President Bush - about bush

Palomar · 2003-03-11 07:25:10

I read somewhere recently the opinion that these countries are simply avoiding their obligation to disarm Iraq by force because they then won't be obliged to help pay for either the war itself or the rebuilding of Iraq afterwards! That, and the opinion that agreements with the present odious regime are just too lucrative for them to want to see Saddam ousted. I'm much more inclined to believe all of this than to believe the French, Russians, Germans and Chinese have suddenly become loving, forgiving paragons of higher morality.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, if you ask me. But the worst aspect of it all is the undermining of the UN's credibility in the eyes of tyrants and terrorists everywhere.

*Something of interest caught my attention last evening, while watching the last 15 minutes of "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox, during the mail forum. A man wrote to Bill O'Reilly, pointing out whereas that the UN is more than happy and willing to allow the U.S. to handle the situation with North Korea single-handedly, it (the UN) has insisted/demanded on playing the pivotal role in the U.S. - Iraq situation.

Food for thought.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 08:05:34

How has the UN insisted on ?playing the pivotal role? with the Iraqi situation? I have no doubt that those in the UN would also try for a more diplomatic solution if the US was threatening to attack North Korea (even though at the momment we don't even have a mandate for such a move). I think the whole world is polarized over the Iraq issue, mainly due to the fact that people will die unnecessarily. People would die unnecessarily in North Korea, too, but it seems the US clearly has no idea about diplomacy and would rather have a potential nuclear conflict occur; more people could die (both in North Korea and the US, or any other nation in the region for that matter) if a future North Korea with long range nuclear missiles happens. The reason we concern the US with the North Korea matter is because North Korea has directly threatened the US, and the still wants to be the world leader, right? If the US wants to lead, then lead, but don't ignore the voice of the rest of the world. Leadership takes listening.

Oh, and Shaun, I pity every liberal/leftie or whatever who was pro-Stalin/Soviet Russia. I can happily say that I was never one, but clearly in those times misinformation spread and was taken in quite easily. This is the information age, however, and if a liberal/leftist position is backed up by fact and not blatant lies and propaganda, I see absolutely no issue with it.

Can anyone with any intelligence really take the Iraq situation seriously when our news agencies have titles for shows like ?SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ? as though the whole war is a pregame Superbowl commercial? It turns my stomach.

Palomar · 2003-03-11 11:49:12

*Bad news for President Bush (with likely repercussions for Tony Blair as well):

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....ll_dc_1

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-03-11 12:40:56

How has the UN insisted on ?playing the pivotal role? with the Iraqi situation?

*Well I don't know, darling. I was simply quoting the man's e-mail to Bill O'Reilly, and said I was thinking about it.

Now excuse me..."girls just want to have fun!" (I'm claiming woman's prerogative to change my mind and not care about politics right now).

--Cindy :laugh:

I'm too pumped about the Jupiter discovery...see "New Discoveries" folder!

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-11 17:29:10

I didn't see the program Cindy has referred to but, since she has exercised her 'woman's prerogative' and abandoned politics for the moment, I might try to explain the comments made on that show.

I suppose the situation with Korea is rather like this: North Korea wants to deal directly with the U.S., while the U.S. wants to resolve the problem with multilateral diplomacy.
Conversely, with regard to Iraq, the U.S. sees multilateral diplomacy (read UN procedures) as having failed and will probably abandon it in favour of dealing directly with Iraq.
The point seems to be that countries like Russia and China, who are very much a part of the region surrounding North Korea, appear not to want to get involved with America in controlling North Korea's push for nuclear capability. On the other hand, as far as Iraq is concerned, the U.S. can't seem to get countries like Russia and China out of its hair!
I believe that must be the paradoxical situation brought up in the show Cindy mentioned.

Did I get it right?

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 17:52:48

Hmm, that seems to be about right, Shaun. But because 1) North Korea is directly threatening the US and 2) North Korea and the US have had relations before (see: the power plant deal), it's obvious that the US be the one to approach them first. North Korea wants to talk, here, just like Iraq wanted to talk to the US before they invaded Kuwait. It's just another case of the US not listening. The issue could be resolved so easily, my god; the US could quickly get the UN inspections going on in North Korea if we wanted.

I don't think the UN works the way you guys make it seem. The UN doesn't just go out and talk to other countries, the UN gots to basically be invited. It's up to respective nations to deal with their foreign issues. If other nations in the region were to go to North Korea when North Korea doesn't want to talk to them, they could just get themselves caught up in the situation. It's like being in a school yard and going up to a bully who doesn't care about you. You just don't do that.

This talk of ?multilateralism? in this context is just rubbish. North Korea won't listen to anyone but the US.

dicktice · 2003-03-11 18:47:17

Could it be, that Bush & Company won't touch anything begun by Clinton & Company? I need reassurance, if that's not stupidly at the bottom of the failure to deal utilaterally with North Korea.... Anyone?

soph · 2003-03-11 19:44:41

Maybe he just doesn't want to throw money at NK to resolve a treaty violation, an international treaty.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 21:19:38

The US doesn't want to seam ?weak.? Diplomacy here is looked upon as ?weak? and we'll do anything to avoid it.

It's possible that the Bush admin doesn't want to do anything that the Clinton admin was involved in, this way if a future conflict occurs they can blame the Clinton admin (depite the fact that irrefutably the Clinton admin delayed North Korea from having ?the bomb?).

Blame games are always the favorite political tactic, this is why I try desprately to avoid them. Look at the situation how it is and think about the consequences. Blaming each other achieves nothing.

Blowing up Iraq is just creating more terrorists. I can't see how people don't understand this.

And soph, yes, it's an international treaty, but it still involves the US directly.

soph · 2003-03-11 21:40:15

And so did 1441, and the Gulf War.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 22:15:22

1441 doesn't give us the mandate to attack. 1441 is an inspection resolution. The majority of veto security council members (and probably regular members) are against a war.

Bush should have never gone back to the UN. He could have had a quick war and had it done and over with in a few days (under the guise of all these WMDs and so on- he could have ever had it made up after the fact so that hundreds of dead Americans was justified).

Bush taking the diplomatic approach was the biggest error he ever made with regards to Iraq.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-12 00:37:11

Wow, Josh!
There's way more pragmatism in you than first meets the eye!! I never would have suspected ...

[ Jes' messin' witcha bro' !!! ]

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-12 02:11:41

That's like the third or fourth time I said that in this thread.

And it's true, Bush could've got away with a war had it done it quick without spotlighting it and throwing his weight around (especially when we had all that positive pro-US sentiment worldwide after 9/11). People were against a war in Kosovo, and though I may not think that what Clinton did in Kosovo was the best solution to their problems (hey, I'm a cynic, no one can please me!), Clinton did it pretty much the right way; he didn't polarize the situation in a negative way. Kosovo said, ?Hey, we have a problem, a little help here?? and Clinton repsonded, ?Sure.? All Bush had to do was say, ?Iraq has WMDs and connections to the Taliban, we're going to liberate the Iraqi's and make the world a more peaceful place.? After that succeeded (even if thousands of people died it would've been considered a success), North Korea probably wouldn't have even reared their head, because the US would've still had plenty of worldwide support. And yes. It could've been a war fought over a lie. Very many are.

I'm kind of screwed up on this issue. On one hand I certainly think regime change should occur in Iraq; I think the whole middle east for that matter could use a little democracy and civil rights, and this is in places where we consider western lifestyle to prodominate (I won't name where, but you should all know). On the other, I don't think, in any situation, innocent people should die. If there's anything I want, is a peaceful resolution to the worlds problems. And yes, I do accept that at times that's impossible (I believe in the future we're going to have problems with North Korea, and solving them peacefully will be quite difficult), but at least try, damnit. We haven't tried.

Palomar · 2003-03-12 14:00:54

I didn't see the program Cindy has referred to but, since she has exercised her 'woman's prerogative' and abandoned politics for the moment, I might try to explain the comments made on that show.
I suppose the situation with Korea is rather like this: North Korea wants to deal directly with the U.S., while the U.S. wants to resolve the problem with multilateral diplomacy.
Conversely, with regard to Iraq, the U.S. sees multilateral diplomacy (read UN procedures) as having failed and will probably abandon it in favour of dealing directly with Iraq.
The point seems to be that countries like Russia and China, who are very much a part of the region surrounding North Korea, appear not to want to get involved with America in controlling North Korea's push for nuclear capability. On the other hand, as far as Iraq is concerned, the U.S. can't seem to get countries like Russia and China out of its hair!
I believe that must be the paradoxical situation brought up in the show Cindy mentioned.
Did I get it right?

