I've retired from this thread but would just like to make a comment. The damn Iraqis are monkeys man, looting museums, punching each other, kissing our troops ass, blowing up bank vaults. We have "over-liberated" them. Some kid is now demanding he gets new arms on TV or he will kill himself. Sorry kid, this is war. Thousands of folks gets their limbs blown off by landmines or lose their lives and don't get Larry H Parker(insurance lawyer). They think America is the land of the free and they are free to do anything and ask for anything. We need to be tougher and fire some bullets at looters and overall monkey like behavior. For once I feel I sound like my nemesis Kendricks : light these monkeys up!

ReyTj,

I will have to go back and do a search but somewhere along the line I saw that UNICEF was predicting up to half a million deaths and Koffee Annan repeated that figure. I will see if I can find it.

But remember, I am a fanatic so I might exagerate a number to make a point. Churchills description of fanatic: "Someone who can not change his mind and will not change the topic" Fits me to a T. LOL.

Since I semi retired from our hobby to try to be faithful to mi novia chilangita, I find I have little to write about and I find myself involved in these useless threads. I need to get a life. LOL

But, I am going to the DF in a couple of weeks and hope to escape my handler a couple of nights and hit a few places. I may soon have something better to write about than "War and Peace"

Reytj, based on some of your posts, I get the idea you also live in TJ? Is that correct. If so how do you like it?

Well I am out of here for the weekend. Everybody play safe.

LuckyJackson "Since Bush completely muffed the attempt to win over world opinion, (and stupidly may not care very much about it today), why the hell did he put all his chips on the 'weapons of mass destruction' argument?"

That argument is nuts-on. It should be clear by now that our intel has operatives quite high up in the Hussein regime. Maybe I'm taking your statement the wrong way, but it seems you are still questioning the existence of his WMDs.


For those that say Bush failed diplomatically I would really like to hear what you think he should have done differently to get Saddam to comply with the UN and the ceasefire he agreed to back in '91. There has to be a time limit too, another 12 years of dick'n around with inspections is not compliance.

I've no intention to speak for LJ, but I personally believe you are taking the statement the wrong way.

There are many different reasons for this war. To oversimplify them, they basically are:
1. WMDs
2. Regime Change
3. Money

Bush focused on WMD's, a reason easier to justify to the public to go to war. Play on people's fears to spur action.

Many people on either side of the war issue in America believe it was more about Regime Change. Some of the higher ups want us to "finish the job" and are eyeing Syria, and in some cases Iran.

The diplomatic failure comes in because outside of the United States, many people believe it was about the Money. They are further being convinced by some of the actions we're taking, particularly reluctance to allow the UN to participate in the current weapons search or play a significant role in restoring order.

This last point poses the greatest risk in my opinion. Many of the Iraqi people are happy to be free of Saddam, but not to live under a US puppet government. If this is what they perceive and what the rest of the Middle East perceives, then I believe there's still a lot more bloodshed to come.

As for what could have been done differently, I don't know for sure, but I don't think continuing inspections meant another 12 years of waiting. I don't believe Bush convinced anyone outside of the US that the US was in imminent danger from Iraq. I certainly don't believe the weapons posed a risk while the inspections were going on and the inspectors were asking for more time. If he had waited until Iraq kicked them out again or significantly stalled, I think Bush would have received much more support.

Because Bush pushed the war while inspectors were working, I'll bet many people (outside of the US) believe that the truth was that Bush knew that if the inspectors did find anything, it would not be enough to justify an invasion.

Whatever the truth is, the perception of many(outside of the US) is that Bush just successfully pulled off a huge money grab, and has threatened the stability of the entire Middle East in the process, which consequently dominos into affecting the World. It's debatable how relevant that is to US security.

"The diplomatic failure comes in because outside of the United States, many people believe it was about the Money."
It is about money. France and Germany knew they going to lose billions if there was a regime change. I know that's not what you meant I'm just pointing out that many countries have been just as guilty as the United States by having money dictate their foreign policy. I truly hope that our government will take the lead in putting an end to practice of putting our countries interest in front of what is morally right.

"I certainly don't believe the weapons posed a risk while the inspections were going on and the inspectors were asking for more time."
Some people got all up in arms because they found out that the president had a single intelligence memo cross his desk warning about the possibility of a 9-11 type attack. What would these same people think if the US did come under attack from Iraq and he ignored the mountains of intelligence that he has on the Iraqi capabilities. He definitely would have blood on his hands.

If what many of the former inspectors say is true about Iraqi foreign intelligence infiltrating the inspection team, they would only be able find what Saddam wanted them to find. Or even worse, the world could possibly find out the hard way about his WMDs. IMO Bush has no choice but to error on the side of caution despite world opinion. Also, waiting a couple more months would cost more lives of the coalition forces.

As far as eyeing Syria goes, the US will most likely need to go there to collect some of Hussein's people, but I would be very surprised if military force will be taken against the country.

Not being certain of what "nuts-on" means, let me re-state my thoughts on that point. No, I'm not questioning the existence of WMD's in Iraq. This has to be one of the most frustrating points of the whole mess.

"For those that say Bush failed diplomatically I would really like to hear what you think he should have done differently to get Saddam to comply with the UN and the ceasefire he agreed to back in '91."

I don't think that is where Bush failed diplomatically. I think he would have been a very unhappy guy if Hussein had come across with proof that his WMDs had been destroyed. Because then, he would have really had a tough time explaining why they still had to go in and remove him.

Here's where he failed diplomatically. America let its opponents, led by France, frame the argument so as to suggest there was some question as to whether the WMDs were there, or not. When in fact - EVERYONE had agreed that the existence of the weapons was a fact. The onus was on Hussein to prove he'd gotten rid of them. Instead, the French very cynically and successfully made the argument that nasty old America did not want to give the inspectors more time to find the weapons. Anti-war peace protestors continue to use this faulty argument to this day.

The other point Bush and company completely fucked up on was the reason for going to war. They said they were going in because of the threat Hussein posed to America with his WMDs and his penchant for playing footsie with terrorists who could conceivably get their hands on same. Nobody swallowed that.

Instead, Bush should have said from the beginning, "Look here, this clown has had 12 years to show that he was going to straighten himself out, he hasn't done it and America is tired of wasting time on him and/or waiting for him to pull another stunt. We've had it, he's history." I might be wrong, but I believe people would have had more respect for that argument than the one that was used so badly.

Explorer, maybe my "Why the hell not" came across as flippant and cavalier. I didn't intend it to, and that is not an accurate reflection of my sentiments. I realize we're talking about lives here, many of them innocent.

What I don't get, is why those lives are suddenly so important to people when American military action looms, but do not seem to matter a whit while local governments torture, kill, and deprive them of freedoms we take for granted.

Look at Iraq. When the figure of 500 000, (I heard it too), was being bandied about - everyone was ready to condemn Americans as butchers. Where was the concern for the hundreds of thousands who were tortured and killed by Hussein? And now, when even the harshest critics of America are admitting that it doesn't look like the civilian casualty count will surpass 2000, is ANYONE but Americans themselves noticing that it was a pretty amazing accomplishment? The civilian casualtys were a tragedy, no doubt. But 23 million now have a chance to make a better country and life for themselves.

"Instead, Bush should have said from the beginning, "Look here, this clown has had 12 years to show that he was going to straighten himself out, he hasn't done it and America is tired of wasting time on him and/or waiting for him to pull another stunt. We've had it, he's history." I might be wrong, but I believe people would have had more respect for that argument than the one that was used so badly."

Ok, I'd buy that, but I don't think it would make a bit of difference to France, Germany or the pacifist in the United States. At least in this country "selling it" has always been a part of politics and war. We're still being sold that our Civil War was about freeing the slaves(as if the northern states really gave a shit about the slaves). I don't think americans are ready for a politician that is a straight shooter ...but then again that depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Hmmm, reportedly some marines just stumbled upon 9 French made "Roland Carol" SAMs(witch have only been in production since 1995).
Ok ok, I won't bad mouth the French anymore than I already am until this report is confirmed.

