Turn on the tube!

[nycwriters]

.

[priceyfatprude]

I can't watch him. He wants to send my daddy to play in the big sandbox.

[red]

He just said once Saddam is out, terrorism against us will be greatly reduced.
What's to keep some other nut job from jumping into the ring?

[red]

We are not just a super power, we are super bullies.

[noxxville]

He said it! He warned them not to burn the oil! He's just like Golum......."The Precious!"

[noxxville]

I like orange. It's a pretty color. Just wait until we hit red. That'll be fun.

[red]

HEY! There will be NO hitting red unless you want to be hit back!

[lapietra]

I almost started laughing hysterically when he said that the UN Security Council wasn't meeting its responsibilities...

What the heck does he think those are?

[noxxville]

Terr.....It's all about terr.

[masterofNone]

and disarmorment

[noxxville]

nothings worse than being disarmormented

[noxxville]

too perfect...from the Onion:

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."

[priceyfatprude]

Originally posted by red
He just said once Saddam is out, terrorism against us will be greatly reduced.
What's to keep some other nut job from jumping into the ring? Yeah. What about Osama?

[zenbabe]

hehehehe!

[masterofNone]

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Victor Forsythe

Dedicated to the Love it or Leave it crowd

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plently of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass dectruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

[beckstra]

How do I know it's not the "end times," and that W. isn't the anti-christ? Everybody hates him.

Well...I suppose I could put my $0.02 in and totally piss everyone off, but it's okay. I'll keep most of it to myself.

I just want you all to know, although it may not be a popular stance, I believe our Commander in Chief is doing the right thing.

[Frieda]

Originally posted by beckstra
How do I know it's not the "end times," and that W. isn't the anti-christ? Everybody hates him.

Well...I suppose I could put my $0.02 in and totally piss everyone off, but it's okay. I'll keep most of it to myself.

I just want you all to know, although it may not be a popular stance, I believe our Commander in Chief is doing the right thing.

that's okay beck, i think it's brave of you to stand up like that. most people wouldn't in your situation.

i am against this war myself. i think that the decision makers of the USA are abusing their power as the richest country in the world.

in my opinion, no country should have the right to invade another country, especially without being directly attacked. of course, people say that it's prevention to attack Iraq now, but it does make Bush the agressor.

i didn't like the afghani war either, but at least we know that Osama was there with his Al Quaeda followers. i think Bush should've focussed some more on Afghanistan, and not start another war before the first one is over. there are still women being abused there, Osama hasn't been located, villages need to be rebuilt, there's enough to do there!

i was always tought to finish what i started and don't come up with something new unless i finished it. i think Bush should do that too.

anyway, let's hope this thing doesn't turn into WW3.

[xerocs]

Originally posted by beckstra
How do I know it's not the "end times," and that W. isn't the anti-christ? Everybody hates him.

Well...I suppose I could put my $0.02 in and totally piss everyone off, but it's okay. I'll keep most of it to myself.

I just want you all to know, although it may not be a popular stance, I believe our Commander in Chief is doing the right thing.

i am in agreement with beck... but what do i know? i just wear my cammies to work everyday.... on the point of finishing what you started.... this war with saddam started in 1991... bush is just tying up some loose ends that his father unraveled...

[xerocs]

Iraq rejected Bush's ultimatum, saying that a U.S. attack to force Saddam from power would be "a grave mistake." Saddam warned that American forces will find an Iraqi fighter ready to die for his country "behind every rock, tree and wall."


x says, "just cut down all the trees...", there can't be that many trees in iraq...

[Zyle]

Originally posted by lapietra
I almost started laughing hysterically when he said that the UN Security Council wasn't meeting its responsibilities...

What the heck does he think those are?

Ditto. My screaming and ranting crescendoed to a mighty fortissimo at that point. Responsibilities does NOT mean "what I want you to be doing" FFS.

[chuckie egg]

Originally posted by priceyfatprude
I can't watch him. He wants to send my daddy to play in the big sandbox.

He always looks as though hes going to burst out laughing at any second.

[Deviate]

at the bar last night they turned the music off, turned the big screen up and we got to listen to his blatant lies. great.

you know, the reason i GO to the bar is to avoid sh*t like that. the bartender kept shouting into the mic "We're gonna KICK SOME ASS!" and moronic cowboy statements like that.

grrr.

-st.

[Deviate]

oh yeah, and i like how Bush said this is our "Sovereign Duty".

-st.

[rmr]

ok my question is this....what if they do find weapons of mass destruction, nerves gases, etc., would that sway anyone's opinion?

