President Bush - about bush

dickbill · 2003-02-14 15:13:26

Come on Josh, the US cannot redraw 200 000 men so easily.

But I am very afraid that if there is no war, all what has already be done and said will be enough to feed a global anti-americanism stronger than ever and this for a long time.
Actually, to regain a little bit of international consideration, the US now NEED to go to war more than before, they can remove Saddam Hussein from his post and install a forced democracy, "discover" some mass destruction weapons
to be able to tell the french "see ! he had mass destruction weapons, you are ####### as usual", distribute some McDonald rations to the starving civilian population etc, everything to get some credit back.
So now the situation is inverted, if the US redraw, it's not good on the long term for them, if they go to war they can still control the situation and play the good guys.

I don't know anymore, the situation has been too far. It seems that a war is only a small addition to the ineluctable.
Maybe G. Bush has read the Book of revelation and Nostradamus and believes he is the hero of the novel.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-14 17:14:53

I personally don't feel the US is really in an economic or political position to go to war with Iraq. They've failed to ?control the situation? so far.

I mean, my god, just imagine how many blunders have occured in the past few days.

First Powell goes to the UN like it's CSI on national television, and plays Mr. Show And Tell, while actually showing nothing, and providing no substence (the agreed upon resolution wasn't shown to be violated, except for very minor things like lack of complete disclosure- but those things take time in any case).

Then Powell praises a plagerised report; which actually got a surprising level of news.

Then Powell says tape wherein bin Laden calls Saddam an infidel is actually ?proof? that Saddam and bin Laden are working together.

Then they make a big deal out of rockets which only have a range 15 miles outside UN limits. Granted, it is a violation, but the violation is simply irrelevant on the scale of things- not to mention the weapons were reported on the Iraqi disclosure documents.

Then they have terror alerts which turned out to be based on weak information (meaning they were false alerts), blaming the media for reporting exactly what they wanted the media to report.

Then they return to the UN, yet again, to get a report on inspections, and their man Blix basically tells them that all is well and attacking isn't necessary (wow).

Then the majority of the veto power countries on the UN Security Council basically said ?screw off? to the US. Everyone but the US and Britain, who spoke, got appaluses from the UN members.

The peace process is working at the UN level. If they US wants to attack unilaterally, so be it. But it may have worse consequences than anything.

Oh, and not to mention, that Bush's approval ratings are the lowest they've been since pre-9/11.

I'm not going to make a bet about whether or not it's going to happen. My own brother who is, right now, in Kuwait tells me it is. But if I had money to throw away, I might just bet that it wouldn't anyway.

soph · 2003-02-14 17:20:42

First Powell goes to the UN like it's CSI on national television, and plays Mr. Show And Tell, while actually showing nothing, and providing no substence (the agreed upon resolution wasn't shown to be violated, except for very minor things like lack of complete disclosure- but those things take time in any case).

Um, Iraq said it has anthrax to try to buy their way out of a war...if they volunteer that, what are they hiding? We've found several warheads that are in material breach. What are we not seeing? The high level stuff would be well hidden-this is their soft stuff.. Come on, Josh, don't ignore the real evidence that Powell presented, just because you don't want to go to war!

No, no. Blix said that he wants more time, and Iraq is in breach. And why wouldn't he want more time? It's his job!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-14 17:34:41

Oh, they say they destroyed it (the anthrax), but they're not providing a lot of evidence to back that up. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

The point is that Powell failed to show conclusively that they were hiding anything at all. Pictures of trucks is meaningless unless there is someone on the ground to verify! Don't be silly.

Reminds me of something that happened to me when I was a kid. My dad was putting groceries in the trunk of our car, and I was playing around. Anyway, I ducked down in a weird way and scrambled into the car. Later on the Police tracked down my dad and us a few hours later, because someone said they saw my dad ?throw a child? into his trunk! Do you think they should have arrested my dad without at least verifying and checking out the situation? This is exactly what you're suggesting when you pretend Powell's hearsay is enough to go to war!

