FLM films - My Webpage

2003-03-17 20:43:00+00:00 - The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. If someone told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. But that was then and this is now. I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. God bless and guide us all. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-03-17 20:43:00+00:00 - The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. If someone told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. But that was then and this is now. I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. God bless and guide us all. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-03-18 00:21:30+00:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Growltiger wrote in message ... >The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. The world? Iraq might be better off eventually, when the puppet government the USA puts in office has gone, but I don't see how he makes any more difference to the world than any of the many dictators the USA has funded and supported. He was regarded as a USA ally back when Iran was the big bad threat to the USA. >If someone >told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi >government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought >President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. >But that was then and this is now. Bush's presentation was a cynical bunch of half-truths and plain lies. He came to office with the intent of getting Hussein out of power by any means. He has not offered one iota of proof that Iraq has nuclear or biological weapons or has links with terrorists targeting the USA and I see no reason to believe his bare word: it's not as if US presidents don't lie grossly when it suits them. >I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in >a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric >regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to >not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a >chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has >allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. Maybe because most people in the world are against this war and see France, China and Russia as being right as opposed to a country that has been blindly led into a war that will do nothing to make the USA safer but will convert it into the world's biggest bully-nation. Bush wants a war and is going to get it, so opposition just flows by him. >Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have >succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still >wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to >maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. This war is inevitable and has been since Bush won the election. With all the money that has been spent on planning and troop movements there is no way of stopping it now anyway. So let's look forward to more unemplyment, a stock market falling even further and a few years of real economic depression. And more likelihood of terrorist attacks. >At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, >British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the >challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find >themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. Well, Bush doesn't care about them: he's a Christian and people who get killed don't bother him. But he'll squeeze out a few tears for the cameras at the memorial service, I bet. As for the civilians, sorry, but when you claim to be freeing people from a dictator killing them is merely "collateral damage" and doesn't count. As long as there are enough left to keep the oil wells running nobody cares. This war isn't about them anyway.

2003-03-18 00:21:30+00:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Growltiger wrote in message ... >The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. The world? Iraq might be better off eventually, when the puppet government the USA puts in office has gone, but I don't see how he makes any more difference to the world than any of the many dictators the USA has funded and supported. He was regarded as a USA ally back when Iran was the big bad threat to the USA. >If someone >told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi >government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought >President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. >But that was then and this is now. Bush's presentation was a cynical bunch of half-truths and plain lies. He came to office with the intent of getting Hussein out of power by any means. He has not offered one iota of proof that Iraq has nuclear or biological weapons or has links with terrorists targeting the USA and I see no reason to believe his bare word: it's not as if US presidents don't lie grossly when it suits them. >I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in >a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric >regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to >not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a >chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has >allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. Maybe because most people in the world are against this war and see France, China and Russia as being right as opposed to a country that has been blindly led into a war that will do nothing to make the USA safer but will convert it into the world's biggest bully-nation. Bush wants a war and is going to get it, so opposition just flows by him. >Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have >succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still >wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to >maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. This war is inevitable and has been since Bush won the election. With all the money that has been spent on planning and troop movements there is no way of stopping it now anyway. So let's look forward to more unemplyment, a stock market falling even further and a few years of real economic depression. And more likelihood of terrorist attacks. >At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, >British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the >challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find >themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. Well, Bush doesn't care about them: he's a Christian and people who get killed don't bother him. But he'll squeeze out a few tears for the cameras at the memorial service, I bet. As for the civilians, sorry, but when you claim to be freeing people from a dictator killing them is merely "collateral damage" and doesn't count. As long as there are enough left to keep the oil wells running nobody cares. This war isn't about them anyway.

2003-03-18 12:44:27-08:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<eEtda.11015$ja4.765295@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Growltiger wrote in message ... > >The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. > > The world? Iraq might be better off eventually, when the puppet > government the USA puts in office has gone, but I don't see how he makes any > more difference to the world than any of the many dictators the USA has > funded and supported. He was regarded as a USA ally back when Iran was the > big bad threat to the USA. The world. Saddam's response to being forcefully removed has been to threaten "war wherever there is earth and sky". He will kill anyone, anywhere to remain in power. Given another twelve years, as the French et al wish, he could have much more powerfull weapons with which to threaten the world. Now is the time to take him out, while he is still more talk than bite. > >If someone > >told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi > >government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought > >President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. > >But that was then and this is now. > > Bush's presentation was a cynical bunch of half-truths and plain lies. > He came to office with the intent of getting Hussein out of power by any > means. He has not offered one iota of proof that Iraq has nuclear or > biological weapons or has links with terrorists targeting the USA and I see > no reason to believe his bare word: it's not as if US presidents don't lie > grossly when it suits them. Name one lie, other than the BS that he came into office with the intent to remove Saddam. Did you call you psychic to get this information, or did you make it up as you were typing ? There has been sworn testimony from the former head of Saddam's NUCLEAR weapons program, stating that they were less than three years away from having a working nuke. France and the UN ignored this information, because it did not suit their political needs. And Saddam is even now threatening to use the Chemical and Bio weapons that you say he does not have when US forces come to get him. > >I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in > >a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric > >regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to > >not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a > >chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has > >allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. > > Maybe because most people in the world are against this war and see > France, China and Russia as being right as opposed to a country that has > been blindly led into a war that will do nothing to make the USA safer but > will convert it into the world's biggest bully-nation. Bush wants a war and > is going to get it, so opposition just flows by him. Make that most people in the EU and you come closer to the truth. China opposes the US purely out of habit, Russia and France out of economic need for the billions of dollars in oil futures that become worthless if the government in Iraq changes hands. > >Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have > >succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still > >wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to > >maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. > > This war is inevitable and has been since Bush won the election. With > all the money that has been spent on planning and troop movements there is > no way of stopping it now anyway. So let's look forward to more > unemplyment, a stock market falling even further and a few years of real > economic depression. And more likelihood of terrorist attacks. Again, pure BS. The only reason there has been any progress at all in the inspections has been because of 250,000 US troops breathing down Saddam's neck, as admitted to by his holiness Hans Blix. Terrorist attacks were likely without intervention, but were more likely to be better armed. Terrorists use WMD's, but it takes Nation State level resources to generate them and store them. Iraq would have been more than happy to provide the means of killing a few million infidels and weakening the Great Satan. > >At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, > >British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the > >challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find > >themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. > > Well, Bush doesn't care about them: he's a Christian and people who get > killed don't bother him. But he'll squeeze out a few tears for the cameras > at the memorial service, I bet. As for the civilians, sorry, but when you > claim to be freeing people from a dictator killing them is merely > "collateral damage" and doesn't count. As long as there are enough left to > keep the oil wells running nobody cares. This war isn't about them anyway. I think you're confusing Christianity with Islam. One had the crusades centuries ago, the other calls for jihad against all infidels right now. One sends out missionaries with money for food and water and medicine, the other sends out murder bombers and terrorist hijackers. And you're confusing Bush with Clinton on the fake tears as well. Clinton was the master of laughing with his pals, seeing a camera, and flowing tears within a single step, complete with quivering lip and furrowed brow. While we're at it, the US will do all that we can to prevent innocent loss of life, with incredibly accurate laser and GPS guided bombs. Saddam cares not about his people, and has armed his troops guarding Bagdad with chemical weapons which are much more likely to kill his people than anti chemical warefare equiped troops.

