, all this carping about UBL. I don't really care if they catch him or kill him; I want all the maniacs who carry out his orders killed. He has no intention risking his life to hurt any American.
I have come to the conclusion that if a Nation has an enemy they just can't live with, it is foolish to kill the men. They can be replaced. Kill the women. When the men outnumber the women 3 to 1, they will start killing the other men. When they catch up, we just start killing more women. Eventually, they are the root of the problem.
the above idea are not mine. stamper made me do it.
4554. Al D - 3/9/2003 7:39:33 PM
Another thing, all this carping about UBL. I don't really care if they catch him or kill him; I want all the maniacs who carry out his orders killed. He has no intention risking his life to hurt any American.
I have come to the conclusion that if a Nation has an enemy they just can't live with, it is foolish to kill the men. They can be replaced. Kill the women. When the men outnumber the women 3 to 1, they will start killing the other men. When they catch up, we just start killing more women. Eventually, they are the root of the problem.
the above idea are not mine. stamper made me do it.
4555. Al D - 3/9/2003 7:40:22 PM
no idea why the double post.
4556. downtown LB - 3/9/2003 8:16:52 PM
Aw shucks judith, and here I thought it could be the start of something beautiful.
Al, should I just keep all my facts and figgurs about why Bush ISN'T Satan's retarded son, or should I hope beyond hope for Judith, and try to convert her?
Judith, you don't act like a female James Carville, do you?
If I were Mary Matilin, I would have run over him LOOONG ago with my Mercedes.
4557. Al D - 3/9/2003 8:35:37 PM
downtown
Why give up? Why in my time I've sin worse sinners than dear Judith come to their senses. She is young and tender, and quite beautiful. If she were ugly, would I bother with her?
4558. Cellar Door - 3/9/2003 9:23:36 PM
Well you bother with Ann Coulter, don't you?
4559. RickNelson - 3/9/2003 10:10:35 PM
How did you find such an exact likeness?
Thanks for the spudboy link, it links to yours too. There's some good commentary in a lot of these.
4560. Edmund Dantes - 3/9/2003 11:10:45 PM
Blix 'hid smoking gun'
The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday.
Iraqi drone ‘could drop chemicals on troops'
A report declassified by the United Nations contained a hidden bombshell with the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, suggesting an illegal range that could threaten Iraq’s neighbours with chemical and biological weapons.
US officials were outraged that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, did not inform the Security Council about the drone, or remotely piloted vehicle, in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day. The omission raised serious questions about Dr Blix’s objectivity.
4561. Cellar Door - 3/9/2003 11:55:19 PM
It could cause prickly heat too, you know.
Saddam is So Powerfully Evil!
4562. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/10/2003 12:12:58 AM
4563. concerned - 3/10/2003 12:13:32 AM
Re. 4548 -
AlD -
Do you mind not making any more incorrect, uninformed statements regarding myself and x42?
Thanks in advance.
4564. concerned - 3/10/2003 12:19:49 AM
Wrt the Iraqi unmanned aircraft, this appears to be one of the items that Colin Powell was derided for mentioning when he made his presentation to the UNSC on February 5th.
4565. concerned - 3/10/2003 2:01:48 AM
Ignorance is Blix.
4566. Macnas - 3/10/2003 4:01:35 AM
How long have you been waiting to say that one?
4567. Macnas - 3/10/2003 4:11:35 AM
re 4560
"a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft"
God be with the days when you could count on the Times to improve your english. Anyhoo, tell how this huge yoke of a thing is a weapon of mass destruction? As far as I know, they are pretty common, being reasonably simple technology and inexpensive.
Also, before any of the Janes reading public jumps down my throat, the technology to make drones efficient munition delivery platforms is not common, it only comes with those delux, high spec. leather interior and burl walnut dash type drones that superpowers have.
4568. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 5:58:57 AM
From today's local paper, The Gulf News:
"Saddam tried to order drones, spray kits"
"Saddam had been trying to buy a fleet of 300 drones equipped with spraying devices capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last week.
"Iraqi documents seen by the Sunday Times show.."
And the article goes on to detail missiles with ranges of 750 miles being developed, etc, all buried in the UNMOVIC report.
As we have said all along, you anti-war pukes won't admit that ALL the evidence says Saddam is STILL amassing WMD. And of course if he uses them on troops during the war, you will conveniently forget claiming he had none and say "see, we told you not to invade!"
Is it any wonder people with brains that actually work ignore you morons?
Make a reasonable argument against removing Saddam by force and I'll listen . So far I haven't read one.
4569. alistairConnor - 3/10/2003 6:14:58 AM
ALL the evidence says Saddam is STILL amassing WMD
... except those bits of it that Powell presented to the UN a couple of weeks ago. Which turns out to have included crude forgeries (the uranium correspondance), romanticised versions (mobile bio weapons labs that turn out to be water-quality control labs), plus various fictional material (solid ground where underground bunkers are alleged, etc).
I happen to believe that Saddam is hiding chemical and bio weapons capabilities. But that sort of bullshit provides ample excuses for those who choose not to believe that. Because nobody can believe Powell.
What is the point in being the world's only superpower, with fabulous satellite and aerial recon, communications interception, and spy networks, when at the moment of truth, when the entire world is watching, you resort to fairytales scripted by Hollywood screenwriters?
4570. alistairConnor - 3/10/2003 6:17:44 AM
There are many reasons for removing Saddam by force. There are so many, that the Cheney gang have trouble choosing, and change the reason just about every week.
It's hard to trust people who keep changing their story. How much of it is true this time? we keep asking ourselves.
4571. Macnas - 3/10/2003 6:25:58 AM
Relax and spend some more of your tax free Arab supplied money Dubai.
Who the fuck is Saddam going to use these so called weapons of mass destruction against?? Drones with spraying devices? Poison more of his own countrymen I would imagine, he's done it other ways before that’s what he'll probably do this time around.
And 750 mile missiles, in a landmass the size of Iraq is that very surprising? C'mon, get a grip here, every fucker has them, them and more.
I've never seen anyone deny that Saddam has weapons, poison gas, biochemical munitions whatever. Calling them weapons of mass destruction is jingoism, applied to suit a particular political context, in this case vilifying an already acknowledged evil man.
I have yet to see a reasonable argument for invading Iraq. As a self-proclaimed pro-war-non-puke and person-with-brains, maybe you could persuade me.
4572. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 6:43:55 AM
OK, fair enough! :)
Somehow the reasons for removing Saddam are just so easy and manifest that it really is hard to pick just one. But off the top of my head the fact that every country in the region wants him gone is a pretty good starting point. Again, without checking, Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Iran, say he should go. Their main motivation, in my view, is that they are having a heard time doing business into Iraq what with the sanctions and all: thay have to smuggle goods in and buy smuggled Iraqi oil on the sly. While they make a good profit on the oil, the fact that it's smuggled in rusty old hulls that were never intended to be tankers means that occasionally one sinks and covers the beaches and desalination plants in oil.
I'm sure it's not comon knowledge there but a twice-weekly ferry boat runs from the UAE to Iraq. Heck, i was in a meeting today with an Iraqi national. We didn't discuss politics. We have real work to do.
4573. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 6:49:02 AM
I have to go back to work, but I would like to share this: until a few months ago I was anti-war, on the basis that the time had passed and world opinion was against it. Of all things, a speech by Donald Rumsfeld to Congress changed my mind. Rumsfeld is hardly a great orator, and I am staunchly anti-Republican, but he persuaded me.
Removing Saddam mat not be idealistically immaculate, but it is a pragmatic imperative, IMO.
4574. Macnas - 3/10/2003 6:51:24 AM
Alright, so if I read your post correctly, GWB is invading Iraq on behalf of the middle east.
4575. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 6:53:47 AM
I have to go back to work, but I would like to share this: until a few months ago I was anti-war, on the basis that the time had passed and world opinion was against it. Of all things, a speech by Donald Rumsfeld to Congress changed my mind. Rumsfeld is hardly a great orator, and I am staunchly anti-Republican, but he persuaded me.
Removing Saddam mat not be idealistically immaculate, but it is a pragmatic imperative, IMO.
4576. magoseph - 3/10/2003 7:03:33 AM
I wonder if anyone, especially people living in the area, would care to comment on the following question: Presuming that the US occupies Iraq and intends to stay a while, what will the effect of the US sharing a common border with Iran have? Specifically, what are the probabilities of the religious rulers of Iran being ousted or marginalized?
4577. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 7:10:17 AM
Re 4574
I don't really care why dubya invades, it's the right thing to do, even if dubya is doing it for the wrong reasons (his oil buddies, his defense buddies, his religious beliefs, his general lack of a clue, being a hand puppet with the fist of the GOP stuck up his bum)
The point is, as much as I hate dubya and the GOP, the current impasse needs to be resolved, and the best solution as I see it is to remove Saddam, which will only happen by force.
FWIW, the President of the UAE has suggested that Saddam go into exile and the Arab League assume interim control of Iraq. i like that idea enough to have written to both dubya and Cheney strongly advocating that they take up the offer of Arab League interim control after the war, because war is the only way Saddam is going.
Gee thanks, now I'm late for work. Good thing I'm in charge of my department!
4578. Macnas - 3/10/2003 7:15:00 AM
Well I like that idea too. You going to work that is.
Only codding!!
But I do prefer that solution.
I would by far prefer to see the Arab world resolve this in one way or another. And believe it or not thats usually what happens out there, you know that of course Dubai vol. It might not be the best solution, and its never a democratic one, but whatever it is will be better than a U.S. led invasion.
4579. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 8:19:53 AM
I'm sure the Arabs would prefer we let the Arabs resolve this one too. The Arab leaders, anyways. I'm not so sure about the Arab serfs. The Arab leaders in Iran and Kuwait and Turkey care less about Saddam's citizens than Saddam does.
I'm not so sure the drones Saddam ordered were for delivery to HIS country.
4580. Macnas - 3/10/2003 9:16:10 AM
So which nation was to be the target for this attack of the drones?
Past events show that the ability to control the far flung corners of Iraq and the real or perceived dissidents that live there are a big concern of Saddams. Of course, it’s a common concern amongst dictators.
No doubt that the risk exists, given Saddam's propensity for aggression, but in the aftermath of the Gulf war I do not think that his armed forces are up to muster in this regard.
There is some information to be had concerning the condition of the army, a few here have mentioned it in previous posts, but it's hard to know what's accurate and what's speculation.
Regarding Arab "serfs" as you call them, if there is anything worse than Arab rulers lack of concern for their people, its their peoples lack of concern about who rules them.
4581. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 9:35:21 AM
Thanks, Macnas, mostly I enjoy my work...
The Arabs will never resolve it; they will carry on what they have been doing for the last twelve years, selling illegally to Iraq at a profit, buying smuggled Iraqi oil at a profit. The only reason they want the mess resolved is so that sanctions can be lifted and they can make a bigger profit still selling to Iraq all the things they have done without for so long, like Playstations and BMWs. GMCs they have plenty of, as they are allowed under the oil for food program....
Folks, idealism has nothing to do with various countries' stand on this issue. The region sees the impasse as an impediment to free trade and profits. Of all countries, I think Germany is the one most opposed on emotional/moral grounds. The Germans, I think, are the ones who feel most acutely the horrors of war and do not wish them on anyone.
In this case, however, as much as I love Germany and the German people, I think they are mistaken.
LBArab serfs? Being a second-class person in a country where "the Arab is always right" I think I might take exception to that idea. ANd Dubai is by far the most egalitarian of Arab states, re expats. In Saudi, for example, an expat involved in a traffic accident with a Saudi is automatically at fault because if the expat wasn't in Saudi, that accident wouldn't have happened. You thin kI'm joking. Rem that in these contries expats make up the majority of the workforce: in the UAE, 90+% of all workers are expats. IN other words, if the locals disappeared tomorowm the country would run on without a hitch. If the expats left, the country would shut down.
4582. judithathome - 3/10/2003 9:46:41 AM
Dubai, you take exception to "Arab serf", well:
Is it any wonder people with brains that actually work ignore you morons?
I take exception to being called a moron simply because I have different opinion than you.
4583. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 9:56:07 AM
Know that in the UAE, the ruler is universally loved, because he does a great job. Don;t confuse despotism with tyranny, or democracy with fairness and enlightnement.
IMO the WORST thing that could happen to any Arab or Muslm country is democracy: the first thing they would do is vote in a repressive Islamic regime. You folks have no idea how the regional rulers, including the Saudis, are actually restraining the extremist tendencies of the people. Think if American televangelists were actually the voice of the vast majority of America. That's what Arab countries are like.
Example: in the UAE, a woman can wear whatever clothes she likes: shorts, tank tops, a bikini, no problem from the police (unlike Saudi, for example) but what do most local women wear? The full black bin liner with a veil that covers their face. Strictly family and societal pressure. If you gave the locals a vote, every woman, including expats, would be forced to wear the Ninja outfit.
So you see, the rulers, while not democratically elected, actually make their countries more liberal and free in many cases. In the UAE women are encouraged to take jobs and contribute to society; they are much more enterprising than the men.
"Arab Serfs!"
Gosh, I am just wetting myself at the idea. We have serfs; they come from India and Pakistan, and are ecstatic to be here, earning ten times what they could at home, bringing tea and cleaning toilets.
I close with the famous Kuwaiti saying: "we have Pakistanis to drive our taxis, and Americans to fight our wars."
If you want to be pissed off about the US ousting Saddam, be mad because you are once a gain the lackeys of the Arabs who are too cowardly to do their own dirty work.
Only this time it really is in the best interests of the US, for a variety of reasons, to finish the job.
My opinion, take it or die horribly :)
4584. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 10:04:57 AM
Judith re 4582
You know I love you, what's a little vitriolic rhetoric between friends?
Call me names, make me write bad checks-it's not you I find moronic, it's a lot of the arguments that just get right up my left ear.
Don't feel picked on unless I single you out, OK? I have a really good cornbread recipe I might be persuaded to share...
Maybe I should end all my posts with the standard:
"As much as I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."
You think I'm bad here, you should see me on Formula One message boards.
4585. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 10:32:30 AM
"Think if American televangelists were actually the voice of the vast majority of America. "
No, they're the voice of the Bush administration.
Removing George W.Bush may not be idealistically immaculate, but it is a pragmatic imperative, IMO.
4586. Macnas - 3/10/2003 10:36:28 AM
That reminds me of when Moammar Al-Gadhafi flipped his lid with a womens commitee who were postulating a return to traditional muslim dress. He called them no better than pieces of furniture unable to think for themselves.
Come to think of it, I've known many americans who worked in Libya over the past few years, albeit calling themselves canadian!
4587. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 10:46:17 AM
don't you people have ANY imaginations?
Gee. Tightasses. By "serfs", I meant pissants, in the most general of terms.
I think, and this is gonna get me busted here, that the drones could be a perfect weapon delivery system to use against US.
Any of you folks boaters? Any of you folks ever cruise the Canadian shorelines? They're about 1/10th as protected as our desert boarders are with Mehico.
Know how many Freighters cruise in and out of those waters daily? More than the one that would be necessary to make a drop-shipment.
Cellar? Place your forehead against your screen.
BE HEEEEE-AHHLED!!!! PUUUUU-RAAAAAAAISE DA LAAAAAAHD!!!!!
There. The hatred should now be gone. (thaaaaank ya Jesus!!)
4588. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 11:02:41 AM
You folks have no idea how the regional rulers, including the Saudis, are actually restraining the extremist tendencies of the people.
The trouble with this kind of repression is that it is only a short term solution. All the accounts I see here say that Saudi Arabia is festering, in large part because of the measures the regime has had to use to restrain the population.
The Shah was not a good long term solution in Iran. But it looks like elected government is having a pretty desirable effect, of steadily increasing the pressure on the fundamentalist rulers to permit more freedom.
The trouble is that first election, and the consequent possibility of no more elections after the Islamist government comes to power. Most analyses I've seen suggest that the route to follow in a reform is to create a foundation of free press, open courts, contract law and so forth, and then work your way up from local to regional to national elections.
The trouble with that, of course, is you need a trusted benevolent dictator to manage all this and then leave when all's well. The administration's position appears to be that Bush can pick that trusted benevolent dictator in Iraq, while the smoke is clearing, the Turks invading, the Shi-ites demanding their long denied role, and the Sunnis demanding that they keep what they have.
4589. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 11:04:58 AM
I still haven't seen an answer to my question about the French/Russian/German position.
What are they proposing to do in the medium to long term? The current situation is certainly not stable, or sustainable indefinitely.
4590. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 11:07:53 AM
One more question. Bush is gonna be president through 2004, come hell or high water. Tony Blair can be subjected to a vote of no confidence at any time.
Does anyone know how solid his majority is? And is there any risk that he could lose his majority over this issue?
4591. judithathome - 3/10/2003 11:10:51 AM
I just don't see how Bush can be depended upon to pick someone to rule a country that he has no idea about...an article in Newsweek said he didn't seem to know who the Shiites and the Sunnis even were. I know, I know, he has people to do the thinking for him...I'm not so sure they know what they are doing, either.
4592. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 11:16:12 AM
Re:4587
Nope, sorry, no imagination here, I can't imagine what you're on about...
Seriously, as I said, we HAVE serfs, they're called Indians. Living 8 to a room, earning $100 a month, and glad to get it. Most European expats just have a live-in maid/houseboy.
The UAE peons drive Land Cruisers, have government-provided houses, and don't need to work cos everything from electricity to food is free. Who's working to provide all that? Oh, that would be me. Meet your friendly neighborhood serf. UAE nationals are too rich to do their own work, they can afford to hire me to do it.
4593. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 11:18:11 AM
Re 4588
Good points Jack
4594. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 11:19:13 AM
Tony Blair is enjoying a slight rise in support in his country.
judith, when cellar recovers, ask him how nice it is to be in the warm , pleasant light.
I wonder if Madelyn Albright knew who the Sunnis and the Shiites were? I would wager she did. I would also wager she wouldn't know what to do with them.
I'll take "W", for world re-allignment, Alex.
4595. judithathome - 3/10/2003 11:23:24 AM
I'm sure Madeline Albright knew who they were.
That was the only point I was raising...Bush is woefully uninformed about the world in general. This is the man who bragged about Condi Rice that she was with him because she read all the hard stuff and explained it to him in words he could understand.
He is not only uninformed but proud of the fact that he is. Not a real confidence builder, in my opinion.
4596. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 11:29:42 AM
I can't say this enough.
Give me three people smart enough to know their shortcomings, as well as their strong points, over ten thousand Bill Clinton incompetent types, who surround themselves with fellow incompetents, so as not to blow their cover.
I don't know what you could want more, (other than a mythical some super-hero genius), besides someone smart enough to pick the best people for the jobs.
Madalyn Albright gave us Korea. I'm sure she knew them real well, too.
4597. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 11:30:43 AM
we need edit capabilities here, IMHO.
4598. Macnas - 3/10/2003 11:31:06 AM
London - British Prime Minister Tony Blair faced a mounting crisis over his policy on Iraq on Monday after a leading cabinet minister threatened to resign if the government followed the United States into a war without authorisation from the United Nations.
The warning from International Development Secretary Clare Short came only hours after a member of parliament in Blair's Labour Party confirmed he was stepping down as an aide to the government because of its stance on Iraq.
And the Sunday Times said another nine aides were expected to follow suit if Blair went to war without a UN mandate.
"If there is not UN authority for military action or if there is not UN authority for the reconstruction of the country (Iraq), I will not uphold a breach of international law or this undermining of the UN and I will resign from the government," Short told BBC radio on Sunday.
------------------------------------------------------------
Downtown, no He's not. And if you are thinking of the British public, you are even more wrong.
4599. Edmund Dantes - 3/10/2003 11:32:04 AM
America to UN: Drop dead
More Americans now support the war than oppose it--even without UN approval.
4600. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2003 11:33:15 AM
LB
The Arab leaders in Iran and Kuwait and Turkey
Turkey is ruled by Arabs?
4601. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 11:39:18 AM
It sure ain't ruled by the Vatican.
4602. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 11:39:19 AM
Macnas,
I'm really ignorant here. Can you tell me, briefly or at length, as you prefer, the composition of Blair's coalition (I assume he has at least a few MPs in his government who are not Labor)? I went to the Parliament website, but it was unhelpful.
I did see the reports of resignations and threatened resignations, which is what made me curious about how remote a confidence vote would be.
4603. Edmund Dantes - 3/10/2003 11:40:44 AM
Iranians aren't Arabs but are Persians.
4604. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 11:41:33 AM
Macnas--
Never mind, unless you're hoping to help other people. I found this Guardian leader that has a good fraction of what I was looking for.
4605. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 11:43:30 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
theres some stuff here
4606. Macnas - 3/10/2003 11:45:57 AM
Blairs Labour government is made up of 100% Labour MP's.
Never mind the Parliament website, go to the Guardian site.
Use this url as a start:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/0,9054,442879,00.html
Apologies as I am far too lazy to learn how to link.
4607. Macnas - 3/10/2003 11:46:33 AM
Ha! one hell of a cross post.
4608. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2003 11:48:15 AM
jay
I still haven't seen an answer to my question about the French/Russian/German position.
What are they proposing to do in the medium to long term?
Perpetual inspections and containment. And that's why I, a pacifist Swede, is pro war. I don't believe much in the talk of WMDs and I don't think Iraq is a threat to the West.
But under the current regime Iraq as a country is going down the drain. 60% of the population is on food rations. Malnutrition is wide-spread. Water quality is deteriorating. Mortality is up, in particular among infants. More people are likely to die from easily preventable diseases in the next 2-3 years than from a war now. And that's in addition to the day-to-day oppression and humiliation that a brutal regime imposes on its people.
4609. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 11:53:44 AM
Yes, I agree that is the strongest case. Two comments. 1)A unilateral (or trilateral, counting the aussies and the poms) action seems like the wrong way to remove a soverign government, however abhorrent. 2) I can replace "Iraq" with "North Korea" in your post, and reach the same conclusion.
Does this mean you support the removal of governments we (who that "we" is is part of the issue, of course) view as abhorrent?
4610. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2003 12:03:56 PM
Don't try to push me into a generalised view on this. It is difficult enought as it is. But I think the case is applicable to North Korea and also to Zimbabwe. I don't think the position that "we" have no right to interfere in the domestic affairs of any country, no matter how despicably it is governed, is tenable in this era of globalisation.
4611. Edmund Dantes - 3/10/2003 12:15:13 PM
Does this mean you support the removal of governments we (who that "we" is is part of the issue, of course) view as abhorrent?
As phrased, the question is silly: Yes, of course. Everyone supports removal of governments they personally find to be abhorrent.
The question has to be qualified as to which methods are acceptable, commensurate with the degree of abhorrence for the government under discussion. The latter might also be modified or influenced by the government's power and proximity to the person answering the question.
For example, exercise of the suffrage can be an example of trying to remove a government not to one's liking.
When South Africa was living under apartheid, was an economic boycott of South Africa in order to change that situation something other than an attempt to remove an abhorrent government?
4612. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 12:22:39 PM
"It's difficult enough as it is"
TJOP.
Zimbabwe. Yeah. Now suppose South Africa invaded, deposed Mugabe and imposed a new government. Would "we" be cheering?
Suppose they did the same in Mozambique. Would "we" be cheering then? Even if the imposed government pumped in food aid, and engaged in land reform?
My whole problem with the Iraqi war plans is that if you're gonna use globalization as the heart of your argument, you need some international consensus in favor of the action. IOW, if the French were the ones who got isolated through the UN process, then their veto of a resolution approving the use of force wouldn't bother me. As it turns out, the US looks increasingly isolated, with support from only one of the P5, and that support is dependent on a new resolution.
All that said, I found the shots of a happy Iraqi foreign minister celebrating the peace protests to be an unhappy result.
4613. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 12:23:22 PM
but the globalists can come in here and run our courts, like they want to? or decide that our military is too powerful, as the UN would like to have the power and ability to?
I think much of the most serious problems in the world can be traced back to people who could have done something about countries led by the likes of Saddam, but for too long have said, "We have no right to meddle into people's affairs that do not concern us."
Yeah. Like Pol Pot.
Or
whoeverthehell was in charge of Zimbabwe a few years ago......
What the hell is so sacrosanct about respecting soveriegn countries that murder innocents by the tens or hundreds of thousands (or millions)??
Being a soveriegn piece of trash doesn't carry much weight with me. I can't believe how difficult it is to say, "You're wrong, we're right". What a shitstorm that phrase begats.
4614. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 12:28:54 PM
As phrased, the question is silly: Yes, of course. Everyone supports removal of governments they personally find to be abhorrent.
No, of course not. Process matters. Process matters a great deal. I find the Saudi government abhorrent. I would not support an invasion from Russia that wanted to impose a secular government.
I find the Sharon government abhorrent. I do not support an invasion of Israel by France or covert intelligence attempts to topple the government.
One reason this Iraq thing is so important is that the administration is changing a process. It saying that attacks can be made on foreign governments whenever "we" think its a good idea. Not in response to an attack. Not even pre-empting an attack. But to prevent the possibility of needing a pre-emptive attack. And "we" consists of the United States and anyone who wants to come along for a share of the loot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the opportunity to participate in establishing a free and open society.
This isn't the kind of thing you want to do lightly.
4615. concerned - 3/10/2003 12:43:13 PM
I still haven't seen an answer to my question about the French/Russian/German position.
What are they proposing to do in the medium to long term? The current situation is certainly not stable, or sustainable indefinitely.
To answer your question: not very much. They don't much care if Saddam stays, regardless of whatever weapons he produces. Their greatest concern is that they don't lose the revenue from the contracts they have with Iraq from the '70's until the '90's which leads them to be contentious with the US in hopes of maintaining something resembling the status quo in Iraq.
4616. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 12:57:16 PM
concerned,
I wasn't asking about anyone's opinion about what they were proposing. I'd like to know what they are proposing in the medium and long term. "Not much" doesn't really help me any. Your claim that they don't care if Saddam stays is undermined by the unanimous vote for 1441. Saddam can stay if inspections prove he has disarmed, said everyone in that resolution.
Somewhere between invade next week and wait for Saddam to die is a French/German/Russian position for managing this going forward. I haven't seen what it is. Do you know what it is?
Do they support the Blix policy recommendation to set up 27 more precisely defined areas of inspection and verification, and to increase the number of inspectors by half again?
Is there any timetable they have proposed? Do they an alternative to the United States troops as the coercive mechanism to force compliance?
4617. Edmund Dantes - 3/10/2003 1:05:49 PM
I find the Saudi government abhorrent. I would not support an invasion from Russia that wanted to impose a secular government.
But you would support changing the Saudi government under some other condition, so process not only matters a great deal--it's the entire deal.
One reason this Iraq thing is so important is that the administration is changing a process. It saying that attacks can be made on foreign governments whenever "we" think its a good idea. Not in response to an attack. Not even pre-empting an attack.
Did you support the 1994 U.S. military intervention in Haiti to overthrow its government?
In 2001 Afghanistan per se had not attacked us, either, nor had the Taliban. Did you support that action?
As far as Iraq goes, we have been advocating regime change as government policy since 1998 and have been conducting military operations there since 1991. If we have been doing both since 1998, I don't see this as a big change. The big change will be that the UN may vote not to approve our action, but the major difference between 1998 and now in terms of process is that we have apparently made the mistake of asking permission--and that we intend to finish the job.
4618. magoseph - 3/10/2003 1:15:25 PM
Does anyone know how solid his majority is? And is there any risk that he could lose his majority over this issue?
Jay, I don't think it is an issue at this point. I believe the opposition will not move on a vote of confidence until they see more. By moving prematurely they can lose, by waiting they don't risk a loss and possibly can bring down the government. It all comes down to what is going to happen when this war gets under way and it's my opinion it's not predictable as to what Saddam is going to do. For instance, if he responds to the Americans with mustard and nerve gas attacks (which he was not supposed to have), Blair is completely vindicated.
On the other hand, if there are heavy British casualties and no chemical or biological weapons are turned up, Blair goes down the tube.
4619. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2003 1:17:13 PM
jay
TJOP?
4620. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 1:18:00 PM
Hey connie -- I didn't know you were working for the Pentagon!
Explains a lot.
4621. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 1:19:40 PM
But you would support changing the Saudi government under some other condition, so process not only matters a great deal--it's the entire deal.
Internal change is the only mechanism I would support.
Did you support the 1994 U.S. military intervention in Haiti to overthrow its government?
No.
In 2001 Afghanistan per se had not attacked us, either, nor had the Taliban. Did you support that action?
Yes. We told the government that a segment of their population represented a security threat, and that if didn't yield them up we would attack. They had a way out. They chose not to take it.
The big change will be that the UN may vote not to approve our action, but the major difference between 1998 and now in terms of process is that we have apparently made the mistake of asking permission--and that we intend to finish the job.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had conservatives patriotically rallied around their president as he embarked on the 1998 attacks. I would not have supported a unilateral invasion to take out Saddamn at that time either. But it is interesting that so many people on the right have done a 180, including the president. (And don't 9 me no 11s. The notion that Iraq had anything to do with that is laughable.)
Of course, if the UN and the security council and NATO don't matter then it is silly to ask them. But, having asked them, and getting the wrong answer, when you say they don't matter at that point, you are completely undermining their institutional authority. One would prefer that policy-makers do this kind of thing on purpose with their eyes open, not by mistake and miscalculation.
4622. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 1:20:15 PM
That's Just Our Point.
4623. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 1:23:52 PM
mags
I'd expect the Tories to support the war. Do they? I was wondering not so much about the opposition as Labour. I'd expect the Labour backbenchers to be less comfortable with this than the Tories. A vote of no confidence in tha scenario would be purely a Blair referendum, with Labout against the war and Tories believing they could run it better.
4624. magoseph - 3/10/2003 1:44:25 PM
A vote of no confidence in tha scenario would be purely a Blair referendum, with Labout against the war and Tories believing they could run it better.
Probably true but I don't believe it is in the strategic interest of the Tories to force a vote of no confidence at this time. In my opinion, they have nothing to lose by waiting and a lot to lose by being premature.
4625. concerned - 3/10/2003 1:49:16 PM
Re. 4616 -
Actually, I elaborated more than you have acknowledged.
As I posted:
Their (France's, Germany's and Russia's) greatest concern is that they don't lose the revenue from the contracts they have with Iraq from the '70's until the '90's which leads them to be contentious with the US in hopes of maintaining something resembling the status quo in Iraq.
So, first of all, they'll want to try to retain Saddam. Which is reflected in the plan you referred to. Failing that, they may attempt to ask that Saddam step down, under the UN imprimatur. This would seem to retain the relative advantage that they can still succeed manipulate the Iraqi governmental transition & preserve their contracts and revenue stream while minimizing US influence. Finally, they may simply try to divide spoils amongst themselves after the fact if the Allies remove Saddam with or without additional UN blessing.
I don't see the plans of these three countries for Iraq being embodied in any single, immutable scheme, or even that they have agreed on a uniform set of responses amongst themselves. They are undoubtedly formulating contingency plans depending on how things progress in the near future.
Clearer now?
4626. concerned - 3/10/2003 1:50:04 PM
...succeed in manipulating....
4627. alistairconnor - 3/10/2003 2:11:09 PM
French/German position:
Do they support the Blix policy recommendation to set up 27 more precisely defined areas of inspection and verification, and to increase the number of inspectors by half again?
Is there any timetable they have proposed?
Yes, they tabled a memorandum at the SC last week, covering precisely these points, though they proposed more inspectors and resources than Blix is now asking for.
I don't think it covered military forces for enforcement, which is obviously a weak point.
4628. alistairconnor - 3/10/2003 2:16:49 PM
The likely outcome in the UK if the war goes badly, is a leadership challenge among Labour MPs. Blair would be gone without losing any votes in the Commons.
I heard Tam Dalyell, father of the House (senior Labour MP) on the radio, speaking fair if heavily accented French, saying Blair must go.
4629. magoseph - 3/10/2003 2:24:50 PM
I still haven't seen an answer to my question about the French/Russian/German position.
The Russian position is of interest to me. Jay. In respect to the Cold War, the high-water mark of the Russians occurred during the six-hundred dollar gold market and the gasoline lines in the US. Not surprisingly, this was accompanied with close to run-away inflation in the US. During this period, Russia was able to maintain a degree of parity with the US. After gold and oil topped out, it was nothing but down-hill for the Russians in their attempt to keep pace with the US.
Most Americans have long since forgotten this but the Russians you can be certain have not. In addition, Al qaeda elements, backed and financed by the US, were instrumental in destabilizing the secular government installed by the Russians in Afghanistan. The Al qaeda continued their assault on Russia by invading Chechnya and proceeding to massacre the infidels who happened to be people of Russian origins who had developed a thriving gold-mining industry. It is interesting to note that Bin laden had developed a considerable interest in gold-mining as a source of funding and done a lot of prospecting in Afghanistan with little success. The Russians came under pressure from Al qaeda in Moscow with the blowing-up of apartment buildings and other terrorist acts. This was long before 9/11. I believe and it has been stated that the Russian government has been in a state of outrage at the position of the US, which has been not to declare the three major Al qaeda groups operating in Chechnya as terrorist groups until a couple of weeks ago--(and this is regarded by most Russians as a last ditch attempt to get their vote in the Security Councel).
The Russians believe the US move in Iraq is a threat to their move towards world supremacy in oil and gold and are resisting as best they can.
4630. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2003 2:31:16 PM
magoseph
Where are you picking up this laughable stuff? The Taliban, mucg les Al Qaida did not exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and played no role in the "liberation".
The Al qaeda continued their assault on Russia by invading Chechnya
This is nothing but fundamental ignorance picked from some whacko site.
4631. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 3:59:00 PM
4632. Al D - 3/10/2003 4:00:16 PM
I find the Sharon government abhorrent. I do not support an invasion of Israel by France or covert intelligence attempts to topple the government
jay
I feel sure you would distinquish among leaders freely elected and cabable of being removed by peaceful means and those of Saddam's ilk. Most everyone on this site would prefer the removal of the Bush administration, and some would favor violent means if necessary.
They will have their shot in 2004, and if the war goes as badly as many Liberals claim, he will be gone.
4633. judithathome - 3/10/2003 4:13:26 PM
some would favor violent means if necessary.
Name two.
4634. Al D - 3/10/2003 4:28:55 PM
Cellar & Wiz
4635. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 4:32:15 PM
"most on this site!?!?!?
You mean I'm surrounded by wack-jobs?!
Violence from the left. HA! Thats a good one.
You guys don't even know how to use a gun, let alone OWN any. I could see all the Michael Kinsleys and Alan Colmeses bitch-slapping their way through the secret service types at the white house.
you guys are funny.
4636. magoseph - 3/10/2003 4:40:06 PM
Where are you picking up this laughable stuff? The Taliban, mucg les Al Qaida did not exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and played no role in the "liberation".
Pelle, are you saying that Bin laden and his associates did not exist at the time at the time of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Are you saying that the Wahhabi sect of Islam of which Bin laden is a follower was not involved in the war agains the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Are you saying they were not involved supporting Bosnia agains the Serbs?
4637. judithathome - 3/10/2003 5:53:52 PM
LB, that is only Al's idea...I don't think anyone here would support violence against the President. We may think he is an idiot but no one wishes to see him harmed any more than Al and some of his pals here wanted to see Clinton come to harm.
You are not surrounded by wack jobs. I guess you aren't; I really can't speak for those with whom you might socialize but then, you know best about your friends and family. I'm just speaking for those of us here who might not support war but are hardly drooling morons who can't think clearly.
4638. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 6:41:50 PM
Nonsense, Al.
I would merely pour him a drink.
And then another.
And then another.
Meanwhile. . .
Why We Fight
4639. Dubai Vol - 3/10/2003 7:07:51 PM
The big frustration we "pro-war crazies" feel is mainly because all the anti-war protesting is making it MORE likely that war will be necessary. Just as in '91, Saddam sees the split and thinks he can break American resolve. He's already broken the UN's.
You know this didn't start yesterday, and the UN isn't choosing whether to get involved or not: they already ARE, starting in 1990. The choice they are making is whether their threats mean anything, and the choice seems to be no.
I know the protesters aren't deliberately giving aid and comfort to Saddam, but that's the result, whether they intend it or not.
4640. Al D - 3/10/2003 7:21:05 PM
Protestors of war fall into several categories. There are some for whom it is just political; they would oppose any action taken by Bush. Thee are those who are true pacifists; my mother was one. To her all war was wrong:the Revolutionary war (Canada didn't need one), Civil War; not only did states have the right to secede but slavery would have soon ended.
Then there are the American haters who feel we got what we deserved on 9/11 and the real evil is America. Those 3 are not meant to be exhaustive.
4641. Al D - 3/10/2003 7:41:21 PM
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this," Moran said, in comments first reported by the Reston Connection and confirmed by Moran. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."
Reported in the Washington Post
I wonder how big the Jewish vote will be for James Moran, D-Va. in the next election?
4642. judithathome - 3/10/2003 8:27:54 PM
know the protesters aren't deliberately giving aid and comfort to Saddam, but that's the result, whether they intend it or not.
So we are just supposed to give up our rights as citizens of this country and let a war which we feel is wrong go ahead? Suppose we just take that a step further and vote for someone we believe to be wrong for the job because, after all, we shouldn't rock the boat and he really IS the right man for the job.
It sounds to me like you want this country to be more like Iraq.
4643. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 8:30:25 PM
Pentagon Threatens to Kill Journalists who stray off the Plantation.
4644. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 8:31:48 PM
David E. Dissects Christopher Hitchens
4645. judithathome - 3/10/2003 9:13:23 PM
Did you see Hitchen's stagger out with a bottle of gin (in an Evian bottle) on Crossfire the other night, Cellar?
4646. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 9:17:05 PM
No I didn't. But I've seen him lurching about in person here in L.A. --grabbing for the bottle at every opportunity.
If I didn't despise him so much I'd really feel sorry for him.
4647. Al D - 3/10/2003 9:27:09 PM
Yes, it does hurt when one of your own turns.
4648. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 9:38:45 PM
Not "one of my own" at all.
Menawhile --
Another U.S.Diplomat Resigns in Protest of Cokehead Fratboy Coward's War
4649. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:01:00 PM
4617
I was a little rushed when I posted my response to this, and failed to note that the intervention in Afghanistan invoked the NATO mutual defense clause (for the first time ever) was supported by a security council resolution, and involved participation of a dozen nato allies.
Recalling this would have made my post clearer, and imo, more effective.
4650. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:08:43 PM
4632
Yes Al, that's my point. That Dantes was talking absurdity.
4651. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:12:51 PM
4627
AC,
They obviously have to come up with a coherent and complete proposal to be taken seriously (by me, anyway). It's not enough to say "No war". I assume that is what all the security council ruckus is about late today.
But I do want to restate that it is not enough to say that they don't accept war now as the right way to go. They have to propose an alternative.
4652. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:16:15 PM
4629
thanks for pointing out that there is some history here that 'Murcans may forget. It, of course, reinforces my point that this administration seems to be living in a black and white world.
4653. downtown LB - 3/10/2003 10:34:24 PM
Judithdear, whats more important, exercising your precious right to dissent (in this instance), or not helping a potential devastating enemy of our nation? If we can agree (in any way shape or form) that protesting a military action, no matter how noble the intention, always hurts (in some capacity,) the one being protested to, is it necessarily a worthwhile and wise decision? If its going to harm our troops, is it a better action than nothing?
The protests killed a helluva lot of Americans (that we can agree shouldn't have been in VetNam, the way they WERE in VetNam,) but it also killed a million and change AFTER we came home. Pol pot had carte blanche after we left cuz there wasn't an american willing to stand up and say, "holy shit. This guy's killing millions, we better do something."
I wish people could see beyone their hatred. It distorts the shit out of everything.
4654. concerned - 3/10/2003 10:58:26 PM
Re. 4652 -
That post is intentionally misleading wrt the role of Al Qaeda, which didn't even exist until after the Soviet Union had left Afghanistan. Your sloppy and incorrect overgeneralization about 'this administration' is particularly risible.
4655. Al D - 3/10/2003 11:06:47 PM
I'm surprised no one comments on #4641.
4656. robertjayb - 3/10/2003 11:36:50 PM
King's X for Iraqui units...
Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of allied land forces if the United States leads an invasion of Iraq, said he and other commanders were working out procedures for Iraqi units to signal their intention to stay out of the war.
4657. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 11:46:36 PM
The protests killed a helluva lot of Americans (that we can agree shouldn't have been in VetNam, the way they WERE in VetNam,) but it also killed a million and change AFTER we came home. Pol pot had carte blanche after we left cuz there wasn't an american willing to stand up and say, "holy shit. This guy's killing millions, we better do something."
You mean after bombing and tporturing millions ofpeople in outheast Asia you imagine that we gave a shit when somebody else came in to take up where we left off?
You've got to be kidding!
Pol Pot was a propaganda coup. His crimes allowed us to cover up our own.
That's the real story.
But you really don'tcare to listen to it, do you? Wrapped asyou are in fantasies of American goodwill.
In that sense I'm rhetorically grateful for Bush. What he's doing is undisguised mass murder.
4658. concerned - 3/10/2003 11:56:36 PM
For cllrdr, 'mass murder' doesn't have to involve any actual deaths.
4659. Cellar Door - 3/11/2003 12:09:18 AM
I'm counting my corpses before they'rehatched, connie.
Meanwhile --
Pull in your head, we're coming to a tunnel!
4660. concerned - 3/11/2003 12:28:26 AM
Anybody wanna take a shot at who wrote this?
But the immediate and most urgent aspect of that task is to ensure that Iraq no longer has such weapons. Why? Because Iraq has actually used them in the past, and because it has twice, under its present leadership, committed aggression against its neighbors--against Iran in 1980, and against Kuwait in 1990.
That is why the Security Council is determined to disarm Iraq of these weapons, and has passed successive resolutions since 1991 requiring Iraq to disarm.
4661. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 12:28:50 AM
4633. judithathome - 3/10/03 3:13:26 PM
some would favor violent means if necessary.
Name two.
4634. Al D - 3/10/03 3:28:55 PM
Cellar & Wiz
Al, you're a delusional nincompoop.
4662. concerned - 3/11/2003 1:00:08 AM
4663. concerned - 3/11/2003 1:05:15 AM
4664. Macnas - 3/11/2003 3:31:33 AM
I am sure, positive in fact, that nobody here has any intention of using violence against any government official.
You people should be careful what you say, a joke or off the cuff comment like that holds no amusement value for those who are tasked with looking for threat.
4665. alistairConnor - 3/11/2003 5:05:20 AM
This is in response to Al D in Message # 6662 in thread 137
Please don't be so patronizing. We are supported by a host of countries, and opposed by four.
Name twelve, off the top of your head. We can make a list if you like.
In point of fact, out of 15 members of the UN security council, there are four prepared to vote for war against Iraq. US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria.
The eleven others have all declared that they support continued inspections. The US is busy trying to change their minds, like they tried with Turkey. They believe they may yet succeed with two, three or even four of them... which is why they keep pushing the vote back.
4666. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 8:54:43 AM
cellar, I don't know what to say, except I feel sorry for you.
You are nearly not as well informed as you imagine.
Did you ever hear of a book called "The Killing Fields"?
They even made it into a movie for the literate-aly challenged.
"Pol pot was propoganda". holyfreakinmoly. Maybe thats how you assuage what you are partially responsible for, (if in fact you are old enough to have participated, and DID in fact participate), but it sure as hell ain't reality.
murderer.
4667. Macnas - 3/11/2003 10:02:51 AM
Downtown LB
The U.S., the U.K., and lots of Europe supported Pol Pot. He was the alternative to the Vietnamese, who had seized power there. The U.S. bombed the then Cambodia during the Viet. occupation, as part of the extended Vietnam "police action".
He received money, aid and training from the U.S. and the U.K. specifically. The landmines that cripple local agriculture to this day are of western supply.
There was no protest as such, at least not on the scale of those against the Vietnam conflict, as the broad mass of the public in both the U.S. and Europe were not aware of the extent of the atrocities being carried out at the time.
It was not until John Pilger made his now famous documentaries that people began to take notice.
And even then, when the Vietnamese regained power, and Pol Pot went into exile, he still was supported by the West.
Now, who are the murderers?
4668. judithathome - 3/11/2003 10:07:09 AM
LB, before you go throwing terms like murderer around, it might be wise to get to know people a little better. You'll be taken a tad more seriously if you do.
4669. Dubai Vol - 3/11/2003 10:08:29 AM
RE: 4642
So we are just supposed to give up our rights as citizens of this country and let a war which we feel is wrong go ahead?...It sounds to me like you want this country to be more like Iraq.
Judith my dear, you know that's not what I said. If I haven't said it before: "Though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What I am saying, is that the anti-war protests are self defeating. The ONLY chance for a peaceful settlement is if Saddam sees a united world ready to back up its threats. In 1991, he took the protests as an indication that support for the war could not survive significant coalition casualties. As he was unable to inflict any (with the fourth-largest army in the world) his premise remains unproven, and so he still clings to the idea that if only his army will stand and fight, the enemy will not press on. The anti-war protesters are feeding his belief, making it more certain that he will not comply with UN resolutions.
Having the right to protest doesn't mean it's wise to do so. And so I'm back to calling the protesters morons for helping bring about exactly what they are protesting against.
