The Tape

[Griff]

I didn't dig up a transcript yet, but thats never stopped me from making pronouncements before. I was listening to a translation on the radio and was struck by three things Bush and Bib Laden have in common. 1) Neither sees any gray area in the world. God is with us and against them because we are good and they are evil. 2) They both desperately want the war in Iraq, thinking it will improve recruitment to their side. 3) Both are willing to see the innocent die to promote the greater good they personify.

[Uryoces]

Yeah, Griff, but George W. Bush is our nutjob. We havn't intentionally killed civillians. We usually use smart bombs -- okay there was that Chinese embassy thing. Just a mixup. We meant to order Chinese food and bomb the Canadian embassy.

Although this does bring up and interesting ocurrance. It was the first time I really took a look at nationalism. I was watching A history Chanel program on Nazi Germany, they had just reached the early days of the Nazi party before the commercial break, and they were showing a parade of goose-stepping brown shirts marching behind a Nazi flag. The commercial came on and it was for veteran's life insurance. Soldiers marching behind an American flag.

It comes down to application of force; reasons for applications of force. I'd rather hang out with a U.S. soldier rather than a Nazi soldier. It's that Persigian quality thing. It really can't be defined, but you know a lack of it.

[tw]

Originally posted by Uryoces
Yeah, Griff, but George W. Bush is our nutjob.

Bloomberg radio news demonstrated the problem. Chief executive of an American company was taking his entire senior staff to Germany for a sales promotion trip. They had to agree on questions of deteriorating US German relationships. US two years ago was a tolerant nation. Our nutjob changed everything. He promotes confrontation and military solutions to minor problems. He promotes fear. How many more nonsense terrorist alerts, 6 Arabs sneaking in from Canada, the mythical aluminum tubes for nuclear bombs (that UT still believes), and duct tape warnings need we suffer. George Jr promotes fear to advance his agenda.

Not only did a senior staff meeting break down into wild confrontational about Iraq. It escalated to include Palestinian Israeli conflict and even into Korean discussions. The chief executive was despondant. Of course. George Jr would have even attacked China over a silly spy plane. He has Americans hyped in open revolt - just like Nixon did. Primary example is how Undertoad and Sycamore repeatedly insults me only because I accurately described their beloved George Jr. This is what George Jr has done to America. George Jr promotes war and hate of anyone who would disagree with his Nixonian agenda.

Two years ago, they were only political problems that could have been solved, with time, by local powers with American support - all by negotiation. There are many more such conflicts just waiting for George Jr types to escalate including Sierra Leon, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Congo, Zimabawe, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia's Aesch, India and Pakistan, the entire Caucus region, the Basques, Columbia and Venezulea, Peru, etc. But as if this were not enough, George Jr intentionally destroys "Sunshine" while forcing N Korea into confrontation, authorizes Israel (for the first time in history) to use American weaspons to attack Palestinians, undermines a moderate and popular government in Iran that would prefer to become an American friend, and simply makes American citizens no longer welcome almost everywhere in the world.

Even in Korea where Americans were so welcome only two years ago: now a most popular rock song in Korea according to 60 Minutes associates American with streams of four letter abuse words. That's right. See the 'partisan' 60 Minutes. The most popular song in Korea curses Americans as more dangerous than N Korea. Thank you George Jr.

Of course the naive will instead curse the French, Germans, Koreans, Japanese, Italians, etc for not agreeing with this president.

We have the president that our religious right extremists wanted. People who encourage violence since violence is necessary for Armageddon - the second coming of christ. George Jr promotes confrontation, military action instead of diplomatic solutions, anti-Americanism everywhere in the world, and now fear. Fear so widespread that duct tape is no longer available. No president since the Cuban Missile crisis has promoted so much fear. At least back then, fear was justified. Today fear is used to promote George Jr's personal agenda. Nutjob was a very good description.

[slang]

Ok, so lemme see if I can sum this all up. The *moment* Bush stole the election, all that was good about the country ceased to be and was immediately replaced with evil, wickedness, stupidity and corruption.

No wonder I feel better with Bush as Pres.

