Bomb Iraq

[franki]

Quote from unknown:
\"

Sung to the tune: \"If You\'re Happy And You Know It, Clap Your Hands\"

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandals growin\', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin\', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain\'t smokin\'
We don\'t care, and we\'re not jokin\'.
That Saddam will soon be croakin\',
Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let\'s look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
(Though our ignorance is showing),
Bomb Iraq.

So here\'s one for dear! old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying \'no\' would look like treason.
It\'s the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

\"

[seadove]

Hey Franki

I am so happy to read these lines.

By the way, I can arrange it if someone can just say the word.

Ha Ha Ha
/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Whitehall]

So Iraq has one of the world\'s worst, most totalitarian governments, it\'s invaded it\'s neighbors twice causing a million deaths, and has certainly pursued nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to make itself more fearsome to the people around it.

It\'s clearly and publicly articulated foreign policy goal is to unite other Persian Gulf peoples (and their oil resources) under one leadership (Saddam\'s).

The United States has very broad support in the region for removing Saddam, albeit the other governments are making politically correct statement otherwise to position themselves for internal reasons.

We now live in a world where no troublemaker is far enough away for safety. Our choice is continued world anarchy or a more ordered and safer world. The burdens of world citizenship seem to be rejected for reasons of narrow self-interest by some European governments who seem happy to use the US as world policeman when it suits their interests. Yet, when asked to forego short-term commercial advantages, they come down on the side of anarchy.

The American government does not seek war and conquest yet the continuation of the Iraqi regime will almost certainly bring a more terrible war to the region. That bigger, badder war will result in world-wide depression and massive civilan misery and death.

I\'m saddened to say this, but war now looks like the wisest choice for everyone (except Saddam.) Americans will die in removing his government. We all wish that someone else would pay that cost.

The hard part will not be the defeat of Saddam\'s armies but in creating a functioning society and government afterwards. The Iraqis have no experience in self-government and little proclivity to treat one another as equals. Still, can anyone doubt that the Iraqi people will not welcome an American-lead liberation and reconstruction?

Cute and clever song, though, I will grant.



\"War is a bad thing, but it is not the worst thing\"

Edmund Burke

[seadove]

<<<Americans will die in removing his government. We all wish that someone else would pay that cost. >>>

Don\'t wish too hard.Innocent Israelis are also at stake here.If Saddam cannot reach America he will take it out on Israel.

Let us wish that Saddam himself will pay dearly for his atrocities.

[franki]

Speaking of Israel, let\'s hope they vote for a government that is a bit more sensible than the current one.

[Elana]

But this time, Ivan, there will be hell to pay. This time Israel WILL retaliate and fiercely at that. Don\'t Fu#k with Israel!

[seadove]

This time I am gonna participate by volunteering to who will want me.
I\'m gonna kick ass.

[Elana]

Like what Franki? One that allows suicide bombers to blow up more busses? Hopefully the Likud will stay in power

[franki]

As far as I know the Likud and Mr. Sharon are not very much after any form of advance in the peace process with the Palestinians. (I don\'t know if the peace process still exists ....)

[Elana]

Yeah...it\'s easy to make peace with people that wish to have you thrown out to sea. Are you familiar with Oslo?

[franki]

Well, at least when the israelian labor party (don\'t know how you call them) ruled, these things used to go a lot smoother than now.
And don\'t get me wrong, I am not a leftist.

Yes, I know what the Oslo treaty is.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Elana]

The Intifada was not caused by the Likud. It was caused by a bunch of radical Palestinians

[Bruce]

Whoa there folks!!!!

When I saw the \"Bomb Iraq\" I thought \"Hmmm... looks like we might have a war right here in the forum. Well then, maybe not\"

Now we have Israel in there. We are definitely talking major flame fest now. What to do?

Bruce

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Duck, is my best advice. /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[franki]

Maybe it is best to let the thread die a slow death. I can see this is a topic with dynamite in it. I tried to be very careful with my words.

Franki

[Elana]

Honestly Bruce, you may want to lock it or delete it. It really is a touchy subject, and I am just too passionate about it to say nothing. I realize that there are others who feel just as passionate about the other side. It could get ugly(er) /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[franki]

Yes, it would be good if Bruce could lock the thread. Don\'t know if that is possible.

[Bruce]

OK FTR,
You and me. We will sit down right here in the forum, hold hands and chant \"Om, Shanti, Shanti, Shanti...\" Or do you think Kombaya would work better? Or maybe the duck idea was the best after all.
Bruce

[Whitehall]

\"I tried to be very careful with my words. \"

Frankly, Franki, I don\'t see that anywhere in your verses - it\'s just a witty ditty full of cheap shots.

I say let\'s talk about this. It is a MAJOR public policy issue and I would appreciate thoughtful input from our non-American members.

Israel is somewhat peripheral to Iraq but one reason why the US is in a hurry is that Israel could start using nukes if provoked and we don\'t want that!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ok, Bruce, you and me.
I\'m with Om, shanti.
Chanted in a fall-out shelter. /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[franki]

I agree my messages are not as sharp-witted as yours, my posts are easy to critcise and I don\'t mind that.

If I was to post a very well-thought-through message about this subject I would be busy for at least half an hour or (probably a lot longer) ...

Franki

[Whitehall]

Franki,

Your opinion is valued and I always appreciate your thoughts and opinions.

I already said that the verses were cute and witty and I meant it. I do think the subject is worthy of thoughtful consideration, if anything is.

Of course, my stuff certainly gets it share of criticism but I\'m tough and I can take it (boohoo, sob, sob.)

[abductor]

I thought several times before posting in this topic because
war is a subject that I don\'t like.The Brazilian people are very peaceful, (I think we never entered in war) A few days one minister declared the possibility to return a study on nuclear weapons, saying that we have technology to develop nuclear weapons. That unhappy declaration almost made him to
lose minister\'s position. With so much people with hunger in the country spend money with a weapon that we will never use is imbecile thing ..
But the one that I would like commenting is:
=======
So Iraq has one of the world\'s worst, most totalitarian governments, it\'s invaded it\'s neighbors twice causing a million deaths, and has certainly pursued nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons
Whitehall--
========
Well my friend sounds like \"the sum of all fears\",
North Corea turned off the ONU monitors, and has all the Iraq characteristics mentioned by Whitehall but certainty the USA position about this will be another..
North Corea has potential to destroy immediately important
commercial partners like Japan, South Corea, China..
History like \"The Evil Sadan\" doesn\'t convince me.

I only posted that because it is what I think now,
I can be wrong and very probably I won\'t post
anything else about the \"war topic\".

[Whitehall]

North Korea offers an example of Iraq gone nuclear.

They are using their limited number of nuclear weapons to extort their neighbors with the potential to become a world marketer of nukes to anyone. Just as they sell Scuds to Yemen, they could someday sell nuclear weapons to Libya.

Our approach so far is to hand this one off (for now) to the neighbors. China, Japan, and Russia are all at greater risk today than the US and so are being told to get busy in talking some sense into the North Koreans.

As for Iraq, some commentators point out that today\'s situation resembles not Munich but the Sudentenland. The French are again saying \"let it pass.\"

Sorry, Bush is going to hit hard without any further UN resolutions and soon. That will cause a huge restructuring of the UN. Why do the French of all people have a veto? That\'s absurd.

As some comedian quipped - \"The French are going to send military advisors to the Iraqi army - to teach them how to surrender.\"


You mentioned \"The Sum of All Fears\" - I find that a credible scenario albeit with different political players. I did a thread in \"Health\" about what to do in such situation.

[CptKipling]

The Iraq topic is ok, but lets not start on Isreal, seriously.

[Watcher]

Ok a view from australia.

Support for an IRAQ war as far as committing limited SAS (like the delta force - secret forces) is split
-labour opposition party are calling for UN support for war
- liberal government is calling for support to be offered in any IRAQ war to help our US allies is the offical line

Its also driven by the prospect of a US/Australian free trade deal if we support we get a favour in return, it is being blocked by the US agricultural community which enjoys high protectionists measures and it means they would need to be more competitivie. That is more a WTO topic with the doha round of talks.

