Why I've got a problem with Bush's America...

[jodarby]

The Protests

Hey all,

All over the world this weekend, the drumbeat of protests grew louder. Bush has really drawn himself into a corner with this expensive mobilization. His people went out on the Sunday talk shows but a lot of the fire seemed to be gone. They had asked the U.N. to have some backbone. They never expected it would be against the U.S. itself.

A just war is only fought when every possible alternative has been exhausted. As long as inspectors remain on the ground and continue to dog Saddam, there can be no move into Iraq without serious questions as to actual motive.

The whole idea that a deadline existed was of Bush's making and now, it is beginning to undermine his entire domestic agenda. It is also effecting their ability to exert influence elsewhere in the world and react to other hotspots such as North Korea.

Bush should develop a strategy of de-escalating the military build up while still keeping the pressure up on Saddam to come clean and to bring him to heel. If they don't do that, and if they continue to terrify people by telling them to start building panic rooms with plastic and duct tape, this isn't going to end well.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: The Protests

A just war is only fought when every possible alternative has been exhausted. As long as inspectors remain on the ground and continue to dog Saddam, there can be no move into Iraq without serious questions as to actual motive.

"Dogging" is not disarmament. They've found weapons; according to 1441, this is cause for war. But according to wimps, it's only cause for finding more weapons. I'd like to know when, to these people, war would be just in this case.

Bush should develop a strategy of de-escalating the military build up while still keeping the pressure up on Saddam to come clean and to bring him to heel.

Fundamentally impossible. The pressure on Saddam is derived from the military build-up. Keep in mind that the U.N. had tried "persuading" and "pressuring" for readmitting weapons inspectors; it took us "bullying" and "threatening" him to get it done. When we speak loudly and threaten the stick, he caves.

Regardless of how you or anyone else sees it, Saddam will interpret our pulling back the military presence as a stunning victory for him. And that's the last thing we can afford for him to have, since dictators like Saddam interpret victory as infallibility.

TB4p

 

[Zmey]

LoL TB4p, your avatar always makes me smile... It cute,cool and funny ...

oh yeah nice conversation ... I'll stay away

 

[Gusty Wind]

hmmmmm...

.

 

[Gusty Wind]

heheheheehehe,,,

,

 

[Lost Cause]

Kill the sick fuck..

And anyone who stands with him.
Fuck the doo gooder's road to peace paved with the corpses of those murdered by appeasement. Stupid fuckfarts.

 

[Coolville]

Re: Kill the sick fuck..

And anyone who stands with him.
Fuck the doo gooder's road to peace paved with the corpses of those murdered by appeasement. Stupid fuckfarts.

Said it before, I'll say it again...

you're so cute when you overdose on testostorone!

 

[p_p_man]

Re: The Protests

Bush should develop a strategy of de-escalating the military build up while still keeping the pressure up on Saddam to come clean and to bring him to heel. If they don't do that, and if they continue to terrify people by telling them to start building panic rooms with plastic and duct tape, this isn't going to end well.

Bush will go to war with or without the UN backing and with or without the support of the UK as an ally.

That is set in stone...

What the American people should now consider is whether they are prepared for the consequences of Bush's action and the backlash that will follow...

As sure as night follows day...

ppman

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Re: The Protests

What the American people should now consider is whether they are prepared for the consequences of Bush's action and the backlash that will follow...

Yeah, stable oil prices, a permanent presence in the Middle East . . .

We'll be sure and hunker down for those.

TB4p

 

[Ham Murabi]

Re: Re: The Protests

Bush will go to war with or without the UN backing and with or without the support of the UK as an ally.

That is set in stone...

What the American people should now consider is whether they are prepared for the consequences of Bush's action and the backlash that will follow...

As sure as night follows day...

ppman

When it starts, pp, you might be surprised how many friends the U.S. has.
This whole discussion would be pointless, though, if Saddam would just step down and an honest change of government took place. Don't you think that would be the best thing for the people of Iraq?
Of course, Saddam doesn't give a shit about them.

 

[jodarby]

Re: Re: The Protests

"Dogging" is not disarmament. They've found weapons; according to 1441, this is cause for war. But according to wimps, it's only cause for finding more weapons. I'd like to know when, to these people, war would be just in this case.

Fundamentally impossible. The pressure on Saddam is derived from the military build-up. Keep in mind that the U.N. had tried "persuading" and "pressuring" for readmitting weapons inspectors; it took us "bullying" and "threatening" him to get it done. When we speak loudly and threaten the stick, he caves.

Regardless of how you or anyone else sees it, Saddam will interpret our pulling back the military presence as a stunning victory for him. And that's the last thing we can afford for him to have, since dictators like Saddam interpret victory as infallibility.

TB4p

They have not found weapons of mass destruction. This was the entire scope of Hans Blix's speech. Moreover, he threw cold water all over Colin Powell's intelligence report that purported to show weapons being moved.

There is some truth that military pressure brought to bear on Saddam has made it possible for inspectors to return. But what has been happening has been more than a simple use of military pressure to hasten change in the area. The force now assembled is to both change the regime, occupy Iraq and probably dismantle it if dissidents in the north and south have their way.

It is a huge waste and possibly even more de-stabilizing for the area than the present situation.

The protests taking place around the world are happening because Iraq is not alone in the world in being a threat to world security. Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Serbia and a whole host of other countries are equally dangerous. Why is the U.S. not affter them? Or is that part of the agenda? The State of the Union address sort of hinted that other countries were to come.

And I repeat, when did the war on terrorism become the war on Iraq? The connections to al Quada are dubious at best. Better to look at the U.S. chief ally in the area, Saudi Arabia, instead.

 

[jodarby]

Re: Kill the sick fuck..

And anyone who stands with him.
Fuck the doo gooder's road to peace paved with the corpses of those murdered by appeasement. Stupid fuckfarts.

I don't know that having Kurds in the North and Shias in the south of Iraq using an American occuptation as the go ahead to create their own empires would be in the interests of U.S. security.

We've seen what the break up of Yugoslavia wrought. There was ethnic cleansing with the conflict threatening to move way past the borders of that former country.

The objective of the U.S. should have remained focused on removing all weapons of mass desctruction from Saddam. They lost that focus when they started talking about regime change.

 

[jodarby]

Re: Re: Re: The Protests

Yeah, stable oil prices, a permanent presence in the Middle East . . .

We'll be sure and hunker down for those.

TB4p

And pissed off Arab countries that will stop at nothing to remove the American presence over the years whether it was justified or not. There wouldn't be security in the area nor would there be security at home.

Hell, they can't even protect the boys in Saudi Arabia, a purported ally.

It might be easier for peace and secuity in the U.S. to come about by going back to 55 mph and taxing excessive engine size on non-commercial vehicles.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Re: Re: The Protests

They have not found weapons of mass destruction. This was the entire scope of Hans Blix's speech.

That's not the point. The inspectors are not there to find nuclear weapons. In a country the size of Iraq, you can hide shit pretty easily. UNSC Res. 1441 drew a very clear line between compliance and noncompliance. Iraq is pissing on it.

There is some truth that military pressure brought to bear on Saddam has made it possible for inspectors to return. But what has been happening has been more than a simple use of military pressure to hasten change in the area. The force now assembled is to both change the regime, occupy Iraq and probably dismantle it if dissidents in the north and south have their way.

Exactly. Saddam either cooperates or Iraq is reinvaded. It was the choice presented to him in 1991 and promptly forgotten for a dozen years.

It is a huge waste and possibly even more de-stabilizing for the area than the present situation.

"Destabilization" is the most ridiculous argument in history. "Oh, we shouldn't revolt against the British because we shouldn't destabilize the colonies." "We shouldn't fight against Hitler because, you never know, Himmler or Goebbels might be worse."

Tyrants are almost always "stabilizing." That was the justification Italians made for keeping Mussolini: "he made the trains run on time." Iraq and the Middle East could use a whole lot of fuckin' destabilization. I'll grant that it's predicated on not leaving a power vacuum, but if we keep a significant presence there, there won't be one.

The protests taking place around the world are happening because Iraq is not alone in the world in being a threat to world security. Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Serbia and a whole host of other countries are equally dangerous. Why is the U.S. not affter them? Or is that part of the agenda? The State of the Union address sort of hinted that other countries were to come.

Occupying Iraq puts us right dead center in the middle of the Middle East. We'll share a direct border with Syria and Iran, and therefore Hezzbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the rest of them.

And I repeat, when did the war on terrorism become the war on Iraq? The connections to al Quada are dubious at best. Better to look at the U.S. chief ally in the area, Saudi Arabia, instead.

When did al-Qaeda become the sole representative of terrorism? Just because we're not taking on al-Qaeda directly doesn't mean we're not fighting "terror."

TB4p

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: The Protests

Yeah, stable oil prices, a permanent presence in the Middle East . . .

We'll be sure and hunker down for those.

TB4p

Narrow and extremely dangerous thinking...

Bush's actions in the Middle East could well be the beginning of the break up of the United States. OK I know you're all proud of your country and I know that you still bask in the well being of being the mightiest country on the planet, but just how long do you think the rest of the world is going to put up with Bush, or any other President you elect, who has no real desire to live with his neighbours.

At the moment the world has destabalised dramatically since Bush took over and there's no reason to think it won't destabalise even further as he follows policies that are completely at odds with that of other countries. You may think this is just a flight of fancy, or a piece of "appeasing" rubbish, but once you called everybody who disagreed with you a "pinko, commie, bastard", even though they weren't. And consider this...

America can ignore world opinion, she is just too big and powerful. The rest of us however can't aford that luxury. By pushing, pushing and pushing America will eventually push too far when countries will have no choice but to push back.

Consider the protests over the weekend. They were just a small example of anti-American feeling over a small part of American policy. And that's before the war has started. Consider the anger that the US is slowly but surely building up against herself as she countinues this policy of aggressive colonisation. No politician in the democratic world will be able to withstand the pressure from their own electorate to do something about you. To stop you. To get you under control.

You may laugh and feel smug at these words but remember America is only the most powerful single country in the world...

She ain't the world itself.

ppman

 

[teddybear4play]

Illogical and quite moronic thinking.

These same detractors were all out marching in London and everywhere else 20 years ago when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were doing things their own way.

The opponent is less fearsome this time around.

Should it come down to it, we'll disinvolve ourselves with the countries that don't like us and watch as they fall apart.

TB4p

 

[p_p_man]

These same detractors were all out marching in London and everywhere else 20 years ago when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were doing things their own way.TB4p

Remind me, which marches were they then and what about?

ppman

 

[Mr_Zac]

Its not just you guys in the US the whole world think he is round the bend.....

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Protests

When did al-Qaeda become the sole representative of terrorism? Just because we're not taking on al-Qaeda directly doesn't mean we're not fighting "terror."

TB4p

According to George on September 12 2001.

He's changed his tune now but way back then al Qaida was the only terrorist group he had ever heard of...

And to underline a point, America is not fighting terror except against those terrorists who threaten her own home security. You couldn't care less about the rest of the world, and yet it was you who declared the 'war'...

Phony bastard that Bush...

ppman

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Protests

And to underline a point, America is not fighting terror except against those terrorists who threaten her own home security. You couldn't care less about the rest of the world, and yet it was you who declared the 'war'...

Phony bastard that Bush...

Well, duhhh. Other countries' terrorists are other countries' terrorists. If you honestly think we should start fighting the IRA, say so.

TB4p

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Protests

According to George on September 12 2001.

He's changed his tune now but way back then al Qaida was the only terrorist group he had ever heard of...

And to underline a point, America is not fighting terror except against those terrorists who threaten her own home security. You couldn't care less about the rest of the world, and yet it was you who declared the 'war'...

Phony bastard that Bush...

ppman

You guys really are addicted to us pulling your ass out of the coals, aren't you?

Ishmael

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Protests

Well, duhhh. Other countries' terrorists are other countries' terrorists. If you honestly think we should start fighting the IRA, say so.

TB4p

You don't have to...

You actively supported them...

Just another bit of evidence of how America builds up hatred for herself...

ppman

 

[Gusty Wind]

.

 

[SINthysist]

But since Bush has left Texas, you're probably okay with that then, eh?

You misspelled Bu$h and AmeriKKKa...

 

[jodarby]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Protests

That's not the point. The inspectors are not there to find nuclear weapons. In a country the size of Iraq, you can hide shit pretty easily. UNSC Res. 1441 drew a very clear line between compliance and noncompliance. Iraq is pissing on it.

Exactly. Saddam either cooperates or Iraq is reinvaded. It was the choice presented to him in 1991 and promptly forgotten for a dozen years.

"Destabilization" is the most ridiculous argument in history. "Oh, we shouldn't revolt against the British because we shouldn't destabilize the colonies." "We shouldn't fight against Hitler because, you never know, Himmler or Goebbels might be worse."

Tyrants are almost always "stabilizing." That was the justification Italians made for keeping Mussolini: "he made the trains run on time." Iraq and the Middle East could use a whole lot of fuckin' destabilization. I'll grant that it's predicated on not leaving a power vacuum, but if we keep a significant presence there, there won't be one.

Occupying Iraq puts us right dead center in the middle of the Middle East. We'll share a direct border with Syria and Iran, and therefore Hezzbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the rest of them.

When did al-Qaeda become the sole representative of terrorism? Just because we're not taking on al-Qaeda directly doesn't mean we're not fighting "terror."

B4p

There is diasagreement on whether inspections are over within 1441. As long as inspections continue, war cannot happen. if the U.S. orders inspectors out, that would not play well in the world nor in the U.S. itself.

The inspectors themselves have to say that Iraq is in material breach. If they leave the country or are forced out, *then*, it is possible for the U.N. to enforce the will of the Security Council.

I don't think there is a committment in the Bush administration for anything other than war and occupation of Iraq.

Your argument on the beginning of war of independence and World war 2 is curious. The U.S. was attacked in World War 2. Your participation was totally involuntary. There wasn't any question about stabilization. It was about security.

And the rebellion against Britain was just that, a rebellion. The key interest of the colonies was to de-stabilize Britain.

Whatever.

Iraq hasn't directly attacked U.S. soil. Bush and Powell have not been able to lay claim that the attack of September 11 or subsequent terrorism came from or was ordered by Saddam.

Iraq does pose a threat to regional security though. Saddam has invaded both Iran and Kuwait and each time was re-buffed. He deserves to be under thumb till the end of time.

The long term occupation of Iraq will not go well if the U.S. doesn't have a plan for getting out. They certainly haven't thought this through.

Certainly the record of how the U.S. took care of business in Vietnam should caution anyone.