Bush's Lunacy?

[Rat Faced]

What better recruiting sergeant could Bin Laden have than the President of the United States?

By Robert Fisk

16 April 2004 "The Indepemdent" --

So President George Bush tears up the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and that's okay. Israeli settlements for Jews and Jews only on the West Bank. That's okay. Taking land from Palestinians who have owned that land for generations, that's okay. UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that land cannot be acquired by war. Forget it. That's okay. Does President George Bush actually work for al-Qa'ida? What does this mean? That George Bush cares more about his re-election than he does about the Middle East? Or that George Bush is more frightened of the Israeli lobby than he is of his own electorate. Fear not, it is the latter.


His language, his narrative, his discourse on history, has been such a lie these past three weeks that I wonder why we bother to listen to his boring press conferences. Ariel Sharon, the perpetrator of the Sabra and Shatila massacre (1,700 Palestinian civilians dead) is a "man of peace" - even though the official 1993 Israeli report on the massacre said he was "personally responsible" for it. Now, Mr Bush is praising Mr Sharon's plan to steal yet more Palestinian land as a "historic and courageous act".

Heaven spare us all. Give up the puny illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza and everything's okay: the theft of land by colonial settlers, the denial of any right of return to Israel by those Palestinians who lived there, that's okay. Mr Bush, who claimed he changed the Middle East by invading Iraq, says he is now changing the world by invading Iraq! Okay! Is there no one to cry "Stop! Enough!"?

Two nights ago, this most dangerous man, George Bush, talked about "freedom in Iraq". Not "democracy" in Iraq. No, "democracy" was no longer mentioned. "Democracy" was simply left out of the equation. Now it was just "freedom" - freedom from Saddam rather than freedom to have elections. And what is this "freedom" supposed to involve? One group of American-appointed Iraqis will cede power to another group of American-appointed Iraqis. That will be the "historic handover" of Iraqi "sovereignty". Yes, I can well see why George Bush wants to witness a "handover" of sovereignty. "Our boys" must be out of the firing line - let the Iraqis be the sandbags.

Iraqi history is already being written. In revenge for the brutal killing of four American mercenaries - for that is what they were - US Marines carried out a massacre of hundreds of women and children and guerillas in the Sunni Muslim city of Fallujah. The US military says that the vast majority of the dead were militants. Untrue, say the doctors. But the hundreds of dead, many of whom were indeed civilians, were a shameful reflection on the rabble of American soldiery who conducted these undisciplined attacks on Fallujah. Many Baghdadi Sunnis say that in the "New Iraq" - the Iraqi version, not the Paul Bremer version - Fallujah should be given the status of a new Iraqi capital.

Vast areas of the Palestinian West Bank will now become Israel, courtesy of President Bush. Land which belongs to people other than Israelis must now be stolen by Israelis because it is "unrealistic" to accept otherwise. Is Mr Bush a thief? Is he a criminal? Can he be charged with abetting a criminal act? Can Iraq now claim to Kuwait that it is "unrealistic" that the Ottoman borders can be changed? Palestinian land once included all of what is now Israel. It is not, apparently, "realistic" to change this, even to two per cent?

Is Saddam Hussein to be re-bottled and put back in charge of Iraq on the basis that his 1990 invasion of Kuwait was "realistic"? Or that his invasion of Iran - when we helped him try to destroy Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution - was "realistic" because he initially attacked only the Arabic-speaking (and thus "Iraqi") parts of Iran?

Or, since President Bush now seems to be a history buff, are the Germans to be given back Danzig or the Sudetenland? Or Austria? Or should we perhaps recreate the colonial possessions of the past 100 years? Is it not "realistic" that the French should retake Algeria - or part of Algeria - on the basis that the people all speak French, on the basis that this was once part of the French nation? Or should the British retake Cyprus? Or Aden? Or Egypt? Shouldn't the French be allowed to take back Lebanon and Syria? Why shouldn't the British re-take America and boot out those pesky "terrorists" who oppose the rule of King George's democracy well over 200 years ago?

Because this is what George Bush's lunacy and weakness can lead to. We all have lands that "God" gave us. Didn't Queen Mary die with "Calais" engraved on her heart? Doesn't Spain have a legitimate right to the Netherlands? Or Sweden the right to Norway and Denmark? Every colonial power, including Israel can put forward these preposterous demands. What Bush has actually done is give way to the crazed world of Christian Zionism. The fundamentalist Christians who support Israel's theft of the West Bank on the grounds that the state of Israel must exist there according to God's law until the second coming, believe that Jesus will return to earth and the Israelis - for this is the Bush "Christian Sundie" belief - will then have to convert to Christianity or die in the battle of Amargeddon.

I kid thee not. This is the Christian fundamentalist belief, which even the Israeli embassy in Washington go along with - without comment, of course - in their weekly Christian Zionist prayer meetings. Every claim by Osama bin Laden, every statement that the United States represents Zionism and supports the theft of Arab lands will now have been proved true to millions of Arabs, even those who had no time for Bin Laden. What better recruiting sergeant could Bin Laden have than George Bush. Doesn't he realise what this means for young American soldiers in Iraq or are Israelis more important than American lives in Mesopotamia? Everything the US government has done to preserve its name as a "middle-man" in the Middle East has now been thrown away by this gutless, cowardly US President, George W Bush. That it will place his soldiers at greater risk doesn't worry him - anyway, he doesn't do funerals. That it goes against natural justice doesn't worry him. That his statements are against international law is of no consequence.

And still we have to cow-tow to this man. If we are struck by al-Qa'ida it is our fault. And if 90 per cent of the population of Spain point out that they opposed the war, then they are pro-terrorists to complain that 200 of their civilians were killed by al-Qa'ida. First the Spanish complain about the war, then they are made to suffer for it - and then they are condemned as "appeasers" by the Bush regime and its craven journalists when they complain that their husbands and wives and sons did not deserve to die.

If this is to be their fate, excuse me, but I would like to have a Spanish passport so that I can share the Spanish people's "cowardice"! If Mr Sharon is "historic" and "courageous", then the murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad will be able to claim the same. Mr Bush legitimised "terrorism" this week - and everyone who loses a limb or a life can thank him for his yellow streak. And, I fear, they can thank Mr Blair for his cowardice too.


© 2004 The Independent. UK.



"It`s amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency."-- George W. Bush to Goran Perrson, prime minister of Sweden, unaware TV cameras were still running (14th June 2001).

[vidcc]

Well nobody replied :blink:


















http://www.jackbishop.com/images/iq.jpg

[{SHELL%SHOCKED}]

I'm voting for him like last time, my portfolia has increased quite a bit and that's the bottom line.

[masterpiece21]

If bush wins this time around,i think americas fukked.really fukked.Soon enough we'll have WW3 with this bastard in office.Sure kerry i aint too keen on but hes all we got aside from bush.kerrys worth a shot.hes got my vote if i could vote ;)

[J'Pol]

Are either of the last 2 posters actually in the USA.

I just wondered.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by J'Pol@24 June 2004 - 19:17
Are either of the last 2 posters actually in the USA.

I just wondered.
Both are.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by {SHELL%SHOCKED}@24 June 2004 - 16:21
I'm voting for him like last time, my portfolia has increased quite a bit and that's the bottom line.
Hey buddy, there are other things that are more important that your stock portfolio. Leaving your share profits aside, do you think Bush has done a good job?

Even better than voting for the guy you think will make the market go up, why don't you get off your arse, do some decent research and look after your own investments? A good trader can make money when the market rises and falls. Bush does not control your stock portfolio, you do. Bush wants votes, so he tells the US Reseve Bank to drop interest rates, so more people can borrow money to invest with. That money goes into creating business, so there are more jobs and more people earn more money to invest with, which makes your stock go up. Bush has fuck all to do with whether you invest your money in oil, tech stocks or blue chip banks.

Your portfolio is not the bottom line. Whether your children can get a good education, whether you can go to a hospital when you get sick, whether you can get welfare payments if you are between jobs. Those are the bottom line when you are alking about a leader.

[cpt_azad]

rat faced, an excellent post, but i don't think many americans care about wat is happening in israel or the west bank, they don't care if thousands must be kicked out of their land to make room for jewish settlements, they don't care that iraq is going to be the end of america, and they certainly don't care if bush is re-elected. that's the saddest part of all, most americans don't know wat will happen if bush is re-elected. this makes my blood boil, oh well, might as well embrace the inevitable WW3, hope i'll be fighting against america in that one :)

[ruthie]

Originally posted by cpt_azad@25 June 2004 - 00:12
rat faced, an excellent post, but i don't think many americans care about wat is happening in israel or the west bank, they don't care if thousands must be kicked out of their land to make room for jewish settlements, they don't care that iraq is going to be the end of america, and they certainly don't care if bush is re-elected. that's the saddest part of all, most americans don't know wat will happen if bush is re-elected.  this makes my blood boil, oh well, might as well embrace the inevitable WW3, hope i'll be fighting against america in that one  :)

I'm american, and I care big time. I do think you are right though...there seems to be much apathy here, and blind acceptance of the idiot king.
The situation in Israel is a disgrace, but I will attempt to stay on topic.
What the US has done in/to Iraq is beyond repair. this country is an embarrasment, and seems to have gone back in time, finding puritanical bullshit attractive.
What scares me is that I think americans ARE NOT blind. They (those on the right)
know exactly what Bush is capable of, and invite more of it.
I am a bush HATER. I don't just dislike this administration, I abhor it. Hopefully,people will wake up, but the bottom line is if they are of like mind (as bush), then this country is fucked.
On a high note, tomorrow we are going to see Michael moore's movie, which I have been looking forward to.

