The war on Iraq - Has He Made the Case?

[Guest fukamarine]

>A really telling story about the phony compassion of Bush

>Lite came from none other than Tucker Carlson, a

>conservative commentator who interviewed Shrub when he was

>governor of Texas. With the impending execution of Karla

>Fay Tucker looming large, Carlson asked then Gov. Bush what

>Ms. Tucker might wish to say to him regarding clemency.

>Bush screwed up his face into a pucker and said, "Puhleez

>don't kill me........."

>

>Carlson was horrified and speechless.

 

And Tucker is one HOT little number. One of my CNN favorites.

 

fukamarine

[Guest fukamarine]

>How does all of this affect the price, availability and

>quality of escorts?

 

Well, if we declare war which could further depress the economy, it might affect the p, a, & q of escorts more than you think.

 

fukamarine

[Guest RushNY]

in a word NO

 

this whole things smells to me of unfinished Bush family business from '91 when Bush Snr didnt get rid of him so they are going back for a 2nd try.

[ad rian]

>I also believe most of us agree, at least those of you who

>have followed the regime in Iraq, that Saadam does have

>weapons of mass destruction such as Chemical, Biological and

>apparently Nuclear.

 

So does Israel. Should we bomb Tel Aviv too? There would be a lot more support for that at the UN.

 

>Are we in agreement that had the Gulf War not taken place,

>Iraq would own Kuwait and God knows who else?

 

No, because some of us actually have looked at historical maps, and know that Kuwait really was part of Iraq. In fact, that is why we told Sadam before the invasion that it would not concern us.

 

>Clearly Iraq has demostrated its unwillingness to comply

>with UN resolutions regarding inspections. Do you think this

>should go without consequence?

 

Well, ok then, lets visit those same consequences on Israel. Have you ever heard of UN Resolution 242 or 338 which Israel has breached for 30 years. By the way, when did Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the Chemical Test Ban Treaty?

 

>I think most of us condemned our Nation (Clinton and Bush

>Administrations, INS, FAA, FBI, CIA etc) for its passiveness

>and failure to corroborate and do more to prevent the 9-11

>Travesty. I know most reasonable people believe the US

>Government should have done more in the face of these

>threats, and we now expect the US to proactively protect us

>especially on our Homeland.

 

Some of us also condemned it for its politicizion of the Middle East crisis for domestic advantage to a greater degree than any other Administration, and some of us predicted a response from the Arab world.

 

>The US Government is not Bush alone. He has a myriad of

>advisors in D.C. and from all various central intellegence

>agencies and other Countries. Britain is not just siding

>with George because our countries are old friends.

 

Actually, al the polls show no UK popular support for this War. Oh well, why should we be encumbered by democratic sentiments?

 

>I watched the WTC towers being built. I worked in them and

>closely nearby.

 

I work nearby, and used to switch subways under them at 8:45 a.m. Frankly, I have no interest in dying for the state of Israel. Please do not expose my life to that risk again. Let Israel for once in its existence fight its own battles.

 

>I would also hope many of you realize a war with Iraq is not

>likely to be the type where ground troops invade and harm

>citizens. We simply do what we did in the Gulf War, and

>when we were in Kosovo - we strike from the air, and only

>those targets for which we know have weapons of mass

>destruction and labs. ( I bet many of you didnt even know we

>occassionally flew by and dropped on few on Iraq when we

>were in Bosnia etc).

 

Bomb'em from the skies! It is so antisceptic isn't it? No innocent civilians are collaterally damages! What planet do you live on, sir?

 

>Maybe some of you need to review the films of when our Men

>went to Kuwait and spent nearly a year in thick dark black

>smoke and 140 degree+ temperatures on thousands of Kuwait

>desert acres where Iraqis planted mines - and these US

>citizens had to extinguish and cap the Kuwait Oil wells that

>Iraq blew up into perpetual towering fireballs. YOUR JAWS

>WOULD DROP TO YOUR BALLS. Find the film if you dare. I

>believe Discovery aired it last year. It was a living hell.

>You'll be behind our Nation once you are informed.

 

Maybe you should look at the pictures of the dead and dying Iraqui children, victims of our economic sanctions and the poisoned water from our dropping depleted uranium bombs on their heads fr the last 10 years!

 

>If you dont deal with Iraq's wrath now, it will become

>incredibly unmanageable and maybe too late to contain in the

>future.

 

Yes, Israel does prove that. You win, let's get'em both then

[ad rian]

>Being the richest and most powerful country in the world has

>certain obligations and certain privileges. I believe we

>are obligated to try to protect our friends.

 

Oh yes, more euphamisms and sophistry. Why do say "friends" in the plural? All of our "friends" in the region oppose the war except for one, Israel. Why not say "friend" and better yet, specify Israel, so we can know exactly what motivates this stampede to war. I for one very much hope that our young and hung escorts refuse this fight for the genocidal Zionist state, and that those American Jewish neo-conservatives - Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Lieberman etc. - for once will be clear that their interest is not friends in the plural but rather in the singular. Can't they have the corage of their conviction(s)?

[Traveller]

Israel is OUR proxy in the Middle East. It helps us whomp on despotic Arab states (which would be EVERY single one) whenever they get out of line so that we can continue to put cheap gas in out tanks. Britain is OUR proxy in other parts of the world, similarly dealing with miscreant states. Both are democracies. Jews and Limeys can both be FUN.

 

Later.

 

PS. The Blue Train in South Africa always ran on time when Botha was in power.

[phage]

You seem to live in a strange world where anyone who has a problem with priests molesting children is “anti-Catholic” and anyone who supports action against the state sponsored terrorism of Iraq is some kind of Jewish toady. Whatever.

 

When I said friends, I wasn’t even thinking of that particular region. (I don’t believe we have a single true friend in any of the Arab countries and you are the only one obsessing about Israel and jews.) I was thinking of the European countries where Iraq has already sponsored terrorist activity and could unleash something much nastier if given the chance.

[ad rian]

>You seem to live in a strange world where anyone who has a

>problem with priests molesting children is “anti-Catholic”

>and anyone who supports action against the state sponsored

>terrorism of Iraq is some kind of Jewish toady. Whatever.

 

You seem to have dificulty refuting facts. Was I wrong in what I said about Israel? If so, where?

 

>When I said friends, I wasn’t even thinking of that

>particular region. (I don’t believe we have a single

>true friend in any of the Arab countries and you are

>the only one obsessing about Israel and jews.) I was

>thinking of the European countries where Iraq has already

>sponsored terrorist activity and could unleash something

>much nastier if given the chance.

 

That's funny neither their governments (Tony excepted) or popular opinion support your arguments. Once a paternalist, always a paternalist, I guess . . . .?!

[ad rian]

>Israel is OUR proxy in the Middle East. It helps us whomp

>on despotic Arab states (which would be EVERY single one)

>whenever they get out of line so that we can continue to put

>cheap gas in out tanks. Britain is OUR proxy in other parts

>of the world, similarly dealing with miscreant states. Both

>are democracies. Jews and Limeys can both be FUN.

>

>Later.

>

>PS. The Blue Train in South Africa always ran on time when

>Botha was in power.

 

I respect your honesty. I only wish the other Zionist lackeys taking us off to war were as honest in their motivations. I guess that is why the UN in a moment of bravery once equated Zionism with Apartheid and Racism.

[BewareofNick]

ad rian, isn't it about time to just come out and admit your affiliation with the American Nazi party? Just say it: I hate Jews. The truth will set you free.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[BewareofNick]

>Maybe some of you need to review the films of when our Men

>went to Kuwait and spent nearly a year in thick dark black

>smoke and 140 degree+ temperatures on thousands of Kuwait

>desert acres where Iraqis planted mines - and these US

>citizens had to extinguish and cap the Kuwait Oil wells that

>Iraq blew up into perpetual towering fireballs. YOUR JAWS

>WOULD DROP TO YOUR BALLS. Find the film if you dare. I

>believe Discovery aired it last year. It was a living hell.

>You'll be behind our Nation once you are informed.

 

>If you dont deal with Iraq's wrath now, it will become

>incredibly unmanageable and maybe too late to contain in the

>future.

 

What wrath? Saddam has been a good little boy (except to his own people) since the end of the Gulf War. The reason that this is so hard to buy is that there is no sense of imminent danger or even a suggestion of it. The reasons that Dubya is so hell bent on starting a war with Iraq is:

 

1. Making up for Daddy's mistake during the Gulf War.

2. Helping Republicans get elected in Novemeber

3. It takes focus away from the disasterous state of the economy. Dubya, like is father, has no clue what to do to get the economy going again. "It's the economy, stupid." Only where George Sr. wasn't an intellectual lightweight, Dubya gives new meaning to the phrase.

 

>I am going to trust my Government on this one. I suggest in

>the name those 2800+ souls who were murdered at the

>Pentagon, in the PA field and the World Trade Center Towers,

>that we unite - remain united and act on behalf of

>ourselves, our friends and loved ones because no one else

>will if we dont.

 

Nice finish, certainly, but the people who died in the terrorist attacks have nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and you dishonor there memory by trying to use it to justify the United States starting a war that will, for the first time, label the US as an aggresor without provocation.

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[ad rian]

>ad rian, isn't it about time to just come out and admit your

>affiliation with the American Nazi party? Just say it: I

>hate Jews. The truth will set you free.

>

>-Truth Justice and the American Way-

 

Who said anything about Jews? My comments were about Israel.

If I said something wrong, what was it? Did they sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa? Why is saying that antisemitic? Have they signed either the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Chemical Test Ban Treaty? Why is asking that anti-semitic? Sorry, guy, your Stalinist rhetoric is not going to scare us all from asking relevant questions.

[ad rian]

>Nice finish, certainly, but the people who died in the

>terrorist attacks have nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and

>you dishonor there memory by trying to use it to justify the

>United States starting a war that will, for the first time,

>label the US as an aggresor without provocation.

>-Truth Justice and the American Way-

 

Almost true, it will be the first explicit use of pre-emption, if not the furst use of pre-emption. By the way, I agree with your comments here, but I think you should look at who are the neoconservative hawks counselling him in public and private to go to war. As I have said here before, it ain't antisemitic to comment on the number of Blacks in the NBA and NFL, surely to God it can't be antisemitic to talk about the number of Jewish neoconservatives in W's corner. To say otherwise takes chutzpah!

[BewareofNick]

>>Nice finish, certainly, but the people who died in the

>>terrorist attacks have nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and

>>you dishonor there memory by trying to use it to justify the

>>United States starting a war that will, for the first time,

>>label the US as an aggresor without provocation.

>>-Truth Justice and the American Way-

>

>Almost true, it will be the first explicit use of

>pre-emption, if not the furst use of pre-emption. By the

>way, I agree with your comments here, but I think you should

>look at who are the neoconservative hawks counselling him in

>public and private to go to war. As I have said here

>before, it ain't antisemitic to comment on the number of

>Blacks in the NBA and NFL, surely to God it can't be

>antisemitic to talk about the number of Jewish

>neoconservatives in W's corner. To say otherwise takes

>chutzpah!

 

ad rian, I am really not sure what childhood trauma involving Jewish people has led to your current mental state, but you truly need to seek some counseling. You are not capable of making an informed or objective conclusion on this subject because of the almost palpable prejudice you feel against Jews.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[Guest 7Zach]

I repeat, granada, domincan republic - both without what u term provocation. and if you want to get technical, the whole tokin gulf incident is undecided as to whether the attack was made or not.

[Guest 7Zach]

Let's just start it again. Why can one not criticize Israel and not be anti-semitic?

 

Another way, draw two circles.

label the one on the left "accountants"

label the one on the right "assholes"

the shadowing in the overlap is "camaro owners"

 

Some camaro owners are anti-semitic, but not all.

[Traveller]

>I repeat, granada, domincan republic - both without what u

>term provocation. and if you want to get technical, the

>whole tokin gulf incident is undecided as to whether the

>attack was made or not.

 

Exactly. And Nicaragua in 1933 and the Mexicans in 1848 and the Spanish in 1898 (because the Maine is just like the Gulf of Tonkin). Hell, the US has used pre-emption far more than waiting to be attacked, which is the exception. You can either read history or vote Democratic, but it seems not both. Or you can wait eternally for Pearl Harbor again. Oh wait, that happened a year ago.

 

Later.

[ad rian]

>Let's just start it again. Why can one not criticize Israel

>and not be anti-semitic?

>

>Another way, draw two circles.

>label the one on the left "accountants"

>label the one on the right "assholes"

>the shadowing in the overlap is "camaro owners"

>

>Some camaro owners are anti-semitic, but not all.

 

Yes, but by the same logic to Jews also. To disagree with that, takes chutzpah!

[ad rian]

>ad rian, I am really not sure what childhood trauma

>involving Jewish people has led to your current mental

>state, but you truly need to seek some counseling. You are

>not capable of making an informed or objective conclusion on

>this subject because of the almost palpable prejudice you

>feel against Jews.

 

Why not debate my facts and arguments rather than call me names? Are you afraid to try?

[BewareofNick]

>Let's just start it again. Why can one not criticize Israel

>and not be anti-semitic?

>

>Another way, draw two circles.

>label the one on the left "accountants"

>label the one on the right "assholes"

>the shadowing in the overlap is "camaro owners"

>

>Some camaro owners are anti-semitic, but not all.

 

You certainly can. However, if you are aware of ad rian's other posts, you can see that he has a blatant anti-Jew prejudice. This came to light most particularly in the threads about the Catholic Church scandal. ad rian is anti-semitic not because he criticizes Jews but because of his irrational prejudice agaisnt them.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[BewareofNick]

>>I repeat, granada, domincan republic - both without what u

>>term provocation. and if you want to get technical, the

>>whole tokin gulf incident is undecided as to whether the

>>attack was made or not.

>

>Exactly. And Nicaragua in 1933 and the Mexicans in 1848 and

>the Spanish in 1898 (because the Maine is just like the Gulf

>of Tonkin). Hell, the US has used pre-emption far more than

>waiting to be attacked, which is the exception. You can

>either read history or vote Democratic, but it seems not

>both. Or you can wait eternally for Pearl Harbor again. Oh

>wait, that happened a year ago.

>

>Later.

 

And in all those cases, there was a clear and present danger. There is not any greater danger in Iraq than there is in any of the other rogue nations out there, such as North Vietnam. Why aren't we invading them too?

 

This has nothing to do with homeland security and everything to do with politics and gaining Daddy's favor.

 

So I guess you can learn to think for yourself or vote Republican, but it seems not both. Or you can wait until the entire ARab world turns against us and those with real weapons of mass destruction turn your hometown into an arid wasteland.

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[Guest 7Zach]

Forgot about nicarauga, and that gave us somoza (sp?) - he was a lot of fun.

And the Mexican War was not about pre-emption; it was the logical conclusion of the James K. Polk's Manifest Destiny.

I think you made some points about Israel being our proxy, but I don't think that is the main reason for its support in the US. I think its much more basic...

[ad rian]

>You certainly can. However, if you are aware of ad rian's

>other posts, you can see that he has a blatant anti-Jew

>prejudice. This came to light most particularly in the

>threads about the Catholic Church scandal. ad rian is

>anti-semitic not because he criticizes Jews but because of

>his irrational prejudice agaisnt them.

 

Stop the name-calling? Answer the questions: Has Israel complied with UN Resolutions 242 or 338? Yes or no? Did Israel sell nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to apartheis South Africa? Yes or No? Has Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation or the Chemical Test Ban Treaty? Yes or no? Has Israel acepted IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities? Yes or No? I will not be scared off from asking these questions just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. My position is that we should bomb Baghdad and Tel Aviv on the same day, but if we just bomb Baghdad, do you really believe that a stable equilibrium will result? Or will another countrry rise to content with the Israeli WMD regional monopoly? There is a mad logic to mutually asured destruction that seems to work everywhere else. I don't want to die for Israel on my way to work in NYC so please let's either bomb'em both or bomb neither?

[Guest 7Zach]

the test vote in the senate was this afternoon, 77 total votes in favor, and since republicans only number 49, clearly democratic support. and that fiery, pro-war, american nut case in the house, gebhart (as is spelled in leading democratic fund-raiser circles) just finished speaking in favor of the iraqi resolutions. so now i am really confused over who to believe, bon or cnn?

sign me,

confused in des moines.

 

P.S. - are gebhart's eyebrows genetic, or some sort of secret signal to the terrorists that he's against them?

[BewareofNick]

Every controversial subject is turned by you into a diatribe against the Jews. This thread isn't about Israel, it's about Iraq.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-