I'm posting this not so much because I have comments, but because I haven't seen anyone else discussing this. What's up you news savvy folk?

On a related note, a friend of mine had a cool idea. Given the poor economic state, I have before noted we need a really expensive war to encourage so old fasioned Keynesian spending by the government.

Why don't we just drop tanks and helicopters on Iraq rather than bombs? This way we can get rid of mothballed equipment as well as encourage loads of defense spending, which will create jobs, which will kick-start the economy, etc, etc. I like it. ;)

LOL Somehow i don't think that would make Saddam go away. :D

Saddam, who cares about Saddam? Some petty dictator? No, we're going there to make MONEY as much as war.

yeah, you could go far with ideas like this. Bush has :D

Yes, God forbid americans actaully care about anyone else eh?

<font color = lightgreen>I keep hearing people say that this impending war is being staged only because we want cheap oil. What is wrong with wanting cheap oil?

No, I'm not saying start a war simply to get oil inexpensively, but everyone shops around for the best price. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

I think it's because people will die for the cheap oil. That's probably what's wrong with it.

Mark

The speech actually offered nothing new and brought forth unsubstantiated evidence. It's odd that it was only shown on cable stations and not on the "Big Three".

Mark

Here is the news:

Bush fails to sway skeptics on Iraq

Russia rejects military option; guarded welcome in Asia


NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES



Oct. 8 — President Bush’s call for greater pressure on Iraq won guarded support in Asia and Australia on Tuesday, but he failed to sway some skeptics, notably Russia, which has rejected Washington’s efforts to obtain authorization from the United Nations for military force against Baghdad if the Iraqis fail to open their military sites to weapons inspectors.

BUSH’S STRONGLY WORDED attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein deepened concerns throughout the world over the possibility of war.
Russian Deputy Foreign Ministry Yuri Fedotov, although not reacting directly to Bush’s speech, told the Interfax news agency that a U.S. proposal for a new U.N. Security Council resolution on disarming Iraq was disingenuous and contained demands that Washington was “well aware” could not be met.
Fedotov said Russia supported France, which is also hostile to Washington’s position on Iraq and has proposed a solution that would let Baghdad try to comply with existing U.N. resolutions. Russia would not support any resolution that triggered an automatic use of force, Fedotov said.

POWELL UPBEAT
Continuing his diplomatic offensive in Washington, however, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Tuesday he believed that members of the U.N. Security Council were moving closer to some kind of agreement.
“There is now, I believe, a view converging on the need for a new resolution with tough inspection standards,” he said.
“The major issue to discuss is how to keep the threat of consequences ... tied as closely as one can to the new requirements that will be placed upon Iraq,” Powell said.
The United States needs the support of the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, or must at least persuade them to abstain from voting. So far, only Britain has sided with Washington. In addition to Russia, China has indicated it prefers the two-step French approach to the crisis, which favors passage of a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force.

Former French Prime Minister Alain Juppe said Bush’s call for an international coalition to force Saddam to accept weapons inspectors indicated Washington was weighing France’s approach. “President Bush said a military operation is neither imminent nor inevitable,” Juppe told RTL radio.
“He speaks of a coalition, of action with allies, and he recalls that the aim is disarming Iraq...so on these aims I think that French diplomacy has made itself heard,” said Juppe, a key figure in President Jacques Chirac’s conservative party.

SUPPORT IN ASIA, AUSTRALIA
In Asia, the initial reaction from Australia and Japan was supportive.
In his speech, Bush called Saddam a “murderous tyrant” and said he may be planning to attack the United States with biological or chemical weapons and could have a nuclear bomb in less than a year.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Bush’s speech renewed pressure on Saddam to disarm or face military strikes.
“Saddam Hussein wouldn’t even be contemplating letting weapons inspectors back into Iraq if he didn’t fear the military threats from the United States,” Downer said. “We think the speech is a very measured and considered speech. It puts the pressure in this debate very much on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein.”
Australia has been one of Washington’s staunchest allies in his campaign against Saddam and Prime Minister John Howard has not ruled out sending Australian troops to serve in a U.S.-led strike aimed at toppling the Iraqi leader.
Japan supports Bush, but has also been reserved on the use of force.
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s spokeswoman, Misako Kaji, said Tokyo welcomed Bush’s confirmation in the speech that it remains important to pursue a U.N. Security Council resolution

