What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say - Page 5

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 17:25

And I applaud that dialogue! The only dialogue I disapprove of is the one where one party holds "his end" from a safe distance.

If you and I both agree that there is a dangerous problem, but I'm not willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with you to solve it, then I have no business telling you how you should.

-=Vel=-

Ned · February 4, 2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"In Europe….no such creature, unless you’re a Lord or King. Regular guys never had a chance"

Nogaret, just to go very, very far back. I don't know, what did you learn about social mobility in the middle ages and early modern times?

Don't forget that Austrian paper hanger with the bad mustache and the short Corsican artillery commander.

Garth Vader · February 4, 2003, 17:33

The kind of dialogue I disapprove of is the one where you tell me how it's going to be and if I have a problem I can get lost, especially if the solution is going to affect me.

Just as action is a two way street so is dialogue.

Willem · February 4, 2003, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Garth:
Well....it's not as though we simply have knee-jerk reactions to things going on around us (if that were the case, then the planes would have been flying the hour after the WTC attack), but yes...at some point, you gotta quit talking and start doing....and if you don't, then it should come as no great shock when nothing changes....true?

-=Vel=-

Oh really? Why then did Bush jump on the war wagon immediately after securing Afghanistan? Why is he constantly repeating the mantra that "Saddam must be disarmed" even when there's been no proof that he even has anything? He doesn't want to listen to anyone, except for his lap dog Blair. He won't even consider any other viewpoint. Hell, even Stormin Norman has come out and said that there's currently no basis for a war.

And it certainly didn't take very long before American troops were on the ground in Afghanistan. Not that I'm criticizing, I feel that was warranted. But the current position on Iraq isn't, at least not yet. If the inspectors find proof that he has WOMD, then it will be. But not until then.

Whatever happened to the American concept of innocent until proven guilty?

Willem · February 4, 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Garth Vader
True, but many long term festering geo-political debacles have been caused by jumping in too fast and not thinking about the long term ramifications.

There has to be a middle ground between sitting on your thumbs, and jumping in without thinking.

I'd just like to

Mtg's post.

War shouldn't be the first club out of the bag, but you shouldn't leave it in your trunk either.

Yes, and that's my main objection to the current policy. There's been viirtually no discussion on the ramifications of an American invasion of Iraq, they just want to go in and bomb the crap out of them.

What will be the consequences for Pakistan for instance? Musharrof is having a hard time trying to contain the large fundamentalist population there, many of whom are still supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That's no doubt where Bin laden is hiding out right now. Is the US prepared for a possible civil war there if they invade Iraq. What will that do for world security if a fundamentalist regime gets their hands on a fully functioning nuclear program.

And what guarentees do we have that placing a puppet regime in Iraq after a war won't end up seeing a repeat of what happened with the Shah of Iran? Do any of the American patriots ever stop to consider the long term ramifications a war might lead to? No, they just want to go blow things up and kill people. They just want revenge for what happened on Sept. 11.

Well guess what folks, Iraq had nothing to do with that. You're misplacing your vengeance.

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 17:51

To Garth:

If you're risking your a$$ to solve the problem that you and I both agree is dangerous and in need of fixing, and I'm not willing to risk anything (but more than willing to cheer or boo you from the sidelines), then yep....you're running the show, and I'm along for the ride. If I don't like it, I can do something about it. Specifically, I can ante up and share the risk.

To Willem:

No proof that he even has anything? We KNOW he has stuff dude, and I'm betting (conjecture on my part) that the *reason* we know he's got it, and the *reason* there has been a reluctance to talk about it, is that WE SOLD IT TO HIM! We're prolly sitting on a pile of reciepts marked paid in full for X tons of Anthrax or whathaveyou.

Bad decision? You bet. But I'm betting that it's closer to the truth than anything else....Saddam was "our boy" for a while....almost no doubt in my mind that he bought more than conventional weapons from us.

Where Iraq is concerned, Saddam has NEVER been innocent, and neither have we. In this case, it's a purely dirty business, and we're taking out our own garbage. Sucks, but true.

-=Vel=-

Garth Vader · February 4, 2003, 18:20

If I don't like it, I can do something about it. Specifically, I can ante up and share the risk.

Since I am just about finished for the day it's nice that we can end our pleasant conversation on something we can both agree with!

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 18:26

See you tomorrow man....I've enjoyed it!

