Well done George...

[p_p_man]

almost single handedly you're destroying the world...

From today's Guardian:

"During George Bush's two years in office, tensions over US unilateralism and the UN's collective authority, Nato's changing role, and diverging US and EU priorities - on issues such as climate change and Palestine - have been readily apparent. But it is Iraq that has crystallised them and brought them into the open. Recent public recriminations and yesterday's Nato row over Turkey show how broadly damaging and divisive the Iraq issue is."

Bush's almost insane pursuit of the destruction of Saddam has not only brought into focus the areas mentioned in the Guardian's article but has also brought into focus America's future role in the world.

Bush obviously has imperialist plans for your country. It's in his blood. He sees the whole global situation like a Corporate take-over batle. He knows no other way of viewing life and is too bombastic and arrogant to even consider other points of view.

With Germany, France and Belgium not supporting a NATO defence of Turkey, with Germany and France submitting their own peace plane as an alternative to war and with a substantial number of the EU's member states not supporting America's case against Iraq it's beginning to look as though America will separate from the UN route and invade Iraq on her own along with the UK as her main ally.

How will the world view the US then?

No doubt as an aggressor headed by a despotic leader. That's nothing new, both to the world and to America. As a country you have a reputation for riding roughshod over other countries, not complying with world opinion and generally going it alone. Even as far as dropping two nuclear devices on Japanes civilians and contemplating dropping others on Hanoi and Cuba.

The problem America has now is that although as a single nation she is still the most powerful in the world, she falls quickly down the world ratings if confronted with a coalition of other countries.

The problem obviously lies with your system of Government where the President is also the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and with your inherent belief that somehow America is invincible. History has proved that you're not.

So war between America and Europe, America and the Pacific Rim or America and the Arab Nations is not such a far fetched idea after all. If America continues with her present President and his tunnel vision it fast becomes a probability...

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

More from the Guardian article...

"Nato splits are hardly a new phenomenon. Likewise, the alliance's usefulness has been in doubt since the end of the cold war. But US criticism after Kosovo, its sidelining of Nato after September 11, particularly in Afghanistan, and Bush officials' often crude disdain for European capabilities and willpower have imposed unnecessary strains. France and Germany are right to note that Nato has not been involved in setting Iraq policy. In this context it is hardly surprising, but still very damaging, that European members decline to line up and salute just because the US orders them to do so."

ppman

 

[Lasz]

Yeah but his daughters are hot.

 

[Ham Murabi]

Clearly the end is nigh.

 

[p_p_man]

Clearly the end is nigh.

With fools like Lazarus 1280 trying to be childishly funny on a political thread I wouldn't be at all surprised...

I presume he would have been one of those 'duck and cover' exponents...

ppman

 

[Lasz]

hey I am at least trying to see something positive about this presidency. The fact that the president has hot daughters. I think that is about the only positive thing about this presidency.

 

[Ham Murabi]

With fools like Lazarus 1280 trying to be childishly funny on a political thread I wouldn't be at all surprised...

I presume he would have been one of those 'duck and cover' exponents...

ppman

pp, how can you disagree with Lazarus and his humor in the face of imminent world destruction?
With the scenario you have just crafted, it's clear we're all going to be dead within 30 days, 60 days on the outside. Lazarus epitomizes the American devil-may-care attitude that has served this country well.

 

[p_p_man]

hey I am at least trying to see something positive about this presidency. The fact that the president has hot daughters. I think that is about the only positive thing about this presidency.

No you're not...

You're trying to be childishy funny...



ppman

 

[p_p_man]

Lazarus epitomizes the American devil-may-care attitude that has served this country well.

He epitomises the stupidity of your country that has definitely not served your country well...

ppman

 

[Cerberus666]

hey, hey. let's not stereotype stupid Americans. we're not all morons. It's just the morons are usually the loudest.

 

[Lasz]

pp, how can you disagree with Lazarus and his humor in the face of imminent world destruction?
With the scenario you have just crafted, it's clear we're all going to be dead within 30 days, 60 days on the outside. Lazarus epitomizes the American devil-may-care attitude that has served this country well.

Well that gives me 60 days to hook up with Jenna Bush.

 

[p_p_man]

Even more from the Guardian...

for those who understand what is being said here...