ONGOING DOUBTS
But doubts over Bush’s hard-line approach were heard in the largely Muslim nation of Malaysia.
“We are for the U.S. if it is a force for good but we cannot support the U.S. if it pursues the course of unilateralism with scant regard for world opinion,” said Hishamuddin Hussein, Malaysia’s youth and sports minister.
“Maybe Saddam is evil, and he must not be allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction, but the U.N. must be given a chance to explore a peaceful solution,” he told delegates at the East Asian Economic Summit being held in Malaysia’s capital, Kuala Lumpur.



DISDAIN IN BAGHDAD

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri weighed in by denouncing as “illegal” U.S. and British threats of military action against Iraq.
Sabri, arriving in Qatar during a Gulf tour, accused the United States and Britain of “confusing world public opinion (to) launch their campaign against Iraq.”
“Their campaign has no legal or logical grounds,” said Sabri, whose tour aims to drum up regional opposition to an attack
An Iraqi parliamentarian denied that Baghdad possessed any weapons of mass destruction, saying Washington was using that as an excuse to attack Iraq.
“We have no weapons of mass destruction and the whole world knows that but Bush wants to impose his hegemony on the world and subject Iraq to his rule,” said Abdul Aziz Shwaish, head of the finance, trade and planning committee.
He dismissed Bush’s remarks that Iraq had maintained high-level contacts for more than a decade with al-Qaida, the militant Islamic movement accused of staging the Sept. 11 suicide hijacking attacks on America.
“We have no contact with al-Qaida and nobody would believe Bush’s words on that,” Shwaish said.

NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski and Tammy Kupperman at the Pentagon, Betsy Steuart at the State Department and Linda Fasulo at the United Nations, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

(Originally posted here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/811728.asp#BODY )

Mark

Well, Iraqi's always were good in making up things and lie their asses off.

I think it's because people will die for the cheap oil. That's probably what's wrong with it.

Mark</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>Lot's of people have died for far less.</font>

I think it's because people will die for the cheap oil. That's probably what's wrong with it.

Mark</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>Lot's of people have died for far less.</font></font>[/QUOTE]The word 'cleansing' jumps to mind.

http://www.lache.be/plaat2/fun/bush.jpg

[img]smile.gif[/img]

Jorath!!!! I've been looking for an online version of that pic for ages!! *sweeps you off your feet in big hug* Thanks for posting :D

[ 10-09-2002, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

I think it's because people will die for the cheap oil. That's probably what's wrong with it.

Mark</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>Lot's of people have died for far less.</font></font>[/QUOTE]And that makes it alright?

Jorath!!!! I've been looking for an online version of that pic for ages!! *sweeps you off your feet in big hug* Thanks for posting :D </font>[/QUOTE]hey no problem... [img]smile.gif[/img]

It isn't about cheap oil, although that answer will be always be given by anyone who opposes anything, done by anyone, for any reason in the Middle East.

Something you don't like happening in the Middle East? It must be about the oil! It couldn't possibly be about anything else.

Well in his speech bush talked about that Saddam is an immidiate threat to the middle east and the world. because he has attacked neighbours (Iran) and killed people in his own country(Kurds). Okey I admit he is an threat to the peace in the middle east...

But wait a second...

Threat to the peace in middle east?

Attacking his neighbors?

Killing people in his own country?

Doesn't that describe Ariel Sharon pretty accuratly too, fat insane maniac, who has never shown any indication that he's willing to talk about peace. Bombing civilians, shooting kids, pregnant women and people that have nothing to do with this war of his, against people so desperate to get their own land back they resort to blowing them selves up in public.