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 4, 2003, 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

No proof that he even has anything? We KNOW he has stuff dude, and I'm betting (conjecture on my part) that the *reason* we know he's got it, and the *reason* there has been a reluctance to talk about it, is that WE SOLD IT TO HIM! We're prolly sitting on a pile of reciepts marked paid in full for X tons of Anthrax or whathaveyou.

You'd better tell that to Hans Blix then, he doesn't seem to agree with you.

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 18:31

Blix has SAID in his numerous reports that Iraq is NOT cooperating.

If he had no WMD's, then he can easily furnish the reciepts AND copies that confirm the orders for their destruction.

He hasn't done it.

And, he keeps playing games with the inspectors, enough to get Blix to SAY that Iraq is not cooperating.

What does that tell you?

If the stuff is destroyed, he could produce the confirmation orders and be done with it.

If it's not, he could stop playing cat and mouse.

We have observed this pattern of behavior before.....we can therefore, draw some conclusions about it, BASED ON what we know about the guy.

I agree...Blix *has stated* that he has found nothing.

He has also stated that Iraq is not cooperating.

That should be the end of the story.

The UN mandate says he either cooperates, or we twist his freakin' arm.

Our man on the ground says he's not cooperating.

What else do you want?

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 4, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Blix has SAID in his numerous reports that Iraq is NOT cooperating.

Not cooperating and actually having WOMD are two different things altogether.

Willem · February 4, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

The UN mandate says he either cooperates, or we twist his freakin' arm.

No! That's the mandate of the second resolution that's being drafted, the one that Bush has been trying very, very hard to block.

PS Does anyone have the exact wording of Resolution 1441 handy?

Bugs ****ing Bunny · February 4, 2003, 18:41

Ah, good. Seven pages of ****. Congratulations to all participants.

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 18:48

How 'bout a grain of common sense?

If he had nothing to hide, he would cooperate!

If there was no story to tell, he'd give the inspectors full access.

What possible reason, if he's about to get his arse kicked up one side of the block and down the other, could he possibly have for playing games?

The answer is that he's got them well-hid enough that he's convinced he can keep hold of them....we'll come charging in, make a general mess, but not be able to remove him from power (and even if we do, the control of the weapons will pass to his croonies), and when the dust settles, he's still got them.

If he didn't have any, the best move would be to come clean and cooperate.

If he had them, and didn't have a use for them in mind later, the best move would be to come clean and cooperate.

That's not what's happening though, is it? What does that suggest to you?

What it sugessts to me is that he has them, and is playing games to keep them in some form or fashion, even at the cost of his life and position.

-=Vel=-

Provost Harrison · February 4, 2003, 18:56

Yeah, when someone confronts you with an objection and argument, this article shows the best way to put your point of view across, sarcasm, arrogance and stubbornness. The thing it fails to understand that no one loves Saddam either, but we certainly don't like the problems such a war could cause, the sheer casualties, and then there is the destabilisation in the region. It's like sticking your kn0b in a hornet's nest.

DinoDoc · February 4, 2003, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Not cooperating and actually having WOMD are two different things altogether.

However it is still a violation of 1441. The question if violating 1441 justifies invasion is another matter altogether though.

However, Iraq has yet to provide a reliable accounting of large stockpiles of weapons we know they had so red flag tend to get raised for people not too blind to notice.

Quote:

Does anyone have the exact wording of Resolution 1441 handy?

Yes, I do. See if this works: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Willem · February 4, 2003, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

However it is still a violation of 1441. The question if violating 1441 justifies invasion is another matter altogether though.

After glancing over the resolution, nowhere do I see anything about stonewalling being a justification for war. In fact I saw nothing at all about a possible invasion.

Willem · February 4, 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

What possible reason, if he's about to get his arse kicked up one side of the block and down the other, could he possibly have for playing games?

Do you think the Pentagon would feel comfortable having a hostile alien poking around it's military installations, possibly gathering information on troop strength etc? I don't say it's commendable behaviour, but it's perfectly understandable to me.

Hueij · February 4, 2003, 19:28

The Amerishits still keeping this thread about us Eurotwits (or vice-versa) on top of page one? And Laz posting in it?

Alexander's Horse · February 4, 2003, 19:31

I think the author unintentionally lampooned the President. Its a typical US Presidential speech.

