On 4 Aug 2002 at 1:17, Blunderov wrote:
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:50:10 -0500
> From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> Subject: RE: virus: Ann Coulter\'s Rant/Rave
>
> On 2 Aug 2002 at 13:28, Blunderov wrote:
>
> [joedees1] @bellsouth.net Fri 2002/08/02 09:42 AM wrote
>
> [Blunderov0]
> Almost I don't believe what I'm seeing. I don't care if there are a
> hundred points written in Beelzebub's own personal ink. There is no
> justification in international law for deposing a regime you don't
> like, no matter how emphatically you may disapprove of it. Bush is
> simply inventing a pretext in the time honored fashion of warmongers
> everywhere. [/Blunderov0]
>
> [joedees1]
> Or no matter what it does?
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> Yes. No matter what he does short of launching, or being clearly seen
> to be in the process of launching, an actual physical attack. This is
> the law. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> he has already done that. On Kuwait. On his own people. On one of
> our ex-presidents. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> If I may refer you to your own later words in this very post?
> <snip>Ancient. Not,...contemporaneously.<snap> Last I heard the war is
> over. [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> (1)But not his threats against us, (2)and his attempts to shoot down
> the
>
> aircraft protecting his own citizens from him, (3)and his flaunting of
> UN
>
> resolutions concerning weapons inspections,(4)and his manufacture and
> secretion of chemical and biological weapons in direct violation of
> those resolutions,(5)the kind of weapons he has already used on his
> own people
>
> and those of other countries,(6)and his attempts to obtain nuclear
> weapons,(7)and his threats to use them against Israel(8)(which, it
> seems, might please some on this list to no end), (9)and on and on and
> on... [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> (1) Which threats do you have in mind here? Is it the USA's intention
> to exterminate all who utter threats against it?
>
No, it is the US's intention to prevent those who have acted upon such
threats from being able to do so again.
>
> When Bush says "you
> are with us or against us" is this a threat? Or in the USA is this
> called "pre-emptive diplomacy" or some such doublespeak?
>
It is a clear message that the US considers those rogue nations that
knowingly and willingly harbor terrorists to have by that action/decision
defined themselves as terrorist regimes.
>
> (2)See Pot vs Kettle
>
And where is it necessary for the UN community to intervene to prevent
US aircraft from attacking the US's own citizens? I see not kettle/pot here.
>
> {3)I am glad that you agree with me that the flaunting of UN
> regulations is a very bad thing. How soon will you be writing to your
> congressman? Would you like me to provide you with a list of UN
> resolutions that that have and are being violated? And by whom?
> Including accessories and accomplices? It makes interesting reading.
> This does too.
>
Just because some other people are violating UN resolutions does not
mean that it's okay for Saddam Hussein to do so. It most definitely is not.
>
> http://www.fair.org/media-beat/020802.html
>
> <snip>
> August 1, 2002
> War and Forgetfulness -- A Bloody Media Game
> By Norman Solomon
> Three and a half years ago, some key information about U.N. weapons
> inspectors in Iraq briefly surfaced on the front pages of American
> newspapers -- and promptly vanished. Now, with righteous war drums
> beating loudly in Washington, let's reach deep down into the news
> media's Orwellian memory hole and retrieve the story.
>
> "U.S. Spied on Iraq Under U.N. Cover, Officials Now Say," a front-page
> New York Times headline announced on Jan. 7, 1999. The article was
> unequivocal: "United States officials said today that American spies
> had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors
> ferreting out secret Iraqi weapons programs.... By being part of the
> team, the Americans gained a first-hand knowledge of the investigation
> and a protected presence inside Baghdad."
>
> A day later, a follow-up Times story pointed out: "Reports that the
> United States used the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq as
> cover for spying on Saddam Hussein are dimming any chances that the
> inspection system will survive."
>
> With its credibility badly damaged by the spying, the U.N. inspection
> system did not survive. Another factor in its demise was the U.S.
> government's declaration that sanctions against Iraq would remain in
> place whether or not Baghdad fully complied with the inspection
> regimen.