And the US support him???

I think thats called a double standard...

But then again I'm probably wrong.

No doubt similarities may be drawn, but Isreal is constantly on the defensive, and while they kill civilians in their attacks against Palestinian Terrorists, the Palestinian Terrorists purposely target innocent men, women, and children.

Saddam's act against the Kurds was ethnic cleansing.

Even if you believe both are wrong, does that mean Saddam shouldn't be stopped? Israel has nukes, but doesn't use them. Do we want to take that chance with Saddam?

Yes, but Israel (under Sharon) is really a trouble-maker, and our staying in bed with them is unseemly. When storming Arafat's compound recently, an unseemly thing in and of itself (I mean, really, how much terrorism can he actually cause or prevent when he's locked in one building for months?), Israel had the childish audacity to rapel special forces troops onto the roof and replace the flag with an Israeli one. Talk about thumbing your nose. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] Sharon is a monster - he seeks to stir up shit whenever he can. He's a war criminal as much as Saddam (doesn't he have some nickname with massacre in it?) and will keep things going there forever. Hating and oppressing Palestinians is a way of life for him. He's turned one of the world's finest, bravest, and best trained armies (remember Entebi?) into a gang of thugs.

This is a fight as old as time. The Old Testament itself is basically the story of a religion that develops while a few groups of people chase each other back and forth across the subcontinent. Some biblical cities have been rebuilt 8 times - and you can dig straight down through all 8 collecting artifacts. It's a fight no one can stop - and likely no side will ever die out fully.

I sympathize with Israel's plight. They live a life surrounded by and infiltrated by enemies. But, Sharon is certainly a step backwards as far as their leadership goes.

he is called the butcher of sabra and shatila, for the murders perpetrated under his command there. its well documented and proved, the only reason he is not facing the international court like milosevic is... well, you can guess what it is.

<font color=orange>I agree that Sharon is a monster, but the difference is he was elected in a valid election by his on people while Saddom took power at the point of a gun. To me his isn't legitiment. In my book that right there, is cause enough to get rid of him. It kills me to hear people call him a LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT!!! I don't think that about Arafat though. He was elected by his people. Sharon shouldn't be trying to get rid of him. The best solution for Israel is to move the settlers out of the West Bank (about 40,000 I think) and Gaza (less than 2000) and then build a wall around both places until such time as peace can be brokered, such as what happened with Egypt. Will that happen? Probably not, because the settlers have too much political power.</font>

[ 10-09-2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

Good Sir T:

I would simply point out that Democracy is not the only VALID form of government. It's ours, but not everyone's. Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are all as *valid* as a democracy. Especially if we're talking International Law. Just because we have elections doesn't mean everyone does. As well, unless there are humanitarian issues at stake, such as genocide (and I'm not saying that this is not the case with Saddam), you make internationally *legal* war on a Nation because of the way it interacts with other nations and the group of nations, not the way it governs its populace.

In logical syntax, there is a distinction of course between *valid* and *sound*. But the *soundness* of one form of government or another seems unclear as well.

Neither was Bush!!! Okey maybe not from a point of a gun but those 2000 elections were really spooky

And by the way, Israel army is not defending their own land, they are defending a part of palestinian land they occupied in 1967, breaking just abut every peace contract there was about not moving civilans into occupied land. The palestinians are trying what they can to get back their own land.

<font color=orange>While I see your point, I don't see how you can say that a dictatorship is a valid form of government. Living at the point of a gun is no human way to live. I for one, would do everything in my power to bring down such a government, if had to live under one. Luckily for me and for most of us, we don't. There is NEVER an excuse for TOTALITARIANISM! NEVER!

If you want to change the world, start with that!

And BTW, WE WERE WRONG TO SUPPORT HIM DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR. I never liked Reagan any way!</font>

Speaking of Bush's speeches, has anyone else noticed that every time he opens his piehole, the stock market plummets? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] I know some economists have mentioned it! We investors cringe every time he's going to make a speech.