For those of you that would like to get you minds off of world events for a little while I suggest reading the "Hotel de Paris" posted by Erip on behalf of Veritas on the Mexico board.

First of all I'm glad Saddam is history. And yes, he killed hundreds of thousands either by sending them to war, or gasing them, putting them in meat grinders, dipping them in acid etc. Perhaps the hamburgers there have some special meat that tastes like chicken.

LJ:
"Instead, Bush should have said from the beginning, "Look here, this clown has had 12 years to show that he was going to straighten himself out, he hasn't done it and America is tired of wasting time on him and/or waiting for him to pull another stunt. We've had it, he's history." I might be wrong, but I believe people would have had more respect for that argument than the one that was used so badly."
Snappa:
Ok, I'd buy that, but I don't think it would make a bit of difference to France, Germany or the pacifist in the United States.

Snappa, you'd buy anything that you think is "nuts on".

LJ, that would be a good argument but it is something Bush cannot pull off. Because it will bring up a whole can of worms when Saddam was supported by the Bush and Reagan administrations.

So it is WMD. If you have it, bye. If you don't even better, our war is easier. And we'll say you do. It also gives US defense intelligence, through weapons inspectors and spies, time and intelligence to figure out Saddam's might.

That said, call me whatever you want. But Iraqis owe us a BIG one.

New Saddam tape on Abu Dhabi TV.

And, so it begins.

I thought the following article last night was interesting. It highlights how some ex-spies have been critical about the justification of the war.

Here is an excerpt:

---

quote:

Retired CIA intelligence analyst Ray McGovern told AFP: "Some of my colleagues are virtually certain that there will be some weapons of mass destruction found, even though they might have to be planted.

"I'm just as sure that some few will be found, but not in an amount that by any stretch would justify the charge of a threat against the US or anyone else."

He added: "Even if the planting was discovered by and by, they'll say, 'ok, the weapons were planted -- fine.'"

McGovern said he was alluding to a remark by Secretary of State Colin Powell after it emerged that a letter purporting to show that Iraq had sought to procure uranium from Niger -- a key argument in the case for war and cited in President George W. Bush's January 28 State of the Union address -- was a forgery.

Powell told NBC: "It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine."

McGovern and 24 other former intelligence officials in the CIA, State and Defense Departments, Army Intelligence and FBI formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

They made their first public statement on February 5, critiquing Powell's presentation before the UN Security Council.

---

According to DoD, the looters stole the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

So, what happens if the people of Iraq want an Islamic fundamentalist government?

The people of Iraq want Saddam. That is why he got 100% of the vote in our last election.

Who is this guy posing as al-sahaf LOL?

I am the real Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. The rumors about me hanging myself are nothing more than lies and exaggerations. I was meerly hanging some pants.
If I had committed suicide how could I have been dancing to Hip-Hops at the disco-tech last night, and how could I be posting this right now?

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf

A rather 'snappy' answer.

How dare you imply that this snapper is mocking me. He is a lunatic, and not even fit enough to mock a dead goat.

Who is this guy LMAO The humor is a bit more sohpisticated then Snapper's.
Maybe HOMBRE can clarify this by checking the IP address...
Or keep us in suspense longer. Let's place bets on who this is.

(Snappa owes me one, I motivated him to be a bit smarter.)

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf is the greatest comedian of the new millenium. He really did add some great comic relief to an already wonderful war!

Protesters and Sergeants eating noodles

Dijon and I were wearing down after some long hours in our windowless data dungeon today, today.

We headed downtown to our local Thai Noodle house for some lunch. I had forgotten all about the war protesters that were lining the road earlier in the day.

We stepped in the back door and there was a table of about ten war protesters right there eating. They had your typical spiked hair, tie-dyed shirts, stenciled bandanas and such. One guy was in a three piece suit with fake blood all over it.

There wasn't a table available, so we stood right there next to them in our BDUs. They were giving each other the elbow and thumb-pointing over their shoulder at us. But, it seemed they didn't want any trouble over lunch.

We got the next available table. There was a family of four between us and the protesters. This eight year old kid yells out "Hey Dad! It's Air Force Guys!". The Mom spoke right out "You guys are like super heroes to the kids." We got a chuckle out of that.

