The US, The UN and Iraq

Timber

Ok---I apologize for the Clinton remark but only if other folks apologize for the slander against our president.

perception, It's not slander when it's true. c.i.

That's what I thought ----it's strictly a one way street

I know everybody's tryin' here ... although some of the responses have been a little trying ... try not to try them on, particulary if you have any reason to question how one or another might fit :wink:


Thanks ... I, and I'm sure the whole membership in general, really appreciate the respect of you folks for one another. It's what makes this such a great website; you, the folks who are the deal.

End of editorial.


timber

[I]Yeah, but the problem is, Bush's slipshod handling of this has kept all his dang friends off balance, as well.[/I]

I didn't go back and read the whole thread, but this is the worst thing I said about "our president". In fact, the entire tone of this forum thankfully doesn't allow for too much personalized attacks on GWB. So, if what is said here is perceived as "slander", it raises two questions in my mind:

What would be considered acceptable boundaries for negative commentary concerning GWB, and if what's been said here is slander, what was that that filled the mouths of the right for eight years, and still today?

Our friends, the frogs, will thank their gods that nobody lost their life. c.i.

Snood - I think the statement is well within the bounds of acceptable discourse for this forum. That's your opinion, and I think it would be wrong of me or anyone to suggest you are wrong to share it, but...

The problem I see with it is it offers us nothing. "Where's the beef?" :wink: If you told us what you mean specifically by "Bush's slipshod handling of this", you'd give us something specific with which we could either agree or into which we could attempt to tear. So, I think you have every right to write what you did, but I guess I don't think it tells us much or adds anything to the discussion.

Just my $0.02. (Not adjusted for inflation.)

Oh, I dunno, snood, and everyone else reading this; attacking Bush The Younger or just about anyone else, particularly public figures, is cool as far as I'm concerned, as long as it isn't done in inflamatory, vulgar, or hateful manner.

Snide remarks, cheapshots, and ridicule are liable to cause folks to respond to the emotion of the statement rather than its content, and once emotions get involved, some folks get a little over-emotional and start attacking one another's persons instead of one another's arguments. If you feel you've been unfairly censored or otherwise stifled, let me know, give me some details and a link if possible, and I promise I'll look into it. I won't promise I'll get an answer you'll like, necessarily, but I'll try to get you an answer.

That goes for everyone else, too. I'm not "Special", but I know who to irritate and how to irritate them to get answers :wink:
As far as I'm concerned, "Civil Behavior" doesn't mean "Censorship", it means "Common Sense". If a someone composes a post that would likely upset themself if it came from someone else, it will probably upset most other folks too. If you wouldn't want something said to you or about you, you probably should think before saying it to or about anyone else.

I enjoy dialogue and debate, which, after all, is why every one of us is here. Diatribe is crap ... its pretty much mental masturbation. It might make the practioner feel pretty good for a moment, but it isn't very satisfying, and it does absolutely nothing for anyone else, other than maybe disgust them. If you want to challenge or beat someone on the internet, you've got to do it with Brains; Brawn just doesn't translate into pixels. It always comes out as just blather, bother, and bluster, and demeans and diminishes all and any who fall into it.

I dunno why anyone should have a problem with that, but if anyone feels they do, or if anyone feels they've been unfairly attacked or censored on this website, they are invited to discuss it with me or any of the guides or moderators. We all want this to work for all of us.



timber, who gives a damn, and wants everyone to try

The problem I see with it is it offers us nothing. "Where's the beef?" If you told us what you mean specifically by "Bush's slipshod handling of this", you'd give us something specific with which we could either agree or into which we could attempt to tear. So, I think you have every right to write what you did, but I guess I don't think it tells us much or adds anything to the discussion.


I suppose I took for granted that at this point in this thread and the overall debate, both sides had pretty much fleshed out their arguments pro and con vis a vis the war in Iraq, so I didn't need to provide any "beef". Also, I was responding to another similarly unsupported statement, and not attempting to provide you (or whoever "us" is) with a footnoted essay.

Timber

Well said----however I want to clear the air with one quick comment and then I won't discuss it again---I promise. What you said about snide remarks and cheap shots fairly well described many posts I have had the misfortune to read on this entire forum(not just this thread---well back) regarding the current President. While I will defend anyone's right to protest against any politician and the current administration, any posts that are inflamatory are cheap shots. I believe the jury is still out on every action the current president has taken and until such time as he is proven wrong on any particular issue, I personally would appreciate some restraint from the participants of this forum. On the other hand the entire world knows the indescretions of ex-president Clinton

Also Timber since you chose to not answer my PM regarding this subject I felt compelled to address it here. All I'm asking is for the participants of this forum to tone down the cheap shots and discuss things with an open mind----now I know that will draw some howls of indignation but I can assure all that I can be persuaded to change my position if the evidence is presented.

Now having said exactly what I intended ---- can we start with a clean page and move on.

If anyone would like to continue on this subject I welcome any PMS and will courteously respond as best I can. Perception

perception, I try to answer all PMs ... but sometimes I screw up. My PM box gets full sometimes ... I'm not a very good housekeeper. I'll try to do better. I'm off to look for that PM of yours I must have missed.



timber

I happen to believe the invasion of Iraq is imminent. I think it could happen just prior to the SOTU Tuesday; probably it is about two weeks or so off. There's more then one factor that will influence the decision for when the attack will begin. A significant example of Iraqi intransigence is one; the changing season is another. But there is also the matter of simple fatigue on the part of strike force.

The U.S. is currently standing in the waters of the Gulf with a gun to Sadaam's head and our finger on the trigger. Our fingers are tensed, waiting for the word to fire. If the word takes too long to come, those fingers will start to cramp.

The soldiers who have been shipped out already can't be expected to just sit around for months on end. They must either be unleashed or withdrawn, either within a fairly short period of time. Otherwise, they will lose focus and sharpness (and thereby effectiveness).

The chickenhawks and hardliners understand this as well as the generals. That is why they have pushed to move the troops out while continually insisting that no decision has been made to attack. Their hope is that the unflinching force of time will make no other choice possible but to attack.

They understand that Bush is not the type to back down.

He has too much pride in the size of his equipment.

He will have to order the attack sooner rather then later, or he will have to face the laughter of those who see him pulling back after so much bluster.

There is simply no way Bush is not going to invade Iraq at this point.

It would cost him re-election, for starters.

Should the US go to war with Iraq without UN agreement?

Yes 38% 102323 votes
No 62% 163882 votes
Total: 266,205 votes

vote for yourself.....


CNN Poll

Rhetoric Ratchet ....


Powell: We'll do it alone if we have to


More or less "Get aboard or get off the track; the train leaves with or without you, wherever you stand"


Still, I would look for a bit of lessening of anti-US Official Positions over the coming days. Some folks won't want to get run over by the train and may be expected to jump aboard as it pulls from the station. We shall see.



timber

Slander? I hear no voices coming from my computer. Someone should be aware of the difference between slander and libel.

PDiddie

Excellent analysis of the situation and I completely agree----let's hope Saddam and his murderous sons have come to the same conclusion.

The timing----It could happen any time after the SOU address and after those two additional carrier battle groups are in position. I just hope he doesn't telegraph the start.

"American troops are already in northern and southern Iraq, said prominent Turkish politician and leader of the ruling Party of Justice and Development Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speaking in an interview, published on Sunday by the inter-Arab newspaper Al-lHayat.
He did not specify the numerical strength of US troops in Iraq and when they crossed the border. There are no Turkish units in Iraq now, stressed Erdogan who is expected to replace, in the near future, his deputy in the ruling party Abdullah Gul at the post of Turkish prime minister." (from: "Spiegel online", radio/tv-news Germany, et. al.)

" Powell hints at more time for inspectors

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell faced angry anti-war protesters as he arrived for talks at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort Davos. Powell hinted that the UN inspectors may be given more time to do their work. He told reporters that he hoped a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi crisis could be found but warned that the use of force was still an option. Powell also said the United States had the support of a dozen allies for an attack on Iraq. Some countries would even back military action without the mandate of a new UN resolution, he said. Powell is due to deliver a key policy speech on U.S. foreign policy to the Forum on Sunday. " (BBC, dw et.al.)

The interview mentioned in the above link was just broadcasted by CNN and othe tv-[news]stations in their hourly news.

Davos has already been the site of some in-your-face, anti-American sentiment. There was an unprecedented one minute ovation in the economic meeting after a pointedly anti-American comment. (Will have to look for the particulars, got this off BBC TV about three days ago.)

Interested to see Powell's reception.