WIll we believe him again? by SignyM

America loves a winner!

When has Bush done anything but keep his word ? He's done petty much what he's said, which is a rare quality for any politician.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:30 AM

Auraptor's right. Strictly speaking, force is always the 'last' resort. Sort of like when you're looking for something. It's always in the 'last' place you look, right?

But seriously, and sadly, the response also indicates that yes, they'll buy it again. The true believers have lost touch with what it means to be American, in my opinion, and embraced a vision of America as an imperialistic, 'ruler of the world'. I don't know whether it's the insecurity triggered by the terrorist attacks, or if Bush has just found some latent megalomaniacal streak in our nation, but it's depressing as hell.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

IN OUR PREVIOUS EPISODE: When Bush was saying force was a last resort it was already at the top of his agenda. Unless Bush likes to make totally baseless threats, bringing up force (even to "negate" it) is CLEARLY meant to put the though of force front and center in Iran's mind. And you know what that's going to do? Harden the Iranian mind-set and make the European negotiations much more difficult.

If Bush intends to bomb Iran (I doubt very much he would invade) what you will see is a steady stream of anti-Iranian press. Through a combination of bluster and threats, Bush will continue to torpedo negotiations. The matter will be referred to the Security Council. Sanctions will be placed. Somewhere along the line, Bush will move the goal posts. (In this article Bush is already talking about Iran ending it's "nuclear program" when the only problem is fuel enrichment. I can't tell if this is a deliberate shift, bad reporting, or stupidity on his part.) He will once again pose the threat of nuclear annhiliation to the American people. Probably bring up 9-11 ONCE AGAIN. If Bush is really lucky, there will be another terrorist attack on the USA. (I expect howls of indignation.

) And Americans will be left once gain with the apparent choice of nuclear Armageddon or bombing another country.

The phrase "Permanent war for permanent peace" is beginning to be way too applicable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:24 AM

My only hope is that there are enough fence sitters in the Bush supporter camp who will fall away if they try this crap again. But its a slim hope.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:31 AM

Hell, I think the only hope is if Iran can throw some working warheads together.....

Maybe Russia or France should just sell them some.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:17 AM

BATMARLOWE

This presumes I ever believed him in the first place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:19 AM

Wait, what's that?
Crikey! Iran has WMD"s!!!!
And what's that UNDER the WMD's?
Oh no, they're LRAADS!!!!!(long range and accurate delivery systems)

Unlike yesterday at this time, they now pose a threat!!!
With WMD's and LRAADS, we'll be SOOL if we don't BTAN*!

*bomd their ass now, catchy phrase, no? Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by batmarlowe:
This presumes I ever believed him in the first place.

See, this gets at something I've been thinking about for a while now. I think even most Bush supporters knew he was misleading the nation. They just didn't care. I think they, many of them anyway, knew he had plans to dominate the entire middle east and were in favor of it.

It reminds me of the old con-artist's maxim: You can't con an honest man.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I don't know whether it's the insecurity triggered by the terrorist attacks, or if Bush has just found some latent megalomaniacal streak in our nation, but it's depressing as hell.

You too can find relief from depression- blind faith in your leaders cures all.
Half this country used to suffer from depression and uncertainty, but now they're just fine.

Sorry, I'm just a little upset at the common Bush supporter just now. It's possible I'm not seein' things clearly, but I think Bush is setting the stage for permanent armed conflict on a more or less global scale.

Maybe this is a conspiracy to take attention away from global warming...?

I tried to end on a funny Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:40 AM

Maybe the war noises about Iraq are just a conspiracy to cover up Bush's secret peace negotiation. Yeah, I bet that's it. I bet Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have cooked up secret plans for a sneak withdrawal from Iraq and the Iran thing is just a distraction to give us time to pack up all our stuff.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe the war noises about Iraq are just a conspiracy to cover up Bush's secret peace negotiation.

When the red states find THIS out, he'll become their anti-Christ.