Of course, just as we're looking good, Dijon had to start talking over the crowd. He was going into graphic detail about boning our security dispatcher who just happens to live around the corner from the resturant. I had to shut him up in front of the kids.

When they got up to leave, the Dad patted Dijon on the back and said (in the direction of the protesters) "I just want to thank you for what you do for our country".

About that time, I stood up "Well Sgt <dijon>, I'd love to stay and shoot the shit. But, We've got work to do." I paid the bill.

Maybe you had to be there. But it was a COOL FUCKING LUNCH!

That does sound cool, man. Those punk-ass bitch protesters deserve to have their noses rubbed in their own shit.

naa

We were just eating noodles. I just hope they got a little perspective from the family sitting between us. I couldn't figure what the heck those guys were protesting at this point anyway?!?!?!

I am just wondering where the 1000 new Osamas are at. So far no increase in terror attacks. I wonder if it is a conspiracy?

Interesting side note. According to the State Department. Terror attacks in 2002 were at a 30 year low.

Is it possible that my old mans theory that the only thing the arab, persians, and other towell heads understand is brute force is correct?
After seeing a few other countries get the shit kicked out of them by US soldiers, the fire kind of leaves the belly of these islamo-fascists. Its still early and it could happen. But its starting to look like another anti war crowd prediction is way off.

Still no weapons of mass destruction though. Maybe Explorer was right on that count.

Batsterwholayshismoneyonbushandrumsfeld

Osama has been quoted as saying US occupation of Saudi Arabia was his justification for 9-11. Was 9-11 a few weeks or a few months after the occupation?

Articles I've read put recruitment of terror organizations at a higher level than previously. I expect this to increase further when the Arab world sees that we are not leaving.

It's possible that your old man's theory is correct. It is more likely that it is far too early to know.

I'm glad we can look at the Palestine situation as a good example of how the fire leaves the belly after getting their ass kicked so many times. Israel has that situation well under control.

You may need to wait 10 years to see more terrorists, Osama waited 10 years after US soldiers stood on Arab soil to launch his attacks.

Yeah, it's America's fault!!!
Please, they didn't attack us because our troops stood on Arab soil. They attacked us because we are the most powerful nation.


Al-Qa'ida spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith...

The Entire Earth Must Be Subjected to Islam
"How can [he] possibly [accept humiliation and inferiority] when he knows that his nation was created to stand at the center of leadership, at the center of hegemony and rule, at the center of ability and sacrifice? How can [he] possibly [accept humiliation and inferiority] when he knows that the [divine] rule is that the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah - not to the East, not to the West - to no ideology and to no path except for the path of Allah??"

"As long as this Muslim knows and believes in these facts, he will not - even for a single moment - stop striving to achieve it, even if it costs him his soul? his time, his property, and his son, as it is said, 'Say [to the believers]: If your fathers and your sons and your brethren and your wives and your kinsfolk and the worth you have acquired and the trade, the dullness of which you apprehend, and the dwellings that you fancy are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving in His cause, then wait until Allah issues His judgment. Allah guides not the disobedient people?'"

"America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited. This compels the other countries to act in accordance with the same laws in the same ways? and punishes any country [that rebels against these laws] by besieging it, and then by boycotting it. By so doing, [America] seeks to impose on the world a religion that is not Allah's?"

"We have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies..."

I just don't think that fanaticism can be blamed on America.

Dart,

Notice I left myself an out. It could very well happen as you say. I agree it is way too early to say what will happen. But I cant help myself from taking a few pokes at the doom and gloomers.LOL.

But I am willing to bet that we are actually seeing a realignment of things in the mideast. I would lay odds that Islamic terrorism will slow down for a good long while.

Palestine is another issue altogether. As long as the other Arab countries keep stirring the pot there is no solution to palestine. They have been keeping the Palestine issue hot. Clinton brokered a deal for the Palestinians to get damn near everything they have been asking for all these years by renouncing terror.

Arafat walked away from the deal. He has never wanted peace. And his supporters have never wanted peace. Pandering to Arafat has only increased Palestinian suffering. But his days are numbered and so are the days of his supporters. As soon as outside agitation starts to die so will the terrorism.