2003-03-18 12:44:27-08:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<eEtda.11015$ja4.765295@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Growltiger wrote in message ... > >The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. > > The world? Iraq might be better off eventually, when the puppet > government the USA puts in office has gone, but I don't see how he makes any > more difference to the world than any of the many dictators the USA has > funded and supported. He was regarded as a USA ally back when Iran was the > big bad threat to the USA. The world. Saddam's response to being forcefully removed has been to threaten "war wherever there is earth and sky". He will kill anyone, anywhere to remain in power. Given another twelve years, as the French et al wish, he could have much more powerfull weapons with which to threaten the world. Now is the time to take him out, while he is still more talk than bite. > >If someone > >told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi > >government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought > >President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. > >But that was then and this is now. > > Bush's presentation was a cynical bunch of half-truths and plain lies. > He came to office with the intent of getting Hussein out of power by any > means. He has not offered one iota of proof that Iraq has nuclear or > biological weapons or has links with terrorists targeting the USA and I see > no reason to believe his bare word: it's not as if US presidents don't lie > grossly when it suits them. Name one lie, other than the BS that he came into office with the intent to remove Saddam. Did you call you psychic to get this information, or did you make it up as you were typing ? There has been sworn testimony from the former head of Saddam's NUCLEAR weapons program, stating that they were less than three years away from having a working nuke. France and the UN ignored this information, because it did not suit their political needs. And Saddam is even now threatening to use the Chemical and Bio weapons that you say he does not have when US forces come to get him. > >I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in > >a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric > >regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to > >not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a > >chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has > >allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. > > Maybe because most people in the world are against this war and see > France, China and Russia as being right as opposed to a country that has > been blindly led into a war that will do nothing to make the USA safer but > will convert it into the world's biggest bully-nation. Bush wants a war and > is going to get it, so opposition just flows by him. Make that most people in the EU and you come closer to the truth. China opposes the US purely out of habit, Russia and France out of economic need for the billions of dollars in oil futures that become worthless if the government in Iraq changes hands. > >Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have > >succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still > >wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to > >maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. > > This war is inevitable and has been since Bush won the election. With > all the money that has been spent on planning and troop movements there is > no way of stopping it now anyway. So let's look forward to more > unemplyment, a stock market falling even further and a few years of real > economic depression. And more likelihood of terrorist attacks. Again, pure BS. The only reason there has been any progress at all in the inspections has been because of 250,000 US troops breathing down Saddam's neck, as admitted to by his holiness Hans Blix. Terrorist attacks were likely without intervention, but were more likely to be better armed. Terrorists use WMD's, but it takes Nation State level resources to generate them and store them. Iraq would have been more than happy to provide the means of killing a few million infidels and weakening the Great Satan. > >At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, > >British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the > >challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find > >themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. > > Well, Bush doesn't care about them: he's a Christian and people who get > killed don't bother him. But he'll squeeze out a few tears for the cameras > at the memorial service, I bet. As for the civilians, sorry, but when you > claim to be freeing people from a dictator killing them is merely > "collateral damage" and doesn't count. As long as there are enough left to > keep the oil wells running nobody cares. This war isn't about them anyway. I think you're confusing Christianity with Islam. One had the crusades centuries ago, the other calls for jihad against all infidels right now. One sends out missionaries with money for food and water and medicine, the other sends out murder bombers and terrorist hijackers. And you're confusing Bush with Clinton on the fake tears as well. Clinton was the master of laughing with his pals, seeing a camera, and flowing tears within a single step, complete with quivering lip and furrowed brow. While we're at it, the US will do all that we can to prevent innocent loss of life, with incredibly accurate laser and GPS guided bombs. Saddam cares not about his people, and has armed his troops guarding Bagdad with chemical weapons which are much more likely to kill his people than anti chemical warefare equiped troops.

2003-03-18 19:35:00+00:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid> wrote: > The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. If someone He hardly makes any difference one way or the other as an individual. The way in which the US and British governments have shown their contempt for the rest of the planet is likely to make the world a far worst place. Which more than offsets any potential good getting rid of Hussain might have done. > told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi > government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought Actually there was never a decision one way or the other. Now that the inspection is in disarray it hardly makes any difference. > President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. > But that was then and this is now. > I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in > a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric > regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to > not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a This has been the US behaviour for the last 12 years. Actual diplomacy was never really tried. N.B. a democratic Iraq would probably not be in the interests of the US anyway. Though it might be the only option if it's not possible to find a new "tame dictator" who isn't about to be hauled off to the ICC. > chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has > allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. > Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have > succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still > wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to > maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. What do you expect with "leaders" who are prepared to sit in safety whilst they order others to kill and be killed for their beliefs?

2003-03-18 19:35:00+00:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid> wrote: > The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. If someone He hardly makes any difference one way or the other as an individual. The way in which the US and British governments have shown their contempt for the rest of the planet is likely to make the world a far worst place. Which more than offsets any potential good getting rid of Hussain might have done. > told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi > government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought Actually there was never a decision one way or the other. Now that the inspection is in disarray it hardly makes any difference. > President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. > But that was then and this is now. > I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in > a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric > regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to > not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a This has been the US behaviour for the last 12 years. Actual diplomacy was never really tried. N.B. a democratic Iraq would probably not be in the interests of the US anyway. Though it might be the only option if it's not possible to find a new "tame dictator" who isn't about to be hauled off to the ICC. > chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has > allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. > Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have > succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still > wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to > maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. What do you expect with "leaders" who are prepared to sit in safety whilst they order others to kill and be killed for their beliefs?

2003-03-18 20:21:13+00:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Growltiger wrote in message ... >>The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. > The world? Iraq might be better off eventually, when the puppet > government the USA puts in office has gone, but I don't see how he makes any How long is that likely to take. That process is still ongoing in Iran. Which still isn't back to anything like the democratic government it had nearly 50 years ago. Even though they booted out their US installed tyrant over 20 years ago. > more difference to the world than any of the many dictators the USA has > funded and supported. He was regarded as a USA ally back when Iran was the > big bad threat to the USA. The US is far better at installing dictators than it is at installing democracies. Anyway the last thing a democratic Iraqi government would be would be pro either the US or Britain. (Bombing people is not a good way to make friends.) >>If someone >>told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi >>government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought >>President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. >>But that was then and this is now. > Bush's presentation was a cynical bunch of half-truths and plain lies. Is there a special course for politicans where they learn how to do this :) > He came to office with the intent of getting Hussein out of power by any Not quite any means, AFAIK the US never tried much diplomacy or even straight out bribary. > means. He has not offered one iota of proof that Iraq has nuclear or Iraq does have plenty of material to build a "dirty bomb", which was "donated" by the West in the last war. Scattered all over the country and making lots of people sick. > biological weapons or has links with terrorists targeting the USA and I see The inspectors actually said that Iraq claimed to have both produced and destroyed X amount of material for biological weapons. But they couldn't corroberate anything. Those seeking war decided to believe the first claim and disbelieve the second... Any Islamic terrorists would be more likely to target Iraq than the US. The Iraqi government is secular Arab nationlist. The likes of Bin Landen dislike secular Arab nationalism as much as the US government or the Zionists do. The only thing any of them would hate more would be a *democratic* secular Arab nationalist government. > no reason to believe his bare word: it's not as if US presidents don't lie > grossly when it suits them. More to the point the US (and British) governments have repeatedly lied about these matters. >>I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in >>a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric >>regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to >>not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a >>chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has >>allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. > Maybe because most people in the world are against this war and see > France, China and Russia as being right as opposed to a country that has > been blindly led into a war that will do nothing to make the USA safer but More likely to make the US a far more dangerous place for most of it's citizens. > will convert it into the world's biggest bully-nation. Bush wants a war and The most important thing is that no one likes a bully. Whilst they might fear a bully, the US is certainly capable of inspiring fear with its military might. Bullies themselves also run the risk that they will get "wacked" in some way and when that happens no-one will come running to their aid. > is going to get it, so opposition just flows by him. Maybe if Bush want's a war so badly he personally should take a trip to Kuwait. IIRC Bush dismissed the idea that he an Saddam could fight a duel... >>At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, >>British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the >>challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find >>themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. > Well, Bush doesn't care about them: he's a Christian and people who get > killed don't bother him. But he'll squeeze out a few tears for the cameras Not even if they are Americans as the death of Rachel Corrie shows. Interesting how some Arabs (who have every reason to dislike) show more respect and humanity towards a dead American than her own government. > at the memorial service, I bet. As for the civilians, sorry, but when you > claim to be freeing people from a dictator killing them is merely What happens to those who don't get killed, odds they end up exchanging one dictator for another. For all the US government's talk about establishing a democratic Iraq they probably arn't willing to be told "Go away and here's the bill (in Euros)for the damage you did. If we need any help with extracting oil or civil engineering we'll choose who gets the contracts." > "collateral damage" and doesn't count. As long as there are enough left to Who's going to see it, it's not like the world's "free press" will be going places the US armed forces don't want them going. > keep the oil wells running nobody cares. This war isn't about them anyway.

2003-03-18 20:21:13+00:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Growltiger wrote in message ... >>The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. > The world? Iraq might be better off eventually, when the puppet > government the USA puts in office has gone, but I don't see how he makes any How long is that likely to take. That process is still ongoing in Iran. Which still isn't back to anything like the democratic government it had nearly 50 years ago. Even though they booted out their US installed tyrant over 20 years ago. > more difference to the world than any of the many dictators the USA has > funded and supported. He was regarded as a USA ally back when Iran was the > big bad threat to the USA. The US is far better at installing dictators than it is at installing democracies. Anyway the last thing a democratic Iraqi government would be would be pro either the US or Britain. (Bombing people is not a good way to make friends.) >>If someone >>told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi >>government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought >>President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. >>But that was then and this is now. > Bush's presentation was a cynical bunch of half-truths and plain lies. Is there a special course for politicans where they learn how to do this :) > He came to office with the intent of getting Hussein out of power by any Not quite any means, AFAIK the US never tried much diplomacy or even straight out bribary. > means. He has not offered one iota of proof that Iraq has nuclear or Iraq does have plenty of material to build a "dirty bomb", which was "donated" by the West in the last war. Scattered all over the country and making lots of people sick. > biological weapons or has links with terrorists targeting the USA and I see The inspectors actually said that Iraq claimed to have both produced and destroyed X amount of material for biological weapons. But they couldn't corroberate anything. Those seeking war decided to believe the first claim and disbelieve the second... Any Islamic terrorists would be more likely to target Iraq than the US. The Iraqi government is secular Arab nationlist. The likes of Bin Landen dislike secular Arab nationalism as much as the US government or the Zionists do. The only thing any of them would hate more would be a *democratic* secular Arab nationalist government. > no reason to believe his bare word: it's not as if US presidents don't lie > grossly when it suits them. More to the point the US (and British) governments have repeatedly lied about these matters. >>I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in >>a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric >>regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to >>not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a >>chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has >>allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. > Maybe because most people in the world are against this war and see > France, China and Russia as being right as opposed to a country that has > been blindly led into a war that will do nothing to make the USA safer but More likely to make the US a far more dangerous place for most of it's citizens. > will convert it into the world's biggest bully-nation. Bush wants a war and The most important thing is that no one likes a bully. Whilst they might fear a bully, the US is certainly capable of inspiring fear with its military might. Bullies themselves also run the risk that they will get "wacked" in some way and when that happens no-one will come running to their aid. > is going to get it, so opposition just flows by him. Maybe if Bush want's a war so badly he personally should take a trip to Kuwait. IIRC Bush dismissed the idea that he an Saddam could fight a duel... >>At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, >>British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the >>challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find >>themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. > Well, Bush doesn't care about them: he's a Christian and people who get > killed don't bother him. But he'll squeeze out a few tears for the cameras Not even if they are Americans as the death of Rachel Corrie shows. Interesting how some Arabs (who have every reason to dislike) show more respect and humanity towards a dead American than her own government. > at the memorial service, I bet. As for the civilians, sorry, but when you > claim to be freeing people from a dictator killing them is merely What happens to those who don't get killed, odds they end up exchanging one dictator for another. For all the US government's talk about establishing a democratic Iraq they probably arn't willing to be told "Go away and here's the bill (in Euros)for the damage you did. If we need any help with extracting oil or civil engineering we'll choose who gets the contracts." > "collateral damage" and doesn't count. As long as there are enough left to Who's going to see it, it's not like the world's "free press" will be going places the US armed forces don't want them going. > keep the oil wells running nobody cares. This war isn't about them anyway.

2003-03-19 00:11:54-08:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Bill_ <here@there.com>)


Will the US enforce that UN resolution to kick Israel out of the occupied territory? That has much to do with recent "terrorism". Seems a fear of US is that Iraq would enforce it. Terrorism also has much to do with anti-globalization movement. Seems US is intent on ramming modernerity down everyone's throats. US should not be surprised by resistance, but not much they can do without being able to seriously challenge US at a game of MAD. Favorite news title that was quickly taken off: America Strikes Back (someone thought about Star Wars movies). Favorite slogan implied but not said: Resistance is futile. 'Course, my ancestors engaged in genocide against the indians. Don't blame indians for resisting or mine for the genocide. And with new US Manifest Destiny, am feeling even better about ancestors, though I thought game was self-determination. ================= Growltiger wrote: > > The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. If someone > told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi > government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought > President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. > But that was then and this is now. > > I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in > a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric > regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to > not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a > chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has > allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. > > Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have > succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still > wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to > maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. > > At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, > British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the > challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find > themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. God bless > and guide us all. > -- > Be seeing you, > Growltiger

2003-03-19 00:11:54-08:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Bill_ <here@there.com>)


Will the US enforce that UN resolution to kick Israel out of the occupied territory? That has much to do with recent "terrorism". Seems a fear of US is that Iraq would enforce it. Terrorism also has much to do with anti-globalization movement. Seems US is intent on ramming modernerity down everyone's throats. US should not be surprised by resistance, but not much they can do without being able to seriously challenge US at a game of MAD. Favorite news title that was quickly taken off: America Strikes Back (someone thought about Star Wars movies). Favorite slogan implied but not said: Resistance is futile. 'Course, my ancestors engaged in genocide against the indians. Don't blame indians for resisting or mine for the genocide. And with new US Manifest Destiny, am feeling even better about ancestors, though I thought game was self-determination. ================= Growltiger wrote: > > The world will be better without Sadaam Hussein in power. If someone > told me then that months after the passage of Resolution 1441 the Iraqi > government had not complied, I would not be surprised. I thought > President Bush's presentation to the UN last September was compelling. > But that was then and this is now. > > I am dismayed that between then and now American diplomacy has been, in > a word, cynical. From the moment of resolution passage the rhetoric > regarding disarmament on the part of the American government has been to > not take "yes" for an answer and to hector any efforts at giving peace a > chance. Our diplomatic efforts have been so self-serving that it has > allowed France to be perceived by some as an honest broker. > > Many Americans are so beleaguered by the build up to war that they have > succumbed to its inevitability. Although I cannot fault them, I still > wish that an appreciation for the ravages of war and the commitments to > maintaining peace in its aftermath had further steeled their nerve. > > At the eleventh hour, my prayers are for the safety of American, > British, Australian, and other allied soldiers who have risen to the > challenge set before them and for those innocent Iraqi citizens who find > themselves in harm's way. Those people deserve our support. God bless > and guide us all. > -- > Be seeing you, > Growltiger

2003-03-19 04:45:56+00:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0303181244.2d7efff1@posting.google.com>... > >Name one lie, other than the BS that he came into office with the >intent to remove Saddam. BS? The following is a quote from a news report I read today, with two comments from me. Of course, it didn't come from the White House or the Bush administration, so you won't believe it, but just for the record... I really don't know why I bother to reply to you at all, since you are so obviously one of the Bush believing hordes. Just one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - and only five days after the war in Afghanistan had begun - President Bush signaled his determination to confront Saddam Hussein next. "There's no question that the leader of Iraq is an evil man. After all, he gassed his own people. We know he's been developing weapons of mass destruction. � And so we're watching him very carefully. We're watching him carefully," Bush said in an Oct. 11, 2001, address. But the administration had its eye on Iraq long before 9/11. Even in his inaugural address, Bush � though he did not mention Iraq by name � sounded the themes that underlie his policy today. "We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom." Those words reflected a tough, hawkish line on Iraq that has dominated administration debates from the beginning. Bush has stocked his administration with senior officials who have for years supported the United States toppling Saddam, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and others. These officials have expressed their views in no uncertain terms. "Saddam Hussein is a liar. He lies every single day," Rumsfeld said. A Personal Vendetta? Some Americans have wondered whether the president's determination to take on Saddam is a personal obsession � one born in the aftermath of the Gulf War his father launched, when Saddam was left in power. And last fall, in Texas, this president seemed to confirm the personal nature of this conflict. "There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said. "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time." Well, a whole bunch of Germans tried to kill my mother and father, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews: the whole family. They succeeded in killing three, plus the guy my mother was dating before she met my father, so maybe I'm not so much against Germany at that. I never thought that an invasion was the answer, but then Germany wouldn't ever have given any rich friends of mine a massive oil reserve to control. But while opponents of Bush say he's simply out for revenge, others say it's not that simple. "I think if it had been a family obsession, you know, if he was Captain Ahab and Saddam Hussein was the great white whale � we would have heard a lot more of this early on, and we just didn't," said Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Priorities Changed After 9/11 While the president did come into office looking at ways to increase pressure on Iraq to disarm, he was not, officials say, determined to go to war. Of course, these are officials who owe their office to Bush: hardly unbiased. "I think regime change was in his mind. I don't think it was number one. I think 'No Child Left Behind' was number one," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. "But events of the day, again, change things very dramatically." Those events, the 9/11 attacks, radically altered Bush's sense of the urgency to take on a regime he saw as a potential arsenal for terrorism. "My vision shifted dramatically after September the 11th, because I now realize the stakes," Bush said following a January meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I realize the world has changed. My most important obligation is to protect the American people from further harm. And I will do that." But many Americans � and many allies � say the administration has used the fear of terrorism as cover to achieve their goal of regime change in Iraq. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "The Bush administration was wrong to allow the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by using it to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism." And the collapse of diplomatic efforts at the United Nations has other critics charging that Bush's relentlessness on Iraq has alienated key allies. To all these criticisms, however, the president has always had one response: The threat he believes Saddam's Iraq poses must be confronted � now. In October, Bush spoke resolutely on Iraq. "The course of action may bring many sacrifices. Yet delay, indecision and inaction could lead to a massive and sudden horror. By timely and resolute action, we can defend ourselves and shape a peaceful future," the president said.

2003-03-19 04:45:56+00:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0303181244.2d7efff1@posting.google.com>... > >Name one lie, other than the BS that he came into office with the >intent to remove Saddam. BS? The following is a quote from a news report I read today, with two comments from me. Of course, it didn't come from the White House or the Bush administration, so you won't believe it, but just for the record... I really don't know why I bother to reply to you at all, since you are so obviously one of the Bush believing hordes. Just one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - and only five days after the war in Afghanistan had begun - President Bush signaled his determination to confront Saddam Hussein next. "There's no question that the leader of Iraq is an evil man. After all, he gassed his own people. We know he's been developing weapons of mass destruction. � And so we're watching him very carefully. We're watching him carefully," Bush said in an Oct. 11, 2001, address. But the administration had its eye on Iraq long before 9/11. Even in his inaugural address, Bush � though he did not mention Iraq by name � sounded the themes that underlie his policy today. "We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom." Those words reflected a tough, hawkish line on Iraq that has dominated administration debates from the beginning. Bush has stocked his administration with senior officials who have for years supported the United States toppling Saddam, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and others. These officials have expressed their views in no uncertain terms. "Saddam Hussein is a liar. He lies every single day," Rumsfeld said. A Personal Vendetta? Some Americans have wondered whether the president's determination to take on Saddam is a personal obsession � one born in the aftermath of the Gulf War his father launched, when Saddam was left in power. And last fall, in Texas, this president seemed to confirm the personal nature of this conflict. "There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said. "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time." Well, a whole bunch of Germans tried to kill my mother and father, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews: the whole family. They succeeded in killing three, plus the guy my mother was dating before she met my father, so maybe I'm not so much against Germany at that. I never thought that an invasion was the answer, but then Germany wouldn't ever have given any rich friends of mine a massive oil reserve to control. But while opponents of Bush say he's simply out for revenge, others say it's not that simple. "I think if it had been a family obsession, you know, if he was Captain Ahab and Saddam Hussein was the great white whale � we would have heard a lot more of this early on, and we just didn't," said Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Priorities Changed After 9/11 While the president did come into office looking at ways to increase pressure on Iraq to disarm, he was not, officials say, determined to go to war. Of course, these are officials who owe their office to Bush: hardly unbiased. "I think regime change was in his mind. I don't think it was number one. I think 'No Child Left Behind' was number one," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. "But events of the day, again, change things very dramatically." Those events, the 9/11 attacks, radically altered Bush's sense of the urgency to take on a regime he saw as a potential arsenal for terrorism. "My vision shifted dramatically after September the 11th, because I now realize the stakes," Bush said following a January meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I realize the world has changed. My most important obligation is to protect the American people from further harm. And I will do that." But many Americans � and many allies � say the administration has used the fear of terrorism as cover to achieve their goal of regime change in Iraq. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "The Bush administration was wrong to allow the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by using it to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism." And the collapse of diplomatic efforts at the United Nations has other critics charging that Bush's relentlessness on Iraq has alienated key allies. To all these criticisms, however, the president has always had one response: The threat he believes Saddam's Iraq poses must be confronted � now. In October, Bush spoke resolutely on Iraq. "The course of action may bring many sacrifices. Yet delay, indecision and inaction could lead to a massive and sudden horror. By timely and resolute action, we can defend ourselves and shape a peaceful future," the president said.

2003-03-19 12:23:23-05:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


Bill_ <here@there.com> wrote: > Will the US enforce that UN resolution to kick > Israel out of the occupied territory? That has > much to do with recent "terrorism". Seems a > fear of US is that Iraq would enforce it. > Terrorism also has much to do with anti-globalization > movement. Seems US is intent on ramming modernerity > down everyone's throats. US should not be surprised > by resistance, but not much they can do without > being able to seriously challenge US at a game of MAD. I think it has become clear that the US government will enforce what is in their best interest only, and the UN has become irrelevant *not* because of its stance on Iraq, but because the US gov doesn't give a damn about any opinion contradicting their own and has turned the clock back to the "every country for itself" days. Bush said it clearly, "You're either with us, or against us". -- Roger Morris (author of a Nixon biography) wrote in The Times: "Forty years ago, the C.I.A., under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein."

2003-03-19 12:23:23-05:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


Bill_ <here@there.com> wrote: > Will the US enforce that UN resolution to kick > Israel out of the occupied territory? That has > much to do with recent "terrorism". Seems a > fear of US is that Iraq would enforce it. > Terrorism also has much to do with anti-globalization > movement. Seems US is intent on ramming modernerity > down everyone's throats. US should not be surprised > by resistance, but not much they can do without > being able to seriously challenge US at a game of MAD. I think it has become clear that the US government will enforce what is in their best interest only, and the UN has become irrelevant *not* because of its stance on Iraq, but because the US gov doesn't give a damn about any opinion contradicting their own and has turned the clock back to the "every country for itself" days. Bush said it clearly, "You're either with us, or against us". -- Roger Morris (author of a Nixon biography) wrote in The Times: "Forty years ago, the C.I.A., under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein."

2003-03-20 09:25:33-08:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<8CSda.16746$S%3.928645@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0303181244.2d7efff1@posting.google.com>... > > > >Name one lie, other than the BS that he came into office with the > >intent to remove Saddam. > > BS? The following is a quote from a news report I read today, with two > comments from me. Of course, it didn't come from the White House or the > Bush administration, so you won't believe it, but just for the record... > I really don't know why I bother to reply to you at all, since you are > so obviously one of the Bush believing hordes. I'm a conservative, an army of one. We don't make up into groups worth a damn. You want hordes of mindless myrmidons ? Just take a look at the next "Peace" rally. Those people form into hordes more readily than lemmings. > Just one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - and only five > days after the war in Afghanistan had begun - President Bush signaled his > determination to confront Saddam Hussein next. > "There's no question that the leader of Iraq is an evil man. After all, he > gassed his own people. We know he's been developing weapons of mass > destruction. ? And so we're watching him very carefully. We're watching him > carefully," Bush said in an Oct. 11, 2001, address. Do you mean to say that Saddam is not evil ? That he does not merit watching very closely ? 9-11 demonstrated terrorist willingness to take the attack to the US mainland. Any possible source of WMD's for those terrorists needed to be dealt with. Or we could all just stick our heads in the sand and hope that the bad men leave us alone... > But the administration had its eye on Iraq long before 9/11. > > Even in his inaugural address, Bush ? though he did not mention Iraq by > name ? sounded the themes that underlie his policy today. "We will confront > weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. > The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America > remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of > power that favors freedom." > > Those words reflected a tough, hawkish line on Iraq that has dominated > administration debates from the beginning. Dear God, NO !!! Not a tough hawkish administration engaged in the world, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We would much rather have a wimpy peace loving administration that ignores the world, letting the balance of power slip into despotism and tyranny. Pay no attention to the little man torturing and killing his people, nothing to see here, just give peace a chance. > Bush has stocked his administration with senior officials who have for years > supported the United States toppling Saddam, including Vice President Dick > Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul > Wolfowitz, and others. > These officials have expressed their views in no uncertain terms. "Saddam > Hussein is a liar. He lies every single day," Rumsfeld said. Being factual is a valid defense. Saddam is in fact a liar, and does in fact lie basically every day of his life. Stating the truth does not a personal vendetta make. Some rough things were said of Hitler a while ago, but that does not mean that our leaders had personal grudges against him. > A Personal Vendetta? > > Some Americans have wondered whether the president's determination to take > on Saddam is a personal obsession ? one born in the aftermath of the Gulf > War his father launched, when Saddam was left in power. And last fall, in > Texas, this president seemed to confirm the personal nature of this > conflict. > > "There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said. "There's > no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my > dad at one time." > > Well, a whole bunch of Germans tried to kill my mother and father, > uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews: the whole family. They succeeded in > killing three, plus the guy my mother was dating before she met my father, > so maybe I'm not so much against Germany at that. I never thought that an > invasion was the answer, but then Germany wouldn't ever have given any rich > friends of mine a massive oil reserve to control. The interesting part is the fact that his father was THE PRESIDENT OF THE US at the time. Trying to assasinate the POTUS is a very arrogant way of asking the us to remove you and yours from the map permanently. Strange thing though, an invasion did in fact stop Germany from trying to kill our families. Hitler did not cease fighting due to mobs of UN inspectors, it took masses of men with guns to force them to behave. Had we waited a few more years, had we given peace a chance for just a while longer, he would have developed Nuclear weapons, and all of us just might be typing in Deutch right now. > But while opponents of Bush say he's simply out for revenge, others say it's > not that simple. > > "I think if it had been a family obsession, you know, if he was Captain Ahab > and Saddam Hussein was the great white whale ? we would have heard a lot > more of this early on, and we just didn't," said Walter Russell Mead, a > senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. > > Priorities Changed After 9/11 > > While the president did come into office looking at ways to increase > pressure on Iraq to disarm, he was not, officials say, determined to go to > war. > > Of course, these are officials who owe their office to Bush: hardly > unbiased. > > "I think regime change was in his mind. I don't think it was number one. I > think 'No Child Left Behind' was number one," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. > "But events of the day, again, change things very dramatically." Those > events, the 9/11 attacks, radically altered Bush's sense of the urgency to > take on a regime he saw as a potential arsenal for terrorism. > > "My vision shifted dramatically after September the 11th, because I now > realize the stakes," Bush said following a January meeting with British > Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I realize the world has changed. My most > important obligation is to protect the American people from further harm. > And I will do that." > > But many Americans ? and many allies ? say the administration has used the > fear of terrorism as cover to achieve their goal of regime change in Iraq. > > Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "The Bush administration was wrong to allow > the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by using it > to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism." Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass is a strongly partisan political hack, who is trying to make hay in an atmosphere where hay making is not viable. President Bush has taken great pains to make it clear the Iraq was not directly involved in 9-11, but would be more than willing to aid in future efforts on the part of Muslim terrorists. > And the collapse of diplomatic efforts at the United Nations has other > critics charging that Bush's relentlessness on Iraq has alienated key > allies. Such as ? France ceased to be a close ally of the US decades ago. They opted out of NATO, then bought back in when the cold war was over and the US had made it safe for them to do so, they denied US forces access to their airspace when we bombed Libya for supporting terrorism, they provided Iraq with a working Nuclear reactor, and now they actively work to undermine the US when we try to remove a murdering, raping, torturing despot whom they happen to do tens of billions of dollars of trade with. Fuque them. > To all these criticisms, however, the president has always had one response: > The threat he believes Saddam's Iraq poses must be confronted ? now. > > In October, Bush spoke resolutely on Iraq. "The course of action may bring > many sacrifices. Yet delay, indecision and inaction could lead to a massive > and sudden horror. By timely and resolute action, we can defend ourselves > and shape a peaceful future," the president said. I have some quotes of my own for you: I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country. This may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal. Senator Tom Daschle To those who would doubt the necessity of the actions by the president, one should pose the question as to what the consequences would be in the face of American inaction. First, clearly, no other country would take the lead. The signature of the current era is such that response to aggression will not be taken up by other powers in the absence of American leadership, unfortunately. This was the case in the invasion of Kuwait. It was the case in Bosnia when, after several years of Western inaction in the face of ethnic atrocities in Bosnia, only the United States, only the United States, could bring about a credible, effective implementation of peace in that sorry part of Europe. . . . It is American leadership which is decisive to the peace in these regions, and I commend President Clinton for his decisive action. It was necessary to weaken the Iraqi leader's ability to intimidate his neighbors, and to make it clear that he will pay a price for his aggression. Senator Robert Byrd "None of us knows why Saddam decided to test us now," Kerry said. "But if the history of the last six years has taught us anything, it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he brandishes power in a manner that threatens our interests or violates internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to respond--and with force if necessary." [emphasis added] Such force, Kerry went on, might well be used unilaterally: "The United States under President Bush and then President Clinton, led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies in the region are constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not." Senator John Kerry All of these people are completely support war. Make that supported war. Back during the Clinton presidency when it made political sense for them to support him. Now they are parroting much the same points you made above. The "peace" and "anti-war" movements are not so much concerned with peace and opposition of war as with hating Bush and envying America.

2003-03-20 09:25:33-08:00 - Re: The Eleventh Hour [Off-Topic] - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<8CSda.16746$S%3.928645@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0303181244.2d7efff1@posting.google.com>... > > > >Name one lie, other than the BS that he came into office with the > >intent to remove Saddam. > > BS? The following is a quote from a news report I read today, with two > comments from me. Of course, it didn't come from the White House or the > Bush administration, so you won't believe it, but just for the record... > I really don't know why I bother to reply to you at all, since you are > so obviously one of the Bush believing hordes. I'm a conservative, an army of one. We don't make up into groups worth a damn. You want hordes of mindless myrmidons ? Just take a look at the next "Peace" rally. Those people form into hordes more readily than lemmings. > Just one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - and only five > days after the war in Afghanistan had begun - President Bush signaled his > determination to confront Saddam Hussein next. > "There's no question that the leader of Iraq is an evil man. After all, he > gassed his own people. We know he's been developing weapons of mass > destruction. ? And so we're watching him very carefully. We're watching him > carefully," Bush said in an Oct. 11, 2001, address. Do you mean to say that Saddam is not evil ? That he does not merit watching very closely ? 9-11 demonstrated terrorist willingness to take the attack to the US mainland. Any possible source of WMD's for those terrorists needed to be dealt with. Or we could all just stick our heads in the sand and hope that the bad men leave us alone... > But the administration had its eye on Iraq long before 9/11. > > Even in his inaugural address, Bush ? though he did not mention Iraq by > name ? sounded the themes that underlie his policy today. "We will confront > weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. > The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America > remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of > power that favors freedom." > > Those words reflected a tough, hawkish line on Iraq that has dominated > administration debates from the beginning. Dear God, NO !!! Not a tough hawkish administration engaged in the world, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We would much rather have a wimpy peace loving administration that ignores the world, letting the balance of power slip into despotism and tyranny. Pay no attention to the little man torturing and killing his people, nothing to see here, just give peace a chance. > Bush has stocked his administration with senior officials who have for years > supported the United States toppling Saddam, including Vice President Dick > Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul > Wolfowitz, and others. > These officials have expressed their views in no uncertain terms. "Saddam > Hussein is a liar. He lies every single day," Rumsfeld said. Being factual is a valid defense. Saddam is in fact a liar, and does in fact lie basically every day of his life. Stating the truth does not a personal vendetta make. Some rough things were said of Hitler a while ago, but that does not mean that our leaders had personal grudges against him. > A Personal Vendetta? > > Some Americans have wondered whether the president's determination to take > on Saddam is a personal obsession ? one born in the aftermath of the Gulf > War his father launched, when Saddam was left in power. And last fall, in > Texas, this president seemed to confirm the personal nature of this > conflict. > > "There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said. "There's > no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my > dad at one time." > > Well, a whole bunch of Germans tried to kill my mother and father, > uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews: the whole family. They succeeded in > killing three, plus the guy my mother was dating before she met my father, > so maybe I'm not so much against Germany at that. I never thought that an > invasion was the answer, but then Germany wouldn't ever have given any rich > friends of mine a massive oil reserve to control. The interesting part is the fact that his father was THE PRESIDENT OF THE US at the time. Trying to assasinate the POTUS is a very arrogant way of asking the us to remove you and yours from the map permanently. Strange thing though, an invasion did in fact stop Germany from trying to kill our families. Hitler did not cease fighting due to mobs of UN inspectors, it took masses of men with guns to force them to behave. Had we waited a few more years, had we given peace a chance for just a while longer, he would have developed Nuclear weapons, and all of us just might be typing in Deutch right now. > But while opponents of Bush say he's simply out for revenge, others say it's > not that simple. > > "I think if it had been a family obsession, you know, if he was Captain Ahab > and Saddam Hussein was the great white whale ? we would have heard a lot > more of this early on, and we just didn't," said Walter Russell Mead, a > senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. > > Priorities Changed After 9/11 > > While the president did come into office looking at ways to increase > pressure on Iraq to disarm, he was not, officials say, determined to go to > war. > > Of course, these are officials who owe their office to Bush: hardly > unbiased. > > "I think regime change was in his mind. I don't think it was number one. I > think 'No Child Left Behind' was number one," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. > "But events of the day, again, change things very dramatically." Those > events, the 9/11 attacks, radically altered Bush's sense of the urgency to > take on a regime he saw as a potential arsenal for terrorism. > > "My vision shifted dramatically after September the 11th, because I now > realize the stakes," Bush said following a January meeting with British > Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I realize the world has changed. My most > important obligation is to protect the American people from further harm. > And I will do that." > > But many Americans ? and many allies ? say the administration has used the > fear of terrorism as cover to achieve their goal of regime change in Iraq. > > Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "The Bush administration was wrong to allow > the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by using it > to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism." Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass is a strongly partisan political hack, who is trying to make hay in an atmosphere where hay making is not viable. President Bush has taken great pains to make it clear the Iraq was not directly involved in 9-11, but would be more than willing to aid in future efforts on the part of Muslim terrorists. > And the collapse of diplomatic efforts at the United Nations has other > critics charging that Bush's relentlessness on Iraq has alienated key > allies. Such as ? France ceased to be a close ally of the US decades ago. They opted out of NATO, then bought back in when the cold war was over and the US had made it safe for them to do so, they denied US forces access to their airspace when we bombed Libya for supporting terrorism, they provided Iraq with a working Nuclear reactor, and now they actively work to undermine the US when we try to remove a murdering, raping, torturing despot whom they happen to do tens of billions of dollars of trade with. Fuque them. > To all these criticisms, however, the president has always had one response: > The threat he believes Saddam's Iraq poses must be confronted ? now. > > In October, Bush spoke resolutely on Iraq. "The course of action may bring > many sacrifices. Yet delay, indecision and inaction could lead to a massive > and sudden horror. By timely and resolute action, we can defend ourselves > and shape a peaceful future," the president said. I have some quotes of my own for you: I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country. This may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal. Senator Tom Daschle To those who would doubt the necessity of the actions by the president, one should pose the question as to what the consequences would be in the face of American inaction. First, clearly, no other country would take the lead. The signature of the current era is such that response to aggression will not be taken up by other powers in the absence of American leadership, unfortunately. This was the case in the invasion of Kuwait. It was the case in Bosnia when, after several years of Western inaction in the face of ethnic atrocities in Bosnia, only the United States, only the United States, could bring about a credible, effective implementation of peace in that sorry part of Europe. . . . It is American leadership which is decisive to the peace in these regions, and I commend President Clinton for his decisive action. It was necessary to weaken the Iraqi leader's ability to intimidate his neighbors, and to make it clear that he will pay a price for his aggression. Senator Robert Byrd "None of us knows why Saddam decided to test us now," Kerry said. "But if the history of the last six years has taught us anything, it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he brandishes power in a manner that threatens our interests or violates internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to respond--and with force if necessary." [emphasis added] Such force, Kerry went on, might well be used unilaterally: "The United States under President Bush and then President Clinton, led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies in the region are constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not." Senator John Kerry All of these people are completely support war. Make that supported war. Back during the Clinton presidency when it made political sense for them to support him. Now they are parroting much the same points you made above. The "peace" and "anti-war" movements are not so much concerned with peace and opposition of war as with hating Bush and envying America.