[thunderous_funker]

A terrific response to the foreign policy segments of Bush's SOTU speech concerning Iraq.

I agree with this writer 1000%!!!

Damn well done!

[daimoni]

.

[Developer]

The United States, through its Central Intelligence Agency, that overthrew Iran?s last democratic government, ousting Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. As his replacement, the U.S. brought in from exile the tyrannical Shah.

Does anybody know why they did this? Doesn't sound like it would make much sense.

[daimoni]

.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Actually, even though I've just begun to read the article, I already have some problems with this overview and response:

Did Iraq really face the 'heaviest bombing in world history'?

I thought that was Dresden in WWII. But I guess I could be wrong.

:: Simey? ::

88,500 tons in 40 days in the Gulf War. I've seen this referred to before as the "worst", but I can't prove or disprove it.

Originally posted by daimoni:
Why is the author taking the Bush Administration to task for 'overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953'? They weren't in office then.

Bush talked about the US's interest in "freedom for Iranians". The author notes US involvement in the coup and the subsequent atrocities visited upon Iranians because of the following instability. His point is then summed up by saying, " As a result, there is serious question regarding the United States� support for the freedom of the Iranian people."

Simple exercise in rhetoric busting.

[daimoni]

.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by daimoni:
I agree with you there. And there was plenty of rhetoric to bust.

There always is with State of the Union addresses... and these days it's devolved to hoots and catcalls. Why can't our elected officials behave with a little dignity?

(but I guess that's another topic).

I always liked the tradition of hissing, booing, heckling, etc that went on in English Parliment.

Our politicians are getting more and more packaged and rehearsed. It's not a good thing.

[beni]

This is the first time I watched a complete State of the Union live. Are any people with different views allowed in there?
The whole thing would probably have lasted 10 minutes if the crowd had not stood up and applauded after every sentence.

This is probably close to what would happen at a Macword keynote, if Steve introduced 5GHz macs for $99.95, or something.

Great article BTW.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I always liked the tradition of hissing, booing, heckling, etc that went on in English Parliment.

Our politicians are getting more and more packaged and rehearsed. It's not a good thing.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by beni:
This is the first time I watched a complete State of the Union live. Are any people with different views allowed in there?
The whole thing would probably have lasted 10 minutes if the crowd had not stood up and applauded after every sentence.

This is probably close to what would happen at a Macword keynote, if Steve introduced 5GHz macs for $99.95, or something.

Great article BTW.

Oh, and a good article. Makes good points, points that are always avoided by Bush and his lapdog.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Actually, even though I've just begun to read the article, I already have some problems with this overview and response:

Did Iraq really face the 'heaviest bombing in world history'?

I thought that was Dresden in WWII. But I guess I could be wrong.

:: Simey? ::

I think the answer is certainly no, but I don't have the tonnages to verify it. But in any case, there is no comparison with the bombing in the Second World War because the targeting was vastly different. Cities like Dresden and Toyko were systematically firebombed with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible. Attacks on similar scales occurred in Coventry, London, Rotterdam, Berlin, and many other cities in Europe, not to mention Japan, the Soviet Union and China. In both Dresden and Tokyo, over 100,000 civilians each died in the space of a night or two. The figures of dead aren't known because countless thousands were simply reduced to ash. This is, of course, ignorig the obvious nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nothing in the Gulf War came remotely close to that. The vast majority of bombs were dropped on the trenches occupied by the Iraqi army in the desert. Those were purely military targets. Comparing tonnages is therefore not helpful because the difference is both quantitative and qualitative.

I only glanced at the article. Some of it is clearly factually accurate, but with a spin I would dispute or would at least would say is open to more discussion. Where they examine historical events during the Cold War, for example, I think it is always worthwhile to put events back into their proper context even if the events and policies can't be defended in pristine isolation.

In contrast to those debatable issues that are open to interpretation in multiple ways, some of the article resorts merely to assertion. In particular, it strikes me that the arguments on Iraq's chemical and biological programs amount to "yeah, and so what?" They admit the UN has said that Iraq has violated agreements to disarm, but say it doesn't matter. It seems to me that in the context of the UN Resolutions, that's the wrong approach to take. This is going beyond skepticism to actually taking Saddam's side, which I find a little bizarre.

As for the comment that the UN Charter doesn't allow the UN to order Iraq to disarm: that is clearly wrong. Chapter VII allows the UN Security Council almost unlimited power in that regard once a state is determined to be a threat to international peace and security, which Iraq has been determined to be on multiple occasions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I always liked the tradition of hissing, booing, heckling, etc that went on in English Parliment.

But that doesn't happen on the day of the Queen's speech to parliament on opening day in which the Queen delivers a speech prepared for her by the government of the day. Though the speech is political, there is no heckling.

The state of the union is similarly a ceremonial day with a speech by the head of state. The president combines the roles of head of government with head of state. He's not just a politician in the way a prime minister is. That's partly why there is more of a tradition of respect for the office.

Besides, all that heckling in parliament might lead to more lively debate, but it isn't necessarily better debate. Do you really want our politicians running around swinging maces around their heads, a la Michael Heseltine?

[voodoo]

Now how about TRYING to keep to accuracy and precision? There is nothing wrong with criticising that article, but to read more rhetoric as an answer to logic is just plain irritating. We all know where to get good rhtoric speeches, www.whitehouse.gov and www.saddamthegreat.iq

Most people post here anonymously, they never put their name under what they write, so it is kind of much of them to beg to be taken seriously.

Get off your high horse before you post here, especially when it is basically to spread FUD.

btw, there is nothing remotely political about the English Queen.

[itai195]

Yes, but making some statement like, "Iraq faced the heaviest bombing in history" isn't particularly helpful or specific either.

[Logic]

Originally posted by itai195:
Yes, but making some statement like, "Iraq faced the heaviest bombing in history" isn't particularly helpful or specific either.

Well, by saying "heaviest" I would presume that they are talking about kilos of explosives, or maybe pounds.

[itai195]

Sure, but does that really matter? All that sentence does is convey sympathy for Iraq without mentioning information about the targets, results, and casualties... so I can understand someone taking exception to that part of the article.

[g. olson]

Originally posted by daimoni:
I thought that was Dresden in WWII. But I guess I could be wrong.

In the Dresden bombing attacks of 14-15 February 1945 the American Eighth Air Force and the RAF Bomber Command together employed a total of 1299 bomber aircraft (527 from the Eighth Air Force, 722 from the RAF Bomber Command) for a total weight, on targets, of 3906.9 tons. Not even close.

[Logic]

Originally posted by itai195:
Sure, but does that really matter? All that sentence does is convey sympathy for Iraq without mentioning information about the targets, results, and casualties... so I can understand someone taking exception to that part of the article.

Sure. But how much infrastructure was demolished in those bombings? I bet much of it was of civilian importance like electricity, transportation and communication.

I'm not defending Saddam Hussein and I would be glad to see him executed by someone! But I would like it to be either the Iraqi people themselves or a coalition with a UN mandate to do it. That is what is bothering Europeans. Or at least I think so.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by g. olson:
In the Dresden bombing attacks of 14-15 February 1945 the American Eighth Air Force and the RAF Bomber Command together employed a total of 1299 bomber aircraft (527 from the Eighth Air Force, 722 from the RAF Bomber Command) for a total weight, on targets, of 3906.9 tons. Not even close.

That's two days. The figure for the Gulf War (which for arguments sake I'll assume is accurate) was for 40 days. World War II lasted around 5 years.

Also, the 100,000+ killed in Dresden ( a much smaller geographic point than the entire country you are comparing it to) died mostly as a result of fire. It wasn't the tonnage of bombs that mattered, it was the fact that they were incendiary bombs. And as i said before, it was also the fact they were dropped on a civilian city, not mostly in a desert like the majority of bombs dropped on Iraq in the Gulf War.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
a coalition with a UN mandate to do it. That is what is bothering Europeans. Or at least I think so.

A coalition with a UN mandate is available the second France stops threatening to veto it.

You are making a circular argument. Europe (through P5 member France) will veto a UN coalition because the UN doesn't have a coaltion. Irrational.

[Developer]

Actually it doesn't matter the least if this was a "heavier" bombing than Dresden or not. His point was that Iraq isn't such a big threat due to the bombing. Now if you say only militaric targets have been bombed, you are actually strengthening his point. Ooops.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A coalition with a UN mandate is available the second France stops threatening to veto it.

You are making a circular argument. Europe (through P5 member France) will veto a UN coalition because the UN doesn't have a coaltion. Irrational.

What are you talking about? Most governments in Europe don't agree that it is just to go to war at this moment. France is the only European country that has the right to veto except the UK. Do they have to do as you say, that is surrender to your foreign policy? Are they not allowed to speak their mind, and perhaps speak for Europe. Or is it just irritating that a country is challenging US policies? France will certainly vote with you, when you have proved your case. That is all we want.

And don't come with the statement that Iraq is the one to proof it's innocence. That is an whole other argument.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Logic:
Do they have to do as you say, that is surrender to your foreign policy?

Uhhh, we are talking about France, right?

[Logic]

Originally posted by pooka:
Uhhh, we are talking about France, right?

you got it

[gadster]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I always liked the tradition of hissing, booing, heckling, etc that went on in English Parliment.

Our politicians are getting more and more packaged and rehearsed. It's not a good thing.

You will love this, then http://www.webcity.com.au/keating/
(see the scumbag archive).