[dickieC]

rmr, I think most people are in no doubt that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (though I am very sceptical that there are significant quantities in weaponised form). What I object to is the manner in which the USA has gone about drumming up war.

It should be very, very easy to make a case for a just war in the case of Iraq. And the USA and British governments haven't done it. I object to the unilateral, bullying way the USA in particular has gone about the diplomacy, and I am dismayed that a Labour government is providing a fig leaf of spurious legitimacy for US actions.

Consider an alternative scenario, in which the US forces acted in concert with weapons inspectors to find the banned materials. That way the UN Security Council could retain a multilateral control of the process and avoid creating a precedent for any country to claim that its desired measures had been subject to an "unreasonable" veto, allowing it to take pre-emptive action. It's EXTREMELY dangerous, what the USA is doing, EVEN IF the war is short and sharp and successful.

The real problem for me is that policy is being made by a right-wing clique in the Republican party who are determined to smash US participation in ANY multilateral international initiatives. British support for such evil-doers is the reason I'll be going to London next Saturday to protest against British partiticpation.

[rmr]

Thanks for the info Dickie. I try to be as open as possible, to get as many different points of view as possible. I don't feel that I'm informed enough and I think it's really difficult to get the facts straight. Depending on the person I talk to their information can be soooooo different.

I want peace just as much as anyone else, but I never want see anything like September 11th happen again. There are no rules for terrorist. I'd rather error on some diplomatic procedure than have another attack like that.

I know I'm a minority here, but I have to say I support our President, but I'm fully respectful of everyones views. I thank god every day that we live in a free democratic society where we are able to voice our opinions.

Bottom line though, I'm really scared.

[Red Princess]

no one wants another sept 11, i just don't believe this is the way to prevent it. i am afraid this will cause more terrorist attacks and make yet another generation of people from that part of the world that hate us. i hate the thought that we are not smart enough to figure out a way to live in peace. this knee jerk 'kick their ass' kind of behavior solves nothing.

[rmr]

ok well then here is my question. How do we go about doing this if the UN is not allowed full access? If there are weapons of mass destruction than don't you think at some point they will be used against us? How do we go about it in a diplomatic way, if Iraq does not want to be diplomatic. Where is Hussein's accountability in all of this?

I'm really curious, I can't seem to find an answer to these questions. If I could, than maybe I could understand why we shouldn't go in there and what about the citizens of Iraq and how they are treated. Don't you think they'd like to live in a democratic free society?

Help me understand.

[zenbabe]

hehe (http://www.shouldwegotowar.com/)

[masterofNone]

rimmer, if we had followed a diplomatic route in earnest we could have supplied thousands of inspectors with armed escorts entering peacefully to scour the countryside for WMD. If we indeed had intelligence enough to justify war we could have worked within the framework of the UN to lead inspectors to the violations. There are any number of ways the Bush Administration could have lead the UN to a peacefull resolution of this situation. But Bush and his advisors never had any intention of doing that. I believe they had two objectives; 1.) to oust the Hussein Regime and occupy Iraq, and 2.) to marginalize the UN to further strengthen the US as the global power. If the war ends in a few weeks and there are plenty of video reports of happy Iraqis... they will have succeeded.

The problem is in doing so they will have established the US as an aggressor. Something we will have in common with the worst of history. Something we have steadfastly avoided for 226 years. We will never be able to hold that moral high ground ever again.

In the revolutionary war, Ben Franklin created a flag with the symbol of a snake. It read "don't tread on me." It has been adopted by the US Marines. It meant "like the snake, we will not attack unless you attack us first. If you step on us you will regret it." The problem is that most Americans think that Husseins Iraq was in some way responsible for 9/11. It wasn't. There were no Iraqis involved in 9/11. There was no Iraqi funding of Al Quaeda. There have been no Iraqi attacks on the US whatsoever. But here we go, attacking them.

That's my objection

[rmr]

I want to thank you both for two great posts. The information and opinion you provided is truly thought provoking.

I can't say that my mind is changed at this moment, but I'm definitely going to give your points much thought.

Thanks again.

PS I'm even more impressed by the tactful way you both handled a difference of opinion. I think that says quite a bit about the two of you as people.

[masterofNone]

one of my favorite phrases is "this is something over which reasonable people can disagree."


if it doesn't apply to this situation it doesn't apply to anything.

[dickieC]

MoN, it's not true that the USA has never acted aggressively towards other countries in the past. It did so regularly in the nineteenth century, against the Native American First Nations, against Mexico, and against Spain, amongst others.

