A different look at the "evidence".

Post #79,997 by Brandioch 2/6/03 10:24:46 PM Reply	A different look at the "evidence". [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/06/sprj.irq.schneider/index.html\|CNN] But before he even spoke, Powell told the world, "There will be no `smoking gun.'" What the secretary of state produced instead was an impressive array of evidence to back up his central argument. "Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort, no effort, to disarm," Powell told the Security Council The demand for a smoking gun suddenly vanished. The onus had shifted. So, instead of us proving that Saddam has such weapons, Saddam has to prove that he has disarmed. As a result of Powell's testimony, Iraq is now presumed guilty. Of what? Of failing to comply with U.N. disarmament resolutions. Now the burden is on Iraq to prove that it will, after all, disarm. I think this could be a very bad turn of events. The Russians say so. "Iraq should be the first to be concerned about providing final clarity about the question of weapons of mass destruction," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said. The Germans say so. "Iraq must give clear answers to all open questions," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said. The U.N. inspectors say so. "They need to show drastic change in terms of cooperation," International Atomic Energy Association chief Mohamed el Baradei said. Even Democrats say so. "War or peace is now Saddam's choice," Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, said. How do you prove that you are NOT guilty? I understand the concept in a PERFECT world. But I don't believe this world is perfect. I believe our government has and will again lied to us to advance the agendas of the individuals with influence in it. I believe that if the inspectors (and anyone else) are not convinced that Saddam has disarmed, then we need to keep the sanctions in place and keep the inspectors inspecting. Failure to prove your innocence is NOT just cause for war. But it is just cause for continuing the sanctions and inspections. Hey, the UN could even make a profit on this. Sell Iraqi oil to fund the inspections.
Post #80,009 by Another Scott 2/6/03 10:46:09 PM Reply	UN SCR 1441 says the burden's on Iraq. Brandioch writes: So, instead of us proving that Saddam has such weapons, Saddam has to prove that he has disarmed. Yes, that's what 1441 says. This is nothing new. PDF from [link\|http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm\|here]: 3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq\ufffds obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below; 5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC\ufffds or the IAEA\ufffds choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter; o o o 11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution; 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; It's not up to the US or the UN to prove that Iraq had disarmed and carried out its responsibilities under 1441 and earlier relevant UNSC resolutions. It's up to Iraq to comply fully and completely - something they haven't done to date - as the UN SC voted unanimously on 8 November 2002. Arguments can be made as to what procedures should be used if Iraq if found to be in violation of 1441. But the burden of proof is on Iraq, not on the UN or the US. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #80,025 by Brandioch 2/6/03 11:51:07 PM Reply	Let me clarify that. How can Iraq PROVE that it does NOT have any chemical weapons? Yes, Iraq had to supply that information, completely and accurately. But how does Iraq PROVE it?
Post #80,034 by bepatient 2/7/03 1:59:09 AM Reply	Thats only one aspect of many. And the current issue is about compliance and cooperation...NOT about whether they have them or not. But it seems that we invented all the evidence of non-cooperation...so...resume your denial of the Iraqi breach of the resolution..already in progress. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,012 by JayMehaffey 2/6/03 10:51:52 PM Reply	Clever bit of politics The White House has managed a clever bit of politics here, by missreading the UN resolution. By twisting around the disarmament part by reading it 100% absolutly, and reading the non-compliance part as a justification for war, it's set things up so that Iraq is held against an impossible standard and then subject to war if it fails. This argument isn't too impressive in Europe, but many Americans won't even realize that the US is violating the resolution itself when we attack Iraq. Nor do most Americans know enough to realize that most of the countries that are backing the US are doing so only because we bribed them. That in most, if not all, the governments are doing so over the objection of the population. Jay
