Bush Jr.'s next move?

[Rags]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But that's not the main issue here; I'd just wanted to get some facts straight.</font>

Yeah, the issue is that some clueless loon from the Netherlands seems to think that the reason Iraq got bombed on Friday was somehow related to what GW's father wants. It's quite a bit more complicated than the random thoughts of said loon

Rags

[Gurm]

Rags,

Don't be TOO hard on Jorden.

You have to remember that not everyone (including some - ok MOST - Americans) gets an unbiased look at current events or history.

Many people around the world don't know that Saddam has been violating the cease-fire agreement since the day after it began.

Interesting side note: Do you all realize that Saddam erected a statue in the central square in Baghdad, to memorialize the Iraqi "victory" in the Gulf War? Now THAT's funny.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Rags]

Well, come on. If he really thinks that Iraq was bombed for the reasons he stated, what else should I consider him? Pretty loony to me

Sorry, maybe I was being a bit harsh, but I get real upset when I see people spreading misinformation. If they would just take a little time and do some research outside of what they normally watch on their own airwaves and consider several sources, they should be able to garner some clue.

I am not saying that America is perfect, because it is far from it. I am very critical of our government, as most people from Wyoming are (We tend to believe that the less we hear and see of the government, the better).

Rags

[Jorden]

Hide in your bunkers, it's the loony again.

I did some research before I said the things, dear Matt, but you and others declared them unthinkable, as it was CNN stuff.

So, here go some of the old things I looked up in the BBC news... Bush's Clearance for Cleavage ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1096054.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/tal...00/1174646.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1174452.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1117326.stm

And one from CNN...
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/...nse/index.html
<hr>
That was before I was called a loony, and before this thread grew to beyond 60+
Do with it whatever you want.

Jord, loony of the week

[Rags]

Okay Jorden,

I read the first link very carefully. My summary of what it said: Iraq poses a problem for this administration. Well, gee. That's news Hasn't Iraq been a problem for many adminstrations? I think so.

The second link: I found this one rather amusing. At the top it has a pic, here look for yourself:
hmmmm how nice. A pic of an old lady with her hands on her cheek, while there are jets bombing her. What kind of news is this? Let's get real. Baghdad wasn't bombed. That old lady was no where near the bombings. These so-called news sites need to learn something about reporting. Geez, we all know that there were military targets bombed outside Baghdad, and we know that the UK and US are getting some heat over it. Okay?


The third link: Okay, Russia is testing some weapons. The US has been following this for some time. There have been over 400 illegal weapons tests detected by US satellites since the treaty was signed. Russia has always denied the testing was taking place. So what's new here? That Russia is pissed off because we helped to bomb Yugoslavia in 1999? What's this have to do with GW bush?

The fourth link: It's an article where it describes GW's administation's idea to scale back aid given to Russia. The idea is that so long as their old nuclear stock pile is going to rogue countries and being controlled by the Russian Mafia, we keep cutting back the general aid. We won't touch the aid to keep the weapons in check. There is no immediate plan to implement this, and it's still being debated.

the cnn link: It's back to the old anti missile idea. I don't have a problem with it, but there seems to be some lines that are closely walked when implementing such a thing. Thing is they are simply DEBATING it right now, they aren't erecting it. Here's a quote from that article: '"It's not something that's going to happen tomorrow and it's not something that's going to happen without full consultation with our friends and allies," Powell said. '


Sheesh.

Rags

[KvHagedorn]

That old woman is probably distressed that she is about to be dragged off and stoned to death by religious zealots. They stone you to death over there for anything they can bring up an excuse for. This woman is guilty of defying Islamic law by leaving her face uncovered (she's also defying everyone's aesthetic senses.. that's a face that I agree should be covered, but I digress.. )

Anyhow, I find it amusing that Fascist Islamic fundamentalists who violate every freedom the left wingers propound to cherish (as long as it serves their politically expedient path to power.. oops did I say that?)are now being defended by them as oppressed because the guy calling the air strikes is now a Republican and not Slick Willie.

[cjolley]

This last raid on Iraq is "buisiness a usual".
Sadam tests the limits, we show him where they are.
Nothing to see here, move along.
(Though I might add that people on the right used to use this a amunition to takr a whack at Clinton, even though they agreed with him.)
As far as the ABM system goes, our main terrorest threat in this regard is a suitcase nuke. Building a "sheild" from missles will lead to a nuke race with China and, possibly, Russia again.
The reason for this is that no large competitor (to be nice) nation is going to allow us to set up a guaranteed first strike victory. We can promise all we want, they won't believe that we wouldn't use that setup and neither would you.
Even if they though we would never attack, they could not afford to take the chance.
MAD may sound screwy, but it won the cold war and kept us out of a fire storm. Several generations of planners have looked at this, it is not a new idea.
chuck

[Greebe]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">basically you americans are just the successors of all the religious fanatics the europeans wanted to get rid of a few centuries back</font>

REALLY??? then what the hell was WWII all about, Aye Topha?!

[paulcs]

I could be wrong, but I detect a pattern...

It seems to me that the English-speaking nations are quick to act when confronted with fascists. Sometimes there are political restraints that prevent us from acting (the Thugocracy of Syria), but when we can, we do (the Thugocracy of Iraq and the former thugocracy of Serbia). They just seem to piss us off more than the Communists ever did. We were willing to bring the world to the brink of annialation to prevent Communist expansion into Central and Western Europe. But we just can't seem to handle those damn fascists.

The UK hates fascists even more than we do, and Tony Blair had to be restrained when it came to Serbia. This should make sense to everyone here.

The Bath Party in Iraq and Syria has a long history with fascism. The leadership in Iraq and Syria clearly meet the fascist minimum. Again, we just can't seem to handle it. It just pisses us off.

Contrary to what you heard from Americans here, Clinton received considerable critism from the left wing of his party for his military policies in Iraq and and Serbia. Although many of these people are my friends and political compatriots, I just don't see it the same way they do.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 17 February 2001).]

[Joel]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This woman is guilty of defying Islamic law by leaving her face uncovered</font>

I may be mistaken and somebody correct me if I am, but I think it is only unmarried women who have to cover their faces.

What I find kind of sad though is that the men can wear whatever they want to but the women have to stay completely bundled up in black robes even during the heat of summer.

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 18 February 2001).]

[paulcs]

Clerical fascism, which we associate with fundamentalist Islamic states, is different from fascism. It is internationalist in outlook, as opposed to ultra-nationalist. It, of course, is based in religion and clerics tend to call the shots. Iran is a clerical fascist state.

Like his kindred spirit, Musselini, Saddam is a fascist of the secular variety. He uses religion for cynical reasons: as a political tool.

The left has historically and opposed fascism in all it's flavors. That's why fascists tend to go after the left first after assuming power. The center and right tends to go into appeasement mode. "Form a coalition. Put him nominally in charge. Maybe that'll shut him up." That's how Hitler and Musselini came to power.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[DuRaNgO]

The only problem I see with this most recent bombing is that Saddam is still alive :{
that is all.

[Gurm]

Jord,

We've been through this in chat, but...

These articles fail to mention:

1. Iraqis have been firing missiles at the planes of other nations.

2. Iraqis have been sending jets into the no-fly zones.

So we are 100% justified in bombing the living f**k out of them. I concur - the only problem here is that Saddam is still alive.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Rags]

We could easily kill Saddam, you know. You know why we don't, right?

Rags

[Sasq]

Joel,
from memory (which is a little foggy this morning) all Islamic women are meant to cover their faces after coming of age - sorry don't know the details that well. When living in a foreign country to most women do not however it is a personal/family choice thing as far as I know.

Dan

PS Rags, I don't like CNN and as I'm living in Japan atm I rely on an Australian news source for my information (I can't understand Japanese that well) so generally my news information has an Australian taint to it However I retain a healthy skepticism of all news sources (being an ex-govt. employee I fully appreciate the difference between reported news and the truth)