Any parent knows that the only way to deal with a headsttrong child is to present a united front. This ain't rocket science, it's kindergarten psychology, and the anti-war protesters have failed kindergarten. Which makes them idiots studying to be morons.
Write your congressman, vote, whatever, but don't air your dirty laundry in front of the child, you're just encouraging the misbehaviour.
None of which changes the fact that people opposed to removing Saddam are just plain wrong, whatever their grounds for opposing it. He has to go, and now is the time, only because we don't have time-travel and can't go back and do it 12 years ago.
4670. judithathome - 3/11/2003 10:15:24 AM
None of which changes the fact that people opposed to removing Saddam are just plain wrong, whatever their grounds for opposing it.
Oh this is rich...now we are supporting Saddam and wanting to keep him in power. I love the way you took "opposed to the war" and turned it into "opposed to removing Saddam". The two are not the same.
I guess you think anything Bush does to this country with his economic policies should jsut be brushed under the rug for now, too...don't rock the boat because the guy is busy with more important things.
4671. judithathome - 3/11/2003 10:16:11 AM
Close your tags, Dubai...it upsets the thread nannies.;-)
4672. Macnas - 3/11/2003 10:16:26 AM
I can imagine Saddam now, rubbing his hands with glee as he watches people all over the world protest, "Look at those stupid fuckers and their free speech and freedom of expression, thats just the kind of thing that encourages me".
Yeah right.
4673. judithathome - 3/11/2003 10:16:52 AM
toys
4674. Macnas - 3/11/2003 10:17:21 AM
Toys kiddies
4675. RickNelson - 3/11/2003 10:17:43 AM
Vol.
You're not entirely wrong but my opinion is you're not entirely correct wrt the protestors encouraging the kindergartner in question.
There is a strong front being held up to Saddam via Pres. Bush. It's a front he cannot deny via dissillusionment. The protestors may well play into this deluded state but, not to the extent they are unequivically a pawn of his mental state. The President has made it clear, and no amount of protesting can destabalize him. He's going to war, we know it and Saddam knows it.
4676. judithathome - 3/11/2003 10:20:22 AM
Macnas, you are exactly right...the only way we can make things different is to change hearts and minds. If the Iraqis, who have no freedom of expression, see how those of us who are opposed to the war can speak out, they will see that democracy is a great thing and want it for themelves...but of course, it is always better to come into a country, reduce it to rubble, and force democracy down their throats, isn't it?
4677. Macnas - 3/11/2003 10:32:19 AM
Well judith, I don't really know that the people of Iraq feel that way. In my own albeit limited experience of Arabs, freedom of speech and expression is not high on their agenda.
Freedom to worship is high up there, and freedom to farm or trade much as their forefathers did is a real big one, taking land of them drives an otherwise easygoing people into kalashnikov touting lunatics, but that’s true of the most of us.
If the people in Iraq had those basics, they probably wouldn’t give a damn who was in power.
4678. RickNelson - 3/11/2003 10:36:53 AM
looming above all this is the call to Jihad by the Islamic Institute in Egypt. The Sunni (not Shiite) call to Jihad claims that the entire Islamic faith is threatened by the line drawn in the sand by the infidel non muslem. So, they tell all their followers, whatever number that may be, that they are required under Sunni Islam (and Shiite) to bear arms in defence of their brother muslem in Iraq.
4679. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2003 10:40:07 AM
LB to Cellar:
Did you ever hear of a book called "The Killing Fields"?
They even made it into a movie for the literate-aly challenged.
Hahahahahaha!
(OK, Judith noticed it first, but I couldn't resist)
4680. Macnas - 3/11/2003 10:46:23 AM
Rick
Rick
Calls to Jihad are not uncommon. The Shiite were forever at it when I was in the middle east. Not to take away from the seiousness of any such a call to arms of course, but it is a pretty regular thing.
I am surprised though, what with Saddam being so secular and all, that the institute has spoken up.
4681. Macnas - 3/11/2003 10:47:21 AM
why the double Rick? its because I don't preview, thats why.
4682. RickNelson - 3/11/2003 10:52:12 AM
I can understand your thought about the call to Jihad Macnas. I cannot recall the call back during Desert Storm? Does anyone?
4683. judithathome - 3/11/2003 10:54:31 AM
Don't ask me, Rick, I'm just a leftist moron giving aid and succor to the enemy. ;-)
(joke, joke...I know my rights to say that are being defended!)
4684. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 10:58:49 AM
"None of which changes the fact that people opposed to removing Saddam are just plain wrong, whatever their grounds for opposing it. He has to go, and now is the time, only because we don't have time-travel and can't go back and do it 12 years ago."
This regurgitation stinks like the rest of the verbal vomit the American press is swallowing from the Jerkoff Junta.
It's Goering cloaked:
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best 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 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. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. 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, 'In War'
4685. judithathome - 3/11/2003 11:05:13 AM
(How long before you are denounced as using faux quotes, Wiz?)
Of course, no one would take the word of one the architects of WWII. That would be relying on history and entail the reading of it.
4686. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 11:15:38 AM
The profiteering bastards will eventually be hung with their own words when even the dunderheads realize that what they called "global leadership" was in fact a euphemism for world facism, Judith: American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. —Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney,Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen,Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz
June 3, 1997
4687. judithathome - 3/11/2003 11:26:22 AM
Well, this list says it all...
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
4688. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 11:30:56 AM
4689. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2003 11:40:33 AM
I think Goering actually said that, not in some fictional work "In war" but during the Nuremberg trials.
Now Wiz, do you think that the US interventions in Europe in WWI and WWII were justified? If so, did those interventions occur as a result of a popular demand for war? Were Wilson and Roosewelt driven by their electorates or did they take US to war in spite of popular opinion?
4690. judithathome - 3/11/2003 11:46:17 AM
Well, it doesn't matter anyhow because GW isn't driven by polls or public opinion.
4691. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 11:51:34 AM
Pelle- Certainly in WWII, I do, but if you're equating the abilities of FDR with Bush2 and the capacities of Hitler with Saddam, you're on pretty thin ice—even for a Nordic debator familiar with skating.
4692. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2003 12:07:25 PM
Right. But I'm not so sure one can compare Wolfowitz et al with Goering either.
4693. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 12:11:19 PM
Well, in the spectrum of ideologues/opportunists, those two are closer, IMO.
4694. concerned - 3/11/2003 12:29:48 PM
If the Iraqis, who have no freedom of expression, see how those of us who are opposed to the war can speak out, they will see that democracy is a great thing and want it for themelves...
Actually, most Iraqis undoubtedly wish that those who are protesting the only effective way to remove Saddam would shut the fuck up. He's a cancer on Iraq.
4695. concerned - 3/11/2003 12:31:37 PM
Re. 4686 -
I love it when those who can't even spell the word bloviate about fascism.
4696. judithathome - 3/11/2003 12:37:00 PM
He's a cancer on Iraq.
According to those who don't even know how many different groups and outlooks there are in Iraq. (Meaning Bush and his ilk.) I certainly don't see many banding together to throw him out.
4697. concerned - 3/11/2003 12:41:33 PM
That's because they couldn't if they wanted to.
4698. concerned - 3/11/2003 12:44:44 PM
Believe me, JAH. The reason that Saddam has stayed in power for the last thirty years is not because he is so loved by the Iraqis.
4699. judithathome - 3/11/2003 12:44:54 PM
Well, DUH. That was my point in my earlier post.
4700. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 1:05:24 PM
I love it when those who can't even spell the word bloviate about fascism.
I love it even more when ninnies fixate on a misspelling because they haven't a better counter to the argumentation.
Just so you know connie, I often forget the "s" in fascism and the second "m" in "remember" as well as unconsciously use "your" for you're. I doesn't mean I don't know how to spell them.
4701. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 1:30:01 PM
judith, how many (holyshittheisguyisnutz) rants do I have to read of Cellar's before I can safely say that I think I get the gist of where he is coming from?
And ME be taken seriously? You mean you guys actually take all of this banter seriously, like its going to be policy or something?? Maybe THATS my problem.
We are sure rotten bastards for dropping all those unexploded bombs on Berlin that killed a bunch of schwein-kinder-troopens, too. unexploded landmines. jeezus. what a maroon.
no shit sherlock. We put them there to kill the bastards that were trying to kill US. I suppose Greenpeace should sue the defense department for polluting the ocean when we were jettisoning all those tanks and helicopters and stuff off of the aircraft carriers in our haste to get the hell out of there too. Godalmighty. How can you take some seriously that thinks PolPot was an agent of the United States???
WHAT DO WE WANT!?!?!?!?!?
OUT OF VIET NAM!!!!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT!?!?!?!!?
.........
.............
um.....
as soon as all of the landmines and other icky things are picked up............
Yeah, I remember all those chants, now that you mention it.
judith, you HAVE to take me at LEAST as seriously as you take cellar, agreed?
(at least I'm mildly amusing)
4702. judithathome - 3/11/2003 1:48:06 PM
You mean you guys actually take all of this banter seriously, like its going to be policy or something?? Maybe THATS my problem.
Didn't you know? You have wandered into a think tank for underground government policy.
I was remarking on getting to know those whom you would label morons and murderers because you mentioned The Killing Fields being made into a movie and you acted as though Cellar might be unaware of that fact. It was very funny because Cellar is quite involved in the "movie business" and has written several books on the subject. Plus a regular column plus...well, suffice to say, he knows it was a movie.
And yes, I take Cellar very seriously.
4703. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 2:29:06 PM
I take him seriously insomuch that I won't give him my address, but from what I've read, thats about the extent of it.
the movie comment was pure sarcasm, (you like?), I had no way of knowing who any of you are.
Gee, I'm just a workin shlep from fly-over land, Surrounded fy famous wack-jobs.
4704. judithathome - 3/11/2003 2:31:11 PM
I had no way of knowing who any of you are.
Which was my point to begin with.
4705. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 2:34:01 PM
I comment on what I read, not who it is who is writing it.
thats the beauty of places like this.
My words can trump the grand poo-bah of the hateful Left, if my words are good enough.
4706. judithathome - 3/11/2003 2:37:30 PM
Hateful Left? Ha! It's the Right who is wanting to go off and kill people, dude.
4707. concerned - 3/11/2003 2:53:33 PM
If I had a penny for every person who died as a result of Leftism in the 20th Century, I'd be a millionaire.
4708. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 2:57:22 PM
Every poster here who claimed to HATE w., is guilty of building every opinion upon that hatred.
Did George Washington HATE the British?
Point is, the "right", or whoeverthehell "wants" to go off to war, isn't doing it because they "want to go a-killin". The guys doin the actual killin', are doin it to avoid being kilt themselves, first and foremost. The second reason they are doin' it is to achieve their objectives, which, isn't to kill as many of the infidel bastards as possible. THAT, would be the objective of the people like the ones who flew the planes into the towers.
If there are no other soldiers or opposition on the route to their objectives, (Saddam), then nobody else gets killed.
did any of you hear what happened on the Saudi border when the British troops there began weapons firing tests?? The Iraqis on the opposite side of the border immediately began surrendering. The British troops hadd to tellthem to go back and wait for the war to start. This was just a test.
I suppose you and bubbette and cellar are certain that if they DO surrender en masse like that on the first day of the war, OUR troops are just gonna kill em anyways, cuz thats what right wingers do, huh?
oy.
4709. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2003 3:04:05 PM
did any of you hear what happened on the Saudi border when the British troops there began weapons firing tests?? The Iraqis on the opposite side of the border immediately began surrendering
Please cite a reliable source. In this forum we are not bandying "facts" around without supporting them.
4710. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 3:13:44 PM
I suppose you and bubbette and cellar are certain that if they DO surrender en masse like that on the first day of the war, OUR troops are just gonna kill em anyways, cuz thats what right wingers do, huh?
Nothing like having something attributed to you or words put in your mouth that you neither said nor implied. If you want to have any kind of discussion, jerkwad, try sticking to what's actually said.
4711. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 3:38:44 PM
If I can't draw reasonable conclusions (and, its dickhead, not jerkwad), from your irrational rantings, then sue me.
go to the http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1860 and look up the stories yourdamnselves.
4712. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 3:40:12 PM
http://www.chronwatch.com
lets try this again.
4713. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 3:43:31 PM
sorry. The first one's the right story, bubba.
4714. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2003 3:46:24 PM
downtown LB = Edmund = Indy
4715. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 3:50:06 PM
I assume Edmund and Indy are two has-beens from around here?
another skeptic. sheesh.
Y'know what hurts?
I thought I was an original.
Pelle?? wrong, and wrong. I'm a genuine newbie here. I think you guys assume there can only be so many right wing nutcases (like myself), just like you believe there's only so much money out there to be made. If I take "too much", somebody else doesn't get enough, isn't that how it goes?
4716. Cellar Door - 3/11/2003 4:06:52 PM
Where's Niner, BTW?
4717. Cellar Door - 3/11/2003 4:07:25 PM
4718. Edmund Dantes - 3/11/2003 4:26:41 PM
I'm not downtown LB.
(However, I certainly understand trying to pin his identity on some old poster because it is highly unlikely that this site would ever attract new posters.)
One way or the other, the topic for this thread is Iraq, not poster identities.
4719. judithathome - 3/11/2003 4:27:16 PM
Cellar, surely you jest...Niner is in a perfect place; TPW.
4720. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 5:16:32 PM
4721. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 5:30:27 PM
wow. topic nazis to boot.
one off-topic half a sentence post gets you chastised.
Iraq is bad, U.S. is good. (there. a post about Iraq.)
and I wasn't attracted, I told you I was coerced.
4722. Edmund Dantes - 3/11/2003 5:56:37 PM
downtown: I wasn't chastising you.
My point is, What difference does it make who you are, provided you aren't a banned or suspended poster? If you're not violating the rules, the only thing that ought to be relevant is what you say in your post.
On topic: War, hunh! Good God y'all. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'.
4723. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 6:53:33 PM
One of you guys here can vouch that I'm nobody you know. I just don't know who that is.
Edmund, I know you weren't. I was just being a wiseass. I'm still feeling the waters out here. Sticking my tootsies in, and then kicking the hell out of the water now and then.........
4724. Cellar Door - 3/11/2003 7:17:20 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP)--The House of Representatives voted today, in a 485-35 vote, to force television and film comedian French Stewart, star of the forthcoming video "Inspector Gadget II" and the former co-star of the popular television situation comedy "Third Rock from the Sun," to change his name to "Freedom Stewart."
"We felt this was important legislation given the impending release of the 'Inspector Gadget' sequel on video," said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, who co-sponsored the legislation, "We didn't want our children to be receiving any pleasure from a comic whose name did honor to our former friends across the Atlantic, and we felt this gesture would be taken as a small but important symbol."
Stewart, 39, could not be reached for comment today, but his press representative Marjorie Williams issued the following statement: "Mr. Stewart is aware of the danger his name poses in these troubling times, and on the advice of SAG president Melissa Gilbert has decided to accede to the House's wishes without protest," she noted, "As soon as he can read through the legislation through his perpetual squint he will make a personal statement."
Ney has also suggested forthcoming legislation towards changing the names of former Attorney General William French Smith and "American Idol" hopeful Frenchie Davis. "We're all Americans and American in these glorious days as we count down towards war," noted Ney, "and I'd like our names to reflect as much."
4725. concerned - 3/11/2003 7:17:54 PM
Downtown LB. It doesn't matter that none of us know who you are. The important thing is you know who you are.
4726. judithathome - 3/11/2003 7:22:29 PM
See, LB? I told you on Sunday that your compatriots would show up and here they are!
4727. concerned - 3/11/2003 7:27:04 PM
You trying to call me some sort of commie-patriot, JAH?
4728. concerned - 3/11/2003 7:33:40 PM
I hope everybody knew that was a joke.
4729. magoseph - 3/11/2003 7:45:49 PM
Well, I did not, concerned dear, until you specified it was.
4730. concerned - 3/11/2003 7:48:31 PM
Guess I'd better watch what my fingers are tippy-tapping out, then:)
4731. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 8:01:58 PM
thanks concerned, you couldn't have said it any better.
4732. Cellar Door - 3/11/2003 8:37:17 PM
THIS JUST IN -- THE BRITISH ARE BACKING OUT!!!
No more English Muffins --right connie?
4733. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 8:38:27 PM
4734. judithathome - 3/11/2003 9:04:51 PM
Concerned, I knew it was a joke...I know you have a sense of humor!
4735. Al D - 3/11/2003 10:27:24 PM
Macnas
Freedom to worship is high up there,
I know you don't really mean this, or do you? Do you really mean they value a person's right to worship as he chooses? Or not to worship, as he chooses?
4736. Al D - 3/11/2003 10:53:22 PM
The Wiz says I'm delusional for saying he would like Bush dead. What is the point of that poster? Would anyone imagine that many American, British, maybe even French people would have loved to blow Hitler's brains out. Have any of you seen the many posts Wiz has put on the Mote with Bush's head exploding? Cellar has made posts that made me think he would like to see Bush dead.
I love it even more when ninnies fixate on a misspelling because they haven't a better counter to the argumentation
This is priceless. Wiz, you had never failed to make cracks about my spelling errors, so you're a fine one to talk.
4737. Al D - 3/11/2003 10:57:38 PM
I see no one has any interest in James Moran's commen about the Jews. Oh well, since he has said he is so sorry, I guess it's not important. But is one apology enough? Maybe he should go on some Jewish T.V. network--oh wait a minute, all the networks (except the African American ones) are run by the Jews, and all of the newspapers. That's why they is any support for removing Saddam. Maybe there isn't much anti-Semitism in France, but there seems to be some in Congress.
4738. Cellar Door - 3/11/2003 11:36:47 PM
A dead Bush is of no interest to me. Why? Because you're talking about an individual. To me Bush is a figurehead. What needs to be changed is less the man (of whom I care little) but the system responsible for putting him in place.
Why blather about "bringing Democracy" to Iraq when we don't have it at home?
4739. concerned - 3/12/2003 1:04:31 AM
Re. 4737 -
Moran should step down. But, being a 'Rat, he won't.
4740. concerned - 3/12/2003 1:56:03 AM
Re. 4738 -
Soooo, what do you find objectionable about the US Constitution, cllrdr?
4741. alistairConnor - 3/12/2003 2:47:18 AM
So, Blair wants a resolution that can get a majority on the Security Council. Such a resolution would have a list of precise requirements for disarmament, and a very tight timetable (March 17 is obviously no longer possible, since the resolution hasn't even been tabled, much less voted, yet).
It's clear that in order to get a majority (leaving aside any vetos), the resolution has to offer a real possibility of avoiding war. That's because there is a clear majority on the SC which wishes to avoid war if possible.
The problem is that the US keeps saying that complete and immediate disarmament is the only option... that is, they will refuse to table a resolution that gives a list of clear and feasible demands. Because that would leave open the possibility that Iraq would comply with them.
In other words, the US will only accept a resolution that makes war inevitable.
So, I don't think we'll see a resolution that gets a majority. I hope I'm wrong.
4742. Macnas - 3/12/2003 3:17:25 AM
re:4735
AI D,
While it takes a few forms, when I said "freedom to worship" I was of course referring to Islam. I think you might be guilty of putting a western spin on it, but thats understandable.
4743. concerned - 3/12/2003 3:21:35 AM
In other words, the US will only accept a resolution that makes war inevitable.
Wrong.
Don't forget that Saddam stepping down or being removed by others in Iraq would also avoid the possibility of an armed conflict.
4744. concerned - 3/12/2003 3:26:46 AM
I suspect AC takes this line because it's more important for him to speciously believe that the US is trying to control Iraq's natural resources than in reality.
4745. concerned - 3/12/2003 3:35:25 AM
Not that doing so is necessarily all AC's fault. A rationalization must needs be formulated to excuse Old Yurrup's heavy responsibility for encouraging Saddam's obstinate refusal to either remove himself or conform to the UN Resolutions and even for the probability of any armed conflict that may result from the current situation.
4746. Macnas - 3/12/2003 3:57:29 AM
concerned
I love the way you kick start the day.
I especially like the the way you have just blamed "old yurrup" for the impending invasion of Iraq.
4747. alistairConnor - 3/12/2003 4:34:36 AM
Last time I looked, Old Yurrup didn't have a majority on the Security Council.
It's quite simple really : the entire world (with the possible exception of Spain and Bulgaria) is out of step with the US.
4748. alistairConnor - 3/12/2003 5:04:54 AM
Rumsfeld: US may have to launch war without Britain
My prediction : Blair will bail out, and British soldiers will watch the war from the sidelines.
4749. downtown LB - 3/12/2003 9:38:22 AM
my prediction, We go in with Britain, get this scallywag out of Bagdad, with only 4 goats and a couple-a human shields as casualties. (all the human shields are found to have 14 well places bullet holes in them...) The goats are given proper burials.
4750. Al D - 3/12/2003 9:40:05 AM
alistairConnor
While I agree that Blair is in a tough position, I don't think he will bail. Removing Saddam is either the right thing to do, or it is not. B&B may just believe it is the right thing to do, and will do so come what may.
4751. judithathome - 3/12/2003 10:21:51 AM
and will do so come what may.
Precisely...so it's ridiculous to even try a new resolution or for Saddam to destroy anything or for the inspectors to even make a report on compliance or for the SC to set deadlines. Bush has intended to have this war since he sent the first troops over and have his war he will.
4752. PelleNilsson - 3/12/2003 10:29:38 AM
The problem with a new resolution: who will certify that Iraq has complied? I don't think Blix would put his name on the dotted line because the inspectors can never be 100% sure.
4753. PelleNilsson - 3/12/2003 10:33:58 AM
With Iraq, Jordan faces a high-stakes gamble
Excerpt:
Among Arab leaders, few other than Saddam have a deeper interest in the outcome of an Iraq war than Abdullah does. Sixty percent of Jordan's 5 million people are Palestinians, many of them refugees with a deep well of anger toward the United States for its support of Israel. Jordan also depends on a thriving trade with Iraq, its eastern neighbor, including cheap oil at savings of nearly $500 million a year, about equal to American aid to Jordan.
About 400,000 Iraqis are in Jordan. Most are fugitives from Saddam's terror, but some are secret police agents who, Jordanian intelligence officials say, may foment trouble.
Jordan's eastern border with Iraq, carved out by British colonial mapmakers after World War I, is open desert, allowing Iraqis virtually unhindered passage. A tide of Iraqi refugees flooding into Jordan to escape a war would be another major headache.
Yet Abdullah, the affable product of American schooling, is engaged in a big gamble.
4754. Al D - 3/12/2003 10:56:21 AM
The leaders of Jordan, IMO, have been some of the sanest in the ME. For making signs of wanting a peaceful relationship with Israel, Adullah's grandfather was murdered in Jeruselem as his son stood nearby.
4755. bubbaette - 3/12/2003 11:07:14 AM
toys
4756. concerned - 3/12/2003 11:23:00 AM
Re. 4752 -
That was my impression of the proposal also. Given UNMOVIC's performance so far, Saddam could basically simply claim that he possesses few if any WMD or disallowed weapons systems unless overwhelming and specific evidence is presented to the contrary.
4757. PelleNilsson - 3/12/2003 11:53:41 AM
Al
There is no consensus among historians that Abdullah was killed on the grounds you mention. There was also resentment among Palestinian "notables" over his annexation of the West Bank. They saw the Hashemites as beduin upstarts.
The assassin was a Palestinian reportedly hired by relatives of Hajj Amin al Husayni, a former mufti of Jerusalem and a bitter enemy of Abdullah
Source: Library of Congress Country Studies
4758. thoughtful - 3/12/2003 12:48:31 PM
I really wish Saddam would leave so he could prove concerned's contention wrong. If Saddam left, the Bushies would declare that the WMD are still there for the next iraqi dictator to use so we have to go in and get them anyway.
Just as bush is hell-bent on his enormous tax cuts even though the economy has gone from surpluses and strength and peace to deficits, weakness and war, bush is hell-bent on attacking iraq with or without Saddam, WMD or allies.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, thank you Emerson. Bush's little mind is now our hobgoblin.
4759. Cellar Door - 3/12/2003 12:58:43 PM
"It's not about Iraq any longer."
4760. concerned - 3/12/2003 1:01:47 PM
Blair Goes Wobbly
excerpts:
Mr. Blair is recoiling, domestically, from one of the most sustained propaganda campaigns in British history, a 24/7 battery of lies from the BBC and similar media, that has succeeded in whipping up an anti-war frenzy on the backbenches of the Labour Party, as well as filling the British streets with Saddam's pacifist allies.
Yet that is only the proximate cause for his sudden loss of backbone. The conditions to which he has succumbed were created and abetted by a profoundly cynical power-play, from France, Germany, and Russia -- one which, in the French and Russian promise to use their vetoes to kill any U.N. decision to enforce its resolutions, is now exposed as a frontal attack on the interests of the United States -- an attempt to create a new balance of power, by cutting America down to size.
The French et al. smell blood, they are not going to back off now when they see the prospect of doing real damage. Their strategy was from the beginning to split the British from the Americans by humbling Mr. Blair, to delay the inevitable full-scale attack into the Iraqi hot season, when the fighting would be more difficult and thus the casualties higher; to isolate the U.S. diplomatically; to galvanize the international peace movement against the Bush administration; and to improve Saddam's prospects for creating a catastrophe when war comes.
The French betrayal is as total as it was surprising, after earnest promises from President Chirac to support the U.S. in return for elaborate concessions on U.N. Resolution 1441. They think they now have President Bush in a fox-trap: from which he cannot escape without chewing off a leg. They may be right: he may now have no choice but to chew off the British leg.
The perfidious agenda of Old Yurrup becomes ever more apparent.
4761. concerned - 3/12/2003 1:01:51 PM
Blair Goes Wobbly
excerpts:
Mr. Blair is recoiling, domestically, from one of the most sustained propaganda campaigns in British history, a 24/7 battery of lies from the BBC and similar media, that has succeeded in whipping up an anti-war frenzy on the backbenches of the Labour Party, as well as filling the British streets with Saddam's pacifist allies.
Yet that is only the proximate cause for his sudden loss of backbone. The conditions to which he has succumbed were created and abetted by a profoundly cynical power-play, from France, Germany, and Russia -- one which, in the French and Russian promise to use their vetoes to kill any U.N. decision to enforce its resolutions, is now exposed as a frontal attack on the interests of the United States -- an attempt to create a new balance of power, by cutting America down to size.
The French et al. smell blood, they are not going to back off now when they see the prospect of doing real damage. Their strategy was from the beginning to split the British from the Americans by humbling Mr. Blair, to delay the inevitable full-scale attack into the Iraqi hot season, when the fighting would be more difficult and thus the casualties higher; to isolate the U.S. diplomatically; to galvanize the international peace movement against the Bush administration; and to improve Saddam's prospects for creating a catastrophe when war comes.
The French betrayal is as total as it was surprising, after earnest promises from President Chirac to support the U.S. in return for elaborate concessions on U.N. Resolution 1441. They think they now have President Bush in a fox-trap: from which he cannot escape without chewing off a leg. They may be right: he may now have no choice but to chew off the British leg.
The perfidious agenda of Old Yurrup becomes ever more apparent.
4762. concerned - 3/12/2003 1:04:04 PM
Blair Goes Wobbly
excerpts:
Mr. Blair is recoiling, domestically, from one of the most sustained propaganda campaigns in British history, a 24/7 battery of lies from the BBC and similar media, that has succeeded in whipping up an anti-war frenzy on the backbenches of the Labour Party, as well as filling the British streets with Saddam's pacifist allies.
Yet that is only the proximate cause for his sudden loss of backbone. The conditions to which he has succumbed were created and abetted by a profoundly cynical power-play, from France, Germany, and Russia -- one which, in the French and Russian promise to use their vetoes to kill any U.N. decision to enforce its resolutions, is now exposed as a frontal attack on the interests of the United States -- an attempt to create a new balance of power, by cutting America down to size.
The French et al. smell blood, they are not going to back off now when they see the prospect of doing real damage. Their strategy was from the beginning to split the British from the Americans by humbling Mr. Blair, to delay the inevitable full-scale attack into the Iraqi hot season, when the fighting would be more difficult and thus the casualties higher; to isolate the U.S. diplomatically; to galvanize the international peace movement against the Bush administration; and to improve Saddam's prospects for creating a catastrophe when war comes.
The French betrayal is as total as it was surprising, after earnest promises from President Chirac to support the U.S. in return for elaborate concessions on U.N. Resolution 1441. They think they now have President Bush in a fox-trap: from which he cannot escape without chewing off a leg. They may be right: he may now have no choice but to chew off the British leg.
The perfidious agenda of Old Yurrup becomes ever more apparent.
4763. concerned - 3/12/2003 1:04:08 PM
Blair Goes Wobbly
excerpts:
Mr. Blair is recoiling, domestically, from one of the most sustained propaganda campaigns in British history, a 24/7 battery of lies from the BBC and similar media, that has succeeded in whipping up an anti-war frenzy on the backbenches of the Labour Party, as well as filling the British streets with Saddam's pacifist allies.
Yet that is only the proximate cause for his sudden loss of backbone. The conditions to which he has succumbed were created and abetted by a profoundly cynical power-play, from France, Germany, and Russia -- one which, in the French and Russian promise to use their vetoes to kill any U.N. decision to enforce its resolutions, is now exposed as a frontal attack on the interests of the United States -- an attempt to create a new balance of power, by cutting America down to size.
The French et al. smell blood, they are not going to back off now when they see the prospect of doing real damage. Their strategy was from the beginning to split the British from the Americans by humbling Mr. Blair, to delay the inevitable full-scale attack into the Iraqi hot season, when the fighting would be more difficult and thus the casualties higher; to isolate the U.S. diplomatically; to galvanize the international peace movement against the Bush administration; and to improve Saddam's prospects for creating a catastrophe when war comes.
The French betrayal is as total as it was surprising, after earnest promises from President Chirac to support the U.S. in return for elaborate concessions on U.N. Resolution 1441. They think they now have President Bush in a fox-trap: from which he cannot escape without chewing off a leg. They may be right: he may now have no choice but to chew off the British leg.
The perfidious agenda of Old Yurrup becomes ever more apparent.
4764. concerned - 3/12/2003 1:05:36 PM
Blair Goes Wobbly
excerpts:
Mr. Blair is recoiling, domestically, from one of the most sustained propaganda campaigns in British history, a 24/7 battery of lies from the BBC and similar media, that has succeeded in whipping up an anti-war frenzy on the backbenches of the Labour Party, as well as filling the British streets with Saddam's pacifist allies.
Yet that is only the proximate cause for his sudden loss of backbone. The conditions to which he has succumbed were created and abetted by a profoundly cynical power-play, from France, Germany, and Russia -- one which, in the French and Russian promise to use their vetoes to kill any U.N. decision to enforce its resolutions, is now exposed as a frontal attack on the interests of the United States -- an attempt to create a new balance of power, by cutting America down to size.
The French et al. smell blood, they are not going to back off now when they see the prospect of doing real damage. Their strategy was from the beginning to split the British from the Americans by humbling Mr. Blair, to delay the inevitable full-scale attack into the Iraqi hot season, when the fighting would be more difficult and thus the casualties higher; to isolate the U.S. diplomatically; to galvanize the international peace movement against the Bush administration; and to improve Saddam's prospects for creating a catastrophe when war comes.
The French betrayal is as total as it was surprising, after earnest promises from President Chirac to support the U.S. in return for elaborate concessions on U.N. Resolution 1441. They think they now have President Bush in a fox-trap: from which he cannot escape without chewing off a leg. They may be right: he may now have no choice but to chew off the British leg.
The perfidious agenda of Old Yurrup becomes ever more apparent.
4765. concerned - 3/12/2003 1:05:41 PM
Sorry if multiple post (I don't know yet). This netserver has just gone into autism mode.
4766. bubbaette - 3/12/2003 1:26:42 PM
Must the be the content.
So the anti-war protestors are the propagandaists, and not the 24-7 all-war-all-the-time Bush administration.
4767. robertjayb - 3/12/2003 2:00:46 PM
Balsa wood, duct tape, and weed-whacker engines
March 12, 2003 | Al-Taji, Iraq -- (AP) A remotely piloted aircraft that the United States has warned could spread chemical weapons appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellors attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker.
4768. concerned - 3/12/2003 2:24:56 PM
Re. 4766 -
Of course they are. Do you hear them criticizing Saddam? Nope.
4769. concerned - 3/12/2003 2:26:44 PM
4770. Cellar Door - 3/12/2003 2:47:15 PM
4771. Edmund Dantes - 3/12/2003 3:04:34 PM
The bomb wasn’t designed for the "Shock and Awe" of the Iraqis, but for Americans like Kathy Fite. It’s there to keep her in line....And we can see their effect. Kathy won’t be marching in any anti-war demonstrations anytime soon.
That's just darn silly. If that was the bomb's design, we wouldn't have have tested it Floreeday but in Hollywood.
4772. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2003 3:09:19 PM
The GOP stands for Grumpy, Old & Petty!
4773. concerned - 3/12/2003 3:26:40 PM
Re. 4767 -
What a misleading editorial.
4774. bubbaette - 3/12/2003 3:43:53 PM
Here's a photo of that hideously menacing balsa wood biological weapons spreader:
scary weapon
Sure it's the editorial that's misleading, not the "say anything to get your war on" administration.
4775. bubbaette - 3/12/2003 4:10:04 PM
ARRESTS MADE IN WAR ON TERROR
Reading, PA (AP) - Four employees of Hal's Hobby Shop were arrested this morning when undercover Homeland Security agents discovered they were selling Revell model airplanes. Spokesmen say some of the planes were "easily large enough to be suited with rubber band propellors and flown over a town dispersing biochemical agents."
A later raid on the Revell manufacturing plant resulted in its closure. Authorities have apologized to family members of the employee casualty list.
John Ashcroft plans a press conference at 5pm today in front of several shrouded artworks to give further information, and evidence of a Revell-Iraq connection.
4776. vanTHEman - 3/12/2003 4:10:37 PM
i love london. i love france. one's our ally. the other's an ass.
4777. alistairconnor - 3/12/2003 4:11:41 PM
Smoking guns.
Key allies.
Coalition of the willing.
Not looking good.
4778. bubbaette - 3/12/2003 4:16:01 PM
I guess van aint heard the latest.
4779. robertjayb - 3/12/2003 4:23:41 PM
An ambivalent toast to you, Alistair: I just had an American cheese sandwich on French bread, washed down with a modest Bordeaux purchased from that all-America
wine merchant, Sam's Club.
4780. judithathome - 3/12/2003 4:27:11 PM
Wow, our Sam's Club won't sell any wine, much less the sort from an anti-war nation like France.
4781. concerned - 3/12/2003 4:59:15 PM
Just wondering. If the Allies take out Saddam, will France surrender too as a sympathy gesture?
4782. vanTHEman - 3/12/2003 5:01:46 PM
"Going to war without France is, well, pretty much like World War II."
4783. concerned - 3/12/2003 5:06:32 PM
I was considering a decadent feast of French fries, Belgian Waffles and French Toast, but I think I'd be wired after so many carbohydrates.
4784. concerned - 3/12/2003 5:14:49 PM
I was considering a decadent feast of French fries, Belgian Waffles and French Toast, but I think I'd be wired after so many carbohydrates.
4785. robertjayb - 3/12/2003 5:14:52 PM
Lord knows we can't have that...
4786. magoseph - 3/12/2003 5:20:23 PM
An Order of Fries, Please, but Do Hold the French
Just for you, concerned dear!
4787. vanTHEman - 3/12/2003 5:39:59 PM
Peace or War? It’s still Saddam’s choice.
4788. vanTHEman - 3/12/2003 5:45:25 PM
Saddam's busy destroying documents, according to news reports. That's why Chirac wants to delay.
They say that Saddam and Chirac are personal friends. Chirac sold Saddam a nuclear power plant. That's a good friend, alright.
One thing about all this is that we are assuming Chirac did not also give Saddam France's spent nuclear fuel rods, which could easily be enriched to produce both a uranium bomb and a plutonium bomb. Maybe that's the real reason Chirac is trying to stop this.
4789. vanTHEman - 3/12/2003 5:53:26 PM
"fact."
According to the United Nations, Saddam has refused to account for 8,500 liters of anthrax, as well as 31,000 other chemical munitions. Again, that's according to the U.N.
4790. concerned - 3/12/2003 6:55:21 PM
Wall Street rebounds as Europe crashes
How ironic that Ol' Yurrup's wannabe tree shakers' sustained attempts to stick it to the US and GB wrt Iraq appear to be significantly contributing to the disintegration of their own economies.
4791. vanTHEman - 3/12/2003 7:00:30 PM
I SWEAR, I FREEDOM KISSED HER.
4792. Edmund Dantes - 3/12/2003 9:56:08 PM
Saddam's reign of terror – where prisoners die in plastic shredders
"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were ... made to watch.
"Sometimes they went in head first, and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this.
"Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food. On one occasion, I saw Qusay Saddam Hussein personally supervising these murders."
Ms Rachid was scathing about the role of French President Jacques Chirac in leading opposition to war, which she said the Kurdish people would not "easily forget".
4793. OhioSTOPAS - 3/12/2003 10:32:28 PM
Saddam is a brutal, indeed evil, dictator, and has been such for over twenty years.
4794. Al D - 3/12/2003 10:40:10 PM
and since he has been for 20 years there is no good reason to get rid of him now.
4795. jayackroyd - 3/12/2003 10:43:05 PM
This is true, of course, Dantes. So why has the administration been unable to make the case in such a way that anyone outside of the US is persuaded?
My (speculative) answer:
Karl Rove focus-grouped the possible justifications, and found that the links to al-Qaeda, possession of weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi role in 9/11 and the country's ongoing threat to the security of the US tested best.
He was right. Both polls and my informal discussions with people show that it worked. People believe Iraq works with Al Qaeda and that they were involved in 9/11. The repeated phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has successfully conflated nuclear warheads with empty mustard gas shells. And Americans believe Iraq poses a threat to US security.
The problem with all this is that these claims, while effective in creating american support, aren't true. And the people in Europe and the rest of the world who weren't in the focus groups know that it is not true.
The true claims:
Saddam Hussein is ruthless and brutal, killing and torturing people in heinous ways as a means of preserving his power.
He will only disarm under threat of force, grudgingly and slowly.
He is a threat to Israel, and is a distablizing force in the region.
These true statements have not been made as forcefully as, and their power has been undermined by the transparently false claims.
The administration has completely botched the diplomacy here.
4796. Al D - 3/12/2003 10:50:28 PM
Oh sure, Bush shouldn't have talked about Saddam as a threat to US, but we want to protect Israel. What a great way to create many more Morans than now exist. The real point is that there was no way to win the suppost of France, Germany, Russia, China and the liberal media (Euro) who lets everyone know what an idiot Bush is.
4797. jayackroyd - 3/12/2003 10:53:48 PM
4794
Well, yeah, Al that is a point, isn't it? Why now? What has changed? Why hasn't the administration made the case for now, rather than after another year of attempted disarmament?
How is now different from, say, March 2001 or September 2000? Or, ftm, February 2002?
I know how it is different from 1982, when we were tilting toward Iraq, looking away as he gassed people. I know how it is different from 1998, when conservatives now screaming for blood, and attacking opponents as unpatriotic, did not support their president in his attacks on Iraq.
Maybe now is the right time. But this administration has failed to make the case to convince enough people outside of the US. Is now such a good time, if the price is the authority of the UN, the independence of the security council, a rift in NATO, and no foundation for support in the aftermath?
And no more French Fries. (We must look like such complete idiots to the French. Congress steps up, and makes a bold, uncompromising statement. Freedom Fries.)
4798. judithathome - 3/12/2003 10:57:37 PM
and the liberal media (Euro) who lets everyone know what an idiot Bush is.
Trust me, the media doesn't have to let everyone know what an idiot Bush is; he does a fine job of that on his own.
4799. jayackroyd - 3/12/2003 10:59:18 PM
The real point is that there was no way to win the suppost of France, Germany, Russia, China and the liberal media (Euro) who lets everyone know what an idiot Bush is.
GHWB managed to do it.
IAC, either they should have known that and not gone to the UN, or they should have done the necessary diplomatic work in advance of tabling the resolution so that the French would be isolated in their oppostion. We're not talking major money, in this context wrt the Russian debt and other side issues.
Either way, it's an appallingly amateurish, short-sighted, and arrogant job. To say that they couldn't have succeeded no matter what they did is a pretty damning criticism on their geopolitical understanding and the strength of their underlying case.
And do remember that this is a war of invasion, against a sovereign country that has made no recent act of agression, and cannot be seen, in any way, as requiring a pre-emptive strike in the interest of regional or global security.
Such a case has to be a strong one. There may have been a strong case. But they botched it, as they would say, big time.
4800. concerned - 3/12/2003 11:01:52 PM
....did not support their president in his attacks on Iraq.
They made a movie about it, jay. It's called 'Wag the Dog'. Maybe you should check it out.
4801. jayackroyd - 3/12/2003 11:06:25 PM
So in 1998, Saddam Hussein wasn't a torturer, didn't have weapons of mass destruction, didn't kill his own people, and didn't threaten the region. Clinton had no basis for the attack on Iraq then. It was purely political distraction, and the conservatives called him on that.
Now, however, the case is clear, and opponents who were to say, for example, that Bush is trying to keep the country on a war footing to preserve his political rating are unpatriotic, and need to stand behind their president.
Al is wrong. This hasn't been an issue for 20 years. The people who say there has been no rush to war--it's been twelve years are wrong. This imminent threat requiring hundreds of thousands of US troops to thwart it arose in the last year or so.
Right?
4802. judithathome - 3/12/2003 11:06:32 PM
God, concerned, that is just too asinine for words.
4803. Al D - 3/12/2003 11:07:34 PM
And no more French Fries. (We must look like such complete idiots to the French. Congress steps up, and makes a bold, uncompromising statement. Freedom Fries.)
Jay, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the inteligence of the average American" and Congress is certainly no exception. Symbolism over substance is a favorite tack of Congress.
My point is, that, IMO, there was nothing Bush could say or do to prevent the French from causing breakdown of agreement. It is a ploy. Or it just might be that Bush knows what he is doing and has two interests; getting rid of Saddam and making the U.N. look like a paper tiger. Down in Texas there about as many bumber stickers Get out of the U.N. and Jesus Saves.
4804. jayackroyd - 3/12/2003 11:09:30 PM
Oh sure, Bush shouldn't have talked about Saddam as a threat to US, but we want to protect Israel. What a great way to create many more Morans than now exist.
Al, telling transparent lies is ineffective diplomacy. Saddam is not a threat to the US. Saying so makes Bush look like a fool, or, worse, so arrogant that he thinks people in those other countries are stupid enough to buy a lie that transparent.
4805. jayackroyd - 3/12/2003 11:15:05 PM
My point is, that, IMO, there was nothing Bush could say or do to prevent the French from causing breakdown of agreement. It is a ploy.
It was HIS ploy. The administration tabled the resolution, without a solid understanding of what the security council would do in response to Saddam stalling. They may have not been able to get a French vote, but they should have been able to construct a resolution that would have isolated France, and avoided a veto, if not an abstension. And if they didn't have a clear path to get there, then THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE gone to the UN, if they wanted this war come hell or high water.
This is a diplomatic failure of the highest order.
Or it just might be that Bush knows what he is doing and has two interests; getting rid of Saddam and making the U.N. look like a paper tiger.
Then, dammit, say so. Get up and tell the american people that the UN has outlived its usefulness in this post Cold war era, that we are withdrawing, and can they please make plans to move to Geneva. But skulking and lying don't work, unless you've got a better set of lies to work with than these guys have.
4806. judithathome - 3/12/2003 11:16:56 PM
Al, how many times have you been to Texas? I've lived here most of my life and have traveled in the state extensively and I have NEVER seen a bumper sticker that says "Get Out Of The UN" and neither have you.
"Jesus Saves" now is another matter...those are rife.
4807. Al D - 3/12/2003 11:20:29 PM
Jay
With all due respect to your superior intelligence, the mere assertion that Saddam is no threat to the U.S. may not be the case, and to call it a lie is hyberbole. Look, before 9/11 if Bush had said he was going after UBL, bomb Afganistan, and cause a regieme change, and I'm going to get the U.N. to sanction it, what weould the world have said?
Bush keeps saying 9/11 chaned things, and everyone seems to think that all he could mean is Saddam was envolved. That just not be what he means at all. the big lie is that because Saddam is non secular to would not work with UBL. Would he work with Hamas, Islamic Jiihad, Hizbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and there are more. You may want to take that chance, but many do not, and I doubt you do either.
War is not an easy choice, and maybe in a perfect world not a needed one. But people can't keep saying what a monster Saddam is and not favor his removal and be consistant.
4808. arkymalarky - 3/12/2003 11:21:13 PM
We have "Shut the Huck up" ones.
4809. concerned - 3/12/2003 11:22:47 PM
Re. 4801 -
What has changed since 1998 is 9/11. As late as the middle of last year, the Bush Administration was able to get an unanimous UNSC vote to reinstate a UN 'enforced' Iraqi disarmament program with the additional inducement for Saddam to disarm of the presence of a substantial US military force.
Since then, Saddam has completely failed to satisfy the requirements that UN Resolution 1441 has imposed on him, and now we're at the point where a decision needs to be made whether the 'serious consequences' now called for in that Resolution has any meaning.