Post #80,017 by dmarker 2/6/03 11:14:12 PM Reply	Re: Clever bit of politics "Nor do most Americans know enough to realize that most of the countries that are backing the US are doing so only because we bribed them. That in most, if not all, the governments are doing so over the objection of the population." We can prove this time and again but a few of the people posting here don't care about evidence as compelling as that is. Just now on CNN I heard a spoken comment from some old women emailing in that went like this :- "Has everyone forgotten Chamberlain and his bit of white paper. If we had stopped Hitler then all those lives lost in WW2 would have been saved" ... This is the mentality the world is dealing with. Let us go back and look at Chamberlain's dilema on Sept 1st 1939.... << [link\|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gb1.htm\|http://www.yale.edu/...alon/wwii/gb1.htm] I do not propose to say many word to-night. The time has come when action rather than speech is required. Eighteen months ago in this House I prayed that the responsibility might not fall upon me to ask this country to accept the awful arbitrament of war. I fear that I may not be able to avoid that responsibility. But, at any rate, I cannot wish for conditions in which such a burden should fall upon me in which I should feel clearer than I do to-day as to where my duty lies. No man can say that the Government could have done more to try to keep open the way for an honorable and equitable settlement of the dispute between Germany and Poland. Nor have we neglected any means of making it crystal clear to the German Government that if they insisted on using force again in the manner in which they had used it in the past we were resolved to oppose them by force. Now that all the relevant documents are being made public we shall stand at the bar of history knowing that the responsibility for this terrible catastrophe lies on the shoulders of one man - the German Chancellor, who has not hesitated to plunge the world into misery in order to serve his own senseless ambitions. << But today e have Bush threatening to invade Iraq. Bush calls Iraq the aggressor but in fact Bush is in effect saying, "Iraq has to prove to us that it does not have hostile intent in the future else we will invade". That proof as demanded by Bush is for Iraq to show it has no WMD not for Bush to prove Iraq has. The real comparison here with the German Chancellor is between him and Bush. It is Bush who is threatening force. Part of this farce is that any action taken by Iraq to defend itself is held up as evidence that Iraq is 'hostile'. Cheers Doug Marker
Post #80,026 by Brandioch 2/7/03 12:02:41 AM Reply	Look at the parallels. Look at how the Nazis were elected. Look at how Bush was elected. German citizens jailed without trial. US citizens jailed without trial. All the way up to today. Hitler invaded a country that had not attacked Germany. Bush is threatening to invade a country that has not attacked us. "Has everyone forgotten Chamberlain and his bit of white paper. If we had stopped Hitler then all those lives lost in WW2 would have been saved" ... #1. We did stop Hitler then. That was when Hitler invaded Poland. France and England declared war on Germany. #2. Iraq isn't going to invade anyone. They're too weak. That's what the sanctions accomplish. That's why we have as long as we want to take to with the inspections and so forth.
Post #80,027 by JayMehaffey 2/7/03 12:17:56 AM Reply	Misguided view The idea that Saddam might go the way of Hitler made some sense during the first war. Though nobody thought that Saddam would be a menace on the same scale as Hitler, he could cause a lot of trouble in the region. To a certain extent I think this was correct, if Saddam had gotten away with attacking Kuwait the idea of attacking Saudia Arabia or Iran would have eventually surfaced. But that comparison does not make sense now. Saddam has a very limited army now and a starved country. He can't build up his forces or move them around at all because everybody is watching his every action. The only danger from Saddam now comes from the WMDs, weapons he is only likely to use if attacked. If he isn't attacked, he has every reason to hole up and guard his stockpile carefully. He knows that actually using or selling any of it would mean his destruction, unless it could be kept 100% secret, which if very unlikely. Also, with Chamberlain at least some historians think he knew quite well what he was doing when he signed that peice of paper. He was buying Briton time to rearm at the expense of Poland. At the same time he was proclaiming peace and waving that paper around, he was spending every pound he could on military budgets and buying as much military hardware as he could. Jay
Post #80,035 by bepatient 2/7/03 2:04:33 AM Reply	Excuse me? This is a continuation...long past its due time of resolution...of a matter that Iraq started by invading a neighbor state. The UN sanctions...and this current resolution all date back to this time. So don't pretend that Iraq has not been "hostile". Maybe not to the US...but certainly to Kuwait, Saudi and Israel...not to mention the northern and southern parts of his own country that do not recognize his authority. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,039 by dmarker 2/7/03 2:39:36 AM Reply	Ohhh lawdy lawdy - where do we begin you were better off asleep
Post #80,059 by bepatient 2/7/03 7:24:36 AM Reply	Start with trying to deny any of those statements. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,152 by mmoffitt 2/7/03 12:47:09 PM Reply	I'll start us off. We told Iraq the US had "no position on your [their] border dispute" with Kuwait and that we did not consider Iraqi border disputes to be "American issues" before he invaded Kuwait. Now, you can say that wasn't a green light, or you can refuse to be obtuse. Was Iraq hostile to Kuwait? Sure, but they did ask us first. They got hostile to Saudi and Israel (assuming by "hostile" we're talking of overt actions such as retaliatory strikes) when we attacked Iraq - note that both were our allies. We attacked Iraq in order to return a King to his throne. We did this in the truest tradition of our Founding Fathers (especially Jefferson - whom I am certain would be delighted that the full force of the nation he helped found was incorporated to restore feudalism to the Middle East).
Post #80,179 by bepatient 2/7/03 2:35:52 PM Reply	We've been through that too many times... ...I would have assumed a better effort. Noone..even those involved...agree with your conspiricy theory that we "green lighted" the invasion of Kuwait. Israel, while maybe in support of coalition forces, supplied no assets. They were immediately attacked with 7 scuds (targeted at civilians) while they were NOT participating in the invasion. Next. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,189 by mmoffitt 2/7/03 3:51:28 PM Reply	How do you do that? Tell when an Iraqi diplomat is telling the truth and when he is lying? Oh, nevermind, I know, it depends on whether truth-telling or lying supports your position. Me, I just read the facts and it's clear to me (as it is to open-minded person).
Post #80,206 by bepatient 2/7/03 4:34:16 PM Reply	Occam If the person who says it, the person who hears it, the people they got instruction from and later consulted with all agree that it was NOT what you claim it to be...tis simpler to believe them than to believe an armchair quarterback with no experience in diplomacy. Good nuff? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,394 by mmoffitt 2/9/03 11:22:01 AM Reply	I chose to believe no one. I read a transcript of the meeting and made my own conclusion. (I can re-dig up the link if you've decided to make up your own mind. But I doubt that'll be necessary as you have Ultimate Faith(tm) in US Government (and particularly the current crop's) integrity).
Post #80,396 by bepatient 2/9/03 12:18:48 PM Reply	No I don't. But I don't read it the way you did. I read it the way it was stated. And those involved, when they spoke it, agree with >my< assessment of what was stated...not yours. Its that simple. I dont have to "believe" anyone. I also don't have to spend time "inventing" all of the conspiricy theories that eventually place all of the blame on the US for all the world's problems. That is strictly your MO. "What did you expect him to do...>we< told him to invade" Bullshit is what that is. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,440 by mmoffitt 2/9/03 3:53:41 PM Reply	Do you mangle everyone's statements, or just mine? You imply you're quoting me as follows: "What did you expect him to do...>we< told him to invade" I have never held that we gave him an "order to invade". I simply stated the fact that when he brought it up, we said it was "none of our concern". That is clearly a "green light" in diplospeak no matter how much you insist that it isn't. Why we wouldn't admit this officially is obvious. It's almost equally obvious that no Iraqi official wants to admit that they sought permission from the US for anything - Jesus, in Iraq they still celebrate their victory in Desert Storm. And these guys have credibility with you? It is to laugh, or cry, I'm not sure which. Because you are, as you say, in the majority. Much as flat-earthers were the majority once upon a time.
Post #80,444 by bepatient 2/9/03 4:54:21 PM Reply	Mangle?? Considering what followed...I'd say my summation was pretty damned accurate. We "green lighted" the invasion in "diplospeak"...certainly sounds like your tranlation was that we told them it was ok to invade...which is pretty much what I said you said, isn't it. You can try and weasel out any way you like..doesn't change what you're saying. Plus..you keep insisting that its only the Iraqi officials that I am listening to. Sorry to burst your bubble...but NOONE involved translates any of the events as you have...US or Iraqi. You..who were not there..read a transcript and invented a conspiricy theory that is invalid...yet you stick to it...I guess marks are due for tenacity...but your accuracy score is really really low. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,569 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 10:14:33 AM Reply	"Reading for Comprehension" != "Conspiracy Theory" Okay, what does this mean to you? A direct quote from April Glaspie's meeting with Saddam before Iraq invaded Kuwait: But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. If not a "green light", what exactly is the implication?
Post #80,593 by bepatient 2/10/03 11:38:25 AM Reply	Read the words. We have no opinion. Noone involved was naive enough to expect that position to remain in the event of an invasion. Only you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,597 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 11:42:09 AM Reply	We have no opinion on your dispute. Sounds a hell of a lot like "I ain't got a dog in this fight" to everyone, but you. BTW, since Iraqi and US Government officials are "to be believed" you might want to check out my other posts. Seems even our own Intelligence Centers AND Britain's Intelligence Centers are taking Blair and Dubya to task for lying.
Post #80,628 by bepatient 2/10/03 1:54:31 PM Reply	Because... ...there was NO MILITARY INVOLVEMENT in that "dispute" at the time that statement was made. In other words..."your case with Kuwait may or may not have merit, the government of my country will not be taking an official position". Not one person in any diplomatic position would expect that a full invasion of a sovereign neighbor state would result in the US, indeed the world, "having no opinion" So...you are reading too far into that one statement...and inventing a conspiricy in which we essentially told Iraq to invade so we could then build an international coalition and mass a half million troops to drive them back. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,647 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 2:42:17 PM Reply	So, we're naive in addition to everything else. Military action could not have been predicted? Even following a "we ain't got a dog in this fight" statement from us? And, to be fair, you have to put that remark in the context of the entire meeting. You'd have to be a dolt not to understand what Saddam was getting at.
Post #80,649 by boxley 2/10/03 2:46:13 PM Reply	Ambassadors are party contributors (you said Dolt) will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,654 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 3:08:23 PM Reply	Ah, but she was quoting "James Baker" then SoS.
Post #80,658 by bepatient 2/10/03 3:15:13 PM Reply	Who is "we" You are the one inventing naivite. "We have no opinion" is NOT "You can resolve this in any fashion you see fit" Military force is NOT an assumed option to settle these disputes for any nation that is a member of the UN. [link\|http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/\|http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/] So, put simply, "We have no opinion" means >EXACTLY< what it states. It is NOT a "green light" for invasion...because invasion violates all the established protocols. In other words...we did NOT "green light" a war and it should be >expected< by any nation that military force is NOT an established option that can be used without repercussion. The only person I see failing to understand this is you...for whatever reason...who somehow feel compelled to blame the US for..well..seemingly everything...but in this particular case...for the invasion of Kuwait. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,660 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 3:20:05 PM Reply	"any suitable methods" YAN Quote from Gillespie (same meeting): I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods...All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. Now, who is it that's being naive?
Post #80,664 by bepatient 2/10/03 3:30:55 PM Reply	You can't read, can you. "any suitable method"...whoopie...big deal...MILTARY is off of the table for UN members...or didn't you actually read what all members agree to when they sign up. Introduce tanks into diplomatic negotiations...be advised that stated opinions >will< change. That is a guarantee. Iraq KNEW this. All the diplomats knew this. You are the only one that seems to not understand this. And its obvious that you will believe what you want...even though everyone personally involved has stated differently...even though your interpretation flys in the face of established diplomatic protocol..etc. So I see no real point in continuing this. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,716 by boxley 2/10/03 5:55:51 PM Reply	James Baker issued instructions in the late 60's and in 1991 nobody bother to check to see if they had changed? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,758 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 7:52:14 PM Reply	Glaspie checked w/Baker before the meeting-thanks.
Post #80,661 by mmoffitt 2/10/03 3:24:07 PM Reply	Addendum. I do not blame the US for the invasion of Kuwait. I am, however, capable of understanding the 180 done so fast by the US that it could have broken her neck. During the 80's, our government was claiming that Saddam was "the leading force for democracy" in the region. We sold him biological weapons to use on the Kurds and Iranians and didn't complain about it - not even when Rumsfeld met Saddam to shake his hand. We're hypocrites. And if you can't see that, you really are off in la-la land.
Post #80,666 by bepatient 2/10/03 3:42:48 PM Reply	Wow... talk about completely unrelated points. In the mid-eighties the Hussein government was considered moderate. Compared to its neighbors it certainly was moderate. Aside from the turf war with Iran there didn't seem to be any reason to think otherwise. Hindsight is 20/20. And given what we know now...its pretty certain that we wouldn't have given lab samples of this crap to the University. (or are you claiming something else?..if so..please substantiate) The only way to guarantee that this doesn't happen anywhere in the future is to completely close our borders to every country. After all...who knows what they will be like 10/20/30 years from now...and that harmless fertilizer plant we helped them build to feed their people...modified to build explosives...we should have known...we should always know...we should be clairvoyant...it would make things SO much easier. Acceptable trade? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,697 by Ashton 2/10/03 5:19:43 PM Reply	Ah.. the Pontius Pilate lateral arabesque - "I wash my hands". Because NoOne Can foresee all possible future scenarios, we may close eyes to all aspects of a "helpful agreement with a local tool for our purposes". Yes, this would excuse Cuba (a revolution required to oust US gangsters), Chile (we think this guy might be a Commie), Nicaragua, [other local 'neighbours' we have 'helped' to a new US-friendly dictatorship]. It would also excuse our utter indifference to Rwanda, East Timor yada yada. Yup you're Right, Beep: the safest course for the world would be to put up that fence around US - for our safety and convenience. And theirs. With friends like us... Nobody's life liberty and wallet is safe while the ~~legislature is in session~~ US is playing World Cop, recognizes no world legal authority but its own and decides when it wants to invade to "improve things for The Peepul There" (Except Rwanda, E. Timor, various African Idi-Amin clones et al.) OK - time for The Fence Party to coagulate around your brilliant suggestion. It's Just the Right- Thing To Do\ufffd, while waiting for The Rapture.. We already gots The Tribulations and the Speaking in Tongue-lashings. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. -- Albert Einstein
Post #80,699 by bepatient 2/10/03 5:27:39 PM Reply	Ah...so you thought that.. ...a suggestion or a specific course of action? Bzzzt...wrong. You see...we venture forth, offer assistance, establish allies...and then every once in a while we may find ourselves surprised...some of our aid will be used against us...this is the price for NOT closing the borders and washing our hands of it. I'm perfectly willing to accept that as a risk. It does, however, lead to having armchair quarterbacking going on 15 years after the fact...when its very simple to realize...after your men were killed with your own weapons...that maybe selling them wasn't such a great idea. (and the only way to prevent it is to NOT do it...something you obviously see as distasteful) But your invented persona of me would never have such a realistic view of the world...so how could I assume you would understand such a basic point. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,713 by Ashton 2/10/03 5:52:43 PM Reply	Funny thing about our 'foresight'. Never mind '15 years' No 20/20 needed: it's NOW. Our Leader has stated overtly, and on many occasions confirmed with slightly altered phraseology: The US does not care what Anyone else in the world thinks, including the UN - and clearly including the demographic 'opinions' within even the few supposed remaining 'ally-Governments', re our now inexorable first-strike. Many, many have failed to see the urgency of this action, on through today's date - per se and comparative to other world problem situations also developing. I call this a pattern of Imperialistic behaviour and of disdain for the opinions of (billions?) - including US citizens, as regards our own new problems of Constitutional erosion. This ain't about foresight - it is about present-sight. WTF - this is all moot. We can all watch the phenomenon unfold. (Best get your overseas flying in reel soon, y'know?) Any bets on the shape of the web in 6 mos? in one year? as received in the US. Ashton PS - invented persona? Hah: you will advocate status quo on every issue, predictably. Of course you are merely playing Devil's advocate. Sure, that's it. Hmmmm whatever happened to that female officer-pilot who wouldn't wear a sack? It seems that more than just us loonies noticed that which you deemed silly at the time. Persona ?
Post #80,717 by bepatient 2/10/03 5:57:02 PM Reply	Whatever you say. Because precious little of it has to do with the above thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,722 by boxley 2/10/03 6:04:20 PM Reply	Then why are we not invading Syria as well? e are still using the same old, we will ignore your despostism because it suits our short term needs. As far as the pro Israel position, Israel would be better served by invading Syria than Iraq thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #80,807 by Silverlock 2/10/03 10:52:20 PM Reply	Ask Bush^H^H^H^H Rumsfeld. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #80,724 by Ashton 2/10/03 6:05:29 PM Reply	Obtuse still? Pattern of behaviour is the constant.
Post #80,726 by bepatient 2/10/03 6:08:48 PM Reply	Yes you are still obtuse. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,738 by Ashton 2/10/03 6:30:07 PM Reply	Missed again: I'm scalene, as anyone on the Trilateral Commission would know. (Of course, you do live in New Jersey..) Gotta go - organize The Fence Party.
Post #80,745 by bepatient 2/10/03 6:48:12 PM Reply	No apparent need to do anything but repeat my previous post. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,792 by Silverlock 2/10/03 9:51:51 PM Reply	I can't think of an exclamatory strong enough You see...we venture forth, offer assistance, establish allies...and then every once in a while we may find ourselves surprised...some of our aid will be used against us (emphasis added) This is irony, right? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #80,809 by bepatient 2/10/03 10:57:44 PM Reply	It is borne out in history... ...that in many cases our assistance has been used against us later. Japan is another example. Point being...do we stop offering aid and support...or do we continue offering aid and support...knowing that every once in a while its gonna jump up and bite us in the ass. Close the borders or continue to be an interested, active world citizen? There really isn't a whole lot of middle ground in this choice. Oh sure...we all have our "causes"...and we can't be all things to everyone..which means some peoples "causes" are left wanting...but we as a country are either out there..or we're not. If you go hunting for "irony"...you will find it often. This is not a blanket absolution for some of the stupid shit that we've done...just the either/or that is presented...we do or we don't. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,999 by mmoffitt 2/11/03 7:31:47 PM Reply	Boy, there's a euphemism for you. continue to be an interested, active world citizen? Don't think I've ever heard "imperialist" described so loftily.
Post #80,689 by Ashton 2/10/03 4:57:28 PM Reply	Oh, I see: the Market Will Correct. Right?
Post #80,695 by bepatient 2/10/03 5:10:47 PM Reply	What the???? possibly babble Maybe Peter should come back and start following you around. That was certainly a pointless shot...I guess you have to guarantee yourself the number one spot...and title only, nonsenical crap like that is one way to do it. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,701 by Ashton 2/10/03 5:32:05 PM Reply	It's the laissez-faire slogan, no? And yours is most often an apologia for any status which is quo. You appear to call that 'conservative'. I call that - ostrich position. As to the above thread re the meaning of "no opinion". I'll give you the point that a next military action would change the scale of the internecine fight.. but only barely. We deliberately stonewalled by obfuscation of what we really meant. This was baldfaced dissembling-by-omission at a critical juncture. No 20/20 hindsight needed. Of all the phraseology possible, there was not an iota of indication to Saddam, of what we could be cpable of, next -- and it was clear what his intentions were. Velvet trap. Yours is as simplistic a dismissal as you accuse Mike of. Laissez-faire.. yup, except - when United Fruit du jour needs our humanitarian intervention and an Allende assassinated. I think we are massive hypocrites; you appear to deem us Good Biznessmen. Both may be correct.
Post #80,715 by bepatient 2/10/03 5:55:03 PM Reply	As was thought... ...the figment of Ashton's imagination that is bepatient should understand only bizness...and should be completely unaware of the apparent hypocrisy because we are not fully involved in every crisis du jour around the globe. As a suggestion...follow the links provided by another to read more of the conversation...where the discussions were all about peaceful resolution to the dispute...and indeed hope that in a meeting to occur only days later would be where such peaceful resolution would occur. And do we, the US, have to explain in every simple diplomatic meeting what our military is capable of should we become "displeased"...I would venture a guess that such tactics would be 1)frowned upon in diplomatic circles and 2) entirely unecessary..as everyone already knows what we can do when motivated. By all means...continue now with your invention of all positions you will later attribute to me...program already in progress. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,797 by Silverlock 2/10/03 10:08:30 PM Reply	Do you even wonder why? And do we, the US, have to explain in every simple diplomatic meeting what our military is capable of should we become "displeased" If I read this statement correctly, it says, "don't do anything to displease the US. Even if the US doesn't know what is displeasing. Yet. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #80,805 by bepatient 2/10/03 10:43:22 PM Reply	Wrong... simple statement that means...it is completely unecessary for us to tell any country that we could kick their ass in a fight. They already know this. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,808 by Silverlock 2/10/03 10:54:28 PM Reply	Well that explains it except for the "displeased" part. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #81,000 by mmoffitt 2/11/03 7:33:28 PM Reply	"Displeased" is amorphus.
Post #80,670 by Another Scott 2/10/03 3:56:30 PM Reply	A different take on AG's conversation with Saddam. [link\|http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch36.htm\|Here]. The goal of the Bush administration remained normal relations and expanded trade with Iraq. On July 25, 1990, an American diplomat, April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein. She spoke of U.S. disapproval of settlement of disputes "by any but peaceful means," which to Saddam Hussein might have sounded like pacifist nonsense and hypocrisy. Then she told Saddam that "we have no opinion of the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Since, AFAIK, the purported transcripts out there on the web often don't mention the "peaceful means" stuff, and AFAIK, the US State Department and AG haven't said those transcripts are genuine, I think we have to take these statements with a grain of salt. That includes [link\|http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html\|this] link Mike posted in December. And a lot of this stuff was already covered [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=69119\|here] in December. You guys might save some time by just reposting some of those links. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #80,448 by Brandioch 2/9/03 5:22:01 PM Reply	Ah, I see you've met "The Strawman".
Post #80,455 by orion 2/9/03 6:01:18 PM Reply	"The Strawman" Yes I met "The Strawman" once long ago, he seems to catch fire easily and is looking for a brain. But most people use him as an example in their arguments, but "The Strawman" continues to live on despite the number of time he has been used and set on fire. Most people just use the fire to blow more smoke, and get attention for themselves. But once the Fire Fighters put out the fire, things go back to normal. [link\|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey\| New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
Post #80,458 by bepatient 2/9/03 6:19:07 PM Reply	From you? Thats funny. Too chicken to respond to the various places where your "logic" doesn't mesh from discussion to discussion...yet you feel inclined to spout off here. Why am I not surprised. And I know you know the definition..care to point out where it applies here? Thought so... TALWOASP You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,212 by Brandioch 2/7/03 4:57:44 PM Reply	Exactly. Tell when an Iraqi diplomat is telling the truth and when he is lying? Oh, nevermind, I know, it depends on whether truth-telling or lying supports your position. Bingo
Post #80,310 by bepatient 2/8/03 10:03:39 AM Reply	So now >you< believe this bunk? Its not just the Iraqi dimplomat...its ours...and their hiearchy. But, of course, you dictate truth or lies to support your position as well... SO I wouldn't get too smug about it here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,080 by Ashton 2/7/03 9:19:23 AM Reply	Well.. yeah - missin-out on Justice an all - Funny how we just plumb missed that little unpleasantness in Rwanda - I mean, considerin the millions killed by Saddam during this period (and our early-on assistance to this Freedom-Lovin 'enemy of our enemy' and stuff, all handshakin with the present almost-Pres.) Deja-vu y'all What? he hasn't killed anything like Rwanda's #s ?? I don't understand - weren't you speaking of some kinda dogged consistency here, about valuez and such? Yep after 11 years: I can see that he's gonna behave just like he always has. (Stay at home and torture his subjects). We can't have that a second longer.. who knows What he might do! Hell, he might start makin Ford Pintos and smugglin em into the US! Talk about deadly - a Pinto and an SUV ?? Anways a few W-93s'll take care of our Korean friends, real soon now: hey! we might get a Two-fer on the Tee Vees this war season. (Our European friends might buy the re-runs. Then again.) Ashton I get soo confused, when I hear about Our bringin Goodness to the World - wherever there are Bad Guys who Need to be Punished. (Unless they happen to be in an oil-free zone - but I guess that's just coincidence or something to do with United Fruit: bananas aren't Big anymore?)
Post #80,087 by Brandioch 2/7/03 10:10:13 AM Reply	He could....... Fire some bullets at Kuwait. Where we have US troops who will come in and blow Baghdad apart. Hmmmm, "suicide". He could launch a rocket or 12 at Saudi Arabia. Where we have US troops who will come in and blow Baghdad apart. Hmmmm, "suicide". He could launch some chemical rockets into Iran. And the US troops in all the other countries would go in and blow Baghdad apart. Hmmmm, "suicide". !!!DAMMIT!!! You do NOT understand. We MUST kill their civilians so we can prevent these POSSIBLE attacks at some undetermined time in the FUTURE. Every day we delay is a day closer to Saddam dieing of old age or a coup. Ignore that last line. Every day we delay is a day closer to Saddam commiting suicide by attacking a neighboring nation. Ignore that last line. Every day we delay is a day closer to......... He's EVIL! He's KILLED PEOPLE! He's EVIL! He invaded Kuwait! We MUST invade!
Post #80,113 by bepatient 2/7/03 11:46:36 AM Reply	Aren't you one of those... ...who has complained that one of our main problems in mid-east affairs is that our planning cycle is 4 years at a time. Now you have a serious problem with that being changed. This is the stance that this country and the UN should have been taking for the past 11 years. It appears that because we did NOT take this stance...that everyone here thinks it more relevent that he didn't invade anyone >yesterday< and use that to pretend that Saddam is now harmless...we should leave him alone because he didn't kill anybody >today<. Make up your mind. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #80,089 by screamer 2/7/03 10:24:02 AM Reply	Here's some clever politics... Read this: [link\|http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/IraqStatement.html\|http://www.house.gov...raqStatement.html] Pretty clever, huh? Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #80,100 by Ashton 2/7/03 10:54:40 AM Reply	Well, let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes - Hypothetical 1: The US is attacked; let's say this time: by other than a gnat - some actual Country - you know, with an army and navy and legislature and stuff, and not a small band of loony nihilists? A chance of real damage to a bunch of US cities and contents. ( That's people.. except when using official military parlance about collateral damage and those other precise accounting terms by which we measure important stuff) The US has assured the world since ~ late '40s: in such an eventuality we will use everything in our arsenal to protect Our Freedom and Security and the Murican Way of Life and [throw in 100 words of select aged buzzwords]. [1] Hypothetical 2: Iraq is attacked. Not by some gnat, but by the biggest baddest Super-Armed Super-Power in the universe. A chance of real damage to a bunch of Iraqi cities and contents. Iraq has assured the world since ~ yesterday and earlier: in such an eventuality we will use everything in our arsenal to protect Our Freedom and Security and the Iraqi Way of Life and [throw in 100 words of aged buzzwords]. Pretty clever, huh? No question which side God is on. [1][We can skip that silly tree-hugger crap about fucking up the entire planet: we don't need no stinkin science to intrude into The Love of Country Which Surpasses All] For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong. H. L. Mencken
Post #80,120 by screamer 2/7/03 12:02:01 PM Reply	Semi personal reply... I truly apologize to you and the group for the "hit and run" I pulled yesterday (and probably today). I am coordinating a data center move, yadayada... My only point, two days ago I went to an orthopedic to schedule surgery on my knee. I had to wait two hours to see him. Two of his fellow doctors were called up that morning (active duty) and had two days to show up. When the gov activates these dudes, it means a couple of weeks... No doubt. I saw this passion play unfold and the US government scripted this months ago and have not deviated one ion from their script. Gentlemen, we are going to war. I have never accepted the theory of a "just" war, as war is simply war and the "justness" determined for centuries to come... Were the Romans "just" in taking Egypt? yadayada yada... At this point, I am going to take a stance behind the men in the military and not give them any grey area to come home to. My personal beliefs are almost irrelevent. I watched a bunch of self serving hedonistic hippycrits call my brother a baby killer, adfuckinghominemnauseum, for serving in Viet Nam. Most of these self serving hedonistic hippycrits are now in the government. Just as the sons of bitches that went to college instead of WWII served up Viet Nam to my brother's generation, just as the self serving hedonistic sons of bitches that went to college and avoided WWI served up WWII to them... See a pattern. Chicken Hawks? "Just" wars? Then there's the poor soldiers that actually fight these things. I'm not going to add insult to injury to the kids currently serving. YMMV... It's a free country, you're just as entitled to your opinion. Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #80,159 by Ashton 2/7/03 12:58:14 PM Reply	Nam was unprecedented. We never considered for an instant what! it was that the people there wanted -- also would die to defend. We were such naifs. Now we have earned, cynical-naifs. Imagine the Terrorism of B-52s dwarfing all of WW-II tonnage on that tiny place. It was begun from a bloody academic 'domino-theory' and fed by a McNamara, an odious small man who kept the logistics Looking Good until - we were in there hook, line and sinker. (I almost had a chance to meet him.. at a person's birthday party in Oxford. He was disinvited when the hostess realized she couldn't guarantee his 'security' - fershure not verbal security, via many others attending) All your characterizations above apply - the Men from The Green Table (ballet) gesticulating around that table, sending off the cannon fodder on both 'sides'. Words fail but the dance can reveal. The oafs who jeered at the young conscripts were as ignorant of this process of periodic madness then, as now. It isn't about a soldier's actual ability to refuse an order, not such as we are and such as our deadly euphemisms illustrate we are. He can't - he'll be killed too. As for this time - sorry but, it only computes in $-terms. All we had to do was wait - and should a suicidal Saddam decide to attack (just about anyone) ..if it was a nasty enough raid? We could do what many here would Love to do: use some of those expensive nukes, the pride and joy of Jedi Masters of Destruction Technology. "Nuke from orbit" has replaced "As American as Apple Pie" in the lexicon - had you not noticed? Say it enough times (like the really unconvincing propaganda du jour) and you can't remember when it wasn't said. Support the troops - as ever they are the goats. Jeer at one only after facing self in mirror many times (especially anyone who didn't bother to vote last time). This affair comes straight from the Top: The only groundswell this time is concave, not convex. And the blame is diffuse - a 'loyal opposition' with no guts + a perfect excuse to find any substitute imaginable, to scapegoat for the small band of perps we have been unable to deal with. What country do you assign a cabal to? (We've found a few work-arounds - not including the country of origin of 95% of these attackers. Yet. Wonder why that is?) My father wasn't jeered at - just offed in the final days of WW-II - the perhaps last 'honorable' and unavoidable war. We left that one as ~ the sole functioning industrial base anywhere, for our distance from all of the bombing. Now we have infinitely more 'wealth' to guard, but the bomb has reached River City anyway. Ashcroft raises the 'threat level' to high - just Now. Best get used to that and.. after our Blitzkrieg, what's Higher than high? Ashton
Post #80,129 by JayMehaffey 2/7/03 12:19:45 PM Reply	Got dizzy reading The statements by the President, Vice President, and others in the Administration that their goal is to change the regime in Baghdad have increased the incentive for Saddam Hussein to strike against us. In the previous war, he did not use his chemical and biological weapons against Americans because he knew that the retaliation would be more than he was willing to accept. However, if Hussein is convinced that we are determined to remove him from power, he may decide he has nothing to lose by attacking our nation first. The Bush Administration and Congress have now reached the point where we must decide whether we can allow Saddam Hussein to continue to rule Iraq, knowing that he has the means and the motivation to strike against the United States. We also know that U.N. weapons inspections alone can never provide the security that the citizens of our nation deserve. I completely agree with the CIA\ufffds assessment that the Administration\ufffds determination to remove Hussein from power greatly increases the chances that Iraq will launch terrorist attacks against Americans. With the chances for an Iraqi-sponsored terrorist attack increasing every day, I see no alternative but to approve the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Think about this for a moment. We must remove Saddam because he is a threat to us. Why is he a threat to us? Because we have already decided to remove him. The whole thing is an argument so circular it made me dizzy. Jay
Post #80,155 by Brandioch 2/7/03 12:51:09 PM Reply	Exactly. If we were NOT going to invade, would he attack us? No. He even asked our PERMISSION before he invaded Kuwait. Now, something FAR WORSE to think about. Saddam has scientists capable of manufacturing chemical agents. Saddam only needs to have them publish the specific instructions for that on various web sites. All the terrorists in the WORLD would then have it.

Welcome to IWETHEY!