What Kind Of A Country Is This?
John McAdams
<regar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:13979-3E7...@storefull-2313.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>> A load of idiots has boycotted The Dixie Chicks because they had a few
>> unkind words for the Bush Regime..It's. Just like those ultra-religous
>> zealots who burnt Beatle records back in the 60's...and the end result
>> was John Lennon getting killed by one of these types of nuts, the same
>> mindless shouters that are boycotting, or calling for boycotts against
>> French products. How easily manipulated people are..the herd mentality
>> in full force...You have Freedom Of Speech just don't use it...Jeff
>
>Are you saying we should have freedom of speech but not the right to refuse
>to do business with people we oppose?
>
>I know people who years ago, refused to buy tickets to Jane Fonda movies,
>but I also know some who wouldn't see Charleton Heston for the same, general
>reason. Once an entertainer supports a controversial political position, he
>or she should not expect financial support from those they offend.
>
>Entertainers who get political are exlpoiting their public visibility, which
>they earned from musical or theatrical skills, and have nothing whatsoever
>to do with political expertise. I seriously doubt the Dixie Chicks could
>tell you the names of the vice presidential candidates in the last election.
>Why should their opinions carry any more weight than yours or mine, or any
>random patron of the nearest bar?
>
Good point.
It is indeed important to note that boycotts come from both the left
and the right, and it's hypocritical to attack the tactic only when
people on the *other* side use it.
The gay lobby, for example, has boycotted states and localities that
refused to pass "gay rights" ordinances, and black groups boycotted
the state of South Carolina when it refused to remove the Confederate
battle flag from the state flag.
So people have just as much right to boycott French products.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:3e768c9e...@news.newsguy.com...
John:
Personally, I think we should pull the plug on the UN. That organization of
jackals has shown it's true colors.
The political lard-asses at the UN talk the talk, but they don't walk the
walk.
John F.
Greg Jaynes
U.N. long ago. They were dismissed as kooks. Now, they
genuinely may have been kooks but that doesn't mean they
were wrong.
Beware the long shot::::::::::: I predicted the WTC attacks
using hijacked airplanes on A.C.JFK long before it happened.
Now...... this isn't a prediction but a point to consider;
Did we learn a lesson from the Korean War? What happened
there? Defending freedom from the communists in the northern
part of Korea, we were surprised when China joined the fray.
If not for China attacking us, U.N. forces would have defeated
the communists and the situation today in Korea would be very
different.
MacArther wanted to nuke China then and there which led to his
firing by Harry Truman. Thanks Harry Truman for giving us a
nuclear armed North Korea today.
What does that lesson have to do with Iraq? Iraq is situated
between two of our staunch enemies, Iran and Syria. If they
open surprise fronts behind U.S. forces in Iraq, it could get really nasty.
It could prevent an early end to hostilities. It would lead to a
wider war. I'm not sure if we could count on Turkey in time as
they may take too long negotiating the price for their services.
Israel could give Syria all they could handle. I'm sure we could
count on Israel. The scenario sounds bad but it is not out of the
question. It is something I hope we have accounted for. A situation
like this would give us a chance to clean the slate in the middle
east once and for all. But it would be messy. Real messy.
Is Tom Daschle a Frenchman or a Dixie Chick? Oh, he is so
saddened that President Bush has "failed miserably" at diplomacy.
Nothing in his view for the intransigence of the French though.
It's Bush's fault. The real fact is, Daschle is only saddened that he is
not president and will never be president. He should leave his politicing
for another time. But hard core left wing Democrats being what they
are, it should come as no surprise. These people are not interested
in what's best for America. All they care about is gaining power.
That's why they are willing to bankrupt the country with socialist
programs to buy the votes of the lower class. Policies which perpetuate
the dependency of people on the government. The last thing these
left wingers want is for their constituents to find opportunity which
could free them from dependence on the government.
The rest of the permenent protest culture should be expected to rise
to their newest opportunity to show their stupidity. These are the
same people who protested the ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan
as you will recall. The people of Afghanistan are deeply grateful to
the U.S. for leading the effort resulting in their liberation and hope for
peace and meaningful lives. Where is Martin Sheen when things go well?
WAR IS ALWAYS THE LAST RESORT !!!!!
What nonsense. If war is always the last resort then tyrants and
murderers have a lot of breathing room to do their dirty work.
If there is no expectation of timely consequences, tyrants are
encouraged not deterred. It's simple Behavior Mod 101.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
"John Fiorentino" <jston...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3e76...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Rick Gibson
The problem is that the UN is not just the harmless little plaything
for eggheads and armchair pontificators. Now it is starting to
protect the bad guys. This situation must be addressed, as Bush said,
to see if the UN can get any credibility back (of course, in some
quarters,it has had none for a long time anyway).
Why should we continue to participate in an organization that
villifies and annoys us? We should not cede our sovereignty to a body
of questionable value just because the Eurorabble do.
GMcNally
I am very dissapointed to read your rant. Like a child you lash out at
anything that tries to thwart your will.
The UN didn't buy Bush's argument that Iraq was an imminent threat, nor
that it was working with al-Queda, nor that it has nuclear weapons - as
our dear vice president claimed on Sunday last.
The world can see through the pretexts and the claims from the Bush camp
are flat out rejected.
Your response is to say: I'm going to take my marbles and I won't play
with you anymore!
So damned immature!
Clinton said something very wise when he said that we should work to
create a world that we'd like to live in - even when we're not top dog.
Jerry
John Fiorentino
GMcNally <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.03031...@posting.google.com...
Jerry:
This is not about taking any "marbles" and not wanting to play Jerry. This
is about belonging to an organization controlled by a bunch of cretins who
have lost theirs.
The FACT is the UN has already spoken (unanimously) in 1441. But as usual
their words prove meaningless and empty. They are like a bunch of coyotes
barking at the moon.
I am so glad you think that I am "immature." As a matter of fact I am
heartened and uplifted by your vitriol.
God Bless America. I pray for our troops and our Commander In Chief.
John E. Fiorentino
SnorkinMan
same rights of free speech/expression that the original poster claims are
being trampled by the boycotters. You can't have it both ways.
Should the Dixie Chicks be allowed to say or do whatever they like, but
people who disagree with them not be afforded the same rights????
Also, does anyone believe that the Dixie Chicks' 'apology' was heartfelt?
Clearly they saw how it would affect their career, so they offered one.
There is nothing behind it but monetary self-protection.
Darren Hughes
<< Subject: Re: What Kind Of A Country Is This?
From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
Date: Tue, Mar 18, 2003 3:06 AM
Message-id: <3e768c9e...@news.newsguy.com>
Andrew Mason
Why are they cretins? Because they disagree with George W. Bush? Perhaps
they have simply not been persuaded by the evidence that Iraq is a
threat to the peace and security of the world that justifies starting a
war. I can understand that. I might even disagree with them on that. But
I can't call them cretins because of that.
>
> The FACT is the UN has already spoken (unanimously) in 1441. But as usual
> their words prove meaningless and empty. They are like a bunch of coyotes
> barking at the moon.
The FACT is that many UN resolutions are not enforced. UN resolutions
against Armenia, Burma, Indonesia, Israel, Morocco, Turkey, and other
countries have never been enforced. The U.S. doesn't seem to want to
enforce these resolutions. Bush has ever complained about their
non-enforcement.
The UN Security Council passed a resolution instructing the Israeli
forces to pull back to positions occupied before September 2000. The
motion was presented by the United Kingdom, France, Norway and Bulgaria
and was approved despite the abstention of the USA. It has never been
enforced. I wonder what the American position would be if France decided
to take out the Israeli government by military force because it failed
to abide by this U.N. resolution.
So it is somewhat inconsistent to say that the U.S. may justify its
non-UN sanctioned action in Iraq because it is necessary to enforce a UN
resolution. It is the content of that particular resolution that brings
the U.S. to wage war on Iraq. The U.S. is picking and choosing which
resolutions it wants to enforce. That suggests that it is not at all
interested in strengthening the UN. It is only interested in the UN if
it can control it and use it to further its own interests. If it can't
it wants to take its tanks and play on its own. The marble analogy isn't
that far off.
The real test of whether we are dealing with a child or an adult in the
White House will be whether Bush tries to punish economically countries
that did not support it (Mexico, Canada, Russia, China, France, Germany
etc.). I suspect that Bush is more child-like and petty than many think.
I could be wrong. I hope I am.
>
> I am so glad you think that I am "immature." As a matter of fact I am
> heartened and uplifted by your vitriol.
Gerry's comments sounded like a differing but reasoned view. I didn't
see any vitriol. Not until you spoke up, John.
Andrew Mason
Greg Jaynes
> I am very dissapointed to read your rant. Like a child you lash out at
> anything that tries to thwart your will.
>
> The UN didn't buy Bush's argument that Iraq was an imminent threat, nor
> that it was working with al-Queda, nor that it has nuclear weapons - as
> our dear vice president claimed on Sunday last.
I don't recall Bush saying Iraq was an imminent threat. On the contrary,
he said it was suicide to wait until the threat is imminent.
R.G.J.
Michael Russ
> child you lash out at
> > > anything that tries to thwart your will.
> > >
> > > The UN didn't buy Bush's argument that Iraq was
> an imminent threat, nor
> > > that it was working with al-Queda, nor that it
> has nuclear weapons - as
> > > our dear vice president claimed on Sunday last.
> > >
Isn't that John's point. like he said "as usual
their words prove meaningless and empty."
> UN resolutions
> against Armenia, Burma, Indonesia, Israel, Morocco,
> Turkey, and other
> countries have never been enforced. The U.S. doesn't
> seem to want to
> enforce these resolutions. Bush has ever complained
> about their
> non-enforcement.
That is because we don't consider them to be vital to
our national interest. More proof that the UN is a
big waste of time. The fact is the U.S. like any other
country is not going to let UN resolutions take
priority over our own interests. This will always be
the case, so I can't understand why everyone is so
outraged that the U.S. is going into Iraq with or
without UN support.
>
> The UN Security Council passed a resolution
> instructing the Israeli
> forces to pull back to positions occupied before
> September 2000. The
> motion was presented by the United Kingdom, France,
> Norway and Bulgaria
> and was approved despite the abstention of the USA.
> It has never been
> enforced. I wonder what the American position would
> be if France decided
> to take out the Israeli government by military force
> because it failed
> to abide by this U.N. resolution.
LOL The Isrealis would kick their asses. This is just
more evidence that nobdy has ever taken seriously
French diplomats.
> So it is somewhat inconsistent to say that the U.S.
> may justify its
> non-UN sanctioned action in Iraq because it is
> necessary to enforce a UN
> resolution.
When did John say that?
The justification for action in Iraq is the fact that
we feel it is in our own national interest to do so.
It is the content of that particular
> resolution that brings
> the U.S. to wage war on Iraq. The U.S. is picking
> and choosing which
> resolutions it wants to enforce. That suggests that
> it is not at all
> interested in strengthening the UN.
At our own expense, absolutely not.
It is only
> interested in the UN if
> it can control it and use it to further its own
> interests. If it can't
> it wants to take its tanks and play on its own. The
> marble analogy isn't
> that far off.
No you trying to compare the US military to some type
of toy and war to a game is rediculous. the U.S.
military represents a massive commitment in life and
money by the people of the United states to maintain a
military strong enough to thwart those who might harm
us. We will not allow it to be the tool of a bunch of
diplomats in the UN.
>
> The real test of whether we are dealing with a child
> or an adult in the
> White House will be whether Bush tries to punish
> economically countries
> that did not support it (Mexico, Canada, Russia,
> China, France, Germany
> etc.). I suspect that Bush is more child-like and
> petty than many think.
This is complete Bull. A good argument can be made
that he French and Russians are not as tough on Iraq
as the U.S. because they have their own financial
deals with Sadam and it is in their econoic interest
not to see a stong U.S. presense in Iraq. Even when
Iraq was blatantly violating the UN, and Clinton was
considering action, The French were dragging their
feet.
It is not child like for the United States to defend
it's own Military and Economic interests. It is child
like for others to be so niave as to believe that the
French and Russians don't have their own economic
intersts in mind during all of this.
I fully expect that the United States will look more
favorably when it comes to economic assistance to the
countries in the world who have shown a willingness to
cooperate with us on Economic and Military matters.
Why in the hell shouldn't we. The United States has
shown unbelievable restraint given its overwhelming
economic and military power in deferring to the wishes
of other countries, and what has it earned us. A
bunch of self righteous French diplomats helping to
stir up anti-american sentiment in order to keep a
murdering dictator in power. It is surreal.
I don't agree with John that it is time to pull the
plug on the UN, but I am so sick of the name calling
against George Bush, that I can't help but think that
it is time for us to realize that it is a futile
effort to try to please the international community.
> I could be wrong. I hope I am.
>
>
> >
> > I am so glad you think that I am "immature." As a
> matter of fact I am
> > heartened and uplifted by your vitriol.
>
> Gerry's comments sounded like a differing but
> reasoned view.
> I didn't
> see any vitriol.
Comparing the President of the United States to a
child is vitriol IMO. The ignorant Dixie Chicks
making silly comments about the president is vitriol
IMO also. Fortunately I don't own any Dixie Chick's
CD's but I have no problem with people saying, I am
not going to support them financially, if they are
going to use their success to spout off on political
issues that they disagree with.
Mike
> Not until you spoke up, John.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
> >
> > God Bless America. I pray for our troops and our
> Commander In Chief.
> >
> > John E. Fiorentino> begin:vcard
Ed Cage
^^55 John F! Destiny and the will of our American democratic
society has chosen George W. Bush to lead The USA and the world
during the time that we all knew would eventually come someday..
WMD have finally fallen into the hands of unstable MadMen..
IMO, OUR PRESIDENT NEEDS OUR SUPPORT now more than any American
President since 12-7-41 (FDR)..
Ed Cage _______________________________________________ 19.0742
"John Fiorentino" <jston...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3e77...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
(Snip::)
Andrew Mason
Michael Russ wrote:
>
> > John Fiorentino wrote:
> > >
> > > GMcNally <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > >
> >
> news:a163e09.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "John Fiorentino" <jston...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote in message
> > >
> > > Jerry:
> > >
> > > This is not about taking any "marbles" and not
> > wanting to play Jerry. This
> > > is about belonging to an organization controlled
> > by a bunch of cretins who
> > > have lost theirs.
> >
> > Why are they cretins? Because they disagree with
> > George W. Bush? Perhaps
> > they have simply not been persuaded by the evidence
> > that Iraq is a
> > threat to the peace and security of the world that
> > justifies starting a
> > war. I can understand that. I might even disagree
> > with them on that. But
> > I can't call them cretins because of that.
> >
> > >
> > > The FACT is the UN has already spoken
> > (unanimously) in 1441. But as usual
> > > their words prove meaningless and empty. They are
> > like a bunch of coyotes
> > > barking at the moon.
> >
> > The FACT is that many UN resolutions are not
> > enforced.
>
> Isn't that John's point. like he said "as usual
> their words prove meaningless and empty."
How do they get enforced without the US being involved?
>
> > UN resolutions
> > against Armenia, Burma, Indonesia, Israel, Morocco,
> > Turkey, and other
> > countries have never been enforced. The U.S. doesn't
> > seem to want to
> > enforce these resolutions. Bush has ever complained
> > about their
> > non-enforcement.
>
> That is because we don't consider them to be vital to
> our national interest. More proof that the UN is a
> big waste of time. The fact is the U.S. like any other
> country is not going to let UN resolutions take
> priority over our own interests. This will always be
> the case, so I can't understand why everyone is so
> outraged that the U.S. is going into Iraq with or
> without UN support.
Tell me Mike, do the lives of Iraqis factor into an assessment of
what is in the U.S. interest?
> >
> > The UN Security Council passed a resolution
> > instructing the Israeli
> > forces to pull back to positions occupied before
> > September 2000. The
> > motion was presented by the United Kingdom, France,
> > Norway and Bulgaria
> > and was approved despite the abstention of the USA.
> > It has never been
> > enforced. I wonder what the American position would
> > be if France decided
> > to take out the Israeli government by military force
> > because it failed
> > to abide by this U.N. resolution.
>
> LOL The Isrealis would kick their asses. This is just
> more evidence that nobdy has ever taken seriously
> French diplomats.
>
> > So it is somewhat inconsistent to say that the U.S.
> > may justify its
> > non-UN sanctioned action in Iraq because it is
> > necessary to enforce a UN
> > resolution.
>
> When did John say that?
> The justification for action in Iraq is the fact that
> we feel it is in our own national interest to do so.
The U.N. has no function if the U.S. is going to use it only if
it agrees with it. Are you saying that the U.S. can do no wrong?
- that only the U.S. knows what is right and what is wrong? That
is what it sounds like.
>
> It is the content of that particular
> > resolution that brings
> > the U.S. to wage war on Iraq. The U.S. is picking
> > and choosing which
> > resolutions it wants to enforce. That suggests that
> > it is not at all
> > interested in strengthening the UN.
>
> At our own expense, absolutely not.
By that argument, no country should agree to do what the U.N.
mandates if it is not in their interest to do so. Or is the U.S.
the only country that has that right?
>
> It is only
> > interested in the UN if
> > it can control it and use it to further its own
> > interests. If it can't
> > it wants to take its tanks and play on its own. The
> > marble analogy isn't
> > that far off.
>
> No you trying to compare the US military to some type
> of toy and war to a game is rediculous. the U.S.
> military represents a massive commitment in life and
> money by the people of the United states to maintain a
> military strong enough to thwart those who might harm
> us. We will not allow it to be the tool of a bunch of
> diplomats in the UN.
So the UN is only supposed to exercise control over the behaviour
of 'other' countries? What if everyone took that position?
>
> >
> > The real test of whether we are dealing with a child
> > or an adult in the
> > White House will be whether Bush tries to punish
> > economically countries
> > that did not support it (Mexico, Canada, Russia,
> > China, France, Germany
> > etc.). I suspect that Bush is more child-like and
> > petty than many think.
>
> This is complete Bull. A good argument can be made
> that he French and Russians are not as tough on Iraq
> as the U.S. because they have their own financial
> deals with Sadam and it is in their econoic interest
> not to see a stong U.S. presense in Iraq. Even when
> Iraq was blatantly violating the UN, and Clinton was
> considering action, The French were dragging their
> feet.
>
> It is not child like for the United States to defend
> it's own Military and Economic interests.
Never said it was. I said it would be child-like to punish your
friends because they disagreed with you on this - because they
believe, honestly and strongly, that in the 21st century
decisions to invade another and wreak havoc and misery upon the
people should no longer be made without an international
consensus.
There is no international consensus on invading Iraq at this
time. That consensus might emerge but it is not present yet. And
the US doesn't seem to care. That is the problem. And there are
alot of Americans who agree with that.
If the U.S. respects its friends, and Canada and Mexico are
certainly that, it will respect their right to disagree. The US
will not play petty politics with friends that it respects by
punishing them economically for disagreeing with them. If you
want that result, then I guess you can play those economic games.
We'll survive. But don't expect us to respect you or like what
you do.
> It is child
> like for others to be so niave as to believe that the
> French and Russians don't have their own economic
> intersts in mind during all of this.
>
> I fully expect that the United States will look more
> favorably when it comes to economic assistance to the
> countries in the world who have shown a willingness to
> cooperate with us on Economic and Military matters.
> Why in the hell shouldn't we. The United States has
> shown unbelievable restraint given its overwhelming
> economic and military power in deferring to the wishes
> of other countries, and what has it earned us. A
> bunch of self righteous French diplomats helping to
> stir up anti-american sentiment in order to keep a
> murdering dictator in power. It is surreal.
I have never heard the French say that they wanted to keep Saddam
Hussein, a murdering dictator, in power. I have heard them say
that they wanted to give more time for weapons inspectors to do
their work and force Iraq to disarm and did not agree that war at
this time was the best solution to the problem.
BTW, since when does the U.S. justify taking out Saddam Hussein
because he is a murdering dictator? I thought this was about
weapons of mass destruction. Are you saying that the U.S. will
take the same action against ALl murdering dictators? Or just
murdering dictators in countries that are strategically important
to the U.S.? Did the U.S. not support Saddam Hussein in the 80's
when he was just as big a murdering dictator as he is now? Ah,
but then he was a common enemy of Iran - and therefore it was in
the U.S. interests to support him.
Did the U.S. take out General Pinochet, Idi Amin, Papa Doc
Duvalier because they were murdering dicators? No. The U.S.
helped Pinochet depose the democratically elected government of
Allende - because it was not in the U.S. interests for Chile to
have a democratically elected leftist government.
Don't tell us that the U.S. is taking out Saddam Hussein because
he is a murdering dictator. No one believes that. Not even George
W. Bush.
>
> I don't agree with John that it is time to pull the
> plug on the UN, but I am so sick of the name calling
> against George Bush, that I can't help but think that
> it is time for us to realize that it is a futile
> effort to try to please the international community.
It is only futile if you think the international community should
always agree with the U.S.
>
> > I could be wrong. I hope I am.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am so glad you think that I am "immature." As a
> > matter of fact I am
> > > heartened and uplifted by your vitriol.
> >
> > Gerry's comments sounded like a differing but
> > reasoned view.
> > I didn't
> > see any vitriol.
>
> Comparing the President of the United States to a
> child is vitriol IMO.
I never said he was a child. I said I hoped that he wasn't a
child. I said it would be childish if he were to do certain
things that his recent conduct suggests he might do -ie. punish
countries economically for disagreeing on the Iraq position. It
is his decision. Adults respect differences of views but try to
get along. Children don't - they bully and intimidate.
> The ignorant Dixie Chicks
> making silly comments about the president is vitriol
> IMO also. Fortunately I don't own any Dixie Chick's
> CD's but I have no problem with people saying, I am
> not going to support them financially, if they are
> going to use their success to spout off on political
> issues that they disagree with.
What if they had come out in support of George W.? Would that
have been ok?
Andrew Mason
Bud
conversation has changed, but a friend sent me this definition of
"celebrity" that I found amusing...
Ce-leb-ri-ty (n);
1) A person who is dressed, told where to stand, and what to say.
2) A person whos money is spent equally between cosmetic surgery,
drug rehab, and therapy.
3) A person who gives less thought on choosing a spouse than
ordinary people give to selecting what video to rent.
4) The last person on Earth you would expect to have insight into
anything more complex than what psychic to use to channel for your
poodle.
-Bud
Bud
I`d just like jump in here for some quick "France-bashing". There
was a post here that said "Powell calls French "afraid" " I thought
that was like calling water "wet". They mentioned on the news that
North Korea was going to go ahead with a missle delivery system for
it`s nukes. I think we should handle this thing with Iraq, and let the
French handle this thing with the kook in Korea. France wants to be a
world leader, let them and the UN resolve this difficulty with North
Korea. Somehow, I feel it`ll be left to us to resolve.
-Bud
Michael Russ
So the U.S. is the only party responsible for doing the heavy lifting
for the U.N.?
This is what pisses Americans off. We pay for the majority of the costs
of the U.N., we are expected to provide the overwhelming military
pressence for the UN, but the likes of France and Even China have just
as much power as the U.S. to singlehandedly thwart UN measures.
Now this one time when the U.S. goes out on a limb and says, hey guys we
feel very strongly about this issue, so can't you just agree to let us
do this, even if you may disagree, the answer is "no!" the French
basically said we are gonna veto whatever might end up leading to war.
And the French politicians are making great hay politically by "standing
up to the U.S." while Blair is being accused of being a U.S. Lap dog.
Well then why are you suprised that some here say, "screw that". It's
not like we are asking the UN to give us permission to annex Canada.
All we want to do is remove a leader who has and will
behave in an irrational manner, and has a grudge against the
U.S., and is in the heart of the most volatie region of the world, that
we seriously fear that he represents a threat to our own security.
Bush made it clear after Sept. 11th that the U.S. was going to fight the
war against terror seriously and that Iraq was clearly on our radar
screen. But absolutely no defference was going to be given by our
"allies"
the French and even the Canadian's. Heaven forbid that appearing to defer
to the U.S. might hurt
some linberal politicians at home. There is no
secret that fear mongering about the U.S. plays well politically in
Canada, but it would have been nice if in deference to 9/11 and the
historical burden that the U.S. has shouldered in order to preserve
freedom in the world, that your politicians could have summoned up enough
courage to say, even though I may not feel that war is the best solution
right now, I fully believe that the government of the United States is
doing what they feel they have to do, and we will support them.
> >
> > > UN resolutions
> > > against Armenia, Burma, Indonesia, Israel, Morocco,
> > > Turkey, and other
> > > countries have never been enforced. The U.S. doesn't
> > > seem to want to
> > > enforce these resolutions. Bush has ever complained
> > > about their
> > > non-enforcement.