Things that are ?unaccounted for? (the horrible evil material breaches you speak of with regards to Blix) aren't enough reason to go to war, soph. Don't be a foolish warmonger.

Damning quotes at the Un Security Council meeting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 763735.stm

Blix Casts Doubt on Powell's Presentation: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14364379

U.N. report reinforces Security Council divisions: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/index.html

I don't know what side you're on, but you're a fool if you think the world community sees it the way the Bush admin does.

Blix doesn't ?want more time? (this is a way to say it so that it's spinned in a way that make it seem like he needs more time, while in fact he's just doing his job and no violations have been found), he just wants to do his job. Inspecting.

dickbill · 2003-02-14 18:27:24

War, no war, now we gonna pay the price, here in the US. I
hope that Bush has a plan to recover from the huge anti-american feelings that he has created worldwide.
That feeling can feed terrorism inside the US territory for decades now and in a much much worst extent than before sept 11.

So again, congratulation Mr George Bush Jr, not only your administration has been incompetent to fix the OBL/sept.11 problem, but now it is worst than before:
Now we are supposed to tape our windows here in New York ?! the hell if I do that ! what's next ? Is that gonna be like in Israel ? Is that supposed to be an improvement ?

And what are Bush conseillors thinking about , Gorgonzolla Rice and Collin Power ? I think their own political carrier that's all they think about. They play their own role like in a movie, just the way they walk or talk, you could think it's Denzel Washington in the last triller.
Thanks to all those guys, Saddam and, let's face it, Osama Bin laden, are becommming heros of the muslim world.
What to do now ? nuclear carpet all the arabs, china, russia, france and germany ?

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-14 18:46:23

What do you mean "no substance"?!

*1.5 tons of VX nerve agent

*55 Mustard gas shells

*Intelligence photos of biological bunkers and decontamination vehicles

*Intelligence photos of missile sheaths including one mounted on a truck

*Defectors saying Saddam used mobile units as weapons labs

*Taped conversations of soldiers trying conceal weapons

*Undisclosed cultures to produce a great deal of biological agents

I don't know what's more damning that a Winnebago making anthrax and the ****ing Iraqi military talking about concealing weapons.

And I read dickbill's earlier posts about "if the US was right on this issue, they would have been in business by now". IMO, it's just trying to go through the right diplomatic channels and be nice guys. If it was me, I would have walked out of the Security Council meetings and gone ahead as planned.

I don't know what to say. The UN passed a resolution that if Saddam didn't comply willingly and promptly, there would be "severe consequences". The US and Blix provide clear evidence that Iraq has not willingly disarmed and has decieved inspectors, we present it to the Security Council, and now France, Russia, and China refuse to impose those "severe consequences". My God, we don't even want their troop support, just their approval! It's because Russia and France have been doing business with Iraq for a while, and they don't want to lose that, regardless of the moral implications. China is just jerking our chain because they have us by the balls in North Korea.

Before I go, one last issue:

I read in my local paper the other day that many of the other nations in Europe (Italy, Spain, Greece, Poland, Hungary, Spain, Luxembourg, etc.) signed a letter, sent to Paris and Berlin, that they supported the US's position and that France and Germany did not speak for Europe. We're witnessing the end of NATO...

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-14 23:37:41

Unaccounted for VX nerve agent.
Unaccounted for 55 Mustard gas shells which were laying out in a yard somewhere, unable to be fired (dang things were rusted to death).

Intelligence photos of unknown bunkers and vehicles. Blix says they could be legitimate arms assuming that's what they are.

All of this is hearsay. None of it is actually factual in a meaningful sense. ?We took these photos,? is factual. ?...and what these photos show may be movement of biological weapons,? is not factual, and that is the crux of Powell's pitiful argument.

One should note that Blix himself dismissed a lot of Powell's evidence, a shocking thing for him to do, indeed!

