State of the Union

[Gixer]

I'd just like to know why after every sentence everyone finds it necessary to not only clap but to then to stand and clap some more.

Is this because Bush is only capable of delivering one sentence at a time? Or is it now a made for TV like production with a guy in thr front with boards saying. Clap,Clap Louder,Clap Standing etc.... ?

And how come the 4 military guys in the front don't have to clap let alone stand and clap, other then at the end?

Just seems the whole thing could be cut down to a few minutes and I could of got back to watching Fear Factor. lol





...-Gixer

[weazel]

Originally posted by Gixer
I'd just like to know why after every sentence everyone finds it necessary to not only clap but to then to stand and clap some more.

Is this because Bush is only capable of delivering one sentence at a time? Or is it now a made for TV like production with a guy in thr front with boards saying. Clap,Clap Louder,Clap Standing etc.... ?

And how come the 4 military guys in the front don't have to clap let alone stand and clap, other then at the end?

Just seems the whole thing could be cut down to a few minutes and I could of got back to watching Fear Factor. lol





...-Gixer

[Dowding]

You implied that Saddam is nothing more than a puppet of the US, I asked for evidence. You haven't supplied it.

Now who's putting words into who's mouth? I never said Saddam is the US' puppet, I said he was. He was actively groomed and supported by the Western powers, including the US, as a buffer to Iranian militantism. He was allowed to repress dissidents and opposition within his own country because the West needed him there. A political decision was made to back him to the hilt because the Iraqi oil fields must not fall into the hands of Iran. He was losing the Iran-Iraq war by 1982. To this end, US politicians turned a blind eye to his development of chemical weapons using materials derived from US companies, even though there was almost daily use of such weapons against Iran. There was also transfer of biological cultures from the US to Iraq during the 80s - such as anthrax and bubonic plague. This was under the auspices of 'disease control' - but even the CIA admits this was a naive assumption. This is all fully documented by your Senate based on CIA documents. It's not some crack-pot conspiracy theory.

This is a mess of the Western power's making, and that does include the US to a large degree. That's not opinion, that is fact backed up by your own government.

Well who's freakin Empire was it that diddlyed up Iraq to begin with? AND Palistine......

I know reading more than a paragraph of text is apparently difficult for you, Udie, but really you must make more of an effort if you want to follow the discussion within a thread. You'll find if you read all my replies, that I don't place blame for this situation solely at the door of the US. The whole of the Western world must carry that burden. BUT, I am arguing that there is no way anyone can deny that the US, as part of the Western world, played its part in giving Saddam the tools by which he developed these weapons while knowing full well what he was capable of.

shaddup and get out of the way....

I'm sorry... am I blocking the view of your TV? Is CNN about to re-run clips of gun camera footage from the first war? Do you have your Kleenex at the ready?

For a second there, I thought you might actually be one of the guys being sent to the Gulf. But then I realised you were just another armchair general, itching for more fireworks. Enjoy.

[Gunthr]

Dowding, am I being fair when I summarize your opinion as follows?:

You believe that Bush may be handling the Iraq issue properly.

And you also believe that the USA and the rest of the western world share blame for past support of Saddam H. and arming him.

[Dowding]

On point 2, I absolutely agree.

On point 1, something just doesn't feel right about the case against Iraq. If the evidence for him having chemical weapons is so strong, why is there the continued effort to link him to 9-11? Why the contradictory signals between Washington and London - a 'lag' that suddenly disappears as soon as its noted. Why are certain cabinet ministers saying one thing, then being condradicted by their colleagues?

To me, North Korea is the greater threat given their recently demonstrated links with countries like the terrorist-friendly Yemen. The one positive thing is that Blair yesterday mentioned that North Korea would be next.

But defeating Iraq will be the easier part. The hard part will be providing a stable government - that will require years of occupation and lots of cash. It's not so easy to take out Saddam and then simply pack up and take out North Korea. Why not get the hard job out of the way? Is it perhaps because Bush wants a victory to take into the elections?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Dowding
It's not so easy to take out Saddam and then simply pack up and take out North Korea. Why not get the hard job out of the way? Is it perhaps because Bush wants a victory to take into the elections?

"take out North Korea" you make it sound easy, it won't be. If China objects it probably won't even be possible without using nukes. War in Korea is a losing situation for everyone.

[Dowding]

My point exactly, AKIron. The only option will be a hugely drawn out diplomatic effort, backed up by military force which would reach a conclusion long after the next Presidential election. He'd much rather go for an election friendly 'quick win' (to use management speak).

But maybe I'm wrong.

[Rude]

So Dowding....if the US quit getting involved in the middle east, I suppose Europe would take the reigns and provide stability?

As to us providing support to Saddam....you enjoy the luxury of hindsight....I doubt you believe that such decisions are easily made and that solutions to some of these problems are simple and clear...of course you are a young pup.....guess you feel all good inside to criticize those who carry the full weight of having to make tough decisions, all from behind you little computer screen.

Talks cheap and you talk alot.

Strange bedfellows are part of trying to maintain stability in many parts of the world....is it a good thing or the right thing? No. The only other solution is to kill all of the radical leaders who are bent on tyranny....but then the world would cry brutal brutal....not fair not fair.

You can't have your cake and eat it too....twenty years from now you won't feel the same as you currently do and some wisdom and understanding of mankind may find it's way into your little bag of tricks...let's hope so.

[Gunthr]

On point 2, I absolutely agree.

On point 1, something just doesn't feel right about the case against Iraq. If the evidence for him having chemical weapons is so strong, why is there the continued effort to link him to 9-11? Why the contradictory signals between Washington and London - a 'lag' that suddenly disappears as soon as its noted. Why are certain cabinet ministers saying one thing, then being condradicted by their colleagues?

To me, North Korea is the greater threat given their recently demonstrated links with countries like the terrorist-friendly Yemen. The one positive thing is that Blair yesterday mentioned that North Korea would be next.

But defeating Iraq will be the easier part. The hard part will be providing a stable government - that will require years of occupation and lots of cash. It's not so easy to take out Saddam and then simply pack up and take out North Korea. Why not get the hard job out of the way? Is it perhaps because Bush wants a victory to take into the elections? - Dowding

I have some of the same concerns. I am actually expecting more facts and evidence against Iraq to be revealed soon - at the UN. I believe that US intelligence has evidence linking Iraq to Al Queda and it will be spelled out.

I don't see N. Korea as a bigger problem. There are diplomatic solutions there. It is becoming increasing apparent that there are no diplomatic solutions in Iraq.

The rest is politics, Dowding. Lets not be naive about the world.  Although I believe Bush is principled, the number one job of all politicians is to stay in power. Does Bush recognise the fact that  a victory in war might help in the elections? Probably.

But don't ignore the fact that Bush also stands to lose big for his decisions. Remember, these are politicians - and their motives for making decisions at top levels are almost never made based on a single reason.  However, it is not relevant. However Bush may feel privately about that, that particular argument for war cannot be made in public.

We just have to wait for the facts. Meanwhile, Bush is marshaling a mighty force. I'm betting that he knows more than we do today.

[Zapkin72]

the bottom line is this: saddam hasnt even lived up to the agreements he made at the end of the gulf war. i dont understand why we need anymore justification to take the freak out. then again...im not a political science expert!

[Dowding]

Rude - revert to ad hominem attacks all you like. It just looks pretty weak considering your 'wise old man' persona. I cower in front of my screen awaiting your next pearls of wisdom. I really am not worthy.

That said... you seem to demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. My posts are a counter argument to the 'I'm the World's Policeman and I'm sooo tired' refrain. The US can't take that particular line on Iraq, I'm afraid. It, along with the other Western powers, helped Saddam develop his weapons and maintain despotic power. The situation is the US's mess along with Western Europe. There was no hindsight - just a statement of fact.

Gunthr - I hope Bush comes up with the goods soon. Why not do a Cuban Missile Crisis in front of the security council? I'm sure that would shake things up alot.

What will be your position if Bush gives no more information in the next few weeks?

[Gunthr]

What will be your position if Bush gives no more information in the next few weeks? - Dowding

Oh boy. I hope that doesn't happen.

If he gives no more information and doesn't attack Iraq - no prob.

If he gives no more information and attacks Iraq - There will be a lot of trouble.

I'm comfortable with Bush as our leader, and I trust him. I could postpone full disclosure of the factors that lead to the attack if the delay was for security reasons -  but not for too long.

Still, I recognise that you don't trust  him, or believe he is a good leader, and there are a significant number of people who are like yourself. - There would certainly be consequences if Bush ignores this.

[Dowding]

Well, I guess we are going to find out in a few weeks.

[H. Godwineson]

Given the events of the last century, I'd say the world needs policemen.  If not us, then who?  We shouldn't act alone, but we SHOULD act.

Saddam is a problem that can and should be handled.  North Korea is a thornier problem.  Thanks to military downsizing, over the last three decades, we no longer have the ability to seek military solutions on two fronts.  I would not want to be president and have to seek solutions to these problems, as well as the terrorist threat.

Bye the by, whatever became of the rumors that Saddam was funnelling money to Al Qaeda?  If that link has been proved, wouldn't that be enough of an excuse to invade Iraq and depose him?

Cut Bush some slack.  Considering the major problems he has had to tackle in his first two years in office, his has not been a happy presidency.

If you absolutely, positively cannot stand the though of him being president, just relax, and remember that he only has six more years in office.

Regards, Shuckins

[Rude]

Originally posted by Dowding
Rude - revert to ad hominem attacks all you like. It just looks pretty weak considering your 'wise old man' persona. I cower in front of my screen awaiting your next pearls of wisdom. I really am not worthy.

That said... you seem to demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. My posts are a counter argument to the 'I'm the World's Policeman and I'm sooo tired' refrain. The US can't take that particular line on Iraq, I'm afraid. It, along with the other Western powers, helped Saddam develop his weapons and maintain despotic power. The situation is the US's mess along with Western Europe. There was no hindsight - just a statement of fact.

Gunthr - I hope Bush comes up with the goods soon. Why not do a Cuban Missile Crisis in front of the security council? I'm sure that would shake things up alot.

What will be your position if Bush gives no more information in the next few weeks?

Well, why did we help Saddam in the first place and if we were to back off from Iraq and let the UN alone sort it out, what in your opinion would be the outcome?

BTW...my reading comp skills are right on....I can spot a young idealist when I read one:)