Not sayin' they WANT war, but....Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:19 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
My only hope is that there are enough fence sitters in the Bush supporter camp who will fall away if they try this crap again. But its a slim hope.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I'm no fence sitter. I voted for Bush in 2004 ( not 2000 ) because I saw no reasonable alternative. Bush hasn't lied, so I trust him to that extent. That some don't agree w/ his actions, I can understand.

But let me make this abundantly clear.... there won't be any support by me for any policy that sends our troops into yet another M.E. country.
I doubt even the few hard core Bush supporters would even back such action.

Over the next couple of years ( if not sooner ), here's what needs to be done , IMO.
a) Bring our troops home from Afghanistan
b) Same for Iraq
c) In the event Iran DOES act up, let the rest of the world deal w/ it first.

We all saw the staged protest around the world by various anti-American, anti-Capitalist groups whining for peace. That's all well and good. But there are other evils in the world, and I'm tired of the US taking the lead and then getting hammered by everyone because we're such 'war mongers'.

Iran defies the world community, let the rest of the world deal w/ it.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:46 AM

That's reassuring AURaptor. I'm hearing more comments to that extent from Republicans and they do give me hope. I hear other opinions as well, but it won't take that many reasonable people to offset them.

Dedication to reason, above and beyond party affiliation, is what's need right now more than anything. From both sides.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:27 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Over the next couple of years ( if not sooner ), here's what needs to be done , IMO.
a) Bring our troops home from Afghanistan
b) Same for Iraq
c) In the event Iran DOES act up, let the rest of the world deal w/ it first.

Speaking as a Brit who voted for the Labour party (Tony Blair) I did not support the war in Iraq, any more than I would support a premature withdrawl. I can cite only one instance from memory where a military led regime change has worked and that would be Germany (tho the situations are so different It would take a thread on its own to explore them). Foriegn troops are still in Germany, sixty years on.
Your third point, let the world deal with it first, again my reservations there would take an entire thread to explain, but please, America has arguably the most powerfull military in the world. If Iran acts up it makes sense that America leads from the front, but, lets be honest, the American administration has to realise that it is part of the world community.
Not that theres this world community, and then there's America there above that somewhere.
Most of the objections to America's millitary strategies are not with the fact they did, but the fact they did it without the support of the international community. The attitude was, do as we tell you or get lost. Thats what the international community has a problem with.

p.s. I'm careful to say they about America instead of you, as I wish to distinguish between the American nation and goverment from your goodselves as Americans.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 4:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hope this formats right ....

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Gallup Poll and CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
8/5-7/05 45 (approve) 51 (disapprove) 4 (unsure) 1,004 (polled)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
(date approve disapprove)
Aug 13 47 52
Aug 12 47 51
Aug 11 46 52
Aug 10 48 50
Aug 09 47 51
Aug 08 47 51
Aug 07 47 52
Aug 06 47 52
Aug 05 48 50
Aug 04 48 50
Aug 03 48 50
Aug 02 49 49
Aug 01 48 50

Perhaps the US people have wised-up a least a little. Though it looks more like what my BIL has said - they tend to line up behind whoever looks like the strongest bully. At this point dubya isn't looking so strong.

Not that I'm cynical or anything, but mid-term elections are coming up, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't doing so well, and something had got to happen to take people's eyes off things like that. Now way back in another thread I predicted another attack on US soil within 18 months. If I recall correctly (and I could have it wrong) there is perhaps 6 months left on the calender. So it's either Syria, Iran or an attack.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:50 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Citizen wrote:

Most of the objections to America's millitary strategies are not with the fact they did, but the fact they did it without the support of the international community. The attitude was, do as we tell you or get lost. Thats what the international community has a problem with.

Lets see, which Int'l community members did NOT back the U.S. going into Iraq.

England ? nope
Australia ? nope
Poland? nope
Spain? nope ( later wussed out,by way of terrorism )
Japan ? nope

Oh, it was Russia, France and Germany. I get it now. So, if those 3 main players have a change of heart if Iran goes bad, the U.S. is supppose to let bye gones be bye gones and happily all join hands in ..doing what, exactly? Folks think going into Iraq was poorly defined mission, wait 'till they get a load of Iran!

I'm not for any leaving Iraq or Afghanistan early. The job MUST be seen through. But it also must be undestood by the citizens of Iraq that THEY are suppose to help do in the terrorist, if there is any peace to be had there.

And btw, wasn't Japan post WW2 another example of military led regime change leading to the making of a vibrant, strong and independent country?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Lets see, which Int'l community members did NOT back the U.S. going into Iraq.

England ? nope
Australia ? nope
Poland? nope
Spain? nope ( later wussed out,by way of terrorism )
Japan ? nope

I would like to point out that in at least 3 of the 5 countries you listed, perhaps all 5... polling has shown their respective populations to be decided against supporting the US....

Perhaps everyone else just has stronger democracys than your supporters ?

Also you should add to this list these countrys who sent troops at first, then pulled out ( or are in the process of pulling out ) due to lack of popular support at home

Nicaragua
Dominican Republic
Honduras
Philippines
Thailand
New Zealand
Tonga
Hungary
Portugal
Moldova
Poland
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Italy

It seems in countrys responsible to their populations, your support is weak at best

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:26 PM

G1223

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

But seriously, and sadly, the response also indicates that yes, they'll buy it again. The true believers have lost touch with what it means to be American, in my opinion, and embraced a vision of America as an imperialistic, 'ruler of the world'.

You mean the america lets it self be treated as cheap sex toy and thanks the enemy for being good to us.

Yeah I remember the Carter era we lost respect by being the world's bitch. I could avoid doing that. Espaiclly when Iran which does not have a missle with range to attack us needs a weapons program to protect themselves from us.

The reality is that Iran has missles in devolpment and those mssiles can strike Israel. Why would they do that you ask? Because Israel is our ally. It has been one of the few representive governments in the region and is surrounded by nations that would murder women and children or at least support the organizations that do so.

TANSTAAFL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 12:06 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And btw, wasn't Japan post WW2 another example of military led regime change leading to the making of a vibrant, strong and independent country?

Short answer No.
Long Answer:
The American occupation force in Japan helped the gorverment of Japan to enact changes that had already begun to gain support in Japan during the 1920's. It was not military regime change of the Iraq mold because the goverment was never dissolved and removed, more it was gradually changed over the course of several years with the full cooperation of the current administration and people.
I'd also like to point out that American troops weren't withdrawn from Japan until the mid '50's, about a decade after the occupation began.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
England ? nope
Australia ? nope
Poland? nope
Spain? nope ( later wussed out,by way of terrorism )
Japan ? nope

What exactly is your point here? That a minority of countries supported the invasion? The UN voted against millitary intevention in Iraq, meaning the majority of UN countries were opposed to it.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh, it was Russia, France and Germany. I get it now. So, if those 3 main players have a change of heart if Iran goes bad, the U.S. is supppose to let bye gones be bye gones and happily all join hands in ..doing what, exactly? Folks think going into Iraq was poorly defined mission, wait 'till they get a load of Iran!

No, America as the biggest player should be allowed to do what the

it likes right! Who cares about anyone elses opinon. It wasn't just the three main players though was it? It was the majority of UN nations. The largest percentage of the international community that the American administration thumbed their noses at. Which was my point. America in that action brought in to question the very point of having the UN, whats the point if the UN rules only apply to the members who choose to follow them?

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not for any leaving Iraq or Afghanistan early. The job MUST be seen through. But it also must be undestood by the citizens of Iraq that THEY are suppose to help do in the terrorist, if there is any peace to be had there.

I'm glad to hear it. I didn't pick up that sentimate from your post for which I apologise. You've got to remember though that the likelyhood is that any significant withdrawl within the next ten years will be premature, these things don't happen over night no matter how much we may want them to.
Lastly, yes it is partly the responcibillity of the Iraqis to help fight the insurgents (which they are involved in doing actually). You've got to realise that the insurgents would most likely not be there if the international community had been more solidly behind the action. If the action could have been seen as a real international coalition, rather than a coalition of 'the willing' then the middle eastern community at large may very well have backed the invasion also. In such a case any insurgency that occured would be on a much smaller scale, less well supported/funded, and far more likely to burn out.
The sad fact is that it may have only taken a bit more time to get the international community behind millitary intervention in Iraq, it was Bush's impatients that said otherwise.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 2:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

G1223

Quote:
Yeah I remember the Carter era we lost respect

We did?

Quote:
The reality is that Iran has missles in devolpment and those mssiles can strike Israel.

So?

Quote:
Israel is...one of the few representive governments

except for the approximately 4-4.5 million Palestinian Arabs living in Israel, West Bank and Gaza www.pademographics.com for whom life consists of ident cards; checkpoints; confiscated farms, homes, and shops; enforced unemployment; and group punishment

Quote:
and is surrounded by nations that would murder women and children or at least support the organizations that do so.

I suppose you've never heard of "The butcher of Sabra and Chatila" where 2000 Palestinians refugees were murdered by forces led and backed by Israel? (I'll leave it to you to find out exactly who that butcher is.) www.rense.com/general8/butcher.htm
Or Israel's ongoing killing of women and children? www.ifamericansknew.org

Israel being a model of democracy is like Nazi Germany being a model of order.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 2:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Since we're talking about Iraq, I have an anomaly I'd like you to help me solve. Rumsfeld originated an oddball report that IRAN was the source of sophisticated bombs found in Iraq.

Here's the oddball part. Iran is primarily a Shiite nation, and while the Iraqi government is mainly Shiite the Iraqi insurgency is primarily Sunni. I don't care how much some Iranians hate the USA, I just can't see them sending sophisticated explosives to the Sunnis. So- who was the intended recipient?

Also, the insurgents do seem to have gotten their hands on military-style explosives, because they are attacking USA convoys again. The convoys, I have been told, were recently armored, but the new explosives seem to be punching through the armor. I know that arms depots were looted right after the invasion- is this an emerging problem? www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/25/iraq/main651082.shtml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:25 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Since we're talking about Iraq, I have an anomaly I'd like you to help me solve. Rumsfeld originated an oddball report that IRAN was the source of sophisticated bombs found in Iraq.

Here's the oddball part. Iran is primarily a Shiite nation, and while the Iraqi government is mainly Shiite the Iraqi insurgency is primarily Sunni. I don't care how much some Iranians hate the USA, I just can't see them sending sophisticated explosives to the Sunnis. So- who was the intended recipient?

Also, the insurgents do seem to have gotten their hands on military-style explosives, because they are attacking USA convoys again. The convoys, I have been told, were recently armored, but the new explosives seem to be punching through the armor. I know that arms depots were looted right after the invasion- is this an emerging problem? www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/25/iraq/main651082.shtml

Don't know where you get the idea that it's an oddball report. Someone is sending those bombs into Iraq. There have been many reports of Iran assisting in the overthrow of the Iraqi Gov't, and there's no love for the US in Iran. ( They just 'elected' one of the terrorist who held US citizens hostage for 444 days, back in '80-81.) What else are the terrorist in Iraq going to do w/ the explosives than to attack the coalition forces? It makes perfect sense, from their stand point.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 6:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
So President Bush has done *absolutely nothing* against Iran except for state the obvious -- being if Iran flouts its international agreements (ie, treaties it has willingly signed) and pursues nuclear arms it will be subject to UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolution

So by this logic, if the US flouts its international agreements ( as you say treaties it willingly signed ) it too should be subject to sanction...

Would that be correct ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 8:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AND THE AWARD FOR MISSING THE POINT goes to....

Quote:
There have been many reports of Iran assisting in the overthrow of the Iraqi Gov't and there's no love for the US in Iran.

Which Iraqi government? The current one? The current Iraqi administration is primarily moderate Shiite, and the elected Iraqi representatives have strong radical Shiite presence. NOTE: Same religion as Iran. Why would Iran want to overthrow a Shiite government which is friendly enough to have signed a military training agreement? If your reports actually refer to Iran overthrowing the current Iraqi government what would be the stated purpose? If true this would be a major factor to consider.

Quote:
They just 'elected' one of the terrorist who held US citizens hostage for 444 days, back in '80-81.

Not according to the CIA

Quote:
What else are the terrorist in Iraq going to do w/ the explosives than to attack the coalition forces? It makes perfect sense, from their stand point.

Not really. If the "terrorists" are Sunnis, then the Sunnis could use the explosives to attack Shiites. And that would be the LAST place the Iranians would want to explosives to go. It's possible that there is a deep split within the Iraqi government between US-friendly Shiites and radical Shiites, and the radical Shiites are preparing for civil war against their own government. It's also possible that the explosives were sent without the knowledge of the Iranian government. I admit that I'm confused. I was hoping for some INTELLIGENT parsing of this problem. If you have more to say besides apparent illogic please explain.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 8:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I find it funny that you are so critical of President Bush when he is doing the exact things you previously critized him for NOT doing in the run up for the 2003 war in Iraq, ie not working with our "allies" and not going through the UN.

WTF are you talking about? Please explain in detail how this is DIFFERENT from the buildup to the Iraq invasion by specific reference to Iraq hx cause from my angle it's playing the same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 9:10 AM

FIVVER

AJ is quite correct. The US is letting the Europeans and the IAEA take the lead in working with Iran. You wanted a specific reference... Here's a quote from an AP artcle posted today:

Quote:

The United States has stood aside while European governments negotiated with Iran. After prolonged talks with Britain, France and Germany during which Tehran put uranium conversion on hold, Iran this month rejected a package of aid measures, including offers of nuclear fuel in exchange for a promise to abandon plans for uranium enrichment.

Iran then restarted its Isfahan plant that converts uranium to gas, which is the last step in processing the radioactive ore before it can undergo enrichment to become reactor fuel or the material for nuclear weapons.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency responded with a resolution Thursday urging the Iranians to again put the process on hold. Diplomats familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency's proceedings said Iran was given a Sept. 3 deadline to halt or face possible referral to the U.N. Security Council for consideration of sanctions against its struggling economy.

Here's the link to the entire article:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ir
an_1

I've got to reiterate AJ's question. The process in place for dealing with Iran is exactly what you've stated should have been followed with Iraq. Do you just not understand what's going on or is there just no pleasing you?

I'd also like to address the whole Shiite/Sunni discussion. IMHO what's got the Iranian mullas turbans in wad is the whole idea of democracy. They are in real danger of a democratic uprising that will threaten their power and the specter of a free and functioning democracy right next door scares them. They will ally with anyone who will make trouble for the US and the fledgling Iraqi democracy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 9:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Like the phony "draft" canard and the "Bush Lied" memes, this is just another example of a bogus issue raised to push the leftist agenda.

This old canard? Here we go again with the "leftist agenda" memes. Just another example smearing an issue to cover up Bush's lies.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
So President Bush has done *absolutely nothing* against Iran except for state the obvious -- being if Iran flouts its international agreements (ie, treaties it has willingly signed) and pursues nuclear arms it will be subject to UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolution

So by this logic, if the US flouts its international agreements ( as you say treaties it willingly signed ) it too should be subject to sanction...

Would that be correct ?

What no answer ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 1:52 PM

As for the question about the US working with the EU on the issue of Iran....

Go to the source I guess:

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder:

" The Europeans and the Americans are united in this goal," he said. "Up to now we were also united in the way to pursue this."

" Mr Schroeder reiterates his views in an interview to be published Sunday in the German weekly Bild am Sonntag, labelling military action "extremely dangerous".

"This is why I can with certainty exclude any participation by the German government under my direction," Mr Schroeder tells the paper. "

Germany attacks US on Iran threat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4149090.stm

Seems like unilateralism to me..... or is Bush off his ADD meds again ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
So President Bush has done *absolutely nothing* against Iran except for state the obvious -- being if Iran flouts its international agreements (ie, treaties it has willingly signed) and pursues nuclear arms it will be subject to UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolution

So by this logic, if the US flouts its international agreements ( as you say treaties it willingly signed ) it too should be subject to sanction...

Would that be correct ?

What no answer ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

Would you please be a little more specific? Exactly what agreement(s) is/are the US flouting?

Andrew Lynch

So it matters what deal ?

No, your word is your bond kind of thing ?

Well lets go with a current example : The softwood lumber dispute between the US and Canada

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_softwood-naf
ta20050810

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/13/softwood-nafta05081
3.html

Canada has gone to third party mediation over this trade dispute repeatly over the last decade, and time and time again the WTO, and NAFTA has ruled against the US. Dispite this, the US government continues to ignore these rulings ( which according to the argeements you signed are binding )

If you can't play by your own rules in a trade dispute, how much credibilty do you have when more important issues are at stake ?

And beyond that how can you attempt to hold other countrys to standards of conduct you are unwilling to live up to yourselves ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:01 PM

The point is Bush is not a part of the negotiations, yet he or Condi Rice always seems to step in, shoot their mouths off and derail any progress made.

You say the Germans are " sabotage their own negotiations by unilaterally removing any threat of force "

I would say that they are being very careful not to provide the US any excuse to go off on Iran and try to point at any argeement they had anything to do with as a justification, even if they don't feel it is. You know, like you did with the Iraq WMD inspection crap...

If the EU-3 are negotiating and your not then shut up and stay out... If you want in then negotiate to get in

" known liars in Iran " as well as in the frigging White House. So what ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I would say that they are being very careful not to provide the US any excuse to go off on Iran and try to point at any argeement they had anything to do with as a justification, even if they don't feel it is. You know, like you did with the Iraq WMD inspection crap...

In other words, the Germans are negotiating to limit the UN responses in future to preclude military action, not to get Iran to stop enriching uranium. Great strategy.

They are worse than useless. They are enablers to terrorists. Hope the Europeans like living next door to a Iranian whackos with nukes. They deserve it.

Andrew Lynch

Who is to blame for that ?

Last time going into Iraq, the US and its supporter Britain had one interpretation of the resolution against Iraq, and the rest of the security council had another...

The US went ahead with what it wanted to do dispite the conflict in opinion, not even taking the issue to a final vote.... and then use the resolutions to which France, Russia and other who to this day disagree with you signed as justification.

It is a simple fact of live that now after these events, for any agreement to be forged... it will be clear to the point nobody can use it to their own ends against the wishes of the people who signed or negotiated the deal.

The same thing has happened in the Sudan negotiations... as a result of the US using the UN to go into Iraq.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

W/o going into great detail at the moment, I think the Germans et all would LOVE to give Bush a nice big steaming cup of STFU... but they can't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 4:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AJ- You're ignoring the fact the companies that made the MOST $$$ ignoring the sanctions were American. EVERYONE wants Iraq's oil, INCLUDING the United States. Pretending "they" are corrupt while "we" are pure is silliness at the grade-school level. Go back to your school-boy friends and exchange your silly school-boy stories with them, OK? On this board, where the grownups talk, it's embarassing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 5:07 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
They are worse than useless. They are enablers to terrorists. Hope the Europeans like living next door to a Iranian whackos with nukes. They deserve it.

You

ing what? The Europeans deserve it!
What is wrong with your silly little mind?
By your reasoning America 'deserved' 9/11 because America funded the actions of Osama Bin Laden amongst others when it suited American goals.
A great deal of money used to fund IRA bombs in Britain were paid for by money from people in the US.
So who exactly are 'enablers' of terroism?

They deserve it? Get a life.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 5:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Seriously, what did they expect from a regime like the Iranians? Remember the ones who held US hostages for 444 days? They are psychotic!

That's a broad-brush view of Iran. And a comic-book viewpoint at best.

Quote:
It makes perfect sense for the Iranians to directly support the terrorists jihadists insurgents in Iraq.

Side note: A terrorist gains political ends by frightening civilian population. It is a tool for any cause: religious, economic, social. A jihadist is a Muslim fanatic but not necessarily a terrorist or an insurgent. An insurgent -in the case of Iraq- is someone who wants to overthrow the USA-established order and in this case is not likely a jihadist or even necessarily a terrorist.

Quote:
Here is the scenario from Iran's perspective: cause trouble in Iraq to keep the US preoccupied while Iran fires up its nuclear weapon industry.

One does not necessarily distract from the other. I'm sure the USA has enough experts to keep track of both. Specifically, how would messing up Iraq inhibit our military or political response to Iran? (I'm assuming that our plans are more towards bombing, not invasion.)

Quote:
Simultaneously, destablize Iraq so that the US loses interest quicker and hopefully leaves Iraq so that the Iranians can join their Shia brethern and massacre the Sunnis in a civil war/pogrom.

Possible. But you would have to assume that Iran is already dissatisfied with the current Iraqi government and has made connection with a more radical Shiite movement. Best bet so far is that Iran- or an element w/in Iran- simply wants to drive the USA out of Iraq. This wouldn't be the first time that a nation rather short-sightedly made common cause with an element which proved troublesome later eg. the USA and the Taliban.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 5:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AJ- I see you brought your Cap'n America comics to the table.

That is an old (OCT 2004) report which does not contain later information.

Quote:
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

obviously an anti-Bush, anti-American witch hunt

Quote:
assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that "The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of theses recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.

Yes, Cap'n America will save us. (Pats little boy's head and looks worriedly at mom, wondering whether his boy really does need to be tested)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 6:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I'v had my dose of ad hominem for today AND my fill of talking nonsense, so I'm going to hijack my own thread and bring up another topic.

China's been awfully nice to us lately. In the past month or so they've pulled their Unocal offer, revalued the yuan, and (possibly) pushed N Korea to the bargaining table. For a nation that holds a lot of USA cards (Treasuries, manufacturing capacity, currency) that seems awfully accomodating. Much as I'd like to believe that the Chinese care about us and the state of the world, somehow I don't think so. Either they've been threatened with something, or offered something. And thoughts?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 6:37 AM

The paint is peeling. Everyday I talk to more and more EX-Bush supporters who have finally seen where he is taking us. They're seeing something that is distincly UN-American and nowhere they want to be. They aren't likely to vote Democrat any time soon, and frankly I can't blame them, but the lock step march of the true believers is grinding to a halt.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 6:56 AM

MACBAKER

Here's the mistake most people make towards those who voted for Bush. I believe most people voted for Bush, not because they supported his policies or his ability to lead this country, but because he seemed lessor of two evils. They voted for the devil they knew (Bush), instead of the devil they didn't know (a candidate with a voting record that was so inconsistent that not even the political experts could decide what Kerry stood for).

If the Democrats could give us a better choice, they would reclaim the White House in a landslide. The problem is, the party has lost it's way, and they'll probably just push another nightmare candidate out there (Hillary????) and lose again, and we'll be stuck with another Bush (Jeb) living in the White House!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 7:08 AM

Damn, Mac.... whatdya gotta go draggin' us all down with the truth for?

Sadly, I couldn't agree more.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 7:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I was never too fond of either Clinton. After NAFTA I crossed Bill off my November gift list, and since Hillary just assumed the DLC Chair I tossed her name in the trash bin. It's not like there aren't honest Democrats out there: Feingold, Conyers, Waxman, Dean come to mind. But the party as a whole sucks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 7:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Yep, good old "Bush Basher" Senator Levin and MP George Galloway, those are some *really* credible sources of information. A quick google search shows the leftist blogosphere is full of these nonsense charges. Plain old divert and distract tactics, smear the US and President Bush while covering up the source of the problem in the first place!

Senate Permanent Subcommitte on Investigations

Norm Coleman REPUBLICAN -MN Chairman 202-224-5641
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI)
Robert F. Bennett (R-UT)
Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
John W. Warner (R-VA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)
Thomas R. Carper (D-DE)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 8:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Yes, the US bought lots of oil, AFTER it was illegally smuggled and laundered. That does not make it the US's fault.

Other than ALLOWING a left wing to even exist, the U.S., according to your many posts, has never done anything wrong, ever !
Canardman is proud of you!

bitty punk Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 9:38 AM

FIVVER

Quote:

Posted by Signym:

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of theses recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.

Let's see. This is supposed to be some sort of argument for how corrupt GWB and his administration are. So we have this report that a private company was involved in kickbacks to Saddam and the CEO has been indicted by GWB's Justice Department. Now everyone else involved, in England, France, Russia and at the UN are wandering around free. In fact these people represent the rest of the world whose lead you want us to follow. I humbly suggest that you apply for a tuition refund for any logic courses you may have taken.

Fivver

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 10:05 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Quote:

Posted by Signym:

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of theses recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.

Let's see. This is supposed to be some sort of argument for how corrupt GWB and his administration are.

Actually, no. Your premise is wrong, fellow student. I believe this was brought up as a counter to the asertion that the French and Germans were the primary beneficiaries of OOF.

The point (I think it's the point) of this thread is not actually that there's any hard evidence that Bush plans to go to war with Iran, but whether or not we should trust him. I believe Signy and others seem to think that he has betrayed the country's trust.

I'm very curious, but I doubt that I'll get much of an answer, if any of y'all think the U.S. has ever done anything in our short 200 year stint on this planet for which we should be ashamed (that is other than the biggies like slavery--now I might put Hiroshima here and the genocide of the Native Americans, but there's some indication that posters here have found those actions justified). So is there anything that besmirches America's good name today, anything at all?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 10:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Dueling quotes. AJ-Your quote

Quote:
"A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them." Another hack job by the biased democrat Senate staffers. Not credible.

My quote:

Quote:
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that "The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales." etc...

Find the full report, signed by the chair and post it here if you have anything further to dismiss. Or take it up with the Senate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 10:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why would anyone answer such a silly, self loathing, defeatist question? Talk about an loaded premise. Try "when did you stop beating your wife?" next time. If you want to toss dirt on the US and besmirch her good name then do it yourself.

Wow, I guess that shows me, huh? Good thing I'm not in position to catch the spray!

Oh BTW I'd like to address one point:

Quote:
Yes, the US bought lots of oil, AFTER it was illegally smuggled and laundered. That does not make it the US's fault. By your reasoning everyone who has ever bought oil during that time is also guilty because oil, like most commodities, is fungible.

No, actually that was not the issue. The point was that Bay Oil and other US oil companies purchased oil and gave kickbacks to Saddam, no third parties were involved.

And since you asked why we were talking about this in the first place, well... why, look, I believe YOU were the one who brought it up!

Quote:
Clearly, the most culpable parties in undermining the UN are the French, followed closely by the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese. Their double dealing with the Iraqis and the outright corruption with the Oil-For-Food scandal irrepairably discredited the UN. Their treachery in that institution has done more to damage it than anyone else ever could.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 15, 2005 10:35 AM