4810. arkymalarky - 3/12/2003 11:24:53 PM
Oops. That was a silly sidenote to Judith.
I don't disfavor Hussein's removal, but I am very unhappy with how the administration is going about it, and it is, as Jay points out, the height of hypocrisy for the same GOP politicians who accused Clinton of wagging the dog to suggest that it's now a dire emergency.
I also detest the use of fear to motivate people into action, unless it is a real and immediate danger. If the Bush administratioin is set on removing Hussein they can give real reasons instead of creating an atmosphere of fear to help rally support around them. That's an abhorrent tactic in a democracy.
4811. Al D - 3/12/2003 11:26:29 PM
I read a great article that IJ linked to on TPW, Tales of the Tyrant by Mark Bowden. Most of the info I already read in Saddam Hussain:King of Terror by Coughlin. At one time in Saddams early days (yes he was a tyrant-all Arab leaders can be tyranical if need be) he was doing good things for the Iraqui people. He may have seemed to the U.S. a good buffer between us and Iran. He was not then calling us the Great Satan and calling for our destruction. But that is history, and 9/11 changed things in America, didn't they.
4812. jayackroyd - 3/12/2003 11:27:19 PM
1) 9/11/2001 leaves all of 2002 untouched.
2) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists involved.
3)Nothing in Iraq has changed, other than the country becoming economically and militarily weaker--less of a threat.
4813. Al D - 3/12/2003 11:28:56 PM
jay
I enjoy talking with you; "I like the way you talk."
Now I have to go to dinner with 6 friends, all of Judith's persuasion.
4814. jayackroyd - 3/12/2003 11:33:07 PM
Look, before 9/11 if Bush had said he was going after UBL, bomb Afganistan, and cause a regieme change, and I'm going to get the U.N. to sanction it, what weould the world have said?
Yes, that's right. Neither Clinton nor Bush had the political support to take the necessary action against Al Qaeda before 9/11. This is so despite the fact that the Clinton administration was very worried about Al Qaeda, and briefed the Bush adminstration intensively on these issues.
The problem is that Iraq is not part of this. Syria is. Iran is. Indonesia is. Pakistan is. Saudi Arabia is.
That doesn't mean I'm advocating forcible regime change in any of those states. It does mean that the case for Iraq has to be based on issues involving Iraq if it is to be persuasive internationally. Just as, unfortunately, the Kenyan embassy and the Cole was not enough to justify what, in retrospect, was necessary action against the Taliban.
4815. concerned - 3/12/2003 11:34:20 PM
There may be another factor that even the treacherous likes of France and Germany should give consideration to. As long as the potentially volatile, uncertain and unresolved conditions persist of a strongly worded yet unsatisfied UN Resolution preventing sanctions from being withdrawn from Iraq, a bellicose Saddam remaining in power, a large concentration of Allied forces hanging fire in the nations around Iraq and a belligerent NK with a free hand at playing brinksmanship, they will all constitute constraining forces on world markets wrt commodities and commerce. Ol' Yurrup, by all accounts, is already suffering greatly from this. Do they really want to risk further trashing their economies simply to spite the US and GB?
4816. concerned - 3/12/2003 11:38:21 PM
Re. 4812 -
The sequence of events as I presented them are much more relevant as far as accounting for the present situation than presenting a report card on Iraq for 1992 after the fact.
4817. concerned - 3/12/2003 11:40:07 PM
Re. 4812 -
The sequence of events as I presented them are much more relevant as far as accounting for the present situation than presenting a report card on Iraq for 2002 after the fact.
4818. concerned - 3/13/2003 12:02:50 AM
Re. 4810 -
As far as supporting the x42 administration goes wrt Iraq, don't forget that Democrats were in turns embarrassed or thought it was just a big joke when Clowntoon lobbed his stupid cruise missiles and then turned turtle in Iraq, the Sudan and Afghanistan.
4819. downtown LB - 3/13/2003 7:57:02 AM
Why does 10,000 litres of unaccounted for anthrax spores carry so little weight with everyone?
A proven murderous monsterous dictator manufactures 10,000 litres of anthrax, hides them, says he destroyed what he never had, and nobody is concerned.
"Oh well, its only the sudatenland. No threat to us."
4820. alistairConnor - 3/13/2003 8:21:03 AM
Ol' Yurrup, by all accounts, is already suffering greatly from this. Do they really want to risk further trashing their economies simply to spite the US and GB?
High oil prices hurt the US economy much more than Europe (Europe is much more energy-efficient with respect to producing GDP). A declining dollar accentuates this.
The question is, why does Bush insist on worsening his already critical economic situation with this war?
4821. vanTHEman - 3/13/2003 8:23:38 AM
9-11, asshole.
4822. alistairConnor - 3/13/2003 8:35:37 AM
Which makes it painfully obvious, arsehole, why nobody else is interested in backing the US. They know that Saddam has sod-all to do with 9/11, and they are not impressed with the US throwing its weight around just because somebody has to pay for that tragedy.
Europe has been living with terrorism, specifically Arab extremist terrorism, for decades. The US has recently discovered it. Welcome to the real world.
4823. downtown LB - 3/13/2003 8:46:30 AM
what is PAINFULLY obvious, is that none of youse bush-haters are calling tony Blair "stupid".
I can't figure this one out. Either he ain't, (but that would infer that Bush also ain't, and we all know THAT couldn't be), or he is also a frat-boy-coke-head-moron.
WHAT could be causing Tony Blair to commit obvious political suicide???
4824. alistairConnor - 3/13/2003 9:30:11 AM
Listen, downtown WJ, I don't believe that Bush's stupidity is the problem. The problem is the capture of the USA's foreign policy by a small group of extremists.
Blair, although he is one of the great demagogues of modern times, appears to be sincere about Iraq. Though I suspect he thought it'd be a good bet with respect to popularity, and has been surprised by the depth of anti-war feeling among his people.
But mostly he's just playing out Britain's traditional role as ambassador of the US to Europe, and vice versa.
4825. jayackroyd - 3/13/2003 9:52:08 AM
Europe has been living with terrorism, specifically Arab extremist terrorism, for decades. The US has recently discovered it. Welcome to the real world.
Here in NYC, I find myself reminding people who are frightened/worried, avoiding certain places (like Grand Central Station) whenever possible, that we are not in Israel. We are not in England at the time of intense IRA attacks. There has been one, devastatingly effective, attack 18 months ago. People can go to clubs, shops and pizza places without fear. I am more than a little tired of all this 9/11 talk, in a land where worry of death from peanut allergies is front page news.
I'm also really tired of politicians using the attacks as justification for wrecking fiscal policy, preventative detention, denial of constitutional rights, a war on a country not involved in the attack and not being allowed to bring a blueberry muffin into an airline waiting area. (The last is a true story.)
4826. judithathome - 3/13/2003 9:55:36 AM
Now I have to go to dinner with 6 friends, all of Judith's persuasion
If by that you mean you joined six people who appreciate good wine, good food, and good conversation not touching on the subjects of religious or political beliefs, than I am certain you had a delightful evening.
4827. downtown LB - 3/13/2003 9:56:56 AM
Thats a pretty far stretch, dontcha think? I mean, its not like Tony Blair is some kind of George Bush wannabe. Bill Clinton-type, maybe.
So, what you're saying is that Blair is sincere in his beliefs that Saddam is a bad, evil man who MUST be removed, and everybody else (in support) is being duped by this right wing conspiracy? And, you are saying that Blair ISN'T stupid (like Bush) with that statement, or IS?
If everybody else in his country is smart enough to see that Bush is just an evil dope, then why don't they just give Blair the boot? Why, assuming Blair isn't the dope-head dope bush is, would Blair not waiver from his stance on Iraq, KNOWING he has the support of his entire country???
Something doesn't add up here.
He's either as stupid as you say Bush is,
or he's stupid enough to believe Bush's propaganda,
or he's a wack-job who thinks HE knows better than the rest of the world about Saddam,
or, he's neither a dope, nor delusional, and what he is doing is acting in a way that is in the best interest of HIS country, our country, and the world, despite fiee opposition, and certain political death.
4828. judithathome - 3/13/2003 9:57:37 AM
I'm also really tired of politicians using the attacks as justification for wrecking fiscal policy, preventative detention, denial of constitutional rights, a war on a country not involved in the attack and not being allowed to bring a blueberry muffin into an airline waiting area. (The last is a true story.)
Dittos, Jay. ;-)
4829. downtown LB - 3/13/2003 9:59:10 AM
thats fierce opposition. I need to review these posts first, I suppose.
4830. judithathome - 3/13/2003 9:59:46 AM
then why don't they just give Blair the boot?
Don't be so sure they won't. At least they can.
4831. downtown LB - 3/13/2003 10:01:26 AM
Judith, are you one of the types who thinks the "racial profiling" of the muslim men aged 17-35, by airport security, is a BAD thing? Is that the "preventative detention", you speak about?
4832. judithathome - 3/13/2003 10:09:27 AM
And just where have I spoken about this "preventative detention"? As a matter of fact, I do support profiling in airports and think it's stupid to drag little grannys out of line while letting 13 Arab or Mideastern types walk past with nary a glance at their luggage.
4833. alistairConnor - 3/13/2003 10:14:14 AM
DT thinks he's speaking to a multiple-headed liberal hydra, Judith. He doesn't want to acknowledge that 'bush-haters' might have independent opinions or personalities.
4834. judithathome - 3/13/2003 10:19:42 AM
Alistair, I realize he's not overly "concerned" with my actual thoughts on things...got my label, good to go!
4835. jayackroyd - 3/13/2003 10:32:36 AM
Actually, there is a very nice paper proving that profiling reduces the odds of detecting a bad guy who is a member of a moderately large group of bad guys vs random screening. It'll take me a while to dig up the reference; it's in an archived email folder. If you check out Bruce Schneier's company's website, www.counterpane.com, you may find it in the newsletter archive.
The seeds of the proof are obvious; the profile algorithm uses security by obscurity. That is, the authorities have to keep the profile algorithm secret. Secret security algorithms generally are much weaker than algorithms that are published and tested by other security folk. (It's hard to see how you would do this for an airline security profile.)
The way to beat a profiling system is to take multiple trips, varying the parameters on each trip to see who in your group of bad guys gets through, and under what circumstances. Once you've worked out the profile parameters, then you embark on your operation.
One final point on this--there is a tendency for people who want to use profiling to say that El-Al is an example of how well profiling works. El-Al doesn't use profiling. It uses skilled professionals who interview every passenger. There's no algorithm here--people are way smarter than any algorithm.
4836. jayackroyd - 3/13/2003 10:37:57 AM
Oh, and it should go without saying, but publishing the profile by saying we're looking for muslim males between 17 and 35 defeats the purpose of profiling. All you end up doing is harassing 17-35 year old muslim males, while the bad guys spend their time recruiting 36 year old hindu females.
IAC, the threat of a repeat of 9/11 is nil. The 9/11 attacks were not an exploitation of our airport security practices. The attacks were an exploitation of our hijack protocol at the time--to land the plane safely and then negotiate. That protocol changed that day, albeit unofficially, when the fourth jet went down in Pennsylvania. Now passengers and crew, knowing the risks, will not permit a hijacking, as we've seen in a few instances since then.
I'd apologize to our thread host for going off-topic; 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq, but he hasn't been around for a while.
4837. Macnas - 3/13/2003 10:46:53 AM
re. 4825
I would be interested to hear from any one, American preferably, who has spent some time in Old Yurrup during the 70's and 80's when terrorism was rampant across the continent. Along side fundamentalist and Palestinian terror groups were our own IRA, INLA etc, the Bader-Meinhoff group and the Red Brigade (anti capitalist neo-anarchists).
Not withstanding the Israeli-Arab wars, Israel carried out an effective counter-terror campaign which targeted individuals within the varied Palestinian groups, the best known of which would be the "Wrath of God" campaign.
Both Britain and Germany also ran reasonably successful operations where key individuals from the various terror organisations were targeted and killed or arrested.
In terms of combating terror, these actions will always be more effective than invasion.
4838. alistairConnor - 3/13/2003 10:52:58 AM
EU won't pay Iraq repair bill, Patten warns America
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
(Filed: 13/03/2003)
(I'm posting a large excerpt because you have to log into the Telegraph to get the article)
The European Union issued a blunt warning yesterday that it would not finance the reconstruction of Iraq if Washington went to war without a clear mandate from the United Nations.
Chris Patten, the European external affairs commissioner, said it would be "very difficult" to convince states already facing a budget crunch that they should spend large sums of money repairing the damage done by America in a conflict they opposed.
Addressing the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Mr Patten cited the notice in the proverbial china shop - "If you broke it, you own it" - but denied making a threat.
"I am making a simple observation of fact: that if it comes to war, it will be very much easier to persuade the EU budgetary authority to be generous if there is no dispute about the legitimacy of the military action that has taken place. It seems pretty obvious," he said.
...
The Europeans provided large sums to help pay for the first Gulf war and are currently the biggest donors in Afghanistan, contributing 830 million euros or 35 per cent of the total aid in 2002. But they are tiring of "doing the dishes" left behind every time the Americans go into action.
...
4839. alistairConnor - 3/13/2003 10:53:15 AM
"Such decisions, and there have been many, send a dangerous signal about the value that the US places on international commitments. And that, surely, is a critical battle lost in what some call the 'war against terrorism'. For I find it hard to conceive how the terrorist threat can be confronted effectively except through international co-operation," he said.
He said it was of the utmost importance that any action in Iraq should enjoy full UN cover. "It is in the interests of the whole world that power should be constrained by global rules, and used only with international agreement."
4840. jayackroyd - 3/13/2003 10:59:57 AM
I can't help with the specific question, macnas. I was always very aware of the automatic rifles in European airports; it was a reminder that there were real security concerns day to day.
I'd actually expected that the US would become like Europe--routine presence of military at airports, but the level of angst and near panic has surprised me. As Alistair said, we need to join the real world.
That said, it seems to me that the authorities here and overseas have been pretty effective rounding up the Al Qaeda guys. I'm assuming (hoping?) that a lot more is happening than we are hearing about, and we are hearing about plenty. They've gone too far, imo, in casting their net, and holding their suspects, but they have also made steady progress in catching people. Could they have done so without locking Jose Padilla up, with no trial and no lawyer, for thinking about a bomb? I think so. But I'm a ways away from the inside.
4841. judithathome - 3/13/2003 11:05:50 AM
I was at the airport in Franfurt in the late 80s seeing my parents off after a visit and armed troops with rifles were dragging a screaming man through the airport to a gate...he was kicking and yelling like all get out and very disheveled. I asked one of the clerks at the desk what was going on and he said the man was being deported and didn't want to leave.
I always felt safe at European airports because of the presence of troops. You'd think it would be the other way around...feeling less safe because of the need for them.
4842. Macnas - 3/13/2003 11:25:32 AM
re 4840
Jay,
International cooperation is what has caught the Al Qaeda personnel. And by using tried and tested police methods to boot.
4843. jayackroyd - 3/13/2003 11:35:08 AM
Yes, that's been my impression. Which makes Chris Patten's concern in the quote from Alistair all the more telling.
4844. Wombat - 3/13/2003 11:36:25 AM
I lived in Britain from 1984-89. The "effective" actions taken against the IRA usually led to politically-motivated shrieking about "death squads" and extrajudicial murder, sometimes involving the wrong targets.
Any thoughts on feeling safer at European airports because of the presence of heavily armed troops was dispelled in Athens, when I observed that the person who was supposed to be monitoring my bags as they were x-rayed, was devoting his full attention to a crossword puzzle.
4845. concerned - 3/13/2003 12:14:51 PM
Bush Open to Delaying U.N. Iraq War Vote
I'd say that GWB definitely going the extra mile to give diplomacy a chance, probably to help Blair who has just had his 6 point proposal rejected by Iraqfrance. Of course, delaying possible action because of its contingency on the internal politics of other countries starts to raise the question of whether GWB is building his legacy or digging it here.
4846. concerned - 3/13/2003 12:16:05 PM
I'd say that GWB's......
4847. jayackroyd - 3/13/2003 12:20:48 PM
Watching CNN, the Tory leader says that he has just heard from Blair that the chance for a resolution passing is diminishing, that the French won't even read the proposed language.
I ask again. Have we seen any follow-on proposal from the French/Russian/German group? How can the US/UK diplomats let them get away with making no proposal for follow on?
4848. vanTHEman - 3/13/2003 12:30:23 PM
Is striking back at the French and their toadies a bad thing?
If it weren't for hate-filled Bush-bashing we would lose over half the dem posts, don't you think?
4849. jayackroyd - 3/13/2003 12:32:43 PM
What hate filled Bush bashing are you talking about?
What are "dem posts"?
Who are France's toadies?
What color is the sky on your world?
4850. judithathome - 3/13/2003 12:34:06 PM
Hey, Van...it's a free country. People are allowed to not like the President.
The discussion here is much more than "hate-filled Bush bashing" but I can see how you would overlook that fact.
4851. PelleNilsson - 3/13/2003 12:34:33 PM
The delay may hurt Blair fatally. He's twisting in the wind right now. Onc the attack starts, old-fashioned British jingoism will work its magic, and if it's short and moderately successful Blair will stand tall again.
4852. Wombat - 3/13/2003 12:39:45 PM
Or...remember Suez.
4853. concerned - 3/13/2003 12:39:59 PM
I ask again. Have we seen any follow-on proposal from the French/Russian/German group? How can the US/UK diplomats let them get away with making no proposal for follow on?
Good questions. Given their purely oppositional stance, its hard to see how the FRG axis can be said to be acting in good faith.
4854. PelleNilsson - 3/13/2003 12:44:50 PM
Yes, but then it was Eisenhower who put a damp cloth on British/French/Israeli ambitions.
4855. Wombat - 3/13/2003 12:50:37 PM
Jeez Louise:
The U.S. and its allies should offer a resolution that gives the Iraqis three months to account for and/or destroy its WMD. Use benchmarks such as those proposed by the Brits, to ensure that Iraq takes/refuses to take concrete actions toward disarmament during that time. Failure to meet these benchmarks will trigger an invasion when the three-month period expires.
4856. concerned - 3/13/2003 12:54:10 PM
Temperatures will be at their yearly peak then and I understand that would create serious difficulties for the use of the hazmat suits required for Allied forces if any BC WMD are deployed by Saddam.
4857. judithathome - 3/13/2003 1:00:38 PM
It will easily be 130° by then, according to that liberal rag NPR.
4858. Wombat - 3/13/2003 1:01:01 PM
I am sure that the military can work around that; their contingency planning is better than the Bush administration's.
If it is that major a problem, then extend the time period to six months.
4859. PelleNilsson - 3/13/2003 1:02:13 PM
Wombat
And what will happen then? Inspectors are withdrawn and sanctions lifted?
4860. judithathome - 3/13/2003 1:03:44 PM
Wombat, you can't work around being in a Hazmat suit in hot weather. People passed out just exhibiting them in a lighted studio; my husband said his troops frequently passed out wearing them in exercises in Germany where the weather is very mild.
4861. Wombat - 3/13/2003 1:05:42 PM
Pelle:
Given Iraq's record, I very much doubt that Iraq would be able/willing to meet these conditions.
4862. vantheman - 3/13/2003 1:06:38 PM
blue.
4863. PelleNilsson - 3/13/2003 1:24:18 PM
So your proposal is essentially a PR exercise? I don't think it would work. At the end of the period we would be back at the same hassle as now. It's not really about Iraq, It's about the Bush administration's inept diplomacy.
4864. vantheman - 3/13/2003 1:32:44 PM
France is the ninth-largest trading partner of the United States, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Let's see what it is five years from now.
4865. Wombat - 3/13/2003 1:51:15 PM
Pelle:
The choice seems to have boiled down to going to war without the imprimatur of a Security Council resolution (bad) or going along with an inspection regime that may have no end, and keep Saddam in power and sanctions in place (worse). A resolution that appears reasonable to all except the French, the Russians, and the Iraqis, that can gain the approval of the undecided countries, will show that the U.S. really is going the extra mile, however unlikely it is to survive a French or Russian veto. A partial fig leaf is better than none at all.
4866. PelleNilsson - 3/13/2003 2:00:50 PM
I'm terribly ambivalent about the whole shambuckle (©stostosto) but my gut feeling is that postponing the day of reckoning will not solve anything.
4867. vanTHEman - 3/13/2003 2:40:50 PM
British Prime Minister Tony Blair called in Ian Duncan-Smith, head of the Conservative party and thus leader of the opposition, to inform him Thursday that French President Jacques Chirac was "completely intransigent...(and) that second resolution is now probably less likely than at any time before." More than that, Blair now believes this has become so personal that Chirac is out to destroy his political career. The two men have never got on, and had a furious exchange late last year with Chirac spluttering "I have never been spoken to like that." But the feud has now become white hot.
4868. concerned - 3/13/2003 3:27:00 PM
Great. Rabid frogs.
4869. downtown LB - 3/13/2003 6:06:47 PM
My kindgom for the Monty Python crowd to be around now....... can you IMAGINE the skits??
They'd be so bad, the frogs would probably declare war alright, on Britian.
4870. Dubai Vol - 3/13/2003 9:01:58 PM
Wombat:
"The U.S. and its allies should offer a resolution that gives the Iraqis three months to account for and/or destroy its WMD. "
They already did that.
In 1991
4871. Cellar Door - 3/13/2003 9:06:56 PM
When will the U.S.get rid of its WOMDs?
4872. judithathome - 3/13/2003 9:13:13 PM
Next week....in Iraq.
4873. Al D - 3/13/2003 9:16:23 PM
Before the Gulf War we were assured by pundits that thousands of G.I's would be coming home in body bags, that we would be mired down as in Viet Nam, blah, blah, blah. Before we attacked Afganistan we were assured we would be defeated just as the U.S.S.R and England were, that tens of thousands of Afgens and G.I.'s would die, that the Afgans would hate us, never give in, the terrain could not be conquered, blah, blah, blah.
Amazingly, they were wrong in both cases. Well, yeah, we defeated the Taliban, but we didn't get UBL or Mohammed Omar, and Afgan is not Democratic, like Western countries. And women don't have the same rights as western countries.
Barbara Boxer gave Karzi hell about women's rights in Afgnistan. Karzi shot back, Women in my country wouldn't know what you are talking about. What we need is education. (forgive the paraphrase)
Now the same pundits are warning or the dire consequensces of going it alone, as if having France's blessing would assure that all would work out fine.
Get real, history is written by the winners, and if Bush and Blair are as successful as it looks like they will be, the pundits will once again prove to be wrong. It not, they can bask in the glory of Bush and Blair's defeat as they do into the dust bin of history.
4874. downtown LB - 3/13/2003 9:16:28 PM
Cellar,
When we begin to torture the kids of those in opposition.
when we take some of our VX gasses, and test them out on the people of Maine, or Iowa.
When we stop sending billions f dollars around the globe in aid,
And when dissenters like yourself end up as vulture feed in the death valley.
4875. judithathome - 3/13/2003 10:17:18 PM
My but you have a great deal of bitterness toward those who don't think as you do...I haven't seen the same sort of attitude toward you from those of us who are here.
Why do think that is, LB?
4876. Edmund Dantes - 3/13/2003 10:21:15 PM
As usual, Punch-drunk Judy misses the mark. What downtown LB is saying is that the US need not give up our WMD until we abuse them the way Saddam the Leftist Hero has done.
Speaking of Hollywood idiots
"Some celebrities are at least honest about their hypocrisy. Comedian Janeane Garofalo was blunt in explaining why Hollywood types didn't protest any of Mr. Clinton's military ventures: 'It wasn't very hip.'"
4877. judithathome - 3/13/2003 10:27:48 PM
I knew what he was saying. He's obviously been reading your playbook. I just think it odd he has too insult everyone; it ought to be enough he is on the "right" side.
But you oughta know, Mr. Dantes, as you can't seem to let a remark go by without slinging insults, too. Nice habits you've developed there, sonny.
4878. Edmund Dantes - 3/13/2003 10:34:18 PM
I just think it odd he has too insult everyone.
His post didn't insult anyone.
4879. judithathome - 3/13/2003 10:36:45 PM
when dissenters like yourself end up as vulture feed in the death valley.
Possibly not...we report; you decide.
4880. Edmund Dantes - 3/13/2003 10:45:41 PM
How is that insulting? He's answering Cellar's question.
Paraphrase: "Like Saddam Hussein, America will have to give up its WMD when we are a nation in which those who dissent--such as you and Judith--end up as vulture feed."
He's pointing out that not only are we different from Saddam, but if we were like Saddam--a parallel that CD's question implies and which a reasonable American would instead find insulting--then CD couldn't post the tripe he does. However, LB was much gentler than I, and didn't even call it tripe.
What is perjorative about what he said, Judy? Are there any nasty modifiers around the noun "dissenters"? No.
Tough luck, old gal. Try again.
4881. Edmund Dantes - 3/13/2003 10:46:38 PM
perjorative = pejorative
4882. judithathome - 3/13/2003 10:56:04 PM
Oh, why should I? You've got your little robot answers all lined up and you find everything I say so boring and not worth your precious time...and yet you keep responding and keep coming over here and harping on everything I post.
I still think you should just ignore me but you can't seem to pull that off, can you? Why don't you ask for me to be suspended so you won't have to look at my posts? I'm sure you could get the host of this thread to suggest it.
Have a nice evening, Edmund.
4883. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2003 2:06:58 AM
Hey, Anal's back!
Cigars? Cigarettes? Fleet Enima?
Go spank your monkey in the Sex Thread . . . 
4884. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2003 2:21:06 AM
Fleet Enema!
Speaking of the fleet . . .
George W. Queeg — By PAUL KRUGMAN
4885. alistairConnor - 3/14/2003 3:20:59 AM
Message # 4844 Wombat : The "effective" actions taken against the IRA usually led to politically-motivated shrieking about "death squads" and extrajudicial murder, sometimes involving the wrong targets.
Yes indeed, extra-judicial killing is a delicate business to manage in a democracy, because it runs counter to the fundamental principles of human rights and accountability that democratic societies are built on. Nevertheless, we know it can be both necessary and effective in extreme cases. For example, in the 80s, there was a string of deaths of Spanish Basque terrorists in the French Basque hinterland, which, a couple of decades later, were pretty much acknowledged as having been commissioned by the Spanish government of the time, as everyone had always suspected. I was very much against it at the time, but put in historical perspective, I can see the justification for it (in particular, at that time, such people were not extradited from France, because of traditions lingering from the Franco period).
So, in my view, the "shrieking" is vital (and not always "politically motivated" in the sense that you mean), in making sure that the cost of such killings is high, and the targeting highly selective.
And as for airport security in Greece... well yes, I know that Greece is technically part of Europe, but...
4886. Dubai Vol - 3/14/2003 5:26:08 AM
Well, we finally broke down and got cable this week, and I just got my first look at Fox News. Wow. Talk about editorial bias; every time I tune in, some Fox "reporter" is browbeating a person with an anti-war opinion. A French professor over the French stance, a priest over the Pope's stance, and Mike Farrell just for his own stance.
As much as I support war on Iraq, Fox is way over the line on this issue. That's not news it's propaganda. I have to say I'm just appalled that any anti-war people play into their game by appearing on their shows and being the deer in the headlights for such obvious cheap shots.
Yes the anti-war folks are wrong, but even they don't deserve that kind of treatment.
4887. Dubai Vol - 3/14/2003 5:30:55 AM
BTW Wiz
I meant to thank you for actually taking note of my posts and all the calling me a Nazi stuff (comparing me to Goering, IIRC). To be singled out by a Motie of your stature is an honor of sorts. I'd like to thank all the little people who made it possible....
4888. alistairConnor - 3/14/2003 6:21:36 AM
Wombat : A resolution that appears reasonable to all except the French, the Russians, and the Iraqis, that can gain the approval of the undecided countries, will show that the U.S. really is going the extra mile
I'm pretty sure that in such a case, there would be no French or Russian veto. A delay of several months (which the "swinging six" SC nations have been advocating) to allow the disarmament process to progress (or not) would be acceptable to the French, who are really quite desperate to find a compromise. The current French "veto on any ultimatum" stance is a negotiating position, designed to underline the fact that the British deadline resolution is in no way a compromise position, but simply a mechanism for triggering the war.
But we'll never know for sure, will we?
4889. alistairConnor - 3/14/2003 6:26:27 AM
I heard today on the radio, for the first time, that eight votes out of 15 on the SC might be considered enough by the US and the UK, for their resolution.
Obviously, formally speaking, it would be completely worthless, and Russian, French and Chinese "no" votes would not even count as vetos, since the required qualified majority of nine would not be reached. But I guess they're not fussy these days.
If, as seems likely, the resolution is not even put to the vote, this would indicate that they aren't even capable of getting 8 votes; and they will try for a sort of propaganda victory by putting the blame on an imaginary "French veto".
4890. OhioSTOPAS - 3/14/2003 6:28:05 AM
In Message # 4876, Edmund Dantes links to get another article by a Repulibcan/conservative pundit claiming hypocrisy by critics of President Bush's proposed war since these critics did not oppose more limited military action by President Clinton in Iraq and/or Yugoslavia. (It's been a favorite theme of Bush mouthpieces since the Labor Day 2002 launch of Bush's product. See, for example, here.
The short answer - and a short answer is sufficient for this tired bit of lame sophistry - is that the targeted bombings ordered by Clinton were limited actions far short, in casualties and other consequences, of the invasion and occupation proposed by Bush. Eddie, that red fruit with a stem is not an orange no matter how many shills for Bush say that it is.
4891. OhioSTOPAS - 3/14/2003 6:34:44 AM
And - as I've mentioned before - if one were to look for partisan hypocrisy regarding Iraq one could look to those Repub/conservatives in politics and the punditocracy who currently advocate invasion of Iraq, for reasons (Saddam invaded neighbors, gassed the Kurds, wants WMD's, is a brutal dictator) that have existed for over a decade. Why did virtually none of them come to this conclusion before invasion of Iraq became a Republican political issue in mid-2002?
4892. judithathome - 3/14/2003 9:08:32 AM
that eight votes out of 15 on the SC might be considered enough by the US and the UK, for their resolution.
Bush is used to winning without a majority vote. He found out how to do ita couple of years ago with another body having the initals SC.
4893. downtown LB - 3/14/2003 9:20:36 AM
that wasn't "news", that was a talk show host expressing his (their) opinions.
oh brother.
thats like saying every show on CNN is a "news" show.
4894. downtown LB - 3/14/2003 9:22:44 AM
that was for dubai's comments on foxnews.
man I need an edit button.
4895. judithathome - 3/14/2003 9:35:40 AM
that wasn't "news", that was a talk show host expressing his (their) opinions.
What, a sampling of FOX isn't news? What sort of rightie ARE you? FOX is your lodestone, I thought...all of you hold it up as an icon of integrity.
4896. judithathome - 3/14/2003 9:44:16 AM
US, Britian, Spain Plan Summit In Azores
Leaders of the United States, Great Britain and Spain plan to hold a weekend summit aimed at salvaging the U.N. resolution on Iraq, senior Bush administration officials said Friday.
The officials said the summit would be held in the Azores, a group of autonomous Portuguese islands in the North Atlantic.
President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar will attend, a U.S. official said.
Bush and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell are scheduled to speak in the White House Rose Garden about the Iraq situation at 10 a.m. EST Friday
4897. Wombat - 3/14/2003 10:05:55 AM
Alastair:
The case I was referring to was when the SAS killed an IRA bombing team in Gibraltar, which IMO was perfectly justifiable under law. There have been other far more questionable cases that have been rightly criticized.
4898. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2003 10:13:24 AM
4887. Dubai Vol
???
Where & when?
4899. jayackroyd - 3/14/2003 10:19:43 AM
From the invitation-only press conference:
As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the votes?
BUSH: Well, first, I don't think — it basically says that he is in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says.
And it's hard to believe anybody saying he isn't in defiance of 1441 because 1441 said he must disarm.
And yes, we'll call for a vote.
QUESTION: No matter what?
No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council.
And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
NYTimes, today:
U.S. May Abandon U.N. Vote on Iraq, Powell Testifies
4900. alistairConnor - 3/14/2003 10:32:35 AM
In any case, a resolution "implicitly authorizing" an attack on Iran isn't worth a sack of shit, in legal terms.
The only thing that constitutes a UN authorisation for the use of force is a resolution which calls on members to use "all possible means" (or whatever the phrase is) to carry out the SC's will. There is not the slightest chance of a majority for such a resolution at the moment, and anything Blair can cook up to get a majority will be nothing like an authorisation for war. Next week's war will be in defiance of the UN.
Depending on one's point of view, either that's a big deal or it isn't.
4901. jayackroyd - 3/14/2003 10:55:43 AM
Next week's war will be in defiance of the UN.
Yes, that is clearly the case. Disastrous diplomatic managment by the administration. Better to have done it unilaterally from the git-go, even with the possible loss of British support.
And there's still North Korea, plugging away at getting their bomb facility back on line.
4902. Cellar Door - 3/14/2003 11:00:05 AM
Democracy in Iraq? THE STATE DEPARTMENT says it's not gonna happen!
4903. concerned - 3/14/2003 11:08:07 AM
Re. 4901 -
That's not the case. Not only does UN Resolution 1441 by itself provide authorization for a military response, hostilities in the original Gulf War ended in 1991 with nothing more than a formal cease fire that is and has been contingent on Iraq disarming.
4904. jayackroyd - 3/14/2003 11:15:33 AM
Yes, that is the fallback line they are parroting. If that were so, then they need not have gone to the UN. They certainly felt they needed the UN resolution to go forward. Perhaps only to assuage the UK, but nonetheless they went to the UN.
This result is a dramatic undercutting of UN authority and relevance. It's pretty clear that they didn't do this on purpose. More and more, this looks like an imperialist war by a budding hegemon. And we all we have to fall back on is the word of someone who changes his tune on a weekly basis.
"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote....And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam."
And he expects the rest of the world to believe him when he says freedom and democracy for Iraq are the US goals? He can't even keep his word on a matter as simple as this.
4905. concerned - 3/14/2003 11:34:02 AM
Re. 4904 -
I maintain that it is highly irresponsible for certain UNSC member nations to be trying to hang the US and GB out to dry after authorizing the deployment of a quarter of a million troops around Iraq, which is what the reality of the situation is.
It is the Allies who are behaving consistently with both the intent and letter of the pertinent UN Resolutions and countries such as France and Germany who, having virtually reversed their positions since voting for 1441, are sacrificing the whole UN effort wrt Iraq to their programs of national and political aggrandizement.
All this talk about 'US hegemonism and imperialism' is spurious, inconsistent, factually baseless and nothing more than sound-bite propaganda intended for the credulous, unknowledgable and those with limited attention spans.
4906. concerned - 3/14/2003 11:36:21 AM
Blame any UN 'undercutting' on France, Germany and Russia wrt Iraq, for there is where the responsibility lies.
4907. Dubai Vol - 3/14/2003 11:42:48 AM
Wiz:
4684
:p
4908. Wombat - 3/14/2003 11:43:39 AM
While the motives for the Bush administration's move against Iraq are at best questionable and inconsistent, only one country in this whole mess has consistently been in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. That country is Iraq.
It is not the U.S. that is undercutting the UN, it is Iraq, the French and the Russians, the latter two which have had long-standing and continuing political and economic ties with Saddam, and who have actively attempted to sabotage almost every UN resolution pertaining to Iraq.
4909. Dubai Vol - 3/14/2003 11:45:42 AM
concerned
I favor the "limited attention span" theory
4910. Cellar Door - 3/14/2003 11:53:09 AM
A picture is worth a thousand words
4911. concerned - 3/14/2003 12:02:33 PM
Blame France particularly which has claimed that it would veto any attempt to impose 'serious consequences' on Iraq.
4912. Macnas - 3/14/2003 12:08:35 PM
re 4908
That would be a valid point, but the U.S. has been sabotaging resolutions against Israel for quite some time.
4913. concerned - 3/14/2003 12:16:19 PM
How can you sabotage a nonbinding resolution, which is what all the ones against Israel ever were?
4914. concerned - 3/14/2003 12:16:08 PM
"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!" ---Jay Leno
4915. robertjayb - 3/14/2003 12:34:45 PM
Wots this? Dubya and Tony taking the day off to solve the Palestinian/Israeli troubles?
Could they be doing a little sidestep? Is this a DEEVersion?
4916. Wombat - 3/14/2003 1:10:00 PM
Re Leno:
Actually, they did, but never mind.
4917. Edmund Dantes - 3/14/2003 1:40:59 PM
Re 4890:
"The United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We'd like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. Think how many people can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax. And think about how it's not just a question of whether Saddam Hussein might put them on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it to some city of people he wanted to destroy. Think about all the terrorists and drug runners and other bad actors that could just parade through Baghdad to pick up their stores if we don't take the strongest possible action.
"I far prefer the United Nations. I far prefer the inspectors. I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing. But if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. And that is not a threat....
"I don't want to have to explain to my grandchildren why we took a powder on what we think is a very serious biological and chemical weapons program, potentially, by a country that has already used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds -- their own people."
George W. Bush? Nope, Bill Clinton, Jim Lehrer Interview, 1998.
4918. concerned - 3/14/2003 1:43:45 PM
It's hypocritical and absolutely unprincipled for France, who feels no compunction at its repeated violations of the UN Resolution sanctioning Iraq, to use the UNSC to try to create an impossible situation for others who are attempting to resolve the UN standoff with Saddam.
4919. Edmund Dantes - 3/14/2003 1:43:53 PM
Bill Clinton said that in 1998 when inspectors had been in Iraq for seven years. In the intervening four and a half years, the inspectors were pulled out and Iraq had no inspections.
Question for Ohio: What happened to all the stuff Clinton was talking about in 1998 while inspections were going on?
Did Saddam destroy it the minute the inspectors left? You really believe he kept it while the inspectors were there, but got rid of it after they left?
4920. concerned - 3/14/2003 1:47:21 PM
I doubt that Ohio has the synaptical reserves to process that question.
4921. magoseph - 3/14/2003 1:53:43 PM
synaptical?
4922. AceofSpades - 3/14/2003 2:00:12 PM
Ohio,
You claim the reason that Bush needs UNSC approval, while Clinton did not, is that Bush is conducting a "different" type of military action.
Right?
Okay. Then I suppose you will of course admit Bush has the right to conduct 77 days of aerial bombing of Iraq, with the threat of introducing Ground troops if bombing alone does not dislodge Saddam.
Just like Clinton did with Milosevic.
Right?
4923. Wombat - 3/14/2003 2:04:31 PM
Well, look what the cat dragged in.
4924. Cellar Door - 3/14/2003 2:27:25 PM
The "Perfect World" must be boring him.
4925. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2003 2:44:54 PM
Vol- I do indeed owe you an apology and I do sincerely apologize.
My post wasn't intended as an attack on you, but rather on the words I read which reminded me of the current obfuscate, blame & evade parrot-speak. I also misread the last part of your quote.
Nevertheless, people aren't opposed to getting rid of Saddam— they are opposed to the gangster methodology that is about to be used in accomplishing that task—that's the Goering part.
And boy, did I do a dumb thing: I put your post # in the "Posts per page box"-- it crashed my machine every time I tried to log in!
4926. Wombat - 3/14/2003 2:49:18 PM
What's more "gangster-ish," sending in hit-squads or subverting his henchmen to kill him (while maintaining something like the current system in place), or invading and replacing the current Baathist totalitarian system with something more representative?
4927. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2003 2:52:54 PM
Killing thousands of innocent kids for "freedom."
4928. Wombat - 3/14/2003 2:58:06 PM
So Saddam killing his thousands to stay in power while denying "freedom" to Iraqis is OK with you?
4929. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2003 3:10:31 PM
Wombat's question deserves an answer. Saddam's policies are actually killing thousands through the combination of malnutrition and disease. Infants, in particular.
4930. Wombat - 3/14/2003 3:19:47 PM
It should be noted that most estimates on the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result of Desert Storm agree upon a figure of about 3,500. The much larger figures thrown around may well be accurate, but they are due to malnutrition and poor water quality which are caused primarily by Saddam's refusal to accept the UN oil-for-food program for years after Desert Storm, and when finally accepting the program, diverting a large proportion of the income from it to his own priorities (which do not include his concern for the welfare of Iraqis).
4931. Wombat - 3/14/2003 3:22:44 PM
Iraq can also import medicine under the program, although one wonders why dying babies need atropine (an antidote to nerve gas, which Iraq does not possess, but may use).
4932. Dubai Vol - 3/14/2003 3:26:31 PM
Gee whiz, Wiz I wasn't fishing for an apology-my soldiers used to call me much worse things when I wasn't around, and they LIKED me.
I'll say this: if anybody gives a credible method for removing Saddam short of war, I'll listen, but "continuing sanctions" and "more inspections" just isn't going to do it. Twelve years of failure shows that, IMO.
4933. concerned - 3/14/2003 3:37:49 PM
Kurd PM: French, Russians to lose Iraq oil
Post Saddam Iraq should start with a clean slate, with the idea that the illegitimate Saddam government's contracts need not be honored. Extend this to all contracts between the new Iraqi government and France, Germany and Russia.
4934. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2003 3:39:50 PM
How is Saddam's government illegitimate?
4935. concerned - 3/14/2003 4:16:48 PM
It's a totalitarian government that does not honor its constitution, exiles or executes political opponents and relies on referendums instead of elections to maintain the Baath Party's stranglehold on the country.
4936. concerned - 3/14/2003 4:30:30 PM
Of course, we already know that, to the likes of France, Germany and Russia a totalitarian dictatorship is often to be preferred to a democratic form of government.
4937. magoseph - 3/14/2003 5:04:31 PM
What nonsense, concerned, not worthy of you.
4938. OhioSTOPAS - 3/14/2003 5:08:02 PM
Magoseph, evidently you've never met "concerned".
4939. Cellar Door - 3/14/2003 5:11:19 PM
"It's a totalitarian government that does not honor its constitution, exiles or executes political opponents and relies on referendums instead of elections to maintain the Baath Party's stranglehold on the country."
Substitute "Republican" for "Baath" and you've got the Good Ol" U.S. of Assholes.
4940. magoseph - 3/14/2003 5:22:01 PM
Ohio, I guess I don't know him after five years of reading his posts. To even suggest what he wrote about France surprised me so.
4941. judithathome - 3/14/2003 5:32:56 PM
Yes, this is just what we need, cooler heads prevailing in at this time:
She Has A Bone To Pick With France
WASHINGTON -- First it was french fries and french toast. Now the bones of U.S. servicemen are being dragged into the conflict between France and the United States over war in Iraq.
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, plans to introduce a bill today proposing that the families of the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen buried in France and Belgium be allowed to dig up their remains and have them shipped home.
"The remains of our brave servicemen should be buried in patriotic soil, not in a country that has turned its back on the United States and on the memory of Americans who fought and died there," Brown-Waite said.
4942. judithathome - 3/14/2003 5:33:25 PM
Strike "in".
4943. OhioSTOPAS - 3/14/2003 5:33:41 PM
Edmund Dantes, (Message # 4919):
"Question for Ohio: What happened to all the stuff Clinton was talking about in 1998 [Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons] while inspections were going on?
"Did Saddam destroy it the minute the inspectors left? You really believe he kept it while the inspectors were there, but got rid of it after they left?"
No, what would make you think I believe that?
I don't know what Iraq has. That's why we need inspectors.
4944. OhioSTOPAS - 3/14/2003 5:45:00 PM
Ace of Spades, Message # 4922:
"Then I suppose you will of course admit Bush has the right to conduct 77 days of aerial bombing of Iraq, with the threat of introducing Ground troops if bombing alone does not dislodge Saddam.
"Just like Clinton did with Milosevic.
"Right?"
Wrong. The NATO airstrikes were not to “dislodge” Milosevic, but to induce Serbian troops to withdraw from Kosovo and end the humanitarian catastrophe there. Serbia eventually withdrew, and the bombing stopped.
If, say, Iraqi troops were to go to northern Iraq and start slaughtering Kurds, I would support bombing Iraqi targets to compel the troops to withdraw. What makes you think I wouldn’t? I'm for stopping catastrophes, not starting them.
4945. wabbit - 3/14/2003 5:50:20 PM
Judith,
Has there ever been a sanction in either France or Belgium against bringing the remains of these men home for burial? Honestly, someone needs to bitchslap this broad, and soon.
4946. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2003 5:51:23 PM
4930. Wombat It should be noted that most estimates on the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result of Desert Storm agree upon a figure of about 3,500.
Bullshit--those are administration estimates!
WASHINGTON -- Eighty-seven per cent of civilian deaths caused by the Gulf War have occurred since the war ended, according to casualty estimates released by Greenpeace on July 23.
Greenpeace also estimates that 62,400 to 99,400 civilians died as a direct result of the bombing of Iraq and economic sanctions. The document shows that the best estimate of Iraqi deaths through July 15 ranges from 162,400 to 219,400.
The new estimates are released on the heels of a Defense Department interim report to Congress on the military conduct of the Gulf War which carefully steps around an Iraqi casualty estimate. It stated: “Careful targeting and expert use of technological superiority -- including precision guided munitions -- throughout the strategic air campaign minimized collateral damage and casualties to the civilian population”.
The Greenpeace estimate stands in stark contrast to an absolute lack of interest in an official government estimate of Iraqi casualties. “How can the Pentagon say it was able to minimise Iraqi casualties when it continues to refuse to estimate the number of people who died?”, William M. Arkin, Greenpeace International military research director, said.
The Greenpeace report found that destruction to Iraqi civilian infrastructure -- such as electrical power grids and water treatment plants -- led to the bulk of the civilian casualties through epidemics and starvation. Desperate food and medicine shortages persist, and medical treatment is inadequate and aggravated by shortages of electricity throughout the country. -- Greenpeace/Pegasus
4947. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2003 5:51:44 PM
Don't you people read the links that are provided here?
A classified State Department report expresses deep skepticism that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.
4948. concerned - 3/14/2003 6:01:37 PM
Re. 4937 -
Maybe I stretched, but just a little. After all, you don't have to go back too far to find totalitarian Nazi and Communist governments in two of the three, and France has made it clear that it cares much less for the rights of the Iraqi people than it does about its oil and weapons contracts with Saddam.
4949. concerned - 3/14/2003 6:04:32 PM
Re. 4947 -
Everybody's entitled to his opinion, but I'm just thinking of all those dire predictions that Allied forces would suffer the same fate that everybody else had in Afghanistan since Alexander the Great.
4950. Macnas - 3/14/2003 6:27:13 PM
re 4949
I think thats because the allies are not trying to control the whole country, or even major parts of it, which is what the British and the Russians tried to do.
Even now, with considerable military presense, Kabul is a dangerous place, where shootings are commonplace.
But it's a fair point, I for one expected that the allies would have far greater problems than they had. Use of airpower for bombardment and transport worked, but in particular utilising the opposition forces to do most of the leg work. I don't know that such a thing would be applicable in Iraq.
And while I do see the odd post about the willingness of the Iraq forces to surrender, it may be enlightening to read the history of the Iran-Iraq war, which takes first place in contemporary conflict for ferocity and lives lost.
4951. Cellar Door - 3/14/2003 6:30:05 PM
4952. concerned - 3/14/2003 6:36:29 PM
Re. 4950-
My feeling is that the Iraqi people, with at least some experience with democracy, will support a representative government with fewer difficulties than the Afghani people have so far.
4953. concerned - 3/14/2003 6:41:07 PM
Re. 4951 -
Myself, I'm much more concerned about those old crushed fossils beneath the ANWR than whatever might be under Iraqi soil, since that all's going to wind up in Yurrup, anyway.
4954. concerned - 3/14/2003 6:43:48 PM
Re. 4950 -
Doesn't it seem quite likely to you that Allied forces would be virtually at the gates of Baghdad within a day or two of the beginning of formal hostilities? At that point, things might get somewhat trickier.
4955. Macnas - 3/14/2003 6:44:37 PM
re 4952
Thats not the point I was making, but to address it, I would say that to this day many people in Iraq have no real connection with the current government, and democracy as a system will mean nothing to them.
4956. Macnas - 3/14/2003 6:49:17 PM
re 4954
Well if you look at a map, you'll see that that there is'nt a whole pile between the southern border and Baghdad, so yes, a modern mobile army with control of the air should make rapid advance, weather may compromise logistics, but that remains to be seen. Like I said, read up a bit on the Iran-Iraq conflict, they butchered each other for 8 years, they can fight.
4957. concerned - 3/14/2003 6:52:07 PM
Unlike with the Iran/Iraq war, with their supply lines being cut off by the Allies virtually from the getgo, I don't imagine that even the feistiest Iraqi troops will resist for long.
4958. Macnas - 3/14/2003 6:58:30 PM
Look, nobody is in any doubt that the upcoming invasion will not succeed. Iraq's army is still knackered from the Gulf war and even if it was'nt, they would still lose.
But if Baghdad is going to be a FIABU situation, civilian casualties will skyrocket, and I assume that someone wants a few Iraqi citizens left to enjoy the fruits of a democracy.
4959. concerned - 3/14/2003 7:00:33 PM
Well, maybe when they reach Baghdad, Allied forces should give Saddam a final chance to disarm voluntarily;)
4960. concerned - 3/14/2003 7:08:08 PM
Blair's 'frank' phone talk with Chirac
excerpt:
Mr Blair's spokesman said: "The Prime Minister spoke to President Chirac at President Chirac's request.
"President Chirac said he was willing to look at the tests the UK had put down in the United Nations but insisted there were no circumstances in which France would countenance any UN resolution which authorised or implied military action should the tests not be met. And he said he would not accept an ultimatum to Saddam.
"The Prime Minister said that without a credible threat that military action would be used to enforce the will of the United Nations, there would never be the necessary pressure on Saddam to disarm.
"The Prime Minister also pointed out that Resolution 1441 was clear. It gave Saddam a final opportunity and warned of serious consequences if he failed to comply. He had failed to comply yet again, as he had done with previous resolutions, as everyone accepted."
Can you imagine the Gaul (excuse the pun) of ChIraq? The implicit response here is clearly: 'Well, we didn't give a rat's ass when Iraq blew off all the previous UN Sanctions. Why should it be any different this time?'
4961. Macnas - 3/14/2003 7:08:41 PM
And the armed public? and yes most of them are armed, and are most inclined to use them against threat to family and property. The potential for civilian casulaties is high, and therefore the potential for further alienating the Iraqi people is high.
4962. Macnas - 3/14/2003 7:11:59 PM
re 4960
Its my feeling that if it was the U.S. that was against a similar issue, it would act the same way. Simplistic I know, but I really don't care if France get on board or not.
Just like Bush does'nt.
4963. Macnas - 3/14/2003 7:13:06 PM
I'm out, talk again Tuesday (holiday on Monday).
4964. concerned - 3/14/2003 7:13:16 PM
Re. 4961 -
How will the Allies pose any threat to 'family and property' since they will be assiduously avoiding populated areas whenever possible?
4965. concerned - 3/14/2003 7:21:31 PM
Re. 4962 -
In some ways, perhaps. But the US certainly would not stoop to the duplicitous games that Chirac is currently engaged in. The excerpt that I gave above shows just how far out on a limb Chirac is willing to go for no material reason to alienate Blair. That is, unless you consider that he is trying for a totally unprincipled, yet feckless power grab.
4966. concerned - 3/14/2003 7:25:56 PM
Chirac is giving out exactly the kind of attitude here wrt Iraq that created the World Wars.
4967. concerned - 3/14/2003 7:35:03 PM
The way the Chirac is fucking Blair over must be giving even Schoeder second thoughts.
4968. concerned - 3/14/2003 7:35:08 PM
The way the Chirac is fucking Blair over must be giving even Schroeder second thoughts.
4969. concerned - 3/14/2003 7:35:33 PM
The way that....sheesh
4970. Cellar Door - 3/14/2003 7:48:27 PM
4971. concerned - 3/14/2003 8:01:12 PM
How's this? If Saddam won't surrender by the time the Allies reach Baghdad, just hand it over to the Kurds. They'll know what to do about Saddam.
4972. Al D - 3/14/2003 8:13:56 PM
Even now, with considerable military presense, Kabul is a dangerous place, where shootings are commonplace
Do you suppose it is more dangerous than Oakland, Calif.?
4973. RickNelson - 3/14/2003 8:43:30 PM
God cellar- you crack me up.
4974. concerned - 3/14/2003 8:43:37 PM
From AFP, via Babelfish:
Iraq: The minister Frenchwoman of Defense in the Gulf for a message of solidarity
French president Jacques Chirac asked for Friday to his Minister for Defense Michele Alliot-Marie to go Saturday and Sunday in the Gulf to ensure Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the plain Arab Emirates of the solidarity of France.
"One tries to show with the Bush administration all the disadvantages that there is to pass in addition to international legality, but the only thing which can make it change opinion is the American public opinion", declared Mrs. Alliot-Marie.
"We have supports in the American public opinion", it pled, adding that the Prime Minister Tony Blair, who supports the American position, "is repudiated by the British public opinion and by part of its own Labour party".
The American public opinion "expresses fractures more and more openly and perhaps even its opposition" to the war in Iraq, added Mrs. Alliot-Marie, recalling that "Mr. Bush has elections the next year" and that "of the very clear divergences" exist within the American administration on the Iraqi file.
This file was to be approached Saturday by the Ministers for Defense at this meeting in Athens. Those should only note their divergences, but "this meeting is the concrete demonstration that Europe of Defense continues to advance and that it is sufficiently ripe to make the share of the things", judged Mrs. Alliot-Marie at the end of the first day of debates which related to the European capacities as regards defense, the replacement at the beginning of April of the force of NATO in Macedonia by a European force and the similar prospect for the force in Bosnia in 2004.
4975. concerned - 3/14/2003 8:43:52 PM
Mrs. Alliot-Marie, who took part Friday in the informal meeting of the Ministers for Defense in Athens, announced with the press that it would go in the Gulf as of the exit of this meeting Saturday midday. She must join Paris Sunday evening.
"I will bring a personal message of the president to the highest authorities of these countries to say to them, during this difficult time for them, all our solidarity and our intention, if they wished it, to implement the agreements of defense which we have with these countries, if they have concerns".
This voyage, which will coincide with the behaviour Sunday in the Azores (Portugal) of a top between the American president George W Bush, British the Prime Minister Tony Blair and the head of the Spanish government José Maria Aznar, does not constitute a change of the position of France, head of file of the opponents to an immediate armed intervention in Iraq.
"France does not modify its position at all and it reaffirms its friendship and its solidarity with these countries (of the Gulf) with which we have privileged bonds", said Mrs. Alliot-Marie, who had already gone to Saudi Arabia at the end of October, like in Qatar and in the plain Arab Emirates in December.
France from now on is convinced that only the American public opinion will be able to possibly make change opinion the American president George W Bush in its walk towards the war into Iraq, and the Minister for Defense ensured that the position of France, opposed to any military action in Iraq before the exhaustion of the recourse diplomatic and the inspections of UNO on the ground, has the support of part of the American and English public opinion.
Chirac is starting to be overcome by megalomania, it appears. With France urging Turkey not to cooperate with the Allies and jamming Blair, about the only thing left for Chirac to do is to send troops to Iraq to defend Saddam's regime.
4976. RickNelson - 3/14/2003 8:48:03 PM
I'm finding humour in way to much.
Even that last quip is funny concerned. "defend Saddam's regime", that's a hoot.
4977. concerned - 3/14/2003 8:54:15 PM
I thought the line about French '....agreements of defense...' with SA, etc. was rather humorous.
4978. RickNelson - 3/14/2003 9:00:20 PM
I think their is to much credit given to the American people who may sway the president. This unilateral move will have a unilateral presidential seal of approval. Though their is a majority of Americans who support his move against Saddam.
I've heard the Pres., is meeting Blair and the leader from Spain (?) right now in the Azores. A quick anouncment this late afternoon. I also heard the 101st is nearly supplied with their heavier armor and transports from this evenings news. Seems imminent.
4979. Cellar Door - 3/14/2003 9:36:44 PM
And whatever "leader" we now have in place in Chile as well.
4980. vanTHEman - 3/14/2003 9:39:48 PM
NOT GOOD ENOUGH FAT GIRL
Statement from Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks
March 14, 2003
"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American."
4981. judithathome - 3/14/2003 9:42:59 PM
Van, where did you find that?
4982. concerned - 3/14/2003 11:04:44 PM
Just how bad is this guy that Jacques ChIraq is going balls to the wall to defend while trying his froggy little best to overthrow Blair & GWB?
Pollack asserts that Saddam Hussein is one of the worst tyrants of the past 50 years. He notes that the United Nations' Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iraq says that Saddam Hussein's regime is comparable to the World War II-era Soviet Union under Stalin and Nazi Germany under Hitler. Saddam Hussein is reputed to have killed more than a million Iraqis -- his own people -- a figure which must be compared with Iraq's population of about 24 million. Pollack also notes that Saddam Hussein is considered to have attempted genocide against both Iraqi Kurds and Marsh Arabs, which constitute crimes against humanity.
In addition to the human rights considerations, of course, Pollack emphasized the strategic rationale for armed intervention --Saddam Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and his ongoing, decades-long quest to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. Pollack considers Saddam Hussein uniquely dangerous among contemporary rulers for his view of nuclear weapons not as a defensive assurance against outside attack, but rather as an offensive enabling factor allowing him to pursue a foreign policy of aggression and conquest.
The French were pretty cozy with the Nazis and don't like Jews much either.
4983. Cellar Door - 3/14/2003 11:08:52 PM
Your sympathies with the national Socialists have been much remarked-upon Tommy D.
And your regard for the Jews is, as they say, provisional.
Try and scare up a video of Melville's Army of Shadows
4984. Edmund Dantes - 3/14/2003 11:14:30 PM
Vietnam veteran Gen Conway told them Saddam was facing four options.
The first three were that he could TURN over his weapons, GO into exile or be KILLED by his own people.
Spelling out the fourth, the General said bluntly: “If that doesn’t happen WE are going to kill him.”
Head Saddamite in deep doo-doo
4985. Edmund Dantes - 3/14/2003 11:19:55 PM
NOT GOOD ENOUGH FAT GIRL
Are you calling this fat? 
When did Meatloaf join the Chicks?
4986. concerned - 3/14/2003 11:26:54 PM
re. 4983 -
cllrdr -
Why don't you just stop lying about me, you Goebbels wannabe? The strong similarities that Leftists such as yourself have with the Nazis has always made me ill.
4987. Cellar Door - 3/14/2003 11:27:02 PM
I know THIS is more your speed, Count.
4988. concerned - 3/14/2003 11:30:05 PM
cllrdr - your idol Ramsey Clark has a record of defending Nazis out of court.
Excuse me. I'm going to puke.
4989. Edmund Dantes - 3/14/2003 11:33:08 PM
Isn't that the same link you posted in 4970, Basement Door?
Don't you think airing your masturbatory fantasy pics once is enough?
And then Wizzo wonders why no one clicks on lefty links. Sorry, but watching Bin Laden hump the American president doesn't give everyone a woody, sport.
4990. concerned - 3/14/2003 11:34:04 PM
And everybody knows that 'LW' is virtually synonymous with 'anti-Semite' anymore.
4991. concerned - 3/14/2003 11:43:51 PM
portrait of cllrdr: 
4992. concerned - 3/15/2003 4:27:12 AM
4993. vanTHEman - 3/15/2003 7:12:46 AM
Huh? Where does the UN find these fruits? Any comments from Blix about Saddam trying to burn down the Kuwait oil fields?
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday he's more worried about global warming than war. "The environment - that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict," the 74-year-old Swede told MTV. Blix has come under fire by President Bush's aides who consider him weak and was called on the carpet last week for underplaying the discovery of illegal drones in Iraq that could deliver chemical weapons. In the MTV interview, Blix criticized Bush for nixing the Kyoto global environmental agreement early...
4994. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 9:55:14 AM
Ramsey Clark my "idol"? As usual you know nothing about me but pretend that you do.
But you know nothing about history either -- and no pretense is involved in your rank ignorance.
4995. downtown LB - 3/15/2003 10:05:33 AM
I do know that someone took the time and effort to make that cutesy little picture you posted cellar, and I'd pretty much bet the farm that;
a: they in no way find it perverse, let alone disturbing,
b: they believe their political views are as good as their humor,
and 3: they are wrong on both counts, and I would be profoundly embarassed if I had any connection to posting the thing.
It was idiotic, and you did nothing but hurt your "cause", (that is to say, your credibility). Which, from the short time I've been reading here, needs all the help it could get.
4996. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 10:19:48 AM
I'm quite used to being patronized in here "downtown." You're not very good at it.
Meanwhile -- this BREAKING NEWS:
Rush Limbaugh comes out in opposition to War with Iraq!
4997. Dubai Vol - 3/15/2003 10:28:42 AM
Ladies!
Epithets! Personalities!
Handbags at dawn, then?
Concerned, you and I clashed about extremist views on my first post. We agree that military action is the only way to achieve the goal of Iraqi disarmament, but we part company in labeling the anti-war pukes evil or traitorous.
As for you anti-war pukes-
Naive, romantic, unrealistically idealistic. Choose your epithet, but gosh folks, if you think there is any way out of the impasse brought about by sanctions and inspections trying to coerce Saddam into compliance, I just think you are living in a dream world. More time? More inspections? It's been twelve years. Inspections have been manifestly unsuccessful.
I said it 12 years ago-who suffers under sanctions? Not Saddam. Not his military. Ordinary people, that's who suffer. ANd then who gets the blame for the suffering of the ordinary people? Not Saddam, who could end the sanctions instantly by actively cooperating and disarming, but the "evil" people who imposed the sanctions. Who IIRC are the UN.
I will continue later, but now I have to get dinner ready.
4998. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 11:25:22 AM
4999. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 11:42:19 AM
It was idiotic, and you did nothing but hurt your "cause", (that is to say, your credibility).
Well, what can you say about the credibility of someone who posts dishonest links such as 4996.
5000. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 11:42:34 AM
Big time millennial.
5001. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 12:34:53 PM
Not dishonest in the slightest. Merely a humorous attempt (IT WAS A JOKE! IT WAS A JOKE!) to get you knee-jerk trogs to read something that hasn't been approved by L. Brent Bozell.
And in that regard. . .
5002. OhioSTOPAS - 3/15/2003 1:20:06 PM
Weblogger "TBOGG" (http://www.tbogg.blogspot.com) received an e-mail that explains it all:
"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?
"Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.
"Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them."
5003. judithathome - 3/15/2003 1:41:19 PM
Thanks, Ohio, for posting that. (I think I am supposed to thank people for links I like, in order to prove later that I did indeed like them.) So thank you very much!!
5004. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 1:46:06 PM
Tbogg is a Prince!
F For Fake
5005. Al D - 3/15/2003 2:40:43 PM
Wise words from the President
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors. I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.
As the Brits say, here, here!
5006. Al D - 3/15/2003 2:43:06 PM
More wise words from the President.
We will continue to enforce the no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the North. Now, let me say to all of you here, as all of you know, the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes it's the only answer. You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world, and should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command. No military action, however, is risk free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.
Ya just got to love that guy.
5007. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 2:43:56 PM
As Tony Blair says, you mean.
The Brits say "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!"
5008. Al D - 3/15/2003 2:44:50 PM
Wise words continue. 5009. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 2:47:40 PM What we must know about the 21st is that the U.S. no longer seeks to disguise its imperial ambitions. 5010. Al D - 3/15/2003 2:47:42 PM and yet more 5011. Al D - 3/15/2003 2:48:37 PM God willing that is. 5012. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 2:48:47 PM God is a great excuse for alot of things. 5013. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 2:50:40 PM Here's a perfect example of "God" in action. 5014. Al D - 3/15/2003 2:51:07 PM Cellar 5015. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 2:51:37 PM No. 5016. judithathome - 3/15/2003 3:08:03 PM C'mon Al...this is such a chickenshit thing to do. You know as well as I do that Clinton said all that. 5017. Al D - 3/15/2003 3:19:15 PM Judith 5018. judithathome - 3/15/2003 3:21:53 PM I didn't lurk over there for it; I googled the first line because I figured you were up to something. 5019. magoseph - 3/15/2003 3:21:54 PM All one has to do, Al, is to google the text you just posted. 5020. magoseph - 3/15/2003 3:22:54 PM I always google the whole thing, Judith. 5021. judithathome - 3/15/2003 3:22:58 PM Ha! Look at the time stamp on that x-post, Magos! 5022. magoseph - 3/15/2003 3:23:19 PM Just to be certain. 5023. magoseph - 3/15/2003 3:28:26 PM What do you do, Judith, get in my mind or my computer? 5024. judithathome - 3/15/2003 3:34:10 PM I'm sure Al thinks we're lying...he probably thinks we're fat, too! ha! And that Arky doesn't wear shoes. 5025. Al D - 3/15/2003 3:37:10 PM Judith 5026. magoseph - 3/15/2003 3:45:56 PM I am an exception, Al. I am for the war on Irak and I do not like Bush. 5027. judithathome - 3/15/2003 3:51:32 PM It doesn't matter whether I think he did or he didn't, the Republicans evidently didn't think he did. 5028. Al D - 3/15/2003 4:04:05 PM Judith 5029. judithathome - 3/15/2003 4:19:32 PM Al, I'll keep in touch and we'll decide on a firm date closer to November. 5030. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 4:33:55 PM The war on Iiraq has nothing to do with any Weapons of Mass Destruction save our own. The gloces are off and we are now prepared to become a murderous imperail power without the figleaf of "Democratic governments" confected for us by the CIA and the corporatiosn they serve. 5031. ElliottRW - 3/15/2003 4:45:04 PM Are you guys having dinner in Iraq? 5032. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2003 4:47:35 PM AlD: As the Brits say, here, here! 5033. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 5:08:37 PM Well that's certainly part of it, Elliot RW. But the main thrust is World Conquest, plain and simple. 5034. downtown LB - 3/15/2003 5:20:27 PM I haven't even begun to patronize, cellar. 5035. alistairconnor - 3/15/2003 5:21:32 PM I thought the line about French '....agreements of defense...' with SA, etc. was rather humorous. 5036. alistairconnor - 3/15/2003 5:40:59 PM Sorry...posting from upthread...5035 was in reference to Con's Message # 4975 5037. vanTHEman - 3/15/2003 5:43:17 PM I want to ask you French folks something: What gives? Why would you prefer to side with a Germany — a country that destroyed you — than countries like the United States and Britain that saved you? 5038. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 5:56:58 PM France has been a player in the Middle East for... let's see... about a thousand years. France was the colonial power in Syria and the Lebanon, among other Arabo-Muslim countries. Americans, whose interest in that part of the world is quite recent (60 years?) seem not to understand that. Maybe it's possible that the French understand the region better than the Cheney gang? 5039. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 5:57:27 PM A man picks up his toys, Van. 5040. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 5:57:43 PM 5041. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 5:58:12 PM Now???? 5042. alistairconnor - 3/15/2003 6:12:36 PM Hey,the van man. 5043. alistairconnor - 3/15/2003 6:18:12 PM 5044. robertjayb - 3/15/2003 6:56:07 PM 5045. magoseph - 3/15/2003 7:11:44 PM In some sites, they already took it out, Robert. 5046. Al D - 3/15/2003 8:15:25 PM I am somewhat amused by the threat that the Arab world will rise up against us if we attack Iraq. When the Mosque in Mecca was attack and taken over by Islamic Fundamentalist, much to the chagrin of the Saudies, who did they get to solve their problem? They just couldn't handle the problem so they got the (are you ready?) the French to fight their battle. Now, if the French are far better warriors than the Arabs, please explain what we have to fear from this great Arab uprising? They are good are terrorism, but we already know that. 5047. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 8:58:18 PM Ah but we're so much better at terrorism than they are, Al. 5048. Al D - 3/15/2003 9:28:56 PM I sure as hell hope so! 5049. robertjayb - 3/15/2003 9:34:21 PM A Lone Ranger alone---no Tontos...Maureen Dowd) 5050. robertjayb - 3/15/2003 9:48:50 PM ...a little less John Wayne...(Thomas Friedman) 5051. Al D - 3/15/2003 10:00:04 PM How about our realities? Was Dowd going on like this when Clinton was talking about what a great threat Saddam and terorism was? All this is just politics. 5052. robertjayb - 3/15/2003 10:59:11 PM Amazing arrogance, awesome incompetence...(Molly Ivins) 5053. concerned - 3/16/2003 1:08:52 AM Dubai - 5054. concerned - 3/16/2003 1:10:41 AM Concerned, you and I clashed about extremist views on my first post. We agree that military action is the only way to achieve the goal of Iraqi disarmament, but we part company in labeling the anti-war pukes evil or traitorous. 5055. concerned - 3/16/2003 1:12:02 AM Btw, Dubai, I'm a political centrist, and not beholden to the political views of either party. Remember that. 5056. concerned - 3/16/2003 1:15:14 AM Actually, Dubai, since you really have no knowledge of my political views, you would be much smarter just to not parade your ignorance online, unless you are just trying to fuck with me. Are you? 5057. concerned - 3/16/2003 1:17:16 AM Well that's certainly part of it, Elliot RW. But the main thrust is World Conquest, plain and simple. 5058. concerned - 3/16/2003 1:23:41 AM re. 5056 - 5059. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2003 3:22:21 AM Alistair 5060. magoseph - 3/16/2003 7:38:42 AM There is a problem with this line of argument: much the same can be said about the British. 5061. judithathome - 3/16/2003 10:16:16 AM This: 5062. judithathome - 3/16/2003 10:33:45 AM Cheney just put it all in plainspeak: suppose Saddam went ahead and destroyed everything he has today. He would just start over doing the same thing again tomorrow. 5063. downtown LB - 3/16/2003 10:45:31 AM The UN is basically a farce of an organization, Judith, so yes, I'd have to say you could call "this whole thing with the UN", a farce. 5064. judithathome - 3/16/2003 11:01:02 AM No, the magic elixer is what is being sold to the American public. 5065. judithathome - 3/16/2003 11:03:40 AM Here's a quote from a friend, who just sent this in an e-mail: 5066. Cellar Door - 3/16/2003 11:21:38 AM LOL! 5067. downtown LB - 3/16/2003 11:22:04 AM While its a cutesy phrase that I'm sure he(she ) has been saving for some time (I'm sure), its pretty much idiotic. 5068. alistairconnor - 3/16/2003 11:26:56 AM There is a problem with this line of argument: much the same can be said about the British. 5069. Cellar Door - 3/16/2003 11:31:21 AM 5070. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 11:47:47 AM Book Bombshell: Iraq Attack Scrubbed for Clinton Golf Game 5071. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 11:48:35 AM "Sir, Mr. Berger is on the line and needs a decision about the proposed attack on Iraq," Lt. Col. Patterson remembers telling the president. 5072. judithathome - 3/16/2003 11:53:10 AM LB, one thing I don't do is see a thug on the street, assume he is going to rob me because I have heard (but not seen) that he has a baseball bat so I go to his home and kill him and all his family in order to insure he won't rob me at some unknown date in the future. 5073. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 11:55:40 AM Book Bombshell: Iraq Attack Scrubbed for Clinton Golf Game 5074. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2003 11:58:47 AM So, Alistair, is your contention then, that France's stand is a result of one thousand years of experience in the Middle East, a cool, objective evaluation of the available alternatives and nothing else? 5075. judithathome - 3/16/2003 12:01:22 PM Van, it might be helpful if you'd learn to link to the article in question instead of posting the entire thing. Especially since it was already discussed yesterday. 5076. alistairconnor - 3/16/2003 12:06:30 PM As you know, Pelle, everyone has multiple motives. I'm genuinely puzzled as to what the predominant motive is on the US side. Depends on which individual we're talking about I guess. 5077. downtown LB - 3/16/2003 12:12:33 PM I don't live on a street. Any thug I see near my home, I assume is to thug-ify me. 5078. Cellar Door - 3/16/2003 12:48:16 PM BOOK BOMBSHELL!!!! 5079. Cellar Door - 3/16/2003 12:48:37 PM "It draws on research and materials that we've been gathering for a long time," says Solomon, author, columnist and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy. 5080. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/16/2003 1:15:15 PM 5085. judithathome - 3/16/2003 1:37:50 PM Looks like tomorrow is D-Day...Bush just said from the Azores: "Tomorrow is a day of truth for the world." 5086. judithathome - 3/16/2003 1:39:20 PM Excuse me, "Tomorrow is moment of truth for the world." 5093. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 3:05:21 PM Great press conference by President Bush. Congratulations!!! 5094. alistairconnor - 3/16/2003 3:09:28 PM Congratulations? I didn't know he read the Mote. 5095. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 3:20:08 PM Time to destroy the Iraqi monster 5096. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2003 4:16:58 PM By sheer coincidence, no doubt, a poster called Rosetta Stone in TPW posted exactly the same cut and paste as vanTHEman did in Message # 5073 5097. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 4:18:42 PM Can Blix be that blind? Or, are all Swedes that stupid? 5098. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2003 4:19:42 PM Alistair 5107. wabbit - 3/16/2003 5:09:54 PM 5108. alistairconnor - 3/16/2003 6:03:22 PM Well, Pelle, what's your view of French motives? We see a lot about France's "base political motives", but what are these exactly? Where is the political advantage for France? Looks like mostly hard knocks so far. 5109. alistairconnor - 3/16/2003 6:06:43 PM I have no doubt that the war, as such, will be quick. I suppose it's always possible that it will be followed by peace. I hope so. But I doubt it. 5110. downtown LB - 3/16/2003 6:16:35 PM I hope he doesn't survive a fatal shot to the head..... 5111. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 7:58:11 PM SUCKERS!! 5112. Cellar Door - 3/16/2003 8:43:11 PM U.S. Biggest Buyer of Iraqi Oil as Market Forces Trump Politics 5113. Marc-Albert - 3/16/2003 8:45:44 PM "As war draws near, the human shields are wrestling with being manipulated by Iraqis and critics alike, who paint... 5114. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 9:26:08 PM And France supports this animal? 5115. OhioSTOPAS - 3/16/2003 10:16:34 PM As opposed to VanTHEMan, who wants to send Americans - Americans other than VanTHEMan, of course - to die to remove him. Big man, Van. 5116. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 10:19:51 PM Today it was reported that a severe earthquakes have occurred in 10 different locations in France. The severity was measured in excess of 10 on the Richter scale. The cause was the 56,681 dead American soldiers buried in French soil rolling over in their graves. According to the American Battle Monuments Commission there are 26,255 Yankee dead from World War I buried in 4 cemeteries in France. There are 30,426 American dead from World War II buried in 6 cemeteries in France. These 56,681 brave American heroes died in their youth to liberate a country which is guilty of shameful... 5117. robertjayb - 3/17/2003 12:14:36 AM Clearing the decks... 5118. concerned - 3/17/2003 4:28:09 AM Remaking Saddam 5119. vanTHEman - 3/17/2003 7:54:11 AM THE message from the Azores summit is that the time for diplomacy will soon end - and that France is shielding Saddam Hussein. At a clear turning point in history, President Bush flew most of the way across the Atlantic to try to bolster embattled British Prime Minister Tony Blair and also to isolate France, which has stymied efforts to get tough on Saddam. 5120. alistairConnor - 3/17/2003 9:27:24 AM Wavering SC nations. There are no wavering SC nations. 5121. vanTHEman - 3/17/2003 9:32:27 AM March 17, 2003 -- AN hour after President Bush announced the United Nations had only one day to agree to the enforcement of U.N. Resolution 1441, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix blithely announced he was considering a trip to Baghdad. "I didn't hear there was an ultimatum," said Blix. Note to Blix: Welcome to history's footnotes..... 5122. alistairConnor - 3/17/2003 10:03:09 AM The Wolfwits/Rumsfeld/Cheney gang have got what they wanted : an American war with an ad-hoc coalition. They hope it will be the first of many. 5123. vanTHEman - 3/17/2003 10:26:18 AM Since many of the Human Shields have left Iraq and gone back to their respective homes, I would like to suggest that there be an organized reunion of these brave (until they realize it's dangerous) souls in a central location in Baghdad one year from today. There they can stand in a liberated Iraq and tell how they tried to stand up against America and keep Saddam Hussein in power. I'm sure the Iraqi people will give them a great reception. 5124. alistairConnor - 3/17/2003 10:37:09 AM I hope the security situation in Iraq, a year from now, will be good enough to enable such a thing. Judging by Afghanistan, that seems unlikely. 5125. vanTHEman - 3/17/2003 10:38:24 AM irony alert 5126. judithathome - 3/17/2003 11:37:49 AM Robin Cook just resigned his position with the British Parliment. CNN 5127. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 11:57:53 AM 5128. jayackroyd - 3/17/2003 12:47:59 PM The New Republic on why transparent lies make for bad diplomacy. 5129. judithathome - 3/17/2003 12:57:23 PM The inspectors are being moved out of Iraq...according to Kofi Anan. CNN 5130. bubbaette - 3/17/2003 1:02:35 PM I don't know that not wanting to rush into war equals being fond of Saddam. 5131. jayackroyd - 3/17/2003 1:39:08 PM I'm with you in your oppositon to the administration's treatment of diplomacy and civil liberties. And lies are lies. Some lying is part of diplomacy, but the stupid, transparent lies the administration was telling to justify the war were extremely counter productive. They worked domestically; people actually believe that Iraq is linked to Al Qaeda. But nobody outside the US bought the lies, which was ruinous for the US attempt at international support. 5132. Wombat - 3/17/2003 1:41:49 PM Re 4946: 5133. PelleNilsson - 3/17/2003 1:47:17 PM A modest prediction. Quantities of biological and chemical weapons will be found. Some people here will then claim that they were planted by the Americans. 5134. Al D - 3/17/2003 2:11:49 PM They could have got the same result, with UN backing. That's what Powell wanted. But they made sure it didn't happen. 5135. Al D - 3/17/2003 2:22:19 PM Denmark regards war resolution as unnecessary 5136. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 2:24:20 PM I have no idea what the real American motiviation is. 5137. uzmakk - 3/17/2003 2:37:50 PM Did anyone hear Colin Powell address the Lady Chaos analysis of about a week ago? 5138. bubbaette - 3/17/2003 2:52:28 PM I'm cynical enough to believe it may have roots in a bid for re-election. 5139. Al D - 3/17/2003 2:58:19 PM Of course, lberals are cynical enough to believe any shit about Bush; that is a given. They also believe that this war is a disaster waiting to happen, that thousands of Americans will die, that tens of thousands of Iraqis will die, that all the world will hate the U.S. and that this will help Republicans keep control of the government in 2004. Somebody make that clear to me, please? 5140. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 3:00:52 PM 5141. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 3:08:24 PM Of course, lberals are cynical enough to believe any shit about Bush; that is a given. 5142. Al D - 3/17/2003 3:19:03 PM You don't agree with the comment? I can't imagine why not, and why is it an insult if it is the truth? Is what follows the first remark also an insult? Two posters, both liberals claim to believe that Bush is pushing for war to effect the 2004 election. How, if the war with Iraq is such a big mistake will it help Bush get elected?,p> 5143. PelleNilsson - 3/17/2003 3:21:03 PM uzmakk!! 5144. Al D - 3/17/2003 3:25:21 PM and very bad man 5145. judithathome - 3/17/2003 3:29:01 PM Well, perhaps the poster can't see as deeply into his heart as some can, Al.... 5146. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 3:46:32 PM Al : Silly comments about Afganistan not being better off deserve no respect. 5147. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 3:48:25 PM OOzmak, we are indeed honoured. 5148. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 3:52:41 PM Pelle : 5149. magoseph - 3/17/2003 3:54:24 PM 5150. Al D - 3/17/2003 4:12:22 PM everybody could have had their Coke and gone home. 5151. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 4:22:31 PM George W. Bush 5152. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 4:23:18 PM 3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them. 5153. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 4:23:43 PM Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). And just like with Afghanistan, we'll forget about what happens to a country after we bomb it 'cause that is just too complex! So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet! 5154. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 4:24:09 PM AlD, 5155. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 4:27:45 PM I would gladly trade my home on Kauai for a month or two in France, but not this year. May better days be ahead. 5156. Al D - 3/17/2003 4:39:15 PM Ms.No 5157. concerned - 3/17/2003 4:42:40 PM Ms. No - 5158. concerned - 3/17/2003 4:43:26 PM Arrrggghhh! 5159. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 4:44:24 PM AlD, 5160. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 4:44:47 PM We'll remember that, Con. I guess that makes Al a liberal. 5161. Wombat - 3/17/2003 4:47:11 PM Al D.: 5162. magoseph - 3/17/2003 4:49:04 PM I would gladly trade my home on Kauai for a month or two in France, but not this year. May better days be ahead. 5163. concerned - 3/17/2003 4:49:29 PM Well, since it appears that the criterion for the mentally halt and lame is that one a conservative if one refrains from dissing GWB personally with every second reference to him, I can understand why people from the Left might mistake my political orientation. But that doesn't mean that doing so is correct. 5164. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 4:50:08 PM cont. to AlD 5165. concerned - 3/17/2003 4:50:21 PM ...that one is... 5166. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 4:50:35 PM cont. to AlD 5167. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 4:53:06 PM Well, Wombat, as you yourself are dubious as to whether Bush will see it through long term, you can perhaps understand why so many people are against starting a war in the first place. Indeed, once the US is in, it will be very difficult to get out. 5168. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 4:56:47 PM Concerned, 5169. judithathome - 3/17/2003 4:57:22 PM When Bush was Governor of Texas but running for President, someone asked him what he was planning to do about an unfortunate situation coming up with the Texas budget and he quipped "I plan to have another job by then" and laughed. 5170. concerned - 3/17/2003 4:57:34 PM Don't forget that the Kyoto protocol was rejected by the US Senate 95-0 during x42's reign because it is, to put it in a word, essentially worthless. 5171. concerned - 3/17/2003 4:59:35 PM Re. 5168 - 5172. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 4:59:57 PM Come you masters of war 5173. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 5:02:14 PM Hey, today was supposed to be the moment of truth. Bush says we have to lay our cards on the table, and we'll see who supports Saddam and who doesn't. 5174. Al D - 3/17/2003 5:03:05 PM Ms. No 5175. concerned - 3/17/2003 5:03:25 PM In fact, I don't know of any evidence that GWB has violated the public trust by using illicit drugs or abusing alcohol, sexually assaulting anybody, etc., etc. since he has been elected to public office. 5176. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/17/2003 5:12:00 PM 5132. Wombat - 3/17/03 6:41:49 PM 5177. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 5:18:30 PM You "don't know of any evidence." 5178. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 5:27:02 PM it won't get much help from the Democrats, speaking of impending elections, since a thrieving economy, given a successful War outcome, dooms the Democrats 5179. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 5:27:31 PM Sorry, that last was to AlD. 5180. judithathome - 3/17/2003 5:29:28 PM They're unorganized, unprepared and have shown themselves unwilling to give clear alternatives to Republican propositions. 5181. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 5:32:04 PM So far it hasn't really mattered much what the rest of the world thought of the US because we had the power and the money to tell them to sod off. 5182. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 5:32:44 PM And my last was to you, Nyetskaya. 5183. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 5:41:42 PM At last -- a REAL man with REAL guts! 5184. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 5:45:48 PM There is a lot of genuine puzzlement about the French position. I'm not sure I've understood all of it myself, but I can try to shed a bit of light. 5185. bubbaette - 3/17/2003 5:49:46 PM Well, since it appears that the criterion for the mentally halt and lame is that one a conservative if one refrains from dissing GWB personally with every second reference to him, I can understand why people from the Left might mistake my political orientation. But that doesn't mean that doing so is correct. 5186. bubbaette - 3/17/2003 5:51:54 PM Ah hahahahahahahaha. Har. Hoo! aheeheeheeheehee. snort teeheeheehee. 5187. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 5:56:16 PM Psychologically, I believe that was a turning point : it was pretty hard for Chirac to back down after that, with remarks from the US about "old Europe", pouring salt in the wounds. What on earth was Rumsfeld thinking? Either he wasn't thinking at all, or he was trying to provoke a showdown. 5188. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 6:06:39 PM (continues... In a day or two, nobody will care about the French position, so I might as well say it now...) 5189. Al D - 3/17/2003 6:07:17 PM Ms. No 5190. robertjayb - 3/17/2003 6:12:35 PM Alistair, 5191. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 6:13:19 PM Cook's anti-war stance wins ovation 5192. Al D - 3/17/2003 6:16:02 PM The above repeat is because I hit the refresh tab. sorry. 5193. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 6:17:03 PM Alistair 5194. concerned - 3/17/2003 6:17:59 PM Re. 5187 - 5195. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 6:20:32 PM Con man: 5196. Ms. No - 3/17/2003 6:21:27 PM Well, we're being sent home from the salt mines early so that we can all listen to the President's address. As usual, I will have to wait for a transcript because I just can't listen to him talk. I get annoyed and then miss the import of what he's saying. 5197. alistairconnor - 3/17/2003 6:23:54 PM Goodnight all. 5198. magoseph - 3/17/2003 6:25:19 PM Bonsoir, Alistair! 5199. concerned - 3/17/2003 6:27:32 PM Re. 5195- 5200. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 6:31:09 PM Objecting to incompetence is incompetent? 5201. concerned - 3/17/2003 6:35:46 PM I see that France has been playing the same game since last year. It does nothing to clarify the argument to point fingers at the US for what France has been consistently attempting all along. Buoyed by popularity at home, Chirac appears to be making the mistake that this somehow translates into the ability to reach his international objectives which include retaining Saddam and enhancing French stature by gambling on nothing more than obstructive, dishonest statecraft and rhetorical devices. 5202. concerned - 3/17/2003 6:39:09 PM Re. 5200 - 5203. robertjayb - 3/17/2003 7:16:22 PM Get out of town! 5204. Al D - 3/17/2003 7:32:56 PM We need wait only 1/2 hour to find out if the above is accurate. 5205. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 8:28:30 PM Pro-War Protesters Do Their Part to Shut Down the Government -- Thanks Guys! 5206. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 8:34:31 PM "The farce was ended, 5207. Wombat - 3/17/2003 8:45:12 PM I wouldn't count on an economic "boom" from the war (assuming Saddam doesn't flee). That might have been the case back when wars lasted for years rather than weeks or months, but we merely have to look at the Gulf War to see what the effect was on the presidency of Bush's dad. 5208. Cellar Door - 3/17/2003 8:57:54 PM This "war" will guarantee that thousands of Iraquis will be murdered by US Wombat. Is you conscience clear on that? 5209. Al D - 3/17/2003 9:00:10 PM but we merely have to look at the Gulf War to see what the effect was on the presidency of Bush's dad. 5210. Wombat - 3/17/2003 9:06:18 PM Cellar: 5211. Al D - 3/17/2003 9:12:26 PM Right, wombat, and we will owe it to the resolve of Bush and Blair, and the brave troups, and to people like you who are supporting the President, at least in this case. 5212. Al D - 3/17/2003 9:13:27 PM I guess young Bush learned well from his daddy, don't raise taxes and get Saddam. 5213. Al D - 3/17/2003 9:14:28 PM By the way, I gave a grand to Bush in '88, zip in '92. 5214. robertjayb - 3/17/2003 10:19:52 PM Oz is in! 5215. judithathome - 3/17/2003 10:24:13 PM Thank god...we needn't sacrifice the Foster's! 5216. concerned - 3/17/2003 10:45:18 PM 5217. concerned - 3/17/2003 10:50:03 PM I watched GWB giving his speech this evening. He did a good job, providing the background and context for the decision the US has made wrt removing Saddam. I also found it interesting that he directed part of his speech directly at Iraqi citizens and the Iraqi military, which I am sure will have the effect of saving lives. 5218. concerned - 3/17/2003 10:58:51 PM Well, Jacques and Gerhard can just kiss all their lucrative Iraqi contracts good-bye. Maybe they can cry on Kofi Annan's shoulders. 5219. concerned - 3/17/2003 11:00:13 PM And what of French glory? It's been left in a latrine by the US. 5220. concerned - 3/17/2003 11:18:09 PM Maybe AC can let us in on how the French media is handling this. Talk about rude setbacks. Heh heh heh. 5221. concerned - 3/17/2003 11:18:37 PM All that prevarication and dissimulation for nothing. 5222. concerned - 3/17/2003 11:20:34 PM And how about Shroeder? He's already about as popular in Germany as barbequed pork at a bar mitzvah and screwing the pooch on Iraq sure won't polish that turd any. 5223. RickNelson - 3/17/2003 11:29:11 PM Did you watch Frontline this evening? It was on our local PBS I think? Anyway, it gave a timeline of Bush Sr., Unscom and Clinton, and now W. 5224. concerned - 3/17/2003 11:44:31 PM Re. 5223 - 5225. bubbaette - 3/17/2003 11:48:12 PM It's time for Saddam, Chirac and Blix to be frightened. Very frightened. 5226. RickNelson - 3/17/2003 11:48:56 PM Ahhhh, yes quite so. 5227. concerned - 3/17/2003 11:49:33 PM bubbaette shows that she wouldn't recognize humor if it licked her ear. 5228. RickNelson - 3/17/2003 11:50:39 PM I can't help but laugh. My post ended up after bubbaette's, and strangely fits. It was meant for 5224. 5229. Snowowl - 3/17/2003 11:51:12 PM I think I must have watched a different speech than the one concerned is referring to. 5230. RickNelson - 3/17/2003 11:52:31 PM I could use a dose of humor. 5231. bubbaette - 3/17/2003 11:52:41 PM Show me something humorous. Your hollow predictions of disaster for the leaders of soveriegn nations that don't bow to George's will don't meet the description. Inane, yes. Humorous, no. 5232. concerned - 3/17/2003 11:54:32 PM Just imagine the horror of it all. Iraq is going to be a free, democratic society, and France, Germany and Russia will be out all their ill gained contracts with Saddam. 5233. concerned - 3/17/2003 11:55:30 PM Re. 5231 - 5234. concerned - 3/17/2003 11:58:38 PM Besides, I think we already know that your sense of humor is pretty well restricted to the 'haha you asshole' variety. 5235. RickNelson - 3/17/2003 11:59:00 PM One thing to notice, and it's for myself too. I've been against this war. I'm still against this war. But, what's getting me is that the UN and the opposing nations have egged both the opponents on. Saddam is thinking the UN will hold W back, W is thinking he'll follow Wolfowitz' scheme all the way now. W will show 'em, they were all wrong! 5236. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 12:00:30 AM 5237. RickNelson - 3/18/2003 12:03:40 AM We can all recall the post Desert Storm horrors of Kurdish killings. Of the oil well spillings in the gulf and the burning. 5238. concerned - 3/18/2003 12:04:31 AM 5239. concerned - 3/18/2003 12:06:10 AM I think the UN is anxious to be involved with a post-Saddam Iraq. After all, the UN doesn't want to be cut out of the lucrative oil-for-food arrangement that was filling its coffers for the last few years. 5240. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/18/2003 12:09:27 AM 5207. Wombat - 3/18/03 1:45:12 AM 5241. RickNelson - 3/18/2003 12:10:24 AM I like that Cole Porter cllr. 5242. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 12:13:34 AM More where that came from -- 5243. RickNelson - 3/18/2003 12:13:41 AM I would like to be deluded this time. It would do me good to not think about the innocent Iraqi. If I can just believe that the 80% smart bomb invasion and then coordinated land, air and sea assualts will not blow the innocent away. 5244. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 12:17:56 AM 5210. Wombat - 3/18/03 2:06:18 AM 5245. RickNelson - 3/18/2003 12:19:14 AM Well, there's another couple days to think of post-war ideas. I'm gonna look around for something. Writing congress-people seems like a good idea. 5246. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 12:22:42 AM "You would prefer this not to happen, which I guess means that you would prefer to see sanctions continue in Iraq, and that Saddam should remain in power. Given the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Iraqis who have been killed under Saddam already, you had better consider your own conscience before you ask about mine." 5247. concerned - 3/18/2003 12:40:01 AM What alternate universe does cllrdr live in? We didn't give Iraq any weapons. That's pure fabrication. 5248. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 12:55:11 AM It's YOU who live in an alternate universe. Called Freeperville. 5249. concerned - 3/18/2003 12:57:55 AM cllrdr - 5250. concerned - 3/18/2003 1:06:06 AM Just as I thought. Challenge cllrdr to back up his wild accusations and he disappears. 5251. concerned - 3/18/2003 1:19:10 AM I wanted to be the first to insult Chirac and Schroeder, especially since I fully expect that they will feel obligated to spew considerable anti-US invective in light of the ultimatum that GWB has presented Saddam. In fact, it's already started, although Chirac's delusional assumptions regarding world opinion verge on the Napoleonic: 5252. magoseph - 3/18/2003 6:29:31 AM It would have been more accurate for me to say that the opinions of the international community are becoming more important and our own position weakened particularly with the consolidation of the EU. The Euro last I checked was stronger than the US dollar. 5253. magoseph - 3/18/2003 7:27:55 AM If Hussein and his sons are not leaving Iraq, what would their first move be? I think it's ominous that Hussein has retained personal control of the Iraqi air force. The last time the Iraqis used chemical weapons on the Kurdish village, they sent airplanes over loaded with bombs containing chemicals and nerve gas into the city and wiped out 5000 men, women, and children. 5254. RickNelson - 3/18/2003 7:59:46 AM I wouldn't worry to much about there little fleet of PT class boats. I heard they've nine of them. The pundits say that they're going to lose them all. What they did think is a worry are mines. But, again downplayed this by heralding the mine sweepers. They also downplayed the Iraqi airforce as nothing more than Soviet era migs. That not more than 100 of 300 are flight worthy and non of them would evade immediate interception. 5255. judithathome - 3/18/2003 8:17:35 AM On NPR the other day, a reporter interviewed a commander in charge of battalion of troops (ours) and he described how they were planning to enter Iraq, take Basra, and head toward Baghdad...he gave numbers of units, roads they would follow, numbers of transport...it seemed glaringly thorough in details and I was amazed he would be spilling all that over public airwaves. 5256. magoseph - 3/18/2003 8:19:58 AM Maybe to rattle the enemy, Judith, or deceive him. 5257. RickNelson - 3/18/2003 8:22:11 AM I cannot get past the loose lips sinks ships era type secrecy. However, I'm supposing the information age we are enjoying is creating the culture that knows all. 5258. RickNelson - 3/18/2003 8:24:19 AM The Basra attack seems glaring, as Judith said. 5259. magoseph - 3/18/2003 9:41:43 AM Hussein & sons are staying, so they say. To me it means they will be leaving soon. If they declared they were leaving and abandoning their cohorts, they probably wouldn't be alive very long. What they need is an absolute commitment of safe haven. I heard this morning on TV that the top honcho of the Moslem Conference (I'm not sure of the name here), was leaving for Baghdad from Egypt to meet Saddam and my impression was, he was going alone. I think this is significant because he has the credentials to guarantee asylum. 5260. alistairConnor - 3/18/2003 9:43:03 AM Russia cans nuclear arms reduction. 5261. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 10:14:14 AM 5262. alistairConnor - 3/18/2003 10:24:30 AM Blair Says Iraq Will Set Course of World Politics 5263. Wombat - 3/18/2003 10:42:32 AM Cellar: 5264. magoseph - 3/18/2003 10:46:29 AM Your 5260's link won't take, Alistair. 5265. Wombat - 3/18/2003 10:50:57 AM Wiz: 5266. Wombat - 3/18/2003 10:54:58 AM Rick: 5267. concerned - 3/18/2003 11:05:30 AM PRESIDENT BUSH AGREES TO MORE INSPECTORS IN IRAQ 5268. alistairConnor - 3/18/2003 11:11:53 AM Message # 5265 I agree about Yugoslavia, Wombat. Germany bears a heavy responsibility. France too : Mitterand should have formed a common approach with Kohl, rather than each being influenced by WWII alliances. It was a crucial, shameful failure. 5269. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 11:17:05 AM You have burst no bubble. 5270. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 11:17:39 AM Or more to the point, you choose to remember less than I do. 5271. concerned - 3/18/2003 11:25:34 AM A common approach from Germany and France is now a given, and it's a good thing. 5272. Ms. No - 3/18/2003 12:06:24 PM Message # 5267 5273. PelleNilsson - 3/18/2003 12:10:36 PM What is the most disappointing is the US ineptness in dealing with France. The Germans are pacifists, something we should be glad for. France is not. Nor is her foreign policy based on moral values and Chirac personally is a corrupt sleazebag. It needn't have come to this had only Bush's boys shown a modicum of empathy, tact and finesse. 5274. judithathome - 3/18/2003 12:12:25 PM Well, war humor usually falls flat, doesn't it? I don't know why the piece didn't continue the analogy and say we would open thousands of chest cavities searching for WMD hidden away, too. 5275. judithathome - 3/18/2003 12:13:49 PM had only Bush's boys shown a modicum of empathy, tact and finesse. 5276. Ms. No - 3/18/2003 12:15:59 PM oh. 5277. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/18/2003 12:29:59 PM 5265. Wombat - 3/18/03 3:50:57 PM 5278. PelleNilsson - 3/18/2003 12:30:36 PM No, faking it will do. We're talking diplomacy here. 5279. Wombat - 3/18/2003 12:38:26 PM Wiz: 5280. Ms. No - 3/18/2003 12:44:30 PM No, faking it will do. We're talking diplomacy here. 5281. judithathome - 3/18/2003 12:57:00 PM Pelle: 5282. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/18/2003 1:09:42 PM Wombat, your logic is stunning: We have the right to terrorize a terrorist's country because he terrorizes his population, also invading and occupying that country can't make things any worse—even though we will increase the loathing for American aggression around the globe? 5283. concerned - 3/18/2003 1:12:11 PM I am soooo tempted to jump in here, but I'll refrain. 5284. magoseph - 3/18/2003 1:16:02 PM Well, the President could never fake it. 5285. concerned - 3/18/2003 1:20:01 PM Actually, I was considering making a riposte to WoW's scintillating observations, but I thought that Wombat was doing a yeoman's job and that it would be best not to interrupt him;) 5286. Wombat - 3/18/2003 1:34:55 PM At risk of being flippant: 5287. magoseph - 3/18/2003 1:49:39 PM If the war goes in a way that resembles what the administration posits will happen, the main centers of hatred for "U.S. aggression" will remain Islamic fundamentalists and sociolgy departments at universities worldwide, neither of whose attitudes would be changed by anything short of the United States' destruction. 5288. Wombat - 3/18/2003 1:56:52 PM Mag: 5289. magoseph - 3/18/2003 2:18:53 PM Wombat, 5290. PelleNilsson - 3/18/2003 2:23:22 PM Dave Barry on Franco-American relations 5291. Wombat - 3/18/2003 2:33:36 PM Mago: 5292. magoseph - 3/18/2003 2:45:57 PM One needn't be an Arab to be an Islamic fundamentalist. I wouldn't make that assumption. 5293. judithathome - 3/18/2003 2:48:08 PM May as well throw a little fuel on the leftist wing-nut pyre...I'm sure everyone will enjoy this: 5294. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 2:54:50 PM No surprises in that piece, judith. 5295. thoughtful - 3/18/2003 2:55:20 PM From mago: "The Arabs you refer to as fundamentalists are basically religious fanatics. What they believe is that Allah determines everything--everything is foreordained. " 5296. Ms. No - 3/18/2003 3:15:36 PM But Ronnie can't run again now, can he? 5297. PelleNilsson - 3/18/2003 3:36:24 PM What is most scary is not Bush's view but the view of ordinary Americans. 5298. robertjayb - 3/18/2003 3:44:26 PM Poor Hans Blix. He just doesn't get it. He asked if the bushies wanted his inspectors to go back to work after the shooting stops. 5299. concerned - 3/18/2003 3:48:05 PM Re. 5297 - 5300. concerned - 3/18/2003 3:49:22 PM The goal of the US in Iraq is not to impose, but to depose. 5301. judithathome - 3/18/2003 3:52:33 PM the view of ordinary Americans. 5302. magoseph - 3/18/2003 3:53:51 PM Pelle, 5303. Ms. No - 3/18/2003 4:19:20 PM Pelle, 5304. magoseph - 3/18/2003 4:36:38 PM Cellar, re-Message # 5183 5305. Cellar Door - 3/18/2003 4:41:39 PM Thanks for the heads-up. 5306. judithathome - 3/18/2003 4:44:30 PM Tell him I said "Hi!". ;-) 5307. magoseph - 3/18/2003 4:44:52 PM Oh, boy, are you lucky! 5308. concerned - 3/18/2003 5:50:34 PM Re. 5301 - 5309. judithathome - 3/18/2003 6:20:08 PM I am very much in a different environment than you...I live in Texas where it is practically a capital crime to be a Democrat. 5310. arkymalarky - 3/18/2003 6:20:15 PM You think "right" so to speak, Concerned (with a nod to your avowed centrism). Of course you wouldn't be noticing a hostile environment at the moment. 5311. judithathome - 3/18/2003 6:22:49 PM The other day at the gym, a lady told me to be sure and watch FOX news that night and I said I didn't watch FOX but CNN. She almost spit out "Oh, you must be a Democrat, then" and she flounced off. She said it like I'd admitted to being a baby killer. 5312. arkymalarky - 3/18/2003 6:24:29 PM Man, the fact that our Republican right wing Baptist preacher governor has alienated so many rural Arkansans has really affected the tone of this state. In my particular area there were already a number of people highly critical of Bush, but a number of conservatives who support him, too. Now, though, it feels more liberal, somehow, even though there are Bush supporters around. There aren't nearly as many vocal ones as even just this past November. 5313. concerned - 3/18/2003 6:27:36 PM Re. 5311- 5314. judithathome - 3/18/2003 7:21:43 PM Thomas Friedman said today on Oprah that "the Israelis fought a war for six days and they've been stuck on the seventh day ever since." 5315. concerned - 3/18/2003 7:39:04 PM Now why did a parallel to the Biblical creation myth immediately spring to mind? 5316. Al D - 3/18/2003 7:39:05 PM What is most scary is not Bush's view but the view of ordinary Americans 5317. judithathome - 3/18/2003 7:46:20 PM Al, surely you can see where a person's actions and what they say is a clue to their beliefs? It's not like what a person believes is some murky depth with no clue whatsoever to those looking on... 5318. Al D - 3/18/2003 7:50:14 PM So, on most subjects, since I know you are knee jerk Liberal, there is no need for me to ask your opinion, just figure it out from previous comments. Of course, those things I know are different from the things I don't know, and there are even things I do not know that I do not know that I do not know. Is that clear enough for you? 5319. judithathome - 3/18/2003 7:56:44 PM Sure it is, Al...I can do it, too. 5320. Al D - 3/18/2003 7:57:54 PM Will do, you too! 5321. concerned - 3/18/2003 7:58:42 PM So,what do you know that I know that he doesn't know that she suspects that I am wondering about? 5322. concerned - 3/18/2003 8:00:15 PM Day One for Saddam & Sons to get out of Dodge and Counting. 5323. robertjayb - 3/18/2003 11:23:52 PM Blogger from Baghdad---Or the CIA? 5324. magoseph - 3/19/2003 5:25:30 AM I think it can be predicted that Basra will fall to the coalition forces in the first hours of the war. The entry into Basra represents the opportunity to show the world the Iraqi population greeting the liberators with an enthusiasm of almost hysterical proportions. It will most likely dwarf the reception in Kabul. 5325. magoseph - 3/19/2003 5:48:27 AM It's reasonable to conclude that the other prime target of the coalition will be Tikrit. The top units of the Republican Guard have recently been moved to Tikrit which lies 110 miles north of Baghdad. Tikrit has significant importance to the Hussein's regime. Not only was Hussein born there but a large percentage of his personal retinue and close advisers are members of the tribal family clan that inhabits the area. The capture of Tikrit and the defeat of the Republican Guard in place there would be an incalculable psychological blow to the Hussein command structure. 5326. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2003 6:45:11 AM That blog is almost certainly a fake. According to RIPE NCC which keeps the IP register for Europe, Africa and the Middle East there are no (none, zip, nada) internet host in Iraq so if this guy is actually in residence there he must access the net via dial-up to some other country. International calls are (a) very expensive, and (b) subject to monitoring. 5327. alistairConnor - 3/19/2003 7:26:29 AM He doesn't need an Internet server in Iraq, Pelle. He needs Internet access of some sort. The idea that nobody in Iraq has internet access is absurd. He's probably an IT worker of some sort, and careful to cover his tracks. 5328. alistairConnor - 3/19/2003 7:29:24 AM Pelle Message # 5273 About US handling of France : It needn't have come to this had only Bush's boys shown a modicum of empathy, tact and finesse. 5329. Marc-Albert - 3/19/2003 8:34:30 AM 412 aye 149 nay 5330. RickNelson - 3/19/2003 8:39:06 AM That blogger types remarkable American english. I cannot say it wouldn't appear British, but I lean heavily toward American. How old does he appear, did he say. I read one of his linked blogs, a woman in the U.S. and apparantly a muslem convert. 5331. Macnas - 3/19/2003 8:42:08 AM Depends, perhaps, on where he learnt his english? 5332. RickNelson - 3/19/2003 8:45:28 AM My line of thought about that blogger is if he's young and has a firm grasp upon American english, then where did he learn it and when? How then did he end up in Iraq? And if he's always been there, again how did he learn American english, again assuming a younger age, say 30 something. 5333. judithathome - 3/19/2003 8:47:35 AM Tell me, if it's a fake, who would be faking it, and why? 5334. alistairConnor - 3/19/2003 8:48:04 AM I'll be checking it regularly for updates. Again, I ask, who would go to the trouble of faking it? I may be influenced by the fact that I agree with everything I've read so far... 5335. magoseph - 3/19/2003 8:52:05 AM And if he's always been there, again how did he learn American english, again assuming a younger age, say 30 something 5336. alistairConnor - 3/19/2003 8:54:12 AM In case you missed it, here's that Baghdadi blog link again: thanks RobertJ! 5337. alistairConnor - 3/19/2003 9:01:07 AM To me, it reads like a guy who has spent a few years overseas, probably in the USA. Bear in mind, there are a lot of bicultural people around, in every country in the world. 5338. magoseph - 3/19/2003 9:03:54 AM bicultural people around 5339. magoseph - 3/19/2003 9:06:22 AM I read it twice, early this morning and just awhile ago. Alistair, you're right, if it is fiction, it's quite enthralling fiction. 5340. judithathome - 3/19/2003 9:13:34 AM I did read it, Alistair. I understand that people can speak more than one language and live and immerse themselves in more than one culture but he still sounds extremely "Americanized" to me...I'm not saying it's a fake; I'm not saying it's not. 5341. judithathome - 3/19/2003 9:14:43 AM Hey, I'd be the last one to know if it was a fake...I fell for the Alleged Hitler Quotation, remember? Ask anyone.... 5342. Wombat - 3/19/2003 9:20:47 AM Iraqis have gone to grad school in the U.S., just like anyone else. It interesting. 5343. magoseph - 3/19/2003 9:26:41 AM 412 aye 149 nay 5344. Wombat - 3/19/2003 10:50:12 AM According to the Guardian, there are unconfirmed reports that Tareq Aziz (Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq) has defected into Kurdish-controlled territory. 5345. Macnas - 3/19/2003 11:19:45 AM Bahrain offers sanctuary to Saddam 5346. magoseph - 3/19/2003 11:29:26 AM 5347. Macnas - 3/19/2003 11:39:17 AM Ok mago, I get the message, I'll learn how to link. 5348. jayackroyd - 3/19/2003 11:42:09 AM The syntax is [A HREF = "URL"] Link label [/A], replacing the square brackets with "less than" and "greater than" symbols. 5349. Macnas - 3/19/2003 11:47:47 AM Thanks jay, I'll be trying out in the html scratchpad tomorrow. 5350. magoseph - 3/19/2003 12:18:23 PM Ok mago, I get the message, I'll learn how to link. 5351. Macnas - 3/19/2003 12:30:21 PM Well its too late now! 5352. robertjayb - 3/19/2003 12:32:01 PM Tariq Aziz is speaking now via CNN: Impossible for Saddam to leave country. 5353. judithathome - 3/19/2003 12:33:26 PM Tarik Aziz has neither defected nor taken his own life, as was rumored earlier. He is on CNN right now making a speech live from Iraq. 5354. concerned - 3/19/2003 12:36:07 PM Re. 5352 - 5355. wabbit - 3/19/2003 1:10:46 PM Bahrain has offered to take him 5356. wabbit - 3/19/2003 1:13:14 PM And *now* the Reuters link in Message # 5346 is working ... is anyone else having trouble getting to Reuters' sites? 5357. robertjayb - 3/19/2003 2:05:53 PM CNN, NYTimes, AP reporting Iraqi troops surrendering on Kuwait border. 5358. robertjayb - 3/19/2003 2:24:35 PM Blog reports Brits and Yanks moving into Iraq 5359. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2003 3:02:55 PM Alistair 5360. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 4:07:09 PM Again, Pelle, I ask : what would be the motive for such an elaborate fake? And what makes you reluctant to envisage that it might be for real? I'm feeling quite attached to the guy already, and I'll be worrying about him over the next few days (aha! is this the reason for your scepticism, and for my willingness to believe him?) 5361. robertjayb - 3/19/2003 4:22:49 PM The Baghdad blogger has new stuff posted 5362. robertjayb - 3/19/2003 4:23:48 PM OOPSIE! 5363. magoseph - 3/19/2003 4:28:14 PM Widespread desertions from Iraqi army 5364. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 5:07:53 PM I'll tell you what, Mago. I believe that. Do you believe this? 5365. concerned - 3/19/2003 5:24:41 PM Re. Iraqi morale - 5366. concerned - 3/19/2003 5:25:51 PM AC - 5367. concerned - 3/19/2003 5:27:41 PM Rather, the coming incursion will be a near surgical removal of only the part of the Iraqi infrastructure that no peace loving nation has a use for anyway. 5368. concerned - 3/19/2003 5:30:43 PM Just think of this as 'weapons inspections' on steroids. 5369. magoseph - 3/19/2003 5:37:19 PM Yes, Alistair, I believe it. I believe especially this: "Even if Saddam is overthrown, there will be massacres. A lot of parties want to rule Iraq, and there'll be conflict between them, and between Kurds, Sunnis and Shia." 5370. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 5:39:00 PM I was just pointing out that the fantasy about Iraqis welcoming war is... fantasy. 5371. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 5:42:35 PM 30 nations! But wait, there's more : 5372. concerned - 3/19/2003 5:46:54 PM Re. 5370 - 5373. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 5:49:13 PM Cue Randy Newman, more apposite than ever 5374. Snowowl - 3/19/2003 5:49:31 PM Apparently, New Zealand is one of the fifteen... on the strength of a promise of humanitarian aid. Yet NZ has consistently been against war without a second SC resolution. 5375. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 5:52:06 PM She may be a Blairite, but our Helen would not do that to us... and too bad about that bilateral trade treaty with the U.S. 5376. concerned - 3/19/2003 5:52:48 PM Re. 5373 - 5377. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 5:53:51 PM It's funny really. The other day, when the US administration reminded the Chileans that there was a Chile trade bill before the US congress, the Chileans told them to get fucked. Turkey likewise. They are just no good at this bilateral stuff. 5378. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 5:54:51 PM The hired help says: kiss my arse. 5379. magoseph - 3/19/2003 5:56:51 PM You are absoluty right, Alistair, no one is supporting this war but, the fact of the matter is, the decision is still up in the air. If the Iraqi army desintegrates without a fight for the most part and they locate caches of chemical and biological weapons, they will be crawling over each other to say they supported the war. 5380. concerned - 3/19/2003 6:00:20 PM Geez, magoseph, things sound like they're likely to get positively embarrassing! 5381. concerned - 3/19/2003 6:01:48 PM Or will everybody expected to develop collective pre-post-Saddam amnesia? How convenient that would be for certain parties. 5382. concerned - 3/19/2003 6:02:07 PM ...be expected... 5383. arkymalarky - 3/19/2003 7:05:57 PM It's what happens after the war that will tell a lot about all that. 5384. judithathome - 3/19/2003 9:47:22 PM Ari Fleischer just announced the start of the war. 5385. robertjayb - 3/19/2003 9:58:04 PM dubya to talk at 10:15 Eastern 5386. Al D - 3/19/2003 9:59:29 PM Remember when UBL talked about the strong horse and the weak horse, people would choose the strong horse, which, of course, he thought was him. Well the islamofascists are about to see the strong horse, and it ain't UBL, and it ain't Bush. It is the good old U.S.A. After Saddam is dead and gone, who will celebrate and who will weep, to borrow a phrase from a great man. 5387. Snowowl - 3/19/2003 10:07:21 PM In fact, UBL must be laughing his head off. He's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. His two hated enemies at war with each other. I bet he never foresaw this on 9/11. 5388. Marc-Albert - 3/19/2003 10:19:05 PM "If the Iraqi army desintegrates without a fight for the most part and they locate caches of chemical and biological weapons, they will be crawling over each other to say they supported the war." 5389. robertjayb - 3/19/2003 11:33:49 PM From our man in Baghdad: 5390. wabbit - 3/20/2003 12:12:10 AM 5391. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:19:53 AM In fact, UBL must be laughing his head off. 5392. robertjayb - 3/20/2003 12:22:34 AM Cool! 5393. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:23:28 AM Doncha Lefties just hate it when it's a RWinger doing what your guy promised and failed to deliver? 5394. robertjayb - 3/20/2003 12:27:53 AM More from Salam: 5395. wabbit - 3/20/2003 12:33:22 AM I've added Where is Raed? to the Related Links list. 5396. robertjayb - 3/20/2003 12:36:37 AM Saddam is speaking. CNBC has audio and video. CNN and Fox too. 5397. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:42:53 AM Couldn't be a double, could it? 5398. robertjayb - 3/20/2003 12:45:39 AM Sure. Live or Memorex? 5399. Snowowl - 3/20/2003 12:51:32 AM Enjoy it while it lasts, Snow-owl, because it's going fast. 5400. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:55:09 AM No, I don't enjoy war, and I am saying that the ones who are acting like spoiled brats are Left Wingers. 5401. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:56:38 AM Why else all the bad temper and the egregiously dire predictions that are not backed by any real assessment? 5402. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:58:48 AM Just heard that Lefties are threatening to 'shut down' San Francisco and 'invade' a power plant (objective sabotage?). Talk about doing the devil's work. 5403. concerned - 3/20/2003 1:01:28 AM Btw, threats to 'shut down' SF courtesy of CANSWER. 5404. concerned - 3/20/2003 1:05:34 AM First US casualty in war: 5405. Dubai Vol - 3/20/2003 4:04:50 AM concerned, you disgrace the veterans who have died for their country by dignifying that protester's death as a "casualty of war" 5406. alistairConnor - 3/20/2003 5:28:29 AM Fresh news from Salaam : 5407. alistairConnor - 3/20/2003 8:38:18 AM Message # 5388 That is what Alistair fears the most. 5408. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 10:20:16 AM 5409. Macnas - 3/20/2003 10:41:29 AM Saudi quietly helps ,even as it complains 5410. concerned - 3/20/2003 11:16:07 AM Re. 5405 - 5411. judithathome - 3/20/2003 11:34:17 AM Oil wells on fire in southern Iraq. ABC & CNN 5412. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 11:39:03 AM 5413. concerned - 3/20/2003 11:46:32 AM Well, the fact that Saddam has already fired three UN-Resolution violating and nonexistent, according to Chirac, Schroeder, Putin and the Blixster, Scuds into Kuwait shows how worthless the UN arms 'inspections' actually were at disarming Iraq. 5414. concerned - 3/20/2003 11:52:17 AM "I heard reports that we fired Scud missiles on Kuwait. I would like to tell you that we don't have Scud missiles and why they were fired, I don't know," 5415. alistairConnor - 3/20/2003 11:54:13 AM Ah, the first casualty of war. 5416. jayackroyd - 3/20/2003 11:56:15 AM Saletan is pretty sarcastic. 5417. concerned - 3/20/2003 11:57:49 AM Blix claims he is 'surprised' that Iraq has any Scuds. Why am I not surprised by this? 5418. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:01:47 PM Re. 5415 - 5419. alistairConnor - 3/20/2003 12:01:51 PM Keep on repeating it, people will believe it in the end. Standard technique. 5420. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:09:10 PM From AFP via babelfish: 5421. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:10:04 PM The NYT is mistaken or deliberately lying. Their motive to do so is clear enough. 5422. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:15:20 PM Reuters news report mentioning Iraq Scud missile firing into Kuwait 5423. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:22:21 PM Is Saddam swapping virgins with bin Laden in Islamic heaven now? Inquiring minds want to know. 5424. jayackroyd - 3/20/2003 12:29:19 PM concerned: 5425. jayackroyd - 3/20/2003 12:30:40 PM I wasn't clear. I meant information from official Iraqi sources is a passel of lies. 5426. Wombat - 3/20/2003 12:32:23 PM From CNN: 5427. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:42:36 PM Wombats - 5428. Wombat - 3/20/2003 12:47:07 PM Concerned: 5429. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:48:20 PM 5430. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:49:42 PM Wombat - 5431. concerned - 3/20/2003 12:52:42 PM Many people criticize the NYT for lack of reporting accuracy. 5432. Al D - 3/20/2003 1:18:05 PM If reports say thery are scuds and another report says they were not, why would one be so eager to believe they were not scuds? perhaps wombat is taking a wait and see, but at least one other is positive they are not scuds. People often believe what they want to believe. 5433. Wombat - 3/20/2003 1:31:37 PM From Haaretz (Israeli newspaper) 5434. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 2:39:03 PM 5435. Wombat - 3/20/2003 2:40:06 PM Shouldn't it be the other way around? 5436. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 2:41:12 PM No. 5437. Wombat - 3/20/2003 2:43:30 PM I will defer to your experience in those matters. 5438. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 2:45:46 PM 5439. Wombat - 3/20/2003 2:51:59 PM Guardian reports that the Iraqi town of Umm Qasr has fallen. 5440. robertjayb - 3/20/2003 2:58:30 PM Salam's latest: 5441. concerned - 3/20/2003 3:41:41 PM Re. 5433 - 5442. concerned - 3/20/2003 3:43:23 PM Btw, a live CBS news report from Kuwait was definite that some of the Iraqi missiles (some, not all (there's a difference, you know)) launched into Kuwait are Scuds. 5443. judithathome - 3/20/2003 3:49:45 PM Only if and when AFP, Reuters (and Fox) change their reports 5444. alistairconnor - 3/20/2003 3:55:28 PM The term "Scud" apparently is being used indiscriminately to describe any and all missiles. Most of the journalists, clearly, wouldn't know a Scud if it jumped up and bit them on the arse. 5445. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 4:08:51 PM Things are happening so fast right now there's goingto be a lot of misinformation floating through the air. 5446. alistairconnor - 3/20/2003 4:29:41 PM Turkey Gives U.S. Military Airspace Use 5447. alistairconnor - 3/20/2003 4:33:58 PM Eagerly awaiting video of American troops greeted as liberators when entering Basra. Tomorrow I guess. 5448. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 4:55:05 PM Familiar, Haunting Words . . . 5449. Al D - 3/20/2003 7:41:40 PM Wouldn't it have been great if the world had realized what Hitler was really up to? Wouldn't it have great if someone had blown his head off in 1939? Well, according to Breslin and Wiz, Bush is the same evil monster. Is this just a different view of a man, or is it a not too subtle suggestion of----Ah, Al, don't get carried away. It may seem that way to some, but no sane person would do such a thing. 5450. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 7:49:23 PM Alistair, 5451. concerned - 3/20/2003 7:52:32 PM Re. 5447 - 5452. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 8:06:56 PM There's to much f'n speculating! Pisses me off! 5453. concerned - 3/20/2003 8:11:34 PM Blair and Chirac in new clash 5454. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 8:18:26 PM Where the heck did you find that?! 5455. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 8:19:31 PM Bush is definitely not Hitler, Al. 5456. concerned - 3/20/2003 8:20:21 PM ChIraq is eminently snubbable,IMO. (Is that a word?) 5457. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 8:20:38 PM Yeah, Al's tongue in cheek is getting to much tongue. I think he needs a good cheek. 5458. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 8:21:19 PM sure, why not. He is, isn't he. 5459. concerned - 3/20/2003 8:23:13 PM I think Al's tongue is getting in the wrong cheeks. 5460. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 8:43:21 PM There seems to be a prior plan in place to use the oil resources of Iraq to rebuild. That would be obvious, but it seems good to talk about it. There is a clamour among some Islamic groups that the only reason for the war is to get at the Iraqi oil. Then to counter that, another new bit I heard says that a lot of muslem countries believe Saddam brought this upon himself and they're glad he's being ousted. 5461. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 8:45:03 PM I've been listening to cable tv for four days now. All day I listen to CNBC cable news. All day, all day, all day. 5462. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 8:47:15 PM Important news for our fighting men and women. 5463. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 8:56:11 PM Can that be confirmed anywhere cllr? I would like to write to Normy about that if I can have a reference. 5464. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 9:07:45 PM I don't know, Rick. Write to Gannett News Service. Or just Google the story to see what else is out there about it. 5465. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 9:10:05 PM Yeah, that'll do. 5466. Wombat - 3/20/2003 9:46:39 PM From Haaretz: 5467. robertjayb - 3/20/2003 10:06:49 PM CNBC says a Marine SeaKnight (Chinook?) helicopter has crashed in Kuwait with 16 U.S. and British fatalities. 5468. RickNelson - 3/20/2003 10:30:14 PM Here is a very good testimony before the House Committee I don't want to have our service men and women come home, work hard, either stay in the military or not and then have to deal with a VA that this testimony reports. When they retire, if they're disabled, if they've gotten something that comes up later, or whatever, they deserve better than waiting six months, or 18 months, or not being able to get in to the VA services at all. 5469. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 11:57:05 PM So long, mom, 5470. robertjayb - 3/21/2003 12:16:51 AM Where's Saddam? (Washington Post) 5471. concerned - 3/21/2003 12:53:01 AM Re. 5466 - 5472. concerned - 3/21/2003 12:54:48 AM Re. 5470 - 5473. Dubai Vol - 3/21/2003 2:37:16 AM CNN: Pentagon says missiles were not SCUDS 5474. alistairConnor - 3/21/2003 2:58:18 AM I heard on the radio this morning that it's thought that the missiles scored a near miss on Saddam yesterday, which would explain why he looked a bit flustered on TV. It was worth a try, it's a shame they missed. 5475. Macnas - 3/21/2003 3:20:26 AM Regarding Missiles, as with all such munitions, there is the effective range, and then there is the estimated maximum range, which cannot be properly determined. 5476. alistairConnor - 3/21/2003 4:14:15 AM In 1991, they could hit Israel with missiles. Now, they can't even hit huge concentrations of troops massed on their borders. Some threat to world peace. 5477. Dubai Vol - 3/21/2003 5:54:11 AM So, alistair what you are saying is we should sit on our hands until Saddam IS a credible threat? His intent is clear, his efforts are undeniable. He wants WMD, is making every effort to acquire them, is, according to ALL sources, in material breach of UN resolutions for the last twelve years, and you want to give him more time to build weapons? 5478. alistairConnor - 3/21/2003 6:04:19 AM What you seem to want, Dubai, is to f**k your mother. 5479. Dubai Vol - 3/21/2003 7:30:44 AM Hey, alistair if you saw my mother, you'd want to fuck her too. 5480. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 8:24:20 AM I hope the Australian and British vets have vet benefits for all their needs, when they're needed. 5481. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 8:41:12 AM Has anyone any interest in the vet situation? 5482. magoseph - 3/21/2003 8:59:46 AM Why would the Turkish parliament turn down the U.S. request to enter Northern Iraq through Turkey and now authorize their own army to cross the border into that same Northern Iraq? 5483. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 9:07:22 AM One word is Oil. Oil in Kurkuk which the Turks don't want the Kurds to control or become partners in. That would mean they'll have money for independence. 5484. Wombat - 3/21/2003 9:13:35 AM Another word is Kurdistan. The Turks do not want anything resembling an independent Kurdish state in Iraq, for fear that it will inspire Kurds in Turkey to assert similar desires. 5485. Macnas - 3/21/2003 9:18:38 AM And of course, remember that although Turkey has decided not to allow US access other than fly over, it has decreed that it is allowable in this conflict that their own forces can cross the border into northern Iraq (Kurdistan). 5486. robertjayb - 3/21/2003 9:28:56 AM Salam: 5487. robertjayb - 3/21/2003 9:31:38 AM Salam (continued): 5488. magoseph - 3/21/2003 9:34:45 AM Bush has gone on TV and stated that all the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. It will be interesting to see whether he will acceed to the Turks who have just stiffed him in respect to access to the bases in Southern Turkey. 5489. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 10:39:04 AM Well it all depends on what he means by "the Iraqi people." 5490. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:54:58 AM A reckless path [by Paul Craig Roberts] 5491. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:55:41 AM Where's Jexster? 5492. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 12:23:27 PM He has been banned from the Mote. 5493. magoseph - 3/21/2003 12:42:01 PM I don't think Jexster was banned. He was suspended for a week only. 5494. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 12:49:55 PM Suspended by whom and for what offense? 5495. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2003 1:07:35 PM For the record: 5496. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2003 1:12:16 PM According to BCC the big air attack on Baghdad started just now. 5497. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 1:27:31 PM About those cuts to veteran's benfits. 5498. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2003 1:30:22 PM The BBC correspondent in Baghdad looking at the skyline: "This is how the Great Fire in London must have looked like". 5499. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 1:35:00 PM Have you seen The Pianist, Pelle? 5500. robertjayb - 3/21/2003 1:43:45 PM I have been lurking about the blogger world the last few days and find that Salam is widely known. There are doubts, of course, but he has a lengthy cybertrail. He may be operating from Manhattan but so are many of the orgasmic screamers we are getting on American TV. 5501. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2003 2:00:56 PM Cellar 5502. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 2:10:43 PM The film's protagonist spends the better part of the war watching froma window as the city around him is being destroyed. 5503. robertjayb - 3/21/2003 2:47:25 PM The press corps is appropriately stupified by Ari the Liars' assertion that dubya is not watching the spectacular effects of his handiwork on television. And, btw, the man is off to Camp David for the weekend. 5504. concerned - 3/21/2003 2:48:11 PM 5505. concerned - 3/21/2003 2:50:01 PM re. 5473 - 5506. concerned - 3/21/2003 2:51:19 PM Re. 5502 - 5507. concerned - 3/21/2003 2:52:26 PM Does the Left feel it has a special dispensation to prevaricate because it knows it's not being taken seriously? 5508. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 2:52:53 PM And with the National Guard there that means that Ashcroft will place him under arrest right after his acceptance speech. 5509. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 2:54:28 PM "Does the Left feel it has a special dispensation to prevaricate because it knows it's not being taken seriously?" 5510. robertjayb - 3/21/2003 3:12:02 PM War on the Web... 5511. Wombat - 3/21/2003 3:24:28 PM NYT reports that commander of the Iraqi 51st Division has surrendered. 5512. Edmund Dantes - 3/21/2003 3:25:30 PM 5513. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 3:58:49 PM "Here Dondi! Good boy. Now roll over and play dead." 5514. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 4:07:53 PM Whoa, "Dondi"—that goes back! 5515. theDiva - 3/21/2003 4:08:35 PM God bless us, that Marine is barely older than those kids. 5516. concerned - 3/21/2003 4:47:18 PM 5517. alistairconnor - 3/21/2003 4:55:52 PM I blew a fuse earlier today Message # 5478 5518. alistairconnor - 3/21/2003 5:03:11 PM The most disturbing news today has come from Al-Jazeera, they said that nine B52 bombers have left the airfield in Britain and flying “presumably” towards Iraq, as if they would be doing a spin around the block. Anyway they have 6 hours to get here. 5519. concerned - 3/21/2003 5:19:40 PM AC - 5520. concerned - 3/21/2003 5:22:17 PM 5521. concerned - 3/21/2003 5:32:56 PM France faces war on sidelines 5522. theDiva - 3/21/2003 5:33:38 PM Greg said he saw on the news where Iraqis were tearing down posters of Saddam. Anyone got pictures? 5523. concerned - 3/21/2003 5:36:34 PM Every Saddamite icon that is destroyed by the Iraqi people has to be tearing the heart out of his good friend Chirac. 5524. alistairconnor - 3/21/2003 5:37:43 PM Message # 5519 By no means unanimous. Only 92%, in the poll I heard this morning. 5525. concerned - 3/21/2003 5:55:39 PM Gosh. There's no contest as to what is a less excusable diplomatic use of language when choosing between 'Old Europe' and 'blinded by messianic fundamentalism' (said of a Presbyterian, yet!) or 'violating international law'. 5526. magoseph - 3/21/2003 6:09:09 PM A US Marine tears down a portrait of Saddam Hussein in Safwan. (AP Photo) 5527. theDiva - 3/21/2003 6:17:12 PM Thanks, Mago. 5528. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 6:20:11 PM Why? 5529. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 6:20:52 PM Considering our history in Latin America a burned flag is nothing. 5530. theDiva - 3/21/2003 6:25:26 PM It's a visceral reaction. I have family serving under that flag. 5531. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 6:32:06 PM Peter Freundlich on NPR: 5532. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 6:32:20 PM We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. 5533. concerned - 3/21/2003 6:36:49 PM Re. 5526 - 5534. concerned - 3/21/2003 6:38:44 PM Am I getting this right? 5535. concerned - 3/21/2003 7:11:43 PM Looks like no more 'better suffering through chemicals'. Allah Akbar 5536. Al D - 3/21/2003 7:13:09 PM I guess there are people not happy about what will be the liberation of the Iraqi people and the success of the U.S. endeavor. Cellar seems quite unhappy, and I would imagine the Wiz is depressed. To me it is quite strange. jexster is probably too busy causeing trouble in S.F. to be bothered. 5537. concerned - 3/21/2003 7:13:16 PM Btw, I almost wouldn't mind seeing some jexsteroidal comments right about now. What ails the boy? 5538. concerned - 3/21/2003 7:15:14 PM Hope jexster hasn't been run over by a Segway, a la that idiot protester in Israel. 5539. concerned - 3/21/2003 7:21:57 PM 5540. concerned - 3/21/2003 7:29:26 PM Anglophobe Chirac is out of Control 5541. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 7:39:53 PM Iraq is not being liberated from anyone Al. 5542. concerned - 3/21/2003 7:47:23 PM Now cllrdr is an apologist for Saddam. What next? 5543. Macnas - 3/21/2003 7:47:49 PM I've been watching the bombing on the television. It is terrible, the city seems aflame. Once apon a time, I was unlucky enough to be present during a combined airstrike and mortar barrage. Though not in the affected area, which was about 500 yards to our front, it nearly drove me nuts. I was'nt right for hours. What can it be like to be in Baghdad tonight while the city erupts? 5544. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 7:50:25 PM Jerk that knee, connie! Jerk that knee! 5545. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 7:50:40 PM God those bombs make ya cringe! 5546. concerned - 3/21/2003 7:53:11 PM If getting rid of Saddam & Sons saves the lives of as many Iraqis as they have had murdered in the last 30 years (approximately a million), the current Allied actions constitute a great benefit to the Iraqi people. 5547. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 7:55:21 PM If there any Iraqi people left! 5548. Macnas - 3/21/2003 7:56:41 PM i dont know rick. Look at the way they are rolling up, with the air power they can hit the artillery and whatnot that the advance is vurnerable to, if this war was stalled then yes there might be a case for what they are doing to Baghdad, but I dont see it. I'm tired and Ive drank too much Im going to bed. 5549. concerned - 3/21/2003 7:56:52 PM Hear there's talk that France is negotiating asylum for Saddam in one of its colonies (assuming he's alive, etc.,etc.). 5550. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 7:57:52 PM "Talk"? Among the Freepers of course. 5551. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 7:59:21 PM Well the Shii'te south agrees with that for sure concerned. But what of the middle Sunni? They might not care about what Saddam has done. Of course that has yet to be seen. That's why I'm making this remark. I cannot make a sweeping statement about a majority of Iraqi until it has further confirmation. We all know the north and south hate Saddam. It's the most populace middle that's the problem. 5552. concerned - 3/21/2003 8:00:08 PM Re. 5548 - 5553. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 8:02:16 PM See how complicated this shit is? 5554. concerned - 3/21/2003 8:04:43 PM Re. 5550 - 5555. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 8:06:57 PM I didn't catch the drag out part of mine nor Macnas' post, but whatever. 5556. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 8:10:36 PM I've checked out cllrs links about the vets losing in the dubya budget. And that's pissing me off big time. 5557. Snowowl - 3/21/2003 8:10:54 PM You're right to be worried, Rick. Turkish troops are reported to have crossed the border now. 5558. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 8:14:32 PM What's the power vacuum gonna be filled with? This Iraqi George Washington (Iraqi exiles dubbed him that)? Is he whom the Iraqi will follow, will the army and left over Rep. Guard? What's our time-frame to stick around? 5559. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 8:15:47 PM Snow- I heard some have been there all along, but adding more is just ludircous. They're just being numb nuts! 5560. Snowowl - 3/21/2003 8:19:11 PM The Turks? Not at all. They're just engaging in a bit of realpolitik. Anything goes now, after all. They want to protect what they see as their own interests, just as the US is supposedly acting to protect its own interests. 5561. concerned - 3/21/2003 8:21:18 PM Re. 5556 - 5562. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 8:24:04 PM Ahhh, that's all good about Qaddafi. If it's not the cloak and dagger crap. 5563. concerned - 3/21/2003 8:24:35 PM Re. 5558 - 5564. concerned - 3/21/2003 8:26:58 PM Re. 5562 - 5565. RickNelson - 3/21/2003 8:32:32 PM I just heard a live interview with and Iraqi exile here in the U.S. He said that Shii'te are trying to integrate throughout Iraq. That's good I suppose except for the friction I hear about. It's that I don't know if that is a critical issue for Iraqi? Does that mean there will be more Shii'te looking to move around better parts of Iraq? Will ther be influxes of them to where there have not been before or larger populations where some are now? Anyone have thoughts about this? 5566. Al D - 3/21/2003 10:45:09 PM Rick 5567. Wombat - 3/21/2003 11:39:51 PM Interesting interview with Paul Berman in Salon. 5568. concerned - 3/22/2003 3:02:34 AM WWI is not the linchpin that Berman presents it as. He conveniently ignores that rather than being a crisis in 'liberal' civilization, it was the point at which the old royal orders in much of Europe collapsed, including the Hohenzollerns, Hapsburgs, Russian Czars and the Ottoman Sultans, none of whom could be mistaken as representing liberal ideals except perhaps by one who still has not completely shaken off the intellectual cobwebs of Leftist cluelessness. 5569. concerned - 3/22/2003 3:09:49 AM The following passage highlights Berman's partisan schizophrenia relating to the Bush administration: 5570. concerned - 3/22/2003 3:41:43 AM Probably worth noting that it's domestically expedient for the French government to vociferously oppose any foreign action that might put a hair out of place on the head of any widely known individual of the Islamic persuasion. Mark Twain's aphorism relating to the French, morality, and prostitutes is proven to be still valid. 5571. alistairconnor - 3/22/2003 5:32:01 AM Message # 5540 Thanks for the FT link Con... 5572. magoseph - 3/22/2003 6:08:12 AM Let's ease up on the machismo 5573. magoseph - 3/22/2003 8:01:51 AM As for now the war is over in one respect--the coalition controls all the sources of revenue. The only vulnerability exists in Baghdad where the Republican guard and its goon squads are entrenched. To me it is a Mexican stand-off. Bush cannot afford to take the losses a frontal assault would exact. On the other hand the guard is no longer on the fat-side of the payroll. A dangerous sequence of events could develop. 5574. Cellar Door - 3/22/2003 10:20:52 AM Berman is a fool. 5575. robertjayb - 3/22/2003 11:03:30 AM OOpsie! Misguided missile! 5576. Edmund Dantes - 3/22/2003 11:24:46 AM Let's hope we can avoid hitting the Chinese embassy this time. 5577. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 12:01:02 PM 5578. PelleNilsson - 3/22/2003 12:54:17 PM WWI is not the linchpin that Berman presents it as. He conveniently ignores that rather than being a crisis in 'liberal' civilization, it was the point at which the old royal orders in much of Europe collapsed, including the Hohenzollerns, Hapsburgs, Russian Czars and the Ottoman Sultans, none of whom could be mistaken as representing liberal ideals except perhaps by one who still has not completely shaken off the intellectual cobwebs of Leftist cluelessness. 5579. alistairconnor - 3/22/2003 1:12:19 PM Message # 5570 Probably worth noting that it's domestically expedient for the French government to vociferously oppose any foreign action that might put a hair out of place on the head of any widely known individual of the Islamic persuasion. 5580. alistairconnor - 3/22/2003 1:46:20 PM Skilful, sensitive diplomatic handling has turned Turkey from a key ally of the US into a virtual enemy. 5581. Al D - 3/22/2003 1:54:09 PM alistair 5582. alistairconnor - 3/22/2003 2:05:08 PM If the US had had a consistent policy with respect to Turkey, that would have helped. Bear in mind that this war affects Turkey's vital interests far more than those of the US, by any measure. Some weeks it seemed that the US was happy to sell out the Kurds to get Turkey's support; other weeks, it was the other way round. The Turkish leadership could only conclude that the US was not a reliable ally. Since the war was inevitable, the leadership concluded that they had better get an aid package to at least minimise the economic damage. But that was not enough to get the support of parliament, which could have been had if the US had shown that it took Turkey's interests seriously. 5583. alistairconnor - 3/22/2003 2:09:44 PM By the way, I have never been ambivalent about the war. I have been consistently against it, but now it's happening I want it to end quickly, i.e. total rapid defeat for Iraq. 5584. Al D - 3/22/2003 2:09:54 PM A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head." 5585. Cellar Door - 3/22/2003 2:10:52 PM 5586. Al D - 3/22/2003 2:20:17 PM Alistair 5587. concerned - 3/22/2003 2:25:50 PM Re. 5578 - 5588. Al D - 3/22/2003 2:26:35 PM In 1991, I was furious that the allies stopped short of Baghdad. The betrayal of the Iraqi opposition on that occasion is one thing which makes me sceptical about US troops being welcomed as liberators : especially in the south, these folks saw their best and bravest slaughtered in their thousands by Saddam's army, while the GIs sat on their hands, under orders from Pa Bush. 5589. concerned - 3/22/2003 2:28:22 PM re. 5579 - 5590. Al D - 3/22/2003 2:30:10 PM After re-reading you post about 1991, I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion. You don't really express a desire in that post to see Saddam removed, just the Shia people protected. But just how could we have done that without continuing the war? 5591. concerned - 3/22/2003 2:34:49 PM re. 5580,2 - 5592. Al D - 3/22/2003 2:39:42 PM Implicit in Con's attitude (insofar as it is coherent or comprehensible) is the idea that France ought to be anti-Arab like the US is. I believe he has misunderstood the US position (at least, I hope so). Unfortunately, Arab public opinion in general is persuaded that the USA is anti-Arab, and is out to get them. 5593. Cellar Door - 3/22/2003 2:40:03 PM 5594. concerned - 3/22/2003 2:49:15 PM I believe he has misunderstood the US position (at least, I hope so). 5595. PelleNilsson - 3/22/2003 4:08:56 PM concerned 5596. PelleNilsson - 3/22/2003 4:27:35 PM And in a Pentagon briefing being broadcast right now general McChrystal said that 'so far no Scuds have been fired'. 5597. robertjayb - 3/22/2003 4:33:10 PM Major General McChrystal, pentagon briefing officer: "So far no SCUDS have been launched." Asked if launchers or any other evidence of SCUDs had been discovered, the general said, "Not to my knowledge." 5598. judithathome - 3/22/2003 4:44:06 PM We were watching the BBC Thursday night and I'm not sure I heard this report correctly (at least, I hope I misheard!) but they were talking about the reconstruction of Iraq and that there were disputes over some restrictions the US was putting in the contracts up for grabs...two they mentioned were "must Buy American" and that the signing country, if they wished to take part, had to agree to an anti-abortion position...has anyone heard anything like this in the last few days? It sounded too bizarre, so much so that I felt I must have misheard what they said. Two other people in the room, though, said they heard the same thing.... 5599. Al D - 3/22/2003 5:41:29 PM Major General McChrystal, pentagon briefing officer: "So far no SCUDS have been launched." Asked if launchers or any other evidence of SCUDs had been discovered, the general said, "Not to my knowledge." I heard that briefing and while I am not positive, I thought the question was directed about what was happening in Northern Iraq. I have heard so many reports that scuds have been fired, I would not bet the farm the reports are erroneous. I imagine that for some the report that none have been fired would be erogenous. 5600. judithathome - 3/22/2003 5:51:20 PM I imagine that for some the report that none have been fired would be erogenous 5601. Al D - 3/22/2003 5:58:45 PM Judith 5602. Al D - 3/22/2003 6:09:30 PM I just read this on Drudge. Of course this occured in the Shia south. Will it happen in the Sunni north? My bet is yes. Why not drop the political stance and realize human tragedy has taken place in Iraq since before Saddam assumed power in 1979? It seems illogical to me to wish for the removal of Saddam's regime and not favor what is now happening. 5603. arkymalarky - 3/22/2003 6:21:23 PM I think that was such a deep-rooted Freudian slip that Al doesn't realize it. Either that, or he needs to close that other IE window and stick to one activity at a time online. ;-) 5604. alistairconnor - 3/22/2003 6:30:53 PM Message # 5594 Al, I apologise in advance if I'm misinterpreting you, but it seems to me that you are saying that Arabs are a backward people who need our help, e.g. this military intervention. 5605. Al D - 3/22/2003 6:32:14 PM Judith 5606. arkymalarky - 3/22/2003 7:00:00 PM That was me, not Judith, who brought up Freud. She got it, and I'm in my typical pre-spring-break-end-of-quarter "duh" mode. 5607. anomieme - 3/22/2003 7:21:57 PM I heard some speculation on PBS last night that our incursion into Iraq might have a less obvious long term strategic purpose. 5608. Al D - 3/22/2003 7:42:49 PM arky 5609. Al D - 3/22/2003 7:48:16 PM alistair 5610. anomieme - 3/22/2003 7:58:35 PM Al, 5611. Al D - 3/22/2003 8:07:37 PM anomieme 5612. anomieme - 3/22/2003 8:19:02 PM Al, 5613. Cellar Door - 3/22/2003 8:20:17 PM "It is sort of akin to the liberal idea that poor people exist because rich people exist." 5614. robertjayb - 3/22/2003 8:45:57 PM Hope it ain't so but there are hints on a Blog and on CNN that the thirteen casualties in Kuwait were the result of a fragging. A U.S. soldier is being questioned. Bad old VeetNam stuff. 5615. anomieme - 3/22/2003 8:50:59 PM Fragging. Seems like ancient culture. 5616. Al D - 3/22/2003 9:44:24 PM Hope may live eternal, but that guy probably will not. He is an American Muslim in the U.S. Army. Another peaceful Muslim strikes again. 5617. Edmund Dantes - 3/22/2003 10:38:59 PM 5618. concerned - 3/23/2003 1:42:28 AM 5619. concerned - 3/23/2003 1:46:58 AM Re. 5595 - 5620. concerned - 3/23/2003 1:53:03 AM Re. 5596,7 - 5621. concerned - 3/23/2003 2:14:36 AM Sun brands Chirac 'Saddam's whore' 5622. concerned - 3/23/2003 2:25:32 AM On its back page the Sun addressed French readers: "The whole civilised world, not just Britain, is disgusted with the way France's president and politicians have behaved over Iraq." 5623. alistairconnor - 3/23/2003 8:01:45 AM One reason that the US is a better nation than France is that people such as myself and jexster are free to insult the president all day long, yet insulting Chirac in France is a criminal offense. 5624. RickNelson - 3/23/2003 8:01:45 AM Cut and paste if ya wanna read it all- 5625. RickNelson - 3/23/2003 8:04:10 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/international/worldspecial/23SAUD.html 5626. RickNelson - 3/23/2003 8:07:35 AM Hiya alistair, I don't believe that has ever happened to me in all the time with any of you. That is a post is on the dot for time with another. Of course if the seconds were posted we'ld be off, but still. Kewl. 5627. alistairconnor - 3/23/2003 8:09:44 AM Just in case anyone didn't know, the Sun is the UK's "Daily Fox" newspaper (Rupert Murdoch : same arsehole, same shit) 5628. RickNelson - 3/23/2003 8:16:59 AM Ugh a tabloid! 5629. magoseph - 3/23/2003 8:52:00 AM Someone emailed him asking if he's real? 5630. RickNelson - 3/23/2003 8:54:13 AM (chuckling) well--- maybe. 5631. magoseph - 3/23/2003 8:56:04 AM Under French law it is a criminal offence to insult the president, carrying a fine of up to 45,000 euros (£30,000). 5632. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 10:57:32 AM Excellent up-to-the-minute war coverage can be found here. 5633. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 11:32:43 AM Michael Moore:In your heart you know he's right. 5634. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2003 12:25:52 PM magoseph 5635. alistairconnor - 3/23/2003 12:26:09 PM Sorry, I missed that bit about insulting the president being a criminal offense. I didn't know any such law existed, you certainly wouldn't think so, to read the press here. I wonder if anyone's ever been charged? 5636. alistairconnor - 3/23/2003 12:30:59 PM Pelle is slow to believe. But not afraid to change his mind. Not an idiot. 5637. judithathome - 3/23/2003 12:45:23 PM They just showed a still picture on CNN of bodies, allegedly American troops, on the floor. They have the film but choose not to run it. 5638. judithathome - 3/23/2003 1:03:48 PM Here is some more news on the captured soldiers. 5639. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 1:26:04 PM And you thought Saddam was bad, right? Well according to Focus on Family the Iraqi people now have to deal with the REAL HORROR -- "condom pushers and sex educators." 5640. magoseph - 3/23/2003 1:26:13 PM Far upthread I made it clear that I've changed my mind about the Baghdad Blogger. I'm disappointed that you don't read before you post. 5641. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2003 1:38:32 PM That's OK then, my beautiful child. 5642. robertjayb - 3/23/2003 2:37:39 PM Warning: Grim material represented as photos of captured and dead U.S. soldiers 5643. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:30:07 PM Conne believes this, Alistair, to mean something else. 5644. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:31:29 PM I wouldn't want see see AC paying a heavy fine for dissing Chirac. In fact, he may ultimately owe me for warning him of this. 5645. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:32:19 PM Not that I expect gratitude from one who who puts politics uber alles. 5646. alistairconnor - 3/23/2003 3:36:49 PM It's true enough that the French constitution gives rather too much protection to the president. As regular readers of the International thread will remember, I deplore the fact that he cannot be brought to trial during his term of office. 5647. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:42:55 PM Btw, politics aside, is this compensated for by giving the French President somewhat less power? 5648. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:51:23 PM Cruise missiles found in hidden bunker 5649. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:51:40 PM The missiles, with Al-Harith 2002 stencilled in red paint on the side, and covered with cyrillic writing, were housed in 20-m-long concrete bunkers, 8m high, buried under earth and protected by sliding steel double doors 30cm thick. 5650. alistairconnor - 3/23/2003 3:53:58 PM Yes, the president does not have executive power, that is held by the prime minister, who must have a majority in parliament. The president has the last word in foreign policy and military affairs, and his is the only finger on the nuclear button -- but that's about it. Chirac spent five years of his first seven-year term as a lame duck, with a left-wing government. He now has a right-wing majority for his second term, which has been shortened to 5 years by a recent constitutional amendment, and synchronised with the parliamentary term. 5651. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 3:56:29 PM Tom Cruise found in hidden bunker? I'm not at all surprised. 5652. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:56:56 PM Sorry. 5653. alistairconnor - 3/23/2003 4:13:30 PM Here's a rather roundabout bit of speculation on Saddam's health via the blog mafia, from an an Israeli guy named Gil (no, another one) 5654. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 4:14:13 PM 5655. magoseph - 3/23/2003 4:29:32 PM Tell me, magoseph, what distortion that you wish to attribute to me, if you dare. 5656. alistairconnor - 3/23/2003 4:36:02 PM No, Mago, Cerned was just doing his ongoing Frog-baiting thing. He's hoping one of us will lose it one day, and retaliate in kind. Chance would be a fine thing. 5657. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 4:53:46 PM 5658. magoseph - 3/23/2003 5:15:48 PM Note that it's the Socialist French, not conservatives, who are responsible for any restriction of freedom of speech, although JAH is desperately trying to turn the truth on its head. 5659. Al D - 3/23/2003 9:00:34 PM The only law I wish the French had and enforced is one on tail gateing. I loved the motorways , but prefer country roads, and I get very nervous at 90 kilometers with a car so close I can smell what he has eaten. 5660. arkymalarky - 3/23/2003 9:12:14 PM Sounds like what you needed was a pair of those Texas pistol-totin' Yosemite Sam mudflaps that say "Back Off!" 5661. ronski - 3/23/2003 9:47:05 PM Just curious, Cellar, 5662. Cellar Door - 3/24/2003 12:18:13 AM Give me the pics and I'll post 'em. 5663. Al D - 3/24/2003 1:35:06 AM Cellar 5664. alistairConnor - 3/24/2003 3:32:31 AM The only law I wish the French had and enforced is one on tail gateing. 5665. alistairConnor - 3/24/2003 3:56:48 AM I'm surprised that everyone seems to feel that the US had a bad day yesterday. 5666. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 4:22:09 AM Yes. This is the problem they've created for themselves. It is deeply ironic that they lost NATO, lost the security council, lost the UN, (more pointedly) lost Turkey because they decided to justify this war by touting reasons that Americans would buy, but the rest of the world wouldn't. 5667. alistairConnor - 3/24/2003 4:46:08 AM On the other hand... 5668. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:01:42 AM psy-ops 'GIs would be welcomed with roses' 5669. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:01:48 AM The precision of the weapons has been really stunning. John Burns of the NYTimes gave a brilliant piece of reporting on CNN of his experience standing on his hotel balcony half a mile away from the center of the bombing campaign, as well as Iraqi reaction. 5670. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:08:23 AM UB 5671. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:12:20 AM And, as the hawks never tire of repeating, US forces are likely to be welcomed with flowers and celebrations by ethnic, political and religious minorities that have suffered enormously under Saddam Hussein - just like the Israelis were received by the Shi'ites in southern Lebanon 21 years ago. 5672. alistairConnor - 3/24/2003 5:12:49 AM London and Paris stock markets down sharply this morning. Oil futures up. 5673. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:13:34 AM The notion that USA needs to control Iraq's oil....I think I don't want to purchase that article, jayackroyd. I think Iraq's oil is veddy fine, veddy good, and I think we don't need it that badly. 5674. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:14:35 AM They may be feeling more flexible this morning. What's up with the changing faces of SH? Today, he was back to normal, black hair, black 'stache, no glasses, no beret. Looked twenty pounds lighter than the second guy. 5675. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:17:36 AM Are you going to start whining about gasoline prices any moment? Shall I shield my eyes? 5676. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:19:24 AM UB 5677. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:21:23 AM No. Gas prices are low, way too low, imo, in the US. I'd like to see us crank those taxes up to make it 3-4 dollars a gallon. When oil prices rise, lower the tax. When oil prices fall, raise the tax. Keep gas at 3-4 bucks a gallon. 5678. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:21:40 AM You are not using your powers for good, jayackroyd, changing your wings around like that. 5679. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:27:20 AM I don't have wings, UB. I said this is a motivation for the war reported in the Daily News this weekend. I personally don't like the idea of an imperial, hegemonic America. I think it's shortsighted policy, and that the US is better off sticking to the promotion of capitalism, democracy and human rights, rather than force projection. You know, like dropping textile tariffs so Pakistani manufacturers can get in on the capitalism deal. End farm subsidies, so that countries like Iraq can sell food on the open market--if they have a decent government. 5680. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:31:11 AM I have no proof, but you edited the post I replied to, Mr. Wing. 5681. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:34:05 AM Sorry. I did not edit any post. I couldn't, if I wanted to, and I would never do that anyway. 5682. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:36:18 AM My apologies, then. I am obviously mistaken. 5683. alistairConnor - 3/24/2003 5:37:31 AM That's technically impossible, Ulgine. Jay doesn't own the server any more. 5684. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:42:13 AM Obviously mistaken, as I said. His #5674 was of the ether, and sprang unto itself, and I read it wrongly, and for this I must atone. 5685. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:43:26 AM Washington Post analysis on the reliance of the attacks on the expectation of quick surrender, and the effectiveness of psy-ops (and the flowers that haven't shown up). 5686. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:45:10 AM Warboy. 5687. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:49:28 AM Riverworld: let's all fight Nero every time he gets thrown back to the fishies. 5688. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:51:43 AM Well, Ulgine, I have been concerned that the neo-cons who devised this have been reading too much RMA literature, and not really worked out their contingency plans. They apparently had no plan for the failure of Turkey to cooperate. If they have no plan for the failure of the Iraqis to surrender as soon as a bombing campaign took place, then there's another problem. 5689. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 5:52:52 AM I never got Riverworld, actually. There was other Farmer stuff I liked, but Riverworld seemed more like a franchise than fiction. 5690. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:53:13 AM RMA literature? 5691. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 5:56:31 AM jayackroyd, is your deepest desire, to be a jarhead? 5692. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 6:02:02 AM revolution in military affairs. 5693. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 6:06:33 AM There is something interesting about the cynicism, discipline and attitude of the marines. I could never do it myself--I don't take orders particularly well,and I've never had the slightest inclination to fire a gun. But if you've read Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson, the character named Bobby Shaftoe captures the things I find interesting. As does his son in the book, Douglas MacArthur Shaftoe. One of main protagonists, a unix weenie, finds it easy to get along with the son, for various and amusing reasons. 5694. Ulgine Barrows - 3/24/2003 6:10:15 AM Pbbbbftt, jayackroyd. You jarhead. I bet you had beef for dinner. 5695. RickNelson - 3/24/2003 8:26:04 AM jay, 5696. iiibbb - 3/24/2003 9:34:56 AM from the brain of a friend of mine 5697. iiibbb - 3/24/2003 9:36:21 AM Iraq owes France and Russia a lot of money. Why? 5698. iiibbb - 3/24/2003 9:37:21 AM 5699. iiibbb - 3/24/2003 9:41:09 AM I think the most interesting follow up question to my friend is why is France and Russia willing to completely skuttle the credibility of the UN over contracts with Iraq? Surely it's not that big of a part of their GNP. 5700. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 9:45:37 AM Yes, and that's why I say the administration's diplomacy has failed so completely. Why weren't these questions privately, and if answered poorly, then publicly asked? Why weren't they pressed to make a constructive offer? Why wasn't it the French who were isolated? 5701. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 9:54:27 AM Was Saddam Hussein responsible for 9/11? Is he Osama Bin ladin in a fat suit? 5702. iiibbb - 3/24/2003 10:18:43 AM I think everyone's diplomacy has failed. Bush squandered his political capital too early in all of this. However, France, which co-authored 1441, has certainly been completely 2-faced while it was all still a debate. The USA, France, and Russia have all taken huge credibility risks over Iraq. There are bigger things in play. Perhaps it's the future power of the EU... especially given France's expressed goal of being a 'counterbalance' to the USA. I think France invisions the EU as a superpower. Nothing else explains the political risks being made. 5703. Wombat - 3/24/2003 10:19:05 AM Concerned--in his usual ignorance--completely misinterprets Paul Berman's analysis of World War I and the role that it played in shaking up the world as it existed and in fomenting nationalist ideologies. 5704. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 10:30:45 AM Maybe the 51st Iraqi division did not surrender. From AP: 5705. Cellar Door - 3/24/2003 10:39:11 AM "The same sage who prior to 911 asserted that Osama Bin Laden was a fictitious boogeyman constructed by the CIA to scare the domestic population and who disputed that Bin Laden even had anything to do with the SS Cole" 5706. Cellar Door - 3/24/2003 10:42:57 AM The Iraq Attack is not turning into the cakewalk that was so widely advertised in our ficticiously "free" press. 5707. robertjayb - 3/24/2003 10:45:30 AM The Bagdad Blogger, Salam Pax, is back. His new post seems to be a recounting of two days when he was down. Find link in the butterscotch bar. 5708. Wombat - 3/24/2003 10:48:54 AM It appears that Operation Iraqi Freedom might have been better named Operation Wishful Thinking. 5709. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 11:01:43 AM LIAR!!!! 5710. Cellar Door - 3/24/2003 11:09:42 AM Better get your act together, Count. Your troops are in open revolt. 5711. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 11:15:46 AM Me (of Cellar Door):
But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine. If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution of this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren
Wise words, but I know some will object to the God, as if god has anything to do with all this.
I quite agree. But don't you think the President makes a great case for war?
So what? Yes, I got it all from Ace, over on the other site, I confess. Would you have known that if you didn't lurk over there? I wonder.
Don't go attributing things to me that others do. Believe it or not, I can think for myself.
But yes, I do lurk over there. Just haven't bothered with the Politics thread since last week.
You are far too sensitive. I didn't attribute anything to you, I simple asked a question. T6hat is all beside the point. Did Clinton make a good case for taking care of Saddam or not? Now please don't accuse me of pre-determining your opinion about Saddam. I do have the idea that some people oppose the War because of their dislike of Bush, not you, of course.
And while my tactic was duplicitous, I am offended by the chickenshit.
So would you and Evie like to go to dinner with us when we come to Hawaii in November? Got any plans to be on the Big Island sometime in the first two weeks of that month?
We would love to go to dinner with you. We have some good friends that come over for that month, but they would just have to do without us for a day. We would fly over to see you. We will be on the mainland from April 7-Sept. 15. People wonder why we would leave Hawaii unforced. But we love change. We had thought we weould spend a month in old Yurop, but now that I have to, as a loyal Repug. hate France, we will forgo that great pleasure.
magoseph
It is not necessary to like a person to agree that he is doing the right thing, or to disagree with someone you like, I'm sure you agree. Look at Judith and me.
"Saddam Hussein gassed his own people!" -- number one on Dubbya's hit parade -- is a sick joke when one considers the length and breadth of U.S."Foreign Policy." Our "School For the Americas" trained hit squads to kill children in El Salvador. And then there was that 9/11 in the 70's when we overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvadore Allende and replaced him with Augusto Pinochet -- a mass murderer.
I could go on and on. But do you care?
I am curious how this thread has already managed 5000 posts. Surely what I have to say has been said before; however, I am too lazy to read 5000 posts.
So here goes:
I suspect that one of the purposes of threatening war with Iraq is to distract the voting peoples of the world from their problems.
In particular, I suspect that the Iraq debate is intended to distract the American public from paying attention to the abrogation of rights taking place in the name of fighting terrorism, an effort led by Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Opponents argue that the proposed war with Iraq will be a distraction from the war on terrorism. My suspicion is that that is exactly what the Bush administration wants.
I don't have any specific evidence for this suspicion, sorry. It is simply a theory that fits the facts I know.
I also have another theory: that Bush and Ashcroft truly believe they are acting in the best interests of the American people. Of course, I don't have any specific evidence for that theory, either.
No Al, they say 'hear, hear!'
< nitpicking mode/>
Why exactly?
France has been a player in the Middle East for... let's see... about a thousand years. France was the colonial power in Syria and the Lebanon, among other Arabo-Muslim countries. Americans, whose interest in that part of the world is quite recent (60 years?) seem not to understand that. Maybe it's possible that the French understand the region better than the Cheney gang?
Oh sorry, I forgot. They don't need to understand, they got the world's most powerful army.
Message # 4992Liberty will prevail... Yes, that's a fine French statue.
I come from a country that looks at loyalties much like families. Blood is thicker than water. But you risk no blood, and what remains in your veins isn't water but ice.
Why would you trust a dictator whose promise that he means no harm any more than you trusted a guy who said the same thing to your country more than 60 years ago?
You are a peaceful people, you say. Here's what I say…
You risk being a foolish people as well. I'm not saying war is right. I am saying ignoring evil is wrong. I'm not saying our president is a saint. I am saying Iraq's president is a menace.
Yet you prefer defending Saddam Hussein than understanding us. I'm not saying you owe us. I am saying given the choice between Iraq and the U.S., you should at least prefer us.
You ask why my people are so upset? Maybe because we see you people as so shallow.
You call us provincial. We call you forgetful. You say we have a tin ear. We see you only with a tin cup. You have made your choice: Oil deals over the real deal. You say we are biased. You are right, because we were stupid enough to think you were a friend. And we were wrong. You are not.
Maybe the Americans should read Gen. Aussaresses' book to get a few tips.
The use of torture is sometimes depicted as the work of army officers acting on their own. In fact, as Aussaresses makes clear, the French government knew and approved of the practice. Senior French officials, including Interior Minister Francois Mitterrand, who would later be elected President of France, were aware that torture and summary execution were being systematically employed by French troops in Algeria. Aussaresses is the first French officer ever to come forward and describe in detail the methods France used in the Algerian war. It makes grim reading.
Aussaresses never questioned the morality of what he did, and he is unapologetic about it now. Those who were tortured were often summarily executed afterwards. As Aussaresses puts it “The justice system would have been paralyzed had it not been for our initiative. Many terrorists would have been freed and given the opportunity of launching other attacks....Even if the law had been enforced in all its harshness, few persons would have been executed. The judicial system was not suited for such drastic conditions....Summary execution was therefore an inseparable part of the tasks associated with keeping law and order.”
Why would you prefer to side with a Germany — a country that destroyed you — than countries like the United States and Britain that saved you?
That's a good question.
France and Germany have made peace. That's no trivial matter, and it's a real and lasting peace.
I have a friend whose grandmother lost everything to advancing German armies three times - in 1871, 1914 and 1941.
Yet France and Germany are at peace, are friends, allies. The rate of intermarriage is very high.
I think that's magnificent. Germany will cause no more wars. Would you prefer that they were still enemies? Why?
I think that puts into perspective the alleged lack of gratitude of the French towards the US... forgiving an enemy to that extent requires a degree of amnesia.
However, I believe that France and the US are fundamentally friends. I value friendship. You help friends when they're in trouble, you share good times and bad, but... what do you do when a friend asks for your help to do something really, really stupid? Do you do it, for the sake of friendship? I believe a real friend tries to talk them out of it.
Sorry, me that time.
Yes, Ausaresses is a mean fuck, but there's no doubt that torture was covered by the military hierarchy.
Are you expecting me to defend France's colonial wars in Algeria, Vietnam, Madagascar? Sorry to disappoint you. Decolonisation was needlessly long and painful.
Nevertheless, old colonial relationships make for major mutual cultural influences. Which is why France understands the Middle East much better than the US ever will. 
I fear for the sixth flag over Texas...
WASHINGTON — Everyone thinks the Bush diplomacy on Iraq is a wreck.
It isn't. It's a success because it was never meant to succeed.
Lord knows, I don't diminish the threats we face, but for 18 months all we've been doing is exporting our fears to the world. Virtually all of Mr. Bush's speeches are about how we're going to protect ourselves and whom we're going to hit next. America as a beacon of optimism — America as the world's chief carpenter, not just cop — is gone. We need a little less John Wayne and a little more J.F.K. Once we get this Iraq crisis behind us, we need to get back to exporting our hopes, not just our fears.
AUSTIN, Texas -- OK, sign me up for the Bush program. I'm aboard. Who else can we insult, offend, bribe, blackmail, threaten, intimidate, wiretap or otherwise infuriate?
You are the only who is using the words 'evil' or 'traitorous' wrt, as you put it 'anti-war pukes'. In the future, try not to ascribe views to me that I don't have, since I fully believe in the right to dissent since I do it myself, as well as my right to ridicule sub-par instances of it.
I recall nothing of the sort. Rather, I objected when you started distorting my position, rather like you are doing now. Please stop doing this.
Even an idiot wouldn't believe that lie.
Btw, one of the areas where I part ways with Lefties such as Dubai is that I find broad brush ideological stereotyping such as he appears to wallow in wrongheaded and repugnant.
France has been a player in the Middle East for... let's see... about a thousand years. France was the colonial power in Syria and the Lebanon, among other Arabo-Muslim countries. Americans, whose interest in that part of the world is quite recent (60 years?) seem not to understand that.
There is a problem with this line of argument: much the same can be said about the British.
Good point!
I'm a political centrist, and not beholden to the political views of either party. Remember that.
....and this:
one of the areas where I part ways with Lefties such as Dubai is that I find broad brush ideological stereotyping such as he appears to wallow in wrongheaded and repugnant
gave me the first laugh-out-loud moment of the morning.
So we have to destroy him.
This entire thing with going to the UN has been such a farce; they should have just gone in and done what they planned to do all along. After all, it would all be over by now if they had. Right?
Its been like trying to sell magical elixer to a snake-oil salesman.
"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."
If all you want to do is live your life in peace, and 6 criminal thugs smash through your front bay window, do you allow them to have the run of your house, and then hopefully resume living your peaceful existance, or do you fight them to the death, to insure that you'll be around to live out your peaceful desires?
OK. If you KNOW that 6 thugs are going to smash your window and destroy you and your stuff, do you
a: hope they go away? (you only want peace, and they haven't done anything yet after all)
b: call the cops, and hope they get there fast enough, and in the meantime, wait for peace?
c: just keep watchin them?
or d: grab the weapon (that if you have ANY sense, you own), for home defense purposes, and confront them FIRST, either with a warning, or a threat. (?)
What that proves is that Blair ought to know better (there's no hope for Bush). Which sort of explains why the British public, and most of the British political class, are aghast : what is he thinking of?
That's the explosive charge leveled in a brand new book by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, a key Clinton military aide from 1996 through 1998 whose primary mission was to carry the president's copy of America's nuclear launch codes.
"We dispatched eight F-117 stealth fighter-bombers capable of carrying 2,000-pound bombs into the region and sent B-52s to Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, in preparation for action," reveals Lt. Col. Patterson in his bombshell security scandal tell-all, "Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security."
The Sept. 13, 1996 airstrike was planned as the U.S.'s response to an August 31 tank attack launched by Saddam Hussein on the northern Kurdish city of Irbil, a blatant violation of the 1991 Gulf War surrender accords that had an estimated 300,000 Kurdish refugees fleeing for their lives.
At the same time Saddam's Republican Guard had executed an estimated one hundred Iraqi dissidents and arrested fifteen hundred more - extinguishing whatever opposition the Iraqi dictator might have faced from within.
Two days before he attended the President's Cup golf tournament, Clinton had warned the world that "action is imminent" and that "the determination of the United States in dealing with the problem of Iraq should not be underestimated," reports the national security whistleblower.
With the F-117s and B-52s ready to take off and the cover of darkness in Iraq slipping away, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger placed a series of desperate phone calls to the Manassas, Virginia golf course seeking clearance from Clinton. But the president refused to come to the phone.
Clinton's response? "Tell him I'll get back with him later."
As mission critical minutes evaporated, an anxious Berger called again.
"This time he was animated, obviously upset," remembers Patterson. "Pilots were in the cockpits waiting to launch, targets were identified, everything was in place, all he needed was the go-ahead."
The presidential military aide promised the National Security Advisor that he would do everything he could to get Clinton to pay attention to the mission at hand.
"This time, the president was engaged in conversations with several people and was less approachable," Patterson reports. "I maneuvered through the crowd and caught his eye. When President Clinton saw me, he seemed disturbed at being interrupted again with something unimportant. He frowned as I neared him."
Still Patterson persisted. "'Mr. President, Mr. Berger has called again and needs a decision soon.' I explained in a low tone, 'We have our pilots in cockpits, ready to launch, and we're running out of the protective cover of nighttime over there.'"
But Clinton seemed unmoved. "I'll call Berger when I get the chance," he told the aide.
Less than fifteen minutes later Berger called back. "This time he was irate," Patterson recalls.
"Where is the president? What is he doing? Can I talk to him?"
The presidential military aide was forced to explain:
"Sir, he is watching the golf tournament with several friends. I've approached him twice with your request. I've communicated your concerns about the window of opportunity and about the pilots being prepared and ready to go.
"I'm an Air Force pilot myself, sir." Patterson told Berger. "I understand the ramifications. I'll try again."
And as for the friend who sent me the quip, he is a respected member of the teaching staff of a world class university and I have more faith in his wealth of knowledge and intelligence than I do in yours...just based on what both of you have shown me.
For the third time in an hour, the military aide desperately tried to get Clinton to focus on the mission - hoping he would appreciate that further delay could jeopardize the lives of U.S. pilots now waiting for his order.
But Clinton remained oblivious. "Tell Berger that I'll give him a call on my way back to the White House," he said, in what Patterson describes as an "indifferent" tone of voice. "That's all," Clinton added, in words the military man understood to mean the president didn't want to hear any more about the problem.
"I called Mr. Berger and explained that the president would contact him from the limo," Patterson recalled. "We both knew what that meant. We'd missed our opportunity."
The trusted soldier says he remains haunted by the episode. "Human lives were at stake - the lives of American service members and the lives of our allies who opposed Saddam at our behest and were now under attack.
"At a time when America's honor and grander principles were being challenged and the world was watching our every move...the president was watching golf."
There are HTML Hints at the bottom of every page.
Because international relations are a complicated business, never black and white, France is revolted by the unprecedented notion of pre-emptive war. Also, the unintended consequences are likely to be disastrous for the whole region. This isn't fundamentally a worry for the US, because they can always walk away from it afterwards. Europe can't walk away from it.
If you're thinking of economic interests, I doubt that they weigh heavily. Iraq is a very minor trading partner. Most of Iraq's debts to France have already been effectively written off, because the country is insolvent.
Why is Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary, going to resign over this war? Do you think he has economic interests in Iraq?
If you learned the thug brigade was working on a meansto harm you, and their secretary of thugism, stated in a press conference, "We are going to destroy Judithville, and the judithville civilization", would any flags go up then in your head??
Would you feel safe on your street then?
what would it take??
'Target Iraq' finds its audience
Heidi Benson
Sunday, March 16, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/16/RV52246.DTL
"I get no joy out of this book," says Norman Solomon, co-author of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You."
"I wish that it had turned out to be irrelevant."
Instead, it's shooting out of the bookstores.
In January, Context Books printed 20,000 copies. Booksellers showed such great interest that, publisher Beau Friedlander explains, "We had to reprint it before the first printing reached the distributor." The book has just this week gone back for its fourth printing -- of 60,000 copies.
"I expected it to do well," says Friedlander. "But I didn't expect it to float to the top of this very competitive and strange genre: anti-war books."
Another surprise? It's reportedly selling as well at the big chain stores as at independent bookstores.
"Target Iraq" aims to decode what Solomon and his co-author, Reese Erlich, call the "tacit collusion" between the Bush administration and the media.
That research has included three trips to Baghdad -- the first with Rep. Nick Rahall, D-Ore., and the second, rather famously, with Sean Penn, who contributed the book's afterword.
"There is a defining distinction between independent, assertive coverage and glorified stenography," Solomon says.
"There is U.S. government pressure, but no one forces news outlets to allow official sources to dominate coverage."
With an introduction by historian Howard Zinn, the book includes chapters written alternately by Solomon and Erlich -- with titles such as "Voices From the Iraqi Streets," "Spinning
9/11," "The Oil Issue." An analysis of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 is one of three appendices.
"People are hungry for alternative information about Iraq," says Erlich, a Chronicle foreign service reporter since 1988.
"This is a book with zero advertising budget, zero book tour. When the sales took off, there hadn't even been any reviews of it," says Erlich, who tips his hat to Context Books.
"I had friends in publishing who said that to put out a book in eight months would be some kind of a miracle," he says. "We put it out in two."
U.S. President George W. Bush said on Sunday that Monday was the last day for a vote on a second U.N. resolution that would pave the way for a war on Iraq.
Having said at a news conference that Monday was "a moment of truth for the world", Bush was asked by reporters if he meant the diplomatic window would close if by Monday the U.N. Security Council failed to pass a second resolution.
"That's what I'm saying," he said.
"Tomorrow is the day we will determine whether diplomacy can work," he told the news conference following a summit meeting with allies Britain and Spain. Bush, who has set as his goals the disarming of Iraq and a change of regime, said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could avert a war by leaving Iraq.
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said on Sunday the U.S.-British-Spanish summit on Iraq seemed to end with a divided message. Blix told Swedish public service SVT2 television he did not rule out visiting Baghdad but also that the U.N. was prepared to evacuate the weapons inspectors at short notice. "I find the message from there slightly divided. On the one hand (U.S.) President Bush seems to be talking mainly about how to liberate Iraq and make sure they have no weapons left there while (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair and (Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria) Aznar...
I appreciate your reasoned answer in Message # 5076
I'll be glad when Saddam is dead, that's one positive thing about it.
(a little apocolyptic humor there, folks)
'Human shields' in tug-of-war
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
BAGHDAD, IRAQ – By day, the "human shield" volunteers have no shortage of antiwar activities: they march, light candles, give kites to kids, and play soccer with their Iraqi hosts.
But at night, for some, the doubt begins to gnaw. Hunkered down at nine sites around Baghdad waiting for American bombs to drop, they pray their presence will spare Iraqi civilians. They are gathered around oil facilities and food silos, as well as water-treatment and power plants.
Now idealism, state propaganda, and the reality of a coming war are beginning to collide.
President Saddam Hussein late Saturday reorganized his defenses onto a war footing, dividing Iraq into four military regions, with his younger son Qusay in charge of the Baghdad region. As war draws near, the human shields are wrestling with being manipulated by Iraqis and critics alike, who paint their presence as support for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Their numbers have thinned to less than 100 people, with more packing up and leaving each day, down from a peak of 250 or so from 32 countries
New York, March 14 (Bloomberg) -- As the Bush administration masses troops in the Persian Gulf in preparation for a war to topple Saddam Hussein, U.S. refineries are the biggest customers for the crude oil Iraq produces.
Shipments to the U.S. more than tripled from September to January, according to the Commerce Department. Iraq supplied 17.1 million barrels in January, 6.4 percent of total U.S. oil imports and up from 5.15 million four months earlier.
The jump in imports came as an illegal surcharge that benefited the Iraqi government was dropped and as refiners sought alternatives for crude from Venezuela, where a strike crippled oil production.
``The U.S. is by far the biggest customer of Iraqi oil,'' said Eric Kreil, an analyst at the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration. ``Iraqi oil is a pretty good substitute for the Venezuelan grades that were cut off.''
Iraq pumps about 3 percent of the world's oil and is the third-largest producer in the Middle East. The prospect of a war in Iraq has helped boost the U.S. benchmark oil price by 39 percent since November.
U.S. imports of Iraqi oil rose by 64 percent in November from October, after falling to a four-year low in September. They continued to climb in December and January, according to Commerce- Department figures released yesterday
French Farce
Jack Lang, former French cabinet minister has just been urging "the world's religious leaders" to rush to Baghdad to act like human shields, almost blaming 83-year old John-Paul II for not being there already.......
The only area where Saddam can rely with confidence on the loyalty of his security forces is in the Ba'ath party's heartland around Baghdad. In an attempt to reassert his authority Saddam last week issued a directive ordering Iraqi officials not to give up their positions and flee the country.
To set an example, members of Saddam's security forces arrested a civil servant in the al-Hurriyya suburb of Baghdad on suspicion of preparing to leave the country. The unfortunate official was then tied to a pole in the street and passers-by were ordered to watch as his tongue was cut out and he was left to bleed to death.
Great guy. And France, Germany and American Democrats want to leave him in power?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department ordered family members of U.S. government employees and all nonessential personnel to immediately depart Israel, Syria and Kuwait.
I hadn't heard the following before:
The latest example of Saddam's declaratory tricks came last month, when he announced that individual Iraqi citizens and private companies were banned from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin immediately hailed the declaration as a victory for French diplomacy. What he did not wish to notice was that the so-called ban concerned only individuals and private firms in a country where no individual could own a donkey cart without state authorization, and where most private companies are owned by Saddam's clan. In any case, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are acquired and developed by state-owned companies, not in the local pizza parlor.
Even then, Saddam's declaration has not been submitted to the various organs of the executive and the legislative to become law.
It was a vile deception for de Villepin to have represented this announcement from Saddam as having any meaning regarding Saddam's willingness to disarm. But that is all that France has had to contribute regarding Iraq....besides bullying and procrastination, that is.
"[France] showed their cards, I believe. It's an old Texas expression, 'Show your cards,' when you're playing poker," Bush told a press conference after the summit with Britain and Spain plus Portugal as host in the Azores islands.
"France showed their cards . . . They said they were going to veto anything that held Saddam to account. So cards have been played," Bush added.
By putting the blame for the U.N. stalemate on France, Bush sought to reverse the view that Britain is out of step with Europe, when France is really the maverick - since 18 of the 26 European nations have explicitly backed the U.S.-British stance.
The entire tone of the summit made it clear that there's no time left for diplomacy. And indeed, Bush and Blair often seemed to look beyond the war to the future and hopefully, a democratic Iraq, a goal that can only be achieved by ousting Saddam. The message to wavering U.N. Security Council members - Chile and Mexico above all - was that if they want to weigh in and want the U.N. Security Council to have any clout, it will have to be now.
In effect, Bush was showing his own cards - and making it clear, in case anyone had any doubt, that the alternative to a U.N. agreement to get tough will be war by a "coalition of the willing" outside the United Nations - and not more delay. But the rift over Iraq has unveiled a deep split within Europe and made it clear that one of France's prime motives in stalling the showdown with Saddam is to try to counter U.S. power as well as protect its own lucrative oil deal with Saddam.
--NYPost
The three African nations, Chile, Mexico, and Pakistan were never even close to agreeing to the US ultimatum with its 17 March deadline.
They did their best to float a compromise proposal, giving the inspectors a month or two to do their job.
Rejected by the US.
The UK tried to table a compromise that would gain a majority. Rejected by the US.
Now Bush has issued an ultimatum. To the United Nations. To the entire world :
Are you with us or against us?
Having already made clear that he will take no account of the response.
That's how to win friends and influence people.
They could have got the same result, with UN backing. That's what Powell wanted. But they made sure it didn't happen.
But the coalition is so small, and the damage to the influence and prestige of the US so great, that better counsel may prevail in the future. I hope so.
If Bush persists in the unilateralist route, that will pretty much force other nations to build countervailing alliances. Hence the alignment of Russia with Europe, which may turn out to be a major strategic shift.
Like Alistair, I have no idea what the real American motiviation is. Or, rather, what was the factor that pushed Bush to pursue this war.
OTOH, I also don't understand why France is so fond of Saddam.
For the record, I think that Hussein is a threat. I think North Korea is a bigger threat. And while I might be persuaded that there is enough of a threat to justify war against Iraq, I really really DON'T like the propaganda that the administration is putting forth, much of which appears to be misinformation (I use that term in lieu of "lies" to be charitable -- maybe the folks in the administration don't know that they're being duped, not a reassuring thought in itself. And when I hear about people being arrested for wearing t-shirts and read about how the information that's coming from the administration is either duplicitous or wrong, and see the jingoism in response to French differences of opinion, I have to wonder which is the greater threat to America -- Iraq, or an administration that lies and attempts to quash all dissent in furtherance of a war.
But French support for Saddam is not limited to this most recent sequence of events. When Reagan (and Carter?) was supporting Saddam, it was for Metternichian balance of power reasons, trying to counter Iranian dominance. (I also happen to think those are bad reasons, almost always shortsighted and in conflict with US strengths--the idea of capitalism and democratic values.) I don't know the French rationale, outside of simple commercial interests.
Wiz:
Around 3,500 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed during the Gulf War. Does that clarify it for you?
Note that the Greenpeace article you cite lumps deaths during the war and its aftemath together so that they can cite a much larger figure, notwithstanding the fact that the sanctions are UN approved and enforced, and that the conditions for easing them for humanitarian purposes were at first ignored and then abused by Saddam, with minimal benefit to the Iraqis unfortunate enough to be living in areas that he controls.
This is nonsense. The U.S. could have farted around for the next six months and never gotten the U.N. to sanction force. France does not want Saddam disarmed or out of power. They are a better ally of Iraq than of U.S. or Brits. I don't hate France or the French, but their interest is in humbleing America, that is obvious.
Silly comments about Afganistan not being better off deserve no respect.
The big liar in all this is not Bush but Chirac, who never had any intention of enforcing 1441. But sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for; sometimes you get it.
Copenhagen -- The Danish government doesn't consider a new UN resolution necessary as a prerequisite for war against Iraq. Minister President Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared last night his country considers military support in this case just like it was in 1998 when Serbia was also attacked under leadership of the USA without an express UN mandate. Rasmussen said further: "In a conflict between a dictatorship and a democracy one must pick a side. We are for Democracy."
