Post #88,304
3/14/03 10:12:58 AM
|
Straw blames France for interferring.
[link|http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,913930,00.html|France's threat to deploy its UN veto is making war with Iraq more - not less - likely by preventing the security council from enforcing its own decisions, Jack Straw said last night.] So, if France veto's a resolution that seems designed to result in an invasion.... Then the US will have to invade.... And it will be France's fault. "Unfortunately, they appear to have made the decision not to enforce 1441," he said. "That renders it less likely that we get a peaceful outcome." By "enforce" he means "invade Iraq". Translation: "Unfortunately, they appear to have made the decision not to invade Iraq," he said. "That renders it more likely that we will invade Iraq." He brushed aside any suggestion that war - possibly next week - would be illegal without a fresh resolution. He argued that if a resolution is lost then it does not exist - so the legal position reverts to resolution 1441 which threatens serious consequences if Iraq fails to comply with demands to disarm. But what "serious consequences" mean to Bush and what "serious consequences" mean to the rest of the world (except Blair/Straw and Spain) seems to be the issue. The US said yesterday it was prepared to wait until next week for a UN vote on a final ultimatum to Iraq, but might opt not to ask for a vote at all, if a security council majority continues to elude Washington. We will only ask for a vote if we KNOW we will win it? If we suspect that we will lose, we will not ask for a vote? But, in either case, we're going ahead with what we want to do anyway? Only days after George Bush pledged to call for a vote, whether it might succeed or not, the administration said it would look at "all the options". Sounds like someone is getting through to Bush. The US is NOT the only nation in the world. Hopes, too were fading last night for Britain's resolution after the crucial six undecided nations questioned whether the relatively short deadlines outlined in the proposal were realistic or only an excuse for war.
"The British proposal is not still at the point at which ... it satisfies our concerns," said Chilean ambassador Gabriel Valdes. That does NOT sound "undecided" to me.
|
Post #88,391
3/14/03 5:16:39 PM
|
This is repulsive to me.
We are trying to "strike a deal" that gives legitimacy to the overthrow of Iraq. 32 billion to Turkey alone (about $100 US tax payer dollars for every man, woman and child in the US) as a bribe to let our troops invade from their turf. And this was not enough. Has anyone tallied even the least expensive aspect of this war - that incurred as a result of bribes?
I don't give a tinker's damn if a UN resolution authorizes a war. All that would mean at this point is that enough US tax payer dollars had been spent to buy the vote we wanted. It will not, however, in any way, shape or form elevate the immorality of the war effort to anything approximating legitimacy.
I am personally heartened that, at least for now, it seems that our "you get the law you pay for" brand of democracy has not taken root in much of the rest of the world.
If a resolution is passed authorizing US/British invasion and occupation of Iraq, all it will truly mean is that money can corrupt UN dignitaries as easily as money has corrupted our mythic "representation of the people" in our own government.
So far it appears the White Hats are winning. I am not confident about the future, however.
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #88,438
3/14/03 7:42:30 PM
|
There is still hope.
The US could not even bribe the "undecided" nations on the Security Council.
The worst we could do was with Blair and Spain.
And Blair might be out of a job soon because of his support of the US position.
|
Post #88,449
3/14/03 8:31:31 PM
|
Indeed. Dubya hasn't disappointed me. Blair, OTOH has.
For I never overestimated Dubya. Unfortunately, I seem to have vastly overestimated Blair. I'm guessing much of the rest of Great Britain is feeling the same way.
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #88,464
3/14/03 10:24:16 PM
|
Re: This is repulsive to me.
The only really good outcome of this would be the utter repudiation and destruction of the Republicans - completing a great arc spanning the years since the Mexican War, which gave birth to those radical sons of whores.
-drl
|
Post #88,467
3/14/03 10:42:41 PM
|
Um, Dole and McCain are Republicans, remember?
|
Post #88,475
3/14/03 11:15:59 PM
|
What's your point?
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Is that all you guys ever think about? Do you see him hiding around every corner? Does he haunt your dreams? I dunno, if I was you I'd probably WANT to forget about the great William Jefferson Clinton. Unlike the current president, he managed peace, prosperity, balanced budgets, lower poverty and child poverty rates, 21 million new jobs, 50,000 new teachers, 100,000 new cops, the lowest crime rate in 25 years, greater worker protections, the highest home ownership rate in history, the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... Mind you, he did also have a penis, the evil bastard.
--[link|http://www.democraticunderground.com/|Democratic Underground]
|
Post #88,478
3/14/03 11:21:21 PM
|
See #87491 and #87670.
|
Post #88,480
3/14/03 11:30:58 PM
3/14/03 11:31:57 PM
|
No
Throw in a quote that illustrates your point and I might, otherwise no.
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Is that all you guys ever think about? Do you see him hiding around every corner? Does he haunt your dreams? I dunno, if I was you I'd probably WANT to forget about the great William Jefferson Clinton. Unlike the current president, he managed peace, prosperity, balanced budgets, lower poverty and child poverty rates, 21 million new jobs, 50,000 new teachers, 100,000 new cops, the lowest crime rate in 25 years, greater worker protections, the highest home ownership rate in history, the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... Mind you, he did also have a penis, the evil bastard.
--[link|http://www.democraticunderground.com/|Democratic Underground]
Edited by Silverlock
March 14, 2003, 11:31:57 PM EST
|
Post #88,481
3/14/03 11:42:37 PM
|
Okies.
DeSitter said he respects [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=87491|Dole] and [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=87670|McCain] and they've both come out with articles in support of Bush's policy with respect to Iraq. He said he thinks they've presented good arguments.
DeSitter likes painting Republicans as the personification of evil in US politics, as he did [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=88464|here].
Yet Dole and McCain are Republicans.
I just thought it was a little funny, that's all. YMMV, and apparently does. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #88,483
3/15/03 12:11:43 AM
|
there is several wings of the republican party
dixiecrats the democrats of segragation and religious seclusion who changed parties to reflect their constituancies of conservative less government and states rights.
The goldwater camp who truly beleived in less government for all
and the moderate republican party who wants government out of both places, the wallet and the bedroom.
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]</br>
This nation . . . has no right to expect that it always will have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. . . . [If] the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. \ufffdUnited States Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan, 1866, declaring Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and other abuses of the Bill of Rights unconstitutional
|
Post #88,484
3/15/03 12:19:22 AM
|
Sure, but that goes for any big party. There are factions.
But he doesn't talk about wiping out only the Rockefeller wing of the party. (I think they were already wiped out by 1985 anyway.) :-)
I guess I'm easily amused, but I find his rants against [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=88464|"those radical sons of whores"] while praising other members of the same party rather funny.
Enough on this stuff from me. Have a good weekend!
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #88,491
3/15/03 12:37:26 AM
|
Re: Sure, but that goes for any big party. There are facti
I can't help it - they just collapsed morally, so you can't help but feel disgust. As noted, there are historical Republicans I greatly admire. As recent as the early 90s, when I KNEW the Republicans were wrong, they did not induce disgust. Clinton induced disgust. Somewhere in the Clinton years the entire Republican effort just seemed to degenerate in a fiendish, counter-revolutionary rage against the social change of the 60s.
It's almost like a shameful thing for them to admit that people need real help, not "opportunity". The help they need is to be allowed to feel worthwhile by working and contributing - it's not much, but it's beyond the Republicans to understand what this means.
-drl
|
Post #88,495
3/15/03 12:59:45 AM
|
Point made.
I was reading more into it than you meant. I'm glad I asked before spouting off.
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Is that all you guys ever think about? Do you see him hiding around every corner? Does he haunt your dreams? I dunno, if I was you I'd probably WANT to forget about the great William Jefferson Clinton. Unlike the current president, he managed peace, prosperity, balanced budgets, lower poverty and child poverty rates, 21 million new jobs, 50,000 new teachers, 100,000 new cops, the lowest crime rate in 25 years, greater worker protections, the highest home ownership rate in history, the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... Mind you, he did also have a penis, the evil bastard.
--[link|http://www.democraticunderground.com/|Democratic Underground]
|
Post #88,477
3/14/03 11:21:01 PM
3/15/03 12:00:08 AM
|
Re: Um, Dole and McCain are Republicans, remember?
Only in name. McCain has nothing in common with the actual, war-avoiding, fat-cat back-Easterners derived from Rockefeller. He does have affinity with Goldwater and his line - but not enough to qualify. He is more like one of the old rust belt Labor Democrats, like Dirksen [historical brainfart - Dirksen was Republican - my how things have changed since I was a kid ] and Humphrey, or powerful Senators like Richard Russell of Georgia (Robt Byrd of WVa is a close approximation).
As for Dole, everyone from Kansas, including Dorothy and Toto, pretends to be a Republican. Dole is too outspoken and forthright to qualify in reality, and also has a good looking wife who he actually sleeps with.
Dole is a fine man who commands respect and makes people laugh. He also lost the use of an arm during a shooting war. This alone bars him from actual representation in the party.
(Funny, I love Lincoln and Grant also.)
All these people have in common - they are not radicals. The Republicans today are mostly nutty radicals.
-drl
Edited by deSitter
March 15, 2003, 12:00:08 AM EST
|