Back to our view on iraq, support is divided 50%, we think americans are driven by thier oil motive for cheaper world supplies long term with George bush advisors all having ex oil industry experience and jobs. I think the WMD issue needs to eb solved by the UN. Europe prefer to talk and discuss the diplomatic option (hasnt helped in isreal however) rather than to rush into conflict (a fallout of WWII thinking). I think the surrounding middle east countries have the best idea, offer Saddam huiseen refugee in another country with immunity from prosecution in return for him and his cronies stepping down and allowing a democratic govt to take over.
USA has rejected this which i think that despite all else the grudge GW.Bush has about his fathers loss in the first gulf war still drives his motives. He may hold off but he will go to war soon.

ITS PERSONAL.

[Gerund]

Israel is very relevant, and inseparable from a discussion of possible war in the Mideast w/Iraq. The Israelis has shown unbelievable restraint throughout the years, including when Iraq was launching scud missiles at them during the Gulf War in an effort to expand the war and muddy the issue.

I can\'t help but think that any other country that has endured unprovoked attacks from neighboring countries (7-day war), attempted genocide against it\'s race (WWII), and suicide bombers openly encouraged and rewarded by other nationalities, would have by now kicked the ever-lovin\' crap out of it\'s hostile neighbors, and established a \"buffer-zone\" along the lines of what the USSR did with Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc., following (WWII).

And yet many feel that Israel has no right to keep the tiny amount of land it retained when it repelled an attack from a belligerent nation. How much land is it, anyway? A few hundred thousand acres? Less than Rhode Island?

If the U.S. had the same history of persecution, and it was attacked by Mexico or Canada, I bet we\'d grab all the land we wanted after pushing them out of our country, and feel fully justified in doing so. How do you think we\'d respond if certain quarters of world sentiment then started whining that we should give it back? How do you think we\'d respond to a new wave of terrorist attacks?

Man alive, I think Israel has exercised incredible restraint.

[Elana]

<Man alive, I think Israel has exercised incredible restraint.>

Isn\'t that the truth!/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Great post Gerund

[Wolfe]

i\'ve been to the middle east, and let me relate a story to you all to think about. a pilot (damn good 1) flew every day, he wore a f16 out in a month(IF he didnt get it shot to pieces 1st).
now after several months of watching this guy he once came back from combat and his plane was shot all to hell, no landing gear no nothing..he landed that plane on it\'s belly, they got him out of the burning weckage. blood came from his ears,nose eyes and mouth, none of this blood was because of the crash, it was because of the G-Force that he made his plane do( g\'s that explained to GD why his planes didnt last--why they where there to start with). he\'d been in a dog fight (outnumbered 3 to 1 ) and won. now next day he came to the flight line and demanded to know where a plane for him to fly was. he flew his mission as always. that night when he got back several ppl went to a local bar where a GD exec asked him WHY he did what he did, and how. this pilots answer was \" When i strap myself into that plane and close the cockpit up, open the trottle i no longer am flying that plane, GOD is the pilot and it is him flying that plane, if i die, it\'s ali\'s will\"..this was a Israeli pilot fighting the Palestines..something he\'d done every day of his life sence graduating from flight school.
Now what this means is beyound my understanding as this is a war they have fought 100\'s of years, and will continue to fight till one side or the other elimates the other. men like Saddam feel the same way ya know, and like that pilot, will stop at nothing to win--nuke anyone?..doubt not he would if he could.

[upsidedown]

>>\"..this was a Israeli pilot fighting the Palestines..something he\'d done every day of his life sence graduating from flight school.<<

I didn\'t think the Palestinians had any aicraft. So, I\'m not too sure about that story. Could he have been fighting someone else perhaps?

But, I agree with all the comments made re the Israelis. The Palestinians are lucky that Israel hasn\'t wiped them off the face of the planet yet. I agree that Isreal has been very patient and restrained over the years.

[Elana]

<When i strap myself into that plane and close the cockpit up, open the trottle i no longer am flying that plane, GOD is the pilot and it is him flying that plane, if i die, it\'s ali\'s will\"..this was a Israeli pilot fighting the Palestines..something he\'d done every day of his life sence graduating from flight school.>

Wolfe-I can GUARANTEE you that an Israeli pilot did NOT say whatever happens is Allah\'s will. /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Watcher]

Wolfe is talking about the isreali-egypt 1967 7 day war that those 2 countreis thought over the suez canal. Wolfe is mid 50s so this would have been from 35 years ago. So elana just to point something out the f16 was active at that time which means that he is telling a truthful story. And they had palestians fighting for them at this time, remember arabs or isreali arabs serve in the isreali armed forces as well. Well they did at least back then.

[Wolfe]

was very long ago and many things have gone through this ol brain sence those days, i was a flight line tech and i got the story second hand from my supervisor(i wasnt allowed in the officers club)

[Wolfe]

no watcher she is right, she objected to the term ali and they wouldnt have said that part.
was tired last night and that was over 20 yrs ago when it happened. things get crammed togeather sometimes as so many yrs pass. the time will come you\'ll understand /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Wolfe]

and elena my apoliges as i know that would have offended you.

[Elana]

Wolfe- You didn\'t offend me. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Just lick me a few times and all will be forgiven.

[Wolfe]

sigh, think my days of pursuit are over. the chase game was alot of fun(and i guess in ways i needed it to help me through the tough times i faced after divorce, but now the realization has set in that it\'s just that, a game, and knowing love will never be a part of me again has taken the\' hunt\' outta me.

[Elana]

WTF?

[Wolfe]

wtf?/..thought i was clear...i\'m out of the hunting game, and will not pursue any more women in my life. Now i know that this isnt exactly pursuing on here, per say, but my heart isnt in even into that any more.
I no longer have the capicity for happyness in me, so no sence in trying any more.

[Mtnjim]

\"Wolfe is talking about the isreali-egypt 1967 7 day war that those 2 countreis thought over the suez canal. Wolfe is mid 50s so this would have been from 35 years ago. So elana just to point something out the f16 was active at that time which means...\"

During that time the plane would have been the F-4 Phantom.

Jim

[upsidedown]

And so, if it was the 1967 war, then it was probably Egyptian aircraft that he was fighting.

[Wolfe]

the f16a came online in 76 and took to air combat in 79, in 81 they came out with the 16c, followed shortly by the d model, which was a multirole platform, keep in mind..doesnt take a \'war\' over there..they have been fighting over 1000 yrs ,
something they still do to this very day there.

[franki]

I think one of the problems with this potential Gulf-war is, that there is no momentum. I mean there hasn\'t been an invasion of Kuwait or a 9/11 attack. The reasons the Bush-administration wants to attack Iraq could have been used 3 or 4 years ago (back when the inspections stopped). That doesn\'t mean the reasons to attack Iraq are not valid now, but why does the USA wants to do it now? It sure gives a lot of people the impression that there are other reasons to do this, apart from Iraq.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Wolfe]

ya know, thats a good point, think it might have to do with the goverment think osama is in hiding there now?( he sure went somewhere)

[franki]

LOL. I wasn\'t thinking along THOSE lines at all. But you never know .......

Franki

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I saw Osama last night at the Walmart in a strip mall near Front Royal.

[Wolfe]

ya know, only someone VERY rich or VERY dedicated to him would hide him--dude is worth lke 50 million dead or alive (osama)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

He bought a big bin of Twizzlers and an \"I\'m With Stupid\" t shirt.

[Whitehall]

During the Gulf War, one of the reasons Bush 41 pulled back from going to Baghdad was that we knew that Iraq had nuclear weapons. The special nuclear materials were left over from the Osirak reactor that the Israelis had bombed in the 80\'s, just before it\'s completion. The French sold the reactor to them along with 8 core reloads of 95% Uranium 235.

The bombing destroyed the reactor but left the uranium. It had been under IAEA inspection and was accounted for until the war started. The Iraqis then rushed to convert it into battlefield weapons - they would have used them if we had cornered the regime - we hoped that internal revolt would do the job but guessed wrong and the regime survived.

Post-bellum, UN inspectors recovered the weapons-grade uranium and removed it from the country.

Since then, Iraq has pursued uranium enrichment as the path to nuclear weapons. Enrichment has the advantage that the centrifuges used are small and can be dispersed throughout the country making an Osirak-style strike pointless and ineffective.

We have hard evidence of the importation of the fairly unique materials needed to make centrifuges into Iraq. Given our knowledge of when the centrifuges could have started operating and how many could have been built, we can guess when Iraq could again field nuclear weapons. it won\'t be long.

