Schoenorama
Topic Author
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:45 am

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."
--Bertolt Brecht

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."

-- Matthew Rothschild"
(Source: http://www.progressive.org/)

Any comments?
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
strickerje
Posts: 706
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 1:35 pm

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 5:40 am

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.

-Jeffrey S.
(A white Mississippian who's NOT a Republican)
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 5:57 am

"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.
 
Boeing757/767
Posts: 2179
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 11:05 pm

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:11 am

This article sums up why I'm against the war and why Bush is flat wrong. (See my previous thread about him being, um, a moron).

Anyway, to me it comes down to this:

-- Has Iraq attacked us? No.
-- Is Iraq threatening to attack us? No
-- Was Iraq involved in 9/11? No evidence of that.

So why does Bush want to attack. He is a dangerous, dangerous man.
Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
 
david b.
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:13 am

remember, saddam tried to kill his daddy..........  Pissed  Pissed
Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:17 am

Boeing757/767,

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]
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
david b.
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:20 am

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).
Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
 
qatarairways
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:02 pm

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:39 am

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.

see: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/11/1047144941073.html

N79969,

"VX, botulinum, and other weapons have only a single purpose: mass death"

Maybe there is strong demand for botox treatments in Iraq?
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:43 am

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.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:47 am

QatarAirways,

"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
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:56 am

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.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:56 am

Botulinum Toxin is a poison. It does kill. It is also used as a medicine, but this doesn't mean it's harmless:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_bot.html
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:01 am

"Botulinum Toxin is a poison. It does kill. It is also used as a medicine, but this doesn't mean it's harmless"

It is one of the deadliest substances known actually.
 
Schoenorama
Topic Author
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:34 am

To N79969:

"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!
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:02 am

"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. "

Right, all countries that have something to loose in their dealings with Iraq.

 
Schoenorama
Topic Author
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:08 am

To 747-451:

And the US doesn't?

Read http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html. Note that it was written 1998.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:09 am

Not as much as the Europeans and all the oil that oil they ddepend on.
 
Guest

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:09 am

To all of you who like to throw around the term "war-monger." You don't have any idea of what it means.

'Speed
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:14 am

Enlighten us, Professor Speed.
Dear moderators: No.
 
Marcus
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2001 5:08 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:16 am

Right, all countries that have something to loose in their dealings with Iraq.
*****************************

While the US is already looking in to business deals in Iraq after the war...........

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030310/ts_nm/iraq_construction_dc_8
Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
 
Schoenorama
Topic Author
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:22 am

Halliburton Co. what a supprise!

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
KRIC777
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:25 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:38 am

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
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:56 am

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.)

[Edited 2003-03-11 01:28:28]
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 9:55 am

Schoenorama,

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.

Klaus,

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.
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:38 am

Warmongering, God what a stupid term. To some people who oppose the war, this is all they can see in what Bush is doing, its "warmongering".

If you're gonna oppose the war, at least have a decent, thought out opinion instead of.

1. Its warmongering.
2. He tried to kill his daddy.
3. Its for oil.
4. America's just evil, duh.

Gimme a break.
NO URLS in signature
 
Schoenorama
Topic Author
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:07 am


N79969

"They are leading the opposition to the US without proposing an alternative.."

That is not correct. In fact, during the last UNSC meeting (last Friday) France already proposed a 3 stage plan as an alternative. France also said that, as Blix stated at the beginning of the meeting, this is not a matter of years nor weeks, but rather months.

Regarding what you answered to Klaus, I agree but please have a closer look at why the UN over these past 12 years has not been able to enforce the resolutions. Also, remind that the UNSC is made up of 15 countries and 5 of those are permanent members. If you blame the 'UN' for not doing its job, you are also blaming the US, as a member with a veto of the UNSC.

Apart from the 16 UN resolutions not complied by Iraq, since 1968 a total of 88 Security Council resolutions have been violated, 32 by Israel alone. (Resolutions that merely condemn a particular action are not included, only those that specifically proscribe a particular ongoing activity or future activity and/or call upon a particular government to implement a particular action.).
(Source: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html)

Some of these resolutions are:

  • #471 Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention

  • # 474 Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

  • # 573 Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

  • # 605 "Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."