>
>
> But such facts don't assist the conditioned media reflex of blaming
> everything on Saddam Hussein. No matter how hard you search major
> American media databases of the last couple of years for mention of
> the spy caper, you'll come up nearly empty. George Orwell would have
> understood.
>
> Instead of presenting a complete relevant summary of past events,
> mainstream U.S. journalists and politicians are glad to focus on
> tactical pros and cons of various aggressive military scenarios. While
> a few pundits raise cautious warning flags, even the most absurd
> Swiss-cheese rationales for violently forcing a "regime change" in
> Baghdad routinely pass without challenge.
>
> In late July, a Wall Street Journal essay by a pair of ex-Justice
> Department attorneys claimed that the U.S. would be "fully within its
> rights" to attack Iraq and overthrow the regime -- based on "the
> customary international law doctrine of anticipatory self-defense." Of
> course, if we're now supposed to claim that "anticipatory
> self-defense" is a valid reason for starting a war, then the same
> excuse could be used by the Iraqi government to justify an attack on
> the United States (even setting aside the reality that the U.S. has
> been bombing "no fly zones" inside Iraq for years).
>
> Among the first to testify at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's
> recent hearing on Iraq was "strategy scholar" Anthony Cordesman, a
> former Pentagon and State Department official. He participated in the
> tradition of touting another round of taxpayer-funded carnage as a
> laudable innovation -- "our first preemptive war."
>
> Speaking alongside Cordesman was Richard Butler, the head of the U.N.
> weapons inspection program in Iraq at the time that it was spying for
> Washington. At the Senate hearing, Butler suggested that perhaps the
> Russian government could be induced to tell Baghdad: "You will do
> serious arms control or you're toast."
>
> Like countless other officials treated with great deference by the
> national press corps, Butler strives to seem suave and clever as he
> talks up the wisdom of launching high-tech attacks certain to
> incinerate troops and civilians. As a matter of routine, U.S.
> journalists are too discreet to bring up unpleasant pieces of history
> that don't fit in with the slanted jigsaw picture of American virtue.
>
> With many foreign-policy issues, major news outlets demonstrate a
> remarkable ability to downplay or totally jettison facts that
> Washington policymakers don't want to talk about. The spy story that
> broke in early 1999 is a case in point. But the brief flurry of
> critical analysis that occurred at the time should now be revisited.
>
> "That American spies have operations in Iraq should be no surprise," a
> Hartford Courant editorial said on Jan. 10, 1999. "That the spies are
> using the United Nations as a cover is deplorable."
>
> While noting "Saddam Hussein's numerous complaints that U.N.
> inspection teams included American spies were apparently not
> imaginary," the newspaper mentioned that the espionage operatives
> "planted eavesdropping devices in hopes of monitoring forces that
> guarded Mr. Hussein as well as searching for hidden arms stockpiles."
>
> The U.S. news media quickly lost interest in that story. We should ask
> why. <snap>
>
I fail to see how UNSCOM members reporting the progress of the
UNSCOM mission to the US, a permanent member of the UN Security
Council, constitutes spying, keeping in mind that the stated purpose of
UNSCOM was to 'spy out' Iraq's hidden/concealed WMD caches and
programs.
>
> (4) See Pot vs Kettle.
>
And which UN resolutions against such manufacture are we presently
violating? References, please. We are actually constructing high-
temperature burning facilities to destroy those chemical weapons we had
previously manufactured, and unlike Saddam Hussein, we have not
employed such weapons against ourself or others since they were banned
following WW I.
>
> (5) See Pot vs Kettle. And yes, the USA poisoned Indians with smallpox
> infected blankets,
>
Once again, ancient history; the slaughter of nonviolent Indian by the
british Empire happened more recently.
>
> agent-orange wasn't a flavour of LSD.
>
No, but it was not intended to damage people, but to reveal hidden
adversaries by defoliating their jungle cover. Many Americans also suffer
its effects, because the US erroneously did not consider exposure to it
hazardous to humans, and made few provisions against its own personnell
being exposed.