Willem · February 4, 2003, 19:40

Funny how when the discussion turns to the ramifications of an US invasion, that all the American posters remain silent.

Alexander's Horse · February 4, 2003, 19:46

Most of em know next to nothing about the outside world, that's why. And that's why they swallow, even swell with pride, at those childish silly speeches - while the rest of the world cringes.

Kramerman · February 4, 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Nothing new in the article. He can't even write a good parody.

Well, i dunno about that, but he does write a pretty good sarcastic satire

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 19:51

I was unaware the the UN Inspector team was considered hostile to any particular nation. That's pretty big news!

The fact is....Iraq stands in violation of UN resolution 1441.

The penalty for non-compliance in this matter is, as I recall from the reading "dire consequences."

Let's see now....most of the world already has sanctions in place against them....can't use that.

We could send him to bed without his supper (in one of his 13 Palaces)....but somehow that doesn't seem all that dire.

We could, set him a(nother) new deadline and let him let it lapse, making a further mockery of the the global community that's trying to hold him accountable. Not only is that not dire, but it's also been shown time and time again not to work. Ten, twelve years of blatantly violating UN mandate after UN mandate.

Ahhh, but let's give him one more chance, eh? And of course, a little more time to get those Anthrax packs spread around to all the groups he's affiliated with.....they're not exactly the Lion's Club, but I'm sure they won't do anything BAD with them!

IIRC, the deadline came and went on December 8th, 2002.

All the UN has done is shake their finger at him. "You....you'd better not miss our deadline for compliance....ya big meany!"

Yeah.

And that's done a lot of good.

So let's....oh I dunno....try something different? Something a little harsher, to put some OOMPH behind "dire consequences."

Or....we could just let him continue to make a mockery of the UN, which would encourage every other two-bit dictator to do likewise.

Good plan!

-=Vel=-
(With the deadline having passed....it's well past time to serve up a heaping helping of Dire Consequences....let's give the guy an ass-whoopin' and send a message to all the other nutballs out there that when the UN speaks, they'd better play ball).

Alexander's Horse · February 4, 2003, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

Well, i dunno about that, but he does write a pretty good sarcastic satire

Which raises the question - is Dubya just a good sarcastic satire. The man talks, people all over the world laugh.

Kramerman · February 4, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Oh really? Why then did Bush jump on the war wagon immediately after securing Afghanistan? Why is he constantly repeating the mantra that "Saddam must be disarmed" even when there's been no proof that he even has anything? He doesn't want to listen to anyone, except for his lap dog Blair. He won't even consider any other viewpoint. Hell, even Stormin Norman has come out and said that there's currently no basis for a war.

And it certainly didn't take very long before American troops were on the ground in Afghanistan. Not that I'm criticizing, I feel that was warranted. But the current position on Iraq isn't, at least not yet. If the inspectors find proof that he has WOMD, then it will be. But not until then.

Whatever happened to the American concept of innocent until proven guilty?

Why do you always say there is no evidence? Just becasue you are ignorant of it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Tomorrow, Colin Powell will present (hopefully benign to US intellegence gatherers) evidence supporting war to the UN.

And when did Norman Schwartzcopf (sp?) say that? source?

And troops have already been on their way because it takes months for a full deployment of a battle force. The US wants to be ready for when/if it is declared there will be action. We dont want to just then at that moment begin the months to build up up for war...

Kman

Willem · February 4, 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

So let's....oh I dunno....try something different? Something a little harsher, to put some OOMPH behind "dire consequences."

I repeat:

Funny how when the discussion turns to the ramifications of an US invasion, that all the American posters remain silent.

Are you prepared to accept the possibility of having to send US troops to prop up the Pakistani government if the fundamentalist there revolt? Are you prepared to wage war against them if they win and get their hands on nuclear weapons that are ready to fly? Are you prepared to accept a global economic upheaval if Muslims all over the Middle East riot in the streets and disrupt the oil trade? Are you prepared to send in troops to bolster regimes like Saudi Arabi in order to ensure that the supplies aren't disrupted? Are you prepared for the inevitable demands for a Kurdish homeland that will arise after Saddam is gone? Are you prepared to send in troops to Turkey when the Kurdish population ther join thier Iraqi counterparts? Have you even considered these possibilities? Wouldn't it be much more prudent to accept these possibilities only as a last resort?

ThePantaloonDog · February 4, 2003, 20:13

While I am for overthrowing Saddam I see no reason to do so at this time and a war agaisnt Saddam now could very well destabilize the entire region.

First off a war in Iraq will destabilize the region. You've got a multiethnic state full of Sunni, Shi'ites, and Kurds who have never got along together. The only thing to keep Iraq together is the fact that a brutal Sunni dictator is in power. As soon as that power departs you have a Shi'ite majority that has been opressed for quite some time going after a Sunni minority that has been in power for some time with Kurds as a potential wild card causing trouble in Syria, Turkey, and of course Iraq. Iraq is going to be another Afghanistan at best, where the capitol is fine (except for the occasional grenade lob) while the countriside is ruled by petty warlords going to war with each other. This is can be handled in Afghanistan because its such an isolated place, but in a country located centrally in one of the most violent places on earth where an abundant amount of oil is found this situation will cause trouble.

If for some reason we pull off the near impossible and keep Iraq from from collapsing we now have an Middle Eastern country that can we can reasonably expect to control. The Arabs will just love this. Most espiecielly Iran which has had two countries on either side of it be subjected to American intervention. Now we have a scared Iran which feels its next which is only going empower the conservative clergy and wipe out much of the reforms pushed by the liberal president. The situation could easily deteriorate into a worried Iran making scary threats to keep the US out. Iran will be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq if we should ever invade.

Then there is Pakistan with the good Generalismo holding to power by a thread. Any war on Iraq will cause the Arab street to go nuts espiecielly in a country with such Anti-American sentiment like Pakistan. If the good General falls we can look forward to a fundie Islamic state with nuclear weapons itching to fight India.

Coupled with the fact that North Korea is going Kamikazee, Israel and the Palestinians are (forever) at each other's throats, and international sentiment is strongly agaisnt this war, war with Iraq would be a political blunder of the highest order. Iraq most likely has chemical and biological weapons (I remain extremely doubtful that Iraq has a viable nuclear program) but so do a number of other countries who are run by even more 'evil' men. There are more importnat things going on in the world right now and Bush would be extremely foolish to follow through with his threats of war.

Willem · February 4, 2003, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman
And when did Norman Schwartzcopf (sp?) say that? source?

It was in CNN just a short while ago. I'd provide you with the link, but I can't spell his name either.

Quote:

And troops have already been on their way because it takes months for a full deployment of a battle force. The US wants to be ready for when/if it is declared there will be action. We dont want to just then at that moment begin the months to build up up for war...

Yes, and that's a good thing. But for god sakes, tone down the rhetoric and lets see what happens first! Even if that means a few months of the inspectors poking around.

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 20:20

Yep....let's talk about the ramifications of war.

And let's start by talking about what happens if we don't.

Saddam has violated yet another UN resolution, the stated penalty for which is "dire consequences." What should that mean?

Sanctions? Can't. Most of the world already has those in place.

Shall we wash his mouth out with soap?

Harsh language?

I think it's safe to say that as of this latest ignored UN resolution, IF we do not act, then we send an unmistakable message to every other two-bit dictator in the world.

Hell yes you can defy UN resolutions. They lack the backbone to do anything to you if you do, so why not?

Would that message, in your opinon, make the world a safer place?

If it comes to war (and it's certainly looking like it will), I support that effort. Whatever it takes.

If it means assisting third parties with unrest, then yes. I support that to.

The alternative is to send an unmistakable message to little tyrants all over the globe that they can fly in the face of the demands of the United Nations and NOTHING will come of it.

Order demands enforcement.

If I am not mistaken, the Canadian UN representative ALSO signed off on UN1441....what do you think "Dire Consequences" means? Playin' a couple rounds of TiddlyWinks with him?

But....after ten years plus of his defiance, you still wanna give him another (and perhaps several) chances....and THIS is the superior plan?

I do not like our current president. I have made fun of him on NUMEROUS occassions. But my like or dislike of the man has nothing to do with the fact...the FACT that the only language dictators understand is violence.

Saddam is *laughing* at the impotence of the UN at this very moment. Another deadline come and gone, and what has happened to him?

Nothing.

Shall we let that continue, ad infinitum? Just keep letting twinkle-toes get away with it, and encourage others to do the same? This is the plan?

If so....I fear it is not a very good one.

-=Vel=-