Once Saddam is confident that he can deter attacks from superior powers using his nuclear weapons (like North Korea thinks it knows), then our overwhelming conventional military power is almost meaningless. Saddam will then be able to operate unrestrainted in his ambitions. Traditional nuclear deterrance will be meaningless to a leader such as him.

Saddam will then have real power over the world\'s major oil reserves and production. One thing we know about Saddam is that when he gains power, he USES it for evil ends.

This man\'s personality profile is the same as all the great dictators - Hilter, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon - people mean nothing in his pursuit of greater and greater power. Stalin is his particular avatar.

If the rest of the world does nothing and allows this man to gain such power, the world will rapidly become a very unhappy place.

While we started with a cute anti-war ditty, I can\'t help thinking that this is extremely serious business. Inaction on the part of the West and the US will mark a major turning point in history, one that generations to come will regret deeply.

[CptKipling]

\"I can\'t help but think that any other country that has endured unprovoked attacks from neighboring countries (7-day war), attempted genocide against it\'s race (WWII), and suicide bombers openly encouraged and rewarded by other nationalities, would have by now kicked the ever-lovin\' crap out of it\'s hostile neighbors, and established a \"buffer-zone\" along the lines of what the USSR did with Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc., following (WWII).

Man alive, I think Israel has exercised incredible restraint.\"

This isn\'t what I was talking about.

You are speaking from one side of a very controversial argument.


\"But, I agree with all the comments made re the Israelis. The Palestinians are lucky that Israel hasn\'t wiped them off the face of the planet yet. I agree that Isreal has been very patient and restrained over the years.\"

I\'m sorry but that is a particularly bigoted point of view.

Does anyone here have any idea what happens to Palestinians in Isreal?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

In the neighborhood of G, please:

Kumbayah, my lord
Kumbayah
Kumbayah, my lord
Kumbayah

(Bruce, I can\'t hear you...)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

1947-49 Israeli war of Independence. Israel vs 5 Arab armies.
1956. Sinai campaign. Israel vs Egypt.
1967 Six day war. Israel vs Egypt,Syria, Jordan, Iraq.
1973 Yom Kippur war. Israel vs Egypt, Syria,Jordan,Iraq,Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and a cast of thousands....
1982 Peace for Galilee operation. Israel vs Syria and PLO


First operational F-16 delivered Jan. 1979.

You\'re getting mixed up again Auss.Errr! I mean watcher!

Israel maintains a 3 to 1 ratio of pilots to aircraft in order to maintain a high ops tempo and so a pilot with blood coming out his every hole from pulling high G\'s will not be getting back in the air again !!! The other 2 guys will make up for him. Fairy story!

[Wolfe]

when a pilot is a Ace, they give him what he wants
and that 1st one was delivered to the 388th TFW.

as a footnote wasnt till \'80 they became fully operational with the f16a\'s

[seadove]

<<<1947-49 Israeli war of Independence. Israel vs 5 Arab armies.
1956. Sinai campaign. Israel vs Egypt.
1967 Six day war. Israel vs Egypt,Syria, Jordan, Iraq.
1973 Yom Kippur war. Israel vs Egypt, Syria,Jordan,Iraq,Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and a cast of thousands....
1982 Peace for Galilee operation. Israel vs Syria and PLO >>>

In 1947-49 G-d was behind us
In 1956....The same
In 1967...He actually participated.Who would win a war like than in 6 days?
In 1973... He saved us in the last moments.
In 1982... I don\'t know.

Let us pray that our enemies will leave us alone, I\'m afraid they are trying G-d\'s patience too long.

[Elana]

Israeli issue: Some basic facts

http://www.infoclick.org/conflict.html (\"http://www.infoclick.org/conflict.html\")

[Elana]

Or we can go back even earlier

http://www.infoclick.org/nutshell3.html (\"http://www.infoclick.org/nutshell3.html\")

[Wolfe]

that region has been fighting longer than recorded history most likely /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif..over one thing or another

[Naughtymonkey]

And I\'m sorry to say it but the chances are it will be Americans who inflict the causalties on Americans - collateral damage? try telling that to an Afgan wedding party. I wonder how much soul searching went on in the states when that or the entire village they wiped out happened? Civilian causalties may be an inevitable consequence of any war involving any country. But a gung ho military doesn\'t do anyone any good. There is considerable concern here in the UK that our armed forces are more at risk from the US than Iraq. Clearly something is wrong somewhere along the line

[Wolfe]

thats a sad price of WAR( that shouldn\'t happen but does-has happened in every war ever fought). we at least declared war on the afgans after a attack on US soil and had the \'intent\' to strike military targets.
Now does that explain what happen at the Twin Towers on 9-11? No way no how!!..that wasnt a military target at all, in no strech of the imagination could it have been thought to be so, yet they used it as a target. In no way can that be allowed to happen unanswered.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

\"There is considerable concern here in the UK that our armed forces are more at risk from the US than Iraq.\"

Naughtymonkey, why would that be? I don\'t understand...

[Whitehall]

Collateral damage seems to correlate with expended firepower. The more you shot, the more you hit - for better or worst.

In the Gulf War, US forces killed a significant number of Americans too. The problem is magnified in coalitions since the coordination across commands is weaker than within a command.

Frankly, I\'m certain we\'re doing the best we can to reduce unintended deaths but no one believes it will be reduced to zero.

[Wolfe]

agreed White, sad though it cant be better than that.But even though it does happen(as sad as it is) we can\'t bury our head in the sand and let them continue to kill ppl at will without at least trying to put a stop to it.
the men and women who join the armed sevrices at least understand what they might face,,those in the Twin Towers didn\'t have a choice.

[Mtnjim]

\"Collateral damage seems to correlate with expended firepower\"

Additionally, one thing I heard in an interview with a retired general was that with the advent of \"smart ordenance\" the commanders are ordering fire be directed closer to friendly forces...but the \"smart ordenance\" isn\'t as \"smart\" as we are led to believe. When this ordenance misses lots of \"Collateral damage \"

[Naughtymonkey]

Wolfe

I know 9/11 was an attack on civilian targets - of course. But you should not be viewing the war in afgan as war on the afganees, no more (apparently) a war on Iraq is a war on iraqees. You mistake a war on an enemy as a war on a people. I appreciate the inherent contradiction in this in that it would seem that CERTAIN members of the religion Islam are hell bent on killing people of the west, be they Yanks or brits. But what differentiates us from them is that we don\'t cast the entire nation/religion/colour/crede in the same boat.

I\'m sorry if this causes friction - I for one am no bleeding heart liberal and also have Iraqee friends. Saddam is a thug no doubt, but is there any real value in attavking a nation to get at one man? (with all of the collateral damage that goes with it). CIA/MI5/ delta force/SAS - take the man out, don\'t kill civilians in the process. The enemy is organised entirely on different lines from a huge army with all of the bombs/tanks/aircraft on the world. The UK know with the IRA that a conventional response doesn\'t work. It is the proverbial sledgehammer and nut, admittedly the nut is hard and dangerous but the sledgehammer can kill many along the way.

NM

[Gerund]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
CptKipling: Does anyone here have any idea what happens to Palestinians in Isreal?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You need to ask yourself what business the Palestinians have being in Israel in the first place.

Do you go where you aren\'t wanted? And when you get there, are you violent against the citizens? And would you expect no reaction from that country to your behavior?

You usually have some very observant posts: This was not one of them. I expect better of you.

[belgareth]

You are so right. A couple years ago, I hosted an exchange student from Belgrade. DO you remember when we, under the auspices of the UN bombed Belgrade to get at Milosivic? Her and I talked about that several times. Didn\'t do a bit of good, really. It did kill, injure and scare the bejeeses out of a lot of innocent people, though.

The biggest problem with getting to Hussien through war or special ops jobs is that he surrounds himself with loyal people then shelters them behind thousands of innocent people. He does not care how many people die, so long as he stays in power.

I do not know what the answer is. But killing thousands of people who happen to be in the way is not it. From what little I know of the average person in Iraq, they no more want a war than I do. No matter how it turns out, they will be the real losers.

[Wolfe]

nowhere did i say that, but whatever..could care less what you or anyone else thinks. yuo have your opinion and i have mine.

[CptKipling]

\"You need to ask yourself what business the Palestinians have being in Israel in the first place.

Do you go where you aren\'t wanted? And when you get there, are you violent against the citizens? And would you expect no reaction from that country to your behavior?

You usually have some very observant posts: This was not one of them. I expect better of you.\"

Like I said, lets not talk about Israel.