>
> (6) That damn genie just won't go back in the bottle will he? See:
>
> http://www.iacenter.org/maj_iraq.htm
>
> MORE BOMBS OVER BAGHDAD
>
> by Mumia Abu-Jamal
> (Col. writ. 2/24/01
>
> <big snip>
> If they turn on the radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs
> (surface-to- air missiles). They know we own their country. We own
> their airspace ... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's
> what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially
> when there's a lot of oil out there we need . -- (Blum, Wm., p. 159,
> Rogue State , Common Courage, 2000)
>
> The general sez, "oil." Shouldn't he know why Iraq is being
> bombarded?
>
> This is the Voice of Empire, as real and as omnipotent as any empire
> in history; the Roman, the Byzantine, or the Ottoman Empire. And
> empires do what they do for one real reason: they can. </big snip>
>
I don't suppose that Abu Jamal is Muslim (I'm sure the name change is a
cleverly deceptive ploy), or that his sympathies do not lie with the country
that has jailed him for murder, ayy? NAAAH! Otherwise, it would be
understandable to him that the coalition instituted the no-fly zones in
response to a world outcry subsequent to Saddam Hussein's slaughter of
Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north (both Muslim, btw).
>
What happened? Didja miss #7?
>
> (8)Oooh! An innuendo. Joe you sly Devil! Naughty, naughty.
>
One that seems supported by the rant/raves of some posters here.
>
> (9) Well, now that you mention it, you do rather. I didn't want to say
> anything before, didn't want to be the first to break the news, but
> now that you know anyway, I suppose it's OK to talk about it. Are you
> comfortable with that? Don't feel bad a lot of people have this
> uncontrollable urge to just go on and on. It's like a disease without
> a cure for them you know, they can't help it. Just when they think
> that they might be finished they suddenly realize that they aren't.
> And that's the time when they just do it some more, you know, just
> without thinking. But it's OK to talk about it. In fact it's really
> vital to talk about it. When I think of all of the things that are
> vital, and all those things that aren't, well I just know that this
> is, well, really important. It's vital to just let it out.
> [/Blunderov3]
>
What I meant by that is that there are other things that saddam hussein is
doing, such as the 50k reward to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
>
> [joedees1]
> Such as attacking their neighbors, creating chemical weapons they use
> against those neighbors and against their own people, and attempting
> to assassinate a former US president (among other things)? [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> I'm sorry? It is not clear to me whether you are referring to the USA
> or Iraq in this sentence. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> That statement speaks volumes concerning your lack of understanding of
> world events. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Clearly we disagree on some matters of interpretation. I would be
> happy to attain enlightenment. Perhaps some future post of yours will
> cause the scales to fall from my eyes? [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> it would seem that they are memetically riveted there.
> [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> It is true that my memeplex doesn't have "my country right or wrong"
> written on the flipside. Have you read the fine print on yours?
> [/Blunderov3]
>
Yes; I previously posted that the US should accept the Global Warming
treaty, shut down the School of the Americas, and ensure that the Nigerian
citizens got at least some of the oil money, from the oil pumped from under
the land on which they live, rather than it all being taken by Abachi. I
guess I do indeed think my country does some things wrong; I just do not
think that pursuing murderous terrorists or toppling bloodthirsty fascist
dictators are two of them.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> If I recall, the USA has very many exotic weapons including chemical
> ones. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Which it has not used.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Which it has not said that it has used. I suppose I'll have to take an
> honest Yankees' word for it. [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> It seems that you would prefer to take an honest Iraqi's word for it.
> [/joedees2]
>
> [[Blunderov3]
> Ooooh! A herring!
