Bush Gains Upper Hand on UN, Ought Score Against Terrorists, Too
Dave Simpson
resolution by France, Russia -- and even Syria! (How nervous is Assad
these days?)
Bush should move to claim political credit for this, and to note that
currently the worst adversaries of the effort to rebuild Iraq no
longer are France, Russia, nor even Syria, but the liberal Democrats.
Not only that, but the terrorist attack against US citizens in Gaza
should be answered, of course, strongly, and as soon as the true
culprits are determined, the US should strike hard, immediately,
particularly with military force if it can be arranged.
And it should go all the way to the top of the rotten organization,
including terrorist kingpin himself, Yasser Arafat. If it can be
shown that Arafat's command ordered or approved or supported the
terrorist attack, it's completely justified to take out Arafat and his
compound in Ramallah, and we ought to do it.
In fact, if the proof of Arafat's complicity were had, we not only
would be justified, but in the eyes of all but the Usual Suspects and
other enemies within and outside the US, Bush would immediately enjoy
more political gain, and be a hero, by ordering the attack on Arafat
and his roach den in Ramallah.
Dave Simpson
David Raleigh Arnold
> Now the UN has bowed to Bush, including approvals of the latest
> resolution by France, Russia -- and even Syria!
And you think this is a good thing? How are we going to get out now?
The longer we stay, the more we lose, the better it looks to the planners
who are there, the worse it is beneath the surface, where Saudi money is
doing its work. Having more countries there doesn't make Iraq the right
country to invade, it's still the wrong one.
--
Br`er Fox told Br`er Rabbit that the Tar Baby had dissed him, and Fox made a
dummy out of tar and put him in Rabbit's path. When the Tar Baby failed to
return a civil greeting, Rabbit punched him with a right, a left, both feet and
butted him with his forehead. Along came Br`er Fox who saw that he was
thoroughly "stuck up". Br`er Fox is much smarter than Br`er Rabbit, and in
spite of all Rabbit's pleas for help, no one is going to unstick him and throw
him in the briar patch, so now Br`er Fox is liesurely eating Rabbit's liver.
D. Raleigh Arnold dra@ http://www.openguitar.com darn...@cox.net
C. Pangus
"David Raleigh Arnold" <darn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.16....@cox.net...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:53:13 -0700, Dave Simpson wrote:
>
> > Now the UN has bowed to Bush, including approvals of the latest
> > resolution by France, Russia -- and even Syria!
>
> And you think this is a good thing? How are we going to get out now?
> The longer we stay, the more we lose, the better it looks to the planners
> who are there, the worse it is beneath the surface, where Saudi money is
> doing its work. Having more countries there doesn't make Iraq the right
> country to invade, it's still the wrong one.
>
Actually, I think the UN made Bush do everything but get down on his knees
and beg from a diplomatic point of view. After six weeks of trying the UN
finally legitimized the US role in Iraq. This was not done for the Bush,
but rather because US control is favorable to Muslim radicals or terrorists.
Neither France, Germany, nor Russia agreed to troop or financial support.
The German ambassador pointed out that the resolution includes a
specific date for election proposals and encourages Kofi Anan to increase UN
influence both of which the US has opposed.
In other words Bush got his butt kicked at the UN but will declare
victory anyway while other world leaders turn a smirk on him.
Michael
make any new military or financial contributions to support the resolution. The
United States gets to maintain command in Iraq, but without any troop support.
Only Japan has promised any help, $5 billion and 600 bodies. The rest of the 190
nations have yet to provide any help. The United States still has to go it alone
and so far the cost to us taxpaying Americans will be $175 Billion.
Yeah, Bush really got the upper hand all right. Too bad he doesn't care as much
about his own people. And from what I've seen on C-SPAN, neither do the rest of
those Republicans. Democracy is dead in America.
--
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other.
Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
-- President George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
Wesley Clark for President!
http://clark04.com/
Barbara Walker
"Michael" <paraNOS...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:63Gjb.7853$8w2....@news01.roc.ny...
> France, Germany, Russia and Pakistan said after the vote that they would
not
> make any new military or financial contributions to support the
resolution. The
> United States gets to maintain command in Iraq, but without any troop
support.
>
> Only Japan has promised any help, $5 billion and 600 bodies. The rest of
the 190
> nations have yet to provide any help. The United States still has to go it
alone
> and so far the cost to us taxpaying Americans will be $175 Billion.
>
> Yeah, Bush really got the upper hand all right. Too bad he doesn't care as
much
> about his own people.
He cares more than the Democrats do. A *LOT* more. And that's what
counts, sir.
Douglas Otis
>
> Now the UN has bowed to Bush, including approvals of the latest
> resolution by France, Russia -- and even Syria! (How nervous is Assad
> these days?)
This vote was symbolic, only obtaining assurances of the US to
relinquish occupation ending the Cheney bilk. Even Pakistan nixed
tangible support.
> Bush should move to claim political credit for this, and to note that
> currently the worst adversaries of the effort to rebuild Iraq no
> longer are France, Russia, nor even Syria, but the liberal Democrats.
Bring 'em on! Bush as preempted peace and cooperation, not terror.
> Not only that, but the terrorist attack against US citizens in Gaza
> should be answered, of course, strongly, and as soon as the true
> culprits are determined, the US should strike hard, immediately,
> particularly with military force if it can be arranged.
>
> And it should go all the way to the top of the rotten organization,
> including terrorist kingpin himself, Yasser Arafat. If it can be
> shown that Arafat's command ordered or approved or supported the
> terrorist attack, it's completely justified to take out Arafat and his
> compound in Ramallah, and we ought to do it.
What will it take before blaming everything on old man Yasser ends?
If killed, who will be blamed next? Sharon has a more apparent hand
in fomenting violence.
> In fact, if the proof of Arafat's complicity were had, we not only
> would be justified, but in the eyes of all but the Usual Suspects and
> other enemies within and outside the US, Bush would immediately enjoy
> more political gain, and be a hero, by ordering the attack on Arafat
> and his roach den in Ramallah.
Getting the US in deeper as the military bails? It is not Christians
and Jews against Muslims in a world of bigotry. Bombs are not a tool
of reason nor will more violence improve the mood in the US.
scott
2004.
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.03101...@posting.google.com...
FrankEfterlon
You're right, he really cares about his own rich people.
dapra
Dave Simpson wrote:
> ... note that
> currently the worst adversaries of the effort to rebuild Iraq no
> longer are France, Russia, nor even Syria, but the liberal Democrats.
>
Dave, you are a living proof that some of the people can be fooled all
of the time. Would you pose for a statue? "In memory of the devoted
Americans, who believe all the lies told by their government."
Where did you get the idea that Bush wants to rebuild Iraq? TV? AEI? [dapra]
Barbara Walker
"dapra" <dap...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TJudnQnzxdB...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Dave Simpson wrote:
>
> > ... note that
> > currently the worst adversaries of the effort to rebuild Iraq no
> > longer are France, Russia, nor even Syria, but the liberal Democrats.
> >
>
> Dave, you are a living proof that some of the people can be fooled all
> of the time.
No, he's not. But YOU are living proof that Democrats such as yourself
can't face the truth, and thus resort to childish personal attack whenever
the high BS level of the Democrat Party is pointed out.
C. Pangus
"OrionCA" <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nivuovs4m4g0t4g70...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:37:07 GMT, "C. Pangus"
> <craig...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Actually, I think the UN made Bush do everything but get down on his
knees
> >and beg from a diplomatic point of view.
>
> on.
The resolution did not give Bush what he wanted. In fact, it encouraged
Anan to try to gain as much influence apart from Bush in Iraq as he could.
It also started a schedule for returning Iraq back to Iraqi control, which
Bush opposed. Bush clearly did not get the resolution he wanted and tried
to get for six weeks.
In other words, Bush got a UN Resolution which gives him about as much
of what he wanted as he has found of WMDs, Saddam, or Osama.
But that doesn't stop Bush: he just declares victory in the midst of
defeat and leads the buffoons who follow him on.