> >
> > That is because we don't consider them to be vital to
> > our national interest. More proof that the UN is a
> > big waste of time. The fact is the U.S. like any other
> > country is not going to let UN resolutions take
> > priority over our own interests. This will always be
> > the case, so I can't understand why everyone is so
> > outraged that the U.S. is going into Iraq with or
> > without UN support.
>
> Tell me Mike, do the lives of Iraqis factor into an assessment of
> what is in the U.S. interest?
Of course they do. I think Iraqis are as entitled to lives that are not
overshadowed by the fear that Sadam Hussein will kill and torture them
if you disagree with him. They are entitled to have more hope than a
food for oil relief program. Just as the American revolutionaries were
willing to say "give me liberty, or give me death", there are times when
people have to be willing to risk war for the long term good of peace,
liberty, and freedom.
I should ask you, do you not feel the people of
Iraq are entitled to that opportunity?
Will they get it anytime soon if France get's their way?
No, what I am saying is even if we end up being wrong, we are going to
what we feel is right when we do it. We are not going to do what we feel
is wrong, just because the U.N. says we have to.
> be
> - that only the U.S. knows what is right and what is wrong? That
> is what it sounds like.
Clearly the U.S. has made it clear that we respect the opinions of others.
this argument of you always think you are right, is stupid. Obviously
everyone believes that all the opinions they hold are right, or else they
would hold the opposit oppinion.
OTOH there are certain things some people feel strongly about, and
sometimes it is wise to defer in those cases. Obviously George Bush felt
strongly about Iraq. If the French and the Canadians are not going to
take that into account, then maybe the U.N. is truly doomed.
> >
> > It is the content of that particular
> > > resolution that brings
> > > the U.S. to wage war on Iraq. The U.S. is picking
> > > and choosing which
> > > resolutions it wants to enforce. That suggests that
> > > it is not at all
> > > interested in strengthening the UN.
> >
> > At our own expense, absolutely not.
>
> By that argument, no country should agree to do what the U.N.
> mandates if it is not in their interest to do so.
And that happens on a regulr basis, as you have already pointed out.
> Or is the U.S.
> the only country that has that right?
Every country has that "right" if they so choose. Shoot every country has
the "right" to say the U.N. is a bunch of egocentric idiots that we want
nothing to do with. Countries will only agree to remain part of the U.N.
because they feel it is a way to put diplomacy at the forefront. If that
diplomacy fails, and a country "looses" on an issue that they feel is
critical to their own interests, I have no doubt that they will put their
interests before U.N. mandates. You can also be sure that if the rest of
the U.N. does not
feel real strongly about the issue, they will do very little to make sure
that mandates are enforced.
>
> >
> > It is only
> > > interested in the UN if
> > > it can control it and use it to further its own
> > > interests. If it can't
> > > it wants to take its tanks and play on its own. The
> > > marble analogy isn't
> > > that far off.
> >
> > No you trying to compare the US military to some type
> > of toy and war to a game is rediculous. the U.S.
> > military represents a massive commitment in life and
> > money by the people of the United states to maintain a
> > military strong enough to thwart those who might harm
> > us. We will not allow it to be the tool of a bunch of
> > diplomats in the UN.
>
> So the UN is only supposed to exercise control over the behaviour
> of 'other' countries? What if everyone took that position?
Everyone does, when it comes to their own vital interests. Are you that
niave as to believe that countries really put U.N. resolutions before
their own interests?
> >
> > >
> > > The real test of whether we are dealing with a child
> > > or an adult in the
> > > White House will be whether Bush tries to punish
> > > economically countries
> > > that did not support it (Mexico, Canada, Russia,
> > > China, France, Germany
> > > etc.). I suspect that Bush is more child-like and
> > > petty than many think.
> >
> > This is complete Bull. A good argument can be made
> > that he French and Russians are not as tough on Iraq
> > as the U.S. because they have their own financial
> > deals with Sadam and it is in their econoic interest
> > not to see a stong U.S. presense in Iraq. Even when
> > Iraq was blatantly violating the UN, and Clinton was
> > considering action, The French were dragging their
> > feet.
> >
> > It is not child like for the United States to defend
> > it's own Military and Economic interests.
>
> Never said it was. I said it would be child-like to punish your
> friends because they disagreed with you on this - because they
> believe, honestly and strongly, that in the 21st century
> decisions to invade another and wreak havoc and misery upon the
> people should no longer be made without an international
> consensus.
"Havoc and Misery" For christ sakes, do you really believe that is what
we want to do? This type of language is what really gets me mad.
You are living in a dream world if you believe that you can get
"international consensus" for all military action that will be taken in
this world. In the real world the U.N. has to understand it's roll, and
bucking the U.S. on an issue that the U.S. clearly considers vital
will only reduce the ability of the U.N. to play a constructive roll in
the future.
>
> There is no international consensus on invading Iraq at this
> time. That consensus might emerge but it is not present yet.
Do you honestly believe that their will ever be a better time to solve
this problem then right now?
The U.S. obviously can not maintain the military presence necessary to
make
the militar option credible for an extended period. If we were to pull
all of our troops back now, it is basically over. Those troops will never
be brought back, and Sadam will remain in power, stronger than ever.
After a while he will claim that they have met their obligations and he
will call for an end to inspections, and the removal of U.N. restrictions.
He may even force inspectors out of Iraq.
What will we do then?
> And
> the US doesn't seem to care. That is the problem. And there are
> alot of Americans who agree with that.
Bologna. The U.S. went out of its way to try to get U.N. support. If
there was any hope at all that we could do something to win over the
French we would have done it, but they basically were not going to budge.
So why are we blamed for the difference in opinion? Why do we have to
defer? Why couldn't the French have come out and said we don't agree with
the U.S. but we do understand their point of view and we will defer to
them and abstain from this vote? Heaven forbid they do that, because that
would take real courage, because it would be very poitically unpopular at
home.
>
> If the U.S. respects its friends, and Canada and Mexico are
> certainly that, it will respect their right to disagree.
We respect your right to disagree. Make all the statements you want
disagreeing, but I believe true friends understand that there is a time
that you have to step back and let your friend do what is important to
him, even when you disagree. Obviously Mexico and Canada are not that
type of friend.
> The US
> will not play petty politics with friends that it respects by
> punishing them economically for disagreeing with them.
Oh, and petty poitics is not being played in Canada? Nobody up
their is deamonizing Bush in order to win votes?
> If you
> want that result, then I guess you can play those economic games.
What economic games are you talking about? If anything the Bush
administration will probably continue to push for more open economic
measure with the Canada. Are you sure that the anti NAFTA people aren't
going to be the ones who try to use this to their political advantage?
> We'll survive. But don't expect us to respect you or like what
> you do.
A large portion of your population never will anyway, so why should we
care?
>
> > It is child
> > like for others to be so niave as to believe that the
> > French and Russians don't have their own economic
> > intersts in mind during all of this.
> >
> > I fully expect that the United States will look more
> > favorably when it comes to economic assistance to the
> > countries in the world who have shown a willingness to
> > cooperate with us on Economic and Military matters.
> > Why in the hell shouldn't we. The United States has
> > shown unbelievable restraint given its overwhelming
> > economic and military power in deferring to the wishes
> > of other countries, and what has it earned us. A
> > bunch of self righteous French diplomats helping to
> > stir up anti-american sentiment in order to keep a
> > murdering dictator in power. It is surreal.
>
> I have never heard the French say that they wanted to keep Saddam
> Hussein, a murdering dictator, in power.
They have claimed that they will not support any resolution that leads to
war. Without war and no threat of war, how do you expect Sadam to be
removed from power?
> I have heard them say
> that they wanted to give more time for weapons inspectors to do
> their work and force Iraq to disarm and did not agree that war at
> this time was the best solution to the problem.
>
> BTW, since when does the U.S. justify taking out Saddam Hussein
> because he is a murdering dictator?
Can we grow up a little on this? Whether it is "equal" or not, the U.S.
is focussed on Iraq right now. The hope is that Irag will set a
president. We obviously can not expect to change the entire world over
night. This is the first step, and when this step is done we can all take
a deep breath and see if it makes sense to take another step.
> I thought this was about
> weapons of mass destruction.
Come on, honestly did you ever think that that is all this was about?
Are you saying that the U.S. will
> take the same action against ALl murdering dictators?
No, but this action, certainly will give them all pause.
> Or just
> murdering dictators in countries that are strategically important
> to the U.S.?
Strategically important dictators, definitely will be higher on our radar
screen, so this action should definitely give them even more reason to
believe that it is not in their best interest to do anything, like harbor
terrorists, that might cause the U.S. great concern.
Nice Bonus eh?
> Did the U.S. not support Saddam Hussein in the 80's
> when he was just as big a murdering dictator as he is now?
We didn't want to see him loose to the Iranians if that is what you mean.
That is real world politics. Do the anti-war people live in some kind of
vacuum, where they believe if you wish real hard, and refuse to ever
choose the lesser of two evils, that eveything will just magically work
out perfect?
> Ah,
> but then he was a common enemy of Iran - and therefore it was in
> the U.S. interests to support him.
And the problem with that is?
> Did the U.S. take out General Pinochet, Idi Amin, Papa Doc
> Duvalier because they were murdering dicators? No. The U.S.
> helped Pinochet depose the democratically elected government of
> Allende - because it was not in the U.S. interests for Chile to
> have a democratically elected leftist government.
And you would have preferred to have leftist revolutions with anti-amercan
leaders sweeping the hemisphere. Do you give any respect to the notion of
real politics at all?
> Don't tell us that the U.S. is taking out Saddam Hussein because
> he is a murdering dictator. No one believes that. Not even George
> W. Bush.
Right, so why did you say you thought that was the reason for the war?
All I said was the effect of French resistance to war is to keep Hussein
in power. That is just a fact, and it is indeed surreal.
>
> >
> > I don't agree with John that it is time to pull the
> > plug on the UN, but I am so sick of the name calling
> > against George Bush, that I can't help but think that
> > it is time for us to realize that it is a futile
> > effort to try to please the international community.
>
> It is only futile if you think the international community should
> always agree with the U.S.
I would never expect anyone to always agree. I would hope that friends
would realize their is a time to disagree less vociferously. Many times
countries simply abstain in order to show their difference, and also to
show their respect for the person they disagree with. I guess showing the
U.S. some defernce and respect, is to much to ask from some people.
>
> >
> > > I could be wrong. I hope I am.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I am so glad you think that I am "immature." As a
> > > matter of fact I am
> > > > heartened and uplifted by your vitriol.
> > >
> > > Gerry's comments sounded like a differing but
> > > reasoned view.
> > > I didn't
> > > see any vitriol.
> >
> > Comparing the President of the United States to a
> > child is vitriol IMO.
>
> I never said he was a child. I said I hoped that he wasn't a
> child.
Ok, then I hope you are not an ******** *** ****
Do you get my point?
I said it would be childish if he were to do certain
> things that his recent conduct suggests he might do -ie. punish
> countries economically for disagreeing on the Iraq position. It
> is his decision. Adults respect differences of views but try to
> get along. Children don't - they bully and intimidate.
And their is no intimidation going on when the French tell the Eastern
Europeans that if they want to be part of the European Union, the better
know when to keep their mouths shut?
Bush made it clear that he felt this issue was a chance for countries to
lay their cards on the table. Some countries chose to spit in his face
instead of quietly disagreeing. Only a child believes that actions do
not have consequences, and would call others bully's for holding them
responsible for their actions.
I see no reason that the United states should not increase economic
assistance to countries that have shown a willingness to be supportive
when we ask, and decrease our assistance to those who try their dambdest
to make our lives difficult.
>
> > The ignorant Dixie Chicks
> > making silly comments about the president is vitriol
> > IMO also. Fortunately I don't own any Dixie Chick's
> > CD's but I have no problem with people saying, I am
> > not going to support them financially, if they are
> > going to use their success to spout off on political
> > issues that they disagree with.
>
> What if they had come out in support of George W.? Would that
> have been ok?
I may have gone out and bought a Dixie chicks CD in that case. If anti
war protesters told people not to buy Charlie
Daniels CD's because he has come out strongly in support of the president,
I certainly would not start a thread implying that their is something
wrong with our country because of that.
Mike
>
> Andrew Mason
>
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > > Not until you spoke up, John.
> > >
> > > Andrew Mason
> > >
> > > >
> > > > God Bless America. I pray for our troops and our
> > > Commander In Chief.
> > > >
> > > > John E. Fiorentino> begin:vcard
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Name: a.mason.vcf
> Part 1.2 Type: text/x-vcard
> Encoding: 7bit
> Description: Card for Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Not the only party. And I don't necessarily mean heavy lifting. I
just meant that without U.S. support, how does the U.N. force
Israel, for example, to do something mandated by the U.N.? Would
the U.S. sit back and let Russian and Chinese troops do the
enforcement?
>
> This is what pisses Americans off.
Some Americans. About 40-50% don't support the war in Iraq. So
the war in Iraq pisses many Americans off too.
> We pay for the majority of the costs
> of the U.N.,
Since when? Hardly the majority of costs.
In fact, the U.S. was delinquent in meeting its financial
obligations to the U.N. for many years and was $1.6 billion
behind in its dues until last year. I am not sure if it is
current yet.
> we are expected to provide the overwhelming military
> pressence for the UN, but the likes of France and Even China have just
> as much power as the U.S. to singlehandedly thwart UN measures.
And the U.S. has the power to thwart China and France with its
veto. It has used it before and I am sure it did not expect
Russia and China to go ahead with their plans anyway.
What do you mean by "Even China". China has 1.2 billion people.
The U.S. has less than one quarter of that population. Both have
the same veto power.
>
> Now this one time when the U.S. goes out on a limb and says, hey guys we
> feel very strongly about this issue, so can't you just agree to let us
> do this, even if you may disagree, the answer is "no!" the French
> basically said we are gonna veto whatever might end up leading to war.
The issue your government feels strongly about is one that others
feel strongly against. In fact 40-50% of your population seems to
feel strongly against it too.
> And the French politicians are making great hay politically by "standing
> up to the U.S." while Blair is being accused of being a U.S. Lap dog.
Blair's own party and the British electorate are opposing him.
The French are not "standing up the U.S.". They are taking a
stand against waging what they believe is an unnecessary war.
> Well then why are you suprised that some here say, "screw that". It's
> not like we are asking the UN to give us permission to annex Canada.
> All we want to do is remove a leader who has and will
> behave in an irrational manner, and has a grudge against the
> U.S., and is in the heart of the most volatie region of the world, that
> we seriously fear that he represents a threat to our own security.
And when Canada has a leader who behaves in what the U.S.
believes is an irrational manner and who, in U.S. opinion but not
world opinion, represents a threat to the U.S., will you just
invade? Or will you listen to other countries who might disagree
with the U.S. assessment?
>
> Bush made it clear after Sept. 11th that the U.S. was going to fight the
> war against terror seriously and that Iraq was clearly on our radar
> screen. But absolutely no defference was going to be given by our
> "allies"
> the French and even the Canadian's.
On the contrary. If there was evidence that Saddam was harboring
terrorists bent on attacking the U.S., the world would probably
agree to what happened in Afghanistan. But we are still awaiting
that evidence. Without U.N. approval and without the existence of
an imminent threat of attack, the U.S. action is contrary to
international law. Why should we show deference to the breach of
international law?
The fact is that before 9/11 securing a military presence in the
Middle East was being advocated by current Bush advisors:
"Guarding the American security perimeter today and tomorrow will
require changes in U.S. deployments and installations overseas.
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more
permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need
for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends
the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (REBUILDING AMERICA'S
DEFENSES, Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, A
Report of The Project for the New American Century, September
2000, page 62)
It was acknowledged that this "need for a substantial American
force presence in the Gulf" would require a fundamental
transformation - such as through the installation of U.S. forces
in Iraq - but that "the process of transformation, even if it
brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent
some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor"
(ibid, p. 63)
This was written in September, 2000 remember. One year before
9/11.
The 9/11 events were the "Pearl Harbour type of catastrophic and
catalyzing event" that would trigger the public will to tolerate
invasion of Iraq. Rather than a natural extension of the war on
terrorism, a good argument can be made that 9/11 is simply the
pretext to do what the U.S. strategists wanted to do well before
9/11: to establish a firm permanent U.S. military presence in the
middle east.
That is why the US appears to be doing this. I will think
otherwise if the U.S. leaves Iraq without establishing a
permanent military presence there. But I doubt that will occur.
> Heaven forbid that appearing to defer
> to the U.S. might hurt
> some linberal politicians at home. There is no
> secret that fear mongering about the U.S. plays well politically in
> Canada, but it would have been nice if in deference to 9/11
The world did that in Afghanistan. They would do it again if
there was a evidence of a similar threat to the U.S. or any other
country from Iraq. The world is still waiting for that evidence.
President Bush had delivered alot of rhetoric but no evidence
yet.
> and the
> historical burden that the U.S. has shouldered in order to preserve
> freedom in the world, that your politicians could have summoned up enough
> courage to say, even though I may not feel that war is the best solution
> right now, I fully believe that the government of the United States is
> doing what they feel they have to do, and we will support them.
Why should the world the support the U.S. if the world doesn't
really support the U.S.?
Yeah, but it was the American revolutionaries who said "give me
liberty, or give me death". It was not the armed forces of some
other nation saying this as they were about to liberate the poor
downtrodden people of the American colonies.
>
> I should ask you, do you not feel the people of
> Iraq are entitled to that opportunity?
They are, but they may not get it with Saddam Hussein. That would
be too bad for them. But it is not our responsibility to remove
Saddam because he is not giving his people freedom - unless there
is a large international consensus to do that.
Alot of Iraqis will suffer if there is no such consensus. But
unless we insist on such a consensus, alot of stupid wars will
occur - they always have - and it will be only a matter of time
before we have WWIII. Guaranteed.
I guess that is the difference between a world in which
international conflict is subject to law and a world in which war
is determined unilaterally by governments trying to protect what
they believe are their interests - the philosophy of "the ends
justifies the means". Most other countries have chosen the
former.
The U.S. system breaks down if anyone else uses it. It does
nothing to prevent or resolve international conflict. What
happens when Russia wants to invade Iraq to protect their
interests? Or China wants to invade Korea? Or Zaire wants to
invade Rwanda? Or Syria wants to invade Israel? Or Burma wants to
invade Thailand? Or Indonesia wants to invade East Timor (again)?
>
> > be
> > - that only the U.S. knows what is right and what is wrong? That
> > is what it sounds like.
>
> Clearly the U.S. has made it clear that we respect the opinions of others.
> this argument of you always think you are right, is stupid. Obviously
> everyone believes that all the opinions they hold are right, or else they
> would hold the opposit oppinion.
>
> OTOH there are certain things some people feel strongly about, and
> sometimes it is wise to defer in those cases. Obviously George Bush felt
> strongly about Iraq. If the French and the Canadians are not going to
> take that into account, then maybe the U.N. is truly doomed.
We took that into account in Afghanstan. We don't see the
evidence for Iraq. If the U.N. is doomed because it doesn't
adhere to the U.S. philosophy of "good ends justify any means",
perhaps that is a good thing. Perhaps that would be better than a
U.N. that always carries out or sanctions war when the U.S.
really wants it, which is what you seem to be saying.
>
> > >
> > > It is the content of that particular
> > > > resolution that brings
> > > > the U.S. to wage war on Iraq. The U.S. is picking
> > > > and choosing which
> > > > resolutions it wants to enforce. That suggests that
> > > > it is not at all
> > > > interested in strengthening the UN.
> > >
> > > At our own expense, absolutely not.
> >
> > By that argument, no country should agree to do what the U.N.
> > mandates if it is not in their interest to do so.
>
> And that happens on a regulr basis, as you have already pointed out.
>
> > Or is the U.S.
> > the only country that has that right?
>
> Every country has that "right" if they so choose. Shoot every country has
> the "right" to say the U.N. is a bunch of egocentric idiots that we want
> nothing to do with. Countries will only agree to remain part of the U.N.
> because they feel it is a way to put diplomacy at the forefront. If that
> diplomacy fails, and a country "looses" on an issue that they feel is
> critical to their own interests, I have no doubt that they will put their
> interests before U.N. mandates.
Not if the U.S. disagrees with their interests. Then the U.S.
will use the U.N. sanction as a reason for stopping their
unilateral action.
> You can also be sure that if the rest of
> the U.N. does not
> feel real strongly about the issue, they will do very little to make sure
> that mandates are enforced.
>
> >
> > >
> > > It is only
> > > > interested in the UN if
> > > > it can control it and use it to further its own
> > > > interests. If it can't
> > > > it wants to take its tanks and play on its own. The
> > > > marble analogy isn't
> > > > that far off.
> > >
> > > No you trying to compare the US military to some type
> > > of toy and war to a game is rediculous. the U.S.
> > > military represents a massive commitment in life and
> > > money by the people of the United states to maintain a
> > > military strong enough to thwart those who might harm
> > > us. We will not allow it to be the tool of a bunch of
> > > diplomats in the UN.
> >
> > So the UN is only supposed to exercise control over the behaviour
> > of 'other' countries? What if everyone took that position?
>
> Everyone does, when it comes to their own vital interests. Are you that
> niave as to believe that countries really put U.N. resolutions before
> their own interests?
Yes. Many will respect U.N. resolutions even if they didn't vote
for them. They respect the U.N. process. Just like I respect and
follow court orders that I have argued against. That is what
happens in an orderly society or world. The U.S. has argued its
case and lost. It is going to go ahead anyway.
We are not arguing that the U.S. has a right to invade another
country that is actually threatening to attack the U.S.
International law recognizes that right. What it does not
recognize is a right to wage war and invade and occupy Iraq when
there is no imminent threat of attack, just a pretext of such a
possible future attack without any evidence. Of course when you
carry the big stick, you don't have to worry. You know you will
get away with it.
Oh, you don't think the raining of bombs and cruise missiles on
Iraq is going to wreak havoc and misery on many Iraqis?
> You are living in a dream world if you believe that you can get
> "international consensus" for all military action that will be taken in
> this world.
You don't describe a 'dream' world. Perhaps a nightmare world.
I think the prospect for an "international consensus" for
reasonable and justified military action is possible. But not for
ALL. Why would you want to have a consensus for ALL military
action?
> In the real world the U.N. has to understand it's roll, and
> bucking the U.S. on an issue that the U.S. clearly considers vital
> will only reduce the ability of the U.N. to play a constructive roll in
> the future.
At least 40-50% of Americans don't consider it vital. 9/11 was
just the event that gave rise to the political will to act; it is
not the reason it is acting.
The Gulf of Tonkin gave the U.S. the political pretext to step up
the war on Vietnam. 9/11 was real, of course. But its use to
justify the military action in Iraq appears to be a similar
political slight of hand.
>
> >
> > There is no international consensus on invading Iraq at this
> > time. That consensus might emerge but it is not present yet.
>
> Do you honestly believe that their will ever be a better time to solve
> this problem then right now?
>
> The U.S. obviously can not maintain the military presence necessary to
> make the militar option credible for an extended period.
I hope you are wrong there. I think U.S. troops are going to be
needed in Iraq for years in order to prevent civil war. But,
needed or not, they are going to remain there because it is in
U.S. interest to remain there.
> If we were to pull
> all of our troops back now, it is basically over. Those troops will never
> be brought back,
Why? Are you saying that we are going to war now just because its
more expensive to do it later? Seems like a pretty flimsy excuse.
If a later war would not be worth bringing the troops back for,
perhaps it is not worth wasting all those Iraqi lives now.
> and Sadam will remain in power, stronger than ever.
>
> After a while he will claim that they have met their obligations and he
> will call for an end to inspections, and the removal of U.N. restrictions.
> He may even force inspectors out of Iraq.
>
> What will we do then?
I don't think it would be difficult to get an international
consensus to remove Saddam Hussein by force if that unfolded. On
the other hand, inspectors might actually succeed in identifying
chemical and biological weapons and having them destroyed. We
can't predict the future.
>
> > And
> > the US doesn't seem to care. That is the problem. And there are
> > alot of Americans who agree with that.
>
> Bologna. The U.S. went out of its way to try to get U.N. support. If
> there was any hope at all that we could do something to win over the
> French we would have done it, but they basically were not going to budge.
> So why are we blamed for the difference in opinion? Why do we have to
> defer? Why couldn't the French have come out and said we don't agree with
> the U.S. but we do understand their point of view and we will defer to
> them and abstain from this vote? Heaven forbid they do that, because that
> would take real courage, because it would be very poitically unpopular at
> home.
I think that if France was the only country against the war, it
would not have used its veto. It would not dare to do that. It
would do what the U.S., China and Russia have done many times and
abstain. France would only use its veto because Russia and China
did not support war at this time either.
> >
> > If the U.S. respects its friends, and Canada and Mexico are
> > certainly that, it will respect their right to disagree.
>
> We respect your right to disagree. Make all the statements you want
> disagreeing, but I believe true friends understand that there is a time
> that you have to step back and let your friend do what is important to
> him, even when you disagree. Obviously Mexico and Canada are not that
> type of friend.
Are we stopping you? Our government is not criticising the U.S.
It just refuses to participate in the war without U.N. approval.
You are describing an intimidated American lackey, not a friend.
True friends that have U.S. respect don't do that. If they
disagree, they tell you to your face and tell you why. True
friends expect to have their views respected. If the U.S. takes
that attitude, it is not going to have many friends.
>
> > The US
> > will not play petty politics with friends that it respects by
> > punishing them economically for disagreeing with them.
>
> Oh, and petty poitics is not being played in Canada? Nobody up
> their is deamonizing Bush in order to win votes?
Maybe a few petty politicians. But not the government.
>
> > If you
> > want that result, then I guess you can play those economic games.
>
> What economic games are you talking about? If anything the Bush
> administration will probably continue to push for more open economic
> measure with the Canada. Are you sure that the anti NAFTA people aren't
> going to be the ones who try to use this to their political advantage?
The U.S. is the only one using or ingnoring NAFTA for political
reasons that I am aware of. E.g. softwood lumber, wheat.
>
> > We'll survive. But don't expect us to respect you or like what
> > you do.
>
> A large portion of your population never will anyway, so why should we
> care?
Because we are neighbours. Neighbours respect each other so long
as they follow the rules. The U.S. has a habit of changing the
rules when they don't like them. That is what we dislike. We like
Americans. My mother cried when JFK died just like millions of
others in the U.S. and around the world. I suspect JFK would not
be doing what Bush is doing. I also suspect that he would not
have staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident (I had to get this
discussion back to JFK somehow).
>
> >
> > > It is child
> > > like for others to be so niave as to believe that the
> > > French and Russians don't have their own economic
> > > intersts in mind during all of this.
> > >
> > > I fully expect that the United States will look more
> > > favorably when it comes to economic assistance to the
> > > countries in the world who have shown a willingness to
> > > cooperate with us on Economic and Military matters.
> > > Why in the hell shouldn't we. The United States has
> > > shown unbelievable restraint given its overwhelming
> > > economic and military power in deferring to the wishes
> > > of other countries, and what has it earned us. A
> > > bunch of self righteous French diplomats helping to
> > > stir up anti-american sentiment in order to keep a
> > > murdering dictator in power. It is surreal.
> >
> > I have never heard the French say that they wanted to keep Saddam
> > Hussein, a murdering dictator, in power.
>
> They have claimed that they will not support any resolution that leads to
> war. Without war and no threat of war, how do you expect Sadam to be
> removed from power?
France never said they would not support removing Saddam by
force. They just said it is premature to go to war at this time.
What are you referring to?
So it is their strategic importance and not the fact that they
are murdering dictators. I think you answered the question.
>
> > Did the U.S. not support Saddam Hussein in the 80's
> > when he was just as big a murdering dictator as he is now?
>
> We didn't want to see him loose to the Iranians if that is what you mean.
>
> That is real world politics. Do the anti-war people live in some kind of
> vacuum, where they believe if you wish real hard, and refuse to ever
> choose the lesser of two evils, that eveything will just magically work
> out perfect?
No. I think most people accepted the Afghanistan action, Kosovo,
even the first Gulf War. Not much protest there. On the other
hand, there seems to be an awful lot of protest on this Iraq
action. Or haven't you noticed? Why do you think that is
happening? Are today's anti-war people all too stupid to
understand what is happening?
>
> > Ah,
> > but then he was a common enemy of Iran - and therefore it was in
> > the U.S. interests to support him.
>
> And the problem with that is?
The problem is that you are now trying to use the fact that he is
a murderous dictator to justify the present action. There is not
just a little hypocrisy there.
Even Bush is hypocritical. He stands up in front of the UN and
argues that Iraq should be invaded because it harbours terrorists
- the Mujahadin - and mentions that they have committed terrorist
acts against Iran!! The U.S. supported the Mujahadin BECAUSE it
was attacking Iran.
>
> > Did the U.S. take out General Pinochet, Idi Amin, Papa Doc
> > Duvalier because they were murdering dicators? No. The U.S.
> > helped Pinochet depose the democratically elected government of
> > Allende - because it was not in the U.S. interests for Chile to
> > have a democratically elected leftist government.
>
> And you would have preferred to have leftist revolutions with anti-amercan
> leaders sweeping the hemisphere.
I can't believe you really said that. Is a country only entitled
to have a democratically elected government if the government is
pro-American? Does this mean that a country that elects a
government to carry out much needed land reform - taking back
land from large American companies like United Fruit Co. in order
to further the interests of its people - cannot do it because
this is hostile to American interests?
> Do you give any respect to the notion of
> real politics at all?
As in the communist domino effect? No I don't. I actually believe
that people should be able to choose their own government
regardless of its 'left' or 'right' orientation.
>
> > Don't tell us that the U.S. is taking out Saddam Hussein because
> > he is a murdering dictator. No one believes that. Not even George
> > W. Bush.
>
> Right, so why did you say you thought that was the reason for the war?
Because that is what your goverment has been saying is the reason
for war.
>
> All I said was the effect of French resistance to war is to keep Hussein
> in power. That is just a fact, and it is indeed surreal.
I guess we have different definitions of surreal.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I don't agree with John that it is time to pull the
> > > plug on the UN, but I am so sick of the name calling
> > > against George Bush, that I can't help but think that
> > > it is time for us to realize that it is a futile
> > > effort to try to please the international community.
> >
> > It is only futile if you think the international community should
> > always agree with the U.S.
>
> I would never expect anyone to always agree. I would hope that friends
> would realize their is a time to disagree less vociferously. Many times
> countries simply abstain in order to show their difference, and also to
> show their respect for the person they disagree with. I guess showing the
> U.S. some defernce and respect, is to much to ask from some people.
No vociferous language coming from Canada. Just a polite, 'sorry,
we won't participate without UN approval' from Canada.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > I could be wrong. I hope I am.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am so glad you think that I am "immature." As a
> > > > matter of fact I am
> > > > > heartened and uplifted by your vitriol.
> > > >
> > > > Gerry's comments sounded like a differing but
> > > > reasoned view.
> > > > I didn't
> > > > see any vitriol.
> > >
> > > Comparing the President of the United States to a
> > > child is vitriol IMO.
> >
> > I never said he was a child. I said I hoped that he wasn't a
> > child.
>
> Ok, then I hope you are not an ******** *** ****
>
> Do you get my point?
No.
>
> I said it would be childish if he were to do certain
> > things that his recent conduct suggests he might do -ie. punish
> > countries economically for disagreeing on the Iraq position. It
> > is his decision. Adults respect differences of views but try to
> > get along. Children don't - they bully and intimidate.
>
> And their is no intimidation going on when the French tell the Eastern
> Europeans that if they want to be part of the European Union, the better
> know when to keep their mouths shut?
>
> Bush made it clear that he felt this issue was a chance for countries to
> lay their cards on the table. Some countries chose to spit in his face
> instead of quietly disagreeing. Only a child believes that actions do
> not have consequences, and would call others bully's for holding them
> responsible for their actions.
>
> I see no reason that the United states should not increase economic
> assistance to countries that have shown a willingness to be supportive
> when we ask, and decrease our assistance to those who try their dambdest
> to make our lives difficult.
That sounds like buying support to me.
Andrew Mason
Michael Russ
I have said about all I want to on this Off topic subject.
All I can say was I am glad to see that your prime minister said today it
is time to stop the America bashing, and I hope that the people of Iraq
will soon be rid of Saddam Hussein and have a chance to rebuild their
country into the prosperous peace loving nation that it is capable of
being.
Mike
Jerry Organ
>All I can say was I am glad to see
>that your prime minister said today
>it is time to stop the America
>bashing, and I hope that the people
>of Iraq will soon be rid of Saddam
>Hussein and have a chance to rebuild
>their country into the prosperous
>peace loving nation that it is capable
>of being.
Golly. Chretien's statement made it onto the US media?
Amazing. It seemed for awhile that the only time the US media paid attention to
foreign leaders was when they dared oppose USG intentions.
Perhaps the Bushites realize it's time to stop bashing the world community and
UN, and has relayed that message to its corporate partners who control the US
media.
The Bush administration has been proudly citing the 30 or 40 or more countries
that it says now support the attack. The so-called "Coalition of the Willing"
as if those countries who saw armed aggression as a last resort were
"unwilling" to see Saddam disarmed.
Seems Bushites still have a way to go when it comes to international diplomacy.
Jerry Organ
---------
Bud
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the good discussion. I wish your armed forces well. May it be
> as short and painless as possible, may they take out the bad guy and may
> they not start WWIII.
>
> Andrew Mason
If WWIII ever does start, it will be because nothing was done early
enough to avert it. I wonder what the the UN will do about that
whack-job (you know he`s a kook when he`s so insecure that he needs a
title like"His most illustrious ray of light, invincible grand
poohbar...) in North Korea who has just started a program to deliver
his nukes by missle. What will they do when he completes these plans,
and demands that South Korea reunify with the North (under him, of
course). Shall we follow the UN`s example, and just keep our fingers
crossed that that doesn`t happen?
-Bud
Michael Russ
don't think it advisable to follow Chetien's
advice.
Mike
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
Jerry Organ
>I take it from this post you
>don't think it advisable to
>follow Chetien's advice.
Even in the face of a polite post, some Yanks feel it necessary to demontrate
how they like to be confrontational and foster animosity. Can't imagine
Bushites being fairminded towards a devastated Iraq.
Furthermore, I don't believe I was "bashing" the US, if that's the thrust of
your Chretien reference.
I pointed to a hopeful change in the Bush administration's and its media
surrogate's attitude towards fellow citizens of the world, while noting
correctly its old out-of-step habits die hard.
The "coalition of the willing" is certainly a dig at those who sought more
creative means than eager application of blunt military force.
It pains me to imagine how hateful and aggressive some arch-right Bushites will
be towards the world community when flushed with victory.
The next time, maybe not even Britain will side with an overly-arrogant USG.
If so, will the USG agree to negotiate or go its own way? The "big stick"
approach only goes so far.
Jerry Organ
----------
Michael Russ
> Michael Russ wrote:
>
> >I take it from this post you
> >don't think it advisable to
> >follow Chetien's advice.
>
> Even in the face of a polite post, some Yanks feel
> it necessary to demontrate
> how they like to be confrontational and foster
> animosity.
I don't understand this.
I bowed out graciously, allowing Andrew to have the
last word, and I only quoted Cretien as a way of
pointing out that hopefully there was some hope that
we can put this all behind us, and I am now being
accused of fostering animosity?
Andrew made a polite response, and I considered the
thread dead until you came in bashing the U.S. Media
and our President. (BTW why did you snip your
response if you didn't feel you were bashing)
I wished well to the people of Iraq in becoming a
prosperous and peacefull nation, and you reply by
mentioning "how hateful and aggressive" some
American's might be. I give up Jerry, you must be
right. I don't know how the rest of the world can put
up with us arrogant americans.
Mike
Jerry Organ
>I bowed out graciously, allowing
>Andrew to have the last word,
>and I only quoted Cretien as a
>way of pointing out that hopefully
>there was some hope that we
>can put this all behind us, and I
>am now being accused of
>fostering animosity?
And I noted the same hope was evident in the Bush Administration. No? That's
basically all I did.
>Andrew made a polite response,
>and I considered the thread dead
>until you came in bashing the U.S.
>Media and our President.
Then came your response to me. The only "bashing" I noted was the "coalition of
the willing" being a dig at other world leaders. Do you not agree?
A lot of the trouble the USG invites on itself flows from its use of language.
>(BTW why did you snip your response
>if you didn't feel you were bashing)
Did my response not mention "bashing" and refer to the American media as USG
surrogates? Frankly, I don't see much independent media scrutiny in the USA
today.
I noticed today that Rummy is now able to silence the Washington Press Corps by
"shhhhing" them. The press might as well have strings attached to them.
>I wished well to the people of
>Iraq in becoming a prosperous
>and peacefull nation, and you
>reply by mentioning "how hateful
>and aggressive" some
>American's might be.
Well, this seems a bit selective.
Your post also mentioned something about the US "shouldering the burden of
peace on its shoulder." What? All other nations have been doing nothing for the
last century?
Then there's the old line about Americans "inventing" liberty and democracy, as
if there was no contribution from others before and since.
I know you Yanks have been fed this version since grade school, but don't
expect the rest of the world to see everything from an American perspective.
Not too many in Canada, let alone overseas, believe the US has been so purely
conceived and nurtured.
Sure, it'll be great to see Iraq liberated. But the USG had used "liberty and
freedom" more as a pretext than a principal. How long before that principal is
allowed to flourish?
I suspect the occupation of Iraq is merely pre-staging for the invasion of
Iran. And that country hasn't been softened up by years of UN sanctions and
weapons inspection.
Thanks to the global peace movement and British insistence, the coalition has
opted for a first-strike against the leadership. The coalition has so far
avoided destroying the country's skeletal infrastructure, so as to not cause
undue hardship to the innocent.
I am grateful to see the war proceeding that way. If I had known beforehand
this would have been the means, I might have been more supportive.
However, I must also give credit to the UN and certain world leaders who last
fall compelled Bush to hesitate and reflect on the war's human cost.
>I give up Jerry, you must be right.
>I don't know how the rest of the
>world can put up with us arrogant
>americans.
More selectiveness. Did I say any and all Americans? Ot that all the world
hates them? Read:
"It pains me to imagine how
hateful and aggressive
some arch-right Bushites
will be towards the world
community when flushed
with victory."
Is that any and all Americans?
Or a reference to the handful of Bush extremists who seem hellbent on
dismantling the UN and international law, with their opting out (without even
negotiating) of things like SALT, Kyoto and the International Criminal Court.
You Americans might trust the Pentagon to build a SDI shield, but to those
outside it, it could be considered a provocation.
Jerry Organ
----------
Bud
> Michael Russ wrote:
>
> >I take it from this post you
> >don't think it advisable to
> >follow Chetien's advice.
>
> Even in the face of a polite post, some Yanks feel it necessary to demontrate
> how they like to be confrontational and foster animosity. Can't imagine
> Bushites being fairminded towards a devastated Iraq.
>
against Iraq "Bushites", that is confrontational, and fosters
animosity. Maybe you cannot imagine my country being fairminded
towards a devasted Iraq, being as ignorant of history as you`ve proven
youself to be. Who do you think rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII?
Canada?
> Furthermore, I don't believe I was "bashing" the US, if that's the thrust of
> your Chretien reference.
>
> I pointed to a hopeful change in the Bush administration's and its media
> surrogate's attitude towards fellow citizens of the world, while noting
> correctly its old out-of-step habits die hard.
>
> The "coalition of the willing" is certainly a dig at those who sought more
> creative means than eager application of blunt military force.
>
Were those "creative means" the UN passing more resolutions they had
no intention of backing up? Saddam saw no reason to comply even when
staring right down the throat of "eager application of blunt military
force". Somehow, I don`t think fear of a paper-cut from the latest UN
"last chance" was going to sway him.
> It pains me to imagine how hateful and aggressive some arch-right Bushites will
> be towards the world community when flushed with victory.
>
> The next time, maybe not even Britain will side with an overly-arrogant USG.
>
That will be up to them. We appreciate any friend willing stand by
us during trying times. We stood up to Facism. We stood up to
Communism. We will stand up to Islamic extremism. We will stand up to
dictators we feel are a threat to us. Counties that agree with us are
welcome to help. Overly-jealous countries are welcome to kiss our
asses.
> If so, will the USG agree to negotiate or go its own way? The "big stick"
> approach only goes so far.
>
You don`t blame the firemen for putting out the fire.
-Bud
Andrew Mason
Bud,
You raise a very good point. Traditional legal justifications for
attacking another country do not take into account the very real
need to prevent the build up of weapons of mass destruction in
so-called rogue nations- those that show no willingness to adhere
to international norms of behaviour.
That is precisely why, if there had been some good evidence that
Saddam Hussein had built up weapons of mass destruction and was
not willing to destroy them, the world community likely would
have agreed to disarm Iraq by force.
This latest Iraq situation was not a case of the UN seeing the
clear evidence that Iraq was refusing to disarm itself of weapons
of mass destruction and the UN sitting back and saying 'yes, we
know, but we still don't think military action is a good idea'.
It certainly did not do that. FWIW I don't think the UN would
have done that. But if it did, the U.S. would have a very good
case for going into Iraq to remove the government, and destroy
its weapons and capacity to make those weapons and remain in
occupation until a stable democratic government was in place that
was willing to behave appropriately in the world community.
But Mike said himself that this whole Iraq thing had nothing to
do, really, with weapons of mass destruction. It appears to have
some other purposes. I have suggested what I think the purposes
might be and why.
No doubt North Korea will be next. It will provide a true test of
the UN's resolve to prevent weapons of mass destructions getting
into the hands of rogue powers because North Korea openly admits
it. I agree that they cannot be permitted to proceed with these
plans. But the specter of the US going in alone into Korea is not
a pleasant one. An invasion of Korea will need either UN approval
or at least a very broad international consensus.
Andrew Mason
Jerry Organ
>When you refer to the 72% on
>Americans who suppost the
>action against Iraq "Bushites",
>that is confrontational, and
>fosters animosity.
Bud, that is the new poll results post-invasion. It was more
evenly-divided pre-invasion. Americans traditionally get behind their
Presidents during times of war.
Much of that newfound support is tendered towards the "troops", and not
necessarily a direct acceptance of Bush policy.
I think Ole' Bush had an approval rating of 80-percent or more, yet went
on to lose the '92 election.
>Maybe you cannot imagine my country
>being fairminded towards a devasted
>Iraq, being as ignorant of history as
>you`ve proven youself to be.
Gee, Bud, where did I get the idea for this:
"Even in the face of a polite
post, some Yanks feel it
necessary to demonstrate
how they like to be
confrontational and foster
animosity."
(Note: "some Yanks")
>Who do you think rebuilt Germany
>and Japan after WWII? Canada?
Not really in dispute. Though other countries assisted; and would have
contributed more had they not experienced firsthand war devastation (ie:
the US did not post-Pearl).
What I dislike is the characterization that the US "shouldered the burden
of peace" singlehandedly for the last century. Britain, France, and, yes,
Canada, have played significant roles in peacekeeping. Roles that seem too
readily overlooked in the US.
Those countries, plus Russia and others (ie: Australia, India, even Iraq
and Iran), played enormous and vital roles in winning the two World Wars.
Perhaps, Bud, your "history" is too influenced by Hollywood war movies
that downplay the contributions of the Allies.
>Were those "creative means" the
>UN passing more resolutions they
>had no intention of backing up?
The UN resolutions forced Saddam out of Kuwait. UN resolutions reduced
significantly Saddam's stockpiles. UN resolutions isolated the country and
prevented the military from rearming with more-modern weapons.
Just a few weeks ago, some 40-or-so long-range missiles were destroyed
under UN demands. Thank the UN for a weakened Saddam; and for providing a
supposed pretext for the US-led invasion.
Now that the coalition is inside Iraq, it should soon be relatively easy
to confirm the USG's assertion that Saddam hid stockpiles of banned
weapons. We'll see.
>Saddam saw no reason to comply
>even when staring right down the
>throat of "eager application of
>blunt military force".
So says the Pentagon and Bushites. The UN and CIA disputed much of that.
>Somehow, I don`t think fear of
>a paper-cut from the latest UN
>"last chance" was going to sway him.
God bless the UN. Someday it may have to curb the world's rogue
superpower.
>That will be up to them. We
>appreciate any friend willing
>stand by us during trying times.
>We stood up to Facism. We
stood up to Communism.
By "we," I hope you mean international partnerships like the UN and NATO.
And the Allies in the World Wars.
>We will stand up to Islamic
>extremism. We will stand
>up to dictators we feel
>are a threat to us.
UN-sanctioned actions are one thing; unrestrained USG unilateralism is
another.
No one outside the US wants the world to be dictated from Washington. No
one.
The Bush doctrine has exploited paranoia and converted it into policy. It
means military and corporate interests took over while the core
constitutional principals that made the country great have been severely
weakened.
>Counties that agree with us are
>welcome to help. Overly-jealous
>countries are welcome to kiss
>our asses.
Hee hee. Nice diplomacy. Seems I'm on the mark with:
"It pains me to imagine how
hateful and aggressive some
arch-right Bushites will be
towards the world community
when flushed with victory."
Jerry Organ
----------
Michael Russ
I really want to get out of this discussion, but just to clear things
up. I don't think I ever said "this whole Iraq thing had nothing to do,
really, with weapons of mass destruction"
I think there are multiple reasons for "this whole Iraq thing", and
weapons of mass destruction is certainly one of them.
Mike
Bud
destruction. I believe that the first war was about oil, but not in the
wat the left would have you believe. It was about keeping oil revenus out
of Saddam`s hands, so he couldn`t use it tp pursue weapons programs. It
was also about promoting stability in the area, protecting our interests
(Saudi Arabia), ect. But, I think what happened is, after 9-11, the US
re-evauated threats to us. We looked at Iraq, and the reports were that he
was trying to get his hands on weapons of mass destruction, and would as
long as he was the leader of Iraq. To put it simply, if you get in a beef
with a guy, and you know hes a kook, and you kick his ass, and later you
hear he is trying to get ahold of a weapon, and you think it`s to be used
against you, you better take some action before he gets the weapon, to
protect yourself, even if your friends feel you are over-reacting.
> No doubt North Korea will be next. It will provide a true test of
> the UN's resolve to prevent weapons of mass destructions getting
> into the hands of rogue powers because North Korea openly admits
> it. I agree that they cannot be permitted to proceed with these
> plans. But the specter of the US going in alone into Korea is not
> a pleasant one. An invasion of Korea will need either UN approval
> or at least a very broad international consensus.
>
I would hope that China would take a larger role in keeping North Korea
in line. It`s thier evil step-child, they should disipline it. They have
as much to lose as everyone else if this escalates.
-Bud
WinBear
On 21-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> That is precisely why, if there had been some good evidence that
> Saddam Hussein had built up weapons of mass destruction and was
> not willing to destroy them, the world community likely would
> have agreed to disarm Iraq by force.
After Colin Powell proved this, nothing happened.
Hussain wouldn't wait for UN approval before putting his weapons to use.
Joining the UN is not a suicide pact. We have the right to defend ourselves.
Now that Saddam is using the Scuds "he didn't have", the world should be on
our side... we were right and the UN was wrong.
End of story.
WinBear
Bud
> Bud wrote:
>
> >When you refer to the 72% on
> >Americans who suppost the
> >action against Iraq "Bushites",
> >that is confrontational, and
> >fosters animosity.
>
> Bud, that is the new poll results post-invasion. It was more
> evenly-divided pre-invasion. Americans traditionally get behind their
> Presidents during times of war.
>
> Much of that newfound support is tendered towards the "troops", and not
> necessarily a direct acceptance of Bush policy.
>
it asked Americans if they supported the war against Iraq. I`ll get
the exact context next time they flash that poll.
> I think Ole' Bush had an approval rating of 80-percent or more, yet went
> on to lose the '92 election.
>
I have no problem with Bush Jr not being re-elected if the American
people don`t like this action, or any other reason. That`s the great
thing about democracy. Maybe someday, the Iraqi people will enjoy the
same luxury.
> >Maybe you cannot imagine my country
> >being fairminded towards a devasted
> >Iraq, being as ignorant of history as
> >you`ve proven youself to be.
>
> Gee, Bud, where did I get the idea for this:
> "Even in the face of a polite
> post, some Yanks feel it
> necessary to demonstrate
> how they like to be
> confrontational and foster
> animosity."
>
> (Note: "some Yanks")
>
So you were talking generally about "some Yanks", and I was talking
specifically about one cannuk, you.
> >Who do you think rebuilt Germany
> >and Japan after WWII? Canada?
>
> Not really in dispute. Though other countries assisted; and would have
> contributed more had they not experienced firsthand war devastation (ie:
> the US did not post-Pearl).
>
> What I dislike is the characterization that the US "shouldered the burden
> of peace" singlehandedly for the last century. Britain, France, and, yes,
> Canada, have played significant roles in peacekeeping. Roles that seem too
> readily overlooked in the US.
>
The way things "seem" to you have no connection to the real world.
> Those countries, plus Russia and others (ie: Australia, India, even Iraq
> and Iran), played enormous and vital roles in winning the two World Wars.
>
> Perhaps, Bud, your "history" is too influenced by Hollywood war movies
> that downplay the contributions of the Allies.
>
As usual, you assign me a position, then attack the position you
assign me. I wasn`t downplaying other countries contributions. I was
pointing out that America has stood up to evil in the past, and will
in the future. Other countries that share our view are more then
welcome to stand alongside us, and help.
> >Were those "creative means" the
> >UN passing more resolutions they
> >had no intention of backing up?
>
> The UN resolutions forced Saddam out of Kuwait. UN resolutions reduced
> significantly Saddam's stockpiles. UN resolutions isolated the country and
> prevented the military from rearming with more-modern weapons.
>
> Just a few weeks ago, some 40-or-so long-range missiles were destroyed
> under UN demands. Thank the UN for a weakened Saddam; and for providing a
> supposed pretext for the US-led invasion.
>
> Now that the coalition is inside Iraq, it should soon be relatively easy
> to confirm the USG's assertion that Saddam hid stockpiles of banned
> weapons. We'll see.
>
But will you believe what you see?
> >Saddam saw no reason to comply
> >even when staring right down the
> >throat of "eager application of
> >blunt military force".
>
> So says the Pentagon and Bushites. The UN and CIA disputed much of that.
>
> >Somehow, I don`t think fear of
> >a paper-cut from the latest UN
> >"last chance" was going to sway him.
>
> God bless the UN. Someday it may have to curb the world's rogue
> superpower.
>
Canada can make itself subservient to the UN if it wishes. The
United States of America is a sovereign country.
> >That will be up to them. We
> >appreciate any friend willing
> >stand by us during trying times.
> >We stood up to Facism. We
> stood up to Communism.
>
> By "we," I hope you mean international partnerships like the UN and NATO.
> And the Allies in the World Wars.
>
No, by "we", I was refering to America`s track record of standing up
to evil. Your mistake if you infer that means the US was doing it
alone.
> >We will stand up to Islamic
> >extremism. We will stand
> >up to dictators we feel
> >are a threat to us.
>
> UN-sanctioned actions are one thing; unrestrained USG unilateralism is
> another.
>
> No one outside the US wants the world to be dictated from Washington. No
> one.
>
US foreign policy is dictated by Washington. The UN will never
dictate US foreign policy, unless it is in our best interests to do
so.
> The Bush doctrine has exploited paranoia and converted it into policy. It
> means military and corporate interests took over while the core
> constitutional principals that made the country great have been severely
> weakened.
>
Or, Bush doctrine will be proven correct, and leftist idealism will
be severely weakened. Isn`t that what you fear, Jerry?
> >Counties that agree with us are
> >welcome to help. Overly-jealous
> >countries are welcome to kiss
> >our asses.
>
> Hee hee. Nice diplomacy. Seems I'm on the mark with:
> "It pains me to imagine how
> hateful and aggressive some
> arch-right Bushites will be
> towards the world community
> when flushed with victory."
>
Wasn`t trying to be diplomatic. But, if I appear harsh against the
countries that oppose this action, that is not my intent. I love
Canada, Germany, even France, any country that allows it`s people to
live free. Some wouldn`t extend that freedom to others.
-Bud
> Jerry Organ
>
> ----------
banwllm5
>are flat out rejected.
>
>Your response is to say: I'm going to take my marbles and I won't play
>with you anymore!
>
>So damned immature!
>
>Clinton said something very wise when he said that we should work to
>create a world that we'd like to live in - even when we're not top dog.
>
>Jerry
>
bold as to extend this--uh--critique to Grenada? Or the just announced
wholesale repeal of regulations on releasing documents?
Bill B
Bud
> Michael Russ wrote:
>
> >I bowed out graciously, allowing
> >Andrew to have the last word,
> >and I only quoted Cretien as a
> >way of pointing out that hopefully
> >there was some hope that we
> >can put this all behind us, and I
> >am now being accused of
> >fostering animosity?
>
> And I noted the same hope was evident in the Bush Administration. No? That's
> basically all I did.
>
> >Andrew made a polite response,
> >and I considered the thread dead
> >until you came in bashing the U.S.
> >Media and our President.
>
> Then came your response to me. The only "bashing" I noted was the "coalition of
> the willing" being a dig at other world leaders. Do you not agree?
>
> A lot of the trouble the USG invites on itself flows from its use of language.
>
coalition of the unwilling only has "bitch and moan".
> >(BTW why did you snip your response
> >if you didn't feel you were bashing)
>
> Did my response not mention "bashing" and refer to the American media as USG
> surrogates? Frankly, I don't see much independent media scrutiny in the USA
> today.
>
> I noticed today that Rummy is now able to silence the Washington Press Corps by
> "shhhhing" them. The press might as well have strings attached to them.
>
We have our free media covering the bombs and planes taking off,
and we have them reporting right where they`re landing. They have
reporters in with the troops. The whole affair is amazingly open.
What, they`re not putting the spin you want them to, Jerry? I can
imagine the press in a country you would run... "You will report the
news as I see it".
> >I wished well to the people of
> >Iraq in becoming a prosperous
> >and peacefull nation, and you
> >reply by mentioning "how hateful
> >and aggressive" some
> >American's might be.
>
> Well, this seems a bit selective.
>
> Your post also mentioned something about the US "shouldering the burden of
> peace on its shoulder." What? All other nations have been doing nothing for the
> last century?
>
> Then there's the old line about Americans "inventing" liberty and democracy, as
> if there was no contribution from others before and since.
>
We didn`t invent liberty and democracy, but we perfected it. We
don`t belittle the contributions of others in our battles against the
evils in the world, but you belittle our efforts to make the world a
better place, you assign sinister reasons for our actions, like
grabbing oil. That`s look at the 1st gulf war, do you think that
coallition would have ever got off the ground if we didn`t push, deal,
ect? If we said "Let the UN handle it", Saddam would have been sitting
on a fifth of the worlds oil, with bags of money to spend on palaces
and weapons of mass destruction. In a couple years, he would have gone
after one of his other neighbors. Other nations helped, but it would
not have happened without US insistance.
We faced down Facism. We faced down the evil Communist Empire. We are
facing down dictators, and Islamic extremists. For our efforts, we get
snide remarks. Millions of people are alive, and free because of the
sacrificies of this country. Sure, other countries helped, and we
appreciate that help, it`s nice to know you are not fighting the good
fight alone. But do the Nazis fall if the US doesn`t enter the war.
Who would stop Japan`s military expansion, and civilian genocide in
China? Canada? If we didn`t counter the spread of communism, do you
think the world would be like it is today? We don`t get credit for any
of the efforts, any of the sacrificies, we only get the blame. You
take cheap shots, like saying our embargo is killing Iraqi children,
like Saddam doesn`t exist, things happen in a vacuum. If we are
responsible for those deaths, who get the bodies that would have piled
up if Saddam stayed in power, you?
> I know you Yanks have been fed this version since grade school, but don't
> expect the rest of the world to see everything from an American perspective.
> Not too many in Canada, let alone overseas, believe the US has been so purely
> conceived and nurtured.
>
We`re not perfect, and luckily we have friends like you to
constantly point out our flaws. But look at us compared to Nazi
Germany, Soviet Russia, or Iraq. Do you see the difference? Can you?
Did we go into Somolia to grab thier oil? Did we stop the ethnic
cleansing in Bosnia in order to claim the area for the US? We
shouldn`t have to explain ourselves, or apologize to the likes of you,
Jerry.
> Sure, it'll be great to see Iraq liberated. But the USG had used "liberty and
> freedom" more as a pretext than a principal. How long before that principal is
> allowed to flourish?
>
> I suspect the occupation of Iraq is merely pre-staging for the invasion of
> Iran. And that country hasn't been softened up by years of UN sanctions and
> weapons inspection.
>
> Thanks to the global peace movement and British insistence, the coalition has
> opted for a first-strike against the leadership. The coalition has so far
> avoided destroying the country's skeletal infrastructure, so as to not cause
> undue hardship to the innocent.
>
Yes, Jerry, if it wasn`t for the global peace movement we would be
carpet-bombing population centers. Take a bow, GPM.
> I am grateful to see the war proceeding that way. If I had known beforehand
> this would have been the means, I might have been more supportive.
>
If you had the slightest idea what this country is about, you would
have known the war would proceed that way. And we don`t need your
support, we`re doing fine with your opposition.
> However, I must also give credit to the UN and certain world leaders who last
> fall compelled Bush to hesitate and reflect on the war's human cost.
>
> >I give up Jerry, you must be right.
> >I don't know how the rest of the
> >world can put up with us arrogant
> >americans.
>
> More selectiveness. Did I say any and all Americans? Ot that all the world
> hates them? Read:
> "It pains me to imagine how
> hateful and aggressive
> some arch-right Bushites
> will be towards the world
> community when flushed
> with victory."
>
> Is that any and all Americans?
>
It pains me to imagine hate we`ll recieve when we are proven right
in our efforts in Iraq. The world (especially France) will be flushed
with jealousy at our great victory.
> Or a reference to the handful of Bush extremists who seem hellbent on
> dismantling the UN and international law, with their opting out (without even
> negotiating) of things like SALT, Kyoto and the International Criminal Court.
>
My God, have we been acting like a sovereign, independent country
again? We better fall in line with what the UN, or world community
tells us.
> You Americans might trust the Pentagon to build a SDI shield, but to those
> outside it, it could be considered a provocation.
>
The missle defense destroys missles that are shot at us. It`s
defensive by definition. If other countries don`t fire missles at us,
we won`t use it to destroy thier incoming missles. How provocative.
-Bud
WinBear
On 21-Mar-2003, jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> Or a reference to the handful of Bush extremists who seem hellbent on
> dismantling the UN and international law, with their opting out (without
> even
> negotiating) of things like SALT, Kyoto and the International Criminal
> Court.
>
SALT? A dead letter treaty with a deceased government? Who else was bound
by it? The Ghost of Christmas Past?
The Kyoto "punish the productive" treaty? Drawn specifically to take money
from the do-ers and put it in the hands of the sitters? Try writing a
treaty we *can* sign, then gripe if we don't. It was a bad treaty, so
didn't get signed.
The International "Screw national sovereignty" Criminal Court"? Remember,
we are limited to what we *can* legally agree to join, by our
Constitution. Anything that puts a foreign power above us would not be
legal even if signed. Bushites obeyed the highest law of the land.
Anything not consistent with the Constitution is wastepaper,
legalities-wise.
> You Americans might trust the Pentagon to build a SDI shield, but to those
> outside it, it could be considered a provocation.
The ability to defend ourselves is offensive only to those who want to
harm us and get away unscathed. A shield affects no one else.
WinBear
Andrew Mason
WinBear wrote:
>
> On 21-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
>
> > That is precisely why, if there had been some good evidence that
> > Saddam Hussein had built up weapons of mass destruction and was
> > not willing to destroy them, the world community likely would
> > have agreed to disarm Iraq by force.
>
> After Colin Powell proved this, nothing happened.
Smoke and mirrors. I am surprised Powell was able to keep a straight
face.
>
> Hussain wouldn't wait for UN approval before putting his weapons to use.
> Joining the UN is not a suicide pact. We have the right to defend ourselves.
Do you have the right to shoot me just because you 'believe' I might
kill you? Try getting a jury to buy that one. Juries prefer cogent
evidence.
>
> Now that Saddam is using the Scuds "he didn't have", the world should be on
> our side... we were right and the UN was wrong.
Normal Scuds were not illegal for Iraq. Iraq was entitled to have short
range defensive weapons. The UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement set
the terms limiting the range of missiles Iraq could possess. Extended
range scuds were illegal and that is why Iraq had to start destroying
those missiles a few weeks ago. (It seems that George W. couldn't wait
for Saddam Hussein to finish destroying those extended range Scuds).
What evidence is there that these scuds exceeded the maximum agreed
range?
Andrew Mason
>
> End of story.
>
> WinBear
kvis...@insightbb.com
On 22-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> Normal Scuds were not illegal for Iraq. Iraq was entitled to have short
> range defensive weapons. The UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement set
> the terms limiting the range of missiles Iraq could possess. Extended
> range scuds were illegal and that is why Iraq had to start destroying
> those missiles a few weeks ago. (It seems that George W. couldn't wait
> for Saddam Hussein to finish destroying those extended range Scuds).
>
> What evidence is there that these scuds exceeded the maximum agreed
> range?
>
> Andrew Mason
This could well be the reason that no Scuds have been shoot at Israel. If
you will remember in the first war with Saddam Israel was one of his
favorite targets.
viking
Jerry Organ
>SALT? A dead letter treaty with
>a deceased government? Who
>else was bound by it? The Ghost
>of Christmas Past?
SALT II was a legitimate international treaty agreed to on good faith by
two sovereign nations. Mocking it demonstrates the ultra-rightwing
Bushite's contempt for multilateral world order and the shared pursuit of
global peace and security.
>The Kyoto "punish the productive"
>treaty? Drawn specifically to take
>money from the do-ers and put it
>in the hands of the sitters? Try
>writing a treaty we *can* sign,
>then gripe if we don't. It was a bad
>treaty, so didn't get signed.
Try something called the negotiating process, rather than turning your
back unilaterally on something that the world and science is concerned
about. Alas, that's the Bush approach to statesmanship; one that elevates
creationism over science.
>The International "Screw national
>sovereignty" Criminal Court"?
>Remember, we are limited to what
>we *can* legally agree to join, by
>our Constitution. Anything that
>puts a foreign power above us
>would not be legal even if signed.
>Bushites obeyed the highest law
>of the land. Anything not
>consistent with the Constitution
>is wastepaper, legalities-wise.
The World Criminal Court would have worked along the lines of current
extradition treaties. What the Bushites wanted was an exclusive
"exemption" for US forces.
>The ability to defend ourselves is
>offensive only to those who want
>to harm us and get away unscathed.
>A shield affects no one else.
It gives the USG a means to threaten, bully and bomb any country it wants
without fear of airborne reprisal.
Those outside the umbrella see a clear provocation and escalation of
military intent. Ultra-rightists like Cheney and Rummy have shown an open
contempt for multilateralism, preferring military solutions over
diplomatic ones.
The hard-line Bushites have gone beyond fighting terrorism and are now
threatening world order. The rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq, and
establishment of a Palestinian state, would represent a productive shift
in US foreign policy.
But Americans won't tolerate forking out tens-of-billions for all that,
once Bagdad is taken.
But tens-of-billions into the US military and SDI is OK.
When Americans see the price tag next year and feel the recession, Bush
will have a hard time getting re-elected. But by golly, he won a "war."
Jerry Organ
---------
WinBear
On 23-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> > On 21-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That is precisely why, if there had been some good evidence that
> > > Saddam Hussein had built up weapons of mass destruction and was
> > > not willing to destroy them, the world community likely would
> > > have agreed to disarm Iraq by force.
> >
> > After Colin Powell proved this, nothing happened.
>
> Smoke and mirrors. I am surprised Powell was able to keep a straight
> face.
>
A factory of smoke and mirrors has just been captured.
> >
> > Hussein wouldn't wait for UN approval before putting his weapons to use.
> > Joining the UN is not a suicide pact. We have the right to defend
> > ourselves.
>
> Do you have the right to shoot me just because you 'believe' I might
> kill you? Try getting a jury to buy that one. Juries prefer cogent
> evidence.
>
Get real. We don't have to wait until Manhattan becomes a mushroom cloud
to react. To use your metaphor... when they draw, cock, and aim, you don't
have to wait for them to pull a trigger. Self defense does *not* mean
letting a murderer have the first shot. We lost 2 towers and a fifth of
the Pentagon by not cracking down. Now, we are.
> >
> > Now that Saddam is using the Scuds "he didn't have", the world should be
> > on
> > our side... we were right and the UN was wrong.
>
> Normal Scuds were not illegal for Iraq. Iraq was entitled to have short
> range defensive weapons. The UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement set
> the terms limiting the range of missiles Iraq could possess. Extended
> range scuds were illegal and that is why Iraq had to start destroying
> those missiles a few weeks ago. (It seems that George W. couldn't wait
> for Saddam Hussein to finish destroying those extended range Scuds).
>
> What evidence is there that these scuds exceeded the maximum agreed
> range?
>
The maximum allowable range for weapons pointed at Americans is zero.
The fact that *any* illegal weapons were found is proof we had the right.
If you barely touch a haystack and dozens of needles roll out into your
hand, you have a right to think the haystack is stiff with needles.
WinBear
WinBear
On 23-Mar-2003, jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> WinBear wrote:
>
> >SALT? A dead letter treaty with
> >a deceased government? Who
> >else was bound by it? The Ghost
> >of Christmas Past?
>
> SALT II was a legitimate international treaty agreed to on good faith by
> two sovereign nations. Mocking it demonstrates the ultra-rightwing
> Bushite's contempt for multilateral world order and the shared pursuit of
> global peace and security.
>
How? I'm not a Republican. And if by "multilateral world order and the
shared pursuit of
> global peace and security" you mean letting the UN run roughshod over
> freedom and national sovereignty, and backseat driving us... I'm proud to
> hold contempt for such silly notions.
Answer the question. I didn't mock it, I made it clear it was a dead
letter treaty with a nation that no longer exists.
> >The Kyoto "punish the productive"
> >treaty? Drawn specifically to take
> >money from the do-ers and put it
> >in the hands of the sitters? Try
> >writing a treaty we *can* sign,
> >then gripe if we don't. It was a bad
> >treaty, so didn't get signed.
>
> Try something called the negotiating process, rather than turning your
> back unilaterally on something that the world and science is concerned
> about. Alas, that's the Bush approach to statesmanship; one that elevates
> creationism over science.
>
I'm sure that if they would have modified the Kyoto Accord to be
acceptable to us, we would have signed. The lack of America's signature
proves there was a problem with it. And while the Republicans sometimes
get science wrong, at least they seem not to be completely anti-science as
the Democrats often seem to be.
> >The International "Screw national
> >sovereignty" Criminal Court"?
> >Remember, we are limited to what
> >we *can* legally agree to join, by
> >our Constitution. Anything that
> >puts a foreign power above us
> >would not be legal even if signed.
> >Bushites obeyed the highest law
> >of the land. Anything not
> >consistent with the Constitution
> >is wastepaper, legalities-wise.
>
> The World Criminal Court would have worked along the lines of current
> extradition treaties. What the Bushites wanted was an exclusive
> "exemption" for US forces.
>
If the WCC was going to operate within established treaties etc. there was
no need for it, as it would be redundant. Not letting pipsqueak
un-American countries to backseat-drive American justice, is a tremendous
idea, and I am proud of the Republicans for opting out of the whole silly
thing.
> >The ability to defend ourselves is
> >offensive only to those who want
> >to harm us and get away unscathed.
> >A shield affects no one else.
>
> It gives the USG a means to threaten, bully and bomb any country it wants
> without fear of airborne reprisal.
>
A shield only works if a weapon is used against it. End of story. Other
nations have the option to behave in a manner acceptable to us, and when
they do, need not worry about negative reactions on our part. You seem to
feel they have a right to run roughshod over us without our being able to
react, let alone with impunity.
> Those outside the umbrella see a clear provocation and escalation of
> military intent. Ultra-rightists like Cheney and Rummy have shown an open
> contempt for multilateralism, preferring military solutions over
> diplomatic ones.
>
Like... waiting 12 years for disarmament that just didn't happen?
Diplomacy has its place. So does moving beyond it. And multilateralism
seems to be a leftist weasel word for "let the UN run everything"... right
into the ground.
> The hard-line Bushites have gone beyond fighting terrorism and are now
> threatening world order. The rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq, and
> establishment of a Palestinian state, would represent a productive shift
> in US foreign policy.
>
Where would you *put* a Palestinian state? The Israelis, like everyone
else, don't want to carve out a piece of their territory and hand it to
them as a reward for terrorism. And the world is threatened by terrorism,
not by eliminating it.
> But Americans won't tolerate forking out tens-of-billions for all that,
> once Bagdad is taken.
>
And since Iraq has oil to sell, to the French for example, rebuilding
their country can be put on their own tab.
> But tens-of-billions into the US military and SDI is OK.
>
The most expensive military is the second-best.
"SDI only has to save one city to pay for itself... the one I'm in!" I
forget where I heard that.
> When Americans see the price tag next year and feel the recession, Bush
> will have a hard time getting re-elected. But by golly, he won a "war."
>
And I'm sure the next Democrat will also manage to cook the books, and
pass its economic goofs on to the next Republican administration to take
the blame for.
WinBear
John McAdams
>WinBear wrote:
>
>>SALT? A dead letter treaty with
>>a deceased government? Who
>>else was bound by it? The Ghost
>>of Christmas Past?
>
>SALT II was a legitimate international treaty agreed to on good faith by
>two sovereign nations. Mocking it demonstrates the ultra-rightwing
>Bushite's contempt for multilateral world order and the shared pursuit of
>global peace and security.
>
Jerry, one of the provisions of the ABM treaty (which is the one I
think you are talking about) was that either party could withdraw.
SALT is a dead letter simply because both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
have reduced strategic nuclear weapons far below the level that SALT
II specified.
The ABM treaty is irrelevant, since it concerned the U.S. and the
U.S.S.R.
The issue now is preventing some rogue power with a couple of ICBMs
from threatening the U.S.
>>The Kyoto "punish the productive"
>>treaty? Drawn specifically to take
>>money from the do-ers and put it
>>in the hands of the sitters? Try
>>writing a treaty we *can* sign,
>>then gripe if we don't. It was a bad
>>treaty, so didn't get signed.
>
>Try something called the negotiating process, rather than turning your
>back unilaterally on something that the world and science is concerned
>about.
And just what the the Clinton/Gore adminstration do about Kyoto?
>Alas, that's the Bush approach to statesmanship; one that elevates
>creationism over science.
>
You're being silly.
>>The International "Screw national
>>sovereignty" Criminal Court"?
>>Remember, we are limited to what
>>we *can* legally agree to join, by
>>our Constitution. Anything that
>>puts a foreign power above us
>>would not be legal even if signed.
>>Bushites obeyed the highest law
>>of the land. Anything not
>>consistent with the Constitution
>>is wastepaper, legalities-wise.
>
>The World Criminal Court would have worked along the lines of current
>extradition treaties. What the Bushites wanted was an exclusive
>"exemption" for US forces.
>
They correctly feared that the Court would become politicized, and a
tool of anti-American forces.
Reasonable fear.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
Mason:
Have you now taken to defending Saddam Hussein? Your analogy of someone
believing that they may be shot with a pre-emptive military strike is
ludicrous. As a matter of fact it is absurd on it's face. For instance, law
enforcement personal use deadly force if they are "in fear" for their lives,
or being attacked, or killed. Hopefully, they don't wait to find out. You
really don't seem very well versed in the law either........ABSOLUTELY YES,
I DO have the right to shoot you, if I believe you may KILL me. That is
called SELF-DEFENSE.......and if I am SUCCESSFUL in KILLING you, that might
be called JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE, wouldn't it? .........Depending on ALL the
evidence as the jury saw it.
What our troops and our President need now is SUPPORT.
John F.
GMcNally
> On 23 Mar 2003 18:52:49 -0500, jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
>
> >WinBear wrote:
> >
> >>SALT? A dead letter treaty with
> >>a deceased government? Who
> >>else was bound by it? The Ghost
> >>of Christmas Past?
> >
> >SALT II was a legitimate international treaty agreed to on good faith by
> >two sovereign nations. Mocking it demonstrates the ultra-rightwing
> >Bushite's contempt for multilateral world order and the shared pursuit of
> >global peace and security.
> >
>
> Jerry, one of the provisions of the ABM treaty (which is the one I
> think you are talking about) was that either party could withdraw.
>
> SALT is a dead letter simply because both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
> have reduced strategic nuclear weapons far below the level that SALT
> II specified.
>
> The ABM treaty is irrelevant, since it concerned the U.S. and the
> U.S.S.R.
>
> The issue now is preventing some rogue power with a couple of ICBMs
> from threatening the U.S.
Isn't the policy of pre-emption supposed to eliminate that (potential) threat?
You get them before they can get you.
Jerry
Andrew Mason
WinBear wrote:
>
> On 23-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 21-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > That is precisely why, if there had been some good evidence that
> > > > Saddam Hussein had built up weapons of mass destruction and was
> > > > not willing to destroy them, the world community likely would
> > > > have agreed to disarm Iraq by force.
> > >
> > > After Colin Powell proved this, nothing happened.
> >
> > Smoke and mirrors. I am surprised Powell was able to keep a straight
> > face.
> >
>
> A factory of smoke and mirrors has just been captured.
A factory that UN inspectors may well have discovered.
>
> > >
> > > Hussein wouldn't wait for UN approval before putting his weapons to use.
> > > Joining the UN is not a suicide pact. We have the right to defend
> > > ourselves.
> >
> > Do you have the right to shoot me just because you 'believe' I might
> > kill you? Try getting a jury to buy that one. Juries prefer cogent
> > evidence.
> >
>
> Get real. We don't have to wait until Manhattan becomes a mushroom cloud
> to react. To use your metaphor... when they draw, cock, and aim, you don't
> have to wait for them to pull a trigger. Self defense does *not* mean
> letting a murderer have the first shot. We lost 2 towers and a fifth of
> the Pentagon by not cracking down. Now, we are.
You have made my point by avoiding the question.
>
> > >
> > > Now that Saddam is using the Scuds "he didn't have", the world should be
> > > on
> > > our side... we were right and the UN was wrong.
> >
> > Normal Scuds were not illegal for Iraq. Iraq was entitled to have short
> > range defensive weapons. The UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement set
> > the terms limiting the range of missiles Iraq could possess. Extended
> > range scuds were illegal and that is why Iraq had to start destroying
> > those missiles a few weeks ago. (It seems that George W. couldn't wait
> > for Saddam Hussein to finish destroying those extended range Scuds).
> >
> > What evidence is there that these scuds exceeded the maximum agreed
> > range?
> >
>
> The maximum allowable range for weapons pointed at Americans is zero.
>
> The fact that *any* illegal weapons were found is proof we had the right.
> If you barely touch a haystack and dozens of needles roll out into your
> hand, you have a right to think the haystack is stiff with needles.
I hope the US government has a better grip on reality than you would
suggest.
Andrew Mason
>
> WinBear
Peter Fokes
Is this just propoganda?
Peter F
Andrew Mason
Why would you interpret anything I have said as defending Saddam
Hussein. Do you always debate using bully tactics?
> Your analogy of someone
> believing that they may be shot with a pre-emptive military strike is
> ludicrous. As a matter of fact it is absurd on it's face. For instance, law
> enforcement personal use deadly force if they are "in fear" for their lives,
> or being attacked, or killed. Hopefully, they don't wait to find out. You
> really don't seem very well versed in the law either........ABSOLUTELY YES,
> I DO have the right to shoot you, if I believe you may KILL me.
Not in any civilized country that I know. Such a belief has to be
reasonable. Any belief based on conjecture rather than evidence
is not reasonable. That was my point. You don't kill someone just
because you 'believe' they may kill you. You need some evidence
that they are about to kill you before the law recognizes it as a
defence.
> That is
> called SELF-DEFENSE.......and if I am SUCCESSFUL in KILLING you, that might
> be called JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE, wouldn't it? .........Depending on ALL the
> evidence as the jury saw it.
That was my point. There is no evidence that Iraq was about to
attack the U.S.
>
> What our troops and our President need now is SUPPORT.
They will need some good luck too.
I hope they achieve their goal quickly with as little pain as
possible. But that doesn't stop me believing that the U.S. is
making a big mistake. A well intentioned mistake, perhaps. The
war will be the easy part. Winning the hearts and minds of the
Iraqi people and the muslim world in general, and avoiding future
conflicts will be the tough part. Terrorism is fueled by
hatred. I don't see that hatred being reduced by the invasion of
Iraq.
As far as your President is concerned, I think he is going to
need all the luck he can get in order to get re-elected in 2004.
Wartime leaders are fine for war but I have a feeling Bush will
not be chosen to rebuild the peace.
Andrew Mason
>
> John F.
Jerry Organ
>Jerry, one of the provisions of the
>ABM treaty (which is the one I think
>you are talking about) was that
>either party could withdraw.
The ABM Treaty is of indefinite duration, but either party can withdraw on six
months notice under Article XV:
"Each Party shall, in exercising
its national sovereignty, have
the right to withdraw from this
Treaty if it decides that
extraordinary events related to
the subject matter of this Treaty
have jeopardized its supreme
interests. It shall give notice of
its decision to the other Party
six months prior to withdrawal
from the Treaty. Such notice
shall include a statement of the
extraordinary events the notifying
Party regards as having
jeopardized its supreme interests."
The official reason for US withdrawal ("extraordinary events ... having
jeopardized its supreme interests") had not been published.
If the official reason for withdrawal was SDI, that would be in contravention
of the 1972 ABM Treaty.
Withdrawing essentially removed an remove a treaty obstacle to the Pentagon SDI
effort, which will in turn require other countries to match it for their own
stategic reasons.
In reaction to the US decision, some or all of Russia, China, India and
Pakistan are likely to upgrade or expand their own nuclear weapons missile
delivery capabilities.
Ripping up the ABM Treaty could trigger a new era of nuclear arms proliferation
just when we have escaped the Cold War problems.
>SALT is a dead letter simply because
>both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have
>reduced strategic nuclear weapons
>far below the level that SALT II specified.
The ABM Treaty imposes very tight restrictions on the development and
deployment of systems designed to defend against incoming ICBM warheads. The
proposed SDI currently in the testing stage violates that provision.
Russia made clear that it would prefer to modify the Treaty rather than have
the US withdraw from it unilaterally. Typically, as the world has increasingly
seen, the Bush Administration choose the rogue option.
>The ABM treaty is irrelevant, since
>it concerned the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
When the former Soviet Union collapsed, its ABM Treaty obligations were
inherited by the Russian Federation.
This is the first time a superpower has unilaterally withdrawn from a major
arms control agreement and, because that agreement has to do with matters of
nuclear weaponry and warfare, the action has attracted widespread attention and
comment.
It sets a poor precedent for the world's leading power to unilaterally withdraw
from a key arms control agreement. If the US can do this, other states may
withdraw from inconvenient arms control agreements, thus undermining the global
arms control regime.
>The issue now is preventing some
>rogue power with a couple of ICBMs
>from threatening the U.S.
An attack against the United States using a ballistic missile is considered by
the US Intelligence Community to be highly unlikely. An attack with WMDs by
non-missile means of delivery (truck, ship or plane) is far more likely.
A North Korean ballistic missile attack would reveal a launch location, which
would lead to certain and devastating retaliation. At present, North Korea has
hinted it would be willing to suspend its nuclear programme for aid.
A UN-authorized disarmament program would be set up to "denuke" the country. At
some stage, the country will have to internally reformed, or liberated from
outside.
The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated the costs of a comprehensive
SDI (or National Missile Defense) system could easily cost well beyond $150
billion.
Yet, it doesn't address the more likely means of WMD attacks. Since a
non-missile attack is more likely and more accurate, resources ought to be
applied in that direction.
Massive SDI funding actually weakens areas where such funding would better
address WMD threats.
Jerry Organ
----------
GMcNally
> GMcNally <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:a163e09.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > "John Fiorentino" <jston...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<3e76...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> > > John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:3e768c9e...@news.newsguy.com...
> > > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:32:29 GMT, "Reginald Arnold"
> > > > <regar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > > > >news:13979-3E7...@storefull-2313.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > > > >> A load of idiots has boycotted The Dixie Chicks because they had a
> few
> > > > >> unkind words for the Bush Regime..It's. Just like those
> ultra-religous
> > > > >> zealots who burnt Beatle records back in the 60's...and the end
> result
> > > > >> was John Lennon getting killed by one of these types of nuts, the
> same
> > > > >> mindless shouters that are boycotting, or calling for boycotts
> against
> > > > >> French products. How easily manipulated people are..the herd
> mentality
> > > > >> in full force...You have Freedom Of Speech just don't use it...Jeff
> > > > >
> > > > >Are you saying we should have freedom of speech but not the right to
> refuse
> > > > >to do business with people we oppose?
> > > > >
> > > > >I know people who years ago, refused to buy tickets to Jane Fonda
> movies,
> > > > >but I also know some who wouldn't see Charleton Heston for the same,
> general
> > > > >reason. Once an entertainer supports a controversial political
> position,
> he
> > > > >or she should not expect financial support from those they offend.
> > > > >
> > > > >Entertainers who get political are exlpoiting their public
> visibility,
> which
> > > > >they earned from musical or theatrical skills, and have nothing
> whatsoever
> > > > >to do with political expertise. I seriously doubt the Dixie Chicks
> could
> > > > >tell you the names of the vice presidential candidates in the last
> election.
> > > > >Why should their opinions carry any more weight than yours or mine,
> or
> any
> > > > >random patron of the nearest bar?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good point.
> > > >
> > > > It is indeed important to note that boycotts come from both the left
> > > > and the right, and it's hypocritical to attack the tactic only when
> > > > people on the *other* side use it.
> > > >
> > > > The gay lobby, for example, has boycotted states and localities that
> > > > refused to pass "gay rights" ordinances, and black groups boycotted
> > > > the state of South Carolina when it refused to remove the Confederate
> > > > battle flag from the state flag.
> > > >
> > > > So people have just as much right to boycott French products.
> > > >
> > > > .John
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Personally, I think we should pull the plug on the UN. That organization
> of
> > > jackals has shown it's true colors.
> > >
> > > The political lard-asses at the UN talk the talk, but they don't walk
> the
> > > walk.
> >
> > I am very dissapointed to read your rant. Like a child you lash out at
> > anything that tries to thwart your will.
> >
> > The UN didn't buy Bush's argument that Iraq was an imminent threat, nor
> > that it was working with al-Queda, nor that it has nuclear weapons - as
> > our dear vice president claimed on Sunday last.
> >
> > The world can see through the pretexts and the claims from the Bush camp
> > are flat out rejected.
> >
> > Your response is to say: I'm going to take my marbles and I won't play
> > with you anymore!
> >
> > So damned immature!
> >
> > Clinton said something very wise when he said that we should work to
> > create a world that we'd like to live in - even when we're not top dog.
> >
> > Jerry
>
>
> This is not about taking any "marbles" and not wanting to play Jerry. This
> is about belonging to an organization controlled by a bunch of cretins who
> have lost theirs.
>
> The FACT is the UN has already spoken (unanimously) in 1441. But as usual
> their words prove meaningless and empty. They are like a bunch of coyotes
> barking at the moon.
>
> I am so glad you think that I am "immature." As a matter of fact I am
> heartened and uplifted by your vitriol.
>
> God Bless America. I pray for our troops and our Commander In Chief.
John E. Fiorentino -
SC Resolution 1441 DOES NOT authorize war. Period.
The rest of the world is divided between "cretins" and "coyotes"?
This is the voice of "The Ugly American" speaking.
Jerry
Peter Fokes
> As far as your President is concerned, I think he is going to
> need all the luck he can get in order to get re-elected in 2004.
> Wartime leaders are fine for war but I have a feeling Bush will
> not be chosen to rebuild the peace.
>
> Andrew Mason
He will not be re-elected. The markets will be much lower and the housing
boom will be over. Some success in the war will drive the market somewhat
higher in the coming weeks but then the bear market will resume.
The war is irrelevant in the longer term.
Peter Fokes
WinBear
On 24-Mar-2003, jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> Russia made clear that it would prefer to modify the Treaty rather than
> have
> the US withdraw from it unilaterally. Typically, as the world has
> increasingly
> seen, the Bush Administration choose the rogue option.
And Russia's opinion is relevent why? The treaty (now get this) is not
*with* Russia. It is a defunct treaty with the no longer existing government
of the "USSR" (remember them?).
> When the former Soviet Union collapsed, its ABM Treaty obligations were
> inherited by the Russian Federation.
Post the part of the treaty that says that.
> This is the first time a superpower has unilaterally withdrawn from a
> major
> arms control agreement and, because that agreement has to do with matters
> of
> nuclear weaponry and warfare, the action has attracted widespread
> attention and
> comment.
"Withdrawn"? The treaty was with *no one*. We're talking "If Ringo hadn't
left the Beatles, would it make any difference?" time. There was no other
party to make it a treaty any more!
> t sets a poor precedent for the world's leading power to unilaterally
> withdraw
> from a key arms control agreement. If the US can do this, other states may
> withdraw from inconvenient arms control agreements, thus undermining the
> global
> arms control regime.
As opposed to simply ignoring the treaties, which the USSR was prone to
do...
WinBear
WinBear
On 24-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> WinBear wrote:
> >
> > On 23-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 21-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That is precisely why, if there had been some good evidence that
> > > > > Saddam Hussein had built up weapons of mass destruction and was
> > > > > not willing to destroy them, the world community likely would
> > > > > have agreed to disarm Iraq by force.
> > > >
> > > > After Colin Powell proved this, nothing happened.
> > >
> > > Smoke and mirrors. I am surprised Powell was able to keep a straight
> > > face.
> > >
> >
> > A factory of smoke and mirrors has just been captured.
>
> A factory that UN inspectors may well have discovered.
>
UN: 12 years, no results.
US: 4 days, factory found.
The UN was there to inspect, not detect. But they weren't taken to what they
were supposed to inspect! Do you really think the Iraqis were going to take
them to the factory or tell them about it? The UN was just a stalling tactic
to those people.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Hussein wouldn't wait for UN approval before putting his weapons to
> > > > use.
> > > > Joining the UN is not a suicide pact. We have the right to defend
> > > > ourselves.
> > >
> > > Do you have the right to shoot me just because you 'believe' I might
> > > kill you? Try getting a jury to buy that one. Juries prefer cogent
> > > evidence.
> > >
> >
> > Get real. We don't have to wait until Manhattan becomes a mushroom cloud
> > to react. To use your metaphor... when they draw, cock, and aim, you
> > don't
> > have to wait for them to pull a trigger. Self defense does *not* mean
> > letting a murderer have the first shot. We lost 2 towers and a fifth of
> > the Pentagon by not cracking down. Now, we are.
>
> You have made my point by avoiding the question.
>
No, I answered the question. Let me put it more simply- yes, I have the
right to kill you if I have good and sufficient reason to believe you are
about to kill me. It's called "self defense". And is completely legal. You
don't have to let a murder get in the first shot.
> > > >
> > > > Now that Saddam is using the Scuds "he didn't have", the world
> > > > should be
> > > > on
> > > > our side... we were right and the UN was wrong.
> > >
> > > Normal Scuds were not illegal for Iraq. Iraq was entitled to have
> > > short
> > > range defensive weapons. The UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement
> > > set
> > > the terms limiting the range of missiles Iraq could possess. Extended
> > > range scuds were illegal and that is why Iraq had to start destroying
> > > those missiles a few weeks ago. (It seems that George W. couldn't wait
> > > for Saddam Hussein to finish destroying those extended range Scuds).
> > >
> > > What evidence is there that these scuds exceeded the maximum agreed
> > > range?
> > >
> >
> > The maximum allowable range for weapons pointed at Americans is zero.
> >
> > The fact that *any* illegal weapons were found is proof we had the
> > right.
> > If you barely touch a haystack and dozens of needles roll out into your
> > hand, you have a right to think the haystack is stiff with needles.
>
> I hope the US government has a better grip on reality than you would
> suggest.
>
What on Earth are you talking about? The fact that no one should be shooting
at us, or the fact that a minimal amount of inspections turned up a number
of weapons the Iraqis were not allowed... which implies many more weapons to
find?
WinBear
Jerry Organ
>And Russia's opinion is relevent why?
>The treaty (now get this) is not
>*with* Russia. It is a defunct treaty
>with the no longer existing government
>of the "USSR" (remember them?).
>>When the former Soviet Union
>>collapsed, its ABM Treaty obligations
>>were inherited by the Russian Federation.
>
>Post the part of the treaty that says that.
Follows.
>From this official USN website:
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~treaty/ABM.html
"On September 26, 1997, the United States, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
and Ukraine signed five agreements amending or interpreting the ABM
Treaty:
(1) A Memorandum of Understanding on Succession (MOUS) defines the ABM
Treaty successor states to the former Soviet Union as Russia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, and makes the Treaty legally binding on all of
them."
----------
I hope you will post whatever "well-informed" source you consulted to
posit your erroneous claim that the ABM Treaty became "defunct" when the
USSR collapsed?
Sounds like some Rumfeld/Chaney/Gingrich ignoramus dogma.
Jerry Organ
----------
Jerry Organ
>Isn't the policy of pre-emption
>supposed to eliminate that
>(potential) threat?
>
>You get them before they
>can get you.
If the UN or a major power coalition can find a way to neutralize North
Korea's nuclear missile threat (even if it means "liberating" NK by
force), the enormous amounts earmarked for SDI could instead go into
security methods to detect "suitcase" type WMDs, which in future will be
the greater threat (according to US intelligence).
Today Bush submitted a ca.$80 billion bill for Op Iraq yesterday. America
already spends almost $1 billion per day on the Pentagon, 365 days per
year.
To weigh the potential threat posed by the "axis of evil," it's worthwhile
to note the combined defense spending of the three nations is only $10.2
billion, according to the DOD, about 35 times less than the US defense
budget. US military spending exceeds Iraqi spending by 250-to-1.
The Bush administration wants to increase FY 2003's Pentagon budget by $46
billion to a total of ca.$400 billion -- more than the combined defense
budgets of the next 25 biggest military spenders. Of this $400 billion, a
"mere" $27.2 billion has been budgeted to combat terrorism, including the
$10 billion contingency fund.
Even without increases for the Iraq invasion and war on terrorism, the
proposed budget is about 13 percent higher than the Cold War average in
real terms.
While candidate George W. Bush promised at his Citadel speech on Sept. 23,
1999 that his administration will "skip a generation of technology" and
considered canceling Cold War weapons, all those weapons survive except
the Crusader howitzer.
The largest single program in the budget is $9.1 billion for SDI, an
increase of $1.5 billion over last year; a program seen by some as
potentially irrelevant.
Yet, Bush called for new $726 billion in tax cuts over the next decade,
augmenting his $1.35 trillion tax cut package in 2001.
While the military budget increases, so too does the budget deficit; the
Congressional Budget Office:
$106 billion for 2002
$80 billion for fiscal year 2003
$est. 200 billion for 2003
$est. 145 billion for 2004
In 2001, the CBO predicted 10-year surpluses of more than $5.6 trillion.
And I thought Republicans were fiscally responsible!
With such overspending and a recession looming, Bush will lose the battle
of Wall Street and Wallet Avenue.
Jerry Organ
----------
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/
Jerry Organ
>No, I answered the question. Let me
>put it more simply- yes, I have the
>right to kill you if I have good and
>sufficient reason to believe you are
>about to kill me. It's called "self
>defense". And is completely legal.
>You don't have to let a murder get
>in the first shot.
If a policeman told his superior that he felt threatened by
African-Americans because of their "looks" or sub-culture, his boss would
send him to a shrink.
Yet, some police officers in major cities are known to employ what's
called "racial profiling" to justify excessive stopping of blacks in cars
and so on.
Some officers carry a small gun taped to their leg to "plant" on a suspect
should that suspect turn out to be unarmed. This will cover the
policeman's "pre-emptive" act.
Jerry Organ
----------
John Fiorentino
Jerry Organ <jjo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030324184541...@mb-da.aol.com...
Jerry:
As I once said to David Lifton........ "Keep talking, I think I am beginning
to see the light."
John F.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03
John Fiorentino
Jerry:
"Cretins"....."Coyotes"........."Ignoramus dogma"........I really fail to
see much difference. I do believe you are as "ugly" as I am.
John Fiorentino
Jerry:
Your characterization of me doesn't bother me in the least. President Bush
has the responsibility under the US Constitution to act in what he considers
to be the best interests of this country. He has done so. The troops are in
the field, the war has started. The time for debate is over.
The President and the men and women in harms way deserve our support. If you
want to characterize my support of the President and our troops as "Ugly"
that of course is your right -- A right which is being defended by the young
men and women in our armed forces.
WinBear
On 24-Mar-2003, jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> WinBear wrote:
>
> >No, I answered the question. Let me
> >put it more simply- yes, I have the
> >right to kill you if I have good and
> >sufficient reason to believe you are
> >about to kill me. It's called "self
> >defense". And is completely legal.
> >You don't have to let a murderer get
> >in the first shot.
>
> If a policeman told his superior that he felt threatened by
> African-Americans because of their "looks" or sub-culture, his boss would
> send him to a shrink.
>
Which has nothing to do with the case. We weren't discussing looks or
sub-culture, remember? We were discussing person A getting ready to kill
person B and whether or not B had to let him.
> Yet, some police officers in major cities are known to employ what's
> called "racial profiling" to justify excessive stopping of blacks in cars
> and so on.
>
Again, irrelevant.
> Some officers carry a small gun taped to their leg to "plant" on a suspect
> should that suspect turn out to be unarmed. This will cover the
> policeman's "pre-emptive" act.
Unless you can tape a chemical warfare factory to your leg, good luck
showing relevance.
WinBear
WinBear
On 25-Mar-2003, "John Fiorentino" <jston...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I hope you will post whatever "well-informed" source you consulted to
> > posit your erroneous claim that the ABM Treaty became "defunct" when the
> > USSR collapsed?
> >
> > Sounds like some Rumfeld/Chaney/Gingrich ignoramus dogma.
> >
I hope you will post the part of the *treaty we were discussing*, rather
than some edited clip from some much later treaty... even though you and I
both know *the treaty we were discussing* permitted us to leave legally,
and we did.
The original treaty, as I said, is a dead letter with a dead nation.
WinBear
Bud
> GMcNally wrote:
>
> >Isn't the policy of pre-emption
> >supposed to eliminate that
> >(potential) threat?
> >
> >You get them before they
> >can get you.
>
> If the UN or a major power coalition can find a way to neutralize North
> Korea's nuclear missile threat (even if it means "liberating" NK by
> force), the enormous amounts earmarked for SDI could instead go into
> security methods to detect "suitcase" type WMDs, which in future will be
> the greater threat (according to US intelligence).
>
over Canada.
> Today Bush submitted a ca.$80 billion bill for Op Iraq yesterday. America
> already spends almost $1 billion per day on the Pentagon, 365 days per
> year.
>
I wouldn`t worry too much how Americans spend thier tax revenue,
Jerry. It`s not out of your pocket. But, I, for one, wouldn`t be sad
to see us try to limit the amount of money we spend to keep ungrateful
nations safe. I`d like us to pull our troops out of Germany,South
Korea,Bosnia,ect. I`d like us out of Afganistan (we should just train
and arm the best faction we can find, theres probably not much to
choose from by our standards.) After we stabilize Iraq, we should
leave Saudi Arabia (Bin Laden was getting a lot of mileage out of "the
infidels" occuping the Holy Land (Mecca) amongst Muslims, but we
couldn`t leave with Saddam in power). Theres a lot we could do to save
money... move the UN to Paris, for one.
> To weigh the potential threat posed by the "axis of evil," it's worthwhile
> to note the combined defense spending of the three nations is only $10.2
> billion, according to the DOD, about 35 times less than the US defense
> budget. US military spending exceeds Iraqi spending by 250-to-1.
>
The amount a country spends on defense does not equal it`s potential
threat. Look at the damage Al-Qaeda did with the price of a few
airline tickets.
But, our military costs a lot because the American people demand that
our troops are given the best equiptment, to give the the best chance
to come home alive. They also demand that consideration is given to
keeping civilian causalties as low as possible.
And it`s easy to see where that money went, when your advesary
doesn`t even put one plane in the air. In modern times, has it ever
occured that combatants didn`t even try to contest air superiority?
> The Bush administration wants to increase FY 2003's Pentagon budget by $46
> billion to a total of ca.$400 billion -- more than the combined defense
> budgets of the next 25 biggest military spenders. Of this $400 billion, a
> "mere" $27.2 billion has been budgeted to combat terrorism, including the
> $10 billion contingency fund.
>
> Even without increases for the Iraq invasion and war on terrorism, the
> proposed budget is about 13 percent higher than the Cold War average in
> real terms.
>
> While candidate George W. Bush promised at his Citadel speech on Sept. 23,
> 1999 that his administration will "skip a generation of technology" and
> considered canceling Cold War weapons, all those weapons survive except
> the Crusader howitzer.
>
Wish we had that howitzer.
> The largest single program in the budget is $9.1 billion for SDI, an
> increase of $1.5 billion over last year; a program seen by some as
> potentially irrelevant.
>
Seen by some, but not the people who count.
> Yet, Bush called for new $726 billion in tax cuts over the next decade,
> augmenting his $1.35 trillion tax cut package in 2001.
>
> While the military budget increases, so too does the budget deficit; the
> Congressional Budget Office:
> $106 billion for 2002
> $80 billion for fiscal year 2003
> $est. 200 billion for 2003
> $est. 145 billion for 2004
>
> In 2001, the CBO predicted 10-year surpluses of more than $5.6 trillion.
> And I thought Republicans were fiscally responsible!
>
You thought the Republicans dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. You think
a lot of weird stuff, Jerry. And it`s tough to spend projected income
like it`s real money.
> With such overspending and a recession looming, Bush will lose the battle
> of Wall Street and Wallet Avenue.
>
When this war is over, oil prices will go down, and that should help
the economy. I`m not convinced what the president does has much effect
on the economy anyway. Whatever he does isn`t felt for years.
-Bud
Jerry Organ
>>Yet, some police officers in major
>>cities are known to employ what's
>>called "racial profiling" to justify
>>excessive stopping of blacks in
>>cars and so on.
>>
>>Some officers carry a small gun
>>taped to their leg to "plant" on a
>>suspect should that suspect turn
>>out to be unarmed. This will cover
>>the policeman's "pre-emptive" act.