Then in the 1930s, despite the idea of isolationism, there was extensive involvement in the Caribbean, in Latin America and in the Persian Gulf, some of it covert. Isolationism as a doctrine was really about avoiding getting involved in European and East Asian alliance systems that might have triggered US involvement in a war not on its own terms. Pearl Harbour changed all that, of course.

During the Cold War, the USA had massive covert aggressive intent in the Third World, ranging from Guatamala and the Lebanon in 1958, CIA support for the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo in 1961, CIA support for the Cuban 'Bay of Pigs' debacle also in 1961, support for the South African invasion of Angola in 1975, sales of napalm and other nasty weapons to the Portuguese dictatorship for use against left-wing nationalist movements in Angola and Mozambique in the 1960s and early 1970s, invasions of Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989... Not to mention the Iran-Contra scandal, support for the mujahadeen (including the Taliban) in Afghanistan, the Iraqi regime against the Iranian revolution in 1982 onwards.... This was the high point of what historians have called the Imperial Presidency, brought low by the Vietnam conflict.

All these things were part and parcel of the hot side of the Cold War. What's different now is that the Republicans now want to exercise this power overtly AND WITHOUT BEING BOUND BY INTERNATIONAL COALITIONS and the UN. What makes me so angry is that Britain is conferring a spurious legitimacy on this action by trying to make it look like it's an international coalition of the willing when we should be trying to expose the exercise of US power for what it is.

[masterofNone]

This is something about which reasonable people can disagree. It shouldn't surprise anyone that American History books don't see it the same way as perhaps European history books do.

[Deviate]

maybe it's just me...

but i keep thinking if you were to split open the back and ribcage of Dubya you'd find an antenna and a lot of circuits and blinking lights.

my question is...

who has the remote?

-st.

[Deviate]

oooh! and it's thirty percent off.

-st.

[masterofNone]

Hey dickie, our conversation inspired me to do some research on the Spanish American War... here's a timeline (http://www.spanamwar.com/timeline.htm)

it's still kind of unclear to me. It looks like everybody was behaving badly, but it looks like Spain declared war first.

[dickieC]

It's not something I know a hell of a lot about myself, but from what I do know it seems the USA used the explosion of the USS Maine (we now think it was caused by coal dust igniting explosively in the ship's bunkers owing to a design fault, not to Spanish sabotage as was widely thought at the time) and the war with Cuban rebels as a pretext to seize what was left of the Spanish possessions in the Caribbean and the Philippines.

It was during the conflict on Cuba that American forces instigated concentration camps for civilians (a year before that policy was pursued by Lord Kitchener in the Anglo-South African War). And for nearly 20 years the USA was an old-fashioned colonial power in the Philippines; of course, it still is in the case of Puerto Rico.

[titanicaxx]

Thats the exact reason Bush is doing it to ensure the next nut isn't one! Sadam is getting on in years now and may soon be deceased and no we dont want Osama and his undercover gang to have any kind of access seeing as they do not mind suicide whos to say their next intention is a global one.

[noxxville]

Had we not funded, equipped and trained Saddam and his men, he wouldn't be here today. Kind of like when Dr. Frankenstein brought his creation to life...took a couple of steps back and (I'm paraphrasing here) said "oh shit, we're gonna need to get rid of that".

[titanicaxx]

Give a man a weapon and train him HOW to use it but you can't train him to WANT to use it.

[Arif-ul Haq]

d

[Frieda]

Originally posted by Arif-ul Haq
. . . but perhaps Geneva Conventions would be respected with regard to our troops if our country followed Geneva Conventions.

well said.

[noxxville]

I found it odd that they made such a huge deal about the interrogation on TV. Weren't we just discussing wether or not to torture a prisoner a couple of weeks ago to get the information we wanted? True it was a terrorist type, but it still seems odd.

[masterofNone]

even odder that they are calling the display of american POWs on the tube "clear violation of the Geneva Convention". Two days ago I was watching MSNBC with my kid and they were poking the camera in the face of bound Iraqi POWs. This becomes increasingly bizarre.

[dickieC]

When I was at the march on Saturday, one of the best handouts I was given included a picture of a beaming Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983. I don't have an online copy, unfortunately, but it's truly priceless.

edited to add:

here it is (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/)

[Deviate]

document not found....

-st.

[Deviate]

Document Not Found

-st.

[rmr]

I've been watching too much tv...I need to start a thread "turn off the tube"