[Uryoces]

tw, what's the solution here? IMO it seems as if most of the world wants to ignore or cover up their own problems, and George W. likes to rattle sabres. I'm not opposed to all of the sabre rattling, though. Would you have liked to seen another president, and who would that have been? What would make a good president?

It seems we have a problem of opposites. Is there a balanced solution? Negotiation is not going to work with Iraq; we have a cult of personality problem with Sadam Hussein, and it seems that North Korea doesn't want to ease the fears of the rest of the world. I have no problem with North Korea proceding with peaceful development of nuclear power, however Kim Jong-Il-Communication and Geroge W. are of a type that they will not see eye to eye.

If we stepped back from Israel, let them fend for themselves, basically got out of Middle-east politics, I see two situations. Israel will reduce any country that attacks them to ashes, and/or Israel is reduced to ashes. Is right or wrong that we get involved? Is it right or wrong that we not get involved?

I will not argue that the US has propped up many of the idiots that are causing the problems in the world today. The question is do we do somthing about it, or do we ignore it?

People will bitch and moan about the US acting as a world-wide police force, and my opinion is that if no one fullfilled this role, the world would be an even more dangerous place.

[Undertoad]

That's OK tw - as I pointed out earlier, we don't stay where we're not wanted.

As far as the aluminum tubes go, which part did you dispute again? Because ElBaradei will use them tomorrow as an example of why his agency has continuing concern.

[tw]

Originally posted by Uryoces
tw, what's the solution here? IMO it seems as if most of the world wants to ignore or cover up their own problems, and George W. likes to rattle sabres. I'm not opposed to all of the sabre rattling, though. Would you have liked to seen another president, and who would that have been? What would make a good president?

Good presidents first let a problem resolve itself. That happens most often. However that may mean manipulating supplies so that both sides massacre one another equally. Then everyone is so happy to have peace keepers AND everyone finally appreciates the value of peace and negotiated settlements.

Bad presidents want to storm in like a world policeman and bash heads. It makes for good patriotic support at home. But such tactics are classic of low intelligent leaders and create long term unresolved problems.

Did we go charging in to East Timor? Of course not. That was the responsibility of local powers. Did we go charing into VietNam? Yes. As a result we were the enemy of everyone except a corrupt S Vietnamese governement. Did we go charging into Lebanon? Yes, and got both our asses and reputation smashed like a paper tiger. Did we go charging into Yugoslavia? No. In fact, I worried that Clinton had finally decided too early. In my opinion, there had not yet been enough massacres especially of Serbians. But Clinton was smarter than I. He was right when to use military power. BTW, to know anything about the Serbian conflictis is to know who Richard Holbrooke is.

Did we go charging into Liberia to resuce Monrovia? Of course not. First, it was the responsibility of a regional military peace force. When they got in trouble, a battalion of British marines provided outside assistance - and put up a response that belongs at the top of your most significant news stories of 2002. Did you know about Liberia and that goal line stand by UK Marines? It resulted in a peace settlement because a powerful force first let the problem fester - until it was ready to be resolved. One battalion of UK marines caused everyone to return to a negotiation table. That delay is how military force is used effectively.

I keep asking the reader if he knew about .... because it demonstrates how many conflicts are always ongoing and how most get resolved only with diplomatic negotiation.

But then Saddam. Is he a threat? No. He is a threat to no one. Eliminate George Jr rhetoric and Saddam is a tin pot dictator with too much oil. Keep Saddam in perspective by eliminating George Jr rhetoric. Saddam is no threat to the US. There is nothing to be gained by threatening America. Saddam's entire history is to avoid US conflict everywhere everytime. However George Jr says otherwise.

Saddam must first be a threat to his neighbors before he is a threat to anyone. Remember how adamate I was in June 1990 about war with Saddam? Because he was a threat to his neighbors and to world stability. In Aug 1990, a smoking gun existed - big time. Today Saddam is not a threat to any neighbor. No smoking gun exists. No neighboring nation is threatened by Saddam. But George Jr has hyped this trivial problem into a world crisis. Then again, George Jr even hyped a silly China spy plane incident into possible war. The man promotes hate and fear.