>As I once said to David Lifton........
>"Keep talking, I think I am beginning
>to see the light."
John:
Is it that you've never personally experienced being stop WDB ("while driving
black") or just automatically disbelieve those who claim it happened to them.
Police force across the country are forking out money for sensitivity training
for their officers. Don't think it's something some "group" you distrust made
up.
Jerry Organ
---------
Jerry Organ
>"Cretins"....."Coyotes"........."Ignoramus dogma"
>........I really fail to see much difference. I do
>believe you are as "ugly" as I am.
>
>John F
Cretins? Coyotes? Must be some other thread branch, JF.
On this thread branch about the ABM Treaty and SDI, WinBear asked me to "Post
the part of the treaty that says that" ...
... in reference to this statement I made:
" When the former Soviet Union
collapsed, its ABM Treaty
obligations were inherited by the
Russian Federation."
I quoted from this official USN website:
http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~treaty/ABM.html
It contains reference to an agreement signed in 1997 that substantiates my
claim that the ABM Treaty obligations were transferred after the USSR
collapsed.
I asked for WinBear's source, suggesting it sounds like "some
Rumfeld/Chaney/Gingrich ignoramus dogma."
If it turns out that the source is preaching as if fact something proven false,
that is ignoramus dogma. Rumfeld/Chaney/Gingrich are great purveyors of such
crapola.
The Democrats will have a field day in 2004.
Jerry Organ
---------
Jerry Organ
>I hope you will post the part of the
>*treaty we were discussing*, rather
>than some edited clip from some
>much later treaty... even though
>you and I both know *the treaty
>we were discussing* permitted us
>to leave legally, and we did.
The original ABM Treaty didn't forsee the collapse of the Soviet Union,
but an amended Treaty transferred its obligations to the new countries in
1997.
The US legally ripped up one of the world's most successful arms control
treaties so it could do something that the treaty forbade, thus provoking
the world into a new arms race.
>The original treaty, as I said, is
>a dead letter with a dead nation.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Bush Diplomacy 101
(contempt for international
treaties, multilateralism,
the UN and world peace)
Jerry Organ
----------
Jerry Organ
>I'd like us to pull our troops out of
>Germany, South Korea, Bosnia,ect.
>I'd like us out of Afganistan (we
>should just train and arm the best
>faction we can find, theres probably
>not much to choose from by our
>standards.) After we stabilize Iraq,
>we should leave Saudi Arabia (Bin
>Laden was getting a lot of mileage
>out of "the infidels" occuping the
>Holy Land (Mecca) amongst Muslims,
>but we couldn't leave with Saddam
>in power).
The Cold War threat from the East Bloc is over. Time to take your European
troops back. Europe needs to equip a rapid-strike taskforce.
If you're going to persecute the Arab World, then, yes, get out of the
Middle East. Israel and its WMDs can very easily handle your dirty work
there.
>Theres a lot we could do to
>save money... move the UN
>to Paris, for one.
You might want to wait on the next election for that one. Some US
administrations know how to respect and cooperate with the UN.
The Bush administration knows how to rip up treaties and order the world
around. Glad to see it go.
>You thought the Republicans dropped
>the bomb on Hiroshima. You think
>a lot of weird stuff, Jerry.
FDR began putting Republicans into his war cabinet in 1941. Most of that
cabinet and the military brass were Republicans. But yes, the final
decision came down to Truman who ordered the bomb dropped (against the
wishes of many influential Republicans, as I noted before).
Later, Republicans MacArthur and Goldwater urged atomic drops on Asians
conflicts that were smaller.
>When this war is over, oil prices will
>go down, and that should help the
>economy. I'm not convinced what
>the president does has much effect
>on the economy anyway. Whatever
>he does isn't felt for years.
True. Recessions come around in cycles every few decades or so, sometimes
for no apparent or isolated reason.
The Clinton "boom" was supposedly caused by Reagan taxcuts trickling down.
Jerry Organ
----------
Caeruleo
jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> I suspect the occupation of Iraq is merely pre-staging for the invasion of
> Iran. And that country hasn't been softened up by years of UN sanctions and
> weapons inspection.
Whoa! An invasion of Iran too? Where are you getting this from?
--
Belief in the traditional Single Bullet Theory is not even mildly
necessary to support a belief in Lee Harvey Oswald as the one & only
assassin of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
John Fiorentino
Jerry:
This thread is so screwed up now, I can't tell who said what. I do see
things attributed to me, that I didn't say, but someone else did.
Let me end it with this.......GOD BLESS AMERICA
Jerry Organ
>>I suspect the occupation of Iraq is
>>merely pre-staging for the invasion
>>of Iran. And that country hasn't
>>been softened up by years of UN
>>sanctions and weapons inspection.
>
>Whoa! An invasion of Iran too?
>Where are you getting this from?
For a while, some arch-right Bush supporters have claimed Iran is actually the
greater threat. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice insisted on Iran's
inclusion on a list of threatening countries collectively called the "axis of
evil."
Even further back, some US officials believed revolutionary Iran posed a
greater danger; thus backing Saddam with limited support in the Iran-Iraq War.
Mixed signals send by the USG to Saddam somehow led him to think he could annex
Kuwait in 1990.
An invasion of Iran would be far more costly and difficult, and potentially
draw in Arab states and Russia. A coalition supporting the US would be less
likely, and there is no UN-scantioned earlier confrontation as with Iraq.
The pretext for an Iran invasion would be that Teheran is trying to build an
atomic weapon and is harboring fundamentalist terrorists. Seems unlikely the
USG would amass a large strikeforce in Iraq, only to ship it all back home
without having a go at Iran.
Some conservatives contend US support for Iran's growing internal opposition
could weaken the country's collective resistance. It's possible opposition
groups, emboldened by a US invasion and supplied with arms, could take over
portions of the country.
There is already a strike capability by US forces stationed in the Gulf. A
buildup in Afghanistan of US forces would open a third front. US forces may
need sometime to "mop up" resistance in Iraq, rearm and send in reinforcements.
Expect an "October Surprise" next year, to insure Bush's re-election.
As for "regime change" in Iraq, that idea has been around for some time. Paul
Wolfowitz, a Pentagon official who is now the US deputy defense secretary,
wrote a June 1979 paper "Capabilities for Limited Contingencies in the Persian
Gulf" that highlighted Saddam's increasing military threat to the Gulf region.
The notion of an invasion was promoted in conservative forums in the 1990s. And
five years ago, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and others sent
Bill Clinton a letter urging the "removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from
power."
Bush ordered preparation for an Iraq invasion a few days after 9/11.
Jerry Organ
----------
So the domino theory
WinBear
On 25-Mar-2003, jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> I asked for WinBear's source, suggesting it sounds like "some
> Rumfeld/Chaney/Gingrich ignoramus dogma."
The collapse of the Soviet Union is common knowledge. What part of "It's
dead, Jim", are you having trouble with?
We legally left a treaty negotiated with a defunct nation. What part of this
are you having trouble understanding?
WinBear
Bud
> Bud wrote:
>
> >I'd like us to pull our troops out of
> >Germany, South Korea, Bosnia,ect.
> >I'd like us out of Afganistan (we
> >should just train and arm the best
> >faction we can find, theres probably
> >not much to choose from by our
> >standards.) After we stabilize Iraq,
> >we should leave Saudi Arabia (Bin
> >Laden was getting a lot of mileage
> >out of "the infidels" occuping the
> >Holy Land (Mecca) amongst Muslims,
> >but we couldn't leave with Saddam
> >in power).
>
> The Cold War threat from the East Bloc is over. Time to take your European
> troops back. Europe needs to equip a rapid-strike taskforce.
>
> If you're going to persecute the Arab World, then, yes, get out of the
> Middle East. Israel and its WMDs can very easily handle your dirty work
> there.
>
work like flying commercial planes into buildings full of innocent
people? Dirty work like straping a bomb on and blowing up a bus full
of women and children? Dirty work like shelling your own people,
pretending to surrender and attacking, killing prisoners of war? We
have a far way to go down to get on a par with your buddies in the
Arab world, Jerry.
> >Theres a lot we could do to
> >save money... move the UN
> >to Paris, for one.
>
> You might want to wait on the next election for that one. Some US
> administrations know how to respect and cooperate with the UN.
>
> The Bush administration knows how to rip up treaties and order the world
> around. Glad to see it go.
>
The UN isn`t as popular here in America as it is with you, Jerry. If
polled, I doubt you`d get double digits in favor of the UN over
American policy. Any administration who became a rubber stamp for the
UN would do so at thier own political risk. American generally like
being represented by the government they elect.
WinBear
On 25-Mar-2003, jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> The US legally ripped up one of the world's most successful arms control
> treaties so it could do something that the treaty forbade, thus provoking
> the world into a new arms race.
>
So... you admit we did nothing wrong. Good, that is a start.
Now, understand that dead letter treaties can't forbid anything.
Then, understand that your "new arms race" will be started only by those
nations who want to harm us. Understand that they shouldn't be able to.
Understand that the only ones who object to our being safe are those who
want to harm us.
> >The original treaty, as I said, is
> >a dead letter with a dead nation.
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen:
>
> Bush Diplomacy 101
>
> (contempt for international
> treaties, multilateralism,
> the UN and world peace)
And your reason to assume contempt, rather than "moving on, now that it is
a dead letter no longer fitting the situation"?
Multilateralism? Oh, yeah, Commiespeak for "backseat drivers in charge".
The UN? Expensive ineffectual (when asked to do anything good) supporters
of Hussain-types. Enemies of freedom. World peace? A fine idea, as long as
it comes with freedom, not an Orwellian "boot stamping a human face...
forever". Peace is not a synonym for "the bad guys getting away with it".
WinBear
Jerry Organ
>>Israel and its WMDs can very easily
>>handle your dirty work there.
>
>Dirty work like using chemical
>weapons on your own people?
>Dirty work like flying commercial
>planes into buildings full of innocent
>people? Dirty work like straping a
>bomb on and blowing up a bus full
>of women and children? Dirty work
>like shelling your own people,
>pretending to surrender and attacking,
>killing prisoners of war? We have a
>far way to go down to get on a par
>with your buddies in the Arab world,
>Jerry.
There are two kinds of terrorism at play around the world. The raw
nasty crude kind used by the poor against the rich. And the
institutionalized "under law" kind used by the rich against the poor.
Israel was mentioned in the last post. See examples here:
http://www.desert-voice.net/israeli_attrocities.htm
Didn't Americans resort to sniping at British troops and persecuting
Loyalists and Quakers during the War of Independence? Imagine if their
society had been ghettoized and kids shot.
With the US out of the Arab region, there would be little to stop a
fanatic like Sharon from using his country's vast stockpiles of WMD to
finalize ethnic cleansing. So far, for every Israeli killed since
1948, more than ten Arabs have perished.
Rightly or wrongly, most in the region blame what they perceive as
Congress's unconditional financial and military support of Israel's
"overkill" policy.
>The UN isn`t as popular here in
>America as it is with you, Jerry.
>If polled, I doubt you`d get double
>digits in favor of the UN over
>American policy. Any administration
>who became a rubber stamp for the
>UN would do so at thier own political
>risk. American generally like being
>represented by the government
>they elect.
Sure, if the American public is presented with that characterization
of the UN.
It's impossible for the UN to "dictate" to the USG, as it has a veto
on the Security Council. Non-binding resolutions carry little impact.
Democratic Presidents Wilson and Truman saw the need for a world body
to discuss differences.
Even Bush sees a clear need for UN participation in post-war Iraq.
Jerry Organ
----------
Jerry Organ
> Then, understand that your "new arms race"
> will be started only by those nations who
> want to harm us. Understand that they
> shouldn't be able to.
What if the Russians ripped up the treaty to pursue SDI, which they
had a lead in?
Would that be acceptable to the USG, or would they be compelled to
match the Russians?
If SDI is intended solely to counter "rogue" nations, it should be
joinly-developed and co-deployed. Otherwise, the USG can bully and
boss the whole world around even more.
> Understand that the only ones who object
> to our being safe are those who want to
> harm us.
Some are. Others see the US initiative as underminding the
geopolitical balance the old ABM treaty had secured.
> The UN? Expensive ineffectual (when
> asked to do anything good) supporters
> of Hussain-types. Enemies of freedom.
You gonna hate Bush for allowing the UN to help with a post-war Iraq?
Bet your tune on the UN changes then.
> World peace? A fine idea, as long as
> it comes with freedom, not an Orwellian
> "boot stamping a human face... forever".
> Peace is not a synonym for "the bad
> guys getting away with it".
You have just decribed how much of the world and many Americans now
perceive the Bush Administration.
Jerry Organ
---------
Jerry Organ
>
>> I asked for WinBear's source, suggesting
>> it sounds like "some Rumfeld/Chaney/
>> Gingrich ignoramus dogma."
>
> The collapse of the Soviet Union is
> common knowledge. What part of "It's
> dead, Jim", are you having trouble with?
>
> We legally left a treaty negotiated with a
> defunct nation. What part of this are you
> having trouble understanding?
When I posted:
"When the former Soviet Union
collapsed, its ABM Treaty obligations
were inherited by the Russian
Federation."
You asked:
"Post the part of the treaty that
says that."
To that request, I posted a USN site that confirm what I had stated.
Therefore, the neo-rightwing suggestion that the ABM Treaty wasn't
transferred amounts to "ignoramus dogma."
Jerry Organ
----------
John McAdams
>"John Fiorentino" <jston...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3e77...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
>> GMcNally <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
>SC Resolution 1441 DOES NOT authorize war. Period.
>
It doesn't explicitly authorize war, but it doesn't rule it out
either.
You folks are acting like there was U.N. resolution that said the U.S.
should *not* go to war. There wasn't.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>Why are they cretins? Because they disagree with George W. Bush? Perhaps
>they have simply not been persuaded by the evidence that Iraq is a
>threat to the peace and security of the world that justifies starting a
>war. I can understand that. I might even disagree with them on that. But
>I can't call them cretins because of that.
>
I agree they shouldn't be called cretins.
Do you agree that Canadian politicians shouldn't call Bush and his
people "bastards" or "morons?"
>>
>> The FACT is the UN has already spoken (unanimously) in 1441. But as usual
>> their words prove meaningless and empty. They are like a bunch of coyotes
>> barking at the moon.
>
>The FACT is that many UN resolutions are not enforced. UN resolutions
>against Armenia, Burma, Indonesia, Israel, Morocco, Turkey, and other
>countries have never been enforced. The U.S. doesn't seem to want to
>enforce these resolutions. Bush has ever complained about their
>non-enforcement.
>
Perhaps because they don't threaten our national security.
That does matter, you know.
>The UN Security Council passed a resolution instructing the Israeli
>forces to pull back to positions occupied before September 2000. The
>motion was presented by the United Kingdom, France, Norway and Bulgaria
>and was approved despite the abstention of the USA. It has never been
>enforced. I wonder what the American position would be if France decided
>to take out the Israeli government by military force because it failed
>to abide by this U.N. resolution.
>
I hope we would be fighting the French.
Israel would love to pull back, but when they do, they get attacked by
terrorists.
>So it is somewhat inconsistent to say that the U.S. may justify its
>non-UN sanctioned action in Iraq because it is necessary to enforce a UN
>resolution. It is the content of that particular resolution that brings
>the U.S. to wage war on Iraq. The U.S. is picking and choosing which
>resolutions it wants to enforce.
Of course!
Some matter a lot, and some matter very little.
Israel has a right to exist. A lot of people in Europe don't seem to
accept that.
>That suggests that it is not at all
>interested in strengthening the UN. It is only interested in the UN if
>it can control it and use it to further its own interests. If it can't
>it wants to take its tanks and play on its own. The marble analogy isn't
>that far off.
>
>The real test of whether we are dealing with a child or an adult in the
>White House will be whether Bush tries to punish economically countries
>that did not support it (Mexico, Canada, Russia, China, France, Germany
>etc.). I suspect that Bush is more child-like and petty than many think.
>I could be wrong. I hope I am.
>
I think it's the Canadians and French that are child-like.
The U.S. does something they don't like, and they turn abusive toward
Bush.
John McAdams
wrote:
>>
>> When did John say that?
>> The justification for action in Iraq is the fact that
>> we feel it is in our own national interest to do so.
>
>The U.N. has no function if the U.S. is going to use it only if
>it agrees with it. Are you saying that the U.S. can do no wrong?
>- that only the U.S. knows what is right and what is wrong? That
>is what it sounds like.
>
>
Do you actually believe that if the U.N. fails to act that that means
morality requires inaction?
Please note: the U.N. didn't tell the U.S. not to invade Iraq. It
just failed to tell the U.S. it could invade Iraq.
Ever hear of the League of Nations and Ethiopia?
What do you think of an organization whose Human Rights Commission
includes the Sudan?
Do you know what they still have in the Sudan?
John McAdams
wrote:
>Tell me Mike, do the lives of Iraqis factor into an assessment of
>what is in the U.S. interest?
>
>
Do you understand how bizarre this sounds?
The biggest threat to the lives of Iraqis has been Saddam Hussein!
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>> Your analogy of someone
>> believing that they may be shot with a pre-emptive military strike is
>> ludicrous. As a matter of fact it is absurd on it's face. For instance, law
>> enforcement personal use deadly force if they are "in fear" for their lives,
>> or being attacked, or killed. Hopefully, they don't wait to find out. You
>> really don't seem very well versed in the law either........ABSOLUTELY YES,
>> I DO have the right to shoot you, if I believe you may KILL me.
>
>Not in any civilized country that I know. Such a belief has to be
>reasonable. Any belief based on conjecture rather than evidence
>is not reasonable. That was my point. You don't kill someone just
>because you 'believe' they may kill you. You need some evidence
>that they are about to kill you before the law recognizes it as a
>defence.
>
What do you think of Kennedy's actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Did Cuba "threaten" us?
Bud
> Bud wrote:
>
> >>Israel and its WMDs can very easily
> >>handle your dirty work there.
> >
> >Dirty work like using chemical
> >weapons on your own people?
> >Dirty work like flying commercial
> >planes into buildings full of innocent
> >people? Dirty work like straping a
> >bomb on and blowing up a bus full
> >of women and children? Dirty work
> >like shelling your own people,
> >pretending to surrender and attacking,
> >killing prisoners of war? We have a
> >far way to go down to get on a par
> >with your buddies in the Arab world,
> >Jerry.
>
> There are two kinds of terrorism at play around the world. The raw
> nasty crude kind used by the poor against the rich. And the
> institutionalized "under law" kind used by the rich against the poor.
>
it didn`t use restraint, and fight conventionally, but used the "kill
as many as you can" tactics of it`s enemies. You admit that the
Israelies could kill a lot of Arabs with it`s WMD. It`s evident if
certain of it`s enemies has these weapons, they would be used. The
fact that they aren`t shows that those weapons in the hands of the
Israelies are defensive.
> Israel was mentioned in the last post. See examples here:
> http://www.desert-voice.net/israeli_attrocities.htm
>
> Didn't Americans resort to sniping at British troops and persecuting
> Loyalists and Quakers during the War of Independence? Imagine if their
> society had been ghettoized and kids shot.
>
Shooting at your enemy from cover is permissible in war. We didn`t
put tires around the necks of the Loyalists, and light them on fire.
Most of the Arab world live in ghettos, countries not controlled by
Israel, places rich with oil revenue. Many of the kids shot were
throwing rocks at soldiers.
> With the US out of the Arab region, there would be little to stop a
> fanatic like Sharon from using his country's vast stockpiles of WMD to
> finalize ethnic cleansing. So far, for every Israeli killed since
> 1948, more than ten Arabs have perished.
>
We have no troops in Israel, what`s stopping them from doing this
ethnic cleansing? If it`s a 10 to 1 kill ratio between the Israelies
and the Palestinians, image what it could be... 100-1, 1,000-1, even
more if the Israelies fought like the Arabs and used everything at
thier disposal. It`s because of Isreal`s restraint and humanity that
the death rate has been as low as it is.
> Rightly or wrongly, most in the region blame what they perceive as
> Congress's unconditional financial and military support of Israel's
> "overkill" policy.
>
> >The UN isn`t as popular here in
> >America as it is with you, Jerry.
> >If polled, I doubt you`d get double
> >digits in favor of the UN over
> >American policy. Any administration
> >who became a rubber stamp for the
> >UN would do so at thier own political
> >risk. American generally like being
> >represented by the government
> >they elect.
>
> Sure, if the American public is presented with that characterization
> of the UN.
>
> It's impossible for the UN to "dictate" to the USG, as it has a veto
> on the Security Council. Non-binding resolutions carry little impact.
>
> Democratic Presidents Wilson and Truman saw the need for a world body
> to discuss differences.
>
> Even Bush sees a clear need for UN participation in post-war Iraq.
>
I think if you are going to get annoyed or frustrated when the US
acts independently, you better be prepared to be annoyed and
frustrated more in the future. And if you think the UN is going to get
our "rogue superpower" in line, I wonder who will lead that charge,
France? They`d be surrendering to our dolphins.
-Bud
> Jerry Organ
>
> ----------
Andrew Mason
John McAdams wrote:
>
> On 19 Mar 2003 17:59:03 -0500, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Tell me Mike, do the lives of Iraqis factor into an assessment of
> >what is in the U.S. interest?
> >
> >
>
> Do you understand how bizarre this sounds?
>
> The biggest threat to the lives of Iraqis has been Saddam Hussein!
I guess we will see. Some Iraqis don't appear to agree with you judging
by the fight they are putting up.
I am not suggesting that it would not be a desirable thing for the
Iraqis to be free of Saddam. But there may be worse things. A long
protracted civil war might be worse. Look at Yugoslavia. WWIII would be
worse. Just getting rid of Saddam is not in itself the solution to a
very complex problem.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
John McAdams wrote:
>
> On 19 Mar 2003 08:17:39 -0500, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Why are they cretins? Because they disagree with George W. Bush? Perhaps
> >they have simply not been persuaded by the evidence that Iraq is a
> >threat to the peace and security of the world that justifies starting a
> >war. I can understand that. I might even disagree with them on that. But
> >I can't call them cretins because of that.
> >
>
> I agree they shouldn't be called cretins.
>
> Do you agree that Canadian politicians shouldn't call Bush and his
> people "bastards" or "morons?"
As you know I am no fan of ad hominem debating tactics. One can
criticise positions and views but when the people who hold those views
come under attack personally they stop listening. End of debate.
People who make such comments do so in frustration. Bush has frustrated
alot of people. US policies have frustrated alot of people. But nothing
is accomplished, and much is lost, when these kinds of comments are made
publicly (and the frustration simply worsens).
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Absolutely. If Kennedy had not been able to use the diplomatic means of
getting the missiles removed the U.S. would have been justified in
removing them by force. Just as the USSR would have been justified in
removing U.S. missiles in Turkey that were aimed at the USSR.
Fortunately for the world cooler diplomatic heads prevailed and WWIII
was avoided. But the US, USSR and Cuba had rational leaders who did not
have a death wish.
If it had been demonstrated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
and the capacity to use them and refused to remove them, the US and the
world would have been justified in using force to remove them. I can't
say at this point whether that was true. If it was true, there would
have been a much broader international consensus to use force on Iraq.
And Canada would be in there helping to remove them - and Saddam.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
John McAdams wrote:
>
> On 19 Mar 2003 17:59:03 -0500, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> When did John say that?
> >> The justification for action in Iraq is the fact that
> >> we feel it is in our own national interest to do so.
> >
> >The U.N. has no function if the U.S. is going to use it only if
> >it agrees with it. Are you saying that the U.S. can do no wrong?
> >- that only the U.S. knows what is right and what is wrong? That
> >is what it sounds like.
> >
> >
>
> Do you actually believe that if the U.N. fails to act that that means
> morality requires inaction?
No. The UN is not the only body that expresses international consensus.
In Kosovo the UN did not approve military action due to Russia's veto.
NATO did, however. NATO represented a broad consensus of Europe as well
as Canada and the US. Canada was an active participant in Kosovo despite
lack of UN approval.
But in the Iraq invasion, there is no such consensus. You have the
largest countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East opposing
such action. If there had been a broad international consensus without
UN approval (say, if France was the only holdout) Canada likely would
have agreed to participate. But then there would likely have been
evidence that would have persuaded them that using military force was
justified.
>
> Please note: the U.N. didn't tell the U.S. not to invade Iraq. It
> just failed to tell the U.S. it could invade Iraq.
The UN cannot tell the US to do anything. The US has a veto.
>
> Ever hear of the League of Nations and Ethiopia?
And I didn't see the US chomping at the bit to invade and free Ethiopia,
did you?
When Germany invaded Poland, Britain and Canada declared war the next
day. Where was the US? Even the invasion of Britain did not prompt the
US to act. It took over two years and a Japanese attack on the US before
that occurred.