What's pathetic is that in the face of the world community, there are actually people who are ready to go to war. You really are seeing the demise of the US as a world power. If France, Germany, and China stand up to the US, you know something is up.

dickbill · 2003-02-15 08:35:50

Hi all,

it seems to me that whatever the US choose to do now, they gonna lose. Sad to say that their best option is almost to go to war to be able to show the world some old skud missiles containing some traces of innervant gazes and excedding 20 feet the allowed range.
But even that won't be enough to recover in the world's opinion.
And it's dangerous, the smallest collateral dammage will be covered by all media worldwide. Which will make the US even more detestable for the world, but at this point...that's not gonna make a big difference. It's all Bush fault, he managed this affair very poorly.
Caltech is right on many things but I think he misses the point: right now, going to war has nothing to do with weapons, Saddam, or even terrorism. The US just try to save the face and prove the bien-fonde of their action but it's gonna be difficult. They see that they lost against the world opinion, not even against an army. That's a terrible camouflet for Bush and his gang.
About the french's sales of weapons to Irak, it's absolutely true, but again CAltech, you miss the point, this has nothing to do with france''s position today. I's just an anti war, anti US imperialism position. It's like saying that because the US have supported Osama Bin Ladden in the past they continue to do it now. France would probably sale weapons to any country, that's just bussiness. Dirty bussiness, maybe, but french didn't invent it, nor that they are the best in it.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-15 11:35:43

Ahh, I guess you noticed the war protests, my friend?

Hard not to...

Palomar · 2003-02-15 12:31:39

*I'm chiming in to say I'm glad the French and German gov'ts are remaining firm on their stance in all this. Thank god for cooler heads, and hopefully they will prevail.

Dubya has got to go...out the door in '04. I didn't vote for him in '00 either...in case anyone's wondering. Interesting how, during Clinton's administration (particulary in the late 1990s) there were anti-Clinton bumperstickers galore on vehicles here in my neck of the woods, i.e. "I didn't vote for HER" (meaning Hillary, of course); "Impeach Clinton;" "I didn't vote for that #$*(@%"; etc. Dubya, though, is trying his damndest to get us into an all-out war with Iraq and there is nary a negative bumpersticker about him to be seen anywhere.

Oh well.

I guess blowjobs by a bimbo intern was more upsetting to many of my fellow U.S. citizens than wanting to push 1000s of our men and women onto fields of slaughter.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-15 12:46:52

Amen Cindy. Amen. At least the war protests are getting some fairly good coverage. CNN basically made it a breaking news story, even though it's been pretty much going on around the world for the last 24 hours.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-15 15:28:20

I just went to an anti-war protest near my grandma's house in New Mexico. I decided it was a good time to write a story for the school newspaper.

Cal: Do you think Iraq has made an honest effort to disarm?

Woman: No. I think he has weapons, but that's not the issue.

Cal: On November 8, the Security Council passed a resolution that if Iraq did not declare its weapons and disarm WMD's, then there would be 'severe consequences'. Now that Dr. Blix's report shows that Iraq did not claim all of its weapons, and made efforts to conceal weapons, is it not the Security Council's, including France, Russia, and China, duty to enforce the resolution and impose 'severe consequences'.

Woman: Absolutely. But war isn't the answer

Cal: What kind of consequences would you like to see imposed, then? Economic sanctions... what is best?

Woman: Economic sanctions hurt women and children. War is not the answer.

Cal: Well what should we use as a consequence in Iraq?

Woman: Well, I'm not a diplomat...

I also spoke with a French woman who said that if Iraq must disarm, then the US should disarm, too. I mentioned that nuclear weapons in the hands of superpowers prevented war in the last half-century, but she said it's still irresponsible.

MY POINT:

Iraq didn't disclose weapons. The Security Council said that if Iraq didn't disarm and disclose all of its weapons, then there would be consequences. He didn't disarm, and didn't disclose his weapons. France, Russia, and China need to impose those consequences NOW if the UN's resolutions are to mean anything in the future. What message does it send to other countries if the UN only enforces the resolutions it wants to?

soph · 2003-02-15 15:38:00

The problem is that Bush was committed to war in Novermber. Whether or not you choose to deny it, he had no intention of going to the UN. Only when the foreign nations made such an issue, did he make a ploy of doing so. Before there were any results, he deployed troops. Never did he negotiate for any other solution- he had Powell repeat the case for war over and over.