[masterpiece21]

Originally posted by ruthie@25 June 2004 - 05:34
On a high note, tomorrow we are going to see Michael moore's movie, which I have been looking forward to.
I&#39;d like to see that too.its looks very interesting and im also interested in seeing his actual view of bush and this whole terrorist BS.Maybe the movie will send a wake up call to Bush*ya right* <_<

[cpt_azad]

On a high note, tomorrow we are going to see Michael moore&#39;s movie, which I have been looking forward to i&#39;m going on tuesday :) , and everything u said ruthie, i support, i just wish i can be there in washington when bush fails big time if reelected, either that or WW3 as stated a thousand times by me ;)

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by cpt_azad@25 June 2004 - 00:12
hope i&#39;ll be fighting against america in that one :)
What a sad point of view to have.

You all are so wrapped up in wanting to get Bush out of office you haven’t even stopped to look at John Kerry. Do any of you know anything about Kerry?

[fred devliegher]

You all are so wrapped up in wanting to get Bush out of office you haven’t even stopped to look at John Kerry. Do any of you know anything about Kerry?

He&#39;s not Bush, and he can&#39;t possibly be worse. Only way to go is up, IMHO.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by fred devliegher@25 June 2004 - 12:54
He&#39;s not Bush, and he can&#39;t possibly be worse. Only way to go is up, IMHO.
If you don’t know anything about him then how can you make an accurate judgment?

[fred devliegher]

If you don’t know anything about him then how can you make an accurate judgment?

1 I&#39;ve actually been reading up on his ideas and plans.
2 Kerry isn&#39;t an idiot - and that trumps Bush any day.
3 Kerry doesn&#39;t embarras his entire country when he opens his mouth.
4 Kerry seems to have grasped the notion of "nuance".

Now, American politics are not my forté, but so far I have not seen one good reason to support Bush over Kerry - I&#39;ll take the lesser evil, thank you.

[BigBank_Hank]

Care to start another thread and debate it? I can promise you I can shred whatever you’ve read about Kerry to pieces.

[Rat Faced]

Lets see now....



Jimmy Carter was hero worshiped when he visited here (Newcastle) on his way to Washington (about 10 miles away)

Reagan was greeted with friendship and politeness....but wasnt overdone, except in Downing Street....

Bush Snr was greeted by something like 10-20 protesters....

Bill Clinton was greatly welcomed.....



Bush Jnr was greeted by 1000&#39;s of protestors and rotten fruit, and he&#39;s being greeted the same way in Ireland today.



If thats how your Closest Allies feel, guess how the countries that dont like America feel.......


I&#39;ve said it before, and i&#39;ll say it again.

GW Bush is the most dangerous man in the world bar non.

If I was voting in this election and he was going up against Satan himself... I&#39;d vote for Satan.


The Interrogation of George W. Bush
The Plame Affair, Chalabi&#39;s lies, and the Niger uranium forgeries: connecting the dots

by Justin Raimondo

Asked about the implications of the President&#39;s interview with Patrick J. "Bulldog" Fitzgerald, the special counsel appointed to look into the "outing" of a CIA agent by hawkish government officials, White House spokesman Scott McClellan wasn&#39;t lying when he replied:

"No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the president of the United States."

Reflexive Bush-haters are quick to dismiss this as obfuscating rhetoric, meaningless noises emitted as a matter of course, like other bodily functions best unnamed. Yet I believe McClellan, if only because the President, in an important sense, is as much the victim as the perpetrator of the crimes under investigation. A lot is going on here, and yet, so far, only one or another tentacle of the monster has surfaced at a time, with the details of Fitzgerald&#39;s multi-pronged investigation kept under wraps. The interrogation of the President, however, indicates that the creature is about to surface, along with some indictments.

We don&#39;t know what was said during the interview, a little over an hour long, but we can tease out a few safe surmises from the tangle of speculation. First, whomever "outed" CIA agent Valerie Plame in order to get at her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson – a prominent critic of the Iraq war – probably didn&#39;t get their orders directly from the President. Secondly, assuming Dubya didn&#39;t personally get on the phone to columnist Bob Novak and divulge Ms. Plame&#39;s identity and occupation, it was probably one of his henchmen, or, more likely, one of Dick Cheney&#39;s minions, although we can be fairly certain the President didn&#39;t issue a direct order to that effect.

So why question the President?

The reason is because it&#39;s very likely that the investigation has branched out considerably since Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped aside and let Fitzgerald take on the case.

The "outing" of Valerie Plame – a CIA agent involved in sensitive nuclear proliferation work – came about as a result of the War Party&#39;s attempt to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who had gone public with the truth about Saddam&#39;s alleged attempts to secure high-grade uranium in the African country of Niger. The President, in his State of the Union address, had announced this evil intention of the Iraqi dictator as a rationale for going to war, but Wilson revealed that he had been sent by the CIA to that country in an effort to learn the facts, and had found no evidence for the accusation. The War Party had been caught in a rather embarrassing lie: badly stung, they struck back….

The rumor was spread that Wilson, supposedly a partisan Democrat, had gotten himself the (non-paying) job of going to Niger entirely on account of his wife&#39;s influence, and, besides that, he was said to have no special expertise in this area. That&#39;s horse-hockey: having served as an ambassador in the region for a decade, Wilson certainly had the experience and the contacts for the job. His only disqualification seemed to be that he was a professional diplomat who saw his job as reporting reality, rather than some party-lining neoconservative who sees everything through the distorting prism of ideology.

Furthermore, it turned out that the alleged documentary evidence pointing to Iraq&#39;s guilt in this matter were crude forgeries. The President of the United States had been made a fool of – which, in George W. Bush&#39;s case, may seem redundant, and therefore all the more humiliating.

When you start turning over rocks, all kinds of creepy-crawlies go skittering for cover, and if you disturb enough turf whole swarms will come pouring out of their holes, blinded by the sunlight and bumping into each other, desperate to regain the darkness. And that&#39;s what&#39;s been happening lately, with charges of espionage openly leveled against Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress (INC) by the U.S. intelligence community. Patrick Lang, former head of the CIA&#39;s Middle East desk, told Newsday that the U.S.-funded INC "intelligence collection" program had essentially functioned as an Iranian spy network:

"&#39;They [the Iranians] knew exactly what we were up to,&#39; he said. Lang described it as &#39;one of the most sophisticated and successful intelligence operations in history...I&#39;m a spook. I appreciate good work. This was good work.&#39;"

Eager to rid themselves of their old Iraqi enemy, and pave the way for the southward extension of their own influence, the Iranians fed Chalabi a stream of lies, possibly including the Niger uranium forgeries. The "intelligence" gleaned from these dubious documents somehow wormed its way into the President&#39;s state of the union address through some process that can only be described as treason.

Chalabi, the favorite of the neoconservatives centered in the Vice President&#39;s office and the civilian upper echelons of the Pentagon, regularly fed the White House (and the American media) dubious "intelligence" that went unvetted by the mainline intelligence agencies, and was "stove-piped" via Cheney directly onto the President&#39;s desk. If Chalabi, the Great Embezzler, ripped off the White House with fake "evidence" of Iraq&#39;s nuclear ambitions, and if this caused the administration no end of political embarrassment – remember the infamous "16 words" controversy? – then no wonder they cut off his allowance and raided his Baghdad headquarters.

But Chalabi didn&#39;t act alone: he had loyal friends and supporters inside the administration, who flew him to Iraq after the "liberation" and touted him endlessly and openly as the George Washington of his country – and the neocons defend him to this day. The Office of Special Plans, under Pentagon policy honcho Douglas Feith, functioned as a disinformation factory, taking the raw lies wholesaled by Chalabi&#39;s operation and retailing them as finished "intelligence."

If Chalabi got his hands on top secret information, and then passed it to the Iranians, then who in the U.S. government were his collaborators – and what other joint projects did Chalabi and his American fan club undertake?

Is it really a coincidence that Fitzgerald is questioning the President while FBI agents set up a polygraph machine in the Pentagon?

Whoever "outed" Valerie Plame had one goal in mind: to discredit her husband, who had exposed the Niger uranium gambit as a hoax. To suspect that the same crew knows a lot about the true origins of the Niger uranium forgeries hardly requires an imaginative leap. Back in February, when the Washington Post reported very "aggressive" questioning of White House aides, it wasn&#39;t only the Plame case FBI agents seemed concerned about:

"A parallel FBI investigation into the apparent forgery of documents suggesting that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger is &#39;at a critical stage,&#39; according to a senior law enforcement official who declined to elaborate. That probe, conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents, was launched last spring after U.N. officials pronounced the documents crude forgeries."

It seems logical to assume that George W. Bush&#39;s testimony in this matter would be far more relevant, and interesting, than his no doubt limited knowledge of the Plame affair.

In any case, what fascinates is the interconnectedness of the various scandals that threaten to engulf this administration – WMD-gate, Chalabi-gate, Niger-gate, etc., etc. All share a common narrative thread, the theme of some foreign or outside force manipulating the White House to achieve its own ends. Chalabi figured prominently in all these deceptions, but he was just an instrument in the hands of the neocons, who used him as a front man for their foreign policy agenda.

It&#39;s all very cloak-and-daggerish, with spy-versus-spy plots and counter-plots, and, with so many layers of deception, somewhat confusing. But we can see what this complicated game was all about if we look at the results, i.e. what is happening on the ground in Iraq. As Iran takes the southern provinces, and the Israelis extend their influence into the northern part of the country, where the Kurds predominate, the real allegiances of the various players stand revealed.

[BigBank_Hank]

So RF we shouldn’t vote for who we think will do the best job for our country, instead vote for someone who will be well received when they go to another country.

This is more like it BTW no more of that agreeing thing.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@25 June 2004 - 20:34
So RF we shouldn’t vote for who we think will do the best job for our country, instead vote for someone who will be well received when they go to another country.

This is more like it BTW no more of that agreeing thing.
Good, it was getting me worried :P


The Blame Game

Obviously, 9/11 happened on President Bush’s watch. Rather than accept any responsibility, the Bushites blame the Clinton Administration. But take a closer look at which administration really took threats more seriously. Threats against Los Angeles International Airport were taken serious enough to be proactive and thwart the tragedy. Republicans blast Bill Clinton for not doing enough in the war on terror (even though it hadn’t officially started yet while he was president). When bin Laden threatened the U.S., Clinton ordered missile strikes on one of his training camps. You may recall the time; it was during the Lewinski scandal. When he ordered the strike, Clinton was accused by Republicans of “wagging the dog” to deflect attention from the Lewinski affair.

So Clinton was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. On the one hand, the Republicans were wasting the taxpayers’ money by conducting the impeachment in the first place, which would distract anyone from doing his or her job. And on the other hand, you have a president, who, in spite of the distraction of a frivolous impeachment, continued to do his primary task. He protected the country. Yet the Republicans act as if he did nothing at all. Remember, we had not been attacked yet. How could Clinton have moved unilaterally against the Taliban and it be considered just?

President Bush was on vacation when he learned about an imminent attack on the United States. I’m sure he too was distracted… between tee time and tea time. I can even picture his pinky in the air as he sipped. But this is the guy Republicans want us to believe is the “Great Protector”. This is the president who sat in a classroom, clueless as to what to do next when we were attacked. Clinton did a lot more than George W. Bush did when he learned of an attack or plot against our country.

Just on a fundamental level, Republicans, you can’t have it both ways. The Clinton Administration attacked when there were threats and plots discovered – despite the best/worst efforts of the Republican-held Congress. The Clinton Administration also warned the Bush Administration that terror should be its main concern. President Bush ignored all the warnings, including the one that said: “bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States.” When Bush was warned, he didn’t attack or act… he stayed on vacation. Isn’t that the sort of thing you might expect of a bratty, rich kid?







So much hassle the Republicans make over a Blow Job...

So what type of man should they put there instead?




FINK: When you&#39;re talking about politics, what do you and [your father] talk about?
DUBYA: Pussy.
-- Interview with David Fink of the Hartford Courant at the Republican Convention, 1988


You know what?

Thats the 1st piece of evidence i&#39;ve ever seen, to say the guy is actually sane.......err normal.... :lol:



:-"

[BigBank_Hank]

Wow that little article has got me licking my chops.

Let’s begin with Clinton do his part to capture Bin Laden. Your article fails to point out the he’s was spotted on video three times and we had the opportunity to kill each time. Each time the Predator Drone was sent out and located him a call was made to the President to authorize the use of force. The first time Clinton couldn’t be found only top advisors and they didn’t have the authority to make such a call. The other times he knew about them and didn’t pull the trigger. But of course he left that out of his little book.

Secondly President Bush was not on vacation when the attacks happened. The President was out of Washington D.C. at an Elementary school reading books to children not on a golf course. He was kept up to date on things that were happening by the secret service not clueless.

And on the impeachment: I guess that we were supposed to just sit back and let Clinton do whatever the hell he wanted to do. I guess that laying your hand on the Bible and swearing to the truth carries less weight in the UK but here in the US we call that perjury. No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.

[Rat Faced]

No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.


Assasination is against the Law... make your mind up ;)



Secondly President Bush was not on vacation when the attacks happened. The President was out of Washington D.C. at an Elementary school reading books to children not on a golf course. He was kept up to date on things that were happening by the secret service not clueless.


Actually read it, before commentating :P

He was on Vacation when he was warned, he was at the Elementary school when it happened


And on the impeachment: I guess that we were supposed to just sit back and let Clinton do whatever the hell he wanted to do. I guess that laying your hand on the Bible and swearing to the truth carries less weight in the UK but here in the US we call that perjury. No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.


The Impeachment wasnt the point...

The point i was making was that the Republicans were calling him for doing something "To Distract the public"..and that doing this was unimportant.

He lied, he should be impeached... I agree. He was stupid to lie, he should have just said.."Yes, I had a Blow Job... so what?"

Bush has lied too....how come he isnt being impeached?


No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.


Ive been saying this for the last 18 month at least.

Bush/Blaire have both broken International Law...when you gonna do something about it?

:rolleyes:

[BigBank_Hank]

Assasination is against the Law... make your mind up

I guess your referring to the Iraq war. Well if killing terrorist and removing a brutal dictator is assignation I guess that we are guilty of that.



He was on Vacation when he was warned, he was at the Elementary school when it happened

I did misunderstand that point. He might have been on vacation but again the threats were non specific wasn’t clear cut.



Bush/Blaire have both broken International Law...when you gonna do something about it?


No laws were broken with the invasion of Iraq. We had resolutions against them and they knew the circumstances of not complying with them. They had 12 years to comply and didn’t do so.

[Rat Faced]

Wrong.

Its up to the Security Council to interpret Resolutions, not individual Countries.

The Security Council specifically DID NOT interpret Military Intervention, despite everything that Blair/Bush tried... ergo, They broke International Law.

Irrespective of this, a certain Camp in Cuba has been breaking the Geneva Convention since Afganistan...and even the UK Government is outspoken on that, despite going along with everything else.



We had resolutions against them

So have you, re: Cuba.

6 UN Resolutions outstanding.

So have Israel....god knows how many now.

So, are you suggesting that the US and Israel should both have Military Intervention? :blink:


The fact is, that its a non-argument.

Everyone knows that it was against International Law.

Everyone knows that nothing will be done about it.

What is pissing the whole world off, is the Hypocracy involved.... especially everyone in the Middle East (inc a substantial proportion of the population of Israel)


Do you give the bratty, rich kid the keys to the sweet shop (candy store)?

Anyway you slice it, we still have nothing but an un-initiated frat-boy running the USA.

If one has no sense of history, let alone fell asleep in history class, one cannot learn from history.

If one has no understanding of consequences, one can have no conscience.

His family’s name and financial influence have bailed George W. out all of his life. He got into Yale because of his father, not his own academic merits. He was spared going to war in Vietnam; therefore, he has no sense of the realities of war. Any time he was in trouble for anything, daddy bailed him out. Drunken driving… Cocaine addiction… and all those other pesky peccadilloes that we conveniently don’t hear about anymore. There have been no consequences for him.

How can he be trusted to be a responsible leader?

As I’ve said before, the President of the United States is the leader of the civilized world. He or she cannot arbitrarily wage war, imprison people indefinitely, and torture them.

The President of the United States uses the military to protect us and our interests (not just the USA&#39;s..all of us..he doesnt just lead the USA, he&#39;s also the leader of the Free World, which is WHY we all take an interest), and to enforce international laws, if necessary, not break them.

If the president and/or his administration were to break them, there should be consequences. That is, unless the president is a bratty, rich kid wanting to have it both ways.

According to the Washington Post, "The Justice Department has advised the White House that President Bush (and those who follow his orders) may contravene treaties, U.S. law and international law under the broad doctrine of &#39;necessity.&#39;"...and he has done just that.

The only trouble is that HIS definition of "necessity" differs from everyone elses.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@25 June 2004 - 21:12
No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.
I was never actually clear which law it was he broke. Other than the rather spurious obfustication over something that wasn&#39;t actually illegal (unless, like Afghanistan, adultery is still a stoning offence in the US)

He cheated on his wife who appears to have forgiven him. He said he didn&#39;t have sex (failing to identify that he did not count a blow job as sex). That hanky panky occured was as clear as a crystal to a blind bat prior to his second election. Nevertheless, he still won handsomely. It would seem that the American people cared less about his pecadillos than the somewhat purient Mr Starr.

I read somewhere that if Clinton could have stood for a third term he would have beaten Bush easily. Suggesting that they cared even less about the issue despite years of muck raking.

This is not to say I approve of his behaviour, but a loveable rouge is easier to like than a charmless bore. Indeed, the glowing words from Bush about Clinton at the recent unveiling of the latter&#39;s portrait suggests that Bush would like a little of that charm for himself.

With regards the Predators, I was given to believe that they were not originally armed with Hellfire missiles - hence the difficulties. Was it not the well known Security advisor (whose name escapes me) that pushed for the military to adapt them for this use?

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by {SHELL%SHOCKED}@24 June 2004 - 10:21
I&#39;m voting for him like last time, my portfolia has increased quite a bit and that&#39;s the bottom line.
@ SHELL%SHOCKED
:o
How can you be so sefish?&#33;

[Biggles]

Originally posted by {SHELL%SHOCKED}@24 June 2004 - 16:21
I&#39;m voting for him like last time, my portfolia has increased quite a bit and that&#39;s the bottom line.
:o

That is where all those idiot pension funds have gone wrong&#33; They have all invested in portfolios. :ph34r:

[BigBank_Hank]

Its up to the Security Council to interpret Resolutions, not individual Countries.

