[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
Load of nonsense and lies from couch potato politicians and anal-ysists.

blah blah blah

thank you mr. palast, for your input.

[Gene Jockey]

You people are all on the wrong track! I read in a respected newspaper that the government is run by a Zionist conspiracy bent on world government! It's true, anyone who refuses to believe is a liar and couch-potato politician who knows nothing!

Wake up people, the Zionist cabal is going to take control via the UN and kill all the brown skins! That explains Bush's speech at the UN, it's all a ploy for the US and Bush (the Zionist puppet) to take control of the UN and invade Iraq so that Israel can control the gulf and enslave the Arabs! You heard it here first, folks! When the blue helmets comes knocking on your door, demanding to take away your gun, you'll be ready if you listen to me!

--El Jo$h

[edit: added exclamation point]

[DrSpookles]

Originally posted by daimoni:


Bwoop! Bwoop! We have a winner... for the idiotic post of the day!

Do you care to say why it's idiotic?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by DrSpookles:


Do you care to say why it's idiotic?

Because it's stupid to blame Nader for Gore's incompetence. Gore is guilty of the biggest Political Hairball Choke of All Time. Gore lost his own home state.

As for Sadaam, it's a shrewd move. Already they are claiming that they have defused the Bush-War argument. That's the whole point. Now the administration is stuck between the public's honest concern over WMD and it's own rhetoric about "regime change."

If Bush has just been playing Good Cop/Bad Cop (with the UN as "good" cop) then he deserves a TON of credit for moving this thing forward without reducing Bagdad to rubble and without putting American troops in jeopardy. It will be the only good thing he's done, and maybe the best thing done by a Pres on the Foreign Front for quite some time. I hate the guy, but i'll buy him a drink if he pulls this off.

If Bush is really about war for his own reasons (oil, daddy, whatever you want to imagine it is cuz we don't know) like many of us have wondered and worried, then he gets exposed as a warmonger if he pushes for invasion despite Iraqi UN compliance.

It should be noted that saying Inspectors are allowed is not the same as an effective regime of inspections that alleviate our collective concerns about WMD. Sadam is stalling, but he's moving to where we want him so it's a good thing.

Now it's Bush turn to show whether this is actually about WMD or about something else. I hope for the former (even if it makes Bush a hero) and fear the latter.

[DrSpookles]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Because it's stupid to blame Nader for Gore's incompetence. Gore is guilty of the biggest Political Hairball Choke of All Time. Gore lost his own home state.

If you read back in the post list, you'll see that I was replying to rampant's discussion of how our voting system can easily lead to an unpopular present with more than two parties.

The pint of the post was the fact that Nader got a good percentage of the vote which did indeed contribute to Bush winning the election.

It's not stupid, and it's not idiotic. Enough said.

Wait, one more thing -- I think that to be honest we are stuck with the LESSER of two evils right now in the White House. While Bush may be a bumbler, at least he does not exhibit grade-schoolish behavior.

(edited because of a stray 'b' in the quote)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by DrSpookles:


If you read back in the post list, you'll see that I was replying to rampant's discussion of how our voting system can easily lead to an unpopular present with more than two parties.

The pint of the post was the fact that Nader got a good percentage of the vote which did indeed contribute to Bush winning the election.

It's not stupid, and it's not idiotic. Enough said.

Wait, one more thing -- I think that to be honest we are stuck with the LESSER of two evils right now in the White House. While Bush may be a bumbler, at least he does not exhibit grade-schoolish behavior.

(edited because of a stray 'b' in the quote)

Point taken and agreed with. I'll admit to a negative reaction to the "Blame Nader" game because I really don't think Gore can blame anyone but himself for sucking so horribly. And I'm tired of people complaining about the evils of the 2-party system but refusing to put their vote where their mouth is and criticizing people for actually voting 3rd party.

That said. Instant Runoff Voting is the best possible solution to our problem. It sounds to me like this is what you're referring to and I could kiss you deeply and longish for bringing it up. IRV, baby

[driven]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Point taken and agreed with. I'll admit to a negative reaction to the "Blame Nader" game because I really don't think Gore can blame anyone but himself for sucking so horribly. And I'm tired of people complaining about the evils of the 2-party system but refusing to put their vote where their mouth is and criticizing people for actually voting 3rd party.

That said. Instant Runoff Voting is the best possible solution to our problem. It sounds to me like this is what you're referring to and I could kiss you deeply and longish for bringing it up. IRV, baby

Now that both sides have been burned by 3rd parties (The Republicans got burned by Perot at least once, arguably twice. The dems got burned by Nader, and both sides got burned by Ventura) perhaps a runoff will get serious consideration. It would be nice.