This is CK officially not participating in this thread, unless anyone is interested enough for me to get some stories from a friend whos family fled in terror.

[Mtnjim]

\"\"You need to ask yourself what business the Palestinians have being in Israel in the first place. Do you go where you aren\'t wanted? And when you get there, are you violent against the citizens? And would you expect no reaction from that country to your behavior?\"

Well, lets see--some foriegners (US, UK, et al) come into the land where your family has lived for hundreds or thousands of years and takes your land. These foreigners then give this land to other foreigners (German, Russan US et al) and tell you to leave. Gee, wouldn\'t YOU get pissed off?

Religion is NOT the bottom line in this.

[Elana]

<<come into the land where your family has lived for hundreds or thousands of years and takes your land. These foreigners then give this land to other>>>

The Palestinian\'s lived in that land for thousands of years??? Huh?

The Jewish people came to the land to live amongst the Palestinian people. What did the Israeli\'s do? They built schools, buildings, grew crops and made the land beautiful. What did the Palestinians do? They waged war against the Israeli\'s. They lost....their bad.

[Mtnjim]

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS A SNOTTY RESPONSE!!

\"The Palestinian\'s lived in that land for thousands of years??? Huh?\"

Under different names, sorta like there aren\'t any Pharisees any more.

\"The Jewish people came to the land to live amongst the Palestinian people. What did the Israeli\'s do? They built schools, buildings, grew crops and made the land beautiful.\"

Western culture GOOD, Arab culture BAD

\"What did the Palestinians do? They waged war against the Israeli\'s. They lost....their bad.\"

Just like the injuns here-and reservations to.

Like I said please don\'t take this personnaly-it\'s just history-sadly repeated too many times. (see \"injun\" comment above)

[Elana]

<<Under different names (like Pharassies <sp?>)>>

Now, we both know that the Jews have lived in the land for many, many, many years more than the \"Palestinian\" people, so if this is about who was there the longest, it is not even up for discussion.

Does the US wage war against immigrants when they come to live in the US?

55 years ago Israel didn\'t even have an army yet. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt,
Libya, Saudi Arabia, attacked all them all at once. Israel is constantly defending her right to exist against people that wish for her destruction.

It\'s interesting that all of the Arab countries can raise money to fund Palestinian suicide bombings against innocent Israeli civilians, but won\'t let them step foot in their land. I can\'t understand how anyone can say that the Jewish people don\'t have a right to that tiny little piece of land. Look at the countries that surround Israel. How come everyone want\'s to point the finger at Israel, yet nobody questions why the Arab world won\'t help the Palestinian people.

[Whitehall]

While I have tremendous sympathy for the Palestinian people, they have been terribly mislead over the years.

Worst is the coming demographic explosion. The Palestinians are one of the fastest growing populations in the world. One reason is that the UN has been feeding them for over 50 years now. Between free food from the UN and improved public sanitation and health services from the Israeli government, there are no checks or restraints on their population growth. Without the UN, how is this population to feed themselves?

The other Arab governments have used the Palestinians for their own ends.

On the other hand, the Israeli governments over the years have not always made the most intelligent decisions. For example, the continued settlements.

[Watcher]

Thanks for setting me straight SNE.

So SNE we all know the level of isreals preparation as far as protecting its boarders from its nearby arab states and the national service a lot of its citizens are prepared to perform. Do u have any figures on the amount of gross domestic product (GDP) isreal spends on its military forces ?

[seadove]

<<<Do u have any figures on the amount of gross domestic product (GDP) isreal spends on its military forces ? >>>

No secret.It\'s 42% which is far too dear.That is why Israel cannot tend enough to other urgent needs such as welfare, health, education and investing in the future development of the country.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Post deleted by Bruce

[CptKipling]

Ignor this rant Franki, some understand the spirit the limeric was meant to be recieved.

Nationalism can be a dangerous ideology.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Post deleted by Bruce

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Nate, you\'re way out of line.

[CptKipling]

Ok, talking of logic, lets think sensibly.

\"Suddams a serious threat to this entire planet.\"

Ok

\"He has chemical , biological and nuclear weapons.\"

Now how, at first glance, does that make him a threat? Many countries have these weapons, not to mention the US, is that a double standard I detect?

\"Can anybody guess who he wants to use them on? You guessed it the US.\"

Why? Come on reply to that one. I\'ll answer for you to prevent you from straining your limited intellect; you cant give me a good answer. Ever heard of M.A.D? No, I\'m not insulting you, it stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. Now Saddam may well be an evil bugger, but he isn\'t stupid. He WILL NOT attack America or any other western country with these weapons, simply because he will be destroyed.

\"Should we just lay back until he uses them? HELL NO! AMERICANS are not stupid and we earned our freedom we are not going to roll over and play dead.\"

You cant seem to escape your nationalistic ideals. So what if you earned your freedom? How does that count for a damn? American took North America from the American Indians, does that mean they have no rights? The Russian bravely fought off the German army in WWII, what does that give them?

Go and play nationalistic ape somewhere else.

Bottom line, the American government has it\'s own interests at heart, namely oil. All that Iraq hope to achieve from having these weapons is to become a power in the region. But Bush doesnt want that, because if that happens then oil prices will sky-rocket.


Me and Franki have only been going out for a week or so, we aren\'t ready for a physical relationship. But he didn\'t tell me he had a clit, what\'s up with that!?!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

lol thats funny! you know that even after all that writing any man with half a brain will read that and say you didn\'t disprove anything i said.

Ok lets make it simplier on you if you fighting to men. One is big one is small. Do you focuse your attenion on the little one and let the big guy knock you out from behind. No you do not! All we are doing is taking care of the biggest threats first.


M.A.D is only in theory as are most of your arguements. Your being Hypothetical. Yeah everyone said he wouldn\'t invade kuwait either because the US would help defend kuwait. Did that stop him? NO. Suddam Hussien is also on more drugs than you can imagine. Can you imagine a crazy, drug addicted man with nuclear weapons. Do you think that is a good thing. Im just trying to figure out what you are thinking

My ideas are not Nationalistic. My ideas are better defined as patrotic, nationalism is a totally different idea. i know i took the course at the University of Georgia. I am minoring in polical science.

Now as far as you and Franki going out. If hes not being honest with you maybe you should think about moving on!

[Whitehall]

We Americans have had to earn our freedom time and time again. Personally, I missed a good opportunity but my father faught in the Solomons in WWII, my uncle served on the DMZ in Korea, my brother-in-law served in Germany facing off with the Russians, my cousin lead a platoon at Khofji, and my eldest son is thinking of joining the 82th Airborne. Not to mention my family namesakes in the Revolution and the Civil War. In spite of all that, my family is a dedicated bunch of pragmatic pacifists.

As for Nate Dogg, his words are crude and undiplomatic but his spirit is strong. Maybe the State Department is not a career for him.

Better, put him in uniform, teach him to follow orders and only THEN give him a gun.

Other than the horrible mistake that was the Viet Nam War, we Americans can be proud that the wars we\'ve faught have been largely noble affairs - the Germans and the French can make no such claim. Criticism from \"the Old Europe\" seems particularly hollow and cynical these days.

Nationalism can certainly be subject to valid criticism, but our American nationalism has inspired us Americans to make those sacrifices that have time and time again made the whole world a better place.

[franki]

What the [bad word] is wrong with you Nate? /ubbthreads/images/icons/mad.gif

I didn\'t even say I was against the war, I only posted the song because you have to think twice before starting a war. I demand you offer your apologies for what you\'ve said about me.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/mad.gif

BTW, Ever heard of the devil\'s advocate, Nate? I was trying to provoke a little discussion by posting the song.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

We fought for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those are strong American values that Americans with strong spirits and patriotism should protect and defend. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press means that you can say any damn thing you want about the president, you can call your Congressman up and tell him he\'s an idiot -- you can demonstrate on the steps of the Capitol, you can post flyers against the government, you can call your friends and neighbors and assemble and discuss whatever you like, whenever you like, without being afraid someone is going to come and get you in the night, which is a very real fear in other countries.


Some folks would appear to believe that it\'s only ok to speak freely if you agree with them and if you never criticize the government or any of our leaders. That is totalitarianism and oppression. We are supposed to be against totalitarianism and oppression. If you can\'t refrain from viscious personal attacks on people who disagree with your politics, you\'re not demonstrating the very things our forefathers fought for. You\'re being anti-American.

[franki]

Post deleted by franki

[franki]

FYI, I am a dutch native. There were elections in Holland a few days ago. I didn\'t vote because it is such a hassle to vote when you live outside your country. But I would have voted for a party (VVD) that is pro-war, for sure! See what you are doing Nate, you are insulting someone who is pro-american and making him responsible for something some government has said. Don\'t you think that is a little strange? Even when I would have been against the war there shouldn\'t be a reason to attack me like that (of course).

[CptKipling]

Some good posts, Whitehall and FTR.

I\'m not disrespecting anyone who is fighting for our freedom, or for the better of the world as a whole. America is in the awkward position of being the most powerfull country in the world, and they feel (rightly so I believe in most cases) that they have a responcibility to keep the peace. But what bothers me is when there is a hidden agenda, in this case oil. Nate, you cant even respond to any of my points.

M.A.D is a theory, more the reality of what will happen if a nuclear exchamge starts, and was the whole basis of the Cold War. Do you think SH is stupid enough to start cracking off nukes left, right and centre? Before you start, no he wouldn\'t.

BTW, how do you know he is on drugs, I\'m just curious.

There is a difference between loyalty to your country and believing everything your country does is right, without question.

Perhaps politics is the best place for you, you\'d fit right in.

BTW, I don\'t agree with Mr Blair\'s take on this.

[Wolfe]

i\'m proud to be a american, and have served with pride as well. one thing i\'d like to point out, americans have never started a war, we\'ve always been asked to come help. now for the 1st time in our history a prez is talking about us starting one and that concerns me alot-though i have no doubts either as to what kind of person saddam is and know he would either use or pass it to those others who would use these weapons and millions could pay the price of that..so i have to ask myself, can i stand by and watch that happen, or do something that goes against my better judgement..this i have yet been able to answer myself
BUT
i would not wanna be one, nor allow my loved ones, to be one of those millions..do you wanna be the one to pay that price of waiting??
now some say we(US) have those weapons, and yes we do, however the diff is. we\'ve never used them with but one exception from which we learned they shouldn\'t be used(on Japan)..saddam has used them, think he\'s learned not to use them again? or not give them to others to use? really think if saddam gave osama a nuke anyone be safe till it went boom?

[Elana]

<<<i would not wanna be one, nor allow my loved ones, to be one of those millions..do you wanna be the one to pay that price of waiting??>>>

HELL NO! Stop the madman before he gets us.

[bivonic]

Does anyone know how much of the oil Iraq is responsible in terms of global oil exports? I heard it was only 5%, if this is true do you still think it\'s a war about the oil?

[franki]

It is not only that 5%, but also the oil in Saudi-Arabia and the other Gulf States, when Saddam can control the region.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think the idea is that he needs to be nipped in the bud. Like Hitler should have been nipped in the bud. y\'know? Folks are saying, well he hasn\'t really done anything (yet). Other folks are saying, why sit around and give him the chance, you know he\'s going to, so let\'s head him off at the pass.

Of course it\'s about oil. Wars are fought for tangibles, not high ideals. It has to make sense money-wise, too. Nothing wrong with that.

[Wolfe]

sigh, i hate to think it was my generation of americans that where the 1st to start a war:(
something that will be a part of history in such a negative way isnt something i could take pride in.

[CptKipling]

Exactly right FTR and Franki, if he becomes the centre of power in the region then he will control ALL of the oil, which America (and the majority of the west) can\'t tollerate.

I\'m for nipping him in the bud, I can definately see a \"Hitler all over again\" scenario. But I\'m not sure if charging in all guns blazing is the right idea, and then to call it a War, thats just silly, it\'s a premeditative attack. Bush\'s idea of announcing a War on terror is just to wip up the masses and the press.

[bivonic]

Found a link, they\'re responsible for 6.8% (estimated)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/opecrev.html#table (\"http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/opecrev.html#table\")

So when we say it\'s a war \"about the oil\", I don\'t think it\'s for the US to dominate the oil market & control pricing, but rather to block SH from attacking neighboring countries & have full control of the oil market. I believe when the US conquers Iraq/SH their intent is to put in a new regime, not to occupy the country.

[CptKipling]

No not to occupy, but to keep the prices low.

[Whitehall]

\"Legally\" the Gulf War never ended. SH didn\'t sign a treaty that made peace, only agreements to end the fighting. He\'s reneged on his agreements.

I look at what Bush is doning as a continuation of the 1991 war rather than a new one.

[abductor]

My position is: still against the war. Somebody once spoke that the first victim of a war is the innocence. I always separate the common people\'s and governments, For example, I have many American friends, in my city I live beside the American consulate. I like and I respect everybody in the LS forum .. But once, I talked with an American friend regarding the image that US transmits to the rest of the world..
A country that only looks at for your economy, and sometimes intervenes military in any country that disturb your economic plans.
I was asking to him, why US didn\'t sign the Kyoto Protocol, ( global pollution reduction), He told me: -Hey man, I also went against that attitude of the government GW-BUSH,
The Germany for example, invests $500 in each alcohol-car made in the Brasil. The car with alcohol combustible didn\'t pollute the atmosphere, and Germany buys your carbon quotas.

I asked that, after I read the this story below:
http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news020602-02 (\"http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news020602-02\")

I´m Like the \"Spectrum-Man\" war against the pollution . /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[CptKipling]

Fair enough I suppose. But still not entirely concvinced

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Dubya’s dark eloquence
by Jeremy Voas
1/22/2003 8:00:00 AM

“I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy.”
—George W. Bush, September 2000

The voice on the phone is a study in controlled passion, thoughtful and determined. Its tone moderates between humor and vitriol, resignation and defiance.

It belongs to Mark Crispin Miller, a New York University professor of media studies who is among George W. Bush’s most eloquent detractors.

I’ll be disappointed if the National Security Administration, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security don’t have fat dossiers on Miller.

Miller contends that Dubya is unworthy of his post, a fraud whose political survival is wholly dependent on an illusion of strength and rectitude. He believes our president is incapable of cogent leadership, and therefore dangerous.

“… [T]o snicker at this president for his stupidity is not productive, for his unfitness really isn’t funny — and in any case, he isn’t stupid. True, he is the most ignorant president in U.S. history, probably the most illiterate, and easily among the least concerned about the contents of his mind,” Miller writes in his book, The Bush Dyslexion: Observations on a National Disorder ($15.95, W. W. Norton & Co., 370 pp.).

Miller’s tome first rolled off the press in June 2001. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, however, and of the mainstream media’s rush to remake Bush into the Lion of Crawford, Miller updated Dyslexicon. The new version debuted in paperback in July.

The interval between first publication and second only reinforced his theory that Dubya is a man filled with blind, Nixonian rage. And the stakes have grown exponentially.

When he conceived the book, Miller expected it to be a more mirthful examination of Bush’s spectacular malapropisms. But after parsing nearly every utterance issued by Dubya’s tortured tongue in the past decade, Miller noticed a disturbing trend:

Bush’s gibberish disappears when he speaks of aggression. When he speaks of virtually anything else, however, he turns back into a blithering dunderhead.

Even the liberal intelligentsia is loath to embrace Miller’s hypothesis.

“People get very angry at me when I say this. They want him to be a moron, they want him to be someone they feel superior to,” Miller tells me. “If you read the book, you must acknowledge the fact that on certain subjects Bush is perfectly lucid.

“He has continued to stumble when he tries to sound idealistic and continues to speak with relative coherence when the theme is punishment, revenge or death.

“His comfort with tough talk is not evidence of any particular skill as commander in chief. All it really tells us is that he likes to strike that posture, he likes to thump his chest and make threats. I don’t think that’s good enough.”

Miller’s treatise goes a long way toward articulating my own incredulity at the nation’s trajectory. I watch TV pundits yammer for an hour without ever broaching the possibility that Bush’s determination to attack Iraq is ludicrous, unjust and counterproductive. I marvel at the contortions these seemingly intelligent, informed people undergo in order to eschew their duty to scrutinize. For them, war is a foregone conclusion — nothing can stop it.

Miller attributes this phenomenon to the rise of mediopolies, the control of our airwaves, and even our presses, by an ever-dwindling coterie of corporations. Dubya is, after all, The Corporate President. And in any case, who can afford to make waves in these trying economic times?

“The mainstream media in this country is about as feisty or independent as the media in Cuba or Iraq,” Miller tells me. “They’re all domesticated. The media consistently cover for Bush.”

Dyslexicon is not merely a withering polemic (though it is certainly that). It is also a sobering and credible exposition on modern propaganda spoon-fed to Americans in epic proportion by sycophantic broadcasters and scribes. Hence, the subtitle: “Observations on a national disorder.”

On the pages of Dyslexicon, dark Bushspeak is served up as a metaphor for our collective ignorance and apathy.

“The mainstream news in this country is a national scandal,” Miller says. “The best stuff out there tends to be print journalism, and there’s a wide range of quality. Without the Internet it would not be possible to get an accurate picture of what’s going on in our own country.”

The mainstream’s tendencies are born of the fear that to break lockstep with our warrior president is unpatriotic. It’s more expedient to go along to get along, offend as few people as possible, provoke little debate or introspection. This is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

“[T]he press in this country has utterly failed in its constitutional obligation to keep the people informed. The First Amendment was not put in place to make sure that media owners could make a big profit,” he says.

Miller’s book generated little interest among the homogenous book-selling apparatus. Dyslexicon became a best-seller in spite of Miller’s relative radioactivity. Still, there are few invites for readings or signings.

A smattering of domestic organs reviewed the text; even fewer rang him up for an interview. He remains a popular and quotable source for stateside journalists exploring more palatable fares such as advertising and cinema.

“But very few American media outlets want me to talk about the president,” he says.

The foreign press has shown far more gusto for Dyslexicon.

“People elsewhere, getting their impression as we do from the American media, think we’re a nation out of control, when in fact we have a government out of control,” Miller says.

“People all over the world hold the mistaken view that the American people are foursquare behind the president. They think we’re all unanimous in our support of his military approach to world problems. It’s extremely important that this misimpression be corrected.”

Correction requires reform, and Miller contends that meaningful campaign-finance reform is imperative, in tandem with “radical media reform.” He suggests re-regulation of broadcasters with a stiffening, not further relaxation, of antitrust laws. He wants a restoration of the late, lamented “Fairness Doctrine” that required broadcasters to give equal time to opposing views.

“We need a complete renovation of public broadcasting,” he says. “We need a much more powerful noncommercial public system. There has to be a way to democratize media policy.”

Miller is convinced that Bush is far less popular than the mainstream media make him out to be. And he is convinced that Bush’s popularity will continue to wane as alternative sources persist in documenting his foibles.

“It isn’t that people don’t care,” says Miller, who lives with his wife and children a mile from ground zero. “They’re just not informed.”



“The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case.”

—George W. Bush, January 2000

[CptKipling]

Thanks FTR, it\'s a good point of view.

To be honest, his stupidity shows through even when he talks of aggression.

[tounge]

The only stupdity showing through is yours.

[CptKipling]

I am so gratelfull for such an eloquent and sweeping insult, it\'s really knocked me for 6, where\'s my mummy! /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

Did anyone worth talking to say anything? No? Good day to you.

[Gerund]

--------------------------------------------------------------
The only stupdity showing through is yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------

That\'s pretty funny, if you\'ll notice which word you couldn\'t spell correctly.

[CptKipling]

lol

Gerund - king of the dead-pan one liner.

[Gerund]

/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

Has Colin Powell\'s speech to the UN today change anyone\'s opinions?

[bivonic]

Nope - I still think we should bomb them /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[franki]

I fell asleep watching it (it was so long). Not that it was boring, I was just tired. The speech and the \"evidence\" were not shocking, more in the line of expectation. I tend to be in favour of an attack, or we will have the same discussion going on for the coming few years... I mean, the charm of an attack is the \"hope\" that it could be a \"quick\" solution. Don\'t quite know if that is true though.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[bivonic]

What is becoming clear to me is that this is a war about oil, only not regarding US interests.

France has gone so far as to say it will veto any action the UN decides to take in an attack on IRAQ - Russia and France try to keep their oil agreements with Saddam Hussein valid by delaying war. They either fear that the U.S. will seize the oil fields for our own use, or they don\'t think that they will be able to compete with the U.S. oil companies in getting the same treaties with a different Iraqi government.

Its unfortunate that two countries are supporting an evil dictator simply for the promise of a few billion dollars.

[Lucky]

This Mark Miller is a stitch...this is what he said in May of 2002.

Mark Crispin Miller: Bush is no Dan Quayle, who is a genuinely stupid man, but something else entirely. On the one hand, he is every bit as ignorant as he appears—that is no act, although such emptiness of head is often something of a plus for him with quite a few of his supporters. So while Bush\'s ignorance is real, his knack for flaunting it as if it were a sign that he\'s just folks is pretty artful. And as Bush knows very little about anything (except baseball), neither is he capable of reasoning in any complicated way.

Despite those limitations, however, Bush is not an idiot—and it\'s a grave mistake to write him off as one. He has very sharp political instincts (unlike the hapless Quayle). To laugh at him for his stupidity is actually to do him a big favor, since it helps him with that pose of commonness. (It helps him here, in the United States, with that plurality who voted for him. It doesn\'t do him any good at all beyond our borders.)

Bush\'s problem—or rather, our problem with Bush—is not so much that he\'s an idiot as that he is contemptuous of thought, complexity, ambiguity. He\'s proud of his closed mind. That makes him far more dangerous than he\'d be if he were merely dim.

[franki]

I think those countries are more concerned about America\'s power than their oil agreements. I think it is a natural reflex.

Rumsfeld\'s \"doctrine\" that says America shouldn\'t allow any other country to ever become a military superpower (like the USA) is one reason for that.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Lucky, good article.

[Whitehall]

Lucky,

Bad article.

[Lucky]

Hmmm, my friends are on opposite sides. Nevermind me, I just report the news.

[Whitehall]

Here\'s a link to an article in a Russian newspaper that says the US has already guaranteed the continuation of existing contracts to a Russian company (Lukoil) to develop Iraqi oil, replacing Saddam as signatory of the contracts:

http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2003/02/04/60836.html (\"http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2003/02/04/60836.html\")

The French can go pound cheese.

I can see why the US held off on offering some of the information - Powell named names of specific Iraqis who have provided secret information to the CIA which has since be colloborated by other means.

Any ideas as where the Senate anthrax came from now?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Whitehall, I\'m curious how a man as erudite as yourself can be so enthusiastic about a president who\'s so vehemently anti-intellectual.

[Lucky]

That Lukoil article is pretty scary. I\'m shaking my head, worried.

[Whitehall]

Intellectuals belong in schools or writing books. The President has to lead and take action, as necessary. I\'d be happier if he showed a little more book learning but the last one talked too much and got too little done.

Bush is not perfect by any means, or rather at least by my lights, but he is the man for the times. The gods have blessed us that Gore didn\'t make it.

If he\'d just stop sucking up to the rich so much, I\'d be much happier.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I watched the speech and it just supported what i already knew saddams been pulling the wool over our eyes. On the other hand, france\'s response is straddling the line. France and germany our becoming socialist. Thats without any proproganda. the rest of eastern europe knows the threat is real. I would encourage many of the opponets to war to look at all the weapons this guy is working on. Its clear now hes a threat. The major problem isn\'t oil, america has the second most oil besides saudia arabia; we are not far behind. Those type of comments such as \" its all about oil\" are far from true, and borderline retarded. Oh well, i know im going to get remarks condemning my train of thought. In my on way i feel sorry for you and im praying for you. God bless!

[Wolfe]

nate..go look and you\'ll find those countrys have hugh oil import contracts from iraq /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif..\"stradling the line\"?,,you bet they are with billions in oil on the line.

[Lucky]

Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy it.

[bivonic]

I agree with Nate, this war is not about oil, if the US had so much to gain, then shouldn\'t we expect the US Stockmarket to go through the roof when we go to war? Nope, this war is about terrorism & preventing a real threat.

[Wolfe]

i agree, i mean look at it, they provide what? 5-6 % of the oil?..and the USA doesnt buy any of it, and we get along fine w/o it, so whats for us to gain? nothing really cept to get a provider of funds and weapons to terrorist off the market. time will come that jerk will feel like he has nothing left to lose and will nuke someone...Or worse(as far as i\'m concerned--no offence to anyone else in the middle east or Israel) provide a nuke to some other idiot like Osama...and we all know what he will do with it..new york again?..washington maybe?..how about LA.?? your town?..my town??......................i personally rather not give them that chance.

[Elana]

I agree with Nate too. It\'s about protecting our lives. Getting him before he gets us. If we don\'t do anything, it will be a matter of when he will use weapons against us, not if he will.

[franki]

If Iraq stops the oil export and it starts blackmailing Saudi-Arabia, the oil price will skyrocket. This has huge consequenses for the World Economy. Even the USA, which produces most of its oil itself will be effected both direct (the oil price is up) and indirect (economic slowdown). I think it is pretty safe to say this war is also about oil, and there is not a whole lot wrong with that (from the perspective of the West).

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[tounge]

Ignorance is blss for you. There will be another 9-11 again. May your blissful feelings carry you. War was declared on America on 9-11. If we sit by and sing Kumbiya, your city or home may be next.

[Lucky]

You are exactly right...and putting on a war is not going to change one thing.

[tounge]

Oh really. How abou Nazi Germany,among many others.

[bivonic]

I heard someon make a great comment, even if 9-11 never happened we should still be going to war.

[Lucky]

Okay, so the location has changed and the dictators have different names, you win again, my sweetest tounge.

[Wolfe]

it\'s not your country these morons are attacking so easy for you to sit back and say what you do, how you\'d like it if Frankfurt disapeared in a fireball? or Berlin?..ya, i bet not huh. the hell with the oil. if it werent for all the innocence ppl i\'d say nuke the bastard and all that oil be useless anyways..but not ONE American life would be lost so it\'d be worth it..except to the ones who use that oil and IMHO those ppl support terrorism in thier own way by buying that oil to start with.

[tounge]

My dearest Lucky. What is your solution to the problems of two-bit dictators having weapons of mass destruction and the will to use them?

[Lucky]

My darling tounge,
That is the saddest part of all. There is no solution.
All my love,
Lucky

[franki]

I keep saying the stability of the Middle East, keywords: oil prices, Israel.

IMHO that is more important than the threat of terrorism BY IRAQ. We don\'t want the oil in Saddam\'s hands and we don\'t want to see Israel nuked.

When the US is more concerned about the threat of terrorism it should PROBABLY start with countries like Saudi-Arabia Yemen and Libya, which are the main supporters of terrorism.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[tounge]

My Lovely, Lucky. If you\'re right, then there doesn\'t seem any sense in going on for ourselves and never mind a better future for our children. I\'m grateful that my Grandfathers and Great Uncles fought and in some cases died in WWII. They made it possible for me to have a better life.

[Elana]

Israel knows that they are right in the line of fire if the US goes to war with Iraq, but they are still 100% in favor and in support of the US going to war against Iraq, because they have the greatest knowledge of how dangerous Iraq is to the world.

[franki]

I am with Tounge this one time. If the Americans would have been cowards we would be living in a nazi or a communist Europe. /ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Wolfe]

a US lead war or no war, Israel is -in the line of fire- so the USa staying out of it does them no good in the long haul anyways..Elana said it best..

\" agree with Nate too. It\'s about protecting our lives. Getting him before he gets us. If we don\'t do anything, it will be a matter of when he will use weapons against us, not if he will\"
AMEN to that..it\'s a fact..Saddam(and Osama too) has proved the willingness to do it.

[tounge]

Franki, you\'ve been with me more than one time on certain issues. You are just afraid to admit it.

[franki]

/ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

I have to be careful because I want to keep Elana as a friend. /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Elana]

<<I have to be careful because I want to keep Elana as a friend.>>

Don\'t worry.........I love tounge /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[tounge]

She should like you for you, not because of the company you keep.

[Elana]

Everything is cool....let\'s not go there again

[bivonic]

Elana I think you meant you love TONGUE!

[Elana]

/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Oh yeah!

[Whitehall]

During the 20th century, Americans had to intervene in Europe during WWI and WWII, hold the Russians during the Cold War, rescue and defend the South Koreans, and tried (pathetically) to keep South Vietnam from going Communist. That\'s the short list.

I think we\'ve gotten tired of having to come in AFTER the aggression and clean up. The new plan is go in BEFORE it gets out of hand.

It should prove a lot cheaper that way.

[Lucky]

Sweetheart,
If the governments of the world control your internal peace (I don\'t suspect you will grasp that complex thought), your family IS in trouble.

My broad supposition is that there is more to life than government and war does not end terror. Unlike you, succulent tounge, I don\'t enjoy fighting.

Hugs and Kisses,
Lucky

[upsidedown]

Notice also that the Eastern European countries, the one\'s that were under Soviet repression for decades, are starting to voice their approval in favor of removing Saddam by force. They, more than anybody, understand what it is to live under repressive governments and dictators and appreciate the true threat posed by Saddam. I think those in the West have enjoyed democracy and freedom for so long that they just don\'t want to believe that anything can threaten our way of life and want to think that by ignoring such regeimes, they\'ll just go away and never cause us harm.

Elana\'s point is valid too...Israel probably stands to be in the most danger in case of war...but they understand the dangers posed by Saddam and feel the short-term risk is worth it in the long run.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Thanks Elana,bivionic, wolfe and others. Its really a refreshing though to know that there are others who can look at the facts and see what needs to be done. We have oil contracts with other countries around the world. We have buissness arrangements with middle eastern countries and we protect them. If we were an imperealistic nation, just wanting resources, we could have taken over germany and japan after world war II. Although if Saddam were to limit his oil supply, he could send the entire world into a depression. We have to be realistic not idealistic to thrive! The U.S. ecoomy drives te economies of every other country in the world. If Saddam colapses our economy the entire planet would have a depression that would take years to recover from. Well it looks like hes going down soon. Lets just pray its quick.

[tounge]

No nutty Lucky, the government does not dictate my inner peace. Don\'t go down that road doll. You have no clue.

And wrong again Lucky. I don\'t enjoy fighting or war. I\'ve been there dear. And was damn proud to serve. If others had not fought for you you might not have the freedom to say the things you do.

I do agree that war does not stop all terrorism but by damn if the bastards are going to have free reign.

And Lucky, if you caught someone in your home trying to kidnap your child, do you fight back or give them a kiss of peace.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The Iraqi\'s were in Lucky\'s house trying to kidnap her child??

[franki]

\" Notice also that the Eastern European countries, the one\'s that were under Soviet repression for decades, are starting to voice their approval in favor of removing Saddam by force.\"

I think it is true the Eastern Europeans are more in favor of an attack, but don\'t forget that what their governments say, not necessarily reflects the will of the people.

For example, in Spain are 74 % of the people against a war, in Germany 50 %. At the same time, Aznar\'s (Spain) political position is very close to that of Bush and Germany\'s position is quite the opposite of that of Bush.

The main reason for this discrepance is that there is a right-wing government in Spain and a left-wing government in Germany.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

The Greens in Germany are some of the wackiest politicians around. Their participation in the German government explains a lot - at least to me.

Plus, I think we should all take the polls with a grain of salt. The nature, wording, and structure of the poll can tilt the responses.

One point that was made in the Economist was the lukewarm acceptance of the war by the American public gave Bush much more room to manuveur than would a bellicose, jingoistic popular position would. If EVERY American was rabid about getting Saddam NOW, then Bush would have fewer options.

[Wolfe]

quite frankly..in this case, i DON\'T GIVE A DAMN what the rest of the world thinks..the man(Saddam-and others like him) needs to go. The rest of the world has always needed America to pull it\'s ass out of the fire..America does NOT need the rest of the world to help it kick Saddams ass. (or any others like him)
In fact, only one other country on this planet could stand up to the USA in a fight and thats China...plain and simple fact.

[franki]

Well apparently, Bush cares about what the rest of the world thinks. He even wants a new UN-Resolution!

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

Sorry, but China is so far behind the US now and is slipping still. It would be tough for us to invade the Mainland (why would we ever want to?) but they couldn\'t mount a credible invasion of Taiwan in the face of token US intervention.

True, they have devoted enormous resources and manpower to the military yet their command and control lags far behind, a legacy of their Communist system. In other words, they are a worst-than typical bureaucracy. No one can come in (invade) but they sure can\'t project force (invade others.) Viet Nam whooped \'em good last time they mixed it up.

They do have enough nuclear throw weight to burn our cities as a countervalue play - just enough Mutually Assured Destruction to keep the peace with the US, India, and Russia.

This month\'s Atlantic Monthly reviewed a detailed study of the Chinese military - that\'s my source.

[Whitehall]

Tounge,

You are misrepresenting Lucky\'s position and distorting it just so you can post a noisy harangue.

As to you calling her \"nutty\" - well, buddy, you\'re way off base. While I may not agree with every position she takes, I think she is quite well grounded and shows much more common sense than you.

She absolutely shows more civility and class than what you\'ve shown to the forum. Please show more respect towards your betters.

[tounge]

Whitehall, your pomposity is a laugh. Lucky is the one who resorted to insults. Read her previous post. And you are no ones better. Please worry about yourself. I don\'t need you for a father.

[Gerund]

Exactly who do you need for a father? You obviously need someone...

[upsidedown]

Tounge,

You\'re like a litte kd with the finger pointing \"Well, SHE started it.!\"

I agree with Whitehall on this issue, and disagree with Lucky.....but I\'m a whole lot more offended by you\'re tone and attitude than I am her\'s on this thread and on the forum in general. . I also think Whitehall was on target with you. You refer to Whitehall\'s pomposity? Sorry, but you need to take a look at your own pomposity before you worry about anybody else.

But, I guess you can handle talking down to people but don\'t like it when anbody calls you on the carpet.

[tounge]

Oh wow, I\'ve been called on the carpet on the Pheromone forum. I\'m so hurt.

I\'m not pointing fingers at all. I made my opinions on the Bombing of Iraq. Some people don\'t agree and some agree. However, Lucky only chose to respond to my posts. And after a couple of posts she decided to make it personal, posting I wouldn\'t comprehend the meaning of inner peace. And also accusing me of enjoying fighting. Only me she attacked, not anyone else who opposed her opinion.

The problem here isn\'t me. It\'s the hive mentality of a few eliteists, who feel the need to be forum cops. I\'ll continue to post here as I see fit. If you don\'t like it don\'t read it and don\'t respond.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Tounge, that\'s not right. I know you hate my guts but I wish you\'d look at what I\'m saying and ignore that you don\'t like me personally. You come out of nowhere and are mean. I know I\'ve done it too, and I\'m not especially throwing stones, it\'s just ... if you\'re gonna talk politics, at least why don\'t you ever say anything about why you think someone else is wrong. It\'s not my area and I enjoy reading opposing viewpoints. You don\'t often have a viewpoint other than You\'re wrong and I\'m right. I can\'t get anything out of that.

[CptKipling]

Good post FTR

[Whitehall]

\"eliteists\" is spelled \"elitist\"

If you\'re going to describe my disdain for you, at least spell it right.

And, yes, I do look down on you for your rude and inconsiderate behavior. Elite people have better manners. I happen to agree with you on most of the points about Iraq but I can\'t stand by and see you insult people (especially women) I respect. If you act this way in real life, I\'m sure that you get your butt kicked regularly. However, I suspect that you\'re too coward to be so obnoxious where you could be called to account.

I value the discussions I have on this board and resent you taking up bandwidth with insults and noise. And, yes, I\'m calling you on because you\'re a threat to our good community. You\'re an abuser of our tolerance.

If we lived in a tribe, I\'d be leading the other men in chasing you out with pointed sticks, banishing you to the wilderness.

If I had Bruce\'s power of excommunication, you\'d be a bad memory.

[wozz]

Is there any conclusive evidence linking Al-Qaida to Hussein? The reason I ask is because there seems to be plenty of evidence linking them to other countries (Saudi Arabia for one), and we don\'t seem to be going after any of them (of course there was Afghanistan but that was obvious).

We\'re in a crappy situation. If we just go after Iraq and use all this terrorist rhetoric then we\'re picking on our enemies and using excuses. If we go after all the corrupt governments of that area (and there sure are a lot), then we\'re probably going to stir up a lot of resentment, which will almost insure future terrorist attacks.

I\'m all for getting rid of Saddam, but I honestly don\'t trust our current leadership, and I don\'t really know many people who do. I feel like they think everything they touch will turn to gold. I just wouldn\'t put it past them to do something nasty.

Basically I think it comes down to this: everybody on the planet with a TV seems to think that they know what\'s going on. Ignoring the fact that Bush&Co have stated that they\'re not telling us any details, the US has a long history of covering up the not so nice bits (think Vietnam, the contra affair, etc). We only get to find out what really happened years down the line.

So no offense to anyone here, but I think all this armchair generaling is a bit naive.

Also, if you care, I don\'t really have an opinion on that matter. I doubt that anything we do will improve the general situation.

[Wolfe]

one thing is VERY clear, sitting back doing NOTHING isnt gonna stop the next attack . do YOU volunteer to be thier next target? Are you ready for them to use a \'dirty nuke\' in your town? The botton line here is very diffucult i know, we sit back do nothing..we\'re gonna get hit again, and again, thats clear as it\'s happened again and again. We go to war to try to clean them out, odds are, we\'re gonna get hit. So no matter what road we take it\'s gonna be a nasty one, but in the end one must do what they can to clean out a snakes nest. If you don\'t they will grow in numbers and soon you won\'t be able to go any where or do anything w/o getting snake bite.

[wozz]

I agree, but you\'re talking about going to war with Al-Qaida, not Iraq. Last time I checked, Iraq has never attacked the US. We can\'t just go to war with anyone we have a hunch is linked to Al-Qaida (well, obviously we can because we are, but you get my point).

This is one of the main things that bothers me. There is a logical gap in using that terrorist argument as a reason for attacking Iraq. Since there is no evidence (as far as I know), saying anything about terrorist actions from Iraq against the US is speculative at best. I\'m sure he\'d love to wipe us off the planet if he could, but so would A LOT of other people, some of whome have more money and brains that Saddam, and even worse we don\'t know who they are.

I think there are plenty of other groups of people (countries or not) that pose a much greater threat to us and the rest of the world. It seems to me that Bush&Co have singled out Iraq because they\'re an easy target.

[Wolfe]

thats like saying theres a differance between being bitten by a diamondback rattler and a sidewinder. I dont have to be bitten to know it\'s a poisonous snake before i kill it.

[wozz]

So you kill every snake you see?

[Wolfe]

i know the differance between those that are poision and those that arnt...and i know that if they\'ve rattled and bit someone before they gonna do it again.

[bivonic]

Today Powell made statements that would suggest Osama Bin Laden was alive & well and makes it clear there is a connection between Al Qaeda & SH/Iraq (think on the 1st page of CNN.com)

Regarding the opposition we are seeing with invading Iraq:

Both France and Russia have long-term ties to Iraq and have a huge opportunity to develop the majority of Iraq\'s untapped oil fields, but only if Saddam Hussein remains in power. If we go to war and oust Saddam, then our law banning american companies from doing business with Iraq will be lifted, and France and Russia would have to compete with us in getting agreements with a new government, that we are going to set up.
Here\'s a recent news story in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that gives some background info, but fails to see the lifting of the ban on american companies in a post-war Iraq. http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3645463.html (\"http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3645463.html\")

Obviously, both France and Russia would prefer Saddam to not only stay in power, but to get the economic sanctions against Iraq lifted. China doesn\'t want the U.S. having a larger impact on the politics of Asia than we already do, and is also trying to block the upcoming war.

Russia is now starting to get jerked around by Iraq as Saddam\'s political machine has grabbed the oil field development deal worth $40 billion to Russian oil companies, and is holding it hostage to try to force Russia\'s help in the security council.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/02/11/043.html (\"http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/02/11/043.html\")

Hopefully, this will make Putin realize how futile it is to negotiate with Saddam and he\'ll finally join the U.S.-led coalition.

[Watcher]

All it seems to be about is the oil. Anyway russia has its own supplies its trying desperatley to ship to the US via the deep water port being constructed in sibera. If the US is in IRAQ then a bit of economic competition is a good thing, raise the standard of living and provide some stability for the middle east - which = great dependable supply of oil.

[DrSmellThis]

I thought it would be fun

and interesting to bump this thread three years later, with the benefit of hindsight.

I especially enjoyed the

poem and Whitehall's replies (I enjoy Whitehall as a clear example of a hawkish, PNAC-type position very different

from mine. He's not afraid to come out and say it.). It's also interesting to read people who aren't in the

forum any more.

BTW, for those who imagine from recent posts that I am a "partisan", political person by history,

notice who didn't post in this humongous thread, until bumping it just now!

This was typical of my

apolitical behavior on the forum up through this time; until I figured out what mayhem the Bush administration was

really up to. After that, my mind and integrity would not allow me to stay "unbiased", and I began posting

"political" stuff.