You are right. It was up to the UN to enforce those resolutions but did they? No.


The President of the United States uses the military to protect us and our interests (not just the USA&#39;s..all of us..he doesnt just lead the USA, he&#39;s also the leader of the Free World, which is WHY we all take an interest), and to enforce international laws, if necessary, not break them.

I think with this quote you summed it up yourself. It’s the President’s job to protect us against enemy’s that poised to strike against us. The UN has proven themselves impotent so the President did what he had to do to take out the threat.

@Biggles:


I was never actually clear which law it was he broke

Mr. Clinton committed perjury. The impeachment process that all the democrats were in such a fuss about were the same measures that they themselves put into place after Nixon left office.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@25 June 2004 - 20:57

I think with this quote you summed it up yourself. It’s the President’s job to protect us against enemy’s that poised to strike against us. The UN has proven themselves impotent so the President did what he had to do to take out the threat.


So far, the only thing that Sadam can be shown to have been "poised" to do was build yet another palace.

Still waiting on the proof of his capability to pose a direct threat to the US.
Care to provide it, or is this yet one more thing we must take on faith?

[BigBank_Hank]

Clocker we took the fight to the enemy. We took him out before he was able to strike us first.

Saddam had plenty of weapons that violated UN resolutions. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Bush all said the same thing. Everyone knew that he had WMD’s now it’s where he hid them that is the million dollar question. My best guess is that they are buried in the desert or in Syria.

On the subject of things being buried; we are find planes and tanks that were buried in the sand that we never knew were there. The only reason that we found them is because during a storm the wind blew the sand away and a tail from a jet could be seen poking out from the sand, there were also tanks discovered like this. So if the can bury tanks and jets don’t you think they can bury bombs and missles?

[vidcc]

Still doesn&#39;t add up in my mind.... if you have weapons why get rid of them at the time you need them most ? if he had such weapons that were so dangerous to us surely he would have used the ownership of those weapons to deter an invasion. We wouldn&#39;t go after north Korea or china because they openly have these WMD and we know they would use them. Perhaps someone knew that these weapons didn&#39;t exist so it was a sure win with minimum effort.
I know the arguement about the games he played with inspectors is going to crop up but if you are a dictator of a country like Iraq you have to show that you are fearless and in charge...not let the people you rule see the UN walk all over you.

I state again evidence is what you can prove, not finding evidence is not proof that he had them but hid them.


Saddam had plenty of weapons that violated UN resolutions. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Bush all said the same thing

Did they have the same "flawed" intelligence that Bush admitted he had?

[ruthie]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@25 June 2004 - 23:14
Clocker we took the fight to the enemy. We took him out before he was able to strike us first.


Bush is the enemy of the USA, as well as the rest of the world.
We were not attacked by Saddam.
this is like rationalizing beating the shit out of someone cause they looked at you funny, and you thought, well, um. he looks like he might jump me, so why don&#39;t I just kick his ass.

[ruthie]

Saw F911 today. Great movie. I wish that it was more radical, but I feel Moore did a good job in the presentation, as perhaps those on the fence of how to vote might be more comfortable pulling away from Bush. I would suggest people see this. for us, there were no surprises...well, one surprise.
I didn&#39;t know that ex-presidents were privvy to CIA briefings everyday, if they wanted to get them. Apparently, the Big Daddy Bush gets them everyday. That&#39;s kind of disconcerting.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by ruthie+26 June 2004 - 05:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ruthie &#064; 26 June 2004 - 05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@25 June 2004 - 23:14
Clocker we took the fight to the enemy. We took him out before he was able to strike us first.


Bush is the enemy of the USA, as well as the rest of the world.
We were not attacked by Saddam.
this is like rationalizing beating the shit out of someone cause they looked at you funny, and you thought, well, um. he looks like he might jump me, so why don&#39;t I just kick his ass.[/b][/quote]
Gosh Ruthie, Saddam only attempted to assassinate George Senior. You call that a "funny look"? Is that not a symbolic attack, at all?

The man had a grudge and a plan. He was thwarted and we are criticised for quenching his ember before it burst into flame.

And an ex-President getting CIA briefings everyday, why is that disconcerting? I fail to see why, at all. We all get special treatment at our old jobs. Perhaps you consider George Sr. a security risk or something?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by hobbes@26 June 2004 - 00:25
Gosh Ruthie, Saddam only attempted to assassinate George Senior. You call that a "funny look"? Is that not a symbolic attack, at all?

The man had a grudge and a plan. He was thwarted and we are criticised for quenching his ember before it burst into flame.


Didn&#39;t the US at some point try to assassinate Saddam? I seem to recall a bunker buster.
Not making any attempt to justify the assasination of Bush snr. just playing devils advocate.

That said in war wouldn&#39;t it be a lot simpler for the folks that live in the waring countries if the actual people that started these wars...ie. the politicians were the targets and not the citizens drafted to do the fighting ?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc+26 June 2004 - 05:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 26 June 2004 - 05:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@26 June 2004 - 00:25
Gosh Ruthie, Saddam only attempted to assassinate George Senior.&nbsp; You call that a "funny look"?&nbsp; Is that not a symbolic attack, at all?

The man had a grudge and a plan.&nbsp; He was thwarted and we are criticised for quenching his ember before it burst into flame.


Didn&#39;t the US at some point try to assassinate Saddam? I seem to recall a bunker buster.
Not making any attempt to justify the assasination of Bush snr. just playing devils advocate.

That said in war wouldn&#39;t it be a lot simpler for the folks that live in the waring countries if the actual people that started these wars...ie. the politicians were the targets and not the citizens drafted to do the fighting ? [/b][/quote]
Assassination during war?

That makes no sense.

The US dearly wanted to cut off the serpents head from bomb 1. Had it worked, so many lives would have been saved.

You are not comparing like situations.

[ruthie]

Originally posted by hobbes+26 June 2004 - 02:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 26 June 2004 - 02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by ruthie@26 June 2004 - 05:13
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@25 June 2004 - 23:14
Clocker we took the fight to the enemy. We took him out before he was able to strike us first.


Bush is the enemy of the USA, as well as the rest of the world.
We were not attacked by Saddam.
this is like rationalizing beating the shit out of someone cause they looked at you funny, and you thought, well, um. he looks like he might jump me, so why don&#39;t I just kick his ass.
Gosh Ruthie, Saddam only attempted to assassinate George Senior. You call that a "funny look"? Is that not a symbolic attack, at all?

The man had a grudge and a plan. He was thwarted and we are criticised for quenching his ember before it burst into flame.

And an ex-President getting CIA briefings everyday, why is that disconcerting? I fail to see why, at all. We all get special treatment at our old jobs. Perhaps you consider George Sr. a security risk or something?

[/b][/quote]
So Saddam tried to assasinate the Bush daddy. What does that have to do with Iraq? I am sure there were other ways to deal with Saddam besides blowing up Iraq, and killing so many civilians, in what Rummy loves to call "precision, air strikes."

Talk about a grudge and a plan. I almost thought you meant Bush jr. . Too bad Bush wasn&#39;t "thwarted", and we, the people, weren&#39;t able to "quench his ember before it burst into flame."
Why am I concerned about Bush Sr. rec. CIA briefings? How about his ties with the Saudi&#39;s and the Carlyle Group (http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html).

[hobbes]

I had no idea we blew Iraq up. I saw electricity in the capital city up until our troops entered the city. I saw people on the streets carrying on their daily lives. We could have simply carpet bombed Bahgdad had we wanted to. This war was on television for the world to see. Nice emotive comments though.

The leader of Iraq trying to kill an American president has everything to do with Iraq. What is the confusion?

Wasn&#39;t a World War started over an assassination. Some Archduke Ferdinand or something?

Nice comment, "other means". It has no meaning. 12 years of sanctions, while citizens die and starve and Saddam poops in gold toilets. Don&#39;t bother me with platitudes.

You can count all the civilian deaths you want and they are just a thimbleful compared to what Saddam killed on his own.

You talk about Saddam as if he were logical and reasonable.

Don&#39;t understand your last point, other than more of the rantings of some sort of conspiracy theorist. Yawn.

Since Saddam attempted to kill George Senior, what did you mean when you said we were not attacked by Saddam, bit confused.

[ruthie]

Originally posted by hobbes@26 June 2004 - 03:05
I had no idea we blew Iraq up. I saw electricity in the capital city up until our troops entered the city.&nbsp; I saw people on the streets carrying on their daily lives.&nbsp; We could have simply carpet bombed Bahgdad had we wanted to.&nbsp; This war was on television for the world to see. Nice emotive comments though.

The leader of Iraq trying to kill an American president has everything to do with Iraq.&nbsp; What is the confusion?

Wasn&#39;t a World War started over an assassination.&nbsp; Some Archduke Ferdinand or something?

Nice comment, "other means".&nbsp; It has no meaning.&nbsp; 12 years of sanctions, while citizens die and starve and Saddam poops in gold toilets.&nbsp; Don&#39;t bother me with platitudes.

You can count all the civilian deaths you want and they are just a thimbleful compared to what Saddam killed on his own.

You talk about Saddam as if he were logical and reasonable.

Don&#39;t understand your last point, other than more of the rantings of some sort of conspiracy theorist. Yawn.