You liked to point out how Clinton had the chance to remove bin Laden, but chose to throw missles at Afghanistan. Bush could have gotten Saddam removed, but he has chosen war instead. There is no need for war. We have made Iraq a martyr for Islamic fundamentalists, who will use it to get sympathy for their attacks. And many nations will say, "you know what, they're right! Those Americans took their wars to the Muslim world, and ignored North Korea."

We are only going after Iraq because it's an easy target. Why aren't we going after North Korea? Because there can be far worse consequences.

I like some of what Bush has done, but his foreign relations are less than good (from not knowing Musharraf's name during his campaign to ignoring the UN, his obvious 'diplomatic route' only being a new way to preach his war). And he still hasn't accepted the Kyoto treaty. Fuel cells are 10 years off, he doesn't have to fear them. So sure, throw a billion dollars at them, which pales in comparison to what we have spent in Iraq, and get political support for them, while not suffering any consequences!

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-15 19:47:40

I think it's fair to say that nobody wants a war.

The problem with those arguing endlessy for a "diplomatic solution" and against military action is that without the threat of force, all the diplomacy in the world is meaningless chatter. Do we, as Americans, want to go to war? No. But we need to be prepared for that eventuality and we damn well want Hussein to believe we're ready to do it.

If we take the stand that war is unacceptable under any circumstances, we by implication take the position that violation of UN resolutions, attacking neighboring states, producing and using chemical weapons, and supporting terrorism is acceptable. I know for some of the idealists out there it's a tough pill to swallow, but that's the situation.

Sometimes if you want peace you have to fight for it.

soph · 2003-02-15 21:06:48

The presence of the American military is sufficient "threat of force" to support diplomacy. Reagan and the freeing of the Iranian hostages is a perfect example. Reagan didn't have to use the military, but the Iranians knew that he had this tool, so they released them. You don't need to use your military for it to be effective.

When you commit yourself to an alternative before exploring all options, you decrease the effectiveness of not only all the other options, but the chosen alternative as well. This is what Bush has done.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-15 21:18:33

The presence of the American military is sufficient "threat of force" to support diplomacy. Reagan and the freeing of the Iranian hostages is a perfect example. Reagan didn't have to use the military, but the Iranians knew that he had this tool, so they released them. You don't need to use your military for it to be effective.

That's precisely my point. But the "anti-war" crowd is behaving as though military action should not even be an option, thus negating the incentive for Iraq to reach a solution of any kind. The threat of force, even if only implied, must be backed by the willingness to carry out that threat. The UN has failed in that regard, someone has to make a stand.

When you commit yourself to an alternative before exploring all options, you decrease the effectiveness of not only all the other options, but the chosen alternative as well. This is what Bush has done.

Bush has not ruled out all other options; he has been quite accomodating in that regard, in fact. The very fact that we are arguing about the effectiveness of inspections and the reasoning for military action instead of watching the bombing of Baghdad on CNN is a testament to this.

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-15 21:19:48

Well said, Cobra. You've joined el scorcho on my hero list.

The problem is that Bush was committed to war in Novermber. Whether or not you choose to deny it, he had no intention of going to the UN. Only when the foreign nations made such an issue, did he make a ploy of doing so. Before there were any results, he deployed troops. Never did he negotiate for any other solution- he had Powell repeat the case for war over and over.

We sent troops to keep Saddam from messing around. He obviously did, so now we have the force already in position to take care of him. We've negotiated with Iraq on a solution for 6 months now, and for 6 months they've had the chance to disarm, but they've played games with the UN. The case for war has been the same because the requirements to avoid it have been the same: disarm willingly and completely.