> [[Blunderov3]
>
If you can find one in the present Iraqi regime, that is. And if you can find
a single instance of the US employing chemical or biological weapons
against either its own citizens or those of other countries, please provide
it. It is documented fact that Saddam has done both.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It has no compunction about using depleted uranium shells in aircraft
> and artillery weapons. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Not as chemical weapons (they are extremely inefficient at that
> purpose), but because of their physical penetrating power when
> directed at hardened targets. [joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Well I'm not sure how glad I am that the US managed to solve its'
> problem with hardened targets by using a weapon that, if I recall
> correctly, is illegal under the provisions of the Geneva Convention,
> no matter how efficiently it is used. [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> There is, I am reasonably sure, a program underway to find a way to
> achieve the penetration coefficient without the use of depleted
> uranium,
> in order to avoid the bad PR, at least. But those who attack the US,
> physically or verbally, will simply find another target. [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> I'm sure that those who wish to inflict PR harm to the US are
> comforted in their beds at night by the warm knowledge that the US
> will leave no shortage of reprehensible grist for their hungry little
> mills. [Blunderov3]
>
There's nothing we can do or not do that their sick, demented and twisted
little minds will not find a way to warp to their malevolent propaganda
purposes.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It has a history of genocide against its indigenous people.
> [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Ancient. Not, like Iraq, contemporaneously.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> OK Joe, you got me on this one. You have rendered me almost
> speechless. You are prepared to judge other nations on the basis of
> their histories but not your own? [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> Ancient vs. contemporaneous is a valid distinction. Should I likewise
> condemn present-day Great Britain for its massacres in India much more
> recently?
>
> [Blunderov3]
> But it doesn't seem to me that you are at all prepared to countenance
> the USA being judged on its' own recent history either. What are you
> going to do with that cake, BTW? [Blunderov3]
>
Please reference the recent history to which you refer. In which case,
considering all the groups of Muslims we have tried to protect or feed in
the last decade (Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Kurds, Bosnians, Kosovars, Kuwaitis,
Somalis, Afghan women) do you find our attempted or successful actions
objectionable?
>
> [Blunderov1]
> The USA has frequently attacked its neighbours. It has issued an open
> fatwa on the life of Fidel Castro, for instance, not to mention Saddam
> Hussein in, as far as I know, in flagrant contravention of
> international law and convention. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Fidel Castro was allowing the stationing of nuclear weapons 90 miles
> from our shores. For their removal, we pledged not to invade.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> It is not clear to me that the assassination of a foreign head of
> state would influence matters for the better or accord with
> international law just because the USA really, really, really wanted
> it to. [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> A dead Saddam could not obtain or use WMD's (weapons of mass
> destruction), as the live one has done, and has sworn to do again.
> [joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> As you keep on repeating. I wonder which threats these were and what
> the context was. Oh and BTW, see Pot vs Kettle [/Blunderov3]
>
The threat to assassinate a former US president (unsuccessfully acted
upon), the threat to seize Kuwait (successfully acted upon in the short
term) , the threat to use nuclear weapons on Israel (as yet not acted upon
but necessary to forfend), the threat to attack Israel with SCUD missiles
(acted upon during the Gulf War, even though israle did not retaliate), and
so forth.
>
> [Blunderov2]
> (Interestingly America has murdered at least two of its' own
> presidents; is this a genetic thing?)
> [Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> Four of them - and assassination of their leaders is an international
> sport, engaged in by citizens of many countries, as well as those from
> outside them. [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> Four of them you say? Well I suppose Italy might score higher it's
> true, maybe the former USSR as well. Odd that 500 yrs of progress has
> made little impact on the ethics of politicians. That assassination is
> still a favoured diplomatic option is a testament to it's legitimacy.
> Except if you do it with explosives strapped to you own body. That's
> right out. [/Blunderov3]
>
That's not how presidents are assassinated; it is typically done with
gunfire. Suicide bombers typically kill clueless private citizens. (PS: snide
alert posted for your previous message).
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It was very sporting of the USA
> to refrain from investing Cuba. Three cheers.
> [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees2]
> We got the missiles out.
> [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> That's true. Only just though.
> [/Blunderov3]
>
It was close.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It is still the only nation on earth ever to have used nuclear weapons
> in anger. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> You mean in war.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> You have understood me correctly. Have I understood you correctly? It
> seems to me that you are implying that if Suddam Hussein, for
> instance, finds himself attacked by an hypothetical aggressor, he
> would be entitled to resort to nuclear weapons because he would, when
> all was said and done, be "in war"? Or does this apply only to the
> USA? [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> He has made it abundantly clear that he would would use them , as he
> has used other weapons of mass destruction, whether he was attacked or
> not. That's why he must be deposed before he obtains them.
