0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 02:52 pm
Mr Italgato,

Could it be that the growth rate in the US is supported only by underpinning security of hydrocarbon energy resources?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 02:53 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Grenada. Whatever became of that place? Wasn't it once a member of the Commonwealth, until it was liberated by the US? I remember how the world breathed a sigh of relief that the island no longer posed a threat to freedom loving countries! How we cheered in the UK that the American invasion fleet had defeated 12 marxists, two boys and a Chiwawa. (You know Che-warra, revolutionary leader and dog).

Yes, but capitolism came to the recue,and the Chihuahua has had a rewarding career in fast food advertisments. Wink
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 03:17 pm
at least it wasn't in fast food menus. Very Happy

Seriously, do Americans still worry about Grenada regaining its former strength and threatening them again?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 03:20 pm
Probably about as much as the British fear the Sheep on the Falklands are going to rebel again. Wink
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 03:24 pm
Well, it seems that at least the Roayal Grenadian Police Force Coastguard is not THAT big threat anymore:
Quote:

The Coast Guard establishment stands at 41 personnel, although current strength is far below this, ...
http://www.spiceisle.com/rgpf/mainpage.htm


[Thinking of asking for a job there ...]
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 04:13 pm
Sounds like another hike in kumquat futures to me
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 04:55 pm
Walter, Maybe you can become the big boss there, and straigten them out.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 04:57 pm
I've often wondered , how are all the Falkland Island War Brides and their woolly offspring fairing in dear old Blighty? Wink
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 05:10 pm
"Corn" actually has a much bigger market. Wink
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 01:39 am
Hobit, pleased you used that emoticon :wink:

The sheep shaggers live mainly in the more remote areas of Wales and the border counties. Hereford is a bit of a hot spot - where the Sheep (Auxilliary) Shaggers hang out. Next time you're in a bar in Hereford ask if its true what they say about the SAS. Very Happy

Now this war was never about oil was it? Oh no
Iraqi oil is sacrosanct and for the benefit of the Iraqis Oh yes

This from that subversive organ the BBC

Quote:
The announcement included new opportunities for foreign investors, allowing them to own 100% of Iraqi enterprises. But natural resources, including oil - Iraq's most valuable asset - was excluded.

But Mr Allawi has now confirmed that it does not mean that oil is off the menu for foreign investors for good.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 02:58 am
Someone mentioned Iran, is there as seperate thread going on?

Just as an aside, thought you might be interested in the jolly slogans painted on their new missiles:

Iran put on show its new Shahab-3 ballistic missiles in a military parade Monday, with the rockets sporting slogans including "We will crush America under our feet" and "Israel must be wiped off the map".
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 05:10 am
Beer tender, bring me a bar .....



May 9, 2003
G.W. Bush:
Drunk on Power

by SAM HAMOD and ELAINE CASSEL

The president he got his wars
folks don't know just what it's for;
No one gives us a rhyme or reason
have one doubt they call it treason.

Eugene McDaniels
"Compared to What?"


An addicted brain is a changed brain. When you ingest a substance like alcohol, cocaine, or nicotine, your brain recognizes those substances as dopamine. These substances "bind" to dopamine receptors in the brain. Dopamine is also released every time you do something pleasurable. But you get your dopamine kicks, so to speak, in a different way from your friend. Your friend may get a jolt from winning a tennis match; you might get it from accomplishing some task at the office.

Dopamine is the brain chemical (neurochemical) that produces the "high," the sense of satisfaction and well-being that you think came from the alcohol or the pleasurable activity. The little-known secret, demonstrated amply by recent neuroscience, is that that "feel-good" state actually arises from the dopamine. The person continues to use the substance because he is trying to feel normal. But he (or she) cannot feel normal without the substance-or a substitute. That is why people recovering from one substance addiction often choose a substitute-recovering alcoholics are notorious smokers, for instance. They are replacing alcohol with nicotine, because nicotine also binds to the brain's dopamine receptors. But the more they do it, the more they have to do it. Why? To try to feel normal. The brain is not making the stuff anymore, or making little of it, and they have to help it along by continuing substance use or activities that cause great pleasure.

What does this explanation of the brain's dopamine system have to do with President G.W. Bush?

George Bush is an alcoholic. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, according to neuroscientists. Bush's brain was changed by his substance use. And his brain did not return to its "normal" or predrinking state after he stopped drinking. Proof positive of that is that he is showing signs of a new addiction-an addiction to power. (See Katherine Van Wormer's prescient piece in CounterPunch: Dry Drunk Syndrome and George W. Bush, from October, 2002.)

He has gone from being a drunk, to being drunk on power. Iraq, rather than cooling his addiction, fueled it. As he said on the aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, off the "perilous" coast of San Diego, "This is but ONE victory." He implied there will be more victories; thus, he will need more conquests to feed this new addiction to power.

Before September 11, The Washington Post focused more on his long, intense morning workouts than on his domestic policy. He had no foreign policy; he looked upon that with disdain. But with the tragedy of September 11 came a plethora of unexpected ways to get high.

We all know the famous dictum from Lord Acton, "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely." Today, we have a situation that is rare in history. Today, the US is an absolute super power. Bush is its Commander-in-Chief and president, and there is no one to stop him from using the awesome power of the US military might. Having tasted power, first with the ability to pass virtually without objection a sweeping law that changed what it means to be free (and unfree) in America today-the USA Patriot Act, then with so-called "success" in Afghanistan (though the big fish got away), he had a new substance to give him his dopamine jolt -- Power. Power became his new addiction. Clearly, from the changed tone of his rhetoric, his adrenaline is working on Power. He has it and craves more. And not just in America, but in the world.

His addiction to power has corrupted his view of what America is about. He has decided, along with his "enablers," Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Rove and Perle, that he should make pre-emptive strikes against any possible future foes and justify those strikes to the American people wrapped in a cloak of "I protected you for the sake of your future and that of your children." He has also created a rhetoric of exclusion, wherein anyone who does not buy his side of the argument or its premises, is labeled a "traitor." And in his rhetorical and psychological scheme, the patriots are those who buy into his vision.

His rhetoric of exclusion has frightened and intimidated the Congress and the media. Neither of them is willing to stand up to his ad hominem attacks for fear of being called a "traitor." Thus, Bush and his Iraq invasion advisor, Rumsfeld, attacked any journalist who made negative or critical comments. Even the celebrated Christine Amanpour had to defend herself and her fellow journalists because they'd reported the killing of civilians and the looting of the Iraq Museum.

And this is the problem with an addict: His world must be under his control; he cannot tolerate any ambiguity or threat to his perfection. At times we have heard addicts say, "Man, this cocaine is better than sex, better than heaven itself." Because they have control of that world and only they inhabit it and they circumscribe its realities.

We need not mention what happened to Al Jazeera and other foreign media when they criticized Bush or US actions in Afghanistan or Iraq. They were bombed, killed or shelled until they went off the air, fled or were forced out. No one is allowed to disrupt the perfection of the addict's power hungry world. This was seen in dictatorships of Joseph Stalin, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, and even Bush's contemporaries, Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe. They were all men who were addicted, drunk with power and did, and would do, anything necessary to assert their perfect control over their universe.

Of course, this is anathema to a real democracy. But kind of democracy do we have? Secret searches, secret detention, secret trials? What's next? Secret executions?

Bush is destroying the country he swore to protect. As Paul Krugman wrote on May 7, in the New York Times, "that was another country", referring to America and where it is today in comparison to what