  • Don't you believe that it is a bit 'unfair' to say the least, the US wants the UN to punish Iraq for violating 16 resolutions, when nothing has been done, in all these years, about Israel, that has violated 32 resolutions? And these are only the resolutions passed by the UN. Have a look at the resolutions on Israel vetoed by the US: 30 (from 1972 to 1990).

    How on earth do you, all of sudden, expect the UN to do its job, when during all these years the US has done everything it possibly could to protect its ally Israel from UN sanctions?
    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
     
    Alpha 1
    Posts: 12343
    Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:50 am

    A vast majority of Americans are against this war and diapprove of president crackhead.

    Actually, David b, a vast majority are for the war: some are for it only if the U.S. has the UN on board, and some are for it no matter what. A minority are against the war no matter what.

    Bush's approval ratings have been slipping, but after being at 90% after 9/11, that's hardly surprising, but they still hover around the 60% mark-a mark Clinton rarely, if ever, reached in his 8 years in office.

    The weakening of the UN started to moment Bush said he would attack, either with or without UN approval.

    Wrong, Schoenerama. The pressure applied to Iraq-and the UN-by the Bush Administration just laid bare in the light the weakness and ineffectiveness of the United Nations. For 12 YEARS, the UN has been moving the line in the sand, time and time again-17 times now, to be exact. On almost every resolution, there's talk of "severe" consequences for Iraq. After 12 years and 17 resolutions, do you think Iraq takes anything the UN does SERIOUSLY? The only think pushing Iraq is the pressure of 300,000 American troops at their doorstep, and even then, Saddam is still showing he cannot be honest with the UN-even under threat of occupation.

    Bush has, in my view, pushed too hard, too fast. in my view, but one of the good things that has come from this is that the weakness and indecisiveness of the U.N. is now clear for all to see.

    And for all those who keep crying "there will be terrible consequences!", or "We're on the verge of another Vietnam!", I'm fully convinced that that is what they WANT TO SEE. And what is going to be the reaction of these shrill voices when, as in 1991, the U.S. makes veryquick work of Iraq? What then? What happens if/when the Iraqi people welcome the Americans as liberators? What happens if/when they turn on Saddam and his dogs as surely as Italians turned on Il Duce? Can you IMAGINE the deep despair in these shrill voices?
     
    DC10GUY
    Posts: 2590
    Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:02 pm

    Alpha 1, May I ask what you've been smoking ??? Even if the US makes quick work out of Iraq, Do you really think we would be welcomed as liberators ??? Wake up dude !!! The big question is WHY ??? Why risk it ??? I like how you to bring Clinton into the mix when comparing approval ratings... Did you know that the republicans have complete control of the government now ??? Things sure are great ....War, recession, terrorism.
    Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
     
    david b.
    Posts: 2894
    Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:09 pm

    Alpha, you do not speak for the majority of the people.

    [Edited 2003-03-11 04:09:56]
    Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
     
    B747forlife
    Posts: 386
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 9:36 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:11 pm

    David b. - The vast majority of Americans are against this war and diapprove of president crackhead.

    How wrong you are. A poll I saw just last week preformed by the Washington Post (a liberal newspaper) and one of those polling company dealies concluded that 60% of the country supports military action by the US in Iraq. Last time I checked 40% is not a vast majority. And as far as I know, Bush's approval rating is still above 50. So maybe you should do some research before you put your own opinions out as fact and that the entire country believes in that.

    -Nick
     
    david b.
    Posts: 2894
    Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:13 pm

    Really?

    Im sure they would support action if there was a UN resolution which there is not.Why would I need to research opinions Nick? Opinions are just that opinions.
    Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
     
    N79969
    Posts: 6605
    Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:17 pm

    For the record, I am for the US going into the West Bank and bulldozing illegal Israeli settlements. However, the difference between Israel and Iraq is that Israel has not lashed out at its neighbors generally. When it has, it was because their neigbors were allowing attacks to be staged from their territory or that country actually attacked Israel.

