Bush's Speech

[Garnet FalconDance]

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!!!

[Timber Loftis]

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 )

[John D Harris]

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 ]

[skywalker]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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.

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

[Timber Loftis]

I have some more general info regarding the past US relationship w/ Sodamn Insane (lol) 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.

[Garnet FalconDance]

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.)

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance: 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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance: 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.)

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!