[daimoni]

.

[ink]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:
You people are all on the wrong track! I read in a respected newspaper that the government is run by a Zionist conspiracy bent on world government! It's true, anyone who refuses to believe is a liar and couch-potato politician who knows nothing!

Wake up people, the Zionist cabal is going to take control via the UN and kill all the brown skins! That explains Bush's speech at the UN, it's all a ploy for the US and Bush (the Zionist puppet) to take control of the UN and invade Iraq so that Israel can control the gulf and enslave the Arabs! You heard it here first, folks! When the blue helmets comes knocking on your door, demanding to take away your gun, you'll be ready if you listen to me!

--El Jo$h

Shhhh! You're revealing El $ecreto! How can our Evil Genius come to fruition when people keep emparting the forbidden knowledge on MacNN forums?

We must stop the spread of Christianity, Walmart and McDonald's at all costs!!! Our people must not be tempted by the evil french fries, the satanic yellow smily and that Freak who forgives everyone!!!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by driven:



Now that both sides have been burned by 3rd parties (The Republicans got burned by Perot at least once, arguably twice. The dems got burned by Nader, and both sides got burned by Ventura) perhaps a runoff will get serious consideration. It would be nice.

It's happening at the state level. Quick fact:

IRV was invented in the United States in the 1870's by a professor at MIT. It is used in Ireland to elect their president and other officials, in Australia to elect their House of Representatives, in London, UK for Mayor and in America to elect the president of the American Political Science Association. It was also used in several U.S. states for partisan primaries in the 1910's and 1920's and in the 1970's in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It is being heavily considered for use in Vermont, Alaska, New Mexico and in some local elections in Washington and California. To learn more about these state efforts, click here.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ink:

We must stop the spread of Christianity, Walmart and McDonald's at all costs!!! Our people must not be tempted by the evil french fries, the satanic yellow smily and that Freak who forgives everyone!!!

I know this is said in jest, but it sounds wonderful anyway

[driven]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


It's happening at the state level. Quick fact:

We actually do this to some extent here in Georgia.

I'd like to see it in our national elections as well.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by ink:


Shhhh! You're revealing El $ecreto! How can our Evil Genius come to fruition when people keep emparting the forbidden knowledge on MacNN forums?

We must stop the spread of Christianity, Walmart and McDonald's at all costs!!! Our people must not be tempted by the evil french fries, the satanic yellow smily and that Freak who forgives everyone!!!

Bah! I defy the rules! I am not alone, take this brave hero who risked death to tell the truth about the evil Zionists!

http://www.mediamonitors.net/ingridarimland1.html

With a motto like "...where truth prevails", how can this site be wrong?!

--El Jo$h!

[typoon]

I'll believe it when I see it happen. Until then Talk is CHEAP. This allows Saddam to delay at least for a few more months

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by typoon:
I'll believe it when I see it happen. Until then Talk is CHEAP. This allows Saddam to delay at least for a few more months

Not really. Hans Blix says his team can be there in days and the International Atomic Energy Agency says it can resume it's work tomorrow.

Depending on what happens at the Security Council today, it could mean a very speedy resumption of compliance.

The biggest threat to a speedy resumption is if the US insists on NEW resolutions (it's already said so today). Iraq already submitted, the UN gets to give the green light to the agencies. The wheels are in motion, let's hope no one screws this up.

Remember, this is about WMD (or should be).

[typoon]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Not really. Hans Blix says his team can be there in days and the International Atomic Energy Agency says it can resume it's work tomorrow.

Depending on what happens at the Security Council today, it could mean a very speedy resumption of compliance.

The biggest threat to a speedy resumption is if the US insists on NEW resolutions (it's already said so today). Iraq already submitted, the UN gets to give the green light to the agencies. The wheels are in motion, let's hope no one screws this up.

Remember, this is about WMD (or should be).

Either way I'll believe it when I see it.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Either way I'll believe it when I see it.

"Iraq is building and hiding weapons of mass destruction"

I'll believe that when I see it. Try not to be selectively skeptical.

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:

Wake up people, the Zionist cabal is going to take control via the UN and kill all the brown skins! That explains Bush's speech at the UN, it's all a ploy for the US and Bush (the Zionist puppet) to take control of the UN and invade Iraq so that Israel can control the gulf and enslave the Arabs!
--El Jo$h

[edit: added exclamation point]

****ing bastard moron. The real Zionist movement has been a Christian movement since the First Crusade, all three Reichs and the current GOP party attitude. It has next to nothing to do with Jews or the Jewish need for a cultural homeland. What you described above it a loony conspiracy theory.

You want real GOP Zionist ideology? OK, let's go to a GOP website such as gopusa.com. Surely it can't be a conspiracy theory site! It's GOP opinions and ideology in black and white! Let's have some quotes!

http://www.gopusa.com/caroldevinemolin/cdm_0527.shtml

'The good news is that a huge harvesting of Christian souls will occur during the Tribulation. The Bible tells us that 144,00 Jewish (Jews for Jesus) Evangelists will continue to make Christian converts during this timeframe. '

Quite literally, GOP religious hardliners belief that the Bible prophecies Israel being attacked by Arab nations and Russia (the Bible apparently is open to such wide interpretation). These attacks are called 'The time of tribulation' and are needed to happen in order for Christ to return. Ahem.

Their thinking is that if they can somehow manipulate US foreign policy into aggravating Arabs and other 'evil nations' into attacking Israel that it is doing 'God's Work'. You see, they think that making prophecy come true is not a bad thing because God wants it.

Are they insane? Yes. What is the solution? Israel and Arab states should tell Bush and those type of people to go **** their mother's in their asses. Then they should endeavor to create a new Western Asia, expanding into Africa and the rest of Asia. They should unite as brothers, form a single nation of Israel and Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital. They should keep all the oil for their own modernisation programs in order to fund development and education. It's time the West stopped stealing from other nations and manipulating the politics in poor nations by the barrel of the gun.

Civilisation will return to those who started it and they will have to learn from the mistakes that the American and European empires commited for the last 2000 plus years.

[xi_hyperon]

That's the spirit Kelly, keep calling everyone names. Aside from such displays of intellectual prowess and debating skills, you can get yourself banned again.

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
That's the spirit Kelly, keep calling everyone names. Aside from such displays of intellectual prowess and debating skills, you can get yourself banned again.

Listen mate. When people get hit by a serious fact that should not be forgotten the best way some can divert it or bury it is by slapping an insane conspiracy theory. sometimes a racist one, on top of it. It's right there on a GOP website and its open knowledge that secular Israeli groups have been openly criticising the Christian Right's influence on US Foreign Policy and how it has always interfered with the peace process. It's not just Islamic terrorism that Israelis have as a burden on them but dumbass Goyim sticking their unwanted noses into a place they don't belong.

For an example of war on terrorism, Israel had to deport many American Christians before the Millennium celebrations because they were planning a spate of bombings which they intended to blame on Muslims. They thought the following violence would make Jesus come back exactly at January 1st 0.00 AM.

[xi_hyperon]

Actually I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, simply pointing out that name-calling doesn't exactly endear people to listen to you. But you know that, or you should, as it's been pointed out before. Chill on the moron bast*rd stuff for awhile, how's about it?

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Actually I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, simply pointing out that name-calling doesn't exactly endear people to listen to you. But you know that, or you should, as it's been pointed out before. Chill on the moron bast*rd stuff for awhile, how's about it?

You've got to express your anger when two people slap accusations and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory on top of a serious issue, especially if you're a Jew.

[ink]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:


http://www.gopusa.com/caroldevinemolin/cdm_0527.shtml

'The good news is that a huge harvesting of Christian souls will occur during the Tribulation. The Bible tells us that 144,00 Jewish (Jews for Jesus) Evangelists will continue to make Christian converts during this timeframe. '

Quite literally, GOP religious hardliners belief that the Bible prophecies Israel being attacked by Arab nations and Russia (the Bible apparently is open to such wide interpretation). These attacks are called 'The time of tribulation' and are needed to happen in order for Christ to return. Ahem.

Their thinking is that if they can somehow manipulate US foreign policy into aggravating Arabs and other 'evil nations' into attacking Israel that it is doing 'God's Work'. You see, they think that making prophecy come true is not a bad thing because God wants it.

She never says that, and she contradicts you later on in her insane (yes, insane) article:

"Clearly, Israel is the linchpin in End Time prophecy. ... blah blah biblical time blah snip snip ... First Battle -- Russia and the Arab Federation will launch a sneak attack on Israel midway through the Tribulation period. Russia, identified as Gog and Magog in the Bible, will be joined by an Arab/Mid-East coalition including Egypt, Iran/Iraq (Persia), Syria (King of the North), Ethiopia, Libya, Jordan (Amman) and the Palestinians (Philistines). At that time, Israel is under the auspices and protection of the Antichrist pursuant to the 7-year peace agreement brokered by the European Community."