Two things about the Palestine issue that most people don't know that give a little insight into the real sentiment in Palestine.

1. Israel is the only state in the mideast that allows Palestinians citizenship. They are Pariahs in other Arab states. Palestinians realize that.

2. In a UN commisoned poll, When asked what form of government the Palestinians would most like to copy, the number one answer was Israel.

Dislike Israel all you want, I have some gripes with them( spying on US, Sellings Systems to the Chinese)but they are a real democracy. There are Palestinians in the Knesset for godsake. How much representation would Arafat allow Jews? Inspite of european public opinion and propaganda, Israel has not been the primary impediment to peace. The medling of other Arab powers has been the primary impediment. Thanks to Bush clobbering Iraq and threatening Iran and Syria, that impediment may go away.

I doubt I will be around in 5 years for you to say you were right and I am wrong. But I think Bush is taking the right track on this terrorism issue.

Batstertheoptomist

It's not about who was right and wrong. I hope you are right. It's just that your post made about as much sense to me as a guy who goes bareback with a street girl then declares himself free of STD's a week later because he has exhibited no symptoms. He may be right and we hope he is, but who ever said the symptoms would have to be there in that first week?

"As long as the other Arab countries keep stirring the pot there is no solution to palestine."

I think the same idea can be applied to Iraq. Whether it is true or not, Arabs will believe or be led to believe that our presense is one of an occupying force rather than liberators, of resource thieves instead of keepers of order. As time passes with our soldiers and corporate developers on their land, I think the risk of terrorism remains higher than it should be.

I don't dislike Israel at all, I brought that issue up as an example that brute force isn't necessarily the complete solution to combating terrorism.

An optimist that won't be around in 5 years? I'm planning on being around at least another 30.

1,000 Osamas? I wonder where they are going to find 1,000 guys born into fabulously wealthy families willing to be exiled from their homelands, and who choose to spend their lives and their fortunes training and organizing terrorists, instead of spending their lives and cash getting laid and living in luxury.

I also recall Osama saying that it was America's financial support of Israel that justified 911. Islam pays lip service to the concept of not attacking innocents, and Osama got around this inconvenient tenet by stating that anyone working in a US financial center or contributing to the US economy is contributing to the flow of cash to Israel, and thus a fair target.

As pissed as he was about the US presence in Saudi Arabia, this was not his justification for the WTC attacks.

Anyway, appeasement of terrorists is not good public policy. Good, sound public policy dictates that we hunt down and kill terrorists and their supporters.

Dart,

Didnt anybody tell you I am 90. I make Ben look young. LOL.

I meant I would not be on the board in 5 years. Hell, I probably wont be on the board in a year. Since I hooked up with the chilangita I am now with I have not mongered. So I dont have anything valuable to add to the board. I am debating on jumping back into the ring on a trip to Guadlajara next month. And I have an upcoming business trip to Colombia this summer. But only time will tell. I have a great thing going with my girl and I dont want to mess it up. I really think this is long term for me( I know, its very sad). I just have to battle my natural instincts. Or as Kendricks says "the beast within".

Milkman, Conozco, Nyarit and a couple of others that have met her can vouch that my girls a keeper. Attractive, professional, intelligent and a nice income. But Colombia? I think I may just have to take take a chance there. But I digress.

As far as my post making much sense, do any of my posts make sense? LOL.

I will say it makes as much sense or more sense than all of the dire predictions spouted by the anti-war opponents. They based many of their opinions on pure conjecture. I try to base my opinions and predictions at least in part on history( but sometimes pure BS LOL)

Examples of the anti war crowd spouting predictions without base. During Gulf War 1 the US used mostly unguided bombs on Baghdad. The UN estimated that probably 3000 civilians died. The US estimated 1200. Iraq claimed 10,000. Three different numbers. But nothing in the historical record to suggest 100,000-500,000 civilian deaths that the anti war crowd was predicting.

Just 10 years ago we saw American vs Iraqi arms. The historical record shows the americans gave a huge asskicking. There was every reason to expect the same. But the anti war crwod predicted quagmire, etc, etc.

Changing subject, Kendricks is right. Supporters of terrorists need to be dealt with just like terrorists. Hunt them down and put them out of business. That is what Bush is doing and thats why terrorism was at its lowest level in 30 years in 2002.

Osama bin Laden did not believe Bush would go into Afganistan. He did not believe Bush would assasinate terrorists in Yemen. He did not believe we could topple the Taliban in 6 weeks. He never imagined we could use our Special forces to make arrests in Pakistan. Nobody thought we could chase Hussein out of office in 21 days.

The rest of the middle east did not believe either. Now they do. As a result terrorism will continue to decline. 2002 is now part of the historical record. The huge drop in Islamic terrorism after our initial response to 911, was not a fluke.

My money is still on Bush. I never liked him or his father, but he has gained my support on this issue 100%. I did not voter for him but I will now. I think we need another 4 years of this by then I think the historical record will show, it just dont pay to be a terrorist and it wont help you achieve your goals.

Batsterwhoneedstostoprambling.

A couple articles I read had Osama quoted with the Saudi occupation reason. I wouldn't be surprised if he has also mentioned financial support of Israel as a reason, or even as Snapper mentioned, because we do not follow "the will of Allah".

I think the leaders might say whatever they want to show off their balls or motivate their people. Since most of us are not religious Islamic fanatics, we can only speculate which reasons hit home in the mind of the terrorist individual willing to sacrifice himself for his cause.

In that regard, my personal speculation is that the "infidels in our land" speeches get the most mileage.

It's most likely a combination of reasons and is probably even different for different terrorists. Poverty, losing friends/relatives to violence, envy, repression...they're all factors. I just think our continual presence there makes us an easy target.

I guess I never really saw the point of bringing up what extremists were saying "in the news" when you have moderates trying to debate issues here. To me it seemed like a cheesy debate tactic, paint your opponent as extremist then shoot down the extreme view instead of the moderate view which was more challenging to dispute.

Again, the war is over so the economy is going to be the big issue now. Bush will probably get his way due to his popularity. I hope I'm wrong in believing that he's going to screw it up more than it is.

Dart,

Many argue that our lack of presence over there, or better put, our indifference to the arabs plight, is what engenders rage against us.

What every human being wants is a good life. Basic freedoms, food on the table, etc, etc. The arabs see that the western world has that and they don't. Furthermore they see that their corrupt leaders do have all that. They wonder why we don't help them out. And they get pissed when we don't.

It is not much reported, I am not sure why, but word is that a big percentage of the Iranian population is hoping for a US invasion. It is also starting to be reported that a majority of Iraqis want the US oveer there for at least a couple of years. We see some small groups of vocal protesters on TV and think they all hate us. Of course reporting that we were actually welcomed by a majority, just as Darth Cheney said we would be, would be anathema to the US news media. Peter Jennings was so depressed the day they tore down Saddams statue that I though the was going to committ suicide.

I read last week that an Indian agency polled 2000 Baghdad residents at random. 67% were in favor of a heavy US presence until they can elect their own government. Even if it means a couple of years. The sentiment was highest in the middle class. They realize Iraqs fledgling government will need US protection from opportunistic hawks. Iran, Syria, France, etc.

I think that the US pulling out of Iraq before the country is ready will really fuel rage against the US.

As far as extreme views and moderate views. What is moderate? Having a moderate view requires that there be extremes on both sides of the issue. The idea being you are on middle ground. On the Iraq issue there was no middle ground. You either felt that the solution in Iraq was diplomatic or military. If you thought the solution was diplomatic, you were with the UN. You were condoning their never ending charade in Iraq, while 60,000 people a year died under sanctions. If 12 years of carrot and stick diplomacy did not end the problem, it is unlikely more diplomacy would have ended the problem.

If you thought the quicker solution, thus ultimately the solution that would save more lives, was the military solution. Then you were with Bush and his hawks. I dont see any middle ground. I dont see any extremes. Sometimes there is no middle ground. There are two sides with a chasm between.

What exactly did Bush do to screw up the economy? As far as the economy goes, it will get better eventually. It will get better no matter what Bush or congress does. The economy is cyclical and the president can not damage it or help it as much as everyone thinks he can.

The recession officially started under Clinton. The economy was contracting before he left office. It was Bushes luck to inherit it in decline. Based on historical records of past contractions, the economy will grow before Bush leaves office. In fact it did grow 1st quarter. It just may not be fast enough to save him. Its called luck of the draw.

As far as getting his way due to his popularity, remember Bush Pere was at 90% at end of Gulf War 1. Two years later he polled less than 43% of the vote. Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote ( not exactly a mandate). Popularity polls only count on election day. Outside of that they are useless.

News resources I've read have indicated that those that want a presence want a balanced one, ie a UN presence. A predominant US presence would make it easier for the US to take unfair advantage of Iraqi resources, or at the very least give that impression. Whatever the truth is, you know how Arab media will portray it.

I should tell you, BTW, that I do not watch TV news, I get my facts mostly from Yahoo headlines which provides a broad spectrum of international news, from conservative outlets like NYPost to liberal ones like Salon to international like the Guardian.

---

There is always a middle ground.

I've always argued about aspects of the war I disagreed with while being in support of the war overall.

Grouping moderate views with extreme ones is always easier, though. For example:

Instead of debating the financial motivations and the influcence they had on going to war in Iraq, you can simply pull a McCarthy and call someone a traitor and be done with it.

Instead of debating whether or not Bush made some diplomatic blunders which will have negative repercussions, you can simply call someone a Bush-hater and deem him not credible.

Instead of arguing about the motivations of some of the corporations and political players pushing for war, you can simply call anyone that disagrees with them a Saddam sympathizer.

Instead of recognizing that people can have different levels of support for the war, you can say that if one does not cheer for Bush, or [gasp] one writes about a point he disagreed with, he is an anti-war protester.

Again I say there is always a middle ground. I do not remember seeing myself in any war protests and I don't rememeber ever saying I wanted anything bad to happen to US forces.

In my opinion, the best place for news from a variety of sources and perspectives is http://news.google.com

Goolge News searches headlines and links to everything from the New York Times, to ArabNews.com, to Gulf News Daily, to the Daily Star in Lebanon, and Strait Times and South China Morning Post.

One outlet that provides some pretty shocking and different commentary is http://www.yellowtimes.org



(Message edited by xenono on May 08, 2003)

Dart,

Which diplomatic blunders did Bush make? I would argue that it was not Bushs lack of diplomatic efforts that made military action necessary. Rather it was France and Russias diplomatic obstinacy that left no other option. Diplomacy sometimes needs to be reinforced with a threat. Frances diplomatic manuevers made any threat coming out of the UN hollow. Military action to remove Saddam was the only real solution.

Of course the option of leaving Saddam alone was always available, but even Bill Clinton did not think that a good idea. He after all signed the executive order that made regime change in Iraq US policy.

What other "middle" option did you see for the problem? I would like to hear it. I still stipulate that on some issues there is no middle ground.

As far as corporations making money out of the war. Are you really suprised? Thats what corporations do. There were companies that made huge fortunes during WWII. That did not cheapen the cause. The fact that somebody may make money out of war is not a valid reason to not go to war. In the same vein, you certainly did not hear France or Russia talking about the REAL reason they opposed war( protecting their own narrow financial interests).

It is also a stretch to say Bush went to war to help out his buddies at Halliburton. The economic costs of this war will damage this administration in one way or another. The only real economic benefit will come from lower and more stable oil prices. And that will benefit the entire global economy not just ours. In any conflict, there are always vested financial interests. And in the resolution of the conflict one group of players may benefit and one group of players may lose. That should not be the determining factor in wether a war was just or not.

If you read back on the thread, I always supported Bush on the war, but I had some reservations. But for me they all evaporated when it was apparent that the Iraqis were indeed almost universally happy to be rid of Saddam.