George Jr has hyped a non event into world crisis. If WMD were a problem, then we should be threatening war with Pakistan, S Africa, or Israel. Iraq is not about solving a world problem. Iraq is about a personal vendetta between the George Jr administration and Saddam. Even Saddam's neighbors - not one - are threatened.

Saddam is about as much as threat as Castro in his billigerant days. Either Saddam will be made politically redundant as Ghadafi, or we will take him out as we had to with Milosevik, Noreiga, Idi Amin, or Baby Doc Duvalier. But military action too early makes the US an enemy of everyone. First we let Jimmy Carter demonstrate to Panama and the world what Noriega really was. You would think we learned from VietNam and Lebanon - where America lost because we first tried to solve problems too early and only using military solutions.

The world is full of Iraq like problems. Do we attach them all? Or do we first let the 'powers that be' first solve it - and then look like god's chosen angel only in the few situations that cannot be resolved? Eliminate George Jr rhetoric and Saddam is a threat no even to his neighbors.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
As far as the aluminum tubes go, which part did you dispute again? Because ElBaradei will use them tomorrow as an example of why his agency has continuing concern.

What happened to all those weaponized biological material in S Africa. We (including UN) are also concerned. Should we attack S Africa? Concern also over how Japan stores most of the world's plutonium. Should we attack Japan? Even a Tony Blair report ealier this year doubted those aluminum tubes were for nuclear processing. Eliminate George Jr hype & fear, and those aluminum tubes are but a trivial point that inspectors always search for and verify. So trivial as to not be reported if George Jf did not hype war.

ElBaradei says tubes are another reason to continue weapons inspections. George Jr has already declared those aluminum tubes as reason for war. George Jr also says weapons inspectors are a waste of time. George Jr need no facts because George Jr already knows those tubes are for evil - facts be damned. Those aluminum tubes only prove that George Jr really does not want facts. He even opposed more inspectors! Why? They might discover these WMD don't exist!

Those aluminum tubes are a desperate ploy by George Jr to hype something trivial into war while demanding inspectors as useless. Far more dangerous than those aluminum tubes are nuclear bombs in Pakistan, Israel, and India? Why does George Jr not hype and fear those dangers? Because those bombs cannot be used like Kuwait baby incurbators - to hype war, promote hate, and advocate fear.

When those tubes appear in a nuclear processing machine, only then are they newsworthy. Anyone hyping those aluminum tubes today is also hyping a need for duct tape and gas masks. More fear. Those tubes are a non issue once the George Jr hate, hype, and fear is eliminated. Those aluminum tubes only demonstrate why inspections shoudl continue and why war is not justified.

[Undertoad]

Finely-machined aluminum tubes and magnets and carbon fibers and uranium are not trivial whatsoever.

Good presidents first let a problem resolve itself. That happens most often.

Yes, that approach worked so very well with al Qaeda.

[Uryoces]

tw - you have a very keen knowledge of these conflicts, and the principals involved. Is this an area of academic study, a hobby, or political interest? Where are you located, if I may ask [ha! no I do not want map co-ordinates!]? I am afraid to say I know very little about the smaller conflicts mentioned. I can point out the parties on a World map, describe the climate, and the countries main export, but that is about it. I've made a point to not watch any news broadcasts of any kind nor to read the paper, but to get reader's digest versions of the more important issues. I oppose the glitz and the campy, irresponsible way that news is delivered.

Good presidents first let a problem resolve itself. That happens most often. However ...

I think good Presidents will use a carrot and stick approach to this. Redaction and Coercion. I have to admit that George is not about subtlety. No sir. I don't think letting both sides of a conflict massacre each other is the best course of action. Rwanda is something I'd rather forget. Everyone abandoned those people. The UN and Belgians couldn't leave fast enough. Predsident Clinton went there after the conflict and offered a token apology for being absent. Air Force One's goddamn engines weren't even powered down; I think he was there for about 3 hours. No fucking oil there; no damn colonials.

The US most definetly has supplied both sides of a conflict. The biggest that comes to my mind is the Iran-Iraq war, although support was not offered simultaneously.

Bad presidents want to storm in like a world policeman and bash heads ... such tactics are classic of low intelligent leaders and create long term unresolved problems.

It seems the US has taken that role, yes. Sometimes a head bashing is what's needed. But the aforementioned carrots and sticks are preferable. Low IQ leaders and unresolved problems lead me to consider Al Quaeda. Jung-Il is not stupid, but he's not thinking clearly either. The man is as much of a basket case as Bush.

Did we go charging in to East Timor...

East Timor was a mess, from what little I know. I do know that we were involved in some manner, either directly or through support of one of the parties. Vietnam was ... yup. That about sums it up. Lebanon ... do you mean the 200+ marines killed by a terrosit bomb? I don't recall an ass whupping. I recall that at the time Israel was finally not on the receiving end, and were not garnering the sympathy they once had. Yugoslavia ... that was something that no one should have waited on. That was Rwanda in the Balkans. Richard Holbrooke was chief negotiator for the Dayton Peace Accords [that's great, really], according to my brief Googling. He also fulfilled various ambassadorial duties to the corrupt South Vietnamese government in the late 60's. Slovenia is safe, and for that I am grateful.

The British were there because the UN was so fucking inept. It's a former British colony, so I think their motives are a bit suspect. [see "fucking oil and damn colonials".] Am I looking at the same thing you are?

I keep asking the reader if he knew about ...

I believe that can be condensed to "Uryoces, you ignorant fuck". You are 1/2 right. See "not watching the talking heads". See also "Carrot and Stick".

But then Saddam. Is he a threat? No. He is a threat to no one ...

I personally disagree on that one. His neighbors, probably not, if you discount the Kurds. You can discount Kuwait, too. The Kuwaitis are almost as bad. Ignoring Sadam post-9/11 is a very dangrous thing. I am against military action against Iraq, but I am all for a mysterious and terrible death for him and his cadre. When the dust settles, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations need to be there to step in and assist the Iraqi people. I don't see that happening. After all the posturing and Koran-thumping, they're more than happy to ignore Islamic nations in need.

George Jr even hyped a silly China spy plane incident into possible war ...

Huh-wha?! Senior Abusto pequeno told China it was a silly little spyplane, and showed photos of the jackass pilot inches away from the fucking plane! Wong-wei. I laughed hysterically 'til it hurt. China had an absolute fuck-fit over that. Bush aplogised humbly, and we got our spyplane back. China is the largest capitalist nation that America has to trade with. Yes, I said capitalist. We aren't going to screw that up. China collects taxes from Hong Kong, but have done very little else in that region. Hong Kong is anathema to "Communism", but you don't hear one peep from Beijing. They are very savvy, but prone to fits that makes Joan Crawford look tame.

tw - you have many good points, and I am not disputing them, but it seems that your take on world affairs is that if a few thousand people are raped, tortured, and murdered here and there, it's alright. Some eggs will get broken to ensure peace. Isn't this exactly what you are accusing Senior Abusto pequeno, and indeed the US of doing? Please tell me I have this wrong.

[Griff]

Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute does a nice job of explaining how an Orthodox Christian, in my case a Roman Catholic, understands the Presidents actions. In short, he scares the crap out of us because of the unreflective nature of his faith. Having been saved George no longer has to concern himself with his works.

[tw]

Originally posted by Uryoces
tw - you have many good points, and I am not disputing them, but it seems that your take on world affairs is that if a few thousand people are raped, tortured, and murdered here and there, it's alright. Some eggs will get broken to ensure peace. Isn't this exactly what you are accusing Senior Abusto pequeno, and indeed the US of doing? Please tell me I have this wrong.

Then you don't fully understand what I have posted. Its not alright if people are being routinely raped and tortured. But where is all this raping and torturing? Who is doing it? Other than in rhetoric of right wing enemies of Saddam, this raping and torturing is not found. There are such excursions into rebel held territory. But many times, this is one Kurd local cheiftain doing it to members of an enemy clan.

Often one power broker will do it and then blame it on Saddam's Sunnis - for political gain. Easy to do when people similar to George Jr see things only in black and white.