You liked to point out how Clinton had the chance to remove bin Laden, but chose to throw missles at Afghanistan. Bush could have gotten Saddam removed, but he has chosen war instead. There is no need for war. We have made Iraq a martyr for Islamic fundamentalists, who will use it to get sympathy for their attacks. And many nations will say, "you know what, they're right! Those Americans took their wars to the Muslim world, and ignored North Korea."
We are only going after Iraq because it's an easy target. Why aren't we going after North Korea? Because there can be far worse consequences.

When could Bush have gotten Saddam? We've only been out of the treaty banning state-sponsored assassinations for a little under a year, I believe. It's not like you can just drop commandos into Baghdad, assassinate him, and then get away scot-free from world dissention. I think the repercussions from a sponsored assassination outside of war would be even worse than going through the UN to go to war.

And this isn't a Muslim war, we just have to be careful in North Korea. If our intelligence is correct, then they already have nukes. If you march 300,000 soldiers into Pyongyang and park a couple aircraft carriers off the coast; you'll be fried chicken before you know it. Of course we have less to lose in Iraq; that's why we can be forceful when we give them the chance to disarm. You can't force North Korea to disarm because they are in a position to do some serious damage. We'll have to find a way to get the world turned on North Korea if we ever want them to disarm.

I like some of what Bush has done, but his foreign relations are less than good (from not knowing Musharraf's name during his campaign to ignoring the UN, his obvious 'diplomatic route' only being a new way to preach his war). And he still hasn't accepted the Kyoto treaty. Fuel cells are 10 years off, he doesn't have to fear them. So sure, throw a billion dollars at them, which pales in comparison to what we have spent in Iraq, and get political support for them, while not suffering any consequences!

We didn't accept the Kyoto treaty because of California. It's expensive to generate power when all of a sudden you have to buy scrubbers and other eco-equipment. The same expense goes to steel mills, factories, and other polluting things that are important to the economy, nonetheless. In this economic downturn, it's hard to spend money on being clean while still trying to generate an already tough profit.

And what consequences to war in Iraq? The whole ****ing world packed up and went to London and Paris today to show how much they don't want war! Bush and Blaire are the only ones with enough balls and backbone to enforce the resolution, and you know that many people in both of our countries hate them for it.

A great quote comes to mind: A good leader takes people where they want to go; a great leader takes them where they need to go

The facts are clear: Iraq did not fully disclose their weapons to the UN, they have deceived inspectors, and made deliberate attempts to hide weapons. The Security Council unanimously voted to impose consequences if Iraq did not comply, and now that time has come. The US put troops in the region to enforce inspections, and now those troops are ready to enforce the resolution.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-15 21:40:40

And he still hasn't accepted the Kyoto treaty...

Considering the UN's apparent inability to actually do anything, I find the complaints about the Bush Administration's refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty to be a bit farcical. After all, what's to stop us from signing it and then ignoring it?

Oh, right. It's okay for Iraq to ignore international law but not the United States. ???

soph · 2003-02-15 21:44:25

So why don't we go after the real threats? Why not China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, and all the other countries who have more dangerous weapons?

Hell, all of these countries have violated resolutions, Russia perhaps most of all. And then, who's punishing us for our violation of resolutions? Oh, wait, we're exempt. That's right.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-15 22:04:35

Hell, all of these countries have violated resolutions, Russia perhaps most of all. And then, who's punishing us for our violation of resolutions? Oh, wait, we're exempt. That's right.

So why don't we go after the real threats? Why not China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, and all the other countries who have more dangerous weapons?

Because they are the more dangerous threats. Toppling Hussein is one thing, plunging the entire planet into war is quite another.

Hell, all of these countries have violated resolutions, Russia perhaps most of all. And then, who's punishing us for our violation of resolutions? Oh, wait, we're exempt. That's right.

I have no problem with the violation of UN resolutions. But when people argue that those resolutions actually mean something while the UN won't enforce them is absurd. If the UN is relevant, they must take decisive action against Hussein. If they do not, they are nothing more than a debate club. It's the double standard that we should work with the UN, but others can ignore it with impunity that I find unacceptable.