As for the comment about different levels of support for the war. You are right. There were varying levels of support or opposition. Non support does not make you a traitor. Actively participating in marches with a distinct anti-american flavor do IMHO. And I still contend that a large part of the resistance to the war was based on party politics, dislike of america, and dislike of Bush. Because it certainly was not based on what was in the best interest of Iraq or our own future security.

When you have a popular ex democratic president Clinton)writing columns for major English papers defending Blair, and advocating the removal of Hussein by force, yet you have the whole world claiming Bush is a bloodthirsty cowboy for advocating the same thing, it is obvious that politics hold more sway than reason. Do you really believe that anti-american, anti-bush sentiments were not the MAJOR factor in the resistance? Or do you really believe that a concern for the UN and other world institutions and a concern for the Iraqi people was the MAJOR basis for the resistance to the war?

As far as news, I dont ever watch TV news either. I also surf the net for most of my news. Yahoo is a good source, but most of their headlines come from AP, or Reuters. So there is some bias there. Reuters in particular is Anti American.

Some of the best news out of Iraq comes from embedded reporters. But try to find one who has an editor with a light hand. Many editors don't want to believe that some Iraqis dont hate us. Doing so would be further admission that they made the wrong predictions on the issue. It also does not fit within their world view. Thus you see a preponderance of reports on the negative side. Anybody who maintains that there is not a media bias toward the left is not interested in the truth. In 1996, nearly 80% of polled journalists voted for Clinton. That opposed to 42% of the country in whole. Journalists like judges are supposed to be unbiased, but we all know its BS. In my opinioin, its generally a safe bet to lend credence to the view least espoused by the popular media.

As for the Iran info, its pretty common knowledge that demonstrations against the Mullahs of up to a million people have occured in Tehran recently. I have a good source in Phy-ops in the military that thinks Tehrans government could topple by the end of the year. Iran has a huge percentage of their population under the age of 30 that want better relations with the US.

Anyway. Its obvious that I need to get a life because if I have time to keep this thread alive I have way too much time on my hands. I think I may call Conozco and head on over to the Zona.

Be safe one and all

batster

17 archives on this discussion. OMG...

Yeah, the peacenicks were right - we should have left Saddam alone so he could rape, torture, improsion, gas and execute thousand and thousands of more people for decades and decades.

Thus ends my political discourse on CH.

CNN reported last night that Bush and Blair might be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

If the Democrats get excited about George landing on an aircraft carrier, they will shit a brick if that rumor becomes reality.

This world is really a strange place.

Might Makes Right

Ben,

Bush will never receive the Nobel. The Euro trash types hate him. Carter received his Nobel specifically because he vocally opposed Bush on Iraq etc. The nominaitng comittee basically said as such. At that point, the honorable thing for Carter to do would be to say "excuse me but I dont want your prize" of course he is an attention slut so he kept it.

Noe,Conozco and I went slumming in the Zona last night. But we certainly had a god time. I need to get down there more. Then I will have something important to blather about.

Batsterwithahangover

Better watch that Conozco, he lives in a bad neighborhood.

Next time invite me.

Only if you hook us up with one of your old girlfreinds. LOL.

batsterwhoisjealousofben

I saw two old girl friends last week on my way to see my new novia. Life is complicated.

The person who nominated Bush and Blair was some right wing Norweigan flake from the some tiny party, more like a cry for help than a legitimate nomination.

If the US had a smaller military, there would have been no Nobel Peace Prize nomination, ergo, no way Bush could win on the basis of Iraq. The Palestine question is something different, if Bush got serious about it, there may be a prize in that Crackerjack Box.

Hey, if you read the earliest posts on this subject, back in the archives, some people seem to have been really, really gullible.

Yep, those pacifist fucks who thought that the Iraqis would kick our ass if we dare invade sure have been exposed as being a bunch of dumbasses!

Boy, am I grateful that Bush invaded Iraq so that the world is a safer place. I guess all those people who claimed that an invasion of Iraq would lead to dangerous instability were dead wrong.

You miss the point, Explorer. The war made for awesome television, gave us the chance to use a bunch of aging missiles, and was a great deal of fun!

Also, there is no way of knowing what the world would be like now if we had pussed out and backed down. Our long term strategy is coming together wonderfully, despite you silly pacifists.