*Hi Shaun. Sorry I cut out on you guys yesterday...I just got into a totally different mind-set [I think "Spring Fever" had something to do with it <perky smile>].

Yes, you explained it right...and beautifully; much better than I could have.

I see that Australia had a rather interesting turn of events today:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....7472559

And yet another surprise (haven't heard from/about this man in quite a while):

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...._iraq_1

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-03-12 15:21:39

Hi all,

My comments about the last show on CNN on the Mother of All Bomb, the MOAB: it will be perceived as just another american arrogancy over seas. First, I warn you that you gonna read some transatlantic papers saying that "american want to use weapons of mass destructions against Iraki's civilian."
How come that the US military don't see the stupidity to publicize such a nuclar-like bomb ?
That the US military forces intend to use this bomb is fine, it's just part of the stupid game of the war, but that they make a big show on it is really stupid. It just feeds the antiUS opponent arguments.

Second, did Mr Rumsfeld said that he wants to use this bomb to TERRORIZE the Irakis ? please, don't use the terrorist language and methods or the word "terrorize", that's just akward.

The terrorists terrorize, the US troop free, not fry, the people of this terror. Not the reverse, OK Mr Rumsfeld ?

Because what's next ? will the US forces declare loudly, through a good CNN show, that they give themself the right to use small nuclear bombs, chemicals or neurotoxic against Irak soldiers if the war goes too long or too tough ?

The military don't see the immense irony of the situation ?

Maybe it's not all that stupid after all, maybe the US wants to FORCE the Irakis to use nuclears or other WMD in the battlefield and to do so, they menace to use weapons so powerful that anything else than nuclear or neurotoxic is useless.
That the Irakis would make that mistake would justify the war.
This would explain why CNN publicized the MOAB with a picture of an atomic mushroom cloud.
Can the military be so diabolically smart, like Dr Evil ?
I doubt.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-12 17:50:55

dickbill, the news about the super-bomb was never really intended for international consumption, it was intended to ?liven? the American people. ?Hey everyone, we have a new toy!?

Internationally though, it is a stupid thing to be doing, most certainly.

I think a lot of people aren't considering the most important aspect of an Iraqi war. That half the Iraqi population is 15 or under. Do I even have to talk about the implications, here? We're going to war with children! Every child who loses a friend, every child who loses a father or mother, or what have you, is a potential terrorist. Many of the Isreal suicide bombers are people who lost love ones in some conflict there, so it's not a generalization to say this.

I hope I'm wrong about that stat, but I recall hearing it and reading it on American news sources.

dickbill · 2003-03-12 22:24:07

dickbill, the news about the super-bomb was never really intended for international consumption, it was intended to ?liven? the American people. ?Hey everyone, we have a new toy!?

Hi Josh, no, I am sure it will be internationally broadcasted, and transformed and manipulated by the media in all possible ways.
This is why I think it' s a mistake to make such show now. What is merely a technical explanation for the US public can become a mediatic weapon for those who want to represent america negatively. But to be sure I'm gonna check the french news tomorow.

Donald Rumsfeld saying that he wants to use that huge bomb to terrorize the Iraki ? smart words, he should think twice before speaking. That sentence can be repeated thousands of time on otherTV channels with the picture of the atomic mushroom "made in USA" of the MOAB in background.

It's a mediatic war ! we know that. We can see a lot of show on Discovery, prepared "upon request". Last time that was "being a prisonner". Nest time will be about Sadam the murderer escaping in the forest while holding his leg. It has already be done, but so what, that's the basic of propaganda. Repeat repeat repeat, and it will become true. Goebels knew that 50 years ago.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-12 23:02:20

Thanks, Cindy!
And that Andrew Wilkie guy is exercising his right to protest against something he doesn't believe in. It's a dramatic way to do it but I suppose that's his prerogative in a free society.
I make the observation, though, that a similarly high ranking analyst in Iraq, making a similarly dramatic public protest against the actions of Saddam Hussein, wouldn't just disappear from public life ... he or she would simply disappear - period! (And maybe most of the immediate family too!! )
That, in itself, may not be a legal justification to invade Iraq but it sure eases my conscience a lot to think of how much better off the Iraqi people will be without that monster pulling the strings.
And that Lech Walesa of Solidarity fame gives me courage too. He showed real guts when he stood up to the vicious and corrupt Polish communist party. He also knows, first hand, what it's like to live in a closed society. His opinion carries weight with me in this debate.

Hi Dickbill and Josh!
I see your point about the 'MOAB'. They must think advertising such a weapon, although it feeds the legitimate fears of the peaceniks for the safety of innocent Iraqi civilians, will help to convince the more hard-line Iraqi troops of the Republican Guard that their cause is a lost one.
It may also instil doubt into the minds of Iraqi generals and politicians about the impregnability of some of their subterranean bunkers and, hence, doubts about their own safety. The Iraqi leadership is probably quite happy to fight to the last drop of everybody else's blood - but less enthusiastic about spilling any of their own!
If the publicity about the MOAB succeeds in shortening still further what I am hopeful will be a very short war, then it's justified. And full marks to the Bush administration, if that's the case, for willingly sacrificing some of the goodwill it still has with the world community in order to discourage Iraqi resistance and perhaps save many lives.

I hope very much that all the talk about nuclear bunker-busters and possible chemical weapons use by America is also just 'psyching' an already demoralised opposition.
The reason I say this is because I don't believe in nuclear weapons being used at all - no matter how small or how ostensibly 'clean'. And, if I had my way, I would ban the use of depleted uranium artillery shells because of the impossible clean-up job afterwards. It's simply not necessary - especially in such a one-sided contest as this one.

[P.S. Sorry Josh if your earlier demonstrations of pragmatism in this thread were forgotten. It's been a long thread and my memory mightn't be what it used to be!
It was mildly sarcastic praise, I admit, and, as we all know, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!
No real offence was intended - I understand your motives are all noble ones. ]

dickbill · 2003-03-13 12:39:37

Hi Dickbill and Josh!
I see your point about the 'MOAB'. They must think advertising such a weapon, although it feeds the legitimate fears of the peaceniks for the safety of innocent Iraqi civilians, will help to convince the more hard-line Iraqi troops of the Republican Guard that their cause is a lost one.
It may also instil doubt into the minds of Iraqi generals and politicians about the impregnability of some of their subterranean bunkers and, hence, doubts about their own safety. The Iraqi leadership is probably quite happy to fight to the last drop of everybody else's blood - but less enthusiastic about spilling any of their own!

mistake !
One of the reason why the Iraqis have relocalized their troops inside civilian areas is because they have been convinced that their military forces are useless against the powerfull US technology. Thus, by convincing them that fighting in the battle field is useless, we made them thinking that the only usefull weapon available is the mediatic weapon: the picture of dead civilians abundantly broacasted worldwide.

The choice to display the US mighty power creates and encourages the civilian human shield strategy ! Because the Irakis know that the US won't shoot on military target if civilians are present, like a school or an hospital, and are on the path to the bullets. What safest places do they have ?
Yes, big mistake for the US to claim they have a quasi alien supertechnology, this convinced any Iraki soldier that anywhere, anyhow, it could be easily killed, even in a deep underground blockaus.
And so, the US face now the big problem to deal with the human shield + cameras strategy. A problem that they have created themself.

Wouldn't be better to encourage the Irakis troops to feel confident ? at least to make them thinking that the battlefield is still a place for them. That would, maybe, encourage Saddam to make some strategic mistake, like moving and concentrating the republican guard in a civilian free area, where the US troops, and only the US troops, know that they could vaporize them in a picosecond.
Everybody jokes about the french surrending during WWII, one of the reason the blietzkrieg was so successfull was the surprise effect, the german troops certainly did not broadcast their plans and latest Me109 characteristics in the radio. The french were also too confident in the Magino line, if they had knew this defence line would have been useless, certainly the french army would have been dispatched differently (as suggested by De Gaule) and the issue of the war could have been different. The french overconfidence served the german plans.