"The economy's great!"
The president said
But as he spoke
The stocks fell dead

(with a nod to Burma-Shave) ;)

-Sazerac

Now that the US relies heavily on the global economy and imported products, a war would be more likely to hurt rather than help the economic situation. We live in a different world now.

I don't know about this. I haven't had the time to check up on it, but after Kosovo and the US bombing missions that were run out of Montana (*chuckle*), there was likely a LOT of rebuilding to do. I'm wondering who got the contracts. At the time, I remember hearing about both Brit and US plans to rebuild. I can imagine the "lowest bidder" wars between first-world contractors to get these jobs. Like I said, I haven't had time to check into it.

The Keynesian economic model is based on the production/consumption balance. Right now the model is hurt because consumption is down - check the numbers and you'll find production has not really dropped, except as has been absolutely demanded by economic pressures on businesses to voluntarily decrease their production rates. Production capabilities are near limitless compared to consumption rate potential. Thus, the basic factors that encouraged government spending during the New Deal are the basic factors that made WWII production get the economy booming, and are the same basic factors which would mean a war right now would help the economy.

Please, I've done a lot of musing over how war helps economy on many posts, but do not think I don't realize the human factors in this equation. I do not mean to sound so cold about it.

BTW, while on the topic. Guess who was a BIG factor in the US decision to create and Air Cav for Vietnam - Bell, which had a shinny new cheap workhorse helicopter (the UH-60) to sell. Guess who most strongly advocates (read: pays lots of money in lobbying for) continued drug wars in Columbia - Bell. Guess who gets the contract for helicopter use in Afghanistan and any possible use in Iraq - Bell. Bell also advocated for more use of "combined arms" in Kosovo, of course. I'm not attacking Bell in particular - it makes some damned good helicopters, despite minor expected glitches every now and then.

I'm just trying to back up my assertion that big economic factors are at work.

Neither was Bush!!! Okey maybe not from a point of a gun but those 2000 elections were really spooky

And by the way, Israel army is not defending their own land, they are defending a part of palestinian land they occupied in 1967, breaking just abut every peace contract there was about not moving civilans into occupied land. The palestinians are trying what they can to get back their own land.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>I believe I said they should abandon Gaza and The West Bank in an earlier post in this thread. There will be no peace until then. Of course that leaves the problem of Jeruselem. I think it should be declared an international city like the Vatican is.

One historical fact about Gaza and The West Bank. The Israelis didn't seize either area from the Palestians. At the time of Israeli occupation, Gaza was under the control of the Egyptians and The West Bank was under the control of the Jordanians. According to the UN mandate in 1948, I believe they were to have been under the control of Palestian people. That never happened.</font>

Don't forget the Golan Heights. ;)

And, in 67 Israel made a radical and daring move. Fearing invasion from all sides, led by Egypt, it preemptively struck, occupying huge amounts of the peninsula. When it pulled back, it retained the three areas of occupation.

From the late 60's point-of-view, I'm not so sure how I feel about it. Do you get to keep occupied land? I guess it depends on the state of international law at the time. I mean, what's Texas?

But all that is in the far past from the modern perspective of the region. At this point, there is little argument in the world that Israel should leave the occupied territories.

WEll, I pop in for a gander and what do I see but a patented discussion on politics [img]smile.gif[/img] . Hmmmm

Oil isn't the reason for this pending 'war'. Neither is it the sudden realization by the government that Saddam Hussein is a ::gasp:: threat. In my personal opinion (never humble) it is a steady mixture of personal angst on Bush's behalf and political manuevering/posturing. I mean, come on folks. After 9-11 the man was riding high on the patriotic fervor of Americans rediscovering themselves. (ok, worded badly, but I know what I mean) It's no secret that he has no idea of what it takes for the common, everyday Joe to make a living and keep finances on an even keel. Convince me he has ever been *forced* to work for a living! Or create new ways to eat hamburger or hot dogs because that's the only meat you can afford. Putting on jeans and getting dusty walking around on your ranch (or riding on high-dollar horses) is not the same as coming home filthy and dod-tired after a long day busting your ass. Nope, his administration has managed to virtually ignore the economy enough that it has managed to go straight downhill. And what, historically speaking, has been the centuries-old solution to a sagging economy? Ding, ding, ding. War. Of course, the fact that it ties in so very nicely to all those nasty terrorists over there is a bonus. Two birds with one stone.

Oil? Nope. That's just a bit of gravy. He's looking to divert attention from all the corporate naughtiness come to light and the general slump in the short-term economy and hoping to garner some much needed support from us regular folks who are sick and tired of hearing all the yaking and seeing no action from the political blowhards (altho I wholeheartedly believe diplomacy should be attempted whenever humanly possible...talking is *always* the superior choice over violence). Overall, he's weaseling....*supposedly* the Iranians tried to assasinate his father (I question some of the sources for that supposition) and he has readily admitted that this really rankles still. Well, of course it does.

The US set Hussein up in power and now we want him gone. Hmmm......anyone think of any other instances we've done the same thing with the same results? Seems to me we ought to be.......minding our own d***d business!!!

Doesn't it suck the way puppet dictatorships tend to turn on the master?
BTW, we'll need to install a new dictator. We don't want to leave things to chance, do we? Of course, we'll do elections and yadda yadda, but well... you know ;) . Who will we use next. Here's a good list of the appetizing choices:

http://www.sundayherald.com/27877

Let's not make the mistake this time, like before, where the "US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene." (For further infor check out http://www.sundayherald.com/27572 )

Miss Garnet Ma'am,
The USA did not set Sodamn Insane up in power he inherited power, in a coup, lead by the Baath party 1963,& 1968. In 1979 Sodamn succeded the previous Baath leader to take control of Iraq. A year later, Sodamn and Iraq went to war with Iran after the Iranian hostages (USA)were taken. The USA then gave Iraq some military support, because at the time "the emeny of our enemy is our friend". Besides as long as Iranians were shooting Iraqis they weren't shooting us. That may not be a pretty fact of life in the world but it is how things work.

[ 10-09-2002, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

I really hate the policy of "The enemy of our enemy is our friend". It always ends up coming back at us in the worst ways. We've supported some of the worst groups in the past and I hope we stop doing it.

Mark

I have some more general info regarding the past US relationship w/ Sodamn Insane (lol:D) that I promise to post tomorrow. I think it'll be quite relevant - if not I'll post regarding its irrelevance. It's background info from and international law course. Like good snipers, be patient and I'll post it 19 hours from now. ;)

Thank you, John D., for the correction. Must've been confused by the 'enemy of the day' choice at the time in question.

(But I still think the US in general should mind its own business a little closer and stop playing god politics with other peoples' nations. Sure, if there is genocide or such, we should step in and aid as a humanitarian nation. But no one as far as I know has assigned us as World Referee Who Dictates All Rules.)

As far as I know, no one has assigned us to stop genocide or provide aid as a humanitarian nation either. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But if stopping genocide is ok, the Iraqi Kurds probably wouldn't mind a little attention. ;)

Ronn_Bman:

We may not have an "assignment" but the US does have a right to make war where its sovereignty is not threatened if there are serious humanitarian issues at stake. I reference the UN Charter and the Vienna Convetions. I would reference the International Human Rights Convention, but the US refuses to ratify that. :D

You are preaching to the choir brother! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

<font color=orange>I find that very humorous! Everybody and their brother was screaming for us to go into Somalia, Bosnia, E. Timor(luckily or Aussie Brothers did the job that time!) and Kosavo. We were roundly chastized for not going into Rowanda. Seems like the world wanted us to be the policeman. But I guess that was when Clinton was in office. Now that W is president, they don't want us to be the policeman anymore. Seems like the world wants it's cake and eat it too!</font>