"Donald Rumsfeld's insults aside, the EU and Europe (old and new) also had good reason to question US leadership long before this crisis erupted. Yet even if Europeans trusted and respected Mr Bush, that would not make his hastiness more supportable now. Similar considerations apply to his apparently cynical UN manoeuvrings. The US was wrong to dismiss out-of-hand the Franco-German proposals for expanded inspections. If Colin Powell believes inspections, enhanced or not, can never work, then why did the US back them last autumn? Perhaps it really is all a US charade, as Iraq suspects. It is dishonest to urge a second UN vote authorising force yet simultaneously vow to attack if one is not agreed."

ppman

 

[Lasz]

Yes P P Man I know I watch CNN, the BBC, and other news source about an hour a day. Turst me I am concerned.

 

[p_p_man]

Yes P P Man I know I watch CNN, the BBC, and other news source about an hour a day. Turst me I am concerned.

Well what do you think (if you can get the twins out of your mind) then...



ppman

 

[Cerberus666]

If Bush had just shown even the slighest bit of patience we would be so much better off. But he has to rush into this and piss everyone off. I believe that there probably are some wmd's and bio weapons in Iraq but the fact that he has to rush into this with a "we're right and your wrong" attitude is not winning anyone over.

 

[p_p_man]

If Bush had just shown even the slighest bit of patience we would be so much better off. But he has to rush into this and piss everyone off. I believe that there probably are some wmd's and bio weapons in Iraq but the fact that he has to rush into this with a "we're right and your wrong" attitude is not winning anyone over.

Exactly!

It isn't so much as whether he's right or wrong, although he has a long way to go yet to prove he's right, but his attitude towards the situation...

It's far too unstable to be credible...

ppman

 

[Ham Murabi]

If Bush had just shown even the slighest bit of patience we would be so much better off. But he has to rush into this and piss everyone off. I believe that there probably are some wmd's and bio weapons in Iraq but the fact that he has to rush into this with a "we're right and your wrong" attitude is not winning anyone over.

Let's review some facts here for the uninformed. Saddam's Iraq has never complied with U.N. inspection teams or U.N. rule. This was true right after the Gulf War, which ended over a decade ago.
How much patience is required? There is evidence of biological and chemical warfare, and if I'm not mistaken that's against the rules. Some of those weapons were in Saddam's possession years ago, and he has used them.
There is no "rush into" with this issue. The U.N. has been right for 11 years, Iraq has been wrong.
If some players, such as France, Germany and Belgium, want us to believe that Saddam deserves another 11 or so years to comply, well, that's an issue for their governments to weigh in on.
The U.S. has felt the sting of terrorism, and has mourned the loss. Some people, such as ppman, dismiss that and insist (seemingly) that Saddam is harmless.
I am somehow not assured by their opinions.

 

[Cerberus666]

i'm gonna assume that when you said uninformed that you weren't talking to me. I know the facts. I also know why the nations that could be are biggest supporters, France and Germany, are not with us on this. They want clear cut physical evidence. Do I think action should be taken? Sure but to do this alone is wrong and insane. Besides the whole world is watching Iraq, they are not so stupid as to try an attack with a global audience to witness it.

 

[Ham Murabi]

i'm gonna assume that when you said uninformed that you weren't talking to me. I know the facts. I also know why the nations that could be are biggest supporters, France and Germany, are not with us on this. They want clear cut physical evidence. Do I think action should be taken? Sure but to do this alone is wrong and insane. Besides the whole world is watching Iraq, they are not so stupid as to try an attack with a global audience to witness it.

Just because the U.N. can't muster the votes does not mean the U.S. is acting alone. The majority of NATO nations, including the U.S., are following Tony Blair's lead. Blair is smart enough to know a threat when he sees one, and he also knows it won't come in the form of an attack from a country, but rather from a terrorist "incident," one that can kills thousands.

By the way, ppman, from the wording of the "Guardian" articles you printed here, I've got to believe they were from the opinion, and not the news, pages.

 

[RastaPope]

Just glad I have money invested in weapons and defense. I win!

 

[busybody..]

