I suppose it had to happen that Bush's...

[p_p_man]

'war against terrorism' would quickly turn into another bargaining point for America's own self interest.

This question of 'we'll scratch your back if you scratch ours' is really dumbing down a campaign which started off with serious intent but has been diluted by the Bush administration.

As America seems to have taken it upon herself to decide who is a terrorist and who isn't, I wonder if she would be happy to come over here and bomb my neighbour's dog. He's been terrorising every one around here for years...

New York Times Tuesday 27 August

"American Gives Beijing Good News: Rebels on Terror List
By ERIK ECKHOLM


BEIJING, Aug. 26 — The Bush administration has listed an obscure Muslim group fighting Chinese rule in the western province of Xinjiang as a terrorist organization, a visiting senior American official disclosed here tonight.

The step pleased Beijing, which is anxious to portray its crackdown on restive Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang as part of the global campaign against terrorism, and it might bolster China's cooperation in that American-led campaign."

If you've got to scour the globe to find allies to support your invasion of Iraq, you may as well turn to China. Nobody else is running forward to volunteer.

Except Blair, but nowadays he's been a bit of a lone voice in the UK.

ppman

 

[70/30]

PP from what I've noticed Britain isn't typically frightened to get in the thick of a justified fight. The rest of the EU members haven't seemed so willing. The UK's resistance to this upcoming conflict might have a twinge to do with the influence of the EU but more so they don't trust or like Bush enough to follow him into a horrible situation. A poll I saw yesterday said 20% of Americans were in favor of an immediate unilateral attack while 75% of US were opposed to a unilateral attack. Cheney's speech today and Bush's lawyers saying it isn't illegal to attack without Congressional Approval takes away much of our role in what happens. There was a cheesey/rogue cop spoof TV show in the late 80's that typifies GWB these days, Sledgehammer. here's the link http://www.phrank.com/sh/.

 

[Ishmael]

First of all let me say that I dispute the poll. I've seen to many polls that were designed to lead to conclusions by the use of qualifiers in the questions asked. Polls without such qualifiers still show a majority of the American people in favor of an ouster of Saddam Hussein.

As an alternate argument I offer this;

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/frankjgaffneyjr/

Leadership by consensus is generally bad leadership in times of crisis. Much like corporate meetings to build consensus, the product tends to reflect the lowest common denominator. (Read that as the decision that can be understood by the attendee with the least information or mental capability to understand the problem.)

While debate and discussion are good practices whilst forming policy, it is not very smart to enter into a debate on the various merits of national defense while Hannibal is marching on Rome. A decision to do something about it may be in time to watch him break down the doors of the Senate.

It also seems strange to me that it is the European nations that are expressing such reluctance to do away with Saddam. Afterall, while Saddam's principle focus of anger is the United States I doubt very seriously that he has forgotten the role played by our European allies in Desert Storm. And while his missiles can't reach the United States, the newer models most certainly can reach European soil.

His new (and some old) allies, the various terrorist organizations, are not at war with the United States alone. They are at war with western civilization. We are considered decadent apostates by the Islamic fundamentalist's and the Fundamentalist has but one prescription for the apostate, death.

As we in the United Sates get our security act together, targets on European soil begin to look more inviting to the terrorist. The logistics are far less complicated. The bombing of a night club or US embassy with conventional high explosives might kill some of the native population, and produce collateral damage, of what comparison is that to the use of a chemical/biological/nuclear weapon?

Of course there are those that say, "Hey, attack the US. We'll help you and good riddance to them all." A very short sighted view to be sure. Because once the "Great Satan" is done in, it will be time to take care of the lesser demons and make no mistake, the European countries are the lesser demons in this instance.

As far as the statement about the terrorists in Xinjaing province. This is old news. It was even reported about in National Geographic some 9 or 10 years ago. In this regard I actually give Bush high marks for identifying fundamentalist terrorists regardless of whose soil they happen to be on. It is the correct and consistant thing to do. It also sends the Chinese a message that we do not view the Fulong Gong sect as a 'terrorist' group as the Chinese have been trying to convince the rest of the world for a few years now. It is the spot on response to the Chinese that was absolutely required by their statements regarding other groups that they find troubling. In diplomacy the absence of names on a list are as important as the names that are included.

But what I find most troubling about this thread pp is that as a former diplomatic corps member that you would even attempt to spotlight this little "news" tid bit in isolation from the rest of the dynamics surrouding the situation.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

Actually the point is that the Chinese are harboring and training Muslim Terrorists and should be added to the list of nations that sponsor terror. But after seeing the teeth-gnashing and wailing over the dire consequences of a military exercise in such insignificant flea-bites such as Afghanistan and Iraq, one could only assume that a declaration against the Chinese would lead to mass suicide of the Left as they would surely see it as the "End of the World."



On the other hand, that might not be such a bad thing....

 

[70/30]

the people speak

Ishmael here's that link... http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/23/cnn.poll.iraq/index.html
Gallup is pretty reputable in the polling business. I care most about GWB's approval rating, 65 and steadily dropping.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: the people speak

Ishmael here's that link... http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/23/cnn.poll.iraq/index.html
Gallup is pretty reputable in the polling business. I care most about GWB's approval rating, 65 and steadily dropping.

Actually Gallup is no better or worse than the other polling orginazations. They've been caught with their pants down too. Like I said, the value of a poll is in the format of the questions. Gallup does their own polls, but they also do commissioned polls. They aren't a NPO by any means.

Not to worry about Bush. His low is now about the same as Clinton's high. When and if the shit hit's the fan, his numbers will climb again.

Ishmael

 

[bluespoke]

Re: Re: the people speak

Not to worry about Bush. His low is now about the same as Clinton's high. When and if the shit hit's the fan, his numbers will climb again.

Ishmael

Ah, doesn't that depend on which shit and which fan?

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: the people speak

Ah, doesn't that depend on which shit and which fan?

More or less. I was specifically refering to Iraq though.

Ishmael

 

[REDWAVE]

"Great White Father speak with forked tongue"

What the hell is going on now? Just a day after Dick Cheney gives his "Sturm und Drang" speech on why we have to attack Iraq ASAP, Richard Boucher of the State Dept. comes out and says our esteemed Commander in Thief hasn't made his mind up on military action again Iraq. Two things are notable here: first, Bush isn't talking himself, he's letting others speak for him; second, they're sending contradictory messages. Dubya has refined the art of political propaganda to a new level: he's lying by proxy out of both sides of his mouth at once!


My theory is Bush was originally determined to invade Iraq. Then he was totally taken by surprise by the enormous opposition to the idea, from foreign governments, and from many Americans, even within the Pentagon and the Republican Party. Now he doesn't know what to do. But his earlier sword-rattling put him out on a limb so badly that if he doesn't attack, the U.S. will seriously lose face.

Meanwhile the social crisis engendered by global recession continues to fester and worsen, both here and abroad.

 

[SINthysist]

Have you never heard of psychological warfare? Good cop, bad cop? Different messages for different audiences?

 

[REDWAVE]

Psycho war, did you say?

Yeah, well, Bush is doing a good job of waging psychological war, then-- against his own people!

 

[SINthysist]

It must be working since his lowest numbers are better than Clinton's highest numbers...

 

[brokenbrainwave]

I agree with p_p on this one, to hell with the middle east, let them deal with themselves and collapse. But instead of Bush doing the smart thing, he wants a war that we cannot win. As much as people tried, they simply cannot show me where America has the right to initiate a war with Iraq. It seems a ploy to keep the peoples mind off the real issues, such as the economy and scandals, which btw are not the fault of Bush. This economy was beginning to falter under Clinton, however with the average American having the IQ of a chia pet combined with the attention span of a toddler on a sugar high, he feels he must divert attention.

If he starts this war, I will never vote Republican again, ever. Will the Libertarians welcome me with open arms? I really am more of a conservative than a liberal.

 

[Gord]

the thing is now Bush has said he will do it - invade Iraq. Saadam has stuck to fingers up at him and said no way we are ready for you and you cant win.

So if the US doesnt do it it will be a huge climb down and send a message to saadam and his budies that the US may do a lot of blustering but when it comes down to it they backed off.

This will give carte blanche to Saadam et al to sponsor more terrorism and still be a blight on the world.

SO it is a tough decision, but if Bush is going to be true to his word and strike at he heart of terrorism, this is not the time for appeasement.

The rest of the Western world might publicly deny support and question his tactics but behind the scene I am sure that they will support

 

[Ishmael]

the thing is now Bush has said he will do it - invade Iraq. Saadam has stuck to fingers up at him and said no way we are ready for you and you cant win.

So if the US doesnt do it it will be a huge climb down and send a message to saadam and his budies that the US may do a lot of blustering but when it comes down to it they backed off.

This will give carte blanche to Saadam et al to sponsor more terrorism and still be a blight on the world.

SO it is a tough decision, but if Bush is going to be true to his word and strike at he heart of terrorism, this is not the time for appeasement.

The rest of the Western world might publicly deny support and question his tactics but behind the scene I am sure that they will support

Quite right Gord.

It's interesting to note that the very same crowd that was wringing their hands over the 'blood bath' that the troops of Desert Storm were going to suffer at the hands of Saddam are the same ones making the same predictions today.

It is these same people that don't understand the dynamics of a totalitarian government. There is this belief on their part that Saddam has the support of the people and that the nation as a whole will rise up and fight door to door to preserve Saddam's throttle hold on the government. They will not. While we, the US, may not be the end all be all in their eyes, they like Saddam even less. We are but an abstract nation far from their shores, while Saddam effects their day to day life. The masses are not that easily fooled. Not in Iraq, not in the former Soviet Uniion, not in any country under the thumb of a ruthless despot.

Even with his overwhelming military superiority and numbers of weapon systems he was able to do little more than reach a draw with Iran in the 80's. He is militarily inept and excersizes centralized control with no encouragment for initialtive on the part of his field commanders. And his field commanders are glorified "yes men". The truly gifted leaders among are murdered as soon as they are identified lest they grow to represent a threat to his personal power.

There is more than ample evidence of his active support of terrorism world wide. His efforts to acquire CBN weapons is well known, as is his resolve to use them, even on his own population. His 'shell games' with the weapons inspectors is well documented. He has, in effect, declared war on the free world.

However, the bulk of the free world cringes in terror of this ruthless mad man. From those that advocate 'managing' the situation, to those that truly believe that he will bring about the collapse of society if he's attacked. Meanwhile, the cost of doing nothing continues to grow, and grow.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that fighting in the streets will be impossible due to all the madly gyrating celebatory bodies welcoming the United States troops thankful it's not the EU or the UN since the US has a history of rebuilding it's enemies and making them stronger and more prosperous. An onerous curse indeed!

 

[p_p_man]

Re: "Great White Father speak with forked tongue"

My theory is Bush was originally determined to invade Iraq. Then he was totally taken by surprise by the enormous opposition to the idea, from foreign governments, and from many Americans, even within the Pentagon and the Republican Party. Now he doesn't know what to do. But his earlier sword-rattling put him out on a limb so badly that if he doesn't attack, the U.S. will seriously lose face.

Yep that's how I see it as well.

What a way to go! Just because a less than average man couldn't keep his mouth shut...

ppman

 

[SINthysist]

No one was taken by surprise at the weakness and vacillation of our allies. They can, in usefulness, be compared to the teats on a Boar Hog...

It was a mistake to kowtow to them the first time in building a coalition and in not sacking Baghdad and removing Hussein then.

Hopefully, he’s learned from his father’s mistakes!

 

[miles]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by REDWAVE
My theory is Bush was originally determined to invade Iraq. Then he was totally taken by surprise by the enormous opposition to the idea, from foreign governments, and from many Americans, even within the Pentagon and the Republican Party. Now he doesn't know what to do. But his earlier sword-rattling put him out on a limb so badly that if he doesn't attack, the U.S. will seriously lose face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yep that's how I see it as well.

What a way to go! Just because a less than average man couldn't keep his mouth shut...

ppman




Is anyone surprised they both believe this? What a couple of buttnuggets.

 

[HeavyStick]

'war against terrorism' would quickly turn into another bargaining point for America's own self interest. 3000 people from 58+ countries dead is not self interest it's justice / revenge/ payback

This question of 'we'll scratch your back if you scratch ours' is really dumbing down a campaign which started off with serious intent but has been diluted by the Bush administration. unlike other countries the US didn't lose interest, Canada is still in it

As America seems to have taken it upon herself to decide who is a terrorist and who isn't, you're an idiot...
the events on 9/11 told who the terrorists were... or did the combination of the hooker with dysentary and your hangover prevent you from remembering those facts.
I wonder if she would be happy to come over here and bomb my neighbour's dog. He's been terrorising every one around here for years... two words ... radiator fluid

New York Times Tuesday 27 August

"American Gives Beijing Good News: Rebels on Terror List
By ERIK ECKHOLM


BEIJING, Aug. 26 — The Bush administration has listed an obscure Muslim group fighting Chinese rule in the western province of Xinjiang as a terrorist organization, a visiting senior American official disclosed here tonight.

The step pleased Beijing, which is anxious to portray its crackdown on restive Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang as part of the global campaign against terrorism, and it might bolster China's cooperation in that American-led campaign."

If you've got to scour the globe to find allies to support your invasion of Iraq, you may as well turn to China. Nobody else is running forward to volunteer.

Except Blair, but nowadays he's been a bit of a lone voice in the UK.

ppman [/B]

hic...

 

[p_p_man]

Hey HS. Come on you know as well as I do...

that Bush isn't involved in this war because he actually believes in it himself.

And as far as Canada is still 'in it' as you so quaintly phrase it so is the UK but much against our will...only Blair is 100% pro, but that's for his own reasons not ours...

If you actually think that the 'terrorists' are centred around 9/11 then all I can suggest is think again...

ppman

 

[miles]

Re: Hey HS. Come on you know as well as I do...

that Bush isn't involved in this war because he actually believes in it himself.

And as far as Canada is still 'in it' as you so quaintly phrase it so is the UK but much against our will...only Blair is 100% pro, but that's for his own reasons not ours...

If you actually think that the 'terrorists' are centred around 9/11 then all I can suggest is think again...

ppman

Proof that in the final stages of the disease, brain function rapidly diminishes.


hic...

 

[HeavyStick]

Re: Hey HS. Come on you know as well as I do...

that Bush isn't involved in this war because he actually believes in it himself.

And as far as Canada is still 'in it' as you so quaintly phrase it so is the UK but much against our will...only Blair is 100% pro, but that's for his own reasons not ours...

If you actually think that the 'terrorists' are centred around 9/11 then all I can suggest is think again...

ppman

Hey bloke did you pay your tab???

you did???

well lets start a little ditty I just wrote


"93 pints of ale on the wall, 93 pints of ale"

hic...

it's truly sad that the brain gets pruned after the liver