So, the EU is going to have to start this process with a 7-year peace agreement (!!!) which will be broken by a "sneak attack" of Russia and the "Arabic Nations" on Israel.

I fail to see the US involved in any of that, and, as insane as it is, it having any bearing on whether or not we're being "tricked" into attempting to rid the world of a mad dictator. What you should be careful of, though, is that the GOP may attempt to fashion a 7-year peace accord... That would be scary indeed! But not as scary as the second war:

"Second Battle -- The rag-tag remnant of the Russian military comes down from Siberia and joins with the 200 million troops from the "Kings of the East" (China) that moves across the Euphrates River. This Russian-Sino coalition is forged for the purpose of attacking Israel. There are clear indications that nuclear warfare is involved, resulting in overwhelming causalities as one-third of the world's population is obliterated. And, of course, the Antichrist conducts another winning campaign against his adversaries."

Hmm. China and Russia joining forces (eg, billions of people) to instigate a battle with Israel (barely millions of people). Interesting, This article completely destroys your premise that an American agression will provide the catalyst for the second war as well. Well, the third must be the charm then:

"Third Battle - By now, the population of the earth has been largely decimated. The entire remaining forces on earth, under the wicked and rebellious Antichrist, will challenge Jesus Christ and Israel in this final battle that takes place at Har-Megeddo, or the hill of Megiddo, about ten miles south of Nazareth. Christ is indeed the Messiah for whom the Jews have awaited. As indicated in Revelation 19:11"

Hmm, another battle started by people attacking Israel (Jesus, the King Boss is here now!). Nope. No GW Bush or Chenney or Blairs there. Hmmm. I fail to see any insane evidence for your insane assertions here either.

Thanks for making me read that piece of work...

Are they insane? Yes. What is the solution? Israel and Arab states should tell Bush and those type of people to go **** their mother's in their asses. Then they should endeavor to create a new Western Asia, expanding into Africa and the rest of Asia. They should unite as brothers, form a single nation of Israel and Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital. They should keep all the oil for their own modernisation programs in order to fund development and education. It's time the West stopped stealing from other nations and manipulating the politics in poor nations by the barrel of the gun.

Civilisation will return to those who started it and they will have to learn from the mistakes that the American and European empires commited for the last 2000 plus years.

Oh yes, because we all know that ill will is engendered only in the free states of the world... The future is all full of dicators with petty dress codes for the inferior sex.

[El Pre$idente]

That site, gopusa.com, has several End Times articles, all of which claim that the EU is the 'Beast 666' and that the US is a nice little innocent bystander. Even more hypocritically they claim that Europeans will be microchipped by Mr. Beast even though the microchip product they mention, Verichip, is an American product.

Roll on hypocrisy and stupidity. And your slur against female's dress code in the middle east was partially racist (love the word I admit). Read Corinthians 11 to understand how Nabatean Christians passed on their 'lets cover women up' beliefs to the rest of the Arab world. It's something that occured in Europe too before the Enlightenment and still to this day in Catholic and eastern European countries many girls cover their head. Hassidic Jewish women are also covered, they were wigs to cover their real hair.

If the majority of the Christian and Jewish world modernised and left those practises behind then the Arabs too will do the same in Saudi Arabia et al. In Egypt or Lebanon the head covering is no more in use than Sicily or Greece for example. On Arab TV stations like Al-Jazeera women look perfectly modern, some of them far more attractive and intelligent than those big earring no brainers on CNN.

But to what extent does women's lib maintain any real meaning? Should Arabs allow western porn publishers to invade the middle east and entice hard up women to bare their poosies? Would you allow your daughter to?

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:


You've got to express your anger when two people slap accusations and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory on top of a serious issue, especially if you're a Jew.

I do it to show you how easy it is to make **** up, El Pre$. You are aware that www.gopusa.com is just a commercial organisation that claims to speak for conservatives in America. It's not affiliated with www.gop.org, the actual website of the Republican party. It's not "GOP policy in Black and White". The point being it's not any more indicitive of reality than the crazy Zionist conspiracy site I referred to.

I have to express my anger when people like you jump into a civil discussion, call all involved "liars" and imply we're idiots and then offer your own crackpot, unsupported theory about what's happening as if it's the gospel truth. What America does is a serious issue to me, being an American, so I don't need people like you spreading FUD like that gopusa story and then claiming it's the position of the actual GOP, when it's just the ranting of some crackpot conservative.

So sod off, mate.

--Josh

Addendum: I do apoligise if I offended any Jewish folks. I just picked the whole Zionist thing as an example of a loony story I guy I used to skydive with would always tell to anyone who would listen. I think it's bullshit, and meant no real offense to anyone. Apparently the satire was lost on some.

--J

[El Pre$idente]

The positions on the gopusa site IS a position supported by many GOP enthusiasts. Of course, if mainstream GOP officials came out and said it they would be bombarded. Only the fringe can spill the beans. People like Ashcroft have to balance themselves between secret ambition and public relations.

If you believe the son of God is coming back and you're involved in politics, I personally believe you should resign before your beliefs influence your judgement. That's the real separation of church and state in simple ABC terms. The War on Terrorism doesn't stop with Islamic ideologists.

[ink]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
That site, gopusa.com, has several End Times articles,

[snippage]

Stop jumpping to other topics when you're cornered; your strawmen are tiresome. I didn't even attack your source of GOP information (as ludicrous as that website is), and I'm not even a GOP fanboy myself -- but you lay baseless accusation upon baseless accusation and then completely ignore those that question your ramblings and start making other accustations (baseless or not) to divert attention away.

How, exactly, does this (ahem) "article", which defines the End Of Times' beginning to be signaled by a 7-year peace accord waged by the EU indict US foriegn policy today? It doesn't make any sense, just like your whole Zionist theory. America does support Isreal over Palestine more often than not, and that does need to change, but I just can't see your position being forwarded outside of an interesting fiction, and you still haven't shown any concrete proof (even considering this drivel from gopusa to be evidence).

EDIT: That sounded a lot harsher than I meant. I'm really curious as to what you're basing these theories on; did you construct them, or is there some secret book of knowledge that spells this all out in black-and-white that only the right-right-right ultra-Christains are privvy to?

[El Pre$idente]

OK, I won't jump topid. The attack on Iraq will go ahead no matter what. I presented the links going back two years that show they wanted an excuse to 'change the regime'. They also want the same in Iran. Americans mostly want the same...in the US.

I have three words to further add to this: Oil For Jesus.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
<snip>

I have three words to further add to this: Oil For Jesus.

I'm waiting to see the bumper sticker.

--J

[ink]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:
I'm waiting to see the bumper sticker.

WWJDFO

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Now the administration is stuck between the public's honest concern over WMD and it's own rhetoric about "regime change."

Between Iraq and a hard place, in other words.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[tie]

Originally posted by sambeau:
Last time we killed 750,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them children. Any respite is a good thing..

These civilians weren't killed during the war, but after it, basically because the Iraqi regime wouldn't cooperate with arms inspectors. So why is it a good thing that the whole inspections runaround is starting again? It will mean years more sanctions, because Iraq will once again break its agreements.

If you are concerned with civilian deaths, isn't war a good thing? Assuming a quick success, it is the quickest way to end sanctions and get more responsible leadership into the country. Yes, there will be civilian casualties from war, but not at the same scale.

(I'm playing devil's advocate here, by the way.)

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by tie:


These civilians weren't killed during the war, but after it, basically because the Iraqi regime wouldn't cooperate with arms inspectors. So why is it a good thing that the whole inspections runaround is starting again? It will mean years more sanctions, because Iraq will once again break its agreements.

If you are concerned with civilian deaths, isn't war a good thing? Assuming a quick success, it is the quickest way to end sanctions and get more responsible leadership into the country. Yes, there will be civilian casualties from war, but not at the same scale.

Edit: I don't want to sound rude.. Sorry if I come off that way.. also, what gives you the idea that Iraq will go about breaking their word again.. Sure, they have in the past, but it's no reason to get all pre-emptive on their ass..

whoo boy, okay here goes nothing.

Are you sure no or few civillians are going to die when they carpet bomb Iraq? Think again. Look at how many civillians they killed in Vietnam. Over a million wasn't it?

The UN weapons inspectors issue is not what is killing the children in Iraq.. It is the sanctions. Sure, Iraq could be more cooperative.. Maybe if they believed the UN and the US are doing something for the good of the world and not just their interests.. Well guess what.. They (Iraq) don't... and they (the UN+US) aren't... The fact that they would just sit on their asses for four years and let those children die makes them (Iraq+UN+US) all monsters in my eye.

The UN could have pushed for the weapons inspectors harder than they have been.. And got the fvcking job done.. But no, lets just wait a while.. let em simmer in their own crapulence. Sad..

I'm not sure how to address your second paragraph.. It's pretty baseless. Are you saying no war kills more civillians than war? Not if you look at the numbers.. The deaths as a result of the sanctions are sad, but I think that means the sanctions should be reevaluated.. maybe the whole peace process (because it hasn't done anything in Israel/Palestine, and the "peace-keeping efforts of the US to me seem more like "world domination")

[El Pre$idente]

Another point, Iraq has been bombed weekly for the last ten years in order to prop up the defence contracts that armament companies ask their politician friends for. A bomb drop is a bomb ordered and a bomb ordered is tax payers money in the pocket.

So this whole 'We are going to bomb Iraq' nonsense is another stupid smokescreen. Politicians and some of their media friends like to do this, they excel and trying to rewrite the past and bury topics that people already know about. Like the 'Saddam gassed his own people line'. Yes, Bush knows full well why Saddam gassed Kurds and who assisted him.

[El Pre$idente]

New sig.

[arrested502]

Well as long as there's no Nukes or Chemical or Biological weapons I don't see a problem. The notion (and I use that term lightly) that it's all about "oil" kinda died off after the gulf war almost a decade ago. There are plenty of other sources for oil.

This doesn't change my opinion about Hussein being something of an egomaniacle madman though, but as long as they're not thinking about launching any Nukes our way, I'm fine with that. Otherwise we must see to it that Hussein is "de-throwned" and a new regime is put into place.

We simply cannot afford the risk of another nuclear superpower.

Oh yeah, and that is all.

[Korv]

Originally posted by arrested502:

We simply cannot afford the risk of another nuclear superpower.

Why haven't we batted an eylash when other countries became nuclear superpowers? I don't have he statistics infront of me, but I know for sure that Pakistan, India, and Israel all have nukes. Why are we picking on Iraq? Cant be the nukes. The fact is there has only been one country that has been viscious enough to actually use nuclear weapons, and we don't seem to have much of a problem with that.

The Presidential Administaration in the US has already proved its deciet and lies in respect to the Iraq question. First they say "Its about a regime change," but the UN says "that's not a good enough reason." Then they say "its not about regime change, its about weapons inspections," then Iraq says "OK, come inspect unconditionally." Then the US says "Its not about weapons inspections, its about disarmament." They will continue to change their propoganda until they can attack Iraq. They are, by definition, warmongers.

Oh and to whoever said it was a stall tactic, its a 10 day stall tactic. Ten days is nothing. They said they would meet with UN officials in 10 days to finalize the agreement, and since the weapons inspectors can be ready by then, we will find out in the ensuing week if Iraq is serious or if this is a bluff. I agree wholeheartedly with Thunderous_funker (who was more eloquent than I)on Bush's role in this. If he did play good-cop/bad-cop with the UN to get the inspectors in there, I will applaud his actions. If he proves himself bent on war, it will show the world how despicable that administation really is. It doesn't look good so far, since the administration's rhetoric is heating up, not cooling down.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Korv:

... If he did play good-cop/bad-cop with the UN to get the inspectors in there, I will applaud his actions. If he proves himself bent on war, it will show the world how despicable that administation really is. It doesn't look good so far, since the administration's rhetoric is heating up, not cooling down.

You are so predictable. Bush is the bad guy not Saddam. Does it not bother you in the least that these supposedly unconditional inspections are already having conditions attached to them? Bush is the warmonger? He didn't force Saddam to repeatedly renege on the agreements he made over the past 12 years. That doesn't matter to you at all, does it? And what's the point of inspections if disarmament doesn't follow? Do you have some kind of argument agaist disarming Saddam that isn't pure sophistry? As for regime change, it seems pretty damn obvious that the only way to keep Saddam from WMD is to remove him from power. Of course what's obvious and what you are willing to admit are two different things.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:


You are so predictable. Bush is the bad guy not Saddam. Does it not bother you in the least that these supposedly unconditional inspections are already having conditions attached to them? Bush is the warmonger? He didn't force Saddam to repeatedly renege on the agreements he made over the past 12 years. That doesn't matter to you at all, does it? And what's the point of inspections if disarmament doesn't follow? Do you have some kind of argument agaist disarming Saddam that isn't pure sophistry? As for regime change, it seems pretty damn obvious that the only way to keep Saddam from WMD is to remove him from power. Of course what's obvious and what you are willing to admit are two different things.

several points:
1. Saddam IS a major bad honcho. no question.
2. Saddam has in the past played tongue-hockey with appearing to comply and then being intractable, in order to delay or buy time.
3. Bush IS being a bad cop, here. He's saying that Saddam must ignore the UN resolutions, or we will ignore the UN resolutions and depose him from power (I'll wait a short beat while the irony catches up with you).
4. Bush COULD utilize this respite to press for diplomacy, even realizing saddam is being disingenous, if for no other reason EXCEPT that the rest of the world is watching, and if we act like we ignore gestures of conciliation, even if suspect, then we portray ourselves as warmongers.....and, unfortunately, that is how the rest of the world sees us, and that is excactly the dance step we'ver marching to saddam's fiddle. Passive aggressive is a b!tch, but it does work against you if you allow it to.

The problem is assuming that in this scenario, there must be a good guy and a bad guy. Its equally conceivable they are BOTH bad men, especially if they succeed in escalating this to a nuclear level. If that happens, we all lose, no matter whose fault it is.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

... The problem is assuming that in this scenario, there must be a good guy and a bad guy. Its equally conceivable they are BOTH bad men, especially if they succeed in escalating this to a nuclear level. If that happens, we all lose, no matter whose fault it is.

There is nothing I hate more than the moral equivalence game. Play away. If that's all the left has these days, play away.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


several points:
1. Saddam IS a major bad honcho. no question.
2. Saddam has in the past played tongue-hockey with appearing to comply and then being intractable, in order to delay or buy time.
3. Bush IS being a bad cop, here. He's saying that Saddam must ignore the UN resolutions, or we will ignore the UN resolutions and depose him from power (I'll wait a short beat while the irony catches up with you).
4. Bush COULD utilize this respite to press for diplomacy, even realizing saddam is being disingenous, if for no other reason EXCEPT that the rest of the world is watching, and if we act like we ignore gestures of conciliation, even if suspect, then we portray ourselves as warmongers.....and, unfortunately, that is how the rest of the world sees us, and that is excactly the dance step we'ver marching to saddam's fiddle. Passive aggressive is a b!tch, but it does work against you if you allow it to.

The problem is assuming that in this scenario, there must be a good guy and a bad guy. Its equally conceivable they are BOTH bad men, especially if they succeed in escalating this to a nuclear level. If that happens, we all lose, no matter whose fault it is.

I guess I see this a little differently, although I'd have to say overall, I don't have a crystal ball. I think that this situation is developing so fast that a "wait and see" attitude is called for.

But specifically, on your point 3: Bush is certainly playing hardball. Not only with Iraq, but also with the other Security Council members. One of his arguments is that he might potentially bypass the Security Council and act unilaterally if the Security Council deadlocks. But that is not quite the ironic position you are characterizing it as.

First, there are no Security Council Resolutions against the US equivilent to the ones that Iraq has violated. So the positions are not quite the same. There are existing Security Council Resolutions that the US can make a good legal case it would be enforcing. A new explicit Resolution is more of a political imperative than a legal one. Second, the US can (and potentially would) invoke Article 51 (Self Defense) given that the US is a much more probably WMD and WMD-armed terrorist target than France or Russia are. Anticipatory Self Defense is an established principle, even if this is an extension of it. Third, the US could invoke Clinton's contribution to international law "instant customary international law." Clinton poineered this in his non-UN-Authorized operation against Serbia. Under that, the US could move without the Security Council's say-so.

I'm not saying that this is what will happen. I'm saying that this is what could happen. This is the strength behind Bush's "bad cop" strategy. The UN members know that there is the potential that if they are too soft and willing to accede to Iraq's stalling, the UN will be bypassed. Therefore, the only way to avoid irrelavance is to stay closely inside the process and hold Iraq's feet to the fire.

So your point 4 is pretty much correct, but is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[ink]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
There is nothing I hate more than the moral equivalence game. Play away. If that's all the left has these days, play away.

• America wants to get rid of WoMD
• America knows where the WoMD are, because they want to bomb them
• Iraq invites America to come and inspect any area, unconditionally
• We must still bomb without inspecting because .....?

Please fill in the blank.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by ink:

• America wants to get rid of WoMD
• America knows where the WoMD are, because they want to bomb them
• Iraq invites America to come and inspect any area, unconditionally
• We must still bomb without inspecting because .....?

Please fill in the blank.

They aren't unconditional!!! Iraq saying they're unconditional and actually having unconditional inspections are two different things. After 12 years that much should at least be obvious. A representative of the Arab League was quoted yesterday as saying that only "military sites" could be inspected.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:You are so predictable. Bush is the bad guy not Saddam. Does it not bother you in the least that these supposedly unconditional inspections are already having conditions attached to them? Bush is the warmonger? He didn't force Saddam to repeatedly renege on the agreements he made over the past 12 years. That doesn't matter to you at all, does it? And what's the point of inspections if disarmament doesn't follow? Do you have some kind of argument agaist disarming Saddam that isn't pure sophistry? As for regime change, it seems pretty damn obvious that the only way to keep Saddam from WMD is to remove him from power. Of course what's obvious and what you are willing to admit are two different things.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush and Hussein are both illegitimate governments.

I haven't heard about these "conditions" that you speak of, could you elaborate?

Wow, to break my train of thought here.... front page CNN.com right now, Bush is quoted:

Edit: added link

Bush
Saddam decieves, delays, denies

This quote is not baseless, however it shows to me that Bush and his administration have no faith in the UN resolutions and the peacekeeping process whatsoever. The invitation is not even two days old and the Bush Boys are already spewing the same old rhetoric.

From the article:
Calling Iraq's offer to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors a "ploy," President Bush said Wednesday his administration would work with Congress on a resolution authorizing him to use force against Saddam Hussein's regime.

The article then goes on to say the Bush administration is working with lawmakers from both parties to develop a unified front on the part of the United States against the threats they face.

What about the support of Europe or Canada? The UN? We obviously are not significant in the eyes of the US, but we are also at risk.

Another quote from the article:

The president said he was not concerned about the United States having to act unilaterally.

This is nothing new.

Now back to the quote above:

Bush is pushing for war, anyone who doesn't see through this rhetoric is blind..

Saddam is a bad leader, nay evil leader, but if the UN and the US joined together for real peace-keeping efforts, like they should have 4 years ago, then the WMD issue would not be so hot right now. We don't know what Iraq is doing with regards to weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps we should ask Dick Cheney. It was his company that sold Iraq the weaponry. The buck stops in the US.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Perhaps we should ask Dick Cheney. It was his company that sold Iraq the weaponry. The buck stops in the US.

Please back this up.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Please back this up.

While Dick Cheney was CEO at Haliburton, two subsidiaries sold materials to Iraq that they knew could be used to create nuclear weapons.

Here's another link about how exemplary Dick Cheney has been.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


While Dick Cheney was CEO at Haliburton, two subsidiaries sold materials to Iraq that they knew could be used to create nuclear weapons.

Here's another link about how exemplary Dick Cheney has been.

OK, so we know about Secretary White. Now provide a link to your assertion about Cheney and Halliburton providing arms to Iraq. Not another assertion. Evidence.

Notice that Cheney joined Halliburton well after the arms embargoes were enacted. So you are saying he personally violated US law. So go ahead, prove it to us.

[SimeyTheLimey]

In case we get more stupid comments about oil companies selling weapons of mass destruction technology to Iraq, here are some random links. Quite odd, Germany seems to pop up a lot.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/6/20/6s.html

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs...00/5-26-00.htm

http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...rol/rietz.html

[ink]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
They aren't unconditional!!! Iraq saying they're unconditional and actually having unconditional inspections are two different things. After 12 years that much should at least be obvious. A representative of the Arab League was quoted yesterday as saying that only "military sites" could be inspected.

Then bloddy well show up with a whole hitch of inspectors and demand to see specific sites! And then, when Iraq denies admittance, show them a security council resolution that says "OK, we're going to war then". Is that too much to ask for? If Saddam follows protocol, he'll try and weasel out of the inspections and we've lost nothing, and gained a bunch of UN allies. If we go at it alone.... shudder.

The Gulf War was a UN mission. Iraq made conesessions to the UN. The UN is willing to extend an olive branch, but the US is saying "no, no, let us take care of this for you". Don't you see the stupidity? Although (as otherwise pointed out), if Bush is just playing bad cop, he's doing a damn good job of it; somehow I doubt it, even though it would be a brillant strategy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:


There is nothing I hate more than the moral equivalence game. Play away. If that's all the left has these days, play away.

Some sort of burr under your saddle concerning me, today? For some reason you've done nothing but get in my face all day...oh well....

however, I want to point out that I do not represent the "left", whatever that is. I just said what I personally think. You can hate that all you wish, I suppose.

may I suggest decaf?