Which side has the French picked? And yet the peaceniks insist we have no support.
I'm cynical enough to believe it may have roots in a bid for re-election. If we weren't on the verge of war the economy would be looming quite a bit bigger. If we weren't on the verge of war the stock market might have calmed down and perhaps be doing better, however, we'd still be in the red financially. Honestly, I can't see any reason to be pushing so hard for this war in light of the fact that we're not pushing for war with North Korea whose potential for threat is quite a bit larger at this time than Iraq's.
I'm not against the idea of war to remove Saddam Hussein and I do think he needs to be removed, but at this time I don't think war is the appropriate road to take. Yeah, he's a liar and a foot dragger and very bad man. He's thumbing his nose at the UN as much as he feels he can possibly get away with, BUT what is his actual threat potential? Unless he's got nuclear or biological weapons aimed at us or our allies or he's within weeks of having such then I don't see what the rush is to go to war when the bulk of the world's leading nations are opposed to it.
Me too.
If you want to talk about the issues I'm happy to do so. If you just want to sling partisan insults then you can go party with concerned.
And, by the way, I consider your last remark a direct insult, but I guess it's O.K. if you do it.
When such an expression is made, it leads me to believe that the poster has no clue as to the evil of Saddam. And yet I know this poster is bright, well read, informed. It's a mystery to me, but many things are.
I didn't say that Afghanistan is no better off. I pointed out that Afghanistan, despite regime change, is still in a state of low-level civil war, and I fear Iraq will be worse than that in a year's time. You are entitled to think that's silly. I'm inclined to think that the US has a problem of limited attention span.
What did Powell have to say about our Lady C?
(I sincerely hope I haven't seen her off, with my rebuttals of her remarks)
A modest prediction. Quantities of biological and chemical weapons will be found. Some people here will then claim that they were planted by the Americans.
I won't. But I will ask to see independent verification.
The problem is, Powell is no better at faking it than a soft-core porn actor.
I think this guy has had his coke and it went right up his nose. All these assertions are nonsense.
alistairconner
What basis do you have to say America has a short attention span? Are we still in Bosnia? You can give as an example Afganistan and our leaving after the defeat of the U.S.S.R., but that is such a different case it doesn't apply. We not only have peace keeping force in Afganistan, but we have rebuilding force also. Has all of the aid that other nations pledged been forthcoming?
It is somewhat amusing that Euros think us shallow, even a bit dense. For most of our history, the majority of Americans traced their ancestry to Europe. Perhaps we got all the defects. If you are French, let me say I love your people and I love your country, and look forward to returning. I would gladly trade my home on Kauai for a month or two in France, but not this year. May better days be ahead.
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC
Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:
1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!
2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you --are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs two dollars a gallon --the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.
4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.
5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!
6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.
But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
You don't agree with the comment?
No I don't because I don't agree with generalizing the beliefs of everyone in the nation as either Liberal or Conservative. To claim that "of course liberals this" or "of course conservatives that" is nothing more than name-calling and it serves no purpose but to insult the opposition.
why is it an insult if it is the truth?
If it were the truth then I wouldn't have a problem with it but even here in the Mote there's a far cry between what the Wiz believes and what I beleive and yet we both fall under the blanket term "liberal". To use the term as an epithet and roll everyone in the nation up in it who doesn't support your view is partisan hackery --- "Anyone who isn't liberal/conservative is a moron no matter what they belive."
And, by the way, I consider your last remark a direct insult, but I guess it's O.K. if you do it
I wouldn't have thought that being lumped with concerned who is, afterall, a conservative, would be considered an insult, I mean, you just lumped all liberals together, right?
To be fair, I had hoped it would irritate you as your blanket statement about liberals was irritating to me. I'm ready to address any real issues you like --- meaning I'll answer questions and debate points that I actually espouse not points that are manufactured and assumed to be mine simply because I fall under the "liberal" label.
Let me know when you're ready, Al. I'd love to have lunch with you.
You are right and I accept your scolding. I am an expert at saying,
But my original point that those who hold that War with Iraq will be a disaster cannot then say Bush is doing it to get elected in 2004. If anything, both he and Blair are risking their future of the firm belief they are doing the right thing. Only will future will tell, but for me if was predictable that you would get a me too response.
I'm a political centrist, not a conservative. Please remember that.
Regarding the other question in your post:
How, if the war with Iraq is such a big mistake will it help Bush get elected?,
There are two issues here but I'll address the simple question of how a War would contribute to Bush's re-election, first.
Americans are the ones who vote on re-election so it's only going to be what concerns Americans that plays a part. There are a great many people in this country who, regardless of their political affiliation, would not risk a change of Administration in the middle of a war. These people are not of neccessity dullards or warmongers. It makes sense that if we're at war and we're not getting our asses kicked (we're unlikely to get our toes stubbed in a war with Iraq) then the folks in charge of running the war ought to stay in charge of it.. Winning a war is great for the national self-esteem which has taken several hard blows in the past two years. War also takes our mind of the economy by allowing us to feel that we suffer financially for a good cause regardless of whether our economic woes are the result of the war or not. I think everyone is also well aware that a Republican administration is more militarily capable in the public's eye than a Democratic one.
cont.
Do you never end with this "Liberals" stuff? I am a Liberal, and proud to be one. I think that George Bush is a disaster for this country, and that the only thing worse than one term of his presidency would be two. I am skeptical about his administration's motivation for targetng Saddam, and am dubious that there will be the kind of follow-through needed to rebuild Iraq. About the only thing that I agree with the Bush administration on is the impending war, which as a Liberal who does not favor keeping evil regimes in power any longer than necessary or feasible, I support.
Alastair:
If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq quickly, you may well have a series of low (and not so low) grade civil wars. Strikes me as an argument in favor of a lengthy occupation.
Richard N. Perle, the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, has a vacation home in the South of France, Al.
The second issue is why war is such a big mistake and I have to point out that I have not said that I am unequivicably against war with Iraq only that I am against it at the present time. I believe that we may very likely have to take miliary action against Saddam Hussein, but I don't see it as inevitable nor do I see it as immediate.
Contrary to your supposition I don't think thousands of American lives will be lost. The Iraqi casualties will likely be in the thousands and perhaps tens of thousands, but they're dying in the thousands already and will continue to do so. Callous as it may sound I'm not particularly distracted by the possible death toll. If it is neccessary to go to war against Iraq to prevent full scale nuclear and/or biological war then it's a sad, sorry price to pay but there's no help for it.
This issue here is neccessity. I haven't seen compelling, verifiable evidence that we NEED to go to war at this time. I've seen a lot of manufactured evidence and I've heard a lot of rhetoric, but it's going to take more than that and a picture of firemen crying in front of the WTC to convince me that war is the best thing to do at this time. In fact, the more of that shit I see the less inclined I am to believe we have compelling reasons to go to war.
cont.
Aside from neccessity I'm concerned about our international standing. So far it hasn't really mattered much what the rest of the world thought of the US because we had the power and the money to tell them to sod off. Contrary to a lot of whining over the years, our reputation really hasn't been all that bad. Sure, there's resentment over the amount of power we weild and the wealth here, but in general we've been looked upon with great favor. With the formation of the EU and the fall of our economy, however, we're not quite as big a dog as we used to be. There is a lot of simmering resentment internationally and so far this administration has done very little to placate and an awful lot to provoke ill-will toward perceived US unilateralism. We withdrew from the Kyoto agreement, refused to participate in the World Court and now we've decided that the UN is only binding for other countries, but not us. Rather than take the time to work through this, our Administration is handing out ultimatums and pushing for a war that it has yet to prove is immediately neccessary.
end. whew!
Or, worse, Bush may get out and leave the region in a horrible mess.
Presumably the "irrelevant" UN will be obliged to clean up the mess.
I'll believe you're a centrist when you start calling Bush the WH-Coke-head as often as you call Clinton the WH-Rapist.
Until that time you define yourself by who you name your enemies to be.
I think he will do the same with this job; leave it to someone else to worry about.
I'd do that if GWB had ever taken cocaine during his presidency. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Don't think I consider Lefties my enemies simply because I kid around with them, because I don't.
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
The problem is, Bush didn't have the balls to table anything. So the moment of truth never occurred. We're stuck with the lies.
Why didn't Bush table a motion? Because even US voters would have scratched their heads and asked themselves, hey how come Mexico, Chile and Pakistan are supporting Saddam? Aren't they our allies?
In other words, the whole fiction about evil France, the ally of Saddam, would have come messily unstuck, when the vote went 4-11 against Bush.
I will try to respond more fully to your posts. Right now I will make one comment (lunch being served shortly).
fall of our economy
The other day I watched Ari's press confrense. He got one question that started thus
"With the economy in shambles..."
This is the famous, "Now that you no longer beat your wife..."
Yes, the economy needs stimulas, and it won't get much help from the Democrats, speaking of impending elections, since a thrieving economy, given a successful War outcome, dooms the Democrats. Forgive me for being so cynical about Democrats, but it is my belief that politicians act in their own interest, even Democrats.
I know that must burn you Lefties up, but too bad.
Re 4946:
Wiz:
Around 3,500 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed during the Gulf War. Does that clarify it for you?
Okay, wombat, but even with that low estimate, we didn't invade Bagdad or have a plan of Shock and Awe.
America will murder many more this time around--I say "murder" because murder is the unlawful killing of people.
Very legalistically framed, connie.
I wouldn't put it past them. I haven't been happy with many of the leading Democrats of late. They're unorganized, unprepared and have shown themselves unwilling to give clear alternatives to Republican propositions. In large part it's why they lost control of the Senate. They need to distance themselves from the breast-beating fringe and and quit trying to adopt Republican ideals with a front re-fashion of hippy appeals. Until the Democrats are willing to stand up and stand apart they'll continue to take second place in Government. I can only hope that they get their act together sooner rather than later.
it is my belief that politicians act in their own interest
I agree. I also believe that it has become the norm for politicians on both sides to lie whenever they think they can get away with it while pandering to the lowest common denominator. Frankly, it disgusts me.
They have the spines of cuttlefish.
I don't think this is true. I think that, generally speaking, the US has avoided throwing its weight around like a playground bully, and has used international institutions skilfully to achieve its ends, and, sometimes, to make the world a better place.
That was before the current administration, of course.
Firstly, remember that Germany was the first to make a big deal about opposition to the programmed war. They could probably have gotten away with their conscientious objector routine, with its obvious historical reasons, although their position seemed already to provoke the animosity of many Americans.
But rather than leave them isolated, Chirac seized the opportunity to make common cause. We were in the middle of the 40th anniversary of the Franco-German treaty (they even trotted out the sons of Adenauer and de Gaulle for the occasion, spitting images of their fathers). A new European constitution is being written, and a Franco-German alliance has always been required to make any progress in the construction of the EU.
So there's one reason, and a good one in terms of European politics.
But then, consternation : a bunch of newly-independent East European countries were talked into signing a letter, aligning themselves with the American position. Probably they naively thought they were doing the right thing, promoting European unity. That's what Blair and Aznar told them anyway (the lying ratbags).
(continues...)
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hoo hoo hoo. gasp Ha hahahahahaha heeheee hohohohoho.
Woah, that's rich.
You're killing me.
So that's one interpretation of the whole deal : Chirac was manipulated by the Rumsfeld clique, whose long-standing agenda is to get the US to act outside of international institutions, building short-term coalitions etc. A French veto would make that inevitable... well, it worked. Sort of.
France has a long-standing close relationship with a large number of Arab countries. For the US, the Middle East is about Israel, and perhaps about oil, too. For France, it's a whole lot more.
Arab public opinion is very much opposed to intervention in Iraq. This is not because they like Saddam : far from being seen as a modern Saladin, as he would like, he's universally hated and despised, as a bloodthirsty tyrant and a loser. But the invasion of an Arab country by occidentals is not something that they can countenance. By his position, Chirac has become a hero in the Arab world, alongside de Gaulle, who is revered. This will be one lasting effect of the Iraq crisis.
After all, Chirac hasn't made any other mark on history that I've noticed, and time is running out for him. He embraced the role thrust upon him.
Domestically, Chirac of course has picked up a lot of support from his position on the crisis. By an accident of history, he was elected with 82% of the vote, including all of the left. In a sense, it's payback time for that.
I will try to respond more fully to your posts. Right now I will make one comment (lunch being served shortly).
fall of our economy
The other day I watched Ari's press confrense. He got one question that started thus
"With the economy in shambles..."
This is the famous, "Now that you no longer beat your wife..."
Yes, the economy needs stimulas, and it won't get much help from the Democrats, speaking of impending elections, since a thrieving economy, given a successful War outcome, dooms the Democrats. Forgive me for being so cynical about Democrats, but it is my belief that politicians act in their own interest, even Democrats.
After all, Chirac hasn't made any other mark on history that I've noticed, and time is running out for him. He embraced the role thrust upon him.
Can you think of anyone else fitting that profile?
Mr Cook dismissed the argument that France's President Chirac had alone stopped a resolution, saying that to think that was to "delude ourselves". Neither Nato, nor the EU, nor the security council supported Britain and the US, he added.
"Britain is not a super power," he said. "Our interests are best protected not by unilateralism, but by multilateralism". These interests, and the international alliances they depend upon, were an early "casualty of a war in which a shot has yet to fired".
Message # 5181
Actually I tend to agree with you. It would have been more accurate for me to say that the opinions of the international community are becoming more important and our own position weakened particularly with the consolidation of the EU. The Euro last I checked was stronger than the US dollar.
AC -
You sound like you can't even make that one sound convincing to yourself, particularly when you have to resort to such unlikely mythmaking as:
Chirac was manipulated by the Rumsfeld clique....
Puhleeze.
So you think Rumsfeld's "old Europe" remarks were sheer ineptitude, rather than deliberate provocation? If he's that inept, he should be removed. Aznar agrees.
see you later!
No. I'm saying that anybody who lets the coinage of a phrase such as 'Old Yurrup' by somebody else affect his policy decisions is an incompetent.
Sure.
In connie's world Down is Up -- if the RNC says so.
If Rumsfeld gets France to go down in flames re. Iraq, as AC posits, simply by associating the words 'Old' and 'Yurrup', I would hardly consider that incompetency on Rumsfeld's part, since he would effectively have uncovered a terrible flaw in the way France is run.
President Bush said Monday Saddam Hussein must flee Iraq or face a U.S.-led invasion, abandoning U.N. diplomacy to brace Americans for war within days. Bush was giving the Iraqi leader 48 hours to comply, administration officials said.
The curtain drawn,
And I at least pretended
That love was dead and gone.
But now from nowhere
You come to me as before,
To take my heart
And break my heart
Once more.
Get out of town,
Before it's too late, my love.
Get out of town,
Be good to me, please.
Why wish me harm?
Why not retire to a farm
And be contented to charm
The birds off the trees?
Just disappear,
I care for you much too much,
And when you are near,
Close to me, dear,
We touch too much.
The thrill when we meet
Is so bittersweet
That, darling, it's getting me down,
So on your mark, get set,
Get out of town."
Wiz:
By keeping Saddam in power, you would guarantee that thousands of Iraqis will continue to be murdered by Saddam and his minions. Is your conscience clear on that?
post hoc ergo propter hoc, right?
Bush was defeated because he raised taxes in '92. You see, wombat, Republicans get upset when the person they voted for lies. But, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
It is possible and even likely that thousands of Iraqi civilians may be killed in the war. However, the war will end, Saddam will no longer be running Iraq, sanctions will be ended, and most Iraqis--I believe--will consider themselves to be much safer and better off without him.
You would prefer this not to happen, which I guess means that you would prefer to see sanctions continue in Iraq, and that Saddam should remain in power. Given the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Iraqis who have been killed under Saddam already, you had better consider your own conscience before you ask about mine.
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia on Tuesday committed its troops to fight against Iraq if the United States launches military action to disarm Baghdad of weapons of mass destruction.
"This decision was taken at a cabinet meeting this morning following a further telephone discussion between myself and (U.S.) President Bush," Prime Minister John Howard said as protests began in a nation divided over the need for war.
It's time for Saddam, Chirac and Blix to be frightened. Very frightened.
It was quite informative and gave more actual information about WMD than did Powell.
I am more in line with the reasoning now, but still unconvinced that there was not another solution.
I'm pretty sure that one can argue that if there was no ultimatum by the US, that some chance would exist for things to turn out optimally. But, what bothers me as much as anything is that there simply was no other country besides the US that was willing to put any pressure on Saddam whatsoever. That, by itself, made the status quo somewhat untenable the moment the Allies started committing significant numbers of troops, with countries such as France and Germany refusing to participate. If they had also committed some forces, I think there would have been a very significant chance that the US would not have felt enabled to propose the current ultimatum to Saddam.
Why include Chirac and Blix in that statement? Are you suffering from the same delusion that Bush apparently suffers from -- that these people answer to him? What exactly do Blix and Chirac have to fear? Are you going to vote against them in the next election? Nincompoop.
And how about Shroeder? He's already about as popular in Germany as barbequed pork at a bar mitzvah and screwing the pooch on Iraq sure won't polish that turd any.
I guess you're going to vote against him too? Idiot.
I'm glad W didn't hash it out with the UN. All the pundits said it was a good thing. Paving the way for there being a part of the future solution W is beginning.
The one I watched had a delusional nincompoop named George Bush pinning a star on himself and declaring that he's sheriff and he's going to ride into that there town called Iraq and clean it up good.
W.
Nope that didn't do it.
Quayle.
Yup, that did the trick.
It's enough to make a Lefty shudder.
Sorry, bub. Participants in another forum thought that post was hilarious.
That some nations are just going to come around right now, at this point isn't good enough. If a united front had been held up to Saddam and UNSCOM and the other groups had been given the backup so much needed (especially pre-1998), then this might {and I say again- might} have been avoided.
Now it's just no use fussing over what we who oppose the war want. We cannot stop it, so now what?!
I know we support our troops and our country just as much as the hawks, but with different intent. Can we do nothing now. Stopping the war is not an option. So, we must consider what is next. I think it will be to watch the post action.
What is the next policy? Can we devise any push that is needed for the next phase?
We can all remember the troops coming home and the years hence which saw that they had illnesses to be treated, which the VA had trouble identifying and thus ignored.
So, we might want to consider writing congress-people about our concerns for this next post-war.
If a united front had been held up to Saddam and UNSCOM and the other groups had been given the backup so much needed (especially pre-1998), then this might {and I say again- might} have been avoided.
I agree with this. Faced with enough pressure from the UNSC, Saddam might have been forced to comply with disarmament, or, failing that, accept an indefinite UN presence, either of which would have forestalled the current situation.
Wiz:
By keeping Saddam in power, you would guarantee that thousands of Iraqis will continue to be murdered by Saddam and his minions. Is your conscience clear on that?
You delude yourself, Wombat.
What happened in Yugoslavia after Tito--freedom and prosperity?
"Get Out of Town"
Tap my heels and I'll be back home, tra la la la la....
Cellar:
It is possible and even likely that thousands of Iraqi civilians may be killed in the war. However, the war will end, Saddam will no longer be running Iraq, sanctions will be ended, and most Iraqis--I believe--will consider themselves to be much safer and better off without him.
If you consider death to be safety.
gotta get some rest - work an stuff -
I ain't no "King of the road".
But, I'm diggin' Johnny Cash singin' that Nine Inch Nails tune.
Neat little either/or you've got going there. Because I'm against the war I must be FOR Saddam Hussein. Is that it?
How utterly MORONIC!
The Iraquis you're talking about were killed by weapons WE GAVE SADDAM!!!!
We didn't care about their deaths when they happened.Only now -- for propaganda purposes -- do we suddenly care.
And I'm sure you cried bitter tears into your pillow at night about the thousands we killed in Central America -- by the hit squads we trained.
CRY ME A FUCKING RIVER!!!
You know nothing of history and do not care to know.
Then name ONE weapon that the US has sold Iraq used against its civilian population.
From Reuters:
PARIS (Reuters) - France says the world does not back U.S. President George W. Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face military action.
The office of French President Jacques Chirac said in a statement on Tuesday the United Nations Security Council opposed the move, and that ignoring international opinion would carry a "heavy responsibility".
True enough, but there is another way of looking at a weaker dollar. There are many experts who feel that the dollar was overpriced and the consequences of this have hurt our manufacturing industry and resulted in a severe loss of jobs and a ballooning trade deficit. They would regard the weakness of the dollar versus the Euro as a welcome adjustment.
They can't be more than 15 minutes away from Kuwait City and I'm sure it's lit up at night. It seems to me that if Hussein really has a death wish, this is a good way to go down in flames. The other possibility is an attack by some types of PT-109 boats fitted with launchers that lag projectiles loaded with chemicals into the city.
Then the pundits played up the newest penetration projectile. I think they said it's a rocket type. It has a special cone which will penetrate deep and cause a firestorm(I'm then sure it's the uranium mentioned in the YES! article I posted).
They also mentioned the MOAB and the three front assualt plan. This irritated me. Why are they mentioning anything about the assualt plans. I suppose it's considered common knowledge, just to obvious.
The part I didn't like is that they mentioned only two and we are to assume the third. It is obvious that the 101st is the third. The other two are the ground assualt and the Tigres river, via Basra assualt.
I guess they could be doing this sort of advance bragging in order to rattle the enemy but it seemed a little foolhardy to me to lay out so much for any and all to hear.
Either way, if we are rattling them or just to know-it-all, the Iraqi can do more to disrupt the attack, knowing for sure.
Blame it on France.
He added that the Iraq issue would decide the world's way of handling 21st century security threats, the future of the United Nations, the transatlantic balance, relations within the European Union and the way Washington engages with the world.
In which case, we're in deep, deep shit.
If the Iraq crisis is to be a blueprint for the way Washington engages with the world, then you bear a heavy responsibility, Tony boy.
Hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but Iraq's principal arms suppliers have been and still are...wait for it...France and Russia.
You really don't want to cite ex-Yugoslavia as an argument in your favor, since it held together fairly well initially, and when it began to disintegrate, it was countries such as Germany that resisted the (1st) Bush Administration's calls for caution, and laying a groundwork for a more orderly transition. Europe and the UN then manifestly failed to handle the situation as it fell apart.
What is keeping a lid on things there now is a large multinational military force, including a U.S. contingent. What would keep Iraq from going the way of Yugoslavia would be a large, hopefully multinational military force. In this case, I daresay you would call it an "imperialist occupation."
Remeber the amphibious assault on Kuwait in the first Gulf War? Iraqi forces mined the beaches and placed many of its forces to cover the beaches.
(AP) Washington DC Wednesday, March 16, 2003 3:45 PM
President George Bush has announced that the US will not attack Iraq. The President announced that he is agreeing to deploying additional inspectors throughout Iraq.
The US will send 250,000 additional inspectors:
24,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division
15,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
15,000 members of the 82d Airborne Division
More than 5,000 members of the 4th armored division with their "M1-A1 all-terrain vehicles"
Additional US Army personnel, as needed for inspections
A variety of US Air Force personnel for aerial recon missions and other "surveillance" activities
A significant number of United States Marines to aid with inspections
United States Coast Guard personnel to inspect coastlines
An undisclosed number of Rangers, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Recon Marines, Delta Force, and other Special Operations personnel to inspect Iraqi "hideaways"
Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft from the USS Constellation, USS George Washington, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Enterprise.
The President said: "With these additional inspectors, the inspections should be completed in a few weeks.
A common approach from Germany and France is now a given, and it's a good thing.
My memory is longer than yours.
I wouldn't take that for granted.
(AP) Washington DC Wednesday, March 16, 2003 3:45 PM
The dates on that article are impossible. March 16th was a Sunday. This Wednesday will be the 19th and it hasn't happened yet.
Pelle, in order to show those attributes, they first must possess them.
Well, fucking duh, Christin.
Obviously I didn't read the article or I would have noticed it was facetious.
I'm feeling overly earnest this morning for some unknown reason.
Wiz:
You really don't want to cite ex-Yugoslavia as an argument in your favor
You miss my point--with the multi-ethnic mistrust and hatred in Iraq, the lack of international support, North Korea's desperation and madness looming and with our economy tanking, we are throwing a bomb into a fanatic's cesspool and you think it will be a controllable shit storm?--utter folly and typical of American arrogance!
You aren't going to impose peace, freedom and prosperity with more terrorism. The price of this fiasco will destroy the esteem and good works of America, forever—and contribute to making the world a global Beruit.
Yugoslavia disintegrated in large part because once Tito died lesser leaders sought exploit ethnic and religious differences that Tito was able to repress/paper over. In Iraq, Saddam has encouraged and exploited ethnic and religious differences as a means for him and his clique to stay in power. Much as you would like it to be so, I am not sure that the departure of a divisive and brutal regime and its replacement by something different would necessarily make the situation worse.
This is the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks, Pelle!
No, faking it will do.
Well, the President could never fake it.
Nice left-handed compliment to Bush, Judith!
Is that what you wanted to jump in for, concerned dear?
If the war goes in a way that resembles what the administration posits will happen, the main centers of hatred for "U.S. aggression" will remain Islamic fundamentalists and sociolgy departments at universities worldwide, neither of whose attitudes would be changed by anything short of the United States' destruction.
If I understand you correctly, you're postulating that if the war is successful as the Bush hawks believe, the Islamic fundamentalists and University pundits would seek the destruction of the United States. I would take the position that if we lost the war, they would be more interested in seeking to destroy us. The other point I like to make about this matter is that the Arabs as a group are quick to abandon a loser and I know this from personal experience. If they capture Ben laden and a few others, the Al Queada will fade into history very quietly.
I am suggesting that nothing the US did short of self-destructing would satisfy those who hate the US already. Note also that it is not just the "Bush hawks" who are predicting a quick war.
I don't know much about left-wing professors around the world.
The Arabs you refer to as fundamentalists are basically religious fanatics. What they believe is that Allah determines everything--everything is foreordained. When things begin to go badly for them or their leaders, they tend to believe that Allah disproves of what they are about and begin to abandon the ship. Their justification is that it really wasn't willed by Allah that they proceed in this fashion and so their messiahs become false prophets. This has been the history of the conflict between the Arabs and the West.
Yes, relations are at an all-time low. The French view us as a bunch of fat, simplistic, SUV-driving, gum-chewing, gun-shooting, mall-dwelling, John Wayne cowboys who put ketchup on everything we eat, including breath mints. Whereas we view the French as a bunch of snotty, hygiene-impaired, pseudo-intellectual, snail-slurping weenies whose sole military accomplishment in the past 100 years was inventing the tasseled combat boot.
Sadly -- as is so often the case when people resort to vicious stereotypes -- both sides in this dispute are 100 percent correct. But the fact that we hate each other, with good reason, does NOT mean we can't be friends! 
One needn't be an Arab to be an Islamic fundamentalist. I wouldn't make that assumption.
I realize what you've said and it is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, I have no personal experience with any other group than the Arab Islamic fundamentalists. I have, however, read of the British campaigns in Aphganistan and North-Africa and they tend to corroborate what I had to say.
The President's Real Goal In Iraq
This piece is from September 2002.
What scares the daylights out of me is the sneaking suspicion that bush somehow thinks his role in this is also foreordained...as some great step toward armageddon and the return of the messiah....
No thanks, Hans. We've got our own people. They know what to find. We don't want any more of those damn model airplanes showing up. We'll get the good stuff. Believe it.
Scary how? The view that pulled Yurrup's chestnuts out of the fire twice in the world wars and that saw international communism off?
I totally agree...it's getting really nasty out there if you don't believe the "right" way.
What do you think they believe, the ordinary Americans?
There has been a growing tide of anti-intellectualism in America for some years now and it truly IS frightening.
A great many people disliked the Clintons because they felt them to be intellectual snobs. They didn't "click" with the common man. What's even more alarming is that many of these people have cleaved to George W. Bush because they consider him "just regular folks."
The truth of the matter is that Bill Clinton was just regular folks. He came from inauspicious beginnings and become Governor of Arkansas and then President. By contrast, George W. is as much like just regular folks as any son of a multi-millionaire former U.S. President.
I think much of it may have to do with their speaking styles. While both of them speak with comforting Southern (passes for any rural) accents, Clinton is by far the better public speaker. George W. is not particularly good at prepared speech-giving --- not unlike most people.
Clinton, coming from a less advantaged background pursued a polished and intellectual demeanor------it's the only way most regular folks can be taken seriously by the elite. George W. was raised as an elite and it is encouraged among his crowd particularly in the South to speak lazily. It's a way of showing one is important and elite and doesn't have to try to impress anyone.
Without any dubious comparisons of either man's IQ or claims about which style is the "better" it is clear to me which man most "regular folks" are more comfortable with. What I find astonishing is that anyone who brings home less than 6 figures a year can believe that he truly has something intrinsic in common with the son of an oil baron regardless of whether they come from the same state or region of the country.
Former House of Commons Leader Robin Cook discusses his resignation. Also, former British Prime Minister John Major. On Larry King tonight.
I'm going to see Gore Vidal tonight.
You must be in an entirely different environment than I am then. What 'nastiness' has been perpetrated on your poor self?
It was nasty enough for me...I've never been shunned for my beliefs before.
JAH -
I'm sorry that happened to you. I've only discussed this situation a little at work, mostly with one individual. People do talk about Iraq a fair amount at lunch, but not that often during working hours.
Let's hope we can finish ours on the last day of our war.
Pelle
I realize you enjoy being cryptic, but I am very curious about your meaning.
I am amazed that smart, well meaning people make assumtions and assertions about what other people believe. I have some difficulty being absolutely sure what I believe and tend to let others tell me what they believe.
As to the Wiz/wombat discussion; perhaps each person is arguing for what they hope will happen.
When he believes, he doesn't believe he believs and when he doesn't believe, he doesn't believe he doesn't believe.
Have a nice evening; I intend to.
The poster assumes no responsibility (none, zip, nada) for the authenticity or accuracy of this blog.
It reads as something pretty authentic to me. Tell me, if it's a fake, who would be faking it, and why?
And what about Russia? How should they have handled Russia? Have you noted that the Duma has shelved nuclear arms reduction -- something which makes the little Franco-Yankee spat look frankly inconsequential.
A somewhat reluctant admission by Le Monde this morning that Blair - contrary to expectations - did not fare bad at all in yesterday evening's vote authorizing Britain going to war against Iraq without the sanction of the UN. Actually the Labour vote was enough to carry the day, no need even to rely on a single Conservative vote.
As for the protest resignation of a Minister, a Secretary of State and an Under-Secretary of State, even Le Monde has to admit it's no big deal, considering the British cabinet is made of 91 such Ministers, Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State.
All this means squat. I think it could be real too. But, what bugs me is that the writing is so American. Why?
Why do people post anything under fake names? For the personal satisfaction of getting one over on everyone else; that's all it takes, a mindset so juvenile as to get their kicks out of fooling others. Sort of like calling a grocery store and asking if they have Prince Albert in a can and collapsing into giggles after saying "Better let him out" and hanging up.
If it's fake, it's still a remarkable piece of fiction. I feel sad at discovering it so late.
RustlerPike, the host of Israel & Palestine lives in Israel but spent some years here as a teenager. He is in his thirties, I believe.
Judith, try reading the guy's stuff and then tell me if you think it's a silly prank.
You and me right here, for a start, Alistair.
But people have been faking things since the beginning of time and some are fairly good at it.
It IS very interesting and if it is a fake, it's really done well.
;-)
...did not fare bad at all, you say? That's an understatement, Marc-Albert.
Au fait, vous avez des nouvelles de Jexster?
19/03/2003 - 3:35:04 pm
At a meeting of the UN Security Council, the King of Bahrain has offered sanctuary to Saddam Hussein.
It never occurred to me that I was giving you a message. I'm very sorry to have been so insensitive, Mac.
No, in fairness, its about time.
It's not impossible at all. All he has to do is arrange for a private flight to, say, Libya or North Korea. King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa "announced that Bahrain is willing to accommodate Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, if he wishes to reside here, with dignity and without disgrace to Iraq."
And other info, some plausible...some iffy.
You decide.
Be most slow to believe what you most want to be true (Samuel Pepys)
I think you should ponder that re the blog guy.
It's just been updated again.
Quite likely it won't be updated again for a while : apparently they have cut off the state satellite feed, and internet access is likely to follow soon.
As to your technical musings about internet access in Iraq, Pelle, the site is riddled with references to the state proxy servers blocking sites etc, all highly plausible circumstantial evidence.
Here is Salaam's discussion of his plausibility issue
Can we believe that?
Nobody in his right mind wants his country bombed to smithereens and invaded.
'We have done it before and we can do it again,
We can do it again, oh
we can do it again.'
Using 80% smart bombs, the Allies will not bomb Iraq 'to smithereens', as you put it.
Bush will have his work cut out for him with this!
US names 'coalition of the willing'
Meanwhile, a new poll by the Washington-based Pew Research Center indicates that the number of Europeans with a favourable image of the US has plummeted, even among the coalition of the willing.
In Italy, only 34% view the US positively, compared to 70% in 2002.
In Spain, only 14% have a favourable image.
That may explain why Italy and Spain, although strong supporters of diplomacy, are not sending troops to the Gulf.
And even in Eastern Europe, support for the US has dropped from 80% to 50% in Poland.
There is a second list of fifteen nations, giving their support anonymously! That's my best laugh of the week so far.
(I mean, that's very generous, but I guess that if it's anonymous, it's not even tax deductible)
But it gets better ! Apparently, New Zealand is one of the fifteen... on the strength of a promise of humanitarian aid. Yet NZ has consistently been against war without a second SC resolution.
That's gratitude for you. Just when the UNSC nations should be kissing GWB's rosy red cheeks for doing them the favor of insisting that UN Resolutions actually have some real world applicability, the Yurrupeons are acting like greedy little spoiled children with their snotty little noses out of joint.
No-one likes us, I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
And all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one, and see what happens...
Laughable really. Perhaps the US has been listening to Bill English and Richard Prebble rather than Helen Clark.
Or maybe not. After all, they have to trade with someone... 30 trading partners is rather a short list.
Why doesn't the EU grant Clowntoon overlordship over one of its feifdoms? Now there is somebody who wants nothing more than to be liked, especially by the hired help. He's right down Yurrup's gutter.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A handful of explosions rocked Baghdad at dawn on Thursday as jets roared overhead, Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries opened up and air raid sirens sounded.
Reuters correspondent Nadim Ladki, reporting from the city center, said the blasts appeared to come from the southern suburbs. He heard two or three explosions, followed by a similar number at about 5:30 a.m. local time, an hour and a half after a U.S. deadline for war on Saddam Hussein had passed.
I'll be weeping for the innocent Iraqis who will be killed, Al. I won't be shedding any tears for Saddam Hussein.
That is what Alistair fears the most. But then he said he will demand proofs from an independent international verification commission......
:: Thursday, March 20, 2003 ::
air raid sirens in baghdad but the only sounds you can here are the anti-aircraft machine guns. will go now.
:: salam 5:46 AM [+] ::
Nope. Maybe a couple of worms are burping, though.
He's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
Maybe, if he was an Israeli mole.
His two hated enemies at war with each other. I bet he never foresaw this on 9/11.
Enjoy it while it lasts, Snow-owl, because it's going fast. In fact, I hear CBS Radio is already reporting that two Iraqi divisions are negotiating surrender.
...there is still nothing happening im baghdad we can only hear distant expolsions and there still is no all clear siren. someone in the BBC said that the state radio has been overtaken by US broadcast, that didn't happen the 3 state broadcasters still operate.
:: salam 6:40 AM [+] ::
I leave the enjoyment of war to people like you, concerned. I hope it does go fast and I hope there is minimal amount of bloodshed by Iraqi civilians.
Doncha Lefties just hate it when it's a RWinger doing what your guy promised and failed to deliver?
How old are you? 9? 10? Most kids have grown out of seeing the world in black and white by that age. You must be a late developer.
Possible Protester Dies in Golden Gate Bridge Leap
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A man who may have been protesting the looming U.S. war on Iraq (news - web sites) plunged to his death from San Francisco's famed Golden Gate Bridge on Wednesday, officials said.
The unidentified man, who handed authorities a statement before jumping, survived the initial fall into the frigid San Francisco Bay but died soon after Coast Guard rescuers scooped him up and rushed him to shore for treatment, police said.
"He jumped, he wasn't pushed," said California Highway Patrol spokesman Wayne Ziese, who called the death a suicide. "Apparently he had a statement to give to police and jumped."
There were few other details available about the 40-year-old male as the law enforcement agency said it does not release any information regarding suicide cases.
Now that was really unexpected. When the sirens went on we thought we will get bombs by the tom load dropped on us but nothing happened, at least in the part of the city where I lived. Air-craft guns could be heard for a while but they stopped too after a while and then the all clear siren came.
Today in the morning I went with my father for a ride around Baghdad and there was nothing different from yesterday. There is no curfew and cars can be seen speeding to places here and there. Shops are closed. Only some bakeries are open and of course the Ba’ath Party Centers. There are more Ba’ath people in the streets and they have more weapons. No army in the streets. We obviously still have electricity, phones are still working and we got to phone calls from abroad so the international lines are still working. water is still runing.
the english speaking radio station on FM is now replaced by the arabic languge state radio program broadcasting on the same wave length. i just say thet because last night just as the BBC was broadcasting from baghdad (yes we have put up the sat dish again) their news ticker (or whatever you call that red band down there) said that the Iraqi state radio has been taken over by US broadcast. We watched saddam’s speech this morning, he’s got verse in it!!
:: salam 1:23 PM [+] ::
Marc-Albert, if you're going to attack me, kindly attack me on what I say, rather than your lurid fantasies of what I might think.
I have expressed several times the hope that the war will be short. I have also said that I think it likely that they have chemical or biological weapons. But I also think it's plausible that they may have none. Like Blix, I'm waiting to see with interest.
But then he said he will demand proofs from an independent international verification commission......
And you, I suppose, will believe if Powell waves a sheaf of paper or shakes a phial on TV. In spite of the faked uranium documents, in spite of the false intel supplied to the weapons inspectors.
It must be nice to live in your world, where everything is simple.
20/03/2003 -2:59:06 pm
Saudi Arabia has been quietly helping the US set up for a war against Iraq, even as it spent months vocally opposing one.
Thousands of US troops have deployed near the Saudi border with Iraq and in a garrison town in the north. More have been deployed at an air base near the capital Riyadh.
And 3,300 Saudi soldiers are in Kuwait as part of the Peninsula Shield, a military operation ordered by the Gulf Cooperation Council to protect Kuwait from a possible Iraqi attack.
“They have given the Americans everything they have asked for,” one Gulf official said. “Saudi Arabia is not participating – it is facilitating.”
Hello? Is that desert sand filling up your empty skull, Dubai? What kind of numbnuts is so stupid as to believe that a casualty has to be a combatant? 
Doublespeak to make a lefty proud from Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
From the NY Times :
In Kuwait, the four missiles fired by Iraq were not Scuds, but shorter-range weapons. Two were Ababil 100's, which were shot down by Patriots. Another was a tactical ballistic missile, but no name or type was made available. The fourth was an antiship missile, which landed near the marines at Camp Commando.
Nate Thayer is in Baghdad:
There is universal opposition to the war: George W. Bush's name is spit with venom. Yesterday, a soldier saw me on the street and shouted, "George Bush, I fucked your mother. We will win this war because you are here. You are a human shield. We are all human shields and the world is with us." Still, I have been greeted with kisses and hugs as often as I have with people pointing fingers at me and yelling pow-pow.
That excerpt has no bearing on the Reuters report of Iraq firing Scud missiles, of course. Or does the NYT have their very own news wire?
The NY Times says they weren't Scuds, but shorter-range missiles. Do you have contrary information?
Iraqi Scud intercepted by US Patriot in the north of Kuwait
Iraqi Scud was intercepted Thursday afternoon by an anti-missile missile Patriot of the American army in the north of Kuwait, announced the official agency Kuna.Une source of safety, quoted by the agency, specified that the shooting of the Iraqi missile was at the origin of the alarm given a little earlier to Koweit.Deux other ground-to-ground missiles Iraqi of average carried had fallen down before in the desert of the north of Kuwait without making victim, according to the ministry koweitien of Defense, pushing the soldiers koweitiens and American to put their helmets at gas.
excerpt:
KUWAIT (Reuters) - Iraq fired Scud missiles at Kuwait on Thursday, officials said, sending U.S. troops scrambling into chemical protective suits and setting air raid sirens blaring in Kuwait City.
A Kuwaiti defense ministry spokesman said a U.S. Patriot anti-missile defense battery brought down two Iraqi Scuds, intercepting one with three Patriot missiles and the other with a single Patriot.
All reporting at this stage is unreliable. And we know, for sure, that the Pentagon releases false information at these stages, as they did wrt Patriot and smart bomb effectiveness in 1991. We also know, for sure, that information out of Iraq is a passel of lies.
Just 20 minutes ago CNN and ABC were trying to figure out whether Saddam Hussein is alive or not, because the last guy who appeared as Saddam on TV didn't look exactly like the guy who was on TV yesterday.
And, btw, you should look at Saletan's piece. It'll be mighty hard to make the case that Iraq posed a threat if they crumble as fast as you say--and as early reports make it look like they will.
Sharon said yesterday that there was a one percent chance of a SCUD being launched against Israel. A bureau chief stationed in Israel says that he's been told by Israeli intelligence that there are about six SCUDs in country, and that they are all in bad condition.
"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile."
Contain your paranoia, Concerned, and accept the fog of war.
I provided two credible cites with a link to back up the Scud report. Your excerpt does not refute them.
Tell you what. Only if and when AFP, Reuters (and Fox) change their reports to deny that Scuds were fired by Iraq would be when there's reason to think that Iraq didn't fire one or more Scuds today.
So, try to contain your paranoia, ok?
When you start imputing motives other than confusion and incomplete information to reports from reputable news sources, it is you who is being paranoid. Get a grip.
Puhleeze. I have four news services all saying that Iraq fired Scuds into Kuwait.
You won't get anywhere by launching your idiot invective against me. Take that bullshit elsewhere, ok?
I is nice and comfortable to talk about wanting Saddam removed, and at the same time insist that removing him with force is wrong because civilians might die. I'd go along with that view if a viable alternative could be sugested.
"Meanwhile, the missiles launched by Iraq at targets in Kuwait on Thursday were not Scuds, as was originally believed, but FROG (Free Rocket Over Ground) missiles - or something similar -which have a maximum range of 70 kilometers."
Dubbya's the classic "Bottom who thinks he's a top." 
the all clear siren just went on.
The bombing aould come and go in waves, nothing too heavy and not yet comparable to what was going on in 91. all radio and TV stations are still on and while the air raid began the Iraqi TV was showing patriotic songs and didn't even bother to inform viewers that we are under attack. at the moment they are re-airing yesterday's interview with the minister of interior affairs. THe sounds of the anti-aircarft artillery is still louder than the booms and bangs which means that they are still far from where we live, but the images we saw on Al Arabia news channel showed a building burning near one of my aunts house, hotel pax was a good idea. we have two safe rooms one with "international media" and the other with the Iraqi TV on. every body is waitingwaitingwaiting. phones are still ok, we called around the city a moment ago to check on friends. Information is what they need. Iraqi TV says nothing, shows nothing. what good are patriotic songs when bombs are dropping
around 6:30 my uncle went out to get bread, he said that all the streets going to the main arterial roads are controlled by Ba'ath people. not curfew but you have to have a reason to leave your neighborhood, and the bakeries are, by instruction of the Party, seeling only a limited amount of bread to each customer. he also says that near the main roads all the yet unfinished houses have been taken by party or army people.
The writer of this piece doesn't really know what the missiles are, but he is sure they're not Scuds? I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable.
I am so tempted to laugh about this but I guess if you believe FOX is the be all and end all of veracity, it would be more appropiate to cry.
I've heard "the oilwells are burning" followed by "No they're not," followed by "Yes they are," and so forth for the better part of the day.
It'll be awhile before any of this can be sorted pout with anything apporaching accuracy.
The only thing that can be said with any assurance is that it's a sad, sad day and a lot of people are going to die that shouldn't.
Parliament votes 332-202.
So, Turkey finally came on board after all... Good old Turkey.
They have agreed to give overflight rights. Only. Which makes them less co-operative than Ireland, which gives refuelling rights. Actually, it puts Turkey on the same footing as... um... France and Germany.
I'm actually very concerned about Turkey. They gave permission for fly-overs, but are also stating their intention to invade northern Iraq. This so they can take control or more acuratley wrest control of the very rich and main supply oil fields of that region. They don't want the Kurds to have them and thereby obtain an economic achievement tantamount to independence.
I saw somewhere (unverified) that Basra had already been taken.
Events are Ok, but awfully redundant.
I hate this crap!
Ok, with it happening, then what's next for southern Iraq, northern Iraq and the middle? Seems there are distinct sections which are being discussed.
The Sunni middle Saddam's control and support. The Shii'te south, a concern where Iran is involved covertly and the Kurd and mixed north. Especially the north where oil and refugees are gathering. Then the f'n Turks and their intent to get troops into northern Iraq!
Those bastards are going to mess this up. It's not a great thing, if necessary. Then these f'n Turks have the balls to invade the north, NOW?! It's like Greece all over again. I'm getting pissed off again.
Downing Street made clear its disgust at the French president's behaviour after he insisted on removing a paragraph from the summit communique expressing regret that Iraq had not responded to UN demands to disarm under resolution 1441.
But Mr Blair put his foot down when M Chirac also tried to remove a reference in the declaration stating that the EU's aim remained the "full and effective disarmament" of Iraq.
That puts me in mind of a story:
The Bunny and the Snake
Once upon a time in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned bunny and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth.
One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake and fell down.
"Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I've been blind since birth, so, I can't see where I'm going. In fact, since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am."
"It's quite OK," replied the snake. "Actually I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother. Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what you are."
"Oh, that would be wonderful" replied the bunny. So the snake slithered all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft fur; you have really long ears, a soft cottony tail and your nose twitches. I'd say that you must be a bunny rabbit."
"Oh, thank you! Thank you," the bunny cried and then said, "Maybe I could feel you all over with my paw, and help you the same way that you've helped me."
So the bunny did that and remarked, "Well, you're smooth and slippery, have a forked tongue, no noticeable backbone and no balls. I'd say you must be French".
Funny.
However, Blair is meeting with Chirac. He might have snubbed him. Winston Churchills grandson by the same name thinks the French should be snubbed.
I'm working at a customers house. I just turn it on and leave it on.
That being true will not hold. No way hozay!
"The missiles Iraq fired against Kuwait on Thursday were not long-range Scuds as initially reported on the international media, but much shorter ranged ground-to-ground missiles. In all likelihood the missiles fired are those code-named by NATO as "Frog," with a range of not more than 70 kilometers."
Some of them wont need to, but those that do, they should be able to get it. The population of vets using VA health services has gone up considerably, while the budget has not kept in pace. That is the story. It's not that the budget isn't an increase it's that it's not doing the job already, and the increase is not enough just to get back to anything like something more reasonable.
Support our American Troops!
Here is where I wrote my congress person. It's a form letter.
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me.
But while you swelter
Down there in your shelter
You can see me
On your TV. While we're attacking frontally
Watch Brinkally and Huntally
Describing contrapuntally
The cities we have lost.
No need for you to miss a minute of the agonizing holocaust. Yeah! Little Johnny Jones, he was a US pilot,
And no shrinking violet was he.
He was mighty proud when World War III was declared.
He wasn't scared, no siree! And this is what he said on
His way to Armageddon: So long, mom,
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me.
But though I may roam,
I'll come back to my home
Although it may be
A pile of debris. Remember, mommy,
I'm off to get a commie,
So send me a salami
And try to smile somehow.
I'll look for you when the war is over,
An hour and a half from now!
U.S. intelligence officials believe Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, possibly accompanied by one or both of his powerful sons, was still inside a compound in southern Baghdad early yesterday when it was struck by a barrage of U.S. bombs and cruise missiles.
But intelligence analysts in Washington and operatives working in the region were not certain whether the Iraqi leader was killed or injured or escaped the attack, according to senior Bush administration officials, who worked yesterday to analyze a videotape of an appearance by Hussein broadcast on Iraqi television within hours of the pre-dawn bombardment.
Why is virtually every media outlet saying that Iraqi fired Scuds into Kuwait, Wombat? Could it be that this is indeed what happened? I think so.
Could Saddam join Waldo, Osama and the Easter Bunny in the pantheon of proto-mythological characters?
Do you ever get tired of being wrong, concerned?
That's as bad as calling a suicide in San Francisco a "casualty of war."
In general, I think it's admirable the way the US military are conducting the war so far -- rather than the shock 'n' gore we were promised, carefully controlled strikes which spare the civilian population, and engagement of ground troops.
There is a lesson here. It's possible, indeed generally preferable, to hold great power and refrain from using it. The US administration should ponder this.
From what I hear so far, these missiles were a mishmash of various types, launched to maximum range. The missiles would become less stable as they pushed passed their effective range envelope, with the on-target probability diminishing accordingly.
It really does sound like a desperate attempt to damage the invading forces at the forward battle line. The Iraqi's might have had to decrease the payload/increase the propellant to achieve longer range. I do hope that the Iraqi's will just stow their rifles, find some cover, come out when it's over and get on with taking ownership of their country.
What you seem to want is for more people to die. Removing the threat now is, so far, proving relatively painless and bloodless. Are you disappointed about that?
(I mean, as long as we're making insulting and baseless accusations, let's do it properly.)
Have you read the remarks I've posted over the last couple of days? Do you still think I want more people to die?
Yeah, I've read your comments; if you don't want people thinking you are an idiot, maybe you should read them, and apologise for them.
I'm very disappointed that vets get such a raw deal. Many have suffered form neglectful agencies, U.S. agencies whose responsibility it is to see to their needs. Again the population is up and, the needs assessments are below the need.
What about these latest vets. W says the best of the U.S. is there, no better citizen than these soldiers. And when they retire, need health care, or are disabled by this war, or soon have some mysterious symptom or another, will have to wait 6 months to get on the rolls of their VA hospital or medical center.
There is a plan by W to combine the VA with the Dept. Of Def. so that the hospitals and staff on bases are available to vets and visa verse. That's a good idea, which would be very logical. However, the illogical beauracracy of these agencies and dept. is that they do not cooperate, but compete. F'n stupid mother f'ers.
To the present war, has anyone heard what's happening with the Turk intent to send troops into northern Iraq?
I do not envy the commander of the 101 Airborne Division, who may be the one who has to referee this problem, as well as deal with Iranian attempts to interfere (Iran has its own Kurd "problem" as well).
:: Friday, March 21, 2003 ::
The most disturbing news today has come from Al-Jazeera, they said that nine B52 bombers have left the airfield in Britain and flying “presumably” towards Iraq, as if they would be doing a spin around the block. Anyway they have 6 hours to get here.
Last night was very quiet in Baghdad. Today in the morning I went out to get bread and groceries. There were no Ba’ath party people stopping us from leaving the area where we live, this apparently happens after the evening prayers. But they are still everywhere. The streets are empty only bakeries are open and some grocery shops charging 4 times the normal prices, while I was buying bread a police car stopped in front of the bakery and asked the baker if they had enough flour and asked when they opened; the baker told me that they have been informed that they must open their shops and they get flour delivered to them daily. Groceries, meat and dairy products are a different story. One dairy product company seems to be still operating, not state owned, and their cars were going around the city distributing butter, cheese and yoghurt to any open markets. Meat is not safe to buy because you wouldn’t know from where and how it got to the shops. Anyway we bought fresh tomatoes and zucchini for 1000 dinar a kilo which would normally be 250. and most amazingly the garbage car came around. (more)
The Iraqi Satellite Channel is not broadcasting anymore. The second youth TV channel (it shows Egyptian soaps in the morning and sports afterwards) also stopped transmitting. This leaves two channels: Iraq TV and Shabab (youth) TV. They are still full of patriotic songs and useless “news”, they love the French here. We also saw the latest Sahaf show on Al-Jazeera and Iraq TV, and the most distressing minister of Interior affairs with his guns. Freaks. Hurling abuse at the world is the only thing left for them to do.
On BBC we are watching scenes of Iraqis surrendering. My youngest cousin was muttering “what shame” to himself, yes it is better for them to do that but still seeing them carrying that white flag makes something deep inside you cringe.
we sit infront of the TV with the mao of Iraq on our laps trying to figure out what is going on in the south.
:: salam 3:13 PM [+] ::
We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945.
I have reconsidered my position re the Baghdad Blogger. I'm now inclined to think he's the real McCoy (but some doubts linger).
No. Why?
That's what we've been reduced to -- spectators at an obscene cavalcade of horror.
I've turned off my TV.
Meanwhile They're calling out the National Guard for the Oscars
Guess they figured Michael Moore needed at little "Shock and Awe." 
What a stupid question, Dubai. Don't bother me with it, idiot - go to all the news services I cited that say Iraq is throwing scuds and get them to retract, or hold your peace.
With Michael Moore-on, it's always lies and scurrility.
I would ask that of you, connie.
What "prevarication" are you talking about? The Democrats? They're the left wing of the Republican party. Everybody knows we've got a one-party system in this country.
Slate has this article listing blogs and other sources. 
An unidentified U.S. soldier gives candy to Iraqi boys as he patrols in the southern border city of Safwan, Friday, March 21, 2003. Waving Iraqi civilians greeted members of the 1st Marine Division as they entered the town of Safwan. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)
That soldier doesn't look much older than those kids. 
I wish to apologise to Dubai Vol's mother, and to everyone else reading this thread, except Dubai Vol.
Dubai Vol has said that I should apologise for something else on this thread, but he has not said what. Dubai Vol should feel free to eat shit.
For the record, the only death I have wished for on this thread is that of Saddam Hussein.
Well funnily enough, they did take a bit of a spin around the block... When I saw this morning that the B52s had left Britain, I thought, they'll be flying over my head. But no.
They boycotted France. They avoided overflying French soil (but flew through French airspace, amusingly enough, under the auspices of the air traffic controllers of Brest and Bordeaux) and flew over Spain, adding at least an hour to their trip.
Is ChIraq still enjoying near unanimous French support for his self serving obstructionism? 
Iraqi citizens from the town of Safwan celebrating their liberation from Saddam. (Reuters)
I link this article partly to show how wrongful, irresponsible and extreme the anti-US & GB statements emanating from the French Government are. Even though they've deluded themselves into believing that their skullduggery is justified by some imaginary 'moral high ground', even they can see that France has burned enough diplomatic bridges in its failed gamble that much more will be lost for France than has been gained by the temporary inflation of Gallic hubris.
Check the link: More photos from the front lines
God, those pictures of Brazilians burning our flag really, really piss me off.
"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly.
We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to
Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored.
We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war.
The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will.
Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend.
Am I getting this right?
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that
too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.
Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves.
We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard.
And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let
us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition.
We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.
Listen. Don't misunderstand. I think it is a good thing that the members of the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I only wish someone had pointed out that "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" are meditations on paradox and puzzle and illogic and on the strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like, `We must make war on him because he is a threat to peace,' but not amusing for someone who actually commands an army to say that."
As a collector of laughable arguments, I'd be enjoying all this were it not for the fact that I know--we all know--that lives are going to be lost in what amounts to a freak, circular reasoning accident
I always worry when these ditzy protesters set US flags on fire because of a photo montage I saw of what happened to a Palestinian who thought it would be cool to use an accelerant to help things along.
Not so anybody can tell.
Chirac is fulfilling my prediction that he would resort to flinging baseless accusations and making deranged threats against GB and the US since the Allies have slammed the door on his attempted manipulation of the UNSC regarding Iraq.
Here's an exchange of letters that might interest you.
Hearts and minds my eye.
Did ya all see 'em? Huge plumes and the noise? What the hell is that popping like machine gun bullets blasting?
Cnn and nbc both said the bombs were sometimes targeted on top of one another to penetrate furhter into suspected bunkers.
I got kinda sick watchin' it.
Put on a comedy central movie and that did the trick. Agent Drix. Ha, what a hoot.
Anyway, this is nasty bombing. Rumsfeld was saying it's almost all leadership and command directed. Did anyone else hear that?
I think if it's possible to end this fast, they are doing what might work. Get the head and the body dies. Maybe the Rep. Guard wont be able to last without those leaders?
The retaliations and purges against both sides are likely.
I heard purges by loyal Saddamites have occured. That's sad.
This t.v. war stuff...
What "colonies"?
Anyway, Iran is being a F@*k right now. They're supposedly sending in instigators to push the hate for the Sunni command and retaliate. This might offer up some instability that the conservative Islamic nationalists in Iran would capitolize upon. They might find and create some zealots with their meddling.
Maybe you're right. If the Allies just sorta drag this out and take things nice and easy, then there really will be a good chance of a humanitarian disaster developing in Baghdad. Plus, Allied enemies of all stripes will be given new hope while more Alllied troops die.
This is the diplomacy nightmare, that cannot be fixed. This is the part that a lot of us would like handled some way with international cooperation. Like the new ICC might have rights to stop Iran? I don't know, I cannot recall if they signed on. No I'm sure they did not. But, what of the UNSC? and whomever in the Arab world? Or don't the Persians have play with Arabs? I don't know what's happening in Iran nor Turkey these days. Goddamn news.
Mauritania. Gee, cllrdr, didn't know 'til you told us that CBS is a subsidiary of Free Republic.
I'm not without support to get rid of Saddam and now it's this way. This wont change, it's not gonna make a difference is protertors are out and nasty or nice. It's just not.
I then think there's a lot to consider. There are so many ramifications for what's happening. Not to dis the leadership, not to dis the troops nor anything of the coalition. It's not that anymore.
It's end game planning time. What's gonna need to be done and who is gonna fuck it up. Iran and Turkey are whom I'm concerned about and am asking for opinions and looking for whomever has some good links, some good essays, some any remark that they've been there or are there.
I also want to see how the admin is gonna handle Iran. Or Egypt, Jordan, Syria, whomever else? Wasn't Syria an axis of evil for a few administrations. How about now? And what the hell is Libya up to, isn't Khadafi still a prick?!
It's still early, I don't need to be told that. It's just good to talk over some of this. I wish I could know what the admin in Wash. is talking about regarding these. I know they are, they're smart and have so many damn advisors. It's just they don't come out with it and the damn reporters ask the same inane questions all the time. At least this past week that's what I observed of White House briefs.
Sauce for the goose you know. Reap the whirlwind and all that.
Reports are that Moammar Qaddafi has seen the light, changed his spots, whatever. And Syria has a different president now: Bashar al-Assad.
I've heard that the ol' man died in Syria, is that right. Is this new pres. his son or an independent?
Expect the UN to find things to do in Iraq for quite a while.
His son. And what I've heard about him wrt supporting terrorism could be more reassuring. But he's apparently nowhere as problematical as Saddam was.
Is it an issue for the new Iraq?
I've been wondering if the Afghani govt. is doing Ok? Haven't heard a thing for months.
You brought up Afganistan once before, and I responded about Karzi before a Senate Committee. There are good things happening there.
However, it's at least somewhat heartening to see that Berman has achieved a certain understanding of world dynamics that is exceptional for somebody of the Leftist persuasion but quite common among others, such as in areas relating to modern Yurrupeon (LW) provincialism and the mistaken notions behind the purported 'end of history' that were fashionable about a decade ago.
Berman spends far too much of his time meaninglessly lambasting GWB for his 'inarticulateness', etc., not understanding that lowest common denominator polemics are far from the preferred means of communications for those with a more comprehensive grasp of geopolitics, nor that the current administration's strategy includes, as a high priority, promoting representative government as a way to maximize regional stability, rather than obsessively pandering to LW special interest groups such as feminists.
But you do think we're doing the right thing this week?
You're trying to pin me down. I'm not going to endorse Bush's policy. I'm saying that he went about it in the wrong way but I want the U.S. to do it thoroughly. No goodhearted person should imagine that it would be a bad thing to overthrow Saddam Hussein. But we have to do it well.
The man is literally tying himself into semantic knots in order to avoid supporting the current administration, thus the portion of the interview where he attempts to criticize the Bush Administration is of minimal worth at best, and usually detract from whatever validity his arguments other wise have.
Blair betrays the US:
"There is a common view now, not just among the Europeans but with the US, that we have a new UN resolution that authorises, that governs, not merely the humanitarian situation but also the post- Saddam civil authority in Iraq."
Britain will "continue to press the case for further Security Council resolutions, first on the continuation of the oil-for-food programme . . . and secondly on the establishment of a post-Saddam administration".
Mr Blair's remarks are likely to cause consternation among those US hawks who do not want Iraq under UN administration.
Molly Ivins
Before we all work ourselves into such righteous snits that we can't even talk to one another anymore, let's see what we can agree on.
Wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein does not make anyone a bloodthirsty monster or a tool of the oil companies. Being worried to death about the consequences of invading Iraq does not make anyone unpatriotic or in favor of Saddam.
The guard may begin looting and demanding tribute from the entrapped population. The solution, as I see it, is to make a financial deal with the Republican guard and the goon squads. Pay the price whatever it is and be done with it.
The key line in the interview is "I'm scared out of my mind."
Fear destroys clarity of thought and action.
His notion that the left is capable of spreading "liberal thought" around the world in the current atmosphere would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. His rendition of Chomsky is likewise naive.
No surprise that he has nothign to say about the economic self-interest of the Bush Crime Family and its associates in the oil business. His sole criticism of Bush relates to a percieved ineptitude in "spreading Deomocracy."
But Bush has no interest in Democracy.
None whatsoever.
Having followed Berman over the years I can't say this is much of a surprise, however.
As many as three U.S. missiles aimed at targets in Iraq may have landed in Iran, two officials at the Pentagon said Saturday.
The official Iranian news agency reported that four rockets have landed in Iran over the past two days.
U.S. and Iranian officials are discussing the matter and Iran realizes that any strike was unintentional, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Meanwhile and more importantly...
Applause as Marines enter Basra
Coming into Basra as part of a massive military convoy, I encountered a stream of young men, dressed in what appeared to be Iraqi army uniforms, applauding the US marines as they swept past in tanks.
US predictions that many here would choose to surrender rather than fight appear to have come true....
US and British marines now seem confident that they have secured Iraq's second-largest city, Basra.
This, by the inimitable concerned, is completely incomprehensible (and, therefore, typical).
In his silly, twisted way, Con is on to something here. There is a sizable Arab minority in France (as an illustration, there are three Arabs in the class of 12 adult students I taught yesterday; the guy I share an office with is of Bedouin stock, from the Algerian desert, and has cousins who are nomadic herdsmen). In everyday terms of mutual interaction and understanding, the situation is not dissimilar to the Hispanic minority in the USA. Clearly, there is a sizable payoff in terms of social climate and national cohesion in France's attitude.
Implicit in Con's attitude (insofar as it is coherent or comprehensible) is the idea that France ought to be anti-Arab like the US is. I believe he has misunderstood the US position (at least, I hope so). Unfortunately, Arab public opinion in general is persuaded that the USA is anti-Arab, and is out to get them.
My wife came up with an interesting idea the other day : what if Bush and Chirac were actually playing the nice cop, nasty cop routine? It's in the interest of France, as much as any other country, to get rid of Saddam; but France's opposition helps to prevent this becoming a war of civilisations.
This is clearly not what is happening on a personal level (I have trouble imagining GWB and JC slapping each other on the back off-camera), but in a historical sense, I think there's something in it.
The Turks were against this war from the start. But they were not able to stop it (nor was anyone else on earth). So it's normal that they should take whatever measures they see fit to minimise the damage to Turkey. What moral or legal authority the US may have to deny them the right to cross the border into Iraq... well, the mind boggles.
It is so easy to predict after events occur, but what actions would have changed the outcome? Do you suppose having U.S. troops in Turkey might have made the job easier? You always seem so ambivalent about the War. You are like I am about dentists; I want the pain to stop, but I don't want the dentist in my mouth.
Alliance is a two-way street.
In 1991, I was furious that the allies stopped short of Baghdad. The betrayal of the Iraqi opposition on that occasion is one thing which makes me sceptical about US troops being welcomed as liberators : especially in the south, these folks saw their best and bravest slaughtered in their thousands by Saddam's army, while the GIs sat on their hands, under orders from Pa Bush.
If this is true, it makes the case for removal of Saddam.
I know you live in France; are you a citizen of France? Right now I am getting about as sick of all the carping about America's incompetance at diplomacy, as you must be about the crap many Americans are spewing about France. I think I would have to know far more than I do to engage with you about Turkey and wheather or not they trust us as an ally. All I know is that it is Americans, British, Australians, and I hear some Poles doing the work that should have been done by all western nations.
These nations that mean harm to not only America, but Israel and really all western nations need to know we are going to be serious in our response to them. If Turkey is sliding into Islamism and deciding to be a foe of America it is not because of our diplomacy.
Pelle -
I pointed out where Berman was confused as to the nature of pre-WWI European governments, but it seems I used words with too many syllables for you, or you are not familiar with who the Hohenzollerns etal were.
Let ask you, should the U.S.in 1991 have gotten the approval of the U.N. to go into Bagdad to remove Saddam? Would we have gotten permission? Once again, it is knowing exactly what to do after the event has occured. You say you have always been against the war, but back in 1991 you were gung ho for it. That doen't make much sense to me. You were and are for the removal of Saddam. How do you imnagine this could have been done without War?
People like the Wiz thought we should not go after UBL with War, but should let the U.N. use police methods, you know, just go in and arrest him.
There is nothing 'implicit' in my attitude regarding how pro- or anti- Arabist the US or France ought to be. I realize that you are fabricating that red herring merely to have something to cavil at.
You apparently don't understand that if the fresh incursion of Turkish troops sparks fighting between the Kurds and the invading Turks that Allied forces could be presented with a very difficult situation in Northern Iraq. There's nothing that Turkish troops can do in northern Iraq as far as preventing incursions of Kurds into Turkey itself that they couldn't accomplish by stationing same troops within their own border.
You pretend that the US does not have the 'right' to communicate to Turkey its concerns regarding the above. In fact, it appears you won't even admit that Turkish forces pouring into Northern Iraq might spark a second armed struggle that could well create tremendous problems for both the Allies and the UN. Actually, it looks like you're simply in over your head wrt these matters.
This is a curious paragraph for several reasons. First, the gratuitous insult to concerned (insofar as it is coherent or comprehensible) and Unfortunately, Arab public opinion in general is persuaded that the USA is anti-Arab, and is out to get them.
From the reading I have done (several books by Lewis and one called the Arab Mind Arabs tend to blame others for the mess they have made of their civiliztion. They do not accept responsibility for their failures. So the west and mainly the most powerful western power is accused of making them weak. UBL's lament that Americans being on holy ground blackens the face of Arabs is a good example of this; the truth is, Saudia Arabia needed us their, just as they needed the French to rescue the Mosque at Mecca.
AC -
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and assume that you are completely misrepresenting my position without malicious intent. However, the fact that you go yet farther in your statements about my thoughts re the 'US position' completely invalidate this entire portion of your post.
I used words with too many syllables for you, or you are not familiar with who the Hohenzollerns etal were.
Hahaha!
As most people here know.
But let me congratulate you on your googling skills.
Like to retract on your earlier claim?
Of course it is early. This War for Reelection has not nearly run its course.
Posting as Stamper again, I see...you find non-firing to be sexy? ;-)
Well, I don't, but reading all the posts about scuds, it seems some would get off if the repots were wrong. What's stamperish about that?
Ajami Saadoun Khlis, whose son and brother were executed under the Saddam regime, sobbed like a child on the shoulder of the Guardian's Egyptian translator. He mopped the tears but they kept coming.
"You just arrived," he said. "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."
"For a long time we've been saying: 'Let them come'," his wife, Zahara, said. "Last night we were afraid, but we said: 'Never mind, as long as they get rid of him, as long as they overthrow him, no problem'." Their 29-year-old son was executed in July 2001, accused of harbouring warm feelings for Iran.
This is an explicitly colonialist attitude: we're regressing 150 years. If this is indeed the basis of the US position, then Arabs are fully justified in their mistrust of the US.
I don't wear a slip, even if it's made of freudian. Do you think I confused erroneous with erogenous? If so, you got to be kidding.
- Iran is close to having nuclear weapon, and missle capability.
- Irag is a pushover at present and provides a strategic position for the U. S. to keep watch on Iran.
...axis of evil, and all that.
What a dummy I am. I can relate to pre-spring-break-end-of-quarter "duh" mode.
When I was teaching, I would get depressed when back to school ads started in early August.
anomieme
While that's not bad speculation, I think this War had to happen even it Iran was a wetern style democracy. I do think the War is a message to several surrounding countries: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan.
That is not my meaning at all. Obviously, Arabs are capable of great intellectual achievment. However, at the present time most Muslim countries are in pretty sad shape. Their resentment of the west predates the existence of Israel. It is sort of akin to the liberal idea that poor people exist because rich people exist.
I tried to find a link to that show after I posted. I think it was McLaughlin or something.
And yes, they also "speculated" that this war was necessary on its own terms. But I found it intriguing to think our governemnt might have the foresight on the Iran situation. In fact, I am still mulling it over and might be persuaded that going into Iraq was the right thing. I've been a fence-sitter.
The people on the show seemed to think Iran had a quite deliberate and advanced nuclear program. It;s the deliberate part that worries.
Sometimes I long for the cold war. (without the wall, of course)
As happy as I was to see the end of the U.S.S.R., there was something for two great powers, both with weapons so massive and destructive that neither could use them. But like Pandora's box, that evil was too easy for others to obtain. Or maybe it will be as T.S. Elliot said, Not with a bang but a wimper.
Just consider how busy our military has been since 89. This period of transition is a dangerous time for many, many reasons.
Being a fence-sitter is not a comfortable position. I can understand the protests, and at the same time, I wouldn't mind being over there. Information is key. I wait for our guys to show us the WMD when this is over.
And as for that, I hope they don't have any WMD, but then what does that say about our little foray.
The Iran factor might make the difference, IMO.
We'll see.
HUNH?
I must have been hom sick from Noam Chomsky Indoctrination Academy when that lesson was taught.
Did you manage to steal someone's Cliff Notes on it?
Let's hope it ain't so. 
Pelle -
Thanks for conceding my point.
Is there a link to the transcript? Thanks.
One reason that the US is a better nation than France is that people such as myself and jexster are free to insult the president all day long, yet insulting Chirac in France is a criminal offense.
"Last month we accused Chirac of behaving like a worm. Today we say to the people of France: we did not go far enough. Your president is not just a worm. He has behaved like a Paris harlot."
As Mark Twain said about France, morals, prostitutes....
Do you have a link, Conne? I guess the trials and executions are being kept secret.
I speak as someone who has a deep and abiding hatred of Chirac that is a couple of decades old. Oddly, I've never been questioned by the police or anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/international/worldspecial/23TURK.html
"A large Turkish force would be the worst of news, the men said in the back alley over many glasses of tea. They said the Americans had torn the scab off ethnic rivalries that, if mishandled, could cause an unintended war"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/international/worldspecial/23ANKA.html
"CIZRE, Turkey, March 22 — The Turkish military issued a formal denial today of news reports that Turkish troops had entered northern Iraq late Friday in defiance of American requests that they stay away.
Iraqi Kurdish leaders also said there had not been any incursion of Turkish troops into northern Iraq since the American military strikes on Iraq began, and they warned Turkey that such a move could lead to violence between the troops and Iraqi Kurds."
This is what I questioned two days ago and called the Turks numb nuts over it. That they've denied it is good, that the Kurds confirm the denial is good. But, what's in the mealy Turk mind now? Huh, huh?! They're just itchin' is my opinion. Just f'n itchin to mess with this whole thing. It's already going to have extremely complex issues.
Fragging- stupid f'n moron! Line him up, shoot the idiot on the spot. Well, Ok give the moron a trial, then shoot him.
"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 22 — Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al Faisal, urged the United States today to "have a breather" in its invasion of Iraq and give the United Nations another chance to disarm the country peacefully.
"Stop the war, let's sit down, let's have a breather after what we have seen of the destruction," the prince said, speaking to a gathering of Western journalists in the Islamic kingdom's foreign ministry building.
The 61-year-old prince, a son of the revered late King Faisal, also called on Saddam Hussein to "start to think of the sacrifices he can make for his country," implying that the Iraqi leader should seek exile rather than see his country destroyed.
While Saudi Arabia has not offered sanctuary to Mr. Hussein, Prince Saud said the kingdom would allow safe passage for the Iraqi leader and his family through the kingdom to reach a third country. The neighboring island kingdom of Bahrain has offered to take Mr. Hussein."
To little to late!
Yet if it would happen in slow mo, and Saddam and company just popped out of the Suadi collective ass in Riyadh, then great, just f'n great!
Glad to have all your posts!!!
Can't have any more Moties of the ol' days goin', sends pangs my way, don't like 'em.
It isn't anything you did really, I am not even bringing that up, you're an ol' time like me and we just have that connection. It's just that, I miss so many already. It's hard man!
Did ya read Salam this morning? Someone emailed him asking if he's real?
That's funny to me.
He gave a good answer-read me or don't.
Must have been Pelle.
Conne believes this, Alistair, to mean something else.
Far upthread I made it clear that I've changed my mind about the Baghdad Blogger. I'm disappointed that you don't read before you post.
Salaam hasn't posted an update for nearly two days, probably no electricity or telephone. I hope we will have news of him soon, after the fall of Baghdad.
They are saying the troops are based out of Texas.
Oh the humanity ! (Cue Kate Smith)
So very sorry, sir, I will never make such a mistake, sir.
Tell me, magoseph, what distortion that you wish to attribute to me, if you dare.
The fact is that I pointed out nothing more than the truth about French law here. It's not for me to be ashamed of it.
excerpt:
British troops outside Basra have discovered cruise missiles and warheads hidden inside fortified bunkers as part of a massive arsenal abandoned by Saddam Hussein's disintegrating southern army.
Cases of rockets, giant anti-shipping mines and other ammunition are piled from floor to ceiling in dozens of bunkers at what is marked on maps as the Az Zubaya Heliport.
The most disturbing find was two Russian-made Al-Harith anti-shipping cruise missiles, each 6m long and 1m in diameter, and nine warheads, hidden in two enormous reinforced concrete bunkers.
Another missile, as yet unidentified, was found still crated up at the rear of one of the bunkers.
Some of the boxes are clearly marked with the names of British manufacturers.
The scale and possible implications of the weapons find took British forces by surprise and raised fresh questions about the extent of the Iraqi war machine and the ability of weapons inspectors to cope with the task of scouring such a vast country for prohibited ordinance.
The discovery of the missiles - date-marked 2002 - came as British troops from the Black Watch Regiment fought to secure the area around Iraqi's second city, Basra, in preparation for the capture of the city.
The vast complex, surrounded by chainlink fence and barbed wire, stands to the southwest of the town, defended by a network of earth works and with tanks and other armoured vehicles dug in to the surrounding area.
But the defenders have fled after coming under attack from coalition forces.
Outside the perimeter fence are about 40 bunkers packed with a mixture of RPGs and other ammunition. Inside, 22 larger fortified bunkers contain larger weaponry including the Al-Harith missiles.
Painted grey, the missiles have two wings, each about 60cm in span and three tail fins of a similar size. There was no indication of the nature of the warheads fitted and experts have been called in to examine the find.
Also housed inside the reinforced bunkers were what appeared to be large anti-shipping mines, 1m in diameter, and a host of other munitions.
On one box, written in English, were the words: "Contract AS Navy. 5/1980 Iran."
Corporal Steven Airzee said: "The initial sight was a shock. We were trying to figure out what they were. You have to wonder whether the weapons inspectors have been there because they looked pretty big."
The entrance to the heliport is decorated with a picture of Saddam Hussein in military uniform.
The area is surrounded by wrecked vehicles and abandoned sandbagged fox holes, some flying white flags, and is overlooked by a network of watch towers.
There are fears that weapons may have been taken from some of the bunkers which lie open outside the perimeter fence.
Lieutenant Angus Watson said they found the haul when they arrived last night.
The popularity of his stance on Iraq has not rubbed off on his government, which is in deep shit on economic matters (like everyone else). So the government no doubt find that war is a welcome diversion (like everyone else).
Diane corresponding with Salam in Baghdad brings this e-mail by Salam:
“ look, the absolute biggest best most wanted brain-stuff-specialist (i am sure it has a name can't think of it now) is a neighbor of my cousin. he has been called and taken to a location outside baghdad, he called his family and said he can't come back tonight.
something has happened to someone.”
Looks like a high ranking Iraqi was hit. Saddam? Uday?
The fact is that I pointed out nothing more than the truth about French law here. It's not for me to be ashamed of it.
I will dare. I think you posted this article to show us that France has a law that curbs freedom of speech for its citizens. Now you may disabuse me from this foolish notion and I will apologize to you most cravenly, concerned dear.
Actually, when he posted a "F*ck france and germany" picture the other day, I thought, maybe I should post a "f*ck america" picture, just for a laugh.
And guess what? I couldn't find one...
This above comes from a recent post in Politics from Cerned. I bet that he and Al would very much like to have a law like the one in France, Alistair.
In French, of course.
But did you bother to post a photo of the charred remains of anyone, American, or guest worker, torched in 9/11?
Did you, by any chance, link to any of the obituaries? Or perhaps to the descriptions of the suffering of those who, in the WTC Plaza, had the flesh burned off them by ignited jet fuel cascading from the 80th floor?
Your compassion remains selective.
Was Saddam Hussein responsible for 9/11?
Is he Osama Bin ladin in a fat suit?
Please advise.
You search out the stuff you post, I would imaging. You mean you only post what others give you?
I'm with you on that, Al. In fact, France has about the highest road death rate in western Europe. Over the past few months, the government has waged a campaign to change people's attitudes, and the death rate has dropped something like 30%. They are a right-wing government, but I have no hesitation in giving them credit for that.
(are you suitably stunned?)
Sounds like what you needed was a pair of those Texas pistol-totin' Yosemite Sam mudflaps that say "Back Off!"
Arky, I have sometimes wondered whether the politeness and moderation of US drivers has something to do with the fact that the police, and quite likely, the driver you're following, have guns... But let's not go there. The British are the same : maybe it's an Anglo-Saxon thing. Cultural superiority? Let's not go there either...
The essential thing to learn from the French road toll example is that human beings, individually and collectively, can change for the better.
The problem is not the two dozen dead : the problem is the psy-ops that the US administration has been pouring on for weeks, about how this would be a cakewalk to Baghdad, Iraqi soldiers would desert in their thousands, GIs would be welcomed with roses, insurrection would break out behind Iraqi lines. The fact that this raises expectations that could never be met, is not a problem to them : they were hell-bent on getting the US into the war, and they needed this naïve belief to get there. Now that the war is on, public opinion is no longer important. And anyway, it will stand near unanimous behind the nation, if not behind the leadership. That is a given during wartime.
But it's also a given on the Iraqi side.
And now, their psy-ops campaign has set expectations at a very high level. The financial channels on Friday, and the social chatter had this over by mid-week. They've set themselves a very high bar with the American population in their attempt to get a bloodless surrender. On the one hand, that indicates they actually believed it--that Saddam was so widely reviled that his government would just collapse. On the other, they've got a serious battle on their hands, apparently, with fewer troops than they had in the more limited 1991 mission, and boatloads going in circles in the Mediteranean because they couldn't manage the diplomacy to insert them, not to mention a long supply line. And we have to wonder whether Wolfowitz/Perle weren't just fantasizing about all this.
Prediction: the Dow will be down over 200 points tomorrow, and the opening may be delayed. This 24-7 news thing may not really be a good idea, but it is reality.
The military options chosen are astonishing, and admirable in that they really seem to be avoiding a high level of civilian casualties. But certainly unorthodox. If they were really relying on "shock and awe" to induce collapse and surrender, it's a failure.
In 1991, there were widespread uprisings against the regime, not only in the south but in Baghdad. Saddam had launched a war of aggression against a neighbour, and it seemed natural to Iraqis that he should be punished and turned out of power. The fact that there is no sign of uprisings this time, surely tells us something profound about the legitimacy of this war.
Oh, please, don't say that. Your tongue-in-cheek is not to be endured. You are all WW2 and the exchange rate was so much better, then.
However, this: 'public opinion is no longer important'
When was it ever?
I still have not heard a clear reason for this war.
As far as uprisings go, this is not a war to repel an invader. It's a war against Iraq. They can spin all they want, but it's a war against Iraq. They should not be surprised that many citizens, and soldiers, view it that way. Moreover, by telling the American public that SH is gonna fall at any time, they are making their job more difficult. That's why I suspect they believed it, which is more than a little worrisome. The intelligence failure, or diplomatic ineptitude associated with the forged nuke document magnifies that worry.
Michael Kramer in the NY Daily News gave a plausible reason:
In several not-for-attribution discussions with Western officials, another far more ambitious objective emerges: the desire to establish a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq that can influence events throughout the Middle East and help win the wider war against radical Islam and its terrorist expressions.
The full article has been archived. The abstract summarizes the column accurately.
The kicker from the second article in my yahoo searCh with this dumbass search parameter: Iraq Americans will be welcomed with flowers
The Iraqi foreign minister is in Cairo with the Arab League. Perhaps he can broker an exit strategy for Saddam.
If the US wants to conclude the war with low casualties among allied troops and Iraqi civilians, they would do well to support this option. That would probably require giving the Arab League a leading role in establishing a democratic post-Saddam regime. This would of course require a certain amount of flexibility on the US side.
It's not about oil, in this argument. It's about force projection. The US does not have reliable military bases in the mid-East. It has them in Asia, at Okinowa and in South Korea. It has them in Germany, putatively protecting Bonn from Berlin. It has one in Cuba. The Saudi base is 1) causing trouble and 2) not likely to remain in place indefinitely. Having a military presence, indefinitely, in Iraq (as with the Marshall Plan recipients the president likes to refer to) would present the US with a number of security options in the mid-east.
Then again, I ride the subway, and don't own a car.
There was something very moving about the Statue of Liberty moving through Tianamen square. That's where our strength lies, and I have never understood why conservatives don't trust in the strength of the American idea.
It also discusses the riskiness of the long supply line, and the problems with Iraqi army guys in the rear.
Why can you not get it out of your systems with sims?
Putting it another way, they made it clear that they thought this could be done by the US, alone. Shedding allies left and right, they really needed to be sure they'd worked out their plans to go it alone, or some poor jarhead is gonna find himself (as poor jarheads always fear) holding the shit end of the stick because the politicians didn't work it all out.
But, as a vet I spoke to earlier today said, what's gonna happen is what's gonna happen. And we have to hope these guys know what they're about.
It seems to me..... to be so.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
First website that popped up in a search.
This thing is being fought following these principles, which Rumsfeld buys in a deep way. (It caused him serious bureaucratic infighting problems before 9/11.) The idea is that you use intelligence, information systems and technological sophistication to entirely change the battlefield. Fewer soldiers, made enormously efficient through information processing and smart weapons.
The Afghan war lent credence to these approaches. Of course, in that case it turned out that the poplulace by and large did hate the government.
Dinj't ya, dinj't ya!
I knew I shouldn't have had that coffee after dinner. Sleep tight.
I'm glad you talked to some vets. I've been getting an itch to stop by a VA just for that reason. Ask them, what to they think and all that.
Aside from that, one new thing that bothers me is the divide my governor (Pawlenty) just created yesteday. In an interview after about 18k pro-war demonstrators met at the capitol he told the reporters that he would like the film sent to the troops so they can see that some people support the troops. That is to say that others don't!
That others don't. That anyone who isn't waving a flag, putting a flag bandana around their head and painting red-white and blue U.S.A. across their forhead isn't supporting the troops. This is divissive!
This is very poor leadership. Dividing the people like that.
The statement insults me.
Everybody seems focused on whether or not we (US) should disarm Iraq or not.
But what about France and Russia? Why are they so opposed to the actions being proposed? If they have a great reason not to do it, what is it? The components of this answer to this may be obvious to some, but it wasn't to me at first, so I started looking into it. This isn't a pro/con on what the US should do, it's just what I've been about to figure out about the position of France and Russia in all of this. Any comments/corrections/thoughts are more than welcome.
Are France and Russia trying to be self-righteous? Nope.
Are France and Russia concerned about the humanitarian situation that will develop? Yeah right.
Are they Peaceniks(sp)? Yeah right.
Do they think it is "uncool"? Not likely, although the Russians were rather embarrassed by Desert Storm--it showed the ineffectiveness of Russian tactics: emplacement, linear movements, etc didn't quite work out the way they thought they would because of the mobility of the coalition forces. (Well, that and the fact that there was little left of the Iraqi forces at the beginning of the ground war).
Are they concerned about the effects of a regime change? Yes, more on that in a minute.
Answer: Duh. MONEY, of course.
(cont.)
The first Gulf War wasn't just a war, it was a "hyperwar":. In a "hyperwar", the infrastructure is specifically selected and targetted for destruction. This part of the strategy is intended for longer term (more complete) action than was taken in the Gulf War.
Why wasn't the Desert Storm "hyperwar" completed?
Before the first Gulf War, France and Russia promised Iraq that they would not be disarmed/taken out in the conflict. They were true to their word--they controlled the scope of the conflict and when it should stop. They did this thru their UN Security Council actions/proposals/votes and by threatening to veto other proposals.
As a way of saying "thanks", Iraq gave France and Russia huge contracts to rebuild their infrastructure (especially their electrical power capabilities) that the coalition nearly completely destroyed. France and Russia have reaped the benefits of this. And now Iraq owes France and Russia a bunch of money.
Here's just one of the Russian companies that I came across that has been getting the power grid contracts: (Search for the work 'iraq' in this document).
Some of the rebuilding came via the UN-- the UN paid France and Russia companies to do the work. Hmm, who gives the most money to the UN?
Ok, so why are France and Russia threatening to veto any military action against Iraq?
Possible outcomes:
1) France and Russia suceed, no action is taken against Iraq: France and Russia win again...they will get even more business opportunities with Iraq. Iraq says, "Thanks, you saved us yet again".
2) The US moves ahead with a Desert-Storm-like-event: France and Russia win again..."We tried our best to stop them from attacking you." Guess where the rebuilding contracts are going to continue to go? Yep, France and Russia.
3) The one thing that France and Russia don't want is a regime change. A regime change means the US is going to likely come in and do most of the work--and the US will decide who gets the nasty jobs that US companies don't want. The money will flow back to the US. Are France and Russia going to get any of this work? Not bloody likely, they were against the action in the first place! Plus, in this scenario, France and Russia are not likely to get the money that Iraq already owes them!
France and Russia are going for options 1 and 2. Even if they were to reverse positions and support a regime change, they aren't going to get any of the return that they will get in options 1 and 2. Plus, now it is just plain too late to switch sides--they are going to stick.
And you repeat the error by using the administration's euphemisms. There was a perfectly good, if slow, process of "disarmament" going on. "Regime change" when you mean "conquest" is at best disingenuous. "Liberation" (one you didn't use) sounds positively Soviet, and thre is an Orwellian feeling about right now. It may strengthen support in the US--I'm sure they tested every phrase with focus groups.
But taking this approach undermined support everywhere else, and will be hard to sustain.
The same sage who prior to 911 asserted that Osama Bin Laden was a fictitious boogeyman constructed by the CIA to scare the domestic population and who disputed that Bin Laden even had anything to do with the SS Cole.
Saddam is done
“Americans very good,” Ali Khemy said. “Iraq wants to be free.”
Some chanted, “Ameriki! Ameriki!”
Many others in the starving town just patted their stomachs and raised their hands, begging for food.
A man identifying himself only as Abdullah welcomed the arrival of the U.S. troops: “Saddam Hussein is no good. Saddam Hussein a butcher.”
An old woman shrouded in black — one of the few women outside — knelt toward the feet of Americans, embracing an American woman. A younger man with her pulled her away, giving her a warning sign by sliding his finger across his throat.
I think Bush sees Iraq as a future pro-US state that eliminates the Mid-East oil trump card. This would give the US much more leverage against govt's that have been lax about tracking terrorist activities within their borders.
I think France and Russia see this as a way of 1) preserving their investmensts, and 2) giving the EU more political clout to 'fight' the lone superpower.
Everyone's diplomacy has failed.
All the monarchies in the order that WWI overthrew were becoming increasingly "liberal" in terms of implementing degrees of social and economic welfare programs, increasing political expression, and modernizing society. With the exception of the Ottoman empire, these monarchies were replaced by regimes that were initially recognizable as parliamentary democracies, some with a constitutional monarch, others as republics. Some, as in Russia, did not survive the war, none survived the next 25 years.
The failure of incremental liberalization before and during WWI, and the weakness of the nascent democracies during and after the war, allowed the rise of nationalist and totalitarian ideologies, in which Berman correctly places Baathism, and arguably Islamicism.
Berman (and Concerned) do not comment on how the "liberal" and idealistic international order proposed by U.S. president Wilson, distorted and exploited by his erstwhile allies, and ultimately abandoned by the United States, changed the map of the world (Yugoslavia, Iraq?) and fed the nationalist and totalitarian ideologies that were already subverting the postwar politics of Europe.
Among those he named were the commanders of the 51st, 11th and 18th divisions, which are posted in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city.
One of those commanders, Lt. Gen. Khaled Saleh al-Hashimi of the 51st, was interviewed by the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera in Basra on Sunday. Earlier reports said he surrendered to U.S. troops.
Al-Hashimi denied the "American lies" and said he was still in Basra fighting and admitted that "we have offered sacrifices but these are the price for the defense of our honor and sacred land."
Psy-ops go awry
LIAR!!!!
The "Coaltion" will prevail in the end but at enormous cost to its volunteer army -- not to mention others ( about whom the Count doesn't give a shit)
I predict a return of the Draft before this is all over.
Unless Iraqi cities and towns left behind in the advance on Baghdad are occupied and administered, the likelihood for more attacks on supply columns will increase. It is also useful to point out that in the absence of any governing authority other than what is there already, Iraqis will be reluctant to give expressions of delight and to cooperate with U.S. and British forces. Civil Ops troops should be on the ground already, removing Baath party operatives from towns that the U.S. and British forces have passed through.
Haha. Sure, toots.
The same sage who prior to 911 asserted that Osama Bin Laden was a fictitious boogeyman constructed by the CIA to scare the domestic population and who disputed that Bin Laden even had anything to do with the SS Cole.
Cellar Door's response