If murder, rape, and torture is so unacceptable, then why is George Jr not declaring war on Zimbabwae and Mugabe? Because the US is not and must not be a world's policemen. Saddam is a problem for Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Jordan, etc to first solve. Zimbabwae is a problem for SE Africian nations. What goes on, publically documented, under Mugabe's order is more appauling that what Saddam is accused of. If George Jr was thinking logically, then American troops would be massing in Africa.

But George Jr has already said he will unilaterally declare war against Iraq. WMD are but an excuse. George Jr entered office with a vendetta - reality be damned. Those silly aluminum tubes, magnets, etc are being investigated as suspicious minor materials. Curiousities resolved by smart people who solve problems without silly war.

But George Jr and his fans cannot be bothered with such facts. They are aluminum tubes that might be used for processing nuclear material. Therefore they MUST be for nuclear processing. Therefore we must attack Iraq. No doubt. He has aluminum tubes. Therefore we have the smoking gun to justify war!

It is that George Jr rhetoric that Hans Blix explicitly and publically complained about. George Jr was accused of misrepresenting what Hans Blix said - by Hans Blix. Could you ask for a better source? Hans Blix said George Jr misrepresented what Hans Blix said. But then reality is irrelevant to George Jr. Saddam must go only because George Jr has a vendetta - weapons inspectors be damned.


BTW, America did not apologize for the spy plane incident. We 'regretted'. Big difference. There were decent people in US and China doing everything to avoid war. Also were extremists in both countries just iching for war. People such as the President of China used the 'regret' statement so that good people could settle the spy plane nonsense at the expense of 'veins hanging from teeth' extremists in both US and China. We intentionally did not apologize. We agreed to settle the issue - at the expense of extremists in both China and the US who openly advocated military solutions.

[Undertoad]

Those silly aluminum tubes, magnets, etc are being investigated as suspicious minor materials.

And that's why, as of today, the UN no longer exists.

And that's why, as an American living near a major eastern port city between NYC and DC but with less security than either by far, I say good riddance.

[Undertoad]

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...490&p=6zz45y96

Via USS Clueless comes the above link, which I only advise you to click after you've turned down your speakers.

But here's the guts of it:

Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said.

"What’s distinctive about the Total contract is that it’s not favourable to Iraq, it’s favourable to Total," Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York.

"One can suspect that there’s some arbitrage there, that in between the real value of that contract and the cash value of that contract there’s a certain amount of political support.

"It's entirely possible that Saddam negotiated that deal because that along with the revenues, he could get something else."

He said oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as "extraordinarily lopsided" in favour of the French company.

"This is not your normal oil exploration contract."

--

I smell the truth coming out: the French wanted to draw the new world order with them in charge of a united Europe, counter-balancing the USA as a global super-power.

The security of the US, in this scenario, is not a concern. Hussein can build all the nukes he likes, as long as he is playing nicely with Europe.

We've been fucking sold out... UN actions in exchange for cheap oil. The irony is as rich as the sweet light crude under that country, or at least it would be if nuclear proliferation weren't part of the equation. Irony doesn't last long under such circumstances.

[Undertoad]

Stop me before I post pro-war again!

A Iraqi Guardian reader flames anti-war Brits. Along the way he notes that "every week [Hussein] executes people through the 'court of revolution', a summary secret court run by the secret security office. Most of its sentences are executions which Saddam himself signs." Is this an example of tw's <i>one power broker will do it and then blame it on Saddam's Sunnis - for political gain</i>?? No - the author claims that he's Sunni himself.

The New Republic rags on Blix: Blix reported this morning that, "At the meeting in Baghdad on the 8th and the 9th of February, the Iraqi side addressed some of the important outstanding disarmament issues and gave us a number of papers.... Although no new evidence was provided in the papers and no open issues were closed through them or the expert discussions, the presentation of the papers could be indicative of a more active attitude focusing on the important open issues."

Italics mine. Read those italicized words. Translation: "They gave us nothing. But hey, at least they gave us something!"

And at this point, dear reader, if you ain't pissed, you ain't paying attention.