brains before beauty? oops sorry, i forgot we are talking politics
Never considered Helen Thomas narrow or dogmatic - hmmmmm!
And you know, Coulter is truly ugly to me, I guess I see the true inner ugliness!
Timber, You claim the high ground, but I think you've been indulging in argumentative little pedantries and suggest you look back at Bush's statements post 9/11, once they'd made the decision to blame Osama. The administration's public focus was entirely on him. They promoted his demonization in the media. Until he began to make a fool of their macho claims. We know now that somewhere during that time they decided to go after Saddam as well, and quite gratuitously. Iraq policy didn't become open policy until several months later. I stand by bait/switch. I'd offer you extreme fumbling as an alternative if I didn't believe the White House has become a hot house of lies. And your idea that the war was forced on you by Saddam -- well, it does rather sound like the wife-beater's defense.
Now, on to some economic reporting and commentary I heard on All Things Considered this evening. The war will cost -- some say $95B, others say $100B. That's ten times what Gulf War 1 cost (spoiled children spend more?) in part because we then had genuine allies who picked up their part of the tab. And that brings me to the additional costs: the bribes we've paid to even HAVE allies this time. Does anyone have a good estimate as to what the final cost will be when you add in all the "mordidas"?
Robert Reich, that humorous and even-handed fellow, was willing to concede, rhetorically at least, that Bush's gambles could pay off. But it's a big -- a huge -- gamble, Reich said. Bush is banking on everything staying organized and turning out as he wants. Will it? Because if it doesn't, says Reich, we're in real big, big trouble. ...Not only with the rest of the world and overseas markets but with the US domestic economy and markets. And that's Bush's other big gamble. It's possible that tax cuts might help as a stimulus (Reich kept his voice cheerful and supportive) but history questions that assumption and, again, if they don't work, the economy and the markets are going to experience a huge impact because of the huge debts incurred. The fact that the conflict will take place right over important oil supplies will tend to make things much worse...
And then someone on Market Watch said, Things have changed. It's not like the old days. War will no longer have a positive impact on the economy as in the past and here's why: Defense no longer depends anywhere near as heavily on industrial materials and jobs. In fact most defense plants have been laying people off. Most of the invasion depends on high tech, so that sector will experience a nice little blip... maybe... BUT keep in mind (they said) that DOD is buying existing systems or variations on them. So there won't be much hiring or that much outlay.
As for gambling, take a look at Bush's past, his unsuccessful gambles, the bail-outs. The signs were all there, big and blinking. I really don't think it's too much to say that 48% of American voters (or whatever the real figure was) have a lot of responsibility settling on their shoulders for the lives, homes, jobs lost to Bush's big toss of the dice.
A good reason, Tres, why liberals are so insistent in our opinions is that we saw this coming and said so. And for two years we've watched as our predictions have been borne out in the administration's actions. I think we might oughta get a little respect for paying attention all this time, staying informed, exploring all the angles, and calling a spade a spade. Why do you scurry around to find new phrasings to defend Bush and war? Why is it that anyone as intelligent as you are can't see the scrim upon scrim of deceit the administration has thrown over everything it touches? You completely flummox me.
Saying Coulter is prettier than Thomas isn't saying much. Hell, I'v got dogs that are prettier than Helen Thomas. She's not known as a Bulldog for her journalistic skills alone
timber.
Oh yes, BillW. I saw Coulter on Bill Maher's show but turned off in a couple of minutes because her extreme, twisting self-consciousness is agony to watch. I hate to give her any ground, but in fact I felt sorry for her. She has become a reprint of her own caricature.
flummox, that sounds kinda exciting - maybe I want in on that!
Tartarin, if I've given you indication of pedantry, I apologize. Perhaps in my enthusiasm, I stray. Feel free to bring it to my attention. Perhaps what I perceive as conviction you perceive as pedantry. Either way, I'm unhappy that we are going to war, but I accept the fact that this is so, and I see war in the current instance to be the least objectionable choice available from among a selection of very unpleasant options.
timber
Timber -- seriously (and I apologize for calling you Tres -- it was a senior moment!), why is "war in the current instance to be the least objectionable choice available from among a selection of very unpleasant options"? Why wouldn't *not invading* be not only the least objectionable but positively laudable? Not that I want any kudos for Bush, but I think that's what he'd get if he said, Let's work out viable, strong containment of Saddam.
Well Bill, I'd be flummoxed by you any day but you don't flummox. You are clear, above-board, and as I remarked earlier, you're on a roll today!
Wolf, it isn't big news IMHO, and it got all the media it merited. The basis for Iran's suit is that she is seeking reparation for damage4 done to Iranian Oil Platforms which were involved in hostile fire incidents with US warships which were conducting hostile action against Iraq in a recognized war zone. They shot at us, involving themselves as a "Third Party" to a war in which they were not involved. Their ability to shoot at us using those platforms was nuetralized ... perfectly legitimats, as I see it. Most of The World Legal Community sees it the same way, from what I'm able to gather.
Iran's allegation of US complicity in Iraqi WMD development bears littlle scrutiny, and the mid-'Fifties treaty on which the suit is based, between The US and the 'Iran of The Shah', quite arguably a non-existant entity. The Iranian suit also ignores actions on the part of Iran at the time of and subsequent to her Revolution which otherwise abrogated and mooted the relevant treaty.
timber
Asherman -- I think I echo Snood's gratitude in that link!
Tartarin, I too posted a reply on that thread which addresses your question.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=119375#119375
I just can not see containment to be a viable option in a real-world situation which involves a rejection of the concept and spirit of containment on the part of the one to be contained.
Oh, and no need to apologize. I have senior moments myself.
Besides, I can see where it might be easy be confused among such as Tres, George, Asherman, and myself.
timber
Tartarin wrote:Asherman -- I think I echo Snood's gratitude in that link!
Wry, Tartarin, very wry. Good job.
timber
Other "big news, no media". For those taht have kept insisting that there is no proof that Iraq has chemical and/or biological weapons.. Wanna explain this one??
UN inspectors resume destroying Iraqi mustard shells, visit biological arms site
26 February - United Nations weapons teams inspected missile, chemical, medical and nuclear-related sites across Iraq today,
resuming the destruction of mustard-filled artillery shells and checking for the third day running a site where Iraq says it destroyed bombs filled with biological agents.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6272&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect
How is the UN is destroying Mustard Gas shells that don't exist?
fishin' wrote:How is the UN is destroying Mustard Gas shells that don't exist?
The answer to that question might have something to do with the "nuances" to which Dr. Blix so often refers.
timber
The UN community is trying to resolve this peacefully, not because they're such doves, but because they know full well that the Bush imperialism (and no, that's not a big word) must be stopped before it's too late. Afghanistan was enough.
What if?
A deeply moving article from The Christian Science Monitor:
Quote:from the February 26, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html
If antiwar protesters succeed
To publish an unsigned opinion piece is an exception to the Monitor's policy. But the views expressed here, if put with a name, could endanger the writer's extended family in Baghdad. The author - known to Monitor staff - was born and raised in Iraq. Now a US citizen with a business that requires extensive world travel, the author is in frequent touch with the Iraqi diaspora but is not connected with organized opposition to Saddam Hussein.
Since Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, started warning that a US invasion of Iraq would "open the gates of hell," the retort that has been flying around Iraqi exiles' websites is, "Good! We'd like to get out!"
It got me wondering: What if you antiwar protesters and politicians succeed in stopping a US-led war to change the regime in Baghdad? What then will you do?
Will you also demonstrate and demand "peaceful" actions to cure the abysmal human rights violations of the Iraqi people under the rule of Saddam Hussein?
Or, will you simply forget about us Iraqis once you discredit George W. Bush?
Will you demand that the United Nations send human rights inspectors to Iraq? Or are you only interested in weapons of "mass destruction" inspections, not of "mass torture" practices?
Will you also insist that such human rights inspectors be given time to discover Hussein's secret prisons and coercion as you do for the weapons inspectors? Or will you simply accept a "clean bill of health" if you can't find the thousands of buried corpses?
Will you pressure your own countries to host millions more Iraqi refugees (estimated now at 4 million) fleeing Hussein's brutality?Or will you prefer they stay in bondage?
Will you vigorously demand an international tribunal to indict Hussein's regime for crimes against humanity? Or will you simply dismiss him as "another" dictator of a "sovereign" country?
Will you question why Hussein builds lavish palaces while his people are suffering? Or will you simply blame it all on UN sanctions and US "hegemony?"
Will you decry the hypocritical oil and arms commerce of France, Germany, Russia, and China with the butcher of Baghdad? Or are you only against US interests in Iraqi oil?
Will you expose ethnic cleansing of native Iraqi non-Arabs (Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkomens), non-Sunni-Muslims (Shiite), and non-Muslims (Christians, Mandaens, Yezidis)? Or are these not equivalent to the cleansing of Bosnians and Kosovars?
Will you show concern about the brutal silencing of the "Iraqi street"? Or are you only worried about the orchestrated noises of "Arab and Islamist streets" outside Iraq?
Will you hear the cries of Iraqis executed in acid tanks in Baghdad? the Iraqi women raped in front of their husbands and fathers to extract confessions? Or of children tortured in front of their parents? Or of families billed for the bullets used to execute military "deserters" in front of their own homes?
No. I suspect that most of you will simply retire to your cappucino cafes to brainstorm the next hot topic to protest, and that you will simply forget about us Iraqis, once you succeed in discrediting President Bush.
Please, prove me wrong.
I can imagine nothing to add to that.
timber