Since Saddam attempted to kill George Senior, what did you mean when you said we were not attacked by Saddam, bit confused.
Did you watch the night of "Shock and Awe" ? Blew Iraq up? Yup, I said what I meant. We have bombed the hell out of Iraq, screwed up their electricity, screwed up their water. Please, the US tries to imply they had nothing before WE got there. I don&#39;t think so. More propaganda.
What don&#39;t you understand about Saddam trying to assasinate Bush was not the civilians of Iraq trying to kill Bush? Didn&#39;t Saddam have a &#39;brutal hold&#39; over the people of Iraq? What responsibility, then, do they have in his assasination attempt? No more than I have for Bush&#39;s invasion.
Sanctions? Oh yeah, that was brilliant.
Are you saying that because of Saddam&#39;s violence against his countrymen, our violence in Iraq is irrelevant? it doesn&#39;t matter, cause, gee, Saddam was REALLY bad?
I do not say anything about Saddam being logical or reasonable. You must have me confused with good ol Ronnie Raygun, who must have thought Saddam was reasonable and logical, when he armed him to the nines. Oh, yes, Rumsfeld was Raygun&#39;s Middle East Envoy at the time.

[hobbes]

And so how can we remove Saddam other than how we did?

Shock and Awe was viewed and broadcast. Saddams palaces were targeted and Badgdad never lost electricity. It was on TV.

Please clearly document where I stated that Iraqi&#39;s should be killed. I am merely pointing out that for every Iraqi killed, 10 would have perished had Saddam remained.

They were the unfortunate victims, again, of Saddams insanity.

Again, when you say Saddam did not attack us, what do you mean?

Your comments about Reagan are nonsense. Saddam was never an ally. He may have been a pawn at one point to punish Iran, but that does not mean he was ever a friend.

Again, based on our capability, we spared this counrty the devastation we could have wrought.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by ruthie@26 June 2004 - 06:35
Are you saying that because of Saddam&#39;s violence against his countrymen, our violence in Iraq is irrelevant?
Never said it, never implied it. You are flailing.

I was saying that innocents will die to remove him, but in doing so, those killed will be a small number compared to those that would have died had he remained.

The sanctions came from the UN. Oh right, the US controls the UN. But then why did the UN oppose the war.?

As a liberal, who never voted for Bush, I never dreamed that I would be posting as I do. But, I just hate listening to bullshit.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@22 June 2004 - 00:54
Well nobody replied :blink:


















http://www.jackbishop.com/images/iq.jpg
Vid-

What, exactly, is this supposed to indicate?

Well, let&#39;s see:

Nixon had the highest IQ of any Republican, and he was a scoundrel; he resigned his office before he was impeached.

Clinton had the highest IQ of any Democrat, and he, too, was/is a scoundrel, but he also managed to be impeached, and stay in office.

I would say Clinton had what might be called VIQ: Variable Intelligence Quotient; that is to say, it might have actually approached 182, but only when his very survival was at stake.

I think, for example, when he told Hillary of his peccadilloes, he must have been at his very best, IQ-wise, to escape with his life, especially considering she herself is (it is generally conceded) the smartest woman on the face of the earth.

In any case, the uselessness of the whole exercise is surely indicated by Carter&#39;s having the second-highest IQ (175), isn&#39;t it?

What a resoundingly successful presidency he had&#33; :)

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@26 June 2004 - 01:47
And so how can we remove Saddam other than how we did?


You assume that we needed to remove Sadam in the first place.
How come?

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by clocker@26 June 2004 - 11:43
You assume that we needed to remove Sadam in the first place.
How come?
Are you serious? You really think Saddam should have been left in power? Someone who murders millions of his own people, someone who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, someone who posed a threat to the security of the world really should have been given more time to stay in power.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes+26 June 2004 - 08:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 26 June 2004 - 08:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ruthie@26 June 2004 - 06:35
Are you saying that because of Saddam&#39;s violence against his countrymen, our violence in Iraq is irrelevant?
Never said it, never implied it. You are flailing.

I was saying that innocents will die to remove him, but in doing so, those killed will be a small number compared to those that would have died had he remained.

The sanctions came from the UN. Oh right, the US controls the UN. But then why did the UN oppose the war.?

As a liberal, who never voted for Bush, I never dreamed that I would be posting as I do. But, I just hate listening to bullshit. [/b][/quote]
Hobbes

Therein lies the dilemma with such equations. At what point will the carnage and violence unleashed in Iraq tip the scales into the red. The innocents we kill are our responsibility no one elses. Their tears and blood cast a shadow on us.

I am not advocating the return of Saddam - we are responsible for the mess we clean it up. However, we went in because we said he was a threat to us - not because we wanted to be nice to Iraqis. Given that he now appears to have been a toothless paper tiger we are only left with the "being nice to Iraqis" justification. This is actually a bind. It means that we have to see the job through and pay through the nose in order to do so. If he had been sitting on huge stock piles of weapons on the verge of attack we could have justified his removal and subsequently left the Iraqis to get on with things. The lack of resources after the initial conflict would suggest that we had little idea as to what the Iraqis would subsequently do.

Although the first couple of weeks of Shock and Awe targeted Ministry buildings the power grid was brought down by the end. We are still paying for its reconstruction, in both the lives of contractors and money. Soldiers I have spoken to that have returned from Iraq say the place is a shambles. Furthermore, as soon as something is fixed the insurgents blow it up again. The British positions in Basra are much quieter than further north but the feeling is that things are getting more edgy not less.

GW cannot have an IQ of 91 surely? That is very close to below average intelligence (which is putting it nicely) Having said that, I consider IQ ratings little more than a parlour game.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@26 June 2004 - 12:13

....I consider IQ ratings little more than a parlour game.
I believe you&#39;ve put your finger on it, Biggles.

To those who worship Clinton&#39;s "intelligence":

Clinton&#39;s potential for utter idiocy was revealed just a few days ago during the Dimbleby interview, wherein he sputtered incoherently at a particularly inopportune juncture. ;)

Intelligence, and stupidity likewise, most always suffer involuntary and/or selective application, and, to be perfectly accurate, this phenomenon applies to everyone.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+26 June 2004 - 16:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 26 June 2004 - 16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@26 June 2004 - 11:43
You assume that we needed to remove Sadam in the first place.
How come?
Are you serious? You really think Saddam should have been left in power? Someone who murders millions of his own people, someone who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, someone who posed a threat to the security of the world really should have been given more time to stay in power. [/b][/quote]

So, i assume your now proposing the Invasion of all the countries that were, and still are more vicious that Iraq ever was?

Sudan, for example...?


The 10 years between the 2 Gulf Wars saw more deaths of Iraqi&#39;s indirectly from the UN sanctions, and directly from UK/USA bombing, than Hussain ever managed at his worst.... including his Chemical attack on the Kurds.

Deaths due to our bombing of Water Treatment Plants (against the Geneva Convention) for example.... (and Chlorine to clean the Water without the treatment plants was "Dual Use" so could not be imported)..

Deaths due to dust from Depleted Uranium shells used in the 1st war...and US troops themselves are now being diagnosed with symptoms of this, however I suppose they&#39;ll be alright as treatment is available for them

Deaths due to lack of Medical Supplies.... did you know that "Syringes", were even classed as "Dual Use"? And basic Painkillers and anti-biotics?


These matters go outside Political Party Politics, as during that decade both UK and USA had both main political parties of their countries in charge at some point.

However, no matter which way you cut it...there is no Moral High Ground for us.


Saddam did support Terrorism....he helped finance Palestinian Terorists.

However he hasnt given them half as much as Saudi Arabia, as an example.....as he really didnt give a shit for them, it was just a means of keeping the fundamentalists of his own Country happy and causing less trouble.



As to the assasination of Bush Snr.

They were linked to a car bomb by Kuwaiti Intelligence..... hardly an unbiased Agency in 1993.

I believe that 23 Cruise Missiles were fired at Iraqi Intelligence HQ for that..

23 Cruise Missiles at one building.... I wonder how much co-lateral damage that caused?

Compared to the co-lateral Damage of a Car Bomb, that may or may not have belonged to Iraqi Intelligence that is.

How many Assasinations have the CIA been involved in?..........in countries not actively bombing the crap out of them, like the USA/UK were to Iraq?


This whole argument, to me, stinks of:

Do as we say; not as we do... Its OK for us to kill who the fuck we want, but its not OK for you to defend yourselves in the only way&#39;s possible, or to fight back...

"Gods on our Side".... well, if Gods on our side, what makes us any different from the Terrorists, except a Uniform?



Quite frankly, I think im better than that.

I also believe the vast Majority of Americans and British are better than that...and in fact most people everywhere.

Its just a shame that shit floats to the top of politics... in every country.


All that we as voters in Democracies can do, is try and minimise the damage by voting in the lessor of the evils on offer...coz no matter WHICH Party they are in, make no mistake...If they can get away with it, they will stab you through the heart for a buck or more power.

<_<

[BigBank_Hank]

Rat we’ve been through this already. I now that are other’s just as or just as vicious as Saddam was but we don’t have a 12 year history and 17 UN resolutions with Sudan. It’s impossible for us to help everyone everywhere, I wish we could but we can’t.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 June 2004 - 18:21
Rat we’ve been through this already. I now that are other’s just as or just as vicious as Saddam was but we don’t have a 12 year history and 17 UN resolutions with Sudan. It’s impossible for us to help everyone everywhere, I wish we could but we can’t.
Did you know that Iraq was so unco-operative that they were suggesting and offering to pay for the technologies to confirm amounts of Chemical Weapons they had destroyed at certain sites?

They knew where they&#39;d destroyed them, they just didnt have confirmed paperwork as to amounts.... all evidence the Inspectors looked at appeared to Confirm what the Iraqi&#39;s were saying in these areas.. they just couldnt Verify the information (as they&#39;d been destroyed)...

The US/UK blocked these Technologies being used in the Inspection Process.

Very co-operative of us, huh?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 June 2004 - 18:21
Rat we’ve been through this already. I now that are other’s just as or just as vicious as Saddam was but we don’t have a 12 year history and 17 UN resolutions with Sudan. It’s impossible for us to help everyone everywhere, I wish we could but we can’t.
:helpsmile:


An interesting use of the word help.


The imperative for war was never made clear and failed to convince most of the world (i.e. 80%). By imperative, I mean what would have happened if we had not gone to war? Why was war the only solution? Saddam was not backing Al Qaeda nor was he involved in international terrorism. His support for the Palestinians was no more than most Arab leaders and less than some.

It is true that he was a dictator. However, it would appear that every time his name is mentioned the numbers of dead increases exponentially. Approximately 1m Iraqis and Iranians died in the Iran/Iraq war - a war we approved of.

Following the abortive Kuwaiti invasion and UN sanctions it is estimated that annually about 40,000 Iraqis died prematurely do to lack of proper medical facilities - many of them children. Despite numerous suggestions that the sanctions list should be refined there was an unwillingness to take the action that could have saved these lives. Saddam did kill political opponents - probably many tens of thousands of such opponents over the 25 years of his reign of terror. However, he is not in the Hitler or Stalin league. He was just another nasty local dictator with a fondness for palaces and gold taps.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:34
They knew where they&#39;d destroyed them, they just didnt have confirmed paperwork as to amounts.... all evidence the Inspectors looked at appeared to Confirm what the Iraqi&#39;s were saying in these areas.. they just couldnt Verify the information (as they&#39;d been destroyed)...

Look they had 12 years to comply and they didn’t. If everything had destroyed the Saddam wouldn’t have kicked out the inspectors and would have let them look whenever and where ever they wanted. That wasn’t the case though. The inspectors were allowed to search when Saddam said and where he said.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+26 June 2004 - 18:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 26 June 2004 - 18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:34
They knew where they&#39;d destroyed them, they just didnt have confirmed paperwork as to amounts.... all evidence the Inspectors looked at appeared to Confirm what the Iraqi&#39;s were saying in these areas.. they just couldnt Verify the information (as they&#39;d been destroyed)...

Look they had 12 years to comply and they didn’t. If everything had destroyed the Saddam wouldn’t have kicked out the inspectors and would have let them look whenever and where ever they wanted. That wasn’t the case though. The inspectors were allowed to search when Saddam said and where he said. [/b][/quote]

These weapons were destroyed in 1991 I believe.... possibly in case the Allies did follow through and Invade Iraq, as so collar him for their possession then. Possibly in Compliance to what they knew what would happen, however without admitting to their people that they had complied... or possibly because their shelf life had expired, following the end of the Iraq/Iran war or scared of what the Kurd bombing consequences would be...who knows...

Before the 1st Inspection Process, where they werent co-operating, even so..


They didnt have Verifiable paperwork as to amounts involved.

The amounts of broken shell fragments and not wholley destroyed ordnance implied that the amounts they were claiming were correct.

However the technology needed to verify these amounts was Blocked...

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:57
These weapons were destroyed in 1991 I believe....
Really? Then care to explain why he threw the inspectors out in 1998?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+26 June 2004 - 19:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 26 June 2004 - 19:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:57
These weapons were destroyed in 1991 I believe....
Really? Then care to explain why he threw the inspectors out in 1998? [/b][/quote]
For spying as I recall. It was latter verified that the CIA had managed to get an agent or two onto the UN team.

[Rat Faced]

He didnt "Throw the Inspectors" out..

He threw a spy out that was amongst the Inspectors (CIA), and the UN withdrew the rest.... As he would not thereafter allow an American Inspector, for obvious reasons...

[BigBank_Hank]

I guess the thrown out and withdrew saga is another one of those where you sit on the political fence.

The inspectors weren’t allowed to do their work as I said earlier. Why wouldn’t Saddam allow these people to do the job that they were sent in to do? If he had nothing to hide and wanted to come forward with everything that he had he would allowed the inspectors to do their work and make a complete and full investigation.

[Rat Faced]

So, I assume you&#39;d be quite happy for the KGB to have toured your military facilities in the 80&#39;s?

As thats what your saying.

He never stopped the inspectors, the Americans did....they planted a spy, and when he was caught and thrown out (as you do when you catch spies) ... they put pressure on the UN to withdraw the inspectors, as Iraq (for pretty obvious reasons) decided they would allow no American Inspectors now... So guess who insisted that there must be an American Inspector afterwards...


Another case of "Do as we say, not as we do" <_<

[BigBank_Hank]

I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.


He never stopped the inspectors, the Americans did....

I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

The inspectors couldn’t do the job that they were sent in to do. They could only inspect what Saddam wanted them to see and when he wanted them to see it. They were left waiting at palace gates for more than an hour on some occasions. I guess Saddam needed time to vacuum and dust before letting company in.

[j2k4]

1. U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, at least ostensibly looking for WMD.

Why? "Everybody" knew Saddam had none.

2. U.N. sanctions and resolutions threatened use of force in the instance of non-compliance.

Why? No signatory nation would actually follow through.

3. The U.N. resolved to keep Saddam in check militarily via embargo/blockade.

Why? He wasn&#39;t a threat to anybody.


Oooops.

There&#39;s more:

A. Depending on who you listen to, the U.N.-sponsored embargos on Iraq resulted in anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of civilian deaths, mainly children, lots of women, a sprinkling of other innocent citizens, and perhaps a soldier or two.

These deaths are the exclusive fault of the United States, as they are members of the U.N.

B. Under the good auspices of the U.N.&#39;s "oil-for-food" program, Iraqis would provided with food and medical necessities.

That the program didn&#39;t work and was a miserable failure, due to it&#39;s corrupt U.N. administration and Saddam&#39;s greed, is also clearly the fault of the U.S.

C. The U.N. will conduct it&#39;s own in-house investigation of the oil-for-food program, which will not result in public disclosure of any evidence of wrong-doing, owing to the infallibility of the U.N.

The U.S. will be blamed for any shortcomings otherwise attributable to the oil-for-food program, and chided for it&#39;s efforts to get to the bottom of things.


Uh, oh.

Time for another thread.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 June 2004 - 19:52
I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.


He never stopped the inspectors, the Americans did....

I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

The inspectors couldn’t do the job that they were sent in to do. They could only inspect what Saddam wanted them to see and when he wanted them to see it. They were left waiting at palace gates for more than an hour on some occasions. I guess Saddam needed time to vacuum and dust before letting company in.
Yes, there is.

However i was comparing an Intelligence Agency with an Intelligence Agency... ie CIA and KGB, not CIA with UN.


Face the facts, out of the members of the UN Security Council the US virtually controls 30% of the vote....and they still couldnt get a majority, so Russia/France didnt even need to use their veto.


@ J2K4,

You know how i feel about the UN.

Neither your Government nor mine would ratify the changes that are needed, as they would both lose the power that they have in there; which is totally out of all perspective as to our respective populations :P

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 15:29
@ J2K4,

You know how i feel about the UN.

Neither your Government nor mine would ratify the changes that are needed, as they would both lose the power that they have in there; which is totally out of all perspective as to our respective populations :P
You&#39;ll never know how comforted I am by this small slice of sanity. :P

Truly, though:

If the U.N. is ever to re-intersect with propriety, I think the U.S. and the U.K. are the ideal seeds for the necessary "coalition".*

*How I&#39;ve come to hate that word&#33;

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 16:10

Quite frankly, I think im better than that.

I also believe the vast Majority of Americans and British are better than that...and in fact most people everywhere.

Its just a shame that shit floats to the top of politics... in every country.


All that we as voters in Democracies can do, is try and minimise the damage by voting in the lessor of the evils on offer...coz no matter WHICH Party they are in, make no mistake...If they can get away with it, they will stab you through the heart for a buck or more power.

<_<
I was going to reply to a couple comments here, but as I read through the post to the end, I think, on a conceptual level, we are on the same page, particularly our attitude towards poltics in general. Good post.

I will just say I have absolutely no defense for the bombing of water treatment facilities and I guarantee you, that information is not known by many here.

As for the other sanctions, the deaths were not just a function of the sanctions, but equally a result of the allocation of resources. Saddam kept his military well fed and in good health, the rest were neglected and died.

Had Saddam wished to throw himself into doing what he could to assist his country, the death totals that are quoted would be a fraction. Gold toilets and palaces don&#39;t feed people. Argriculture does.

Syringes? I hope, at least, this war will bring syringe technology to Iraq.

Antibiotics? Alexander Fleming grew these things in his sink on dirty dishes. Come on, they aren&#39;t hard to make. If they can make pesticides, they can make antibiotics.

[j2k4]

Well argued, the two of you.

If I might make one more point, it would be that certain issues, such as who is responsible for the fall-out from the sanctions, should somehow achieve the status of having been decided, or resolved between us on this board.
Certain things don&#39;t deserve a re-hashing at every turn.

Perhaps we could start a pin or something wherein these issues could be assigned a collective determination via the occasional poll; call it the "Be It Resolved" thread.