> [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> These threats to which you continuously allude; are they ancient or
> modern? [Blunderov3]
>
They have been more or less continuously issued since the Gulf War.
>
> [joedees1]
> No reason WHATSOEVER????? You apparently must then, by following your
> own statement to its logical conclusion, disapprove of the deposing of
> the Taliban, Hitler, Duvalier, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot. You have little
> company. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> No, not "no reason whatsoever". International law lays out the
> circumstances that may constitute adequate grounds for a pre-emptive
> attack. The reckless USA seems to think it can cherry-pick the bits of
> international laws, treaties and conventions which it finds tasty and
> leave the nasty bits for everyone else to swallow. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Apparently, you did not read the Iraqi articles I posted; they make a
> strong pre-emptive self-defence case for such imposition. [joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> I don't recall a strong case being made for this anywhere.
> [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> Selective recall tends to go hand-in-hand with bias.
> [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> It is also a useful technique for freeing up bandwidth that is
> needlessly occupied by bullshit.
> [/Blunderov3]
>
Actually, those were news articles. Is your motto, "I remember all the
news I like or agree with"?
>
> [Blunderov2]
> With regard
> to your own posts, it maybe that my memory, an admittedly dodgy organ,
> is at fault. I believe I have the gist of the argument though - how
> does it go - The USA is afraid, so it will attack first in
> self-defence. Anyone else, however, who does this is a rotten doctor
> commie rat. [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> No, Israel finds itself having to do such things to stem the tide of
> suicide bombers plaguing their land by halting them at their sources.
> The Phillipines engages in preemptive attacks upon Abu Sayyaf rebels
> (aligned with Al Quaeda) with the full support of the US. Yemen has
> attacked cells of Al Quaeda within their own borders, as has Morrocco.
> The US, having become aware of the Al Quaeda connections, has no
> condemnation for pre-emptive attacks upon Chechen terrorists by Russia
> or Uighur terrorists by China, or, in fact, Kashmiri terrorists by
> India. [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> "Israel finds itself"? It woke up one morning from a sort of
> hibernation only to discover that the whole damn place was infested
> with terrorists? Holy Shit, where did they come from? [/Blunderov3]
>
They learned the suicide bomber tactic from Hizbollah, who employed it in
Lebanon; and they learned it from the Iranians (who back Hizbollah), who
employed human infantry with Koranic verses affixed to their foreheads to
clear Iraqi minefields in their war so that they would not lose more
valuable, less numerous and less easily replaceable (to them) tanks.
>
> [Blunderov2]
> The term "pre-emptive self-defence" sounds as if it was minted in the
> Soviet Union of yore, not the enlightened West. [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> Two jumbo jets flying into twin towers filled with clueless civilians
> has quite an enlightening effect as to the realities of a situation,
> and what must be done to forfend against them. [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> Would that were true. Really.
> [/Blunderov3]
>
In this case, it most indubitably is.
>
> [Blunderov0]
> How is this splendid indifference to international law different from
> Islamic, or any other, extremism? [ /Blunderov0]
>
> [joedees1]
> It is in response to an expansionist and fascist extremism, rather
> than itself being same. [joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> I love it here in wonderland.
> [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> You seem to perpetually inhabit it
> [/joedees1].
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Just lucky I guess.
> [/Blunderov2]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It is a marvelous place where pre-emptive self-defence (for instance)
> can be justified to one's adoring electorate as a righteous response
> to an intolerable situation that was in, no small part, precipitated
> by the USA itself. I am sickened to the marrow by the speculation that
> the USA's attack will be timed to coincide with some elections. I fear
> it is all too true. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> It will occur when it is possible to succeed with an acceptable cost,
> but before an unacceptable attack by Iraq upon the US becomes possible
> (according to the articles, that outer limit is 2005). [/joedees1].
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Nothing to do with the elections or a 2nd term of office then. I'm
> delighted. Bush is allowed to have 2 terms. The fact that the AD2005
> "deadline" falls within the range of his possible 2nd term is probably
> no more than a monstrous coincidence. [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> That is correct. And Bush II might not have two terms, war or no war,
> if the stock market keeps tanking; Bush I was popular after the Gulf
> War, but Clinton defeated him on the basis of the economy. BTW,
> Lyndon Johnson, who could have won re-election, refused to seek it
> BECAUSE the US was at war; interesting, hunh? [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> Thank you for the info which is indeed interesting to me. I did not
> know that about LBJ. There seems to be every possibility that the
> market may continue to tank. Attacking Iraq will not help this.
> Intensive trade with a new, previously inaccessible, oil rich market
> might though. [/Blunderov3]
>
Iraq has been selling oil, under UN auspices, on the international market
for some time now. The present price of oil is pretty low; it is not such
factors that are responsible for the economic difficulties, nor will a new oil
market dissipate them.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> I ask with tears in my eyes:
> If the USA is in a position to allow itself the luxury of attacking on
> high-days and holidays that are convenient (for reasons only remotely,
> if at all, connected to the war) to it's leaders, how can there be
> said to be a clear and imminent danger, as required by international
> law, in the situation ? [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> The US is dealing with a real deadline, and is not in a position to
> attack now, so far as I know. It will do so when it can succeed
> without prohibitive US cost, before that deadline. The attack will be
> in the best interests of the US and the people of the region, not of a
> party or a president. When the stakes are that high, no such
> game-playing is going to happen, because with the stakes that high, it
> is no game. Cry all you want and shed big watery tears for that
> vicious and bloodthirsty dictator; I cry for him not. /joedees1].
>
> [Blunderov2]
> This addresses the point that I made how?
> [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> The threat is clear, and it is becoming more imminent as time goes on;
> but it cannot be dealt with instantaneously, so prudence demands that
> preparations be made in advance. And they are being made in the full
> light of day. [joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> This addresses the point that I made how?
> [/Blunderov3]
>
That there is a clear danger that is getting more imminent as time goes by,
and which requires time to successfully forfend.
>
> [Blunderov2]
> If the US is not in a
> position to prevent an attack, and has not yet, in spite of that fact,
> been attacked, how can it be in imminent danger of being attacked?
> Either there is no danger, or it is not imminent. [/Blunderov2]
>
See above.
>
> [joedees1]
> When the US goes in to protect its interests and those of its allies,
> it leaves when the job is done (and sometimes, regrettably, too soon).
> Saddam was planning to seize Kuwait (and most probably the entire
> Arabian peninsula) for the duration. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> The complicity and duplicity of American diplomacy prior to the Gulf
> War have been well documented in these annals. I don't buy the
> "righteous indignation" pose. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> The US was hoping to counterbalance Iraq and Iran, and for a while, it
> worked. When he turned his gaze south, towards a sparsely populated
> but globally critical Arabian peninsula, he had to be met and stopped.
> Period. I criticize Bush, senior, for not deposing him during the
> Gulf War; it was a miscalculation that has cost the region, and the
> world, dearly. It will not be repeated. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Spilt milk I suppose. But this does not mean that the USA can just
> resume hostilities against Iraq anytime it wants. The war, as I have
> remarked, is over. Yay. [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> See remarks above. No, I'lll cut and paste them.
> But not his threats against us, and his attempts to shoot down the
> aircraft protecting his own citizens from him, and his flaunting of UN
> resolutions concerning weapons inspections, and his manufacture and
> secretion of chemical and biological weapons in direct violation of
> those resolutions, the kind of weapons he has already used on his own
> people and those of other countries, and his attempts to obtain
> nuclear weapons, and his threats to use them against Israel (which, it
> seems, might please some on this list to no end), and on and on and
> on... [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> and on and on and on...
> [Blunderov3]
>
And his paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers 50 K per, and
on and on...
>
> [Blunderov1]
> I have no doubt that any feebleness in the legal rationale will be
> satisfactorily obscured by gunfire, much as is the case in Israel.
> [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> The rationale IS gunfire (Saddam's), and his continuing attempt to
> augment same with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, which he
> would most certainly use, as he has used chemical weapons already
> against his own people and against those of other countries.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> But I must accept that America will play nice from now on because it
> sees the error of its' former ways? [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> We have been; most of our military actions recently have been to save
> other countries' own peoples from the depredations of their own
> vicious regimes, to protect food distributors (distributing food we
> donated) during famine, and to support nation building towards
> participatory democracies, complete with citizen human rights, against
> the threats posed to them by religio-fascist terror insurgencies.
> [joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> Just how big is this empire anyway? Sounds verrrry big.
>
It's no empire; unlike GB historically did in its days of yore, we help until
the help is no longer necessary, and then leave (and sometimes - as in
post soviet war Afghanistan and possibly Haiti - too soon). We left the
Phillipines when we were asked, for instance. And we ceded the Panama
Canal, which we and the brits built, to Panama.
>
> Uneasy lies
> the crown they say and I can well imagine it must be heavy. Especially
> with a big jewel like Israel in it. (No pun intended I swear) But
> getting back to the subject of the attacking sovereign nations on the
> basis of what they might or might not do.... [Blunderov3]
>
And what they have done after similar threats.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It is true that Iraq is firing on American personnel. The fact that
> these Americans are in airspace that doesn't belong to them may have
> something to do with it. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> You would prefer to allow him to commit genocide on the people within
> his borders? How did you feel about Rwanda, or Serbia? How did you
> feel about Germany? Not me, and not most conscientious and civilized
> people. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Insofar as the USA has conformed to international laws and treaties I
> have no problem with its' conduct in any of the above. [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> But by the definition you are attempting to impose here, in such
> actions,
> which meet with your approval, it has not.
> [joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> Umm. I'm genuinely confused here. Unless this is this post-modern
> thing again. In which case I'm still confused. [Blunderov3]
>
Our interventions in Serbia and Kosovo, while approved by the UN,
were counter to the principle you purport to defend; they were preemptive
defensive military actions, taken for the benefit of foreign citizens rather
than ourselves, when no imminent direct threat to us could be discerned.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> Or does it belong to them? Maybe international law is tiresomely
> archaic in promoting outmoded concepts such as "sovereign airspace"
> and "non-interference"; clearly these things have no part in the
> modern world if America finds them irksome. After all, America is
> nothing if not modern. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> America does what it does because someone has to, no one else can, and
> the entire world looks to us to do it. They bitch and moan when we
> do, and they bitch and moan when we don't. I wish that we were NOT
> the world's policeman, but we catch hell whether we wear the cap or
> not. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> Granted it must not be easy. It could be done much better than it is
> though. It would help to have leaders that are not preoccupied with
> grandstanding to an electorate in preference to finding sustainable
> solutions. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees2]
> Actually, finding such solutions is good for both world stability and
> one's reelection chances, although by no means assuring same (not to
> mention one's historical legacy). The US has been engaged in the
> Mideast, at the demand of all parties involved and uninvolved, for
> thirty years in search of a sustainable solution; the president who
> pulls it off, if and when it happens, will have assured a greater
> place in the annals of history. [joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> A consummation devoutly to be wished.
> [Blunderov3]
>
By both of us.
>
> [Blunderov0]
> This is horrible. The next thing the whole world will be in flames.
> [/Blunderov0]
>
> [joedees1]
> No, just one mustachioed madman's crazed ambitions. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> The USA is setting a terrible example that will not go unnoticed.
> [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> By other would-be aggressors, power-and-territory-hungry dictators,
> and tin-horn satraps, I most sincerely hope. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> No need for the uncertainty. I very much fear that your wish was
> granted long ago. I seem to recall reading, long ago, about the
> long-range weather prospects for persons who find it expedient to "sow
> the wind". [/Blunderov2]
>
> [joedees2]
> Yep. For Saddam Hussein, the whirlwind is a' coming.
> [/joedees2]
>
> [Blunderov3]
> The USA has developed smart whirlwinds now? That's amazing! Do they
> work better than smart bombs? [/[Blunderov3]
>
They ARE smart bombs - and bullets, and the US personnel that will fire
them to keep our homeland safe.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT