Is Bush intent on War?

Loomer

It seems contributors to this forum are divided on there views. But one question comes to the fore in my mind. Is George Bush prepared to back down if Saddam comes clean to the satisfaction of the inspectors?

Samson

Originally posted by Loomer
Is George Bush prepared to back down if Saddam comes clean to the satisfaction of the inspectors?

I would very much doubt it.
As far as I can see the George Bush oil cabal are intent on a war, and they won't let a small matter like Iraq having no Chemical/Biological/Nuclear weapons stand in their way.

You see, Saddam has not played ball with them since the days of the Iran/Iraq war, and it just does not suit the oil interests to have him in power.
What they want to do is get rid of him by any means necessary, and put a more acceptable (puppet) regime in place who will effectively hand over control of the oil fields to Exxon et al.

What they want to do is get rid of him by any means necessary, and put a more acceptable (puppet) regime in place who will effectively hand over control of the oil fields to Exxon et al.

Iraq would be a nice base of operations, if the US decide that the Middle East should be cleaned up.

PH01

Since his first day in office Dubya hasn't given a $hit about the rest of the world. Taking the line, we're the most powerful country in the world so the world should be doing what we say - like it or lump it.
But on the bright side, November 2004 isn't too long away. And if the democrats can get their act together, Bushie boy and his cronnies won't be around for long.

And if the democrats can get their act together, Bushie boy and his cronnies won't be around for long.

considering the number of americans that are backing this war, instead of bush you'll probably find someone else (more intelligent), that'll continue present US policy...

Cork

Is George Bush prepared to back down if Saddam comes clean to the satisfaction of the inspectors?

I hope that he would take some credit in making Saddam comply with the resolution.

But are we pre-judging the UN report?

If the UN report is Anti-Iraq - What can we do?

France & Russia seem to have strategic interists in Iraq.

We have an interest in continued direct investment by US companies in Ireland.

I think we need to make sure that we do not alienate Irish America while not abandoning our morality.

MrPudding

If you haven't already done so, you should read "stupid white men." The first 30 pages where it breaks dowm the election rigging in Florida and the make up of the Busd administration is breathtaking. The idea that I get from it is that Bush is little more than a puppet being controlled by his dads old cronies. I think the poll choice "'cos Rummy tells him to" may be fairly close to reality.

I think we need to make sure that we do not alienate Irish America while not abandoning our morality.

huh? Abondoning our morality? - what morality?

as for abandoning Irish america, well, they're american not irish.

I hope that he would take some credit in making Saddam comply with the resolution.

Some credit, when he himself is willing to dissolve Nato? Or when he's prepared to bring the world to war, over his over inflated ego? This proposed war has got to be one of the least documentated ventures the US have ever presented to the UN. The evidence isn't exactly, all that good. Its very intangible, and half of it looks to be falsified.

Hmmmm... can we impeach Bush for supplying false evidence to the UN?

Samson

Originally posted by PH01
But on the bright side, November 2004 isn't too long away. And if the democrats can get their act together, Bushie boy and his cronnies won't be around for long.

I would suspect part of the reasoning behind the war stance is exactly because there is an election 18 months(ish) away.
Generally, war is seen as a good thing by administrations for getting the votes (ignoring Pop Bush of course).

Hell, their next step will probably be to declare martial law and suspend democracy while the "war against terror/evil/blah blah" continues, so all they have to do is go after North Korea after Iraq, then Iran, Palestine, Somalia, Cuba, Syria, China, Russia, France, Germany, Belgium, etc. etc. etc.

Loomer

Originally posted by Cork

We have an interest in continued direct investment by US companies in Ireland.

OMG if hear this chestnut one more time... Its more played out than a new Westlife single!!!

For the last time. American companies don't give a sh1te about Irish politics other than those that relate to tax breaks for foreign investment. The only time there going to move on is when they find somewhere more economically viable.

As Vivien from The Young Ones said:

"The next person that says that, I'm going to stick their head through a window!!!"

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
Iraq would be a nice base of operations, if the US decide that the Middle East should be cleaned up.

Yea because it worked last time. :rolleyes:

Shinji

We have an interest in continued direct investment by US companies in Ireland.

Firstly, I'd like to reiterate what Loomer said. American companies are not interested in Irish politics, they are interested in Irish taxation rates, the Irish financial climate and how this affects their bottom lines. That is all.

Secondly, I'd like to say that your apparent willingness to make a judgement on the value of the lives of the people of Iraq based on some percieved risk to Irish jobs marks your basic morality out as pretty damn lacking - and is one of the more disgusting examples of "looking after number one" that I've seen of late.

Turnip

Ireland is a sitting duck for a terrorist attack. Allowing Shannon to be used by the US military is not in our best interests at all. If some bombs start going off, the companies will be falling over themselves to get out anyway.

Ireland is a sitting duck for a terrorist attack. Allowing Shannon to be used by the US military is not in our best interests at all. If some bombs start going off, the companies will be falling over themselves to get out anyway.

The Republic has Always been a sitting duck for terrorist attacks. Maybe thats why there's such co-operation between the rangers and other european anti-terrorist squads. Having Americans shuttle thru shannon, will not make us more of a terrorist target. If that was the case they'd hit Britain since their actively helping the US in their war-effort.

These companies didn't leave the north during the troubles, nor did they leave Britain during the IRA's bombing campaign. The companies will stay as long as they continue to receive tax cuts, and pay-offs.

Dampsquid

From CNN:

Meanwhile, in a separate Capitol Hill hearing Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said a new message believed to be from Osama bin Laden says he "is in partnership with Iraq."

Powell said he reviewed a transcript of the message, which he said was to air on the Al-Jazeera Arab news satellite television channel, which operates out of Qatar. "(Bin Laden) speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq," Powell said.

Asked for reaction to Powell's claim, Al-Jazeera denied it had such a message from bin Laden, saying news of it was a rumor that has been circulating for several weeks.

"(Bin Laden) speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq," Powell said.

which would help the US's stance against Iraq. Sounds like the US are grasping at straws to convince the international community that Iraq is a threat

blackadder

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=27381&start=150

dahamsta

Hell, their next step will probably be to declare martial law and suspend democracy

Pay attention please, that process started with the Patriot Act.

Coming soon to a cinema near you: Patriot II: The Smell of FUD

J. Edgar'd wet himself. The Boys probably will.

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ixidor

Bush is yet more proof that man has a hell of a lot more evolving to do.....
the question is:
will we have time on this planet to evolve if Bush continues?
it's a catch 22...... we're f cuked

Nagilum

Originally posted by Dampsquid



Looks like this isn't BS after all..you might want to let the ink dry on the story next time you go throwing accusations around, haha.

sceptre

Originally posted by Dampsquid
Powell said he reviewed a transcript of the message, which he said was to air on the Al-Jazeera Arab news satellite television channel, which operates out of Qatar. "(Bin Laden) speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq," Powell said.

Powell should have listened to the whole tape. Bin Laden calling Hussein an infidel and saying that he believes in the justice of the struggle that the Iraqi people will face isn't exactly proof that Saddam and Osama are sleeping with each other. Bah humbug. So bin Laden believes that Iraqis should keep the Americans out and be prepared to do anything (including suicide bombings) to achieve that end? Now there's a surprise. Were people (Powell etc) expecting something different? Bin Laden's hardly going to turn around and say something like "invite the nice Americans in and give them a cup of tea".

Quick article on the tape here (news still breaking). Fox managed to broadcast the whole tape with a translation. The BBC site has some excerpts as well.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

I think that suicide bombers are absolutely the worst. Who sends these people out? Who provide compansation to their familys? Who encourages them?

I think that if the UN could bring democracy to Iraq - It would be an example to other countries.

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by Cork

I think that if the UN could bring democracy to Iraq - It would be an example to other countries.

If this is all about democracy, why doesn't Bush sit down and accept the democratic will of the security council rather than trying to use his power, influence and considerable money to force a war that needn't happen, and that will leave many thousands of Iraqi's dead !

If the US did not have their own vested interests in the region and in the country, this war would not happen . . . don't forget that the US have helped to put (and/or keep) many dictators in place over the last 30 odd years !

dahamsta

I think that suicide bombers are absolutely the worst. Who sends these people out? Who provide compansation to their familys? Who encourages them?

The strategic logic of suicide terrorism

adam

I think that if the UN could bring democracy to Iraq - It would be an example to other countries

Whos to say that Democracy will work in Iraq. Regardless, it should be up to the Iraqi people as to which form of government that they'll have, not decided by us, or the US/UN

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
Regardless, it should be up to the Iraqi people as to which form of government that they'll have, not decided by us, or the US/UN

So you support the right of the Iraqi people to be oppressed? How progressive of you...

The proposal is to give them the freedom to decide what form of government they want. A freedom which they don't have under Saddam.

So you support the right of the Iraqi people to be oppressed? How progressive of you...

read my post. I never said that. What was said that i believe that the Iraqi people have the right to choose which form of government rules. I'm not talking about keeping Saddam in power or ousting him.

blackadder

Originally posted by daveirl
hmmm.... Michael Moore wrote it in his opinionated book.... hence it is taken as fact..... go figure

it's not michael moore who makes the assertions. it was another journalist called greg palast (www.gregpalast.com) who uncovered the vote-rigging and electoral roll gerrymandering. Moore simply repeated them. See Palast's book 'The Best democracy can buy' before you dismiss this.

Originally posted by klaz
read my post. I never said that. What was said that i believe that the Iraqi people have the right to choose which form of government rules. I'm not talking about keeping Saddam in power or ousting him.

But they don't have any such right.
100% vote for Sadam:rolleyes: whoever organised that vote was being sarcastic.
mm

Actually, what i meant was if saddam wasn't in power, then it is up to the people to choose which form of government they wish to use, whether it be a monarchy, democratic, or a dictatorship. Its not up to us to choose for them

miju

IMHO George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler.

And no thats not be trying to be smart Bush seriously is dangerous to world peace he might come across as stupid but theres something about his constant sly smile and his eyes that make me think he's not as dumb as he likes to make out

Meh

Originally posted by the-raptor
IMHO George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler.

Ever hear of a Russian chap called Stalin? Killed 40 million people, between artificial famines, gulags, deportations, massacres and invasions of peaceful neighbouring countries. Kind of puts Bush and his few hundred executions in Texas and few thousand civilians killed by US bombing into perspective, don't you think?

Claiming that Bush is worse than Stalin is just plain ludicrous. And people claim that there's no anti-Americanism on this forum...

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Claiming that Bush is worse than Stalin is just plain ludicrous. And people claim that there's no anti-Americanism on this forum...

People claim there is very little anti-Americanism on this forum, and they'd generally be the people who have understood the concept that George W Bush <> USA

You know...just like saying that (for example) Charlie Haughey was an incredibly corrupt politician does not make you anti-Irish.

The US media, on the other hand, can have a field day with their reports about "cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys", front pages showing the ostrich with a headline of "the National Bird of France", and so on and so forth.

This is clearly not criticism of the administration, or any individual within it. This is clearly an attack on a nation.

I havent seen you up and complaining about the anti-Frenchism, or any other nation that the US media have decided to roast in recent days with their comments about an Axis of Weasels, "mini-me minions", and so on and so forth. No - not a post about any of that.

So why not drop the righteous indignation. At the very best, Europe is simply giving as good as it gets in the "anti-something" stakes.

When you look at it in a different light, you'll notice that one group talks mostly about the disapproval of the actions of a nation, while the other simply insults the nation it disapproves of the actions of at increasingly regular intervals.

Having said all of that, though, I do agree that making Bush out to be worse than Stalin is ridiculous. Then again, any claim that "person X is the worst since Hitler" is almost automatically disregardable as nothing more than contentless soundbiting anyway.

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by Samson
Hell, their next step will probably be to declare martial law and suspend democracy while the "war against terror/evil/blah blah" continues,

check out wired today. One of the major headlines is about the "Patriot II" act which may or may not see the light of day.

Incidentally, I voted "Cause Rummzy tells him too"

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
You know...just like saying that (for example) Charlie Haughey was an incredibly corrupt politician does not make you anti-Irish.

That's true, criticizing a leader is not an attack on an entire country. But what if, for example, a British tabloid were to say that the Irish government is "the greatest threat the UK has faced since Hitler"? I'm sure most people in this country wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and tell themselves that criticism of a country's government does not reflect on the citizens. No, they'd see such ludicrous hyperbole for what it is -- a transparent attempt at stirring up anti-Irish feeling.

The US media, on the other hand, can have a field day with their reports about "cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys", front pages showing the ostrich with a headline of "the National Bird of France", and so on and so forth.

This is clearly not criticism of the administration, or any individual within it. This is clearly an attack on a nation.

Absolutely. But kneejerk anti-European statements from idiotic American tabloids still doesn't excuse (slightly more subtle) anti-Americanism such as comparing Bush to Hitler. We should know better than to lower ourselves to their level.

IMHO George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler.

I may be a it off, but i don't think he was comparing Bush to Hitler or Stalin for that matter. I think that he was saying that Bush in his own right is a threat to the peace of the world. Theres no way you can compare Bush to Stalin or Hitler, for the things that have been done. However comparisons can be made, in how Bush has turned the US's attention away from its economic problems towards its war efforts. Hitler did the same thing.

TBH, i'm not a big fan of the past few american presidents. In some ways Reagan was for worse trouble to the world than Bush has so far. However Bush is stupid enough, to make a few balls-ups in the future, especially with N.Korea.

Meh, an attack on Bush does not mean an attack on America. Most of the people in here that dislike the Bush administration, have admitted that they have friends/family in America or like american individuals. Anti-Americanism, is attacking America as a whole and/or its people. i.e. "All americans are Fat-Gits that spend their whole time in front of the TV eating fast food."

Oh, one other thing. A person can make one comment against America, and shouldn't be labelled Anti-American. Now, if they're always giving out about America, then yes, Anti-americanism does apply. (Note: again this does not apply to attacks against Presidental candidates, or individual people).

dathi1

So you support the right of the Iraqi people to be oppressed? How progressive of you...

Yes we should progressively bomb the sh.it out of them back into democracy!

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
I may be a it off, but i don't think he was comparing Bush to Hitler or Stalin for that matter.

"George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler" is clearly a statement that Bush and Hitler are similar i.e. a comparison between Bush and Hitler.

Anti-Americanism, is attacking America as a whole and/or its people. i.e. "All americans are Fat-Gits that spend their whole time in front of the TV eating fast food."

Now we're arguing semantics. Very few anti-Americans are that unsubtle (unlike the anti-Europeans in America).

For what it's worth, my definition of "anti-Americanism" would be an extreme opposition to American policies which is based on a dislike of America as a nation, rather than rationally considering said policy on its own merits. Examples on this board: the Bush=Hitler post above. See also this thread about Bush's new AIDS funding. Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of "lacking honesty", "pulling accounting tricks for political reasons" and "trying to impose conditions on the recipients".

Victor

Originally posted by the-raptor
IMHO George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler.

You haven't heard of Pol Pot then have you?

So you support the right of the Iraqi people to be oppressed? How progressive of you...

cue scene from the Life of Brian

dathi1

For what it's worth, my definition of "anti-Americanism" would be an extreme opposition to American policies which is based on a dislike of America as a nation, rather than rationally considering said policy on its own merits. Examples on this board: the Bush=Hitler post above. See also this thread about Bush's new AIDS funding. Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of "lacking honesty", "pulling accounting tricks for political reasons" and "trying to impose conditions on the recipients".

Not anti American ANTI BUSH.
yes 15 billion over 5 years..piss compared to what Clinton recommended for aids relief......10 billion goes towards killing Palestinians every year in military aid to Israel alone.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Originally posted by Meh
See also this thread about Bush's new AIDS funding. Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of [......]"pulling accounting tricks for political reasons"

That would be me. Read my full post over there and you'll see that I approved of it while pointing out that it was also an accounting trick/procedure for a specific reason. It doesn't affect the impact of the aid; it is however, quite relevant to recognise the historical precedents behind this type of move. I didn't accuse him of pulling an accounting stunt for political reasons btw - he's pulling it for fiscal and economic reasons. And there's the fact that there's an actual aid increase. Which is good. Which I said. Which you ignored in your quoted post above. Selective quoting is like having a selective memory - it doesn't do your argument any favours.

And I'm not anti-American btw. Not even in the "some of my best friends are black but..." sense. I've said time and time again that Bush is a dangerous idiot. I've been saying it since 1999. It wasn't anti-American to say it before he was inaugurated president, it's not anti-American to be saying it since. I'm quite sick of this "ooooh noe, joo said s0meth1ng baaad about Israel, joo must be a jew-hater" type of argument.

"George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler" is clearly a statement that Bush and Hitler are similar i.e. a comparison between Bush and Hitler.

Meh, The comparison was made, however i don't think it was a comparison of how they kill people. Bush hasn't systmatically rounded up arabs for killing, as hitler/stalin did with the jews, gypsies etc. I think the comment was more in the vein that there are a number of people throughout the ages that are a threat to the world & world peace. Bush IS a threat to world peace, just as Hitler was.

Now we're arguing semantics

however, anti-americanism needs to be clarified to a point in these boards, simply because its used so much.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
See also this thread about Bush's new AIDS funding. Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of "lacking honesty", "pulling accounting tricks for political reasons" and "trying to impose conditions on the recipients".

And there was me thinking I was arguing that it would be better for the US to channel extra aid through the UN's global fund. But no, it turns out I was just a racist, silly me.

Meh, if you're going to cite an opinion of mine as evidence of racism , it might be look better if you could come up with some argument against it. Then again, maybe you couldn't follow the logic which, boiled down, goes something like this:

This policy, good as it is, could easily be a lot better if the US weren't so keen to use aid as a political tool. The aid itself is still welcome.

Quite simple, really. And most rich countries - the US, Europe, Japan, etc - have been tying aid to political conditions for donkeys' years. The Bush administration explicitly attaches conditions to at least some of its aid. Some of these conditions have their merits, too (if applied fairly and properly), such as a requirement for democratic reforms.

Now, perhaps you'd like to tell me why pointing this out is racist, cos I'd love to hear it. Or does someone have to explain, once again, that disliking THIS policy of THIS American administration in THIS point in time is not even the same as disliking ALL this administration's policies, let alone ALL American administrations, let alone ALL Americans.

I had a lot of problems with US policy under Clinton. I've got more problems with US policy under Bush. I also disagree with certain policies in countries as diverse as Ireland, India, Zimbabwe and China. I suppose I'm just anti-Everyone, then :rolleyes: .

As far as I can see the only reason to throw about charges of 'Anti-Americanism' - in the face of people explaining ad nauseam that they are not anti-American, just anti-this-policy or anti-bush - is to silence criticism. Which is the opposite of what this discussion board is supposed to be about. So please, cop yourself on.

Meh

Originally posted by shotamoose
Meh, if you're going to cite an opinion of mine as evidence of racism , it might be look better if you could come up with some argument against it.

I'll keep that in mind, if I ever do cite an opinion of yours as evidence of racism. But since I'm not accusing you or anyone else of racism in this thread, that's not relevant right now. "American" isn't a race.

Or does someone have to explain, once again, that disliking THIS policy of THIS American administration in THIS point in time is not even the same as disliking ALL this administration's policies, let alone ALL American administrations, let alone ALL Americans.

I'm talking about people who seem to criticize every American policy, no matter what it is, apparently just because it's American. See definition above. Of the people who were criticizing the US AIDS policy, I wonder how many billion dollars they plan to contribute to AIDS research over the next 5 years?

As far as I can see the only reason to throw about charges of 'Anti-Americanism' - in the face of people explaining ad nauseam that they are not anti-American, just anti-this-policy or anti-bush - is to silence criticism.

So if someone compares the US president to Hitler (see above), you'd prefer if I didn't tell them how biased
they are? Who exactly is being silenced here? And before you say that criticizing a president is not the same as being anti-American, imagine the reaction in this country if a British tabloid were to say that the Irish government is "the greatest threat to the UK since Hitler".

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
I'll keep that in mind, if I ever do cite an opinion of yours as evidence of racism. But since I'm not accusing you or anyone else of racism in this thread, that's not relevant right now.
"American" isn't a race.

Fine, 'irrational xenophobia', then. Justify that.

I'm talking about people who seem to criticize every American policy, no matter what it is, apparently just because it's American.

Has it occured to you that someone might be criticising American policy because it deserves criticism? Again, I think if you want to back this up you're going to have to argue against the content of the criticism I put forward, rather then just arguing against the act
of criticism itself.

Of the people who were criticizing the US AIDS policy, I wonder how many billion dollars they plan to contribute to AIDS research over the next 5 years?

That is truly pathetic. Go read the thread, then come up with a proper answer.

So if someone compares the US president to Hitler (see above), you'd prefer if I didn't tell them how biased
they are?

Almost anyone who's ever invaded anyone else has been compared to Hitler. Bush is just the latest in a long line that includes Saddam and Milosevic. The comparison is usually misguided, pointless and done for propaganda purposes, and, imho, not motivated by anti-Iraqism, anti-Serbianism or anti-Americanism. You obviously choose to disagree (on the Bush one, at any rate), however I think you'd be far better off pointing out the weakness of the charge rather than shouting 'Anti-Americanism!'.

imagine the reaction in this country if a British tabloid were to say that the Irish government is "the greatest threat to the UK since Hitler".

I'd be quite surprised if a British tabloid said that, unless we were involved in some sort of serious dispute or war with Britain (war or the threat of war being the context for every case of Hitler-comparing I mentioned above), in which case I'd dismiss it as propaganda.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of "lacking honesty", "pulling accounting tricks for political reasons" and "trying to impose conditions on the recipients".

Are you therefore implying that it is not true that Bush is trying to impose conditions on teh recipients? That they will be free to spend this money on the products of any nation (as opposed to ploughing it back into the US) ???

I mean...otherwise no-one is "accusing him" of anything - they are stating a fact.

jc