By the way, I saw a report, with a neutral tone and without parti pris, of the MOAB in Yahoo France News, so it's wrong to think that the MOAB show has been restricted to the USA. I guess that it is also available in other countries, but probably not so neutral.

In short, The MOAB show, and all shows of that sort are just stupid, criminal mistakes. If you want to make the war, try to make it clean and fast by fooling your opponent.

Palomar · 2003-03-13 14:22:16

Can anyone with any intelligence really take the Iraq situation seriously when our news agencies have titles for shows like ?SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ? as though the whole war is a pregame Superbowl commercial? It turns my stomach.

*Hate to break it to you, Josh, but if you enjoy going to the movies, this is what you can look forward to:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....ls_dc_2

I get a kick out of the guy quoted in the article as saying, "This isn't propoganda. If it were, it wouldn't work."

Propoganda doesn't work? Since when?

Even obvious propoganda works wonders -- probably better than subtle propoganda; after all, no one looks for obvious propoganda...it's not there, right?

Such a statement smacks of reverse psychology.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-03-13 14:34:37

Thanks, Cindy!
And that Lech Walesa of Solidarity fame gives me courage too. He showed real guts when he stood up to the vicious and corrupt Polish communist party. He also knows, first hand, what it's like to live in a closed society. His opinion carries weight with me in this debate.

*It was interesting to see Walesa speak out. Gorbachev has spoken out in favor of war with Iraq as well...at least in the vein of "let's stand with the U.S.A./U.K." Of course, neither Walesa nor Gorby are taking personal risks, politically/career-wise speaking, in making such statements.

Interestingly, Bill Clinton has spoken in favor of peace with Iraq; that war is not necessary. I suppose the Republicans will accuse him of having toked up prior to the statement. :;):

--Cindy

dicktice · 2003-03-13 17:11:56

I wonder: Would it be too soon for Clinton to run again, for President, in the next election...? Just a thought.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-13 19:53:29

Cindy, oh, I know propaganda works. I've been corresponding with a few Cuba knowledgable people lately, and I'm just at awe at how the anti-Cuba sentiment is still relatively strong here in the states, given this information. Of course, I don't want this thread to turn into a Cuba debate, and I wouldn't want to defend the things I know without at least experiencing them first hand; heck, the propoganda has even affected me, since I'm unsure as to whether or not I should believe these people! Isn't that something? Propaganda really screws your head up, whether you like it or not.

If you're talking about Bill Clinton, he couldn't run again. On of the best moves made by Bush Sr. was to put the cap on how many times a president could run.

If you're speaking of Hillary, I don't think it would be too soon. Senators have renigged on their promises before. Hillary should run, she could have a very good chance of winning. I'd vote for her.

soph · 2003-03-13 19:57:12

I believe Clinton can run again. In fact, I believe Dick Gephradt had said this last night. Boy, he would make a good president. I believe he's running, too.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-13 20:04:57

It would be unconstitutional for Bill Clinton to run again and win. If he did, that would be something major. It would require a constitutional ammendment, and it would require a majority of the states to sign it in (66% I think, or something like that). That's not happening.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#751 2003-03-11 07:25:10

Re: President Bush - about bush

#752 2003-03-11 08:05:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#753 2003-03-11 11:49:12

Re: President Bush - about bush

#754 2003-03-11 12:40:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#755 2003-03-11 17:29:10

Re: President Bush - about bush

#756 2003-03-11 17:52:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#757 2003-03-11 18:47:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#758 2003-03-11 19:44:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#759 2003-03-11 21:19:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#760 2003-03-11 21:40:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#761 2003-03-11 22:15:22

Re: President Bush - about bush

#762 2003-03-12 00:37:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#763 2003-03-12 02:11:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#764 2003-03-12 14:00:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

#765 2003-03-12 15:21:39

Re: President Bush - about bush

#766 2003-03-12 17:50:55

Re: President Bush - about bush

#767 2003-03-12 22:24:07

Re: President Bush - about bush

#768 2003-03-12 23:02:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#769 2003-03-13 12:39:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#770 2003-03-13 14:22:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#771 2003-03-13 14:34:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#772 2003-03-13 17:11:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#773 2003-03-13 19:53:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#774 2003-03-13 19:57:12

Re: President Bush - about bush

#775 2003-03-13 20:04:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer