President Bush - about bush

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-23 22:18:34

But soph, as usual, you don't justify your comments!

You bullshit that France is inherently anti-American, while neglecting to even realize yourself that France's position is quite in line with the US, with the exception of one very small detail; Bush wants to go to war now, whereas France wants to enforce inspections. How is this ?block[ing] us and blast[ing] us at every step??

If Iraq doesn't destory the weapons which are in violation, as per UNMOVIC instruction, obviously France will say ?lets go to war.? Of course, our wonderful American media will make it seem that France is ?changing their position? when in reality they have stressed the need for inspections, and a peaceful resolution to a trivial issue.

Indeed, Jacqueline Grapin points out that if France talked about the US the way the US is treating France, Americans would be outraged, ?I think there is a campaign going on in the US that is worse than I have ever seen in France. I think if in France we had such an anti-American campaign, Americans would be outraged, and rightly so.?

Where is your sympathy for France over anti-France campaigns? Or is it you who are showing your true double standard? I guess it's wrong for any nation to question the actions of the US. I guess, if you were relevant in the international community, you'd be telling everyone who wasn't for the US to ?shut up.? At least that's the implication I get from your arguments.

The reason I say that the UN is becoming more powerful is because now the US doesn't simply do what it wants. This is the first time in quite awhile the US hasn't been able to go to war on her whim! You damn right the EU is going to blast the US!

If Europe wants to garnish anger at American policies, I see absolutely no problem with it. Having problem with this sort of progress is quite the conservative position. Being stuck up, biggoted, and thinking that you're the only one who's right, is not.

France has always always been for peace, therefore, it only makes sense for France to step up and lay down some very rational guidelines to her allies. If this offends the US, so be it, but this hardly means that France wouldn't go to war if they felt it was necessary. But again, of course, you don't think France, Beligum, or anyone for that matter are relevant. Instead of embracing democratic principles, you think that the only relevant voice in this situation is the US. Well, you're wrong, and you're silly for trying to come up with some weak argument as to how you're right.

soph · 2003-02-24 05:50:46

You're kidding, right?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-24 13:57:51

Oh yay, another random comment by soph which doesn't actually reply to anything specifically and just takes up unnecessary threadspace! Woo.

No, I'm not kidding, about anything I said.

clark · 2003-02-24 14:36:43

France's position is quite in line with the US, with the exception of one very small detail; Bush wants to go to war now, whereas France wants to enforce inspections.

Haven't we been trying for inspections for 12 years? How has there been a lack of time being given to make the inspections work? What will more time actually change? If more time will continue the stalemate, then it seems we are better served by going to war now, not later. Additional time only allows the regime to continue to develop and hide the weapons that the international community has agreed it should not have.

Of course, our wonderful American media will make it seem that France is ?changing their position? when in reality they have stressed the need for inspections, and a peaceful resolution to a trivial issue.

true, the media will play this up. Skew the actual relaity. However, what is gained by additional time? Either the regime will destroy their weapons, or they won't. Teh fact that we have to go back and forth over wether or not the regime is complying (when there is clear evidence that they are not) only serves to strengthen the regimes position, and make the inevitable task that much more costly in terms of human life and basic cost.

I guess it's wrong for any nation to question the actions of the US. I guess, if you were relevant in the international community, you'd be telling everyone who wasn't for the US to ?shut up.?

No, it is quite right. However, neccessary action should not be held hostage for politcal manuevers. We should respect the position of our friends and allies, but let's look at the reality: Germany, France, and Belgium are blocking the neccessary action for politcal gain. It is becuase of theuir actions that the UN is in danger of losing relevancy. It is their inabiltiy to admit, "yes, this needs to happen becuase the situation simply will not improve otherwise".

Part of the problem is that the US is garrisoned in the middle east. We can't change this until we "stabilize" the area. We have to do this so we can have an actual exit strategy- leaving the middle east with Saddam in control is untennable, for everyone.

The reason I say that the UN is becoming more powerful is because now the US doesn't simply do what it wants.

Huh? We gave the world the middle finger on Koyto. We began positioning troops in the middle east after we forced the Security Council to accept our resolution (1441). We have maintained a no-fly zone for 11 years, an illegal act unsupported by the UN. And now we DECLARE that the UN either is with US, or it is irrelevant. The US is doing exactly what it wants without resorting to burning all the bridges- however, it has admitted that it is prepared to burn all the bridges.

Instead of embracing democratic principles, you think that the only relevant voice in this situation is the US.

The "democratic principle" of popularity contests?

The fact that the French Prime Minister prevented the future EU eastern european countries from attending the EU summit (regarding Iraq) becuase of their public support for the american stance should be a sign of just how in tune these countries are with basic "democratic principles".

soph · 2003-02-24 14:42:46

Your post is a waste of good text.

You bullshit that France is inherently anti-American, while neglecting to even realize yourself that France's position is quite in line with the US, with the exception of one very small detail; Bush wants to go to war now, whereas France wants to enforce inspections. How is this ?block[ing] us and blast[ing] us at every step??

Nice use of language to convey your point! No, France wouldn't support a war if Saddam had a planet busting nuke. If the U.S. turned around and said "more inspections," France would say, Saddam needs to be dealt with using force.

If Iraq doesn't destory the weapons which are in violation, as per UNMOVIC instruction, obviously France will say ?lets go to war.? Of course, our wonderful American media will make it seem that France is ?changing their position? when in reality they have stressed the need for inspections, and a peaceful resolution to a trivial issue.

He has said he won't destroy the Al-Samoud missiles. Our wonderful, liberal bent media? The one that reports every day on the casualties of war? Please.

Indeed, Jacqueline Grapin points out that if France talked about the US the way the US is treating France, Americans would be outraged, ?I think there is a campaign going on in the US that is worse than I have ever seen in France. I think if in France we had such an anti-American campaign, Americans would be outraged, and rightly so.?

Now that's a fallacy. France is going around trying to rally support against America, while the American government has gone, privately, requesting support, not publicly bullying countries. This is just the French trying to justify a campaign in France. I actually had a friend go to France, and many stores wouldn't let him purchase their goods, because they hate Americans, as they said explicitly. If that happened here, there would be a $100 million lawsuit.

The reason I say that the UN is becoming more powerful is because now the US doesn't simply do what it wants. This is the first time in quite awhile the US hasn't been able to go to war on her whim! You damn right the EU is going to blast the US!

Ah, so that's why we got a resolution for Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Bosnia....this just doesn't hold water, Josh. We've always gotten resolutions. Even after 9/11, when we didn't need one.

If Europe wants to garnish anger at American policies, I see absolutely no problem with it. Having problem with this sort of progress is quite the conservative position. Being stuck up, biggoted, and thinking that you're the only one who's right, is not.

Ah, I'm biggoted because Europeans are garnishing anti-Americanism, and I'm pointing it out? You call anti-Americanism progress? Our government hasn't spewed out the anti-Europeanism on a reciprocal scale, the American people have judged the twisted politics of European nations itself.

Remember, I'm 75% German through my grandparents-how can I be biggoted against my own heritage?

France has always always been for peace, therefore, it only makes sense for France to step up and lay down some very rational guidelines to her allies. If this offends the US, so be it, but this hardly means that France wouldn't go to war if they felt it was necessary. But again, of course, you don't think France, Beligum, or anyone for that matter are relevant. Instead of embracing democratic principles, you think that the only relevant voice in this situation is the US. Well, you're wrong, and you're silly for trying to come up with some weak argument as to how you're right.

And leave a dictator in power that murders hundreds of thousands?

Does Napoleon ring a bell?

You spew a bunch of fallacies, and call my argument weak? Look in the mirror.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-24 16:10:57

Wow, two replies at once! How awesome for me. The level of fearmongering in this thread is pretty exciting, too.

Let's try to reply shortly to each of you.

clark,

I think you foolishly exaggerate the ?Iraqi threat.? You bandy about the typical warmongering language that inspections have gone on for ?so long? but have been ?ineffective.? The inspections went on for 7 years, the inspections were quite weak. It's not like we were determined to find anything then- indeed, when Operation Desert Fox occured, we felt it was in our own political interests to simply bomb from the sky rather than have a diplomatic solution on the ground. Back then, I think there were less than a dozen inspectors. Now we have over 100. Back then, we gave up at the slight smell of violations. Now we need to find every violation and snuff it out. Iraq is in no position, at all, to not let us do this.

I don't think anyone is holding anyone ?hostage? via political manuvers. Especially since the biggest player here is France, and the only point they converge with the US on is military force. Hell, if you look at their proposed resolution (which I am confident will actually pass), they call for an army of UN soldiers, and many more inspectors. So they don't really converge very much.

You have, much like soph, clearly made up your mind on this issue. Indeed, you think to yourself that the situation will not improve unless we do go to war (a laughable position to take). But at least you're honest with yourself and are showing that this is about removing Saddam, and has absolutely nothing to do with the UN resolutions on Iraq, or any violations therein.

And actually, having read some of the US's latest position, it does seem that we want to go with war regardless of whatever new UN resolutions are written up, and regardless of any progress made in that direction. Which is kind of surprising to me, but we'll see what happens when France vetos the new resolution, and gets their own resolution through (like they did before). The UN doesn't need the US to do its job. All it takes is a ground force. Hell, China coule provide that quite easily.

But positioning our troops aren't illegal, nor is the no fly zone, technically speaking, because previous resolutions could be said to give us that right.

Oh, and sure, preventing people from attending the summit (which I hadn't heard about), is quite petty, but I wouldn't say it's undemocratic in the context I was talking about. The summit goers don't have veto power in the UN, and their voice wouldn't change France's mind (perhaps because they were persuaded underhandedly by the US- or perhaps because they couldn't offer any new evidence- in either case), so, really, I was talking about democracy in the UN Security Council. Frances vote in the council is just as democratic as anyone elses.

soph,

Oh, thank you for at least saying my text is good. Your posts continue to be non-responses, but that's okay.

I mean, really, you're verging on A.J. levels here with your totally unsubstantiated remarks. You've failed to show how, somewhat laughably, ?France would do the opposite of what the US does.? Which is basically what you've been getting at here.

Saddam has definitely said that it wasn't in his interests to destroy his missiles. Common damn sense; why would he if the US is saying they're going to ignore the UN? He'll obviously wait until the deadline (March 1st) to do so, with UNMOVIC overseeing the whole thing of course. But he will comply. Just to show the world that he's ?living up to his end of the bargain.? Indeed, today Ari Fleischer claims that even if Saddam does disarm, we're still going to war! Isn't that something? It just blows the mind how arrogant these people are in the Bush admin. Oh, and yeah, the liberal media which neglected to report on the millions of anti-war protests in the US on Feb the 15th...

And you've failed to realize what France has done here. France has veto power, not the other countries. They are irrelevant. France can't and doesn't have to say anything to them. France didn't think the US was going to underhandedly get their ?support,? or France probably would have done it before the US (obviously, I mean, it is one hell of a PR problem, don't you think?- indeed, we're discussing as if its even relevant in this very thread).

I like how you magically invoke ?friends? or ?family members? to ?prove? that your position is right. If people from France aren't selling goods to Americans, then I'm somewhat surprised, and obviously I think that's wrong. But here in the states, an owner can certainly refuse service to someone, it's within their right. So it's not like such despicable behavior doesn't occur everywhere. But I'd take that comment with a grain of salt, because I myself have had many friends visit France (hell, I think clark himself has been to France! Let's ask him!), and I've never once heard anything as absurd as what you're saying.

I like how both you and clark cite situations in which we actually had world support. You see, most of the situations where we didn't have world support were done behind everyones backs. This time,we have to do it publicly, and this time we're not really getting our way. Do you understand that?

And I like how you equate disagreeing with American policies with anti-Americanism. Indeed, you don't even show how, you just make the claim and there ya go. The reason most foreign countries (not just the European countries, mind you) dispise American foreign policy (not Americans in general), because America has basically shown itself to say one thing, and do another. And people are, well, tired of it. Don't you remember the Friendly Dictator cards?

Oh, and I'm 50% German, so assuming heritage means anything here (and not knowledge), I should be qualified to make my own judgements... But, of course, I don't usually invoke family or friends as ?proof? that I'm right. So I'll refrain from doing so now.

Here's what's going to happen, clark, and soph. France, Germany, Russia, China, and Beligum will get a new resolution within the UN Security Council. Now, the US can ignore the resolution (it's questionable as to if she will or not), or the US can obey the resolution. If the US does, the US troops that are already there, will stay (hey, the US wants to be there, let them- but let France save us money while we're at it, by doing it diplomatically and rationally). More UN soldiers will be deployed, and three times as many inspectors will be sent in.

After the peace process occurs, Saddam, and other top officals in Iraq will be pressured to ?step down.? With hundreds of thousands of troops in the area, and lots of UN forces, such pressure can be made quite easily by the Iraqi people.

The peace process works.

Here's an outline of the France-German plan. It's not a complete draft, yet, but it's coming soon, with Russian support (and most likely China, but China isn't in the drafting process): http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030208_166.html

And here's some late breaking news about the Russian alliance: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24375652

I'm sorry guys, but if you think war is the only solution to the problem, I think you're far too gone for any rational discourse.

soph · 2003-02-24 16:16:57

I already substantiated each of my points, with valid sources. Since you have yet to post one, I will regard your posts as anti-Bush speculation and postulation, based solely on your fantasies of a European upheaval of American power.

That's all you've posted, and that's most likely what you will continue to post.

When confronted with real sources, you back further into your shell of denial. And you say we are incapable of rational discourse? The facts don't lie.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-24 16:30:24

We've been over this, soph. You posted a lot of anti-France drivel, but really didn't say anything relevant to the discussion at hand. I mean, your source is your ?friend? for crying out loud.

Again, another non-reply from you. You say I'm in denial, but you don't say what it is I'm in denial about. You say that you've ?substantiated each of [your] points? but as I've shown, your last post didn't even have any points which needed to be substantiated.

Simply because I desire Europe to become a second world power does not make my comments any less factual. yours, on the other hand, are filled with subjective emotional garbage.

soph · 2003-02-24 16:35:09

Heh, sources from the most respected newspaper in the world are unsubstantiated garbage, while you are the expert in the field?

Josh, you are in denial about everything from Saddam's ego to France's anti-Americanism, as my impartial sources (the New York Times, for God's sake!) have shown quite well. Ignoring them only proves your oblivion to the truth.

You have proven nothing with your unbased postulations. I will not accept invalid speculation that is predicated on "I say so, so you are wrong." I have provided nearly 10 perfectly valid sources, to your 0. You can focus on my friend if you want, the other sources won't vanish.

I'm pretty much going to ignore whatever else you post, it's not worth my time to discuss something with someone who is blind to the outside world.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-24 17:44:46

What exactly is the relevance of those articles, though? I just went back and read them, for your pleasure. All they do is say, in a nutshell, that France is taking a leadership position in Europe. It doesn't say that France would, undoubtedly ?do the opposite? of whatever the US does for some irrational reason (which is your laughable position). No, it says that France likes peace, and France is perusing peace, and that obviously peace would be an advancement for Frances power. Really, the articles you showed me were gross exaggerations about the so called ?rift? between the US. Even today, the whitehouse spokesman said that France and the US were allies, unquestionably. But of course, you'll fail to respond to that.

Funnily enough, your own articles stress that the EU wants a peaceful solution to the Iraqi situation. Not war, inspections! The majority wants peace, in both the UN and EU.

And no, your articles didn't show undeniably that France is anti-American. If anything it showed that France's leaders themselves are inherently anti-American policy. And even then, the points where France diverge from American policy are very miniscule indeed (of course, you'll fail to respond to this point, like you did last time, but this is typical of you).

I don't care about Saddam's ?ego.? I just look at the situation and observe what's occuring. Is Iraq itself complying with the UN? Certainly it is, so far, with the small exception of undisclosed materials, rusted shells, etc, all thinks which are trivial matters (to think, war could be started over the loss of paperwork!). We'll know in the next week or so whether or not Iraq is up to the test, by destroying its weapons even in light of war with the US; how much balls would that take? That's like me handing my gun over to someone who is robbing my house!

Oh, and by the way, the final word I made, to you and clark, was a hopeful prediction, I wasn't meaning for it to be factual (though I do think it's some rather good speculation- I've been right over most of the issues here, just read back in this thread). Everything else, I said, though, was indeed factual.

Oh, and please, do. I mean, ignore whatever else I post. It makes things so much easier to be completely unopposed in my arguments. Though it does tend to be boring.

Palomar · 2003-02-24 17:56:26

*I've been deliberately staying away from the political discussions (mainly because I've gotten tired of the recent international blah-blah-blah)...but I have to admit that, despite my own wish for no war, I am also sad to see that all the anti-war protests have (predictably!) increased Saddam Hussein's egotistical bravado. I won't forget that he is also a man whose son rapes women for sport, that his regime cuts out the tongues of dissents or any person daring to speak even the weakest contrary opinion, and using other methods of torture (including cutting off limbs) to shut people up. And this is the guy who many people are mewling over like, "oh, poor baby, you're being PICKED ON; that's all." And, of course, this also serves to encourage him to continue playing games, to laugh at the impotence of the UN, continue breaking treaty resolutions he agreed to -- and to flaunt it all the while; etc., etc.

I am equally angry with Pres. Bush for acting like he's got a fire under his pants all these months, thus enabling the entire situation to be played out making him look like an even bigger damned fool, and making the U.S. the laughingstock of the world. And now, of course, he's got to continue playing his hand the way he started out; he can't back down now.

What a mess.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-24 18:06:31

It's certainly a mess. Like I said before, if the US goes in for war, it's going in without UN support.

But I don't think anyone is protecting Saddam, or feelings sorry for him. I mean, that's pure spin, right there. No one likes Saddam, and I don't know why this should be reiterated over and over so that people understand this. The point is, getting rid of Saddam or changing the situation in Iraq, is not best done with war, because there are lots of innocent civilians in the way. How hard would it be to run an anti-Saddam campaign once UN forces were on the ground all over Iraq? It would be so easy to take out the Iraqi officals, with an internal revolution that was fought over desks with paperwork. What good is an ego if no one likes you? Can someone who isn't liked really last with enough force?

President Bush shoudn't have went back to the UN with the resolution. He had his mandate before that. I don't know what his problem is. I guess he wanted to seem like a uniter, and not a divider, but it really has backfired in his face. All of his attempts to justify a war with Iraq are futile, unless you yourself are a warmonger, and actually want to go to war.

dicktice · 2003-02-24 18:32:36

There won't be a war as long as the inspectors can stick it out. They represent a "third force" without which the military on both sides will have no excuse not to start their distruction. They need that excuse...to provide time to gradually back off, while the U.N. and/or NATO get their respective acts together. It won't be easy, but with so much to lose (world peace as opposed to world war) it will be worth it no matter how long it takes. I'd like to read more positive positions on your parts, and participate, regarding inspection alternatives and procedures....

dickbill · 2003-02-24 18:54:06

Josh, you are in denial about everything from Saddam's ego to France's anti-Americanism, as my impartial sources (the New York Times, for God's sake!) have shown quite well. Ignoring them only proves your oblivion to the truth.
I'm pretty much going to ignore whatever else you post, it's not worth my time to discuss something with someone who is blind to the outside world.

Hi all, the French is back to destroy the anti-french uhmaricans in this list!

First of all, I was happy to watch a forum about Irak on CSpan last sunday. A perfect example of democracy I have to say. I think the forum was in Connecticut but I don't remember the name of the senator answering the questions from all the attendants.
It was basically the same kind of questions we can read on this forum. The recurant questions or issues were about the fear utilisation and information manipulation/ wrong concept of pre-emptive war / aftermath too expensive/ no real reason to go to war/ many references to Vietnam war from veterans/ etc. All this very well presented by american citizen, usually in very precise and specific questions asking for a specific answer.

However, the senator, as nice and polite as he was, gave no specific answers to those questions, maybe by lack of time. The "answer" was always the same : "we trust G Bush and we support his policy, amen" .

One Kurde and One Turk were invited, The Turc saying that the Kurde was manipulated (which was the feeling I had too), which again poses the question of how the information is presented.

Anyway, that forum shows that the "go to war" policy is far to be unanimous inside the USA themselves. Everybody is very uncertain and doubt about the truth of the issues presented by the US government.

Now, about what said Soph about anti-american french feelings, it's a little bit true. But who's fault ?
The french hate the kind of expensive and imperialist american arrogant behavior, but this antiamerican feeling, I think, disapeared a little bit with Bill Clinton. French Liked Bill Clinton. With Bill Clinton, in addition to some good fun time (...no comment...), we had PathFinder and Sojourner on Mars, the Stars and Stripes bright in the Martian sky, Yeah !! But now, The US show the essence of redneckism in the face of the world, a concentrate of uhmarican arrogance and uneducation, with a simple-at-heart cow-boy as a president, obviously manipulated by his staff. Well guys, I tell you something, you are not gonna recover from the anti-uhmarican feelings worldwide if you cannot give better answers than these:

"those americans who don't think like us, feel free to leave the country" I read that on this list.
"those who don't agree with us, you are anti-american un-patriotic communists !"
"the non american who don't support us are fags !" and so on.

soph · 2003-02-24 19:05:50

dickbill-I don't like Bush-I have said that many times before.

But do I think the war in Iraq is justified?

Absolutely!

Do I think Bush's motives are the right motives?

No.

Do I think the means justify the end?

Yes!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-24 19:59:43

How can a war in Iraq be justified if you don't think someones motivations are just?

And you can't say the means are justified until you see the end. If the end is catostrophe, then it would be a huge stretch to say that it was justified...

dickbill · 2003-02-24 20:01:36

But do I think the war in Iraq is justified?
Absolutely!

Do I think the means justify the end?
Yes!

By war, usually, people means an army against another army.
It's not that simple. Ms Rice and Mr Powell assumed it's gonna be like a blitzkrieg, 2 weeks max and then a quick american government will deal with the disorgenized country. Not everybody is convinced by that, but mostly, people are afraid of the consequences of this war in term of cost and political unstability.

Beside that, if you could give proofs of
1) the war will be quick and not too bloody for the Iraki's civilians
2) the post war administration won't be too expensive and not too long and not to bloody for the american administration.
3) The war won't degenerate into a widespread military conflict, even not a second COLD WAR with Russia + China
4) the islamic terrorism will stop, or will be reduced, after that war.

then, I think I could support the idea to make a military intervention in Irak to install a democratic government.
But then, I strongly request the same intervention against arabia saoudia, syria etc, all more or less fachist countries, to also install a democratic government. I tell you, there is no end to that story.

soph · 2003-02-24 20:09:21

[color=#000000:post_uid0]

1) the war will be quick and not too bloody for the Iraki's civilians
Gulf War I
2) the post war administration won't be too expensive and not too long and not to bloody for the american administration. [/quote:post_uid0]
Afghanistan
3) The war won't degenerate into a widespread military conflict, even not a second COLD WAR with Russia + China[/quote:post_uid0]
Gulf War I, Bosnia, Afghanistan.....
4) the islamic terrorism will stop, or will be reduced, after that war.[/quote:post_uid0]
that's anybody's guess. This is the only one I have questions on.

However, a single democratic government in the region may have a destabilizing effect on the region, which might negate the need for further action.
I'm not saying this is a certainty, but it may happen.
Josh->the "ends" is the war.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#669 2003-02-24 21:13:04

Palomar

Member

From: USA

Registered: 2002-05-30

Posts: 9,734

Re: President Bush - about bush

Josh: What good is an ego if no one likes you?
*Apparently many despots and dictators have never lost a wink of sleep over that question, or something similar. I think some egos become so overblown and pathological that the matter of whether or not one other single human being likes him/her isn't even a vague consideration; it's moot. Besides, isn't much of ego predicated on self-love, and not other-love?
Josh: Can someone who isn't liked really last with enough force?
*Well, Saddam's been in power a long time. Do sheep usually group together to attack the wolf? Nope. It takes a wolf to drive another away.
I wish I had more answers; I was simply venting some frustration. I'd like to grab Bush and Hussein both by the collar and knock their heads together.
Did anyone else catch another item in the news today? President Bush is -cutting- funding for schools of the children of military personnel. How's that for a nice "how do"?
--Cindy

We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#670 2003-02-24 21:15:03

soph

Member

Registered: 2002-11-24

Posts: 1,492

Re: President Bush - about bush

They found an Iraqi GPS system of major US cities, as well as unmanned planes to disperse chemicals.
What a shock. Just a few 20 mile over the limit weapons? Nope.

Offline

#671 2003-02-25 03:21:40

Josh Cryer

Moderator

Registered: 2001-09-29

Posts: 3,830

Re: President Bush - about bush

I think we can pull off 1 and 3 quite easily. Iraq isn't really a huge threat, weapon wise. At most they have manpower, but other than that, they're pretty weak (the Gulf War pretty much took away all their power).
But 2 and 4 are pretty much the opposite for me. The war is going to cost. It's going to cost an arm and a leg. Especially if the Iraqi's fight. And they might, especially if Saddam complies on everything of substence (which he will). And when Iraq does lose (they will, the might of US forces is simply too overwelming), there will merely be a whole lot of people who are pissed, all people ready to be recruited by terrorist cells. Such a situation is much more possible than people realize. Very much so. It scares me to think of how many people would become potential terrorist, especially since they could easily use American goodwill after the war to get close.
I'm all for military intervention. That's what the UN troops are for. I am not, however, for an all out declaration of war. I'm not for bombing ?suspected? places where WMDs are made. I'm for sending inspections in and verifying. Right now we are certainly in a situation where such a move could be successful. Those who do not see this are in denial.
And soph, I don't think you understand what you're saying. The end would be a peaceful, democratic, unarmed Iraq. The means are war. If a hundred thousand people die so that there would be peace, democracy, and no WMDs in Iraq, I would certainly say that the means were not justified.

Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#672 2003-02-25 16:41:58

dickbill

Member

Registered: 2002-09-28

Posts: 749

Re: President Bush - about bush

But 2 and 4 are pretty much the opposite for me. The war is going to cost. It's going to cost an arm and a leg. Especially if the Iraqi's fight. And they might, especially if Saddam complies on everything of substence (which he will). And when Iraq does lose (they will, the might of US forces is simply too overwelming), there will merely be a whole lot of people who are pissed, all people ready to be recruited by terrorist cells. Such a situation is much more possible than people realize. Very much so. It scares me to think of how many people would become potential terrorist, especially since they could easily use American goodwill after the war to get close.
You're damn right and that's what I am afraid too. Beside, this is a Mars forum here, we have to be selfish, if all the money goes to the army, then nothing is left for us. I've heard some extravagant expectation of how the war could cost, like one trillion dollars ????
I don't know how to reach that number, maybe it was a completely fantasist evaluation. In my mind it doesn't take so much money to administratively rule a country, but I am a poor geek after all.
Zubrin would say that this is enough go to Mars every week end in a luxuous spaceship.
And then there is a risk of cold war between, grossly speaking, the whole occident against the rest of the world. We are back into the middle age ! G. W. Bush ask us to fight the great "Evils" lying in Holy Land, it was barely different when the pope asked to go in crusade to rescue the grave of the Christ, one thousand years ago. But if this is the case, forget Mars for a couple of years. We guys, gonna look like clowns when we ask money "to what ? to go to Mars ? ahahahahaha". In time war, asking money for Mars is like hunting without an accordeon, which is like going to war without the french, as you know.

Offline

#673 2003-02-26 05:30:36

Shaun Barrett

Member

From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia

Registered: 2001-12-28

Posts: 2,843

Re: President Bush - about bush

Dickbill writes:-
Zubrin would say that this is enough to go to Mars every weekend in a luxurious spaceship.
Ha ha !! :laugh:
A trillion dollar Mars program, eh?! Now that's something I could really get to grips with!!

On a more serious note, I'm with Cindy in wanting to knock Saddam's and George's heads together. It's gotta be better than staging a war!
But working on the assumption that Saddam and George would think having their heads knocked together is undignified, and refuse to go along with it, what's left?!
If France and Germany etc. were to be successful in extending the period of inspections until at least July (wasn't that one of their proposals? ), then a war at that point would be impossible due to the summer heat, right? So any such extension would effectively postpone any potential war until maybe December 2003.
Is this a big problem? Does anyone know whether Saddam might have succeeded in building a nuclear bomb by then? Is this, and has this always been, the reason for his prevarication?
Could America, Britain, and Australia realistically be expected to keep an invasion-strength force in position, on stand by, until December? Would they have lost interest and/or political impetus by then, and been forced to withdraw - perhaps for good this time?
Josh makes it sound beguilingly easy to cause Saddam to step down, using pens and telephones rather than guns and bombs. Perhaps he's right. But something keeps nagging at the back of my mind that it all sounds too easy somehow. What if Saddam just hangs on, secretly eliminating his enemies right under the noses of the UN inspectors, and secretly building his fission bomb, until the 'coalition of the willing' gives up and goes home? Then, what if he shows the weapons inspectors the door and emerges, less than 12 months from now, stronger and bolder and better armed than ever before?
Is any of this a problem? Or doesn't it really matter?
???

The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down. - Rita Rudner

Offline

#674 2003-02-26 08:44:42

dickbill

Member

Registered: 2002-09-28

Posts: 749

Re: President Bush - about bush

I have a proposition: why not to ask Saddam to set up a democratic election, with the Iraki's opposants as candidates, in exchange of a redrawal of the US military forces ?

Offline

#675 2003-02-26 10:15:24

clark

Member

Registered: 2001-09-20

Posts: 6,363

Re: President Bush - about bush

josh,
Did you know that france is in line to receive 25% of all future oil contracts in Iraq? Did you know that this agreement is with the current regime. We talk of US interest of oil, then perhaps we need to look under the finger-nails of all paticipants in this charade. You might also take a look at French arm sales to Iraq, what do you think will happen to future french sales of arms in a US occupied Iraq?
Russia, yet another politcal player in this melodrama is just as suspect. Russia is of course agreeing with France. Why? Well, it couldn't have anything to do with the billions upon billions of loans owed to it by Iraq, could it? Or perhaps the trade deals they have agreed to with the current regime? Or even the oil deals it hopes to procure AFTER the war, could it? hen there is the same issue of arms sale to the regime, what happens to those sales?
Now you may counter that Russia has enough of it's own oil to not be suspect. But it is an inaccurate conclusion. Russia wants desperatly to join the EU. It is positioning itself to do so by being an alternative to OPEC. With an occupation of Iraq, it is doubtful that OPEC will maintain it's cohesion. With US control andand open exploitation of the second largest oil reserve in the world, Russia's position is undermined. It further poses a threat becuase a large portion of Russia's economic stability is derived by oil prices- US control of Iraq will only serve to reduce oil prces, and cut into Russian profits.
Now this may all be well and good, but none of this neeccessitates a reason to go to war, right? I would agree, but let us look at the issue in a larger context.
How did we get here? How did we get into this situation where now we have to go invade Iraq.
It's isn't the UN that did this, it wasn't the US, and it wasn't anything any of us had anything to do with, unless of course you are over 90.
What we are experiencing now is the result of WW1. This is life under imposed geo-politcal borders not of indigenous choosing. That's why Iraq set upon Kuwaitt. That's why Iraq has NEVER known democracy since its very inception. Iraq has been ruled by one brutal dictator after another- Saddam is but the latest. None of this has changed in 90 odd years. And it is doubtful ti would change in another 90 years.
So if nothing ever changes, then we can simply expect more of the same forever. Is allowing brutal repressive regimes the opprotunity to exsist enlightened? Is it wise? Is it safe?
Perhaps 50 years ago it wAs, then, the capacity for death and destruction was limited- theses despots couldn't really hurt people that mattered then- you know, us. That's what sanctions are for- to make it so people like Saddam can't hurt the important people.
We more or less couldn't care two sticks about what he does to his domestic population, after all, they don't count, do they?
We stopped short of Baghdad the first time, for whatever reason you want to believe, and look what happened. He gassed portions of the population that rose against him. So much for allowing the problem to be solved by the "iraq" people- a concpet imposed by British map makers.
So again, the situation will never change, other than bloody despots, who will EVENTUALLY have the means to hurt us. None of this will change, indeed, nothing has changed.
We have defeated Saddam. We have imposed sanctions. We have searched and scoured his country for WMD's, and just when we think we are done, we find more.
Isn't it the Space enthusiats who have a favorite quote "Man will find a way". Man WILL find a way to evade those who do not want him to do something he has set to do.
And this idea that we can wait indefitinetly is outrageous. In order to get the paltry level of compliance from Saddam has required the FULL mobilization of our armed forces. That means we have people in the reserve, indefintetly out to sit in the sand and wait. I shudder at the economic costs alone of having our military mobilized like this- how many lives are we willing to waste just sitting in the desert to get Saddam to comply? How exactly can families go about with their lives when the military is fully deployed?
We inherited this world, so we must make it work the best we can. Allowing a tyrant to rule is wrong, just as exploiting this situation for politcal gain is wrong. But still, this thing must be done, the world will not be safe until it is.

Offline

Pages: Previous 1 … 25 26 27 28 29 … 32 Next

Index

» Not So Free Chat

» President Bush - about bush

Board footer

Jump to

Atom topic feed

Powered by FluxBB

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#651 2003-02-23 22:18:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#652 2003-02-24 05:50:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#653 2003-02-24 13:57:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#654 2003-02-24 14:36:43

Re: President Bush - about bush

#655 2003-02-24 14:42:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#656 2003-02-24 16:10:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#657 2003-02-24 16:16:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#658 2003-02-24 16:30:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#659 2003-02-24 16:35:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#660 2003-02-24 17:44:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#661 2003-02-24 17:56:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#662 2003-02-24 18:06:31

Re: President Bush - about bush

#663 2003-02-24 18:32:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#664 2003-02-24 18:54:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#665 2003-02-24 19:05:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#666 2003-02-24 19:59:43

Re: President Bush - about bush

#667 2003-02-24 20:01:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#668 2003-02-24 20:09:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#669 2003-02-24 21:13:04

Re: President Bush - about bush

#670 2003-02-24 21:15:03

Re: President Bush - about bush

#671 2003-02-25 03:21:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#672 2003-02-25 16:41:58

Re: President Bush - about bush

#673 2003-02-26 05:30:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#674 2003-02-26 08:44:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#675 2003-02-26 10:15:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer