Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25 Posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1619 times:
Below is an interesting 'analysis' by Editor Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive of Bush's speech of March 6th.
"Bush's Press Conference, More Fearmongering and Warmongering
"When the leaders speak of peace
The common folk know
That war is coming.
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out."
In his March 6 press conference, President Bush made no new arguments for war against Iraq.
He presented no evidence that Iraq is a "gathering threat."
He provided no new evidence attempting to link Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden.
Instead, he simply used a drumbeat to scare the American people.
At least 16 times, he referred to Iraq as a "threat."
And at least nine times he mentioned September 11 or the loss of 3,000 Americans on that date, even though there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with those attacks.
Bush said flat out that "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."
But Hans Blix himself denies it. The leading U.N. weapons inspector, a mere 13 hours after Bush spoke, said Saddam's destruction of 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles constitutes "a substantial measure of disarmament. . . . We're not watching the breaking of toothpicks here."
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Commission, added that the inspections have "made important progress" and that there is "no evidence of the revival of a nuclear weapons program."
Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein is a "gathering threat" is increasingly implausible, given this testimony, and given the access the inspectors have, and given the spy plane surveillance that Iraq is now subject to.
Still, Bush insisted it was such a threat, and he dressed up his warmongering in constitutional garb. "I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do," he said.
But he is not upholding that oath.
He has usurped Congress's sole power to declare war, and he is not seeing that "the laws are faithfully executed." The United States signed the U.N. Charter and the U.S. Senate approved it back in 1945. That treaty has the force of law, and Bush is blatantly violating it. Article 2 of the charter says, "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means." And it also says, "All Members shall refrain in the international relations from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Bush today, by threatening force with 250,000 troops, is clearly violating the charter.
But that doesn't appear to be troubling him.
"When it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so," he said. "We really don't need anybody's permission."
But that answer is as false as it is cocksure. The U.N. Charter says the only time a country can act alone is "if an armed attack occurs against" it.
Bush can't come out and say he favors war. That would be impolitic. So he claims he is for peace, but his language is extremely Orwellian.
"I don't like war," he said. But we will go to war, he said, "for the sake of peace" or "in the name of peace."
Bush said, "We care about the suffering of the Iraqi people," but that assertion is difficult to square with the Pentagon's "shock and awe" strategy of hitting Baghdad--a city of five million people--with 3,000 missiles in the first forty-eight hours of war. Baghdad, one military strategist has said, will look a lot like Hiroshima.
Bush told reporters that he takes comfort in his religious faith, and he announced that he has found a new reason to praise America. "One thing that's really great about our country is there are thousands of people who pray for me that I'll never see and be able to thank," he said.
That's not a democratic virtue. That's a subject's homage.
W.H. Auden wrote: "When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter. And when he cried the little children died in the street."
Strickerje From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 723 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1576 times:
Although I at first favored the war, I'm beginning to seriously wonder what Bush's motive is here. It's becoming more and more clear to me that, although I don't trust Saddam Hussein, he's at least making a "show" of complying with the U.N. weapons inspectors. If Bush wants peace as much as he says, then why doesn't he wait to see what Iraq does first?
Another thing that bothers me is him referring to September 11 in all these speeches when there's no proof that the Iraqi government had anything to do with those attacks, and also him using his religion to gather support. This war's not about religion; it's *supposedly* about elimination of a threat...
While I may be convinced to go to war with Iraq if Saddam makes the wrong moves or tries to deceive us, I would only support war because I feel that it is necessary to eliminate a threat, NOT because I am in favor of Bush. Right now, I'd say I have a higher opinion of Saddam Hussein than G.W. Bush.
(A white Mississippian who's NOT a Republican)
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1563 times:
"I'd say I have a higher opinion of Saddam Hussein than G.W. Bush."
This is an insane statment no matter how you cut it. Insane no matter what state you are from, no matter what color you are, and no matter who you vote for.
There is no imminent threat from Saddam. He is not going build an ICBM, load VX, and launch it at us. That does not mean there is no threat. On September 10, 2001, four Boeing aircraft overnighted on the east coast were not considered an imminent threat to this country. Nor were 19 Arab men were booked on flights to the west coast. We know how this turned out.
VX, botulinum, and other weapons have only a single purpose: mass death. Iraq's stockpile poses a threat because they could be used to attack a neigbor and start a war that we would be dragged into. Iraq could give a tiny portion of the stockpile to a terrorist group that plans to attack the US. It would only take a tiny amount to wreak havoc. Remember, that Saddam had enough botulinum in 1999 to kill every person on earth three times according to the UN. 15 billion people. Saddam has starved and impoverished his country in order to keep these weapons. Why?
The real issue is whether it is worth the incipient risk associated with opening the era of preemptive war. In my opinion, Iraq must be disarmed pursuant to any of the 16 UN resolutions that require him to do so and the job must be done jointly. The US and UK should not have to do the job alone. France's intransigence is unacceptable. There showboating will bring about the demise of the UN in the long run by undermining the legitimacy of UN resolutions.
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8726 posts, RR: 43
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1542 times:
with that statement, you're lightening up the - umm - night, since it's pretty dark here on the eastern side of the pond. It's very relieving to see that you, like many other Americans, supposedly, have not been brainwashed by the warmongering. Thank you!
David b., I guess you agree with: "Well, his daddy tried to kill Saddam beforehand!"
[Edited 2003-03-10 22:19:09]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
David b. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
A vast majority of Americans are against this war and diapprove of president crackhead. A small minority are warmongers who will never fight if they are drafted. After all, its not their lives at stake(It should be).
QatarAirways From Qatar, joined Sep 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1516 times:
I am arguing not for or against the war but I think that if Bush just gives Iraq a little more time maybe even a few weeks and waits to see what they inspectors say it would be better for him. Then he could say to the world, look since the disarmament started Iraq has only shown token signs of disarmament and goes ahead with the war or says Iraq is showing that it is serious with disarmament and then he can take all the credit. Remember that it was him who put all the pressure on Saddam to get the inspectors in Iraq in the first place. At the same time you could look at this from a different angle, if Bush shows signs that he is weakening his stance Iraq might reverse the disarmament process. Iraq is a type of country which only cooperates if under pressure.
Another thing is the issue of regime change. It can also be looked at from both angles. One is that Saddam migh feel threatened and comply or the other is that he might feel that if they want regime change then it is a no win situation and so there is no point in complying to UN Resolutions. This is why I think North Korea is starting to escalate tensions and show off their nuclear prowes to protect the regime.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
I am arguing not for or against the war but I think that if Bush just gives Iraq a little more time maybe even a few weeks and waits to see what they inspectors say it would be better for him.
I'm sure he would if he could, but the fact is that the attack (if any, cannot take place after March, as it becomes too hot to operate effectively after mid-april. Saddam (and the French) know this - hence the delaying tactics.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1503 times:
"Maybe there is strong demand for botox treatments in Iraq?"
LOL. Excellent point. Saddam was looking a bit wrinkled during his interview with Dan Rather. Perhaps him and Manuel Noriega are planning a big botox party.
With respect to your other points, I agree with you with the caveat that a firm deadline must be set and enforced by those who currently are opposing the US. (e.g. France, Russia, etc) Otherwise, more time is another word for inaction. This has been tried once with the passage of 1441 and it failed.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1491 times:
Touching on what Charles mentioned, the French absolutely disgust me. They have deluded themselves into thinking that they are the force for peace. I use the term 'force' very loosely. By steadfastly opposing the only attempts on the planet seeking to enforce the 16 UN resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm, it will severely weaken the UN in the long run. They need to stop pretending that inspections work and propose a real alternative here and now.
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1477 times:
"Touching on what Charles mentioned, the French absolutely disgust me. They have deluded themselves into thinking that they are the force for peace. I use the term 'force' very loosely. "
Actually, N79969, it is not only the French. Also Germany and Russia have said it would not back a 2nd resolution and the Chinese are going in the same direction.
"By steadfastly opposing the only attempts on the planet seeking to enforce the 16 UN resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm, it will severely weaken the UN in the long run. They need to stop pretending that inspections work and propose a real alternative here and now. "
The weakening of the UN started to moment Bush said he would attack, either with or without UN approval. Also, France isn't the only country 'pretending' that the inspections work. As a matter of fact, the Head of the Inspections Team, Mr Blix, also thinks so. Look what Mr el Baradei said, about the supposed attempt of Iraq to buy nuclear material. He said that the documents regarding this and provided by foreign inteligence agencies were fake! That means that there are countries that are so 'eager' to start this war that they instruct their so-called inteligence agencies to provide false documents!
The question is: are you willing to start a major war, with terrible consequences on a short and long term, based on fake documents, assumptions Iraq still has weapons, assumptions Iraq still is trying to make weapons, assumptions Iraq is linked with al-Qaida and assumptions Iraq is a threat to America and the rest of the World?
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
KRIC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
I'm inclined to agree with QA that perhaps a little more time could be helpful, but as N79969 pointed out, any deadline is pointless unless Saddam knows that it WILL be enforced...which France, Russia, and China seemed unwilling to support. Hence their arguments in favor of "continued" (read: indefinite) inspections are absurd.
Whether one is in favor of war or opposes it, no intelligent person can possibly believe that Saddam would be offering one damn bit of cooperation to the UN if there weren't thousands of troops and tanks massed on his border. If that threat were not immediate, the current round of inspections would not even being taking place, never mind uncovering anything.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
The problem was never about whether or not a deadline would make sense (even Hans Blix has basically proposed a schedule that would more or less amount to one).
The problem was that Bush and Blair were hell-bent on extracting the power of decision about a military attack from the Security Council and assuming this power themselves - which would be a violation of the UN charta.
As beaten back as they both are at this point, I expect that a compromise might be worked out on the basis of a proposal made by the "formerly undecided six" in the SC: As the inspectors have proposed, work out a schedule with clear benchmarks Iraq has to adhere to with a "check date". On this check date (if Iraq should have complied until then), the SC will convene and review the state of disarmament. If necessary, the SC will decide whether or not military means will be applied.
It´s actually pretty much what Germany, France and Russia had been proposing all along; But Bush might be able to sell it as a compromise.
The one thing that has created this entire mess was the attempt to have the Security Council abdicate its exclusive power to decide about a war to the USA and Britain. This is what isn´t acceptable to the world, and this is what has to stop. If Bush concedes that the SC is the only institution that can allow a war (which is what the UN charta says, after all), everybody will be open to work out a compromise. (Strictly defensive wars as a direct response to an attack on one´s territory are the only wars which do not require a SC decision first.)
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
France's position is beyond disingenous. Germany has completely ruled out force but France has not in word but has in deed. In doing so, France is taking the position that it will determine when the right time force should be used even though they have anted up. They are leading the opposition to the US without proposing an alternative and Russia is following because of its own monetary interests. Germany simply wants no part of the war. While I strongly disagree with Germany, I respect their position. And I respect Turkey's decision as it was thoroughly debated and not made to simply frustrate the U.S.
Bush and Blair would not have taken those positions if the UN had bothered to enforce any one of the 16 or so resolutions in 12 years. There would be no need for them to act if the UN did its job. UN inaction has allowed Saddam to not only keep his weapons but probably has allowed him to expand in the time between 1998 and 2002.