    Iraq under Saddam Hussein must be dealt with because it presents a unique threat. That is the difference. The US won't engage in war unless it feels a threat to itself. I thought people not want us as a global cop. Well we're not. I don't know the subject of all 88 resolutions but I sense none of them deal with a country as dangerous as Iraq under Hussein. Iraq has held onto its weapons for dear life and starved and impoverished its people in the process. Why would any country do that if they had no weapons or no use for such weapons? Why would Iraq kick out inspectors and not let them back in until they had a gun to their head? Judging by Hussein's past the answer cannot be good.
     
    N79969
    Posts: 6605
    Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:19 pm

    "Alpha, you do not speak for the majority of the people."

    He speaks for far more people than you do David b. I can promise you that. I don't agree with Alpha 1 all that often either.
     
    Thumper
    Posts: 520
    Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:12 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:33 pm

    What is wrong with you people? You call the U.S.a warmonger when the only thing keeping Iraq in check is American military power.If the U.S. pulls out do you think he is going to abide by U.N. sanctions? He hasn't for 12 years. What happens when he starts to become more powerful,who will stop him then? France,Germany give me a break. Why should the U.S. wait for a has been country like France to decide when the time is right. When the U.N. decides military force is needed anywhere its the U.S. who puts up 85% of the money and forces.France Germany Russia want to veto,fine. The U.S.should get out of the U.N.and N.A.T.O. Let the Europeans take care of N.A.T.O anyway they like. Let China, South Korea, and Japan take care of North Korea. The U.S does not need to be the worlds police force. We have problems of our own and the Billions of dollars we give away to foreign country's could be used to help our people.
     
    Guest

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 2:46 pm

    "Alpha, you do not speak for the majority of the people."

    Actually, you'd be surprised how similar Alpha's and my political philosophies really are. We are both pretty moderate, it's just that he leans to the left, and I lean to the right. But we see eye to eye on many issues. In fact, I could be where he is in the political spectrum without too much of a shift in my thought process.

    I think Alpha speaks for the majority of Americans when he says that he's not sure that outright war is warranted, but feels that an American military presence is necessary. (Correct me if I'm wrong here Alpha--I don't want to put words in your mouth.) And Alpha is perhaps one of the most patriotic people I have seen on this website. He is no "war-monger." He is no "hate-monger." But he desires the best interest for the United States. I'm right there with him.

    'Speed

     
    strickerje
    Posts: 706
    Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 1:35 pm

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:15 pm

    "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.


    Why? Because I'm an American? Because it's "unpatriotic"? Yes, Saddam's killing of his own people is horrible and inexcusable, and nothing that Bush does will make Saddam look any better. However, what's worse - taking lives or ruining lives? What Bush has done is equally despicable, IMO. He's basically exploited the September 11 attacks and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to further his own political career. By putting the country on "orange" alert and telling Americans to suspect everyone and prepare for war, he is intentionally instilling fear into his own people. As has been said here, Iraq has not attacked us and is not threatening to do so. Bush is toying with the emotions of hundreds of millions of people because he thinks it'll get him votes. Yeah, I don't think much of that...

    -Jeffrey S.
     
    david b.
    Posts: 2894
    Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:19 pm

    Its true Jeff

    "gets one to know one" as they say.
    Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
     
    Guest

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:29 pm

    "However, what's worse - taking lives or ruining lives? What Bush has done is equally despicable,He's basically exploited the September 11 attacks and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to further his own political career"

    Point #1: I do not necessarily agree with how Bush is handling the situation, but he has definitely not ruined my life. It would take far more than a few political miscues to do that.

    Point #2: Taking lives is far worse than ruining them. You can recover from a ruined life. Frankly, I'm shocked that I even have to verbalize this.

    Point #3: I don't think that Bush is exploiting 9/11 and WMD for his own political career. This does not mean that I think that he's performed perfectly, or even well. But I believe that he has just motives.

    'Speed

     
    N79969
    Posts: 6605
    Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:54 pm

    "Why? Because I'm an American? Because it's "unpatriotic"? "

    No, because the statement itself does not make moral or rational sense. More simply because the statement is just plain stupid. You actually hold Saddam Hussein in higher regard than President Bush. Might want to backtrack and see what tortured contortion of logic and morality brought you to that conclusion.

    I think victims of Saddam's tortures and executions are worse off than those 'ruined' lives that you purport to exist. Contrary to your assertion, President Bush is ruining his political career by pushing so hard to fight Iraq. His approval ratings are sinking and his other initiatives are losing support. The prospect of war (by creating uncertainty) has damaged the economy and further hurts him by driving unemployment. All signs point to a compelling motive in President Bush's mind. He is intent on disarming Saddam Hussein before those weapons could pose an imminent threat to this country.
     
    HUS9746
    Posts: 26
    Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:40 pm

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:34 pm

    I believe that Bush is corrupt to teeth and so is his administration, there just going to start a war that will :

    1. kill many innocent people
    2. Place a General in instead and occupy Iraq for 30 years
    3. Bankrupt the US economy for a so-called war terrorism (actually to control the entire region and THE OIL)
    4. Weaken the UN, and say its no good for the US.
    5. Cause more terrorism with an attack on Iraq


    p.s. who know what else happen
     
    Schoenorama
    Topic Author
    Posts: 2305
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 9:58 pm

    To Alpha1:

    "The pressure applied to Iraq-and the UN-by the Bush Administration just laid bare in the light the weakness and ineffectiveness of the United Nations. For 12 YEARS, the UN has been moving the line in the sand, time and time again-17 times now, to be exact. On almost every resolution, there's talk of "severe" consequences for Iraq. After 12 years and 17 resolutions, do you think Iraq takes anything the UN does SERIOUSLY?"

    Let's go back to April 1991, shall we, when UN Security Council resolution 687 was approved demanding Iraq to disarm. This resolution stated that "once Iraq complies with the weapons inspection regime, the economic sanctions shall have no further force or effect."

    Less than a month later, in May 1991, Bush Sr. already made the following statement:

  • "At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."


  • That same day, then-Secretary of State James Baker sent the same message:

  • "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power."


  • So, regardless of what Hussein did, comply or not, the sanctions would stay in place.

    After Bush Sr there was Bill Clinton and what was his policy? He stated

  • "There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the present administration."


  • Madeleine Albright in March of 1997, also stated something similar:
  • "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted."


  • Remind that the US also approved resolution # 687 regarding lifting of sanctions once Saddam complied. When she says "We do not agree with the nations..." then why did the US approve resolution 687 in the first place?

    How on earth do you want sanctions and resolutions to be effective if a Permanent Member of UNSC, only 1 month after the approval or the resolution, changes their minds and states and maintains during all these years, that sanctions will not be lifted even when Iraq complies!

    How on earth can you still maintain UN's ineffectiveness over 12 years, when the UN resolution 687 was already undermined by the US only 1 month after its approval?

    (Sources: http://www.accuracy.org/).
    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
     
    IndianGuy
    Posts: 3126
    Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:45 pm

    The Bush regime has to address a constituency afr mor important(from his point of view) than the american people, and that is the gang of big business houses who directly benefit from war. It was this constituency that War Bush was addressing.

    Already contracts for rebuilding Iraq are being drawn out and these corporate houses are scrambling to grab their share of it like a pack of hyenas at a kill.

    As for the American people and their will in all of this war business: Well they are an expendable community. After all they didnt fund his rise to power now did they?

    -Roy
     
    Alpha 1
    Posts: 12343
    Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:57 pm

    So, regardless of what Hussein did, comply or not, the sanctions would stay in place.

    The fact that he has NEVER FULLY COMPLIED, makes that a moot point, now doesn't it? Had Saddam complied, there would have been too much pressure on the U.S. to keep the sanctions. But Saddam blew that chance, and it really doesn't matter, does it?
     
    Schoenorama
    Topic Author
    Posts: 2305
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:32 pm


    To Alpha1:

    "The fact that he has NEVER FULLY COMPLIED, makes that a moot point, now doesn't it?"

    Alpha1, let me give you an example that describes the current situation.

    Let's say there is a father with a problem with his son. This son has made a terrible mess of his room and the father has demanded him to clean it a soon as possible. To put some pressure on his demands, he and his wife have agreed not to give their son his allowance and have told him he would get his allowance the moment he cleaned his room.

    Now for some reason or another, the father changes his mind; he still demands his son to clean his room, maintains the 'sanction' he and his wife agreed upon, yet he also demands him to get a haircut, change friends, and stop listening to Heavy Metal. His wife doesn't agree, and tells him to maintain the initial demand they both agreed to. In the meanwhile, their son does not clean his room as he knows he is not going to get his allowance back anyway.

    Now who is to blame? The son for not complying with his fathers' initial demand, the father for changing the demands agreed upon by him and his wife, or the wife, for not going along with her husband?
    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
     
    We're Nuts
    Posts: 4723
    Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:48 am

    Don't dumb-down the issue like that. International politics cannot be made simpler to understand without butchering the original idea.
    Dear moderators: No.
     
    cfalk
    Posts: 10221
    Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Wed Mar 12, 2003 1:08 am

    Schoenorama,

    I don't get your point. He still hasn't lived up to the original demand of having to get rid of his WMDs.

    Charles
    The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
     
    Schoenorama
    Topic Author
    Posts: 2305
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:21 am

    "I don't get your point. He still hasn't lived up to the original demand of having to get rid of his WMDs"

    How do you know? Has Blix found any? Isn't that what these inspections are all about?

    And why should Saddam, or any other nation, have to comply HIS part of the agreement (no WMD's) when the other part has repeatedly stated they will NOT comply with THEIR part of the agreement (lifting sanctions)?

    Resolution # 687 (the original demand, as you call it), agreed upon by the UNSC in 1991, says that sanctions shall be lifted as soon as Iraq got rid of the WMD's. This resolution is NOT pretended to get a regime change, there is no resolution that demands a regime-change.

    I know and agree a regime change is desirable, but so did the US/UK in May 1991. Why didn't they propose such a resolution then?
    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
     
    cfalk
    Posts: 10221
    Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:32 am

    How do you know? Has Blix found any? Isn't that what these inspections are all about?

    As we keep telling you ad nauseum, it is up to Iraq to prove that he has destroyed them. Don't you realize how easy these things are to hide? Just get a brigade of army engineers to wait until there are no satellites overhead, dig a hole out in the desert, drop the stuff in, cover it up, and then say "we don't have anything!". He has half a million square miles to do it in.

    And why should Saddam, or any other nation, have to comply HIS part of the agreement (no WMD's) when the other part has repeatedly stated they will NOT comply with THEIR part of the agreement (lifting sanctions)?

    The sanctions would have been lifted as soon as he proves the weapons have been destroyed. That was always the deal. If he would have truthfully disarmed, instead of forcing the UN digging them up one by one, Iraq would have gotten rid of the sanctions 12 years ago.

    I know and agree a regime change is desirable, but so did the US/UK in May 1991. Why didn't they propose such a resolution then?

    They did, but that was quickly canned when all the Arab countries said they would withdraw their support. The Arab countries fear Saddam, but also fear going after him. They still fear him, but are starting to come around (12 years late).

    Charles

    [Edited 2003-03-11 20:33:12]
    The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
     
    Marcus
    Posts: 1666
    Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2001 5:08 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:37 am

    Iraq DOES have weapons of mass destruction!.........period!






    How do we know?.......................easy!






    The US kept the sales receipts!  Smile
    Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
     
    Schoenorama
    Topic Author
    Posts: 2305
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

    RE: Bush's Press Conference: More Warmongering

    Wed Mar 12, 2003 6:57 am

    CFalk:

    "The sanctions would have been lifted as soon as he proves the weapons have been destroyed. That was always the deal."

    It appears that Mr Bush Sr and James Baker in 1991 and Madeleine Albright in 1997 had another opinion on this (see my earlier replies). And George W. has also mentioned the words 'regime-change' quite often lately.
    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: LenPepperbottom, phatfarmlines and 11 guests