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

I keep hearing complaints from the French and the Germans — and sometimes from United Nations apparatchiks — that the United States is acting as a unilateralist (though we have the support of 18 European nations plus many non-European nations), imperialist (though we aren’t likely to claim Iraq as territory) bully (though the Security Council passed a resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to do exactly what we’re demanding that he do). But I’m tired of responding to these comments with facts that will fall on stony and unreceptive ground.

Instead, I want to do perform a “thought experiment” by asking this question: “How would the United States be acting if it really were an imperialist bully?” The answer is, “very differently.”

An imperial nation, possessed of the kind of lopsided military power the United States has in today’s world, wouldn’t waste its time with inspectors and diplomacy. Nor would it limit its ambitions to Iraq.

An Imperial America would probably join with nascent superpower India to divide up and conquer the region. India could have Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran; we’d take Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt.

What about the “Arab street?” The answer would be machine guns, labor camps, and bulldozed mosques. (Replaced, perhaps, by new mosques with pliable mullahs). Really troublesome populations would be relocated, a la Stalin and the Crimean Tartars. (If the task proved too ugly for American troops, we’d hire mercenaries — excuse me, “Foreign Legion troops” — from sub-Saharan Africa, East Timor, and other places whose populations dislike Muslims. There would be atrocities and brutality, of course, but that would be part of the plan.) The response to people who said the war was just about oil? “You’re right. And if you’re nice to us, we’ll sell you some.” To keep the Russians happy, they’d get a cut of the action so long as they played ball.

Complaints from France and Germany would be ignored. And, given French history and German pacifism, the complaints would probably be muted once they realized they were dealing with the sort of brutal empire that they have historically either accommodated, or aspired to be. Any efforts at going beyond complaint would be met by unpleasant consequences ranging from trade sanctions, to sponsored insurgencies, to war.

Shocking? Utterly unlikely? Of course. But also entirely consistent with the way that real empires have behaved throughout history — and consistent with the way nations like Russia and China (to say nothing of France and Germany) have behaved in historical times. (The German role in facilitating Turkish massacres of Armenians, for example, is little remembered, but it drew on German experience with colonial massacres in West Africa — and laid the bureaucratic foundation for the Holocaust.)

It ought to be obvious, but given the tendency of people for misunderstanding (or, sometimes, feigned misunderstanding) in such matters, let me be clear. I don’t think that the imperial behavior I describe would be a good thing. I think it would be a very, very bad thing, and that doing it would put the United States on the same moral plane as the Soviet Union, or the People’s Republic of China, or pre-Liberation Germany, or colonial France, or Indonesia in East Timor, or Belgium in the Congo, or Syria, or — well, come to think of it, a lot of members of the United Nations. And that would be wrong, not only for its victims, but for the soul of America.

But I’m getting kind of tired hearing the United States accused of behaving like an imperial power when it isn’t. And I worry that these false accusations, repeated over and over, may actually make genuine American imperialism more likely, as the “American street” decides that if we’re going to be called an empire, we might as well act like one. What, after all, could Robert Fisk or his ilk say about America in reponse to the above that they haven’t already said anyway?

Such a state of events is still quite remote. But it’s not as remote as it was a year ago — and European nastiness, backstabbing, and intransigence make it more likely, not less so. A major terrorist strike involving nuclear weapons or smallpox, for example, might be enough to start the process, especially if Americans conclude that respect for diplomatic sensibilities paved the way for such a strike. And such a conclusion would have some basis, especially if the trail were found to lead back to Saddam. So by slowing things down, the Franco-German diplomatic axis is running a terrible risk.

It’s odd to me that people who are so concerned about how American actions might play with comparatively powerless denizens of the “Arab street” don’t worry even a little about how their words and actions might play with the far more powerful American Street. (Gallup reports plummeting opinions of France and Germany among Americans). Yet it’s obvious that Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, and Kofi Annan aren’t worrying about this at all. In a way, of course, that’s evidence that they know just how silly their claims of imperialism and atrocity really are.

They realize, in other words, that the United States isn’t acting the way their nations would probably act, if they possessed the power of the United States. Let’s hope that things stay that way

 

[p_p_man]

By the way, ppman, from the wording of the "Guardian" articles you printed here, I've got to believe they were from the opinion, and not the news, pages.

Yes. But the Guardian is one of the better newspapers for keeping its ear in tune with public and world opinion...

And the Leader is written from the news items of the day as a basis...

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

Let's review some facts here for the uninformed. Saddam's Iraq has never complied with U.N. inspection teams or U.N. rule.

But they're complying now, even to the extent of allowing overflights by U2 spy planes...

So what's the problem?

ppman

 

[busybody..]

the current text of the proposed Franco-German resolution on Iraq.
Resolution 1465 (Proposed):

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolution 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002 affording Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmanent obligations," and setting up "an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process,"

Ignoring the words "final" and "completion" in the above,

Recognizing that resolution 1441 required from Iraq "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,"

Ignoring that Iraq's response was to photocopy old documents from 1992,

Further ignoring that Iraq's chief collaborator in thwarting UN sanctions has been the German private sector, and that the main benefactor of preserving the status quo is French oil company TotalFinaElf,

Most definitely ignoring any Iraqi citizens who jump into UN vehicles screaming "help me!" and carrying notebooks,

Unquestionably ignoring the barbaric regime of Saddam Hussein, whose conduct makes a mockery of UN declarations and resolutions, and whose removal would come as a blessing to his people, his neighbors, and any prospect for lasting peace in the Middle East,

Eternally ignoring the lessons of history; forgetting the ignoble end of the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact; repeating the failed policies of past UN resolutions; and embracing the dream of "peace in our time" against a foe who does not know peace,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC to deliver a severe scolding to Iraq, using at least one, but no more than three, swear words, and accompanied with an appropriately serious facial expression; the Chairman may also make a number of "tsk" noises, not to exceed five, at his discretion;
Recalls the Council's first eleven resolutions on this subject, and resolves not to fall for Iraq's "pretending to cooperate with the inspectors" trick a twelfth time;
Permits the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors to be lightly armed, with one of the following (their choice):
Harsh language, not to exceed the limits in paragraph 1;
Pepper spray;
A plastic knife from the UN cafeteria (blade not to exceed 10cm);
Sean Penn;
A whistle or other noisemaking device;
The Nerf® "Lock 'N Load" Dart Blaster (max. 3 darts);
In accordance with UN peacekeeping policies, inspectors are not permitted to use these weapons, but may brandish them menacingly and glare in the general direction of hostile forces;

Modifies the inspection process as follows:
Before starting a search, inspectors will now only count to nine, and may peek slightly through their fingers during the count;
Weapons must be hidden in easy-to-find locations (e.g., the driver's seat of UN vehicles), painted a bright yellow color, and have an attached sticker that says "I am an illegal weapon of mass destruction;"
Saddam must yell "ollie ollie oxen free" before changing a weapon's hiding place;
Guards at presidential palaces must give the inspectors hints (e.g., "hot" or "cold"), and are not permitted to put evidence on high shelves or other out-of-reach locations;
If Iraq bribes a Security Council member to prolong the inspections, the bribe must be at least €1 billion to our usual slush fund in Paris shared equally among the Security Council members;
Decides that, if the inspectors find illegal materials, Iraq will be granted only one "do-over" this time;
Requests that, if it does not inconvenience him too greatly, Saddam should treat the UN with the dignity and respect that this institution deserves; in particular, Saddam should stop making paper airplanes out of old UN resolutions and throwing them at inspectors, or giggling uncontrollably while reading aloud the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights;"
Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of overwhelming evidence that Iraq is lying, cheating, hiding, sneaking, misdirecting, smuggling, thwarting, bugging, bribing, fighting, confusing, and bamboozling the UN inspectors, in order to read prepared statements and "give the inspectors more time;"
Condemns the United States for its simplisme cowboy diplomacy, dividing the world into good and evil camps and actually choosing sides (how barbarique!);
Condemns Israel;*
Reminds Iraq that our two-for-one centrifuge sale is only good through Saturday; and
Congratulates the Secretary-General, the weapons inspectors, the IAEA, and itself for yet another job well done, for the cause of world peace through better UN resolutions.
Adopted by the Secuity Council on ______________________


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* This is a standard clause in UN resolutions.

 

[Ham Murabi]

Great post, Busybody.
Only a moron would believe the U.S.'s interest in Iraq is based on imperialism.
Of course, donkeydickhead (where is he lately?) is a moron.