So is the US free from blame for the pitiful failure of the League of
Nations? What on earth does that have to do with Iraq? The UN did not
ignore or did not try to appease Iraq. Any parallel you might wish to
draw between 2003 Iraq and 1939 Germany would be very strained, to say
the least.
>
> What do you think of an organization whose Human Rights Commission
> includes the Sudan?
There are 53 countries represented on the UN Human Rights Commission. It
will not change its approach to human rights because Sudan is
represented on the committee. Are you saying that having a
representative from the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission is a bad
thing? Maybe it will wake them up and make them more accountable for
Human Rights violations.
>
> Do you know what they still have in the Sudan?
The UN has lots of problems. The world has lots of problems. So does the
US. Does that mean we give up and say it is hopeless?
Andrew Mason
GMcNally
Not at that time, no. But in the the very short term, yes. Thus, the
pre-emptive actions taken.
Now let me ask you one - China and Russia have ICBMs programed to
strike US targets - do they threaten us?
N. Korea has nuclear material and completed weapons and has the means
to produce more - quickly - and a long list of customers for their
materiel -
does N. Korea threaten us?
Jerry
Jerry
>
> .John
Jerry Organ
>Now imagine if Israel used the nasty
>crude tactics of the Arabs. If
>it didn't use restraint, ...
A ten-to-one kill ratio is restraint?
The ones showing restraint are Palestinians who have seen their cities and
towns destroyed, and loved ones murdered in cold blood by a force who came
uninvited to their land. America felt the same after 9/11.
>and fight conventionally, but used the
>"kill as many as you can" tactics of
>it's enemies.
Nonsense. All the peace initiatives have come from Arab countries. Most turned
their back on Soviet military help in the hopes of a peaceful resolution to the
Palestinian issue. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel.
>You admit that the Israelites could
>kill a lot of Arabs with it's WMD.
Sharon has the desire. The resources are enough to kill the Arab World hundreds
of times over.
>It's evident if certain of it's enemies
>has these weapons, they would be used.
There are extremists on both sides of the fence. Some, like Sharon in power in
Israel, would welcome the opportunity.
>The fact that they aren't shows that
>those weapons in the hands of the
>Israelies are defensive.
Why didn't British kill all the Catholics in Northern Ireland?
World opinion makes Israel hesitate. World opinion may eventually cause it to
reduce its WMD capability to acceptable levels. No Arab nation has nuclear
weapons, so Israel doesn't need 200.
>Shooting at your enemy from
>cover is permissible in war.
Gee. If Colonial kids had thrown rocks, they'll been shot on the spot. Well,
not by British troops, even 200 years ago.
>We didn't put tires around the necks
>of the Loyalists, and light them on fire.
>Most of the Arab world live in ghettos,
>countries not controlled by Israel,
>places rich with oil revenue.
The West Bank amounts to an Israeli-run slave labor colony, with absurdly-low
wages. Even the Arab minority within Israel are subjected to apartheid-like
working and living conditions.
If any other country in the world, the US would complain about it.
>Many of the kids shot were
>throwing rocks at soldiers.
Geeeze. They should have used lethal force against Vietnam War protesters.
Nixon would have got the demonstrators off his back. But then their grieving
parents would be complaining.
>We have no troops in Israel, what's
>stopping them from doing this
>ethnic cleansing?
The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) is doing as much ethnic cleaning as Sharon
believes he can get away with. The country relies on US support, which is
conditioned on American public opinion.
The British, for example, wouldn't tolerate its forces liquidating the Catholic
community in Northern Ireland.
>If it's a 10 to 1 kill ratio between the
>Israelies and the Palestinians, image
>what it could be... 100-1, 1,000-1,
>even more
I can imagine that.
>if the Israelies fought like the Arabs
>and used everything at thier disposal.
>It's because of Isreal's restraint and
>humanity that the death rate has
>been as low as it is.
Yeah. Great humanitarians and peace-seekers.
>I think if you are going to get annoyed
>or frustrated when the US acts
>independently, you better be prepared
>to be annoyed and frustrated more in
>the future.
I hope the annoyance of world opinion frustrates the hell out of Bush, Cheney
and that bunch.
>And if you think the UN is going to get
>our "rogue superpower" in line, I wonder
>who will lead that charge, France?
>They'd be surrendering to our dolphins.
Like I said: it's impossible for the UN to dictate to the US.
The UN can point out where rogue superpowers violate international law and fail
to deliver on promises of billions in aid (ie: Afghanistan).
The UN is the moral conscience of the world. That's why it bothers
arch-rightwingers.
Jerry Organ
----------
Ed Cage
WMD, the method of delivery is a very distant 2nd place
consideration..
CIA, Collin Powell & US Intelligence sources proved Iraq
does/did have WMD.. You will see further proof in about
a week btw..
WMD can be delivered w a car bomb or a traveler's suitcase.
They can even be delivered via US Mail for that matter..
Ed _________________________________________________ el291
Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message news:<3E845D96...@dufourlaw.com>...
> --
WinBear
On 27-Mar-2003, jerry...@mail.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> "WinBear" wrote:
>
> > Then, understand that your "new arms race"
> > will be started only by those nations who
> > want to harm us. Understand that they
> > shouldn't be able to.
>
> What if the Russians ripped up the treaty to pursue SDI, which they
> had a lead in?
>
If we let them get a lead in SDI whose fault would it be?
> Would that be acceptable to the USG, or would they be compelled to
> match the Russians?
>
Given that they were "we will bury you!" aggressors and we were not, we
would probably react.
> If SDI is intended solely to counter "rogue" nations, it should be
> joinly-developed and co-deployed. Otherwise, the USG can bully and
> boss the whole world around even more.
>
Jointly developed by who? How could we rely on a system to defend
ourselves, which was partially developed by one of the ones we would be
defending against? What is the incentive for them to put a system in place
to defend the US? And what is wrong with the best available nation being
in charge? If the world would behave, we wouldn't have to push it around!
> > Understand that the only ones who object
> > to our being safe are those who want to
> > harm us.
>
> Some are. Others see the US initiative as underminding the
> geopolitical balance the old ABM treaty had secured.
>
Oh, dear, we seem to have upset some nebulous "geopolitical balance" by
being safe. Quick, everyone, run and lay your necks on a chopping block
and invite the world to pick up an axe!
"Balanced" is not as worthwhile a goal as "safe". Freedom and peace are
synomyms for "too dangerous to mess with".
> > The UN? Expensive ineffectual (when
> > asked to do anything good) supporters
> > of Hussain-types. Enemies of freedom.
>
> You gonna hate Bush for allowing the UN to help with a post-war Iraq?
> Bet your tune on the UN changes then.
>
If he does, it'll be possible because we have a veto. While not
Republican, I wish him well in the choices he has to make, even if it
includes holding his nose and letting the UN stick their inept leftist
thumbs into the situation.
> > World peace? A fine idea, as long as
> > it comes with freedom, not an Orwellian
> > "boot stamping a human face... forever".
> > Peace is not a synonym for "the bad
> > guys getting away with it".
>
> You have just decribed how much of the world and many Americans now
> perceive the Bush Administration.
>
Then they are winding their tinfoil turbans too tight. Saddam has to be
replaced for the Iraqis to ever be free. We haven't added a square
millimeter of soil to our own since Alaska and Hawaii... so anyone who
thinks we are empire building needs to lay off the crack for a while.
WinBear
WinBear
On 27-Mar-2003, jerry...@mail.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> "WinBear" wrote:
> >
> >> I asked for WinBear's source, suggesting
> >> it sounds like "some Rumfeld/Chaney/
> >> Gingrich ignoramus dogma."
> >
> > The collapse of the Soviet Union is
> > common knowledge. What part of "It's
> > dead, Jim", are you having trouble with?
> >
> > We legally left a treaty negotiated with a
> > defunct nation. What part of this are you
> > having trouble understanding?
>
> When I posted:
> "When the former Soviet Union
> collapsed, its ABM Treaty obligations
> were inherited by the Russian
> Federation."
>
> You asked:
> "Post the part of the treaty that
> says that."
>
> To that request, I posted a USN site that confirm what I had stated.
>
You stll have not posted *the part of the treaty we were discussing* that
said that. Stop looking up other after-the-fact treaties! And as has
already been pointed out to you, we left entirely legally, whichever
treaty you rave on about. Since you can't seem to distinguish between the
treaty under discussion and some other one, what makes you think the
"ignoramus dogma" is neo-rightwing? You don't seem to be neo-rightwing...
WinBear
Jerry Organ
>>Would that be acceptable to the
>>USG, or would they be compelled
>>to match the Russians?
>
>Given that they were "we will bury
>you!" aggressors and we were not,
>we would probably react.
You're going to treat the Russians on the basis of some rhetoric from the old
Soviet regime made at the height of the Cold War? I thought you said the USSR
was a "defunct nation"?
And if you can react to old rhetoric, surely the major world powers can view
with suspicion any real and current military oneupmanships from the world's
most belligerent and militant nation.
>Jointly developed by who? How could
>we rely on a system to defend
>ourselves, which was partially
>developed by one of the ones we
>would be defending against?
Jointly developed by the major signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty, so as to protect those nations from rogue nations. Why should anyone
trust a USG that loathes diplomacies, treaties, the UN and multilateralism?
>What is the incentive for them
>to put a system in place to
>defend the US?
Would defend all from rogue nations.
>And what is wrong with the best
>available nation being in charge?
That's the view from America. The rest of the world has seen the UGS's true
colors and rightly distrust it.
>If the world would behave, we
>wouldn't have to push it around!
You mean, conform to USG wishes, which results in the US and partners like
Israel setting up slave-wage colonies and denying people the right to
self-determination.
>Then they are winding their
>tinfoil turbans too tight.
>Saddam has to be replaced
>for the Iraqis to ever be free.
Seems some hate Americans more than they hate Saddam. And with good reason.
The USG endgame for the Arab World is US military-enforced slave-wage colonies
with no self-determination. One can see in Palestine the USG model for Middle
East "democracy."
>We haven't added a square
>millimeter of soil to our
>own since Alaska and Hawaii...
You mean in the form of US states?
The War of 1812, launched by the US, was an ill-advised attempt to drive
Britain out of North America. To this day, the US is the only nation to have
invaded Canada.
The 1840s doctrine Manifest Destiny held that America had a God-given mission
to rule the continent of North America.
To secure Hawaii, a US-backed coup ousted the last Queen of Hawaii.
"Fifty-four forty or fight." Americans wanted the Oregon Territory (which
Britain had settled) extended to lat. 54degrees40'N, the recognized southern
boundary of Russian America. War was threatened with Great Britain.
In 1848, the US provoked war with Mexico, so as to steal 40 percent of its
land. With the Spanish-American War, the USG stole the Philippines, Guam and
Puerto Rico.
When Canada Confederation was acheived in 1867, the US threatened invasion
again. That's why our railroad runs along the St. Lawrence, far from the US
border.
There was the 1902 Alaska panhandle boundary dispute, in which the US refused
compromised and threatened war with the British Empire if it did not get its
way at a tribunal.
When negotiations with Columbia for a canal zone broke down, the USG created
the artifical country of Panama through "gunboat diplomacy."
In the wake of WWI, territorial acquisition by force had become passe.
"Colonialism" was a bad word. President Woodrow Wilson sought a League of
Nations to prevent imperialism and colonialism.
>so anyone who thinks we are
>empire building needs to lay
>off the crack for a while.
Not in the old sense of imperialism, with outright rule by colonial governors.
But in the new sense, supporting or toppling regimes when and where it suits
USG interests.
Jerry Organ
----------
"The Constitution has made no provision
for our holding foreign territory, still
less for incorporating foreign nations
into our union. The Executive, in seizing
the fugitive occurrence which so much
advances the good of their country,
have done an act beyond the constitution."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1803
"Territory sometimes comes to us
when we go to war in a holy cause."
-- Pres. McKinley, 1898
"There is not an imperialist in the
country that I have yet to met.
Expansion? Yes; playing the part of
a great nation. Expansion has been
the law of our national growth."
-- Spin-Doctor Theodore Roosevelt
Bud
> WinBear wrote:
>
> >>Would that be acceptable to the
> >>USG, or would they be compelled
> >>to match the Russians?
> >
> >Given that they were "we will bury
> >you!" aggressors and we were not,
> >we would probably react.
>
> You're going to treat the Russians on the basis of some rhetoric from the old
> Soviet regime made at the height of the Cold War? I thought you said the USSR
> was a "defunct nation"?
>
> And if you can react to old rhetoric, surely the major world powers can view
> with suspicion any real and current military oneupmanships from the world's
> most belligerent and militant nation.
>
WE`RE #1!!!
> >Jointly developed by who? How could
> >we rely on a system to defend
> >ourselves, which was partially
> >developed by one of the ones we
> >would be defending against?
>
> Jointly developed by the major signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation
> treaty, so as to protect those nations from rogue nations. Why should anyone
> trust a USG that loathes diplomacies, treaties, the UN and multilateralism?
>
We love diplomacy, treaties and multilateralism when it gets the
results we want. You`re right about the UN, though...
> >What is the incentive for them
> >to put a system in place to
> >defend the US?
>
> Would defend all from rogue nations.
>
Let us build the umbrella, then we can decide who gets in out of the
rain. Canada is looking real wet these days.
> >And what is wrong with the best
> >available nation being in charge?
>
> That's the view from America. The rest of the world has seen the UGS's true
> colors and rightly distrust it.
>
We rightly distrust the rest of the world because of thier distrust
of us.
> >If the world would behave, we
> >wouldn't have to push it around!
>
> You mean, conform to USG wishes, which results in the US and partners like
> Israel setting up slave-wage colonies and denying people the right to
> self-determination.
>
Slave-wage colonies that deny people the right to self-determination
is a good way to describe the entire Arab world.
> >Then they are winding their
> >tinfoil turbans too tight.
> >Saddam has to be replaced
> >for the Iraqis to ever be free.
>
> Seems some hate Americans more than they hate Saddam. And with good reason.
>
Hard to say how they feel. Have you seen any polls?
> The USG endgame for the Arab World is US military-enforced slave-wage colonies
> with no self-determination. One can see in Palestine the USG model for Middle
> East "democracy."
>
Millions pour into Palestine in aid, from the UN, and from other
Arab nations.. goes for car bombs and lining Arafat`s pockets.
> >We haven't added a square
> >millimeter of soil to our
> >own since Alaska and Hawaii...
>
> You mean in the form of US states?
>
> The War of 1812, launched by the US, was an ill-advised attempt to drive
> Britain out of North America. To this day, the US is the only nation to have
> invaded Canada.
>
Was Canada empty when the Europeans landed? That could count as the
first invasion.
> The 1840s doctrine Manifest Destiny held that America had a God-given mission
> to rule the continent of North America.
>
> To secure Hawaii, a US-backed coup ousted the last Queen of Hawaii.
>
> "Fifty-four forty or fight." Americans wanted the Oregon Territory (which
> Britain had settled) extended to lat. 54degrees40'N, the recognized southern
> boundary of Russian America. War was threatened with Great Britain.
>
> In 1848, the US provoked war with Mexico, so as to steal 40 percent of its
> land. With the Spanish-American War, the USG stole the Philippines, Guam and
> Puerto Rico.
>
Countries Spain rightfully received as Christmas presents...
> When Canada Confederation was acheived in 1867, the US threatened invasion
> again. That's why our railroad runs along the St. Lawrence, far from the US
> border.
>
Still well within range of our cruise missles... heh,heh.
> There was the 1902 Alaska panhandle boundary dispute, in which the US refused
> compromised and threatened war with the British Empire if it did not get its
> way at a tribunal.
>
See, we like diplomacy.
> When negotiations with Columbia for a canal zone broke down, the USG created
> the artifical country of Panama through "gunboat diplomacy."
>
"artifical"? What country isn`t a construct? Canada evolved from
single-cell nation protoplasm?
> In the wake of WWI, territorial acquisition by force had become passe.
> "Colonialism" was a bad word. President Woodrow Wilson sought a League of
> Nations to prevent imperialism and colonialism.
>
> >so anyone who thinks we are
> >empire building needs to lay
> >off the crack for a while.
>
> Not in the old sense of imperialism, with outright rule by colonial governors.
> But in the new sense, supporting or toppling regimes when and where it suits
> USG interests.
>
Yeah, the world was a much nicer place with the old USSR in place...
Also, Jerry, you left out how the the US manuevered the
peace-loving Japanese into attacking us. If the Iraqis start
duct-taping babies to thier tanks, will that be our fault too? We are
a terrible people, as long as you block out the actions of the rest of
the world.
-Bud
Jerry Organ
>If the Iraqis start duct-taping
>babies to thier tanks, will that
>be our fault too?
Like that would be a deterrent.
Yesterday, a US military "liberation" squad "took out" several Iraqi women
and children. As usual, the Pentagon seized the opportunity to pass the
blame for their own crimes onto Saddam.
De facto US military war crimes against innocent civilians will increase
as the fighting goes house-to-house.
The Pentagon routinely terrorizes millions of innocent children by
needless nighttime bombing:
http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/wwwwar.html
I had thought my local cartoonist went too far last Sunday:
http://www.geocities.com/jerryorgan/jfkitems/Reference/bushbaby.gif
See "The Nazification of America":
http://proliberty.com/observer/20030314.htm
Jerry Organ
----------
You may be a ultra-rightwinger if ...
you do not remember the French
getting out of Viet Nam in 1954
and not listening to the French in 2003.
Bud
> Bud wrote:
>
> >If the Iraqis start duct-taping
> >babies to thier tanks, will that
> >be our fault too?
>
> Like that would be a deterrent.
>
> Yesterday, a US military "liberation" squad "took out" several Iraqi women
> and children. As usual, the Pentagon seized the opportunity to pass the
> blame for their own crimes onto Saddam.
>
You can`t tell an action from a reaction.
> De facto US military war crimes against innocent civilians will increase
> as the fighting goes house-to-house.
>
Human rights crimes have beem occuring against civilians regularly
with this regime, which begs the question "if an arab is killed in a
basement, amd the BBC doesn`t report it, are they really dead?"
> The Pentagon routinely terrorizes millions of innocent children by
> needless nighttime bombing:
>
We hope the lack of sleep will disorient them when thier parents
strap bombs on them to martyr them.
> http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/wwwwar.html
>
> I had thought my local cartoonist went too far last Sunday:
> http://www.geocities.com/jerryorgan/jfkitems/Reference/bushbaby.gif
>
> See "The Nazification of America":
> http://proliberty.com/observer/20030314.htm
>
> Jerry Organ
>
> ----------
>
> You may be a ultra-rightwinger if ...
> you do not remember the French
> getting out of Viet Nam in 1954
> and not listening to the French in 2003.
The only thing I like French is toast.
But, you may be super-commie if you remember the picture of the naked
girl running from the bombs, but don`t know anything about the tens of
thousands of South Vietnamese killed in "re-education" camps after the
US left. If an asian is killed in the jungle, and the media doesn`t
cover it, are they still dead?
-Bud
Jerry Organ
>If an asian is killed in the jungle,
>and the media doesn't cover it,
>are they still dead?
Even when its available, your corporate-controlled and special-interest-driven
media prefers not to cover much of the slave-wage ghettoization and ethnic
cleansing conducted by the Isrealis in the Gaza Strip.
Nor did your media show much footage of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
children who starved to death because of harsh sanctions demanded by the USG.
You Yanks were lucky there weren't any movie cameras around during the USG's
ethnic cleansing of the First Nations and the slavery persecution of
African-Americans. Only when the cameras were rolling in Birmingham did
attention start being paid to civil rights.
What's interesting about the checkpoint massacre is that the Pentagon issued a
kneejerk rehearsed "canned version" of event, while a reporter-witness saw
something much different.
Jerry Organ
Caeruleo
jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> Caeruleo wrote:
>
> >>I suspect the occupation of Iraq is
> >>merely pre-staging for the invasion
> >>of Iran. And that country hasn't
> >>been softened up by years of UN
> >>sanctions and weapons inspection.
> >
> >Whoa! An invasion of Iran too?
> >Where are you getting this from?
>
> For a while, some arch-right Bush supporters have claimed Iran is actually
> the
> greater threat. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice insisted on Iran's
> inclusion on a list of threatening countries collectively called the "axis of
> evil."
>
> Even further back, some US officials believed revolutionary Iran posed a
> greater danger; thus backing Saddam with limited support in the Iran-Iraq
> War.
> Mixed signals send by the USG to Saddam somehow led him to think he could
> annex
> Kuwait in 1990.
The Iran of today, however, is rather different from the Iran which held
our embassy staff hostage for over a year, & the Iran which openly
called on all members of a major religion worldwide to murder a mere
author of fiction. It's hardly a model of "freedom & light" just yet,
but it's considerably less hard-line than it was then.
> An invasion of Iran would be far more costly and difficult, and potentially
> draw in Arab states and Russia. A coalition supporting the US would be less
> likely, and there is no UN-scantioned earlier confrontation as with Iraq.
Thus you present one of the reasons an invasion of Iran would be less
likely.
> The pretext for an Iran invasion would be that Teheran is trying to build an
> atomic weapon and is harboring fundamentalist terrorists. Seems unlikely the
> USG would amass a large strikeforce in Iraq, only to ship it all back home
> without having a go at Iran.
It would seem to me to be an action many orders of magnitude more
foolish than the present one.
> Some conservatives contend US support for Iran's growing internal opposition
> could weaken the country's collective resistance. It's possible opposition
> groups, emboldened by a US invasion and supplied with arms, could take over
> portions of the country.
>
> There is already a strike capability by US forces stationed in the Gulf. A
> buildup in Afghanistan of US forces would open a third front. US forces may
> need sometime to "mop up" resistance in Iraq, rearm and send in
> reinforcements.
> Expect an "October Surprise" next year, to insure Bush's re-election.
>
> As for "regime change" in Iraq, that idea has been around for some time. Paul
> Wolfowitz, a Pentagon official who is now the US deputy defense secretary,
> wrote a June 1979 paper "Capabilities for Limited Contingencies in the
> Persian
> Gulf" that highlighted Saddam's increasing military threat to the Gulf
> region.
>
> The notion of an invasion was promoted in conservative forums in the 1990s.
> And
> five years ago, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and others
> sent
> Bill Clinton a letter urging the "removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from
> power."
>
> Bush ordered preparation for an Iraq invasion a few days after 9/11.
That all may be. I still don't find it nearly as likely that an
invasion of Iran will be actually approved & implemented by Those In
Charge as even this present invasion, regarding which I will openly
state that I am not at all pleased, to put it mildly, even though in
general I am a very patriotic American.
--
Belief in the traditional Single Bullet Theory is not even mildly
necessary to support a belief in Lee Harvey Oswald as the one & only
assassin of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Peter Fokes
>From an article in today's Toronto Star:
<quote>
Bush advisor: Canadians will rue PM's stand
Calls Chretien 'lame duck': New leader will have to repair friendship,
Richard Perle says
Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief
National Post
Thursday, April 03, 2003
OTTAWA - Richard Perle, a leading U.S. defence policy advisor, said
yesterday that Canadians will come to regret Jean Chrétien's refusal to join
an American-led coalition in the war against Iraq.
Mr. Perle, who worked as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush in the
2000 election, and remains a close associate of Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S.
Secretary of Defence, also told the National Post relations between Mr. Bush
and Canada's "lame-duck" Prime Minister are in serious trouble and will need
to be repaired by the next Liberal leader.
Mr. Perle said U.S. officials believe Mr. Chrétien ignored Washington's call
to arms against Iraq and permitted anti-Americanism to fester in the Liberal
caucus because he does not have to face voters again nor live with the
consequences of his actions.
"The Prime Minister is a lame duck. So that may help explain the failure to
appreciate the disappointment that would be caused not only by the Canadian
government policy on Iraq, but by the cacophony of [Liberal] criticism --
much of it ill-informed and much of it simply name-calling," he said.
"There is simply no other way to describe the positions of some countries --
not many, but some countries -- which is to lend far more support to Saddam
Hussein's regime than they may have intended by the positions they have
taken.... There will be many people around the world, including many
Canadians, who on reflection, if they have an open mind at all, will
question whether their government equated itself with the right expression
of Canadian values."
Mr. Perle, a former assistant secretary of defence under Ronald Reagan, said
the American leadership is deeply disappointed the Prime Minister chose to
abandon Canada's long-time allies -- the U.S. and Great Britain -- to
support the anti-war policy of French President Jacques Chirac.
He accused Mr. Chrétien and President Chirac of opposing the war because of
"an unwillingness to confront" the Iraqi dictator but predicted the Prime
Minister will be embarrassed when weapons of mass destruction are found and
the Iraqi people tell the world "what life was like under Saddam Hussein."
"If Canada wishes to subordinate its moral and political values to President
[Jacques] Chirac --so be it. Chirac and Chrétien deserve each other," he
said.
"I would like to believe that the people of Canada will say to Chrétien on
his way out -- 'Why did you put us in this position? This was, in fact, a
just war and look at what we now have learned [about] what life was like
under Saddam Hussein and there are the weapons of mass destruction and how
could you have done this to us.' "
<quote off>
*******
There are so many errors in this fellow's comments to the right-wing
National Post, it is hard to believe he even knows where Canada is located
on the map. Here are a few:
1. The majority of Canadians oppose the war in Iraq. They support the Prime
Minister's policy. It is only a few radical right-wingers in the hapless
Alliance Party that have criticized the Prime Minister. Why should Canadians
regret their own opinion? Just because it is not the same as Mr. Perle's and
the American position? Is this an example of the "new" American diplomacy:
promise punishment to democratic nations who reach independent conclusions
based on the support of their citizens?
2. Relations between the two nations have been harmed, for example, by the
imposition of import duties on various Canadian products.....duties that
have since been ruled unfair by the International Court of appeal on such
matters. Canadians also strongly support Kyoto Treaty as does the majority
of the world.
3. He states that Prime Minister Chretein formed his policy on the war becau
se he does not face re-election. Utter nonsense. The Government's policy is
backed by the Canadian people. And the Liberal Party will still face an
election based on the policies it has advocated.
4. He calls our Prime Minister a lame duck and then argues Chretein
"allowed" other caucus members to make comments against the war. Well, if he
is a "lame duck", how is he supposed to control those vying for the
leadership from making comments?
5. He calls the opinion of individual folks "ill-formed"..lol..as if their
are no "ill-formed" opinions of American politicians or pundits!!
6. He argues that if a Canadian has "an open mind at all", they will
question the government's stance. LOL. In other words, don't have an open
mind..either re-evaluate your opinion or face the consequences!
7. He says Canada abandoned its long-time allies. Canada has soldiers in
Afghanistan. Canada supports the majority opinion of the United Nations,
including its long-time allies Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway, etc.,
etc. Perhaps Mr. Perle no longer considers these countries nations.
8. He claims Canada is supporting Chirac's policy. The fact is Canada is
supporting its OWN policy not based on another nation's foreighn policy but
its OWN policy. Canada does happen to have two official languages and a
province whose language is primarily French. Why does he bring Chirac into
the picture, when it is Canada's OWN French Canadian citizens who support
the Canadian government's positon? The idea we are subordinating our "moral
values" to Chirac is complete utter hogwash! Only someone almost completely
ignorant of Canadian culture and "moral values" could make such an erroneous
and completely unfounded statement.
9. He tells the people to ask Chretein why he put us in this position. He is
the Prime Minister and is reflecting the VIEWS OF THE PEOPLE. We are a
democracy.
What arrogance, what stupidity. I have absolutely nothing against America or
its people...nor do the vast majority of Canadians. But no Canadian
appreciates such uninformed and threatening comments from a person who
doesn't seem to have the slightest clue about Canadian society or politics.
Thank you Mr. Perle. Such comments will be a huge boost for Canadian
nationalism and raise support for the current government.
Peter Fokes
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:3E7F2B41...@dufourlaw.com...
>
>
> John Fiorentino wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E7D2964...@dufourlaw.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > WinBear wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 21-Mar-2003, Andrew Mason <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That is precisely why, if there had been some good evidence that
> > > > > Saddam Hussein had built up weapons of mass destruction and was
> > > > > not willing to destroy them, the world community likely would
> > > > > have agreed to disarm Iraq by force.
> > > >
> > > > After Colin Powell proved this, nothing happened.
> > >
> > > Smoke and mirrors. I am surprised Powell was able to keep a straight
> > > face.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hussain wouldn't wait for UN approval before putting his weapons to
use.
> > > > Joining the UN is not a suicide pact. We have the right to defend
> > ourselves.
> > >
> > > Do you have the right to shoot me just because you 'believe' I might
> > > kill you? Try getting a jury to buy that one. Juries prefer cogent
> > > evidence.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Now that Saddam is using the Scuds "he didn't have", the world
should be
> > on
> > > > our side... we were right and the UN was wrong.
> > >
> > > Normal Scuds were not illegal for Iraq. Iraq was entitled to have
short
> > > range defensive weapons. The UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement
set
> > > the terms limiting the range of missiles Iraq could possess. Extended
> > > range scuds were illegal and that is why Iraq had to start destroying
> > > those missiles a few weeks ago. (It seems that George W. couldn't wait
> > > for Saddam Hussein to finish destroying those extended range Scuds).
> > >
> > > What evidence is there that these scuds exceeded the maximum agreed
> > > range?
> > >
> > > Andrew Mason
> > >
> > > >
> > > > End of story.
> > > >
> > > > WinBear
> >
> > Mason:
> >
> > Have you now taken to defending Saddam Hussein?
>
> Why would you interpret anything I have said as defending Saddam
> Hussein. Do you always debate using bully tactics?
>
> > Your analogy of someone
> > believing that they may be shot with a pre-emptive military strike is
> > ludicrous. As a matter of fact it is absurd on it's face. For instance,
law
> > enforcement personal use deadly force if they are "in fear" for their
lives,
> > or being attacked, or killed. Hopefully, they don't wait to find out.
You
> > really don't seem very well versed in the law either........ABSOLUTELY
YES,
> > I DO have the right to shoot you, if I believe you may KILL me.
>
> Not in any civilized country that I know. Such a belief has to be
> reasonable. Any belief based on conjecture rather than evidence
> is not reasonable. That was my point. You don't kill someone just
> because you 'believe' they may kill you. You need some evidence
> that they are about to kill you before the law recognizes it as a
> defence.
>
> > That is
> > called SELF-DEFENSE.......and if I am SUCCESSFUL in KILLING you, that
might
> > be called JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE, wouldn't it? .........Depending on ALL
the
> > evidence as the jury saw it.
>
> That was my point. There is no evidence that Iraq was about to
> attack the U.S.
>
> >
> > What our troops and our President need now is SUPPORT.
>
> They will need some good luck too.
>
> I hope they achieve their goal quickly with as little pain as
> possible. But that doesn't stop me believing that the U.S. is
> making a big mistake. A well intentioned mistake, perhaps. The
> war will be the easy part. Winning the hearts and minds of the
> Iraqi people and the muslim world in general, and avoiding future
> conflicts will be the tough part. Terrorism is fueled by
> hatred. I don't see that hatred being reduced by the invasion of
> Iraq.
>
> As far as your President is concerned, I think he is going to
> need all the luck he can get in order to get re-elected in 2004.
> Wartime leaders are fine for war but I have a feeling Bush will
> not be chosen to rebuild the peace.
>
> Andrew Mason
>
> >
> > John F.
Jerry Organ
>The Iran of today, however, is rather
>different from the Iran which held
>our embassy staff hostage for over
>a year,
The initial anger, I believe, was over the Shad of Iran escaping trial for
"state crimes." The Shad's enforcers were a sadistic bunch. It would be like
Saddam escaping capture and judgment; the US would be furious at any country
that facilitated his exile.
>& the Iran which openly called
>on all members of a major
>religion worldwide to murder
>a mere author of fiction.
Rushdie, who's an atheist, wrote "The Satanic Verses" as a blasphemy against
Islam. The decree was issued in 1989; you think they would have got him by now.
A similar decree was issued in a northern state of Nigeria last fall, sparking
the riots against the Miss World pageant.
It's not unlike US religious fundamentalists shooting abortion doctors; some
understand the rationale that drives it, a few condone it, but only a handful
get around to doing it.
>It's hardly a model of "freedom &
>light" just yet, but it's considerably
>less hard-line than it was then.
There are signs of reform. But if the Bush Administration decides Iran is next,
its propaganda machine won't take long to paint the country as some evil
monstrosity.
Fellows like Falwell, Robertson and even Billy Graham have called Islam in
general a "evil" religion. One would hope George W is more sophisticated in his
world view than that.
>>Seems unlikely the USG would
>>amass a large strikeforce in Iraq,
>>only to ship it all back home
>>without having a go at Iran.
>
>It would seem to me to be an action
>many orders of magnitude more
>foolish than the present one.
You may be right. The world backlash and internal misgivings about the Iraq
attack may evoke more sober thinking in Washington.
Columnist Maureen Dowd wrote yesterday:
"The Washington Post reported on
Monday that moderate Republicans
were trying to do an intervention with
the president to show him that hawks
were giving him 'bum advice.' "
The rosy predictions of Iraqis greeting Americans "liberators" with smiles was
apparently supplied by the Iraqi National Congress, the CIA-funded
opposition-in-exile headed by Ahmed Chalabi, a close associate of Defense
Policy Board member Richard Perle and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Perle and Wolfowitz are among the clique of untra-conservatives close to Cheney
and Rumsfeld, who advocated a US occupation of Iraq.
Dowd adds:
"The article was clearly referring to the
Bush I realpolitik crowd of James Baker,
Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger
and Mr. Powell and his acolytes at State.
These pals of Poppy Bush are alarmed
that the Hobbesian Dick Cheney -- who
has been down in his undisclosed locations
reading books about how war is the natural
state of mankind -- the flamboyantly
belligerent Rummy and the crusading
neo-cons have mesmerized the president
with their macho schemes."
"The Oedipal struggle of the Bushes --
a father who was an ambassador to the
UN and an envoy to China, a globe-trotting
vice president and an internationalist
president, and a son who was a Texas
governor with little knowledge of the world
-- was bound to be aggravated by an
invasion of Iraq not sanctioned by the UN"
"Here was a son acting to correct his
father's 'mistakes' in the first gulf war,
when his father did not think he had made
a mistake, but rather a great contribution
to history."
James Baker, GHW Bush's Secretary of State during the Gulf War, gave a very
good speech at Toronto's Empire Club yesterday. Rebuilding Iraq should not be
based on what occurred in post-war Japan and Germany, he argued.
"The Iraqis will be a liberated people, not a defeated people." Baker said. An
emergency government run by the coalition should give way as soon as possible
to an Iraqi federalist government.
This echoed Tony Blair's remarks made Wednesday:
"As soon as possible, Iraq should not
be run either by the coalition or by
the UN -- it should be run by Iraqis.
It should be run by Iraqi people on
basis of a broadly representative
government that protects human
rights and that is committed to
peace and stability in the region."
Blair also said his country would not participate in an escalation aimed at
Syria or Iraq:
"It's important, particularly in
relation to Iran, to recognize we
are in constant contact with them
in order to make sure that this
situation is not exacerbated in
any way."
Rumsfeld has been saber-rattling towards the two Arab countries, indicating he
favors an expansion of the conflict post-Bagdad. Initially, Rummy had planned
to be able to conduct a major invasion every year without having to mobilize
the entire US military.
Reportedly, Rummy did not utilize all the resources at his disposal, so as to
make the attack on Iraq a test of his "annual invasion" plan. But the plan
didn't go smoothly and additional troops had to be send.
Rumsfeld envisions a US military ruling Iraq for an indefinite period. General
Jay Garner would run Iraq through 23 ministries, each headed by US hawks
hand-picked by Rumsfeld (who has already rejected eight State Department
nominees).
Colin Powell is in Brussels today for a series of meetings with Nato and EU
foreign ministers, advancing Rumsfeld's plan and a limited UN role. Blair and
Europe would prefer UN administration, followed by an independent Iraq with
self-determination.
That plan would undermine Rummy's dream of escalating his strike force into
Syria and Iran. And perhaps sour "sweet-heart" deals in which US corporations
would "help" Iraq with capital in return for long-term contracts for oil at a
ridiculously-low price.
Jerry Organ
--------
Bud
> Bud wrote:
>
> >If an asian is killed in the jungle,
> >and the media doesn't cover it,
> >are they still dead?
>
> Even when its available, your corporate-controlled and special-interest-driven
> media prefers not to cover much of the slave-wage ghettoization and ethnic
> cleansing conducted by the Isrealis in the Gaza Strip.
>
them in such bad shape. If they just ignored Isreal, and irrigated and
worked the land they have, they wouldn`t be in that position. It`s
easier to blame Isreal for the failure of the Palestinians, than for
them to become economically stable themselves.
> Nor did your media show much footage of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
> children who starved to death because of harsh sanctions demanded by the USG.
>
The UN approved sanctions are killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
children? That`s multilateralism for you.
> You Yanks were lucky there weren't any movie cameras around during the USG's
> ethnic cleansing of the First Nations and the slavery persecution of
> African-Americans. Only when the cameras were rolling in Birmingham did
> attention start being paid to civil rights.
>
You`re really bringing out the ghosts of Christmas past. The British
Empire was involved both in the slave trade, and indian killing.
Canada has as much to be ashamed of as the US. If you feel guilty,
give your house to a native American, and go back to Europe.
> What's interesting about the checkpoint massacre is that the Pentagon issued a
> kneejerk rehearsed "canned version" of event, while a reporter-witness saw
> something much different.
>
Whatever happened, you can believe it was a regretable mistake.
Because of the car bombing of our enemy, some of our troops may be
understandably jumpy. You only have a few seconds to decide "friend or
foe". If one starts shooting, they`re all liable to open up. It`s not
a good situation to be in, I`m sure our troops would perfer fighting
soldiers in uniform fighting in the field.
But, which side has killed more civilians since this war started,
Jerry? Are you sure?
-Bud
> Jerry Organ
Jerry Organ
>Richard Peril, a leading US defence
>policy advisor, said yesterday that
>Canadians will come to regret Jean
>Chrétien's refusal to join an American-
>led coalition in the war against Iraq.
Wonder, Peter, if Perle is in Canada to offset the visits this week by James
Baker (had reserved criticism of Canada's position) and Barbara Bush (who
relayed her husband's profound admiration and deep respect for Canada)?
>Perle: "There is simply no other way
>to describe the positions of some
>countries -- not many, but some
>countries -- which is to lend far
>more support to Saddam Hussein's
>regime than they may have intended
>by the positions they have taken."
Gee, now we're Saddam supporters. Some Yanks are better talkers than listeners.
Perle and his fellow ultra-hawk Paul Cellucci (US Ambassador to Canada) didn't
notice Chretien saying (paraphrasing) "We are not indifferent to this war. We
wish the Americans a quick victory with minimal loss of life."
Perle seems also unaware of the body of opinion within the US and Britain that
judge this war to be reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism.
Like Chretien, most support a coalition victory.
>Perle: "There will be many people around
>the world, including many Canadians,
>who on reflection, if they have an open
>mind at all, will question whether their
>government equated itself with the
>right expression of Canadian values."
We hardly need a lecture from Americans about the defence of liberty and
democracy. During WWI, our country fought in Europe for three years while the
US debated joining in with Germany. In WWII, while we went to war against
Hilter, the US was moved to join its sister democracies only after Pearl Harbor
two years later.
>Mr. Perle, a former assistant
>secretary of defence under
>Ronald Reagan, said the American
>leadership is deeply disappointed
>the Prime Minister chose to
>abandon Canada's long-time allies
With talk and "spin" like that, one can see how the Bush Administration
squandered a world-wide outpouring of sympathy and solitary in less than two
years, an astounding diplomatic debacle.
>He accused Mr. Chrétien and President
>Chirac of opposing the war because
>of "an unwillingness to confront" the
>Iraqi dictator
Canada and France saw Saddam being "confronted" with UN inspections. Having
failed that, multilateral armed intervention would have been considered as a
last resort.
>Perle: "If Canada wishes to subordinate
>its moral and political values to President
>[Jacques] Chirac --so be it. Chirac and
>Chrétien deserve each other"
Gee, no more French fries with Canada Dry.
>Peter: The majority of Canadians oppose
>the war in Iraq. They support the Prime
>Minister's policy.
They oppose how the war came about. Most would have supported a multilateral UN
force (as they did in 1991) being deployed later on.
Even so, most expect and support a coalition victory. US hawks are conveying
the impression that opposition to unilateralism is the same as opposition to
coalition victory.
>Peter; It is only a few radical
>right-wingers in the hapless Alliance
>Party that have criticized the
>Prime Minister.
The Alliance Party is based in Alberta. Southern Alberta has more Americans
living there than any other single area outside the US.
>Peter: He says Canada abandoned
>its long-time allies. Canada has soldiers
>in Afghanistan. Canada supports the
>majority opinion of the United Nations,
>including its long-time allies Germany,
>France, Switzerland, Norway, etc., etc.
>Perhaps Mr. Perle no longer considers
>these countries nations.
Excellent point!
>Peter: He claims Canada is supporting
>Chirac's policy. The fact is Canada is
>supporting its OWN policy not based
>on another nation's foreighn policy but
>its OWN policy. Canada does happen to
>have two official languages and a
>province whose language is primarily
>French. Why does he bring Chirac into
>the picture, when it is Canada's OWN
>French Canadian citizens who support
>the Canadian government's positon?
Perhaps you're forgetting Charles de Gaulle's provocative July 1967 "Vive le
Quebec libre!" speech, which galvanized the province's separatist movement.
Refusing an invitation to visit Ottawa and address the Canadian parliament, de
Gaulle arrived in Quebec by a French warship that refused to fly the Canadian
flag.
Ironically, while de Gaulle recalled the old days of France's liberation and
urged Quebecers to be "free," others recalled Quebec's opposition to
conscription during WWII, when English Canadians were in uniform fighting to
free France.
To this day, Quebec representatives in France are accorded the same diplomatic
privileges given to Canadian officials.
>Peter: He tells the people to ask
>Chretein why he put us in this
>position. He is the Prime Minister
>and is reflecting the VIEWS OF
>THE PEOPLE. We are a democracy.
Nonsense. Nothing to do with the polls, unless it's the old Liberal/Trudeau
tactic of using opposition to Washington to increase its standing in the polls.
Chretien was elected in 1992 on a firm mandate to abolish GST and NAFTA. He did
neither; surely, that would be "reflecting the will of the people." The one
election promise the dictator kept (canceling military helicopters) led to many
deaths and injuries aboard aging SeaKings.
>Peter: What arrogance, what stupidity.
>I have absolutely nothing against America
>or its people...nor do the vast majority
>of Canadians. But no Canadian appreciates
>such uninformed and threatening
>comments from a person who doesn't
>seem to have the slightest clue about
>Canadian society or politics.
Ambassador Cellucci is just like Perle. Yet, it seems somehow appropriate that
such an obnoxious ignoramus as Cellucci should be a representative of the Bush
Administration.
>Peter; Thank you Mr. Perle. Such
>comments will be a huge boost for
>Canadian nationalism and raise
>support for the current government.
Hear hear, Peter! It's like when bombs are dropped: the people's resolve
increases.
I'm sure principled and liberty-loving Americans will wake up from their
ultra-militant nightmare in 2004 and do the proper thing on Election Day
(assuming there will be one).
Maybe someday they'll even have a viable third party to vote that represents
the people first.
Jerry Organ
----------
Jerry Organ
>It's terrible that the policies
>of the Palestinian government
>keep them in such bad shape.
Yeah, as if the apartheid and slave-wages they suffer from were self-imposed.
>If they just ignored Isreal, and
>irrigated and worked the land
>they have, they wouldn't be in
>that position.
Hard to ignore a force that originally owned 5-percent of the land, yet were
offered 52-percent of the land in the UN partition scheme, including most of
the prime agricultural areas and desirable coastline.
Right there, Palestinians lost half of their land. The 1967 "annexation" saw
half of the fertile portion of the Jordan Valley turned over to Israeli
"settlers."
Palestinian farmers are forbidden access to water from the Jordan River system,
as the area immediately surrounding the river was declared a closed military
zone by Israel. Israeli farmers have 19 water wells in the Jordan Valley, which
extract approx. 30 million cubic meters annually. In contrast, the 90
functional Palestinian wells permitted by Israel produce only 15 million cubic
meters annually. Israeli imposed drilling restrictions do not allow Palestinian
wells to exceed 300 meters in depth, whereas Israeli wells are allowed to reach
up to 2,000 meters.
Even though Israel has most of the prime agricultural land and water, it still
relies heavily on US capital and Palestinian day workers to make a go of it.
>It's easier to blame Isreal for the
>failure of the Palestinians, than for
>them to become economically stable
>themselves.
It would be easier to ignore reality.
Ghettoized and impoverished, what was once a proud agricultural workforce now
relies on Israeli day work for slave-wages.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1214-04.htm
http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/resources/Palestine/PalReports.htm
>The UN approved sanctions are killing
>hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children?
>That's multilateralism for you.
Multilateralism and human rights activists got the "Oil for Food" program that
eased suffering. US conservatives opposed it.
>You're really bringing out the ghosts
>of Christmas past. The British Empire
>was involved both in the slave trade,
>and indian killing.
The British Empire abolished slavery in the early 1800s, decades before the US
Civil War forced the issue in your country.
"Indian killing" was not instituted as policy by the British when their
fur-traders entered western Canada. Treaties were signed and honored.
During the negotiations to end the War of 1812, the British asked of the US to
give American Indians human rights and respect for their traditional lands, as
had long been the case in Canada.
>Canada has as much to be
>ashamed of as the US.
Actually, there's a long history of American Indians and escaped slaves fleeing
to Canada to escape genocide and/or exploitation.
>If you feel guilty, give your house
>to a native American, and go
>back to Europe.
I don't feel guilty towards the First Nations. My country honored treaties and
never conducted ethnic cleansing. Nor benefited from slavery and Jim Crow laws.
>Whatever happened, you can
>believe it was a regretable mistake.
>Because of the car bombing of our
>enemy, some of our troops may be
>understandably jumpy.
I wouldn't call it a "revenge" massacre.
>You only have a few seconds to
>decide "friend or foe". If one starts
>shooting, they're all liable to open up.
>It's not a good situation to be in,
>I'm sure our troops would perfer fighting
>soldiers in uniform fighting in the field.
I see. Iraq will become America's Gaza Strip.
Why don't you learn from the British; they're among the people, wearing berets
instead of helmets, and not hiding behind full-body armor and hair-triggers.
>But, which side has killed more
>civilians since this war started,
>Jerry? Are you sure?
You believe everything put out by the Pentagon and the US corporate media?
We all know which side will be killing Iraqi civilians post-conflict, should
the USG convert Iraq into its own Gaza Strip.
Jerry Organ
----------
WinBear
On 2-Apr-2003, jjo...@aol.com (Jerry Organ) wrote:
> Even when its available, your corporate-controlled and
> special-interest-driven
> media prefers not to cover much of the slave-wage ghettoization and ethnic
> cleansing conducted by the Isrealis in the Gaza Strip.
>
Well, maybe if the so-called "Palestinians" (there has never been a nation
of that name, merely what invaders called Israel after they took it over)
would BEHAVE like any other citizen of Israel, I am sure they could finally
be safe in TREATING them like any other citizen of Israel.
> Nor did your media show much footage of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
> children who starved to death because of harsh sanctions demanded by the
> USG.
>
Horse feathers. We gave them a situation in which they could afford food
*or* weapons... and the government chose weapons. If we had allowed them
five times as much food, somehow it still wouldn't have gotten where it was
going... and Saddam would have been able to afford more weapons.
Get this through your head. No matter how much food was provided, it would
still be under the control of people who care nothing about people, and a
great deal about fancy palaces and weapons.
> You Yanks were lucky there weren't any movie cameras around during the
> USG's
> ethnic cleansing of the First Nations and the slavery persecution of
> African-Americans. Only when the cameras were rolling in Birmingham did
> attention start being paid to civil rights.
>
Where *did* we learn such things? How many years was slavery legal in
Europe, for example, as opposed to the USA?
> What's interesting about the checkpoint massacre is that the Pentagon
> issued a
> kneejerk rehearsed "canned version" of event, while a reporter-witness saw
> something much different.
"Checkpoint massacre". You don't want to get shot at, stop when the nice men
wave you down, or when they fire a warning shot. Drive like a car bomber,
get treated that way. The driver was at fault 100%. And if you are
suggesting that the media is automatically more to be trusted than the
military, you are full of beans.
WinBear
Bud
has to say. Nobody voted for him. I never heard of him. He doesn`t set US
policy. He seems to just be giving his opinion. If he was assistant
secretary of defense under Reagan, that`s 5 elections ago, like,what, 20
years? I wouldn`t waste any time worrying about what he thinks of your
country,or our relations.
For my part, I don`t expect this difference of opinion between our
countries will have much effect on our countries relations. We still have
a lot more in comman(beer and hockey to name two)than we have differences.
Canada has been a good friend to us (or vice versa) for many years. We`re
usually on the same side of issues. I can`t think of a country I`d rather
share a continent with.
This will pass, as long as there is respect on both sides. There have
been shots taken from both sides of the border, some for political
reasons, some saber rattling/spurs jingling reasons... things should
settle down when the war winds down. Then we can all step back and
evaluate things according to our political leanings.
-Bud