Might be an interesting exercise; we ought not lose track of those instances when we actually have a reasonably wide swath of agreement-it certainly wouldn&#39;t ever be cumbersome enough to tax the server, eh? :D

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@26 June 2004 - 07:34


Clinton had the highest IQ of any Democrat, and he, too, was/is a scoundrel, but he also managed to be impeached, and stay in office.

Sorry for the delay...didn&#39;t notice a response to the picture..i actually posted it after there was no debate on the original issue as a bit of light heartedness.


in reply to your post about clinton...i have not debated the impeachment before because i felt it represented the bottom of the barrel in trying to get clinton out (it was the republicans that instigated it) i care not about blowjobs that others get.

I will take it as read that you dissagreed with the end result of the impeachment but could you tell me what the outcome was ?

one word answer please :D

[j2k4]

What the outcome was?

Of the impeachment?

One word?

Okay, that word would be:

Correct&#33;

The actual result was less than satisfying, though I look forward with humor to upcoming efforts to tender an amnesty or expungement upon Clinton; I&#39;m sure he thinks he deserves it; given his concern with his legacy-"...badge of honor..." and all that. :D

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@26 June 2004 - 20:11
What the outcome was?

Of the impeachment?

One word?

Okay, that word would be:

Correct&#33;

The actual result was less than satisfying, though I look forward with humor to upcoming efforts to tender an amnesty or expungement upon Clinton; I&#39;m sure he thinks he deserves it; given his concern with his legacy-"...badge of honor..." and all that. :D
on February 12, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. The president was acquitted on both articles of impeachment. The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted "not guilty" and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50. After the trial concluded, President Clinton said he was "profoundly sorry" for the burden his behavior imposed on Congress and the American people.


Now i am not going to get into the ins and outs as we will look at things differently...he did get a blowjob, but as i said before i don&#39;t care about private lives. I am not defending his mistake ( the impeachment wasn&#39;t because he got a blowjob but it was connected )
However this impeachment keeps being raised even though he was aquitted. There have been calls to have Bush impeached because he lied about Iraq, many take the view he did lie, i Know you don&#39;t, but should he be impeached and aquitted in the same way clinton was i doubt you would accept anyone raising the impeachment in the same way you do about clinton.
i look at the results for America that a president has during his term, not his social life. I will happily denounce ANY president for failings in policy



I didn&#39;t respond to this ..i got sidetracked.

In any case, the uselessness of the whole exercise is surely indicated by Carter&#39;s having the second-highest IQ (175), isn&#39;t it?

What a resoundingly successful presidency he had&#33;


I could have made a case such as you did with reagan on carters term but i have a strong belief in the phrase i used for reagan..."the buck stops here".



EDIT: top line missed the year for those that don&#39;t know 1999 :unsure:

[j2k4]

So, then-

Even attempts at humor are subject to the old to-may-to/to-mah-to adage, yes?

So many things are a matter of taste, these days; wouldn&#39;t you agree?

Question:

If we bow to the dictates of Miss Manners, will we even have anything to talk about?

Example:

"If it weren&#39;t for Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones et. al., Clinton&#39;s book would...":

A. Never have been written.

B. Be much thinner.

C. Already be selling at massive discounts.

D. Some or all of the above.

I personally would have defaulted to "A", but the fact "C" was the case, even at the book&#39;s debut, tells a story that isn&#39;t in the book. :)

[vidcc]

I know it&#39;s still morning there this time so good morning J2.

As i said i had avoided debating the impeachment but for some reason i just felt i needed to finally make a point about it as it has been raised too many times as if he was actually found guilty and sentenced to political death.

On the book the "women" subject would make me less interested. I shall not be buying the book and probably won&#39;t get it out the library, but i may read the abridged excerts in the papers. It&#39;s a shame that the "women" subject seems to be what the media concentrate on the most.
I do feel it would have been written regardless of the "scandels".

I have no sympathy for the women involved either, they knew what they where getting into...but that&#39;s a different subject...



none of this has anything to do with Bush and Isreal :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

I to thought about buying Clintons book but I thought that &#036;35 bucks was a bit overpriced for toilet paper :lol: :P

[j2k4]

vid-

I&#39;d be all for consigning Clinton and his book to the "resolved/disposed of" bin (I proposed the idea somewhere else in here, but can&#39;t remember where), but I fear he&#39;ll keep trying to remind us all of his ongoing relevance.

One of the reasons I hope Hillary goes down in flames is that she&#39;ll take at least a part of her husband with her.

Hank-

Using that book for toilet-paper would make you shit with a leftward bias.

Messy and unnecessary; I suggest Charmin.

BTW-

As much as I tried, I could not avoid hearing tidbits about his book, one in particular being his story that he and Hillary devoted "one entire day every week" to counselling, after he admitted the Lewinsky affair to Hillary.

This must have made quite an impression on Hillary; I don&#39;t recall hearing that she mentioned it in her book.

[rollwave]

You libs are pathetic. Are any of you aware that G W Buash has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, the world&#39;s top business school. Yeah but he&#39;s stupid. That reminds me of a hilarious story I read . Some lib started a web site called georgebushisanidiot.com. Then she did some research and found out that G W Bush had the same SAT score as she did. LMAO. By the way, how many of you pathetic libs have degrees from Yale AND Harvard? Show of hands please... :D

[vidcc]

Originally posted by rollwave@28 June 2004 - 23:23
You libs are pathetic. Are any of you aware that G W Buash has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, the world&#39;s top business school. Yeah but he&#39;s stupid. That reminds me of a hilarious story I read . Some lib started a web site called georgebushisanidiot.com. Then she did some research and found out that G W Bush had the same SAT score as she did. LMAO. By the way, how many of you pathetic libs have degrees from Yale AND Harvard? Show of hands please... :D
you would probably describe me as a "pathetic liberal" by the sound of that. No I didn&#39;t go to Yale or Harvard as I live in the real world and didn&#39;t have the benefit of rich parents but I do have a degree even though I had to overcome a form of dyslexia.
Let me state right now for the record...a degree doesn&#39;t equal intelligence. It equals the ability to remember what one is taught. Intelligence is the ability to understand and use that knowledge outside the classroom, also the ability to think and solve.
There are autistic people unable to read yet able to perform mathematical wonders beyond the reach of many mathematicians.

Lets say there is a politician episode of "who wants to be a millionaire" and any money won would go to you....would you choose Bush jnr to play for you? :)

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 June 2004 - 01:52
Lets say there is a politician episode of "who wants to be a millionaire" and any money won would go to you....would you choose Bush jnr to play for you? :)
I bet I know whom you would choose :D

[leftism]

Originally posted by rollwave
You libs are pathetic. Are any of you aware that G W Buash has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, the world&#39;s top business school.

Are you aware that every company Bush has run has failed miserably?

Are you also aware that he scored 25 out of 100 when he took a test to join the National Guard? Thats 1 point above being too stupid to fly. :lol:

How many of us "pathetic libs" have a powerful daddy that can get us into the best schools and let us skip the queue of thousands of people trying to get into the National Guard?

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by rollwave@29 June 2004 - 06:23
You libs are pathetic. Are any of you aware that G W Buash has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, the world&#39;s top business school. Yeah but he&#39;s stupid. That reminds me of a hilarious story I read . Some lib started a web site called georgebushisanidiot.com. Then she did some research and found out that G W Bush had the same SAT score as she did. LMAO. By the way, how many of you pathetic libs have degrees from Yale AND Harvard? Show of hands please... :D
In his own words:

"Look at me: Proof that even a C Student can go on to become President"

If GW Bush does not even try to say he&#39;s intelligent, then I fail to see how you can.


Its not, in my Opinion, a Presidents Job to be intelligent: He appoints people to advise him...THOSE are the people that need to be intelligent.

A much more useful atribute is Common Sense.


Unfortunatly, GW Bush has neither.... in my opinion, of course. ;)

[vidcc]

i wonder who rollwave is. he is very good at getting replies. I bet he is sitting back with a big grin on his face :D

[Biggles]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 June 2004 - 18:50
i wonder who rollwave is. he is very good at getting replies. I bet he is sitting back with a big grin on his face :D
:lol:

Still it is always nice to see someone so easily impressed.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 June 2004 - 13:50
i wonder who rollwave is. he is very good at getting replies. I bet he is sitting back with a big grin on his face :D
He shares that talent with me, it seems.

He is also obviously aware that even a moderately well-prepared Conservative can keep any number of libs busy. :P

My wife informs me I&#39;m developing dimples, an affliction I&#39;ve never before suffered.

She says that I&#39;m always happy after a good session here. :huh:

[clocker]

Which set of cheeks are those dimples on?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 June 2004 - 14:13

He shares that talent with me, it seems.


Actually i would put you in an entirely more sophisticated league j2.... we seem to take opposite sides (mostly because it&#39;s a Bush thread) a lot but you tend to try to debate rather than taunt. Rollwave has only posted a few posts and they had less to do with debate and more to do with ranting...A new account so i wondered if it was one of these "multiple personalities" of an established member.

certainly has a few conspiracy theories in his head :unsure:


Oh gosh...... it couldn&#39;t be ....internet news ???? :unsure:


@ Biggles
Still it is always nice to see someone so easily impressed.

you should see me play with my one year old daughters toys :lol: :lol: All i had when i was that age was some wooden blocks :(

@ j2 again
QUOTE (vidcc @ 29 June 2004 - 18:50)
i wonder who rollwave is. he is very good at getting replies. I bet he is sitting back with a big grin on his face&nbsp;




Still it is always nice to see someone so easily impressed. .

I am very dissapointed that you missed an opportunity here.... please try harder :lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@29 June 2004 - 18:24
Which set of cheeks are those dimples on?
Why, the ones uppermost when I&#39;m vertically oriented, of course.

Vid-

I sense in rollwave a kindred spirit who perhaps hasn&#39;t the patience or inclination to dissect such assertions as you make.

Not everyone is blessed with my patience and/or willingness to educate.

I also believe there might be much more there than you think; caution should be your watchword.

He might be one of the true War Mongerers. ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 June 2004 - 17:39
Not everyone is blessed with my patience and/or willingness to educate.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ............................ :helpsmile: ....................................... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .. :doctor:

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 June 2004 - 19:23
Actually i would put you in an entirely more sophisticated league j2....
Come on now I feel so left out :D

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+29 June 2004 - 19:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 29 June 2004 - 19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 June 2004 - 17:39
Not everyone is blessed with my patience and/or willingness to educate.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ............................ :helpsmile: ....................................... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .. :doctor: [/b][/quote]
Yep.

Stick with me, kid.

I&#39;m detrimental to your ignorance. ;)

[clocker]

Beware vid....

J2 is a Lord of the Dark Side.

A cute dimpled one maybe, but a terrible threat to the Force.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@29 June 2004 - 21:42
...but a terrible threat to the Force.
The Farce, you say? :D

[Biggles]

:lol:

Talking of farces, I saw the subject matter of the thread give a speach in Istanbul. He appeared to be exhorting the EU to allow entry to Turkey. The inclusion of Turkey would take the population of the EU over the 500 million mark and take our markets right into the heart of Arabia. It is an idea that has considerable long term economic merit and is definitely on the cards. However GW&#39;s enthusiasm was a touch surreal.

I could not determine whether he wished to irritate the French and encourage the Turks, or irritate the French so they would block the Turks in revenge for the latter&#39;s lack of cooperation over Iraq. It was all very strange - particularly as it is the Greeks not the French who have certain reservations. I believe Chirac merely warned the previous day that such matters are for the EU, not outside bodies. :)

The EU will of course allow the Turks in at the appropriate juncture - once the Greeks are relatively content differences are settled and once it is clear that the small matter of human rights for the Kurds are secure. The poor Kurds, rarely ever do they get a second thought.

Can anyone enlighten me as to the thinking behind this latest Whitehouse policy of EU enlargement? Does the US wish to join too?





I, of course, jest on the last. :lol:

[Rat Faced]

Its support for the Turks that doesnt cost him anything.

If it falls on deaf ears, which it has, then EU doesnt get larger...which is ok by the US

If they join in the future, which they will (after they clean up on Human Rights...and they&#39;re well on the way to that now)...he claims a victory.

Win:Win speech, once the spin is put on it ;)

[j2k4]

To be perfectly frank, I don&#39;t think it matters who is allowed to join the E.U., at least in the short run, because inter-E.U. dissension is rampant at the moment (which is, of course, to be expected); question being, how long will it last?

It will be a while before the E.U. sorts itself and becomes the behemoth it will eventually be; a move to admit Turkey would, I think, hasten the process considerably.

Odd that Bush&#39;s remarks re: Turkey are met with derision, and Chirac&#39;s are not:

Here we are hearing that Chirac is all but cuddling with Bush behind closed doors, but is publically cool (witness his remarks vis a vis the Turkey/E.U. proposal) to him so as to play profitably to the home front.

There is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, too. <_<

Chirac is as full-of-shit as a Christmas goose, and an impediment to every process he joins.

I imagine he should be turned out on his ear, come election time. ;)

[Biggles]

I am not exactly sure, but don&#39;t French Presidents sit for a couple of hundred years or somesuch figure. As this is his second term I don&#39;t think he can stand for another term once this one is up anyway.

I think, if Chirac were to lecture Bush on who should be in any Americas union he might get a hostile reaction from the US press. :) On the other hand he merely has to smile at the camera to get a hostile reaction.

I would state, however, that I would like to see a leftist French politician replace Chirac and not another Conservative; so I am not adverse to regime change there. :ph34r: Unfortunately, he has earned considerable kudos for his stance and may well get to handpick his successor. This is, of course, (and I know you will understand J2) the fault of the US. :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@1 July 2004 - 14:33
I would state, however, that I would like to see a leftist French politician replace Chirac and not another Conservative; so I am not adverse to regime change there.&nbsp; :ph34r: Unfortunately, he has earned considerable kudos for his stance and may well get to handpick his successor. This is, of course, (and I know you will understand J2) the fault of the US.&nbsp; :lol:
I do understand, but I don&#39;t think even a "leftist" government could have a less cordial relationship with the U.S. than Chirac does, and therefore I have the corresponding "Anyone but Chirac" attitude.

I feel he is very genuinely anti-U.S., and also pro-France to the detriment of the rest of the E.U. ;)

When I stop to ponder his status as a "Conservative" on the French political menu, I am reminded that, perhaps after the U.S. Presidential election, we should have another more lengthy discussion defining the "world" political spectrum, as it is obvious our previous attempts have been a total waste of effort. :huh:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2004 - 20:34
perhaps after the U.S. Presidential election, we should have another more lengthy discussion defining the "world" political spectrum, as it is obvious our previous attempts have been a total waste of effort. :huh:
This is because its not a straightforward line, but more a Monster with tenticles stretching all over the place....


:ph34r:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+1 July 2004 - 15:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced &#064; 1 July 2004 - 15:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 July 2004 - 20:34
perhaps after the U.S. Presidential election, we should have another more lengthy discussion defining the "world" political spectrum, as it is obvious our previous attempts have been a total waste of effort. :huh:
This is because its not a straightforward line, but more a Monster with tenticles stretching all over the place....


:ph34r:[/b][/quote]
Just so-

Still, we ought to at least be able to address this annoying duplication of mis-applyed terms, yes?

For instance, as you&#39;ve agreed (I think), even that particular animal which is labelled here in the U.S. as a Democrat would be considered to fall to the right of your native conservative.

Here&#39;s an idea:

Perhaps it would be more useful (and easier to agree upon) if we bent to the task of plotting where, on a generic spectrum, our respectives countries fall, rather than any individual party or politician?

A good starting point, I think. ;)

[Biggles]

Certainly would not be difficult to pin Scotland on such a spectrum. :)

[j2k4]

I claim the middle for the United States of America, by my cunning use of this flag.

:D




Make believe I have a flag, ok? :huh:

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2004 - 21:17
Perhaps it would be more useful (and easier to agree upon) if we bent to the task of plotting where, on a generic spectrum, our respectives countries fall, rather than any individual party or politician?
Can we have a graph?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H+4 July 2004 - 23:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 4 July 2004 - 23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 July 2004 - 21:17
Perhaps it would be more useful (and easier to agree upon) if we bent to the task of plotting where, on a generic spectrum, our respectives countries fall, rather than any individual party or politician?
Can we have a graph? [/b][/quote]
Give it a spin, Alex-

See what you come up with. ;)

If it doesn&#39;t work, it will go on the scrap heap where it belongs. :D

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2004 - 21:31
I claim the middle for the United States of America, by my cunning use of this flag.

:D




Make believe I have a flag, ok? :huh:
This flag, the subject of my make belief, is it ok for me to place about here.... in the middle somewhere? :D


A graph is good

: :
....:....
.: :.
.: :.
.: :.
............: :...........

The bell jar (or was that Sylvia Plath?)



Edit - One for the scrap heap I fear - it looked so nice too - I see this is not wysiwyg.

[clocker]

I see this is not wysiwyg.

Ok, I&#39;ll bite.
What, praytell, is "wysiwyg"?

[Biggles]

:huh:

What you see is what you get



A computing term I believe - although our IT people could have simply been messing with my head - they are a bit like that.

[Rat Faced]

wysiwyg = What You See Is What You Get


They werent having you on ;)

[clocker]

I bow to the Acronym Masters.

So much to learn....










and so little desire to do so.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by clocker@5 July 2004 - 23:12
I bow to the Acronym Masters.

So much to learn....










and so little desire to do so.
:lol: :lol:


A gut reaction that has some merit I suspect.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@5 July 2004 - 18:12
I bow to the Acronym Masters.

So much to learn....










and so little desire to do so.
And you seemed to like GEFWIF so well........ :huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 July 2004 - 17:35

And you seemed to like GEFWIF so well........ :huh:
Tooooo much information.


Head.





Hurts.




Make it stop&#33;

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+5 July 2004 - 20:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 5 July 2004 - 20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@5 July 2004 - 17:35

And you seemed to like GEFWIF so well........ :huh:
Tooooo much information.


Head.





Hurts.




Make it stop&#33; [/b][/quote]
I can&#39;t do that evil laugh thing... :huh:









Please try to imagine that I am doing it, and doing it well, too. ;)

[clocker]

You mean the Ming the Merciless thing that everyone tries and fails at?

I don&#39;t have to imagine you pulling that off.

You&#39;re a Republican.

It&#39;s genetic.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@5 July 2004 - 23:09
You mean the Ming the Merciless thing that everyone tries and fails at?

I don&#39;t have to imagine you pulling that off.

You&#39;re a Republican.

It&#39;s genetic.
In person, I have won international acclaim for such performances; alas, I never took typing, and so, never learned that special phonetic ability; it&#39;s much like trying to put Eddie&#39;s Sean Connery to the page.

Lamsey was pretty good at it, as I remember.

Speaking of-where is he off to?