The Tape
 

I didn't dig up a transcript yet, but thats never stopped me from making pronouncements before. I was listening to a translation on the radio and was struck by three things Bush and Bib Laden have in common. 1) Neither sees any gray area in the world. God is with us and against them because we are good and they are evil. 2) They both desperately want the war in Iraq, thinking it will improve recruitment to their side. 3) Both are willing to see the innocent die to promote the greater good they personify.

Yeah, Griff, but George W. Bush is our nutjob. We havn't intentionally killed civillians. We usually use smart bombs -- okay there was that Chinese embassy thing. Just a mixup. We meant to order Chinese food and bomb the Canadian embassy.

Although this does bring up and interesting ocurrance. It was the first time I really took a look at nationalism. I was watching A history Chanel program on Nazi Germany, they had just reached the early days of the Nazi party before the commercial break, and they were showing a parade of goose-stepping brown shirts marching behind a Nazi flag. The commercial came on and it was for veteran's life insurance. Soldiers marching behind an American flag.

It comes down to application of force; reasons for applications of force. I'd rather hang out with a U.S. soldier rather than a Nazi soldier. It's that Persigian quality thing. It really can't be defined, but you know a lack of it.

Bloomberg radio news demonstrated the problem. Chief executive of an American company was taking his entire senior staff to Germany for a sales promotion trip. They had to agree on questions of deteriorating US German relationships. US two years ago was a tolerant nation. Our nutjob changed everything. He promotes confrontation and military solutions to minor problems. He promotes fear. How many more nonsense terrorist alerts, 6 Arabs sneaking in from Canada, the mythical aluminum tubes for nuclear bombs (that UT still believes), and duct tape warnings need we suffer. George Jr promotes fear to advance his agenda.

Not only did a senior staff meeting break down into wild confrontational about Iraq. It escalated to include Palestinian Israeli conflict and even into Korean discussions. The chief executive was despondant. Of course. George Jr would have even attacked China over a silly spy plane. He has Americans hyped in open revolt - just like Nixon did. Primary example is how Undertoad and Sycamore repeatedly insults me only because I accurately described their beloved George Jr. This is what George Jr has done to America. George Jr promotes war and hate of anyone who would disagree with his Nixonian agenda.

Two years ago, they were only political problems that could have been solved, with time, by local powers with American support - all by negotiation. There are many more such conflicts just waiting for George Jr types to escalate including Sierra Leon, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Congo, Zimabawe, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia's Aesch, India and Pakistan, the entire Caucus region, the Basques, Columbia and Venezulea, Peru, etc. But as if this were not enough, George Jr intentionally destroys "Sunshine" while forcing N Korea into confrontation, authorizes Israel (for the first time in history) to use American weaspons to attack Palestinians, undermines a moderate and popular government in Iran that would prefer to become an American friend, and simply makes American citizens no longer welcome almost everywhere in the world.

Even in Korea where Americans were so welcome only two years ago: now a most popular rock song in Korea according to 60 Minutes associates American with streams of four letter abuse words. That's right. See the 'partisan' 60 Minutes. The most popular song in Korea curses Americans as more dangerous than N Korea. Thank you George Jr.

Of course the naive will instead curse the French, Germans, Koreans, Japanese, Italians, etc for not agreeing with this president.

We have the president that our religious right extremists wanted. People who encourage violence since violence is necessary for Armageddon - the second coming of christ. George Jr promotes confrontation, military action instead of diplomatic solutions, anti-Americanism everywhere in the world, and now fear. Fear so widespread that duct tape is no longer available. No president since the Cuban Missile crisis has promoted so much fear. At least back then, fear was justified. Today fear is used to promote George Jr's personal agenda. Nutjob was a very good description.

Ok, so lemme see if I can sum this all up. The *moment* Bush stole the election, all that was good about the country ceased to be and was immediately replaced with evil, wickedness, stupidity and corruption.

No wonder I feel better with Bush as Pres. :)

tw, what's the solution here? IMO it seems as if most of the world wants to ignore or cover up their own problems, and George W. likes to rattle sabres. I'm not opposed to all of the sabre rattling, though. Would you have liked to seen another president, and who would that have been? What would make a good president?

It seems we have a problem of opposites. Is there a balanced solution? Negotiation is not going to work with Iraq; we have a cult of personality problem with Sadam Hussein, and it seems that North Korea doesn't want to ease the fears of the rest of the world. I have no problem with North Korea proceding with peaceful development of nuclear power, however Kim Jong-Il-Communication and Geroge W. are of a type that they will not see eye to eye.

If we stepped back from Israel, let them fend for themselves, basically got out of Middle-east politics, I see two situations. Israel will reduce any country that attacks them to ashes, and/or Israel is reduced to ashes. Is right or wrong that we get involved? Is it right or wrong that we not get involved?

I will not argue that the US has propped up many of the idiots that are causing the problems in the world today. The question is do we do somthing about it, or do we ignore it?

People will bitch and moan about the US acting as a world-wide police force, and my opinion is that if no one fullfilled this role, the world would be an even more dangerous place.

That's OK tw - as I pointed out earlier, we don't stay where we're not wanted.

As far as the aluminum tubes go, which part did you dispute again? Because ElBaradei will use them tomorrow as an example of why his agency has continuing concern.

Good presidents first let a problem resolve itself. That happens most often. However that may mean manipulating supplies so that both sides massacre one another equally. Then everyone is so happy to have peace keepers AND everyone finally appreciates the value of peace and negotiated settlements.

Bad presidents want to storm in like a world policeman and bash heads. It makes for good patriotic support at home. But such tactics are classic of low intelligent leaders and create long term unresolved problems.

Did we go charging in to East Timor? Of course not. That was the responsibility of local powers. Did we go charing into VietNam? Yes. As a result we were the enemy of everyone except a corrupt S Vietnamese governement. Did we go charging into Lebanon? Yes, and got both our asses and reputation smashed like a paper tiger. Did we go charging into Yugoslavia? No. In fact, I worried that Clinton had finally decided too early. In my opinion, there had not yet been enough massacres especially of Serbians. But Clinton was smarter than I. He was right when to use military power. BTW, to know anything about the Serbian conflictis is to know who Richard Holbrooke is.

Did we go charging into Liberia to resuce Monrovia? Of course not. First, it was the responsibility of a regional military peace force. When they got in trouble, a battalion of British marines provided outside assistance - and put up a response that belongs at the top of your most significant news stories of 2002. Did you know about Liberia and that goal line stand by UK Marines? It resulted in a peace settlement because a powerful force first let the problem fester - until it was ready to be resolved. One battalion of UK marines caused everyone to return to a negotiation table. That delay is how military force is used effectively.

I keep asking the reader if he knew about .... because it demonstrates how many conflicts are always ongoing and how most get resolved only with diplomatic negotiation.

But then Saddam. Is he a threat? No. He is a threat to no one. Eliminate George Jr rhetoric and Saddam is a tin pot dictator with too much oil. Keep Saddam in perspective by eliminating George Jr rhetoric. Saddam is no threat to the US. There is nothing to be gained by threatening America. Saddam's entire history is to avoid US conflict everywhere everytime. However George Jr says otherwise.

Saddam must first be a threat to his neighbors before he is a threat to anyone. Remember how adamate I was in June 1990 about war with Saddam? Because he was a threat to his neighbors and to world stability. In Aug 1990, a smoking gun existed - big time. Today Saddam is not a threat to any neighbor. No smoking gun exists. No neighboring nation is threatened by Saddam. But George Jr has hyped this trivial problem into a world crisis. Then again, George Jr even hyped a silly China spy plane incident into possible war. The man promotes hate and fear.

George Jr has hyped a non event into world crisis. If WMD were a problem, then we should be threatening war with Pakistan, S Africa, or Israel. Iraq is not about solving a world problem. Iraq is about a personal vendetta between the George Jr administration and Saddam. Even Saddam's neighbors - not one - are threatened.

Saddam is about as much as threat as Castro in his billigerant days. Either Saddam will be made politically redundant as Ghadafi, or we will take him out as we had to with Milosevik, Noreiga, Idi Amin, or Baby Doc Duvalier. But military action too early makes the US an enemy of everyone. First we let Jimmy Carter demonstrate to Panama and the world what Noriega really was. You would think we learned from VietNam and Lebanon - where America lost because we first tried to solve problems too early and only using military solutions.

The world is full of Iraq like problems. Do we attach them all? Or do we first let the 'powers that be' first solve it - and then look like god's chosen angel only in the few situations that cannot be resolved? Eliminate George Jr rhetoric and Saddam is a threat no even to his neighbors.

What happened to all those weaponized biological material in S Africa. We (including UN) are also concerned. Should we attack S Africa? Concern also over how Japan stores most of the world's plutonium. Should we attack Japan? Even a Tony Blair report ealier this year doubted those aluminum tubes were for nuclear processing. Eliminate George Jr hype & fear, and those aluminum tubes are but a trivial point that inspectors always search for and verify. So trivial as to not be reported if George Jf did not hype war.

ElBaradei says tubes are another reason to continue weapons inspections. George Jr has already declared those aluminum tubes as reason for war. George Jr also says weapons inspectors are a waste of time. George Jr need no facts because George Jr already knows those tubes are for evil - facts be damned. Those aluminum tubes only prove that George Jr really does not want facts. He even opposed more inspectors! Why? They might discover these WMD don't exist!

Those aluminum tubes are a desperate ploy by George Jr to hype something trivial into war while demanding inspectors as useless. Far more dangerous than those aluminum tubes are nuclear bombs in Pakistan, Israel, and India? Why does George Jr not hype and fear those dangers? Because those bombs cannot be used like Kuwait baby incurbators - to hype war, promote hate, and advocate fear.

When those tubes appear in a nuclear processing machine, only then are they newsworthy. Anyone hyping those aluminum tubes today is also hyping a need for duct tape and gas masks. More fear. Those tubes are a non issue once the George Jr hate, hype, and fear is eliminated. Those aluminum tubes only demonstrate why inspections shoudl continue and why war is not justified.

Finely-machined aluminum tubes and magnets and carbon fibers and uranium are not trivial whatsoever.

Yes, that approach worked so very well with al Qaeda.

tw - you have a very keen knowledge of these conflicts, and the principals involved. Is this an area of academic study, a hobby, or political interest? Where are you located, if I may ask [ha! no I do not want map co-ordinates!]? I am afraid to say I know very little about the smaller conflicts mentioned. I can point out the parties on a World map, describe the climate, and the countries main export, but that is about it. I've made a point to not watch any news broadcasts of any kind nor to read the paper, but to get reader's digest versions of the more important issues. I oppose the glitz and the campy, irresponsible way that news is delivered.

I think good Presidents will use a carrot and stick approach to this. Redaction and Coercion. I have to admit that George is not about subtlety. No sir. I don't think letting both sides of a conflict massacre each other is the best course of action. Rwanda is something I'd rather forget. Everyone abandoned those people. The UN and Belgians couldn't leave fast enough. Predsident Clinton went there after the conflict and offered a token apology for being absent. Air Force One's goddamn engines weren't even powered down; I think he was there for about 3 hours. No fucking oil there; no damn colonials.

The US most definetly has supplied both sides of a conflict. The biggest that comes to my mind is the Iran-Iraq war, although support was not offered simultaneously.

It seems the US has taken that role, yes. Sometimes a head bashing is what's needed. But the aforementioned carrots and sticks are preferable. Low IQ leaders and unresolved problems lead me to consider Al Quaeda. Jung-Il is not stupid, but he's not thinking clearly either. The man is as much of a basket case as Bush.

East Timor was a mess, from what little I know. I do know that we were involved in some manner, either directly or through support of one of the parties. Vietnam was ... yup. That about sums it up. Lebanon ... do you mean the 200+ marines killed by a terrosit bomb? I don't recall an ass whupping. I recall that at the time Israel was finally not on the receiving end, and were not garnering the sympathy they once had. Yugoslavia ... that was something that no one should have waited on. That was Rwanda in the Balkans. Richard Holbrooke was chief negotiator for the Dayton Peace Accords [that's great, really], according to my brief Googling. He also fulfilled various ambassadorial duties to the corrupt South Vietnamese government in the late 60's. Slovenia is safe, and for that I am grateful.

The British were there because the UN was so fucking inept. It's a former British colony, so I think their motives are a bit suspect. [see "fucking oil and damn colonials".] Am I looking at the same thing you are?

I believe that can be condensed to "Uryoces, you ignorant fuck". You are 1/2 right. See "not watching the talking heads". See also "Carrot and Stick".

I personally disagree on that one. His neighbors, probably not, if you discount the Kurds. You can discount Kuwait, too. The Kuwaitis are almost as bad. Ignoring Sadam post-9/11 is a very dangrous thing. I am against military action against Iraq, but I am all for a mysterious and terrible death for him and his cadre. When the dust settles, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations need to be there to step in and assist the Iraqi people. I don't see that happening. After all the posturing and Koran-thumping, they're more than happy to ignore Islamic nations in need.

Huh-wha?! Senior Abusto pequeno told China it was a silly little spyplane, and showed photos of the jackass pilot inches away from the fucking plane! Wong-wei. I laughed hysterically 'til it hurt. China had an absolute fuck-fit over that. Bush aplogised humbly, and we got our spyplane back. China is the largest capitalist nation that America has to trade with. Yes, I said capitalist. We aren't going to screw that up. China collects taxes from Hong Kong, but have done very little else in that region. Hong Kong is anathema to "Communism", but you don't hear one peep from Beijing. They are very savvy, but prone to fits that makes Joan Crawford look tame.

tw - you have many good points, and I am not disputing them, but it seems that your take on world affairs is that if a few thousand people are raped, tortured, and murdered here and there, it's alright. Some eggs will get broken to ensure peace. Isn't this exactly what you are accusing Senior Abusto pequeno, and indeed the US of doing? Please tell me I have this wrong.

Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute does a nice job of explaining how an Orthodox Christian, in my case a Roman Catholic, understands the Presidents actions. In short, he scares the crap out of us because of the unreflective nature of his faith. Having been saved George no longer has to concern himself with his works.

Then you don't fully understand what I have posted. Its not alright if people are being routinely raped and tortured. But where is all this raping and torturing? Who is doing it? Other than in rhetoric of right wing enemies of Saddam, this raping and torturing is not found. There are such excursions into rebel held territory. But many times, this is one Kurd local cheiftain doing it to members of an enemy clan.

Often one power broker will do it and then blame it on Saddam's Sunnis - for political gain. Easy to do when people similar to George Jr see things only in black and white.

If murder, rape, and torture is so unacceptable, then why is George Jr not declaring war on Zimbabwae and Mugabe? Because the US is not and must not be a world's policemen. Saddam is a problem for Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Jordan, etc to first solve. Zimbabwae is a problem for SE Africian nations. What goes on, publically documented, under Mugabe's order is more appauling that what Saddam is accused of. If George Jr was thinking logically, then American troops would be massing in Africa.

But George Jr has already said he will unilaterally declare war against Iraq. WMD are but an excuse. George Jr entered office with a vendetta - reality be damned. Those silly aluminum tubes, magnets, etc are being investigated as suspicious minor materials. Curiousities resolved by smart people who solve problems without silly war.

But George Jr and his fans cannot be bothered with such facts. They are aluminum tubes that might be used for processing nuclear material. Therefore they MUST be for nuclear processing. Therefore we must attack Iraq. No doubt. He has aluminum tubes. Therefore we have the smoking gun to justify war!

It is that George Jr rhetoric that Hans Blix explicitly and publically complained about. George Jr was accused of misrepresenting what Hans Blix said - by Hans Blix. Could you ask for a better source? Hans Blix said George Jr misrepresented what Hans Blix said. But then reality is irrelevant to George Jr. Saddam must go only because George Jr has a vendetta - weapons inspectors be damned.


BTW, America did not apologize for the spy plane incident. We 'regretted'. Big difference. There were decent people in US and China doing everything to avoid war. Also were extremists in both countries just iching for war. People such as the President of China used the 'regret' statement so that good people could settle the spy plane nonsense at the expense of 'veins hanging from teeth' extremists in both US and China. We intentionally did not apologize. We agreed to settle the issue - at the expense of extremists in both China and the US who openly advocated military solutions.

And that's why, as of today, the UN no longer exists.

And that's why, as an American living near a major eastern port city between NYC and DC but with less security than either by far, I say good riddance.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...490&p=6zz45y96

Via USS Clueless comes the above link, which I only advise you to click after you've turned down your speakers.

But here's the guts of it:

Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said.

"What’s distinctive about the Total contract is that it’s not favourable to Iraq, it’s favourable to Total," Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York.

"One can suspect that there’s some arbitrage there, that in between the real value of that contract and the cash value of that contract there’s a certain amount of political support.

"It's entirely possible that Saddam negotiated that deal because that along with the revenues, he could get something else."

He said oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as "extraordinarily lopsided" in favour of the French company.

"This is not your normal oil exploration contract."

--

I smell the truth coming out: the French wanted to draw the new world order with them in charge of a united Europe, counter-balancing the USA as a global super-power.

The security of the US, in this scenario, is not a concern. Hussein can build all the nukes he likes, as long as he is playing nicely with Europe.

We've been fucking sold out... UN actions in exchange for cheap oil. The irony is as rich as the sweet light crude under that country, or at least it would be if nuclear proliferation weren't part of the equation. Irony doesn't last long under such circumstances.

Stop me before I post pro-war again!

A Iraqi Guardian reader flames anti-war Brits. Along the way he notes that "every week [Hussein] executes people through the 'court of revolution', a summary secret court run by the secret security office. Most of its sentences are executions which Saddam himself signs." Is this an example of tw's <i>one power broker will do it and then blame it on Saddam's Sunnis - for political gain</i>?? No - the author claims that he's Sunni himself.

The New Republic rags on Blix: Blix reported this morning that, "At the meeting in Baghdad on the 8th and the 9th of February, the Iraqi side addressed some of the important outstanding disarmament issues and gave us a number of papers.... Although no new evidence was provided in the papers and no open issues were closed through them or the expert discussions, the presentation of the papers could be indicative of a more active attitude focusing on the important open issues."

Italics mine. Read those italicized words. Translation: "They gave us nothing. But hey, at least they gave us something!"

And at this point, dear reader, if you ain't pissed, you ain't paying attention.

What would it take to make the US cease its war talk?

Seriously...I keep hearing "Saddam must disarm!" over and over again. But that's all I really hear...what does the Bush administration need to hear or know from Saddam that would stop it from sending our troops in?

Oh one last thing.

Mugabe is France's "responsibility". The French like Mr. Mugabe. Why is that, exactly?

It was revealed yesterday that a French aviation company is poised to help rescue Zimbabwe's beleaguered national airline. ATR is in talks to lease three or more aircraft to Air Zimbabwe.


(They're so principled! Such pacifists! So anti-war!)


Y'know, I was not really that interested in foreign relations pre-9/11. Now, I feel like understanding foreign relations is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle where you don't know what it will look like until it's done. And by definition, you only have access to half of the pieces, and it's a 3000-piece puzzle.

Each fact, each point of information is another piece of the puzzle. Oh but it's worse than that - some of the pieces are misdirections, or fake pieces, or printed on both sides to annoy and confuse you.

A lot of people get, say, 100 pieces that they like, and maybe they even find some connecting pieces. They look at the pieces they've collected, and they say "Aha! This is a picture of a tiger!"

But 100 pieces is not enough, and one's understanding of the whole big picture is not really helped by picking up, say, just the yellow pieces, or just the pieces that fit into one's little corner.

On what the US requires: the administration has been clear that its policy has been regime change, but when they announced that they were going to the UN, the policy wavered. At one point Bush said that if Saddam were to give up his WMD, it would be an indicator of regime change -- meaning, a full and obvious change in how Iraq acts and what it's capable of doing.

This has happened before: when Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi, or Khaddafy or Quadafai or however you want to spell it, took a missile in his backside and decided to play nicely from there on out.

They say it's been a boon to Libya and that Libya has even played nicely in the War on Terror. The Colonel understood: play nice with the US, and the world, and you pretty much win; you can BE a nutty "evil dictator" type and rule for life. You can fuck with your own people as much as you like, but you can't fuck with anyone else.

Don't think that Hussein hasn't been offered some sort of deal. He could live in Mr. Khaddafi's country, in first class luxury for the rest of his life, if he wanted.

That he has disarmed. There are still tons of unaccounted for chemical agents *somewhere*. Have they been destroyed? Why would someone destroy them without having some documentation and proof that they were. As far as I know, Saddam hasn't even tried to prove they were destroyed. He just says they're gone. I believe the same goes for bio agents.

Even if you arent in favor of the war, given the track record of Saddam, arent you the least bit curious where these items are? Why would he destroy them without sufficient proof for the UN inspectors to verify his word? Did he think we would believe him alone in this current trend of terrorism?

There are of course, two camps in the political battle over this war. The one that believes Saddam can't or wont hand off WOMD to Al-Qeada and the other believes that he *couldn't pass up* the opportunity and certainly will. There are are significant numbers on both sides. I appreciate your opinion and the non confrontational/accusitory way you present it. I think Saddam will use the WOMD that he *doesnt have* (wink,wink) to assist in attacks we have never seen here in the US. Al-Qeada doesn't need WOMD to attack us, but if they had them they could easily kill us. What other country would supply them to AQ? N Korea? China? France? It seems obvious to me that Iraq is the most logical target at this time.

I truly believe that we are not getting the whole story. It may be years from now, only after Chris Ruddy writes a series of conspiracy books, that we know the truth. :)

Why can't TotalFinaElf and Exxon just hire some mercenaries, have their own private war, and winner gets Iraq. I'm still not happy that the General Accounting Office failed in its suit to find out anything about the President's task force.

A federal judge yesterday rejected efforts by the General Accounting Office to force Vice President Richard B. Cheney to reveal the names of those who served on a presidential task force that helped shape the Bush administration's energy policy.

And why do you think the administation fought tooth and nail to keep elements of that meeting secret?

So we have administrations on both sides of the Atlantic being influenced by oil companies into foreign policy decisions - big surprise.

Last time Blix and associates reported, they said more time is required for inspections. Therefore George Jr and company misrepresented what Blix said. This time Blix was blunt. First he demonstrated why there is no reason for war and provided good reasons for more inspectors. Then he said time required is unknown since all that inspections must accomplish still has not been defined. Furthermore he took apart Colin Powell's 'reasons to justify war' speech where Blix had specific facts. Powell misrepresented as a WMD coverup what was probably normal maintenance on a facility that Iraq had even included in its declaration. That decontamination truck was just as likely a maintenance truck. How convenient of Powell to forget to mention that Iraq had already listed that site for inspection.
That's right. Something that never happens in the Security Council. The French Foreign Minister's speech was followed by loud, supportive applause! Even ABC News summarized what happened today: Only Spain and UK gave support to a militant US position. But UK's Jack Straw even hedged his support with a consideration for peace.

Peace will not happen with George Jr. as president. WMD are irrelevant. George Jr long ago decided he wanted to attack Iraq and is only seeking reasons to justify that inevitable attack. In international circles, George Jr's latest feeble attempt to link Al Qaeda with Iraq has apparently backfired. He can only outrightly lie so many times. It was a stupid lie that only insulted world intelligence. That silly attempt to link Iraq and Al Qaeda has, instead, further undermined George Jr's international credibility.

At least one senior adminstration official said an Al Qaeda attack would occur definitely this week as the end of the Haj. The Haj ended. The attack - and all those duct tape sales - only demonstrated how this administration would promote hype, fear, and hate to promote the George Jr need for war. It is now being leaked that evidence of an attack was probably as reliable as "6 Arabs sneaking into NY from Canada" or an attempt to blow up the Golden Gate brdige

BTW, who was so foolish as to buy duct tape - as if taping the front door was going to protect from a biochemical attack. What nonsense! Only a mental midget president would believe that recommenadtion. But then a duct tape recommendation was probably to promote fear and therefore more support for war.

Even Colin Powell recognized the futility of his George Jr assigned task: To justify war, Undertoad must provide a smoking gun. He cannot. At best he can only provide fear and speculation. Only a country that is an 'axis of evil' would use fear and speculation to justify war. But then the last time a president spit in the public's face and went to war on fears - the Domino Theory - "We have met the enemy and he is us". What Undertoad posts today would make Gen Curtis LeMay ("We are already at war and the public does not know it yet") proud. Undertoad provides no smoking gun - only speculation.

Even those aluminum tubes (remember those tubes that prove we must attack?) still remain something to look into and were probably only for reverse engineering of a rocket. Take away the hype, hate, and fear from George Jr, and those aluminum tubes are but a detail to be examined - no rush - as Dr ElBaradei's report states.

There are plenty of reasons to attack Iraq. The only problem is they are all in North Korea.

Question:
Answer [same post, one paragraph distant]:
It sure would be nice if the UN were assisting, but they're not. France would raise an objection to it due to their ties to Mugabe.
Why tw, they're just racheting things up for negotiations!

They've both tested atomic weapons. Neither country has expressed a great interest in us. There are nuts in every country, e.g. Timothy McVey and Tim Eyman. Islamic nations by default do not like "the West". At best things are going to be cordial, regardless of our policies. Israel will not use them unless they are used first. India and Pakistan aren't going to do a damn thing. This has the look and feel of a Maori greeting ceremony.

They have very specific uses. I have never seen a chef use a bowie knife ... not for food prep anyway. He's not going to run milk through them to remove magnetic impurities.


That's a damn fine question. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Sadam broke off the exclusive deal with France...

I almost spit-taked my OJ! That sounds like a better idea the more I think about it. Depressing thought that this is all about oil [mostly/partly]...

I will never dispute with that wars are started for oil, and that I don't think much of Bush's desire to invade Iraq. Everyone has their fingers in world politics, but this should not be construed as an excuse.

Everyone is guilty, but When a reader uses that club on US policies, instead of the scalpel of directly addressing issues, he/she comes across as hypocritical.

That's funny, tw! One problem at a time...

It would appear they already have.

How exactly are France and Russia doing business with Iraq? I didn't think anyone legally could, unless this is under the guise of "humanitarianism." (Not that I'm surprised, but still.)

Not completely. He hemmed and hawwed over the Pan Am trials. And other than a few missiles here and there, we haven't given Saddam a similar treatment (minus the Gulf War).

[opinion]

(I can't believe I'm doing this...God, forgive me) I agree with tw, in that I don't think Saddam is as big of a threat as he is being made out to be. What can he be inextricably linked to terror-wise since the end of the Gulf War? The ties to al-Qaeda appear weak at best. And Saddam seems to be a pure secularist; therefore, that would make an Osama-Saddam marriage unlikely. (Oh sure, they could unify for a common goal--the downfall of the US--much like the Communists and Nationalists did in China during WW2 against Japan. But Saddam is so drunk on absolute power, I don't think he'd be willing to even give an inch to someone like Osama.)

From my viewpoint, our president (who wasn't strong on foreign policy pre-9/11 to begin with) and his sidekick (who basically helmed the first Gulf War) are picking on a convenient target. Americans have short attention spans...and when it became apparent that we weren't going to find Osama, we turned our attention to the "runt."

The minute Saddam threw out inspectors 4 years ago, there should have been a massive invasion of Allied forces, with lots of bombing and killing of innocent civilians. Admittedly, Clinton was weak on the military end (and probably gunshy after Somalia).

But, we stalled. The UK stalled. France claimed "think of the children!" (Not really, but you get the idea.) Basically, the world dropped the ball. And so, we let Saddam carry on, acting like the jackass that he is.

But what we've also seen is that he's really not a threat to anyone...other than his own people. We're not about to step into the Kurd situation (b/c then the Kurds in Turkey would uprise, and Turkey is firm on keeping them in their place). And in recent times, the Kurds have pretty much been running their own show in the north. I definitely agree that Saddam is a tyrant, but no worse than a Qaddafi.

Slang, I am curious about what happened to these chem/bio agents. But here's the problem with that...

Realistically, we don't really know what he had to begin with. He could have 2 vials or 2 million vials of VX for all we know. Maybe he used all of it up during the Iran-Iraq War or on his attacks on the Kurds. He's talked a bunch of shit in his day...whose to say he had a lot of these agents in the first place?

I think the inspectors need more time. They've only been back there 2 months, and have been gone for over 4 years. Bring in more of 'em...make sure they're well-qualified. And if you can't find anything, well, then you can't find anything. *shrugs* How can you really argue with that? All we can really do is keep them under suspicion as we do North Korea, and get as much intelligence as we can on them.

I just don't see the Bush administration ever being satisfied here. Even if Hans and Mohamed and the gang over in the sand report ridiculously good cooperation from Iraq and find nothing, it's just not going to satisfy this administration.

So, we go to war. A strong wave of Arab nationalism rises up, the US and UK become more frequent victims of terrorist attacks, etc. etc. This is worst-case scenario mind you, but a very real possibility.

Meanwhile, nothing domestically has really been done since that cute tax cut almost 2 years ago (minus the post-9/11 security issues). The economy is improving, yet still sucking a serious fart. We're spinning our wheels here.

I'm sick of it. Let the inspectors do their thing. Leave Saddam to his delusions. Find Osama and his crew. And let's work on repairing our world reputation and getting our domestic house in order.

[/opinion]

Virtually every neighbor of Saddam is doing business. In a book by a CIA agent active in Lebanon and N Iraq, even the Kurds do a lucritive business with Saddam and also attack him. Even worse, Kurds will go to war with each other rather than with Saddam over control of that Saddam trade. Much oil goes to the American ally Turkey from Iraq, but mostly through middle men - Kurds - Saddam's sworn enemy.

Jordan is a major trading port for Iraqi goods. Jordan is also a US ally. That long road from Iraq to Jordan is heavily traveled.

So how much trade is Iraq doing? They export enough oil that damage for years to Iraqi oil wells is expected to cause $40 per barrel oil - a 30 or 40% increase in world oil prices.

Pakistan, Israel, and India have expressed as much interest in attacking the US as Saddam. Once George Jr rhetoric is eliminated, then Saddam has no interest in attacking America. What would he gain? Where is the profit? Saddam's entire history is to avoid all conflict with America. He was shocked and confused when America came to the rescue of Kuwait. After all, we all but told him that he could take Kuwait - according to what he heard. You can imagine his shock when America went to war - a Saddam worse case nightmare.

That is Saddam's history. Avoid all conflict with big powers such as the US. Those WMD were for unification (liberation from Saddam's viewpoint) of the Gulf region. WMD were a threat to regional nations - not to America. Until those neighbors feel threatened, then America has no direct interest in Saddam.

Geopolitical conditions will change with invasion. The only target of George Jr is Saddam. Therefore Saddam will use any WMD he might still have on attacking US troops. If the US did as in Bosnia and Serbia, then something more powerful than direct military force would bring down Saddam. Many forget what more powerful weapon was used to take down Milosevik and associates. Richard Holbrooke. Same weapon could be used to make Saddam redundant without exposing US troops to WMD and exposing every American citizen to intelligent terrorists. But first Saddam must do something worthy of such a response.

Saddam is not and has no intent on being a threat to the US - just like Pakistan, India, and Israel. Get rid of George Jr rhetoric and that has always been the bottom line.

BTW, it is totally naive to think America is not a preferred friend of many Islamic nations. Get rid of the "all Arabs are evil" mentalities and mindsets, and some of America's stronger allies are Islamic. Need we start with Turkey and Egypt. The many small Gulf nations. Oman. Jordan. Those who promote hate also claim that all Islam nations dislike America. What Islamics people do dislike is George Jr. But then that is understandable. Virtually every other nation less likes George Jr.

<i>What can he be inextricably linked to terror-wise since the end of the Gulf War?</i>

There's too much we can't see. The only thing we know for certain is the $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. But for example, Abu Nidal "committed suicide" in Baghdad last year. Very worst known terrorist living, considered responsible for 900 deaths. Interesting puzzle piece?

It is very naive to state that the problem the rest of the world is having is with George W. Bush ... it's with the US as a nation, regardless of who is at the helm.

That's kind of like saying that the Eagles' only problem was Andy Reid.

Admittedly though, the world does not seem as enamored with this president as with presidents past. And maybe it's because the world has changed so much in the 2 years he's been president, he comes across as unintelligent at times...who really knows for certain? Maybe it's more fear than dislike.

Anytime I watch interviews involving Arabs (like if they're doing street interviews), the "response" (be it coerced or real) is almost always the same thing--we like America, we like American people, we do not like George W. Bush. The extremists seem to be a minority, though they apparently have grown over the years. And I could see a war in Iraq adding to those numbers (much like the Gulf War supposedly inflamed Osama).

UT, true, but you have the Saudis who are supposedly raising money in that same vein...and we're trying to get them to play War Games with us again.

Andy Reid has nothing to do with how the world perceives Oakland Raiders or Pittsburg Steelers. America is not George Jr. American government foreign policy is George Jr. But much of the world loves some or all of American music, American movies, American concepts of fun, blue jeans, internet, how Americans advance mankind, American concepts of business, concepts of tolerance and human rights, American people (and how they tip), etc. None of these above America is George Jr. The part about America that the Arab world hates is George Jr. George Jr even let Israelis use American weapons on Palestinians. No other president ever let Israel do that!

The world did not have the same negative opinion of Clinton - a man that most of the world liked - as demonstrated by a five minute standing ovation in the UN General Assembly. Clinton was not America. Clinton was a part of America that the world respected if not loved. Clinton was an honest man who kept his word and clearly both listened and understood their problems.

Clinton was especially popular among all of Europe, the significant powers in Africa, and with every American Islamic ally. Clinton was able to find common ground with Russia without forcing the Russians into something they did not want to do. Clinton was a hard act for George Jr to follow.

George Jr is what has changed dramatically. It was bluntly obvious when George Jr immediately began undermining the Oslo Accords and the Norwegian Foreign Minister gave a scalding public opinion of George Jr - in the first months. Then George Jr all but snubbed the German Chancellor - George Jr's first international leader to visit. No wonder George Jr now has such poor support from one of America's strongest allies - Germany. He all but insulted the German Chancellor in the first months. George Jr has continued to adversely affect every American friend. No wonder so many Americans are bad mouthing some of America's historically strongest allies. George Jr has inspired hate even towards America's closest friends.

None of this reflects the many other parts of America that remain so popular to the world. What the world does not like about America is George Jr and his militant policies expressed in religious righteous tones. But then George Jr threatened war with China, undermined the Oslo Accords, terminated the anti-ballistic missile treaty, bad mouths the UN and anyone who does not agree with him, mocks the Kyoto Accords, and lectures other world leaders, often in religious tones, as if George Jr has so much more experience and knowledge.

George Jr is the part of America that the world dislikes. Even America's closest allies - Canada, Mexico, Germany, Turkey, Egypt, Japan, S Korea, S Africa - have serious problems with George Jr. Problems that did not exist two years ago. But then George Jr promotes hate and fear while expressing everything in a religious 'born again' temperment of extremes - black and white. To the world's experienced leaders, this is an indication of low intelligence. Just another thing about George Jr that clearly does not inspire confidence.

Since this is the thread where we discussed Mugabe, here's an interesting note. Mugabe's in Paris today. The EU has in fact banished Mugabe from visiting Europe. But the French went ahead and invited him anyway. "Unilaterally."

And when people protested, they had the police break it up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/a...899182,00.html

Police moved quickly to break up the demonstrations by force, in some cases dragging protesters away by their ankles, and the French government defended its invitation to Mr Mugabe, which had infuriated Britain and other EU countries.

...The French president, Jacques Chirac, on a diplomatic roll, plainly hopes the conference will cement his reputation as a key player across Africa and not just in France's former, mainly west African, colonies."

See, France has no problem whatsoever with evil tinpot dictators -- as long as they are good for France.

Of course, France is still hiding Mobutu Sese Seko (the former dictator of Zaire...surprisingly, that was a Belgian colony, not French). And isn't Baby Doc Duvalier still over there?

Let's poke fun at Chirac some more.

That's right. Blame the French for anything because they repeatedly show how stupid this American president is. Of course we don't need the French for that. We still have the attack at the end of the Hajj and all that duct tape to prove his leadership. At least Johnson had the decency to first make up an excuse for his war. This president cannot even invent an excuse that is believeable. Maybe we should bring back testimony of all those dying babies and stolen incubators.

For George Jr incompetence, one would blame the French? Lets face it. Undertoad and Sycamore so love anything this mental midget president says that they will attack anyone who might disagree with America's worst president since WWII.

Lets see. Hans Blix encourages war because the facts make this administration into liars. Anti-war demonstrators throughout the world encourage war. The French and Germans encourage war. Turkey would encourage war because they want more money to oppose their own people. Italy who now question their own government's support of George Jr must now be anti-American. The Swiss are clearly anti-American for denying US access to their airspace. My gosh. We have Nixon's enemy list all over again and almost everyone is on it!

No, Chirac can incriminate himself quite well. He's alienated most every Eastern European nation by his elitist attitude, and is ironically going to find himself overruled by the EU. Then there's that 75 billion Euro deal with the Iraquis ...

You start that "back-room dealing, oil-grabbing, imperialist/extremist leader" crap once more, I'm going to have to ask you "Which one?!"

THE POT IS BLACK. THE KETTLE IS BLACK. Together we learn to read and write.

While we're on the subject of Hans Blix:
My short googling has shown he's semi-competent at best.

I asked this after my first posting in this long, drawn out ragged thread, but what is your vision for the future? How would improve this world so that these things don't become an issue?

You guys do what you want ... I'm getting on the Boycott the French Bandwagon ...

No longer will I purchase their stinky or runny cheeses, their overrated wine, or their overpriced water. Not that I was ever in any danger of buying one of their effete little cars, but I won't be buying one of them either.

(come on, this makes one hell of a lot more sense in terms of a show of umbrage than back when Greenpeace boycotted the Burger King fish sandwich because it was called "The Whaler".)

The French are easy to pick on...their former colonies are among the poorest in the world (Chad, Burkina Faso), they got their ass handed to them in WW2, and they outrank us in voter apathy (witness the last election).

I'm not in favor of an invasion of Iraq, but even I can concede that the French are making a bad situation worse (Chirac's recent comments, the situation with NATO).

The only mental midget around here is you, tw.

I pretty much agree with everything except Clinton being weak on the military. The action in Kosovo resolved the situation without making us look like war-mongering idiots and the pressure and support we gave Serbia helped depose Milosovic without an invasion.

BTW, Clinton's actions in Kosovo were loudly criticized by Republicans as being too agressive as well as not providing clear enough proof of it being necessary. How soon they forget!

Sorry, I finally decided to check out Democrats.org. It is very biased but I believe if you look at the Republicans criticism of the Democrats and the Democrats criticisms of the Republicans, you can get an idea of the problems in government, since both sides are happy to point out the flaws in their opponents but not those of their friends.