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