To be honest, if I were in Saddam's position, I'd be stashing weapons all over while giving the UN a big digicus imputicus. The UN is a joke. If it wants to be taken seriously after this it needs to enforce its own laws. Otherwise they might as well change the sign to "League of Nations" and stop showing up for meetings.

soph · 2003-02-16 04:36:53

I'm not going to bother trying to reverse Caltech's indoctrination. It honestly scares me.

dickbill · 2003-02-16 10:39:12

Hi all,

Not only is the US splitted on the subject but the effects of the Iraki's crisis are going to seriously impact the European Union.
The behavior of UK in particular, shows how they can easily split the EU. I think the UK's weight in the european political decisions is going to be seriously reduced after that.
Italy and Spain position is only a later alignment as opposed to England which pushed the USA in the trap they are now.
Obviously, the US couldn't be so strongly engaged with thousands of troops in Irak without the english support. This, plus the initial refusal of England to integrate the european money, I think more european people will think that england is not a good european partner.
Also, about Turkey, they have been refused to enter the EU recently because they don't comply to economic and political requirements. I can hear today that Turkey has accepted 60 billions $ from the US, as a result of the Iraki's threat at their borderline, if its true, it's not good either for Turkey ambitions in the UE, as you cannot accept money from a non-european party to comply to the EU economical requirements. This shows that Turkey distrusts its european partners. This too, will seriously decrease Turkey's credibility in the European Union.
So all in all, this crisis revealed a lot of problems which might change the face of the UN, but also the face the EU.

PaganToris · 2003-02-16 11:30:20

Well speaking of which president bush wants to go to war! must he try other actions bur yes Iraq doasnt wanna coaperate with everyone! but ohh wel were all gonna die so..............

George H · 2003-02-16 11:45:55

I just went to an anti-war protest near my grandma's house in New Mexico. I decided it was a good time to write a story for the school newspaper.
Cal: Do you think Iraq has made an honest effort to disarm?
Woman: No. I think he has weapons, but that's not the issue.
Cal: On November 8, the Security Council passed a resolution that if Iraq did not declare its weapons and disarm WMD's, then there would be 'severe consequences'. Now that Dr. Blix's report shows that Iraq did not claim all of its weapons, and made efforts to conceal weapons, is it not the Security Council's, including France, Russia, and China, duty to enforce the resolution and impose 'severe consequences'.

The woman in Cal's little story here probably only exists between his ears.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-16 15:16:01

I would argue the merits of everyones arguments, but I won't because they're not exactly wrong, I just think some are somewhat off the target.

Think about it. The US doesn't want Iraq to follow the UN resolution, the US wants regime change. The resolution says nothing about regime change! The US wants something that isn't there.

dickbill, I think you hit it right on target, for the most part. Glad you're getting involved in this discussion, your input is good.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#576 2003-02-14 15:13:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#577 2003-02-14 17:14:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#578 2003-02-14 17:20:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#579 2003-02-14 17:34:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#580 2003-02-14 18:27:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#581 2003-02-14 18:46:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#582 2003-02-14 23:37:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#583 2003-02-15 08:35:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#584 2003-02-15 11:35:43

Re: President Bush - about bush

#585 2003-02-15 12:31:39

Re: President Bush - about bush

#586 2003-02-15 12:46:52

Re: President Bush - about bush

#587 2003-02-15 15:28:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#588 2003-02-15 15:38:00

Re: President Bush - about bush

#589 2003-02-15 19:47:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#590 2003-02-15 21:06:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#591 2003-02-15 21:18:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#592 2003-02-15 21:19:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#593 2003-02-15 21:40:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#594 2003-02-15 21:44:25

Re: President Bush - about bush

#595 2003-02-15 22:04:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#596 2003-02-16 04:36:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#597 2003-02-16 10:39:12

Re: President Bush - about bush

#598 2003-02-16 11:30:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#599 2003-02-16 11:45:55

Re: President Bush - about bush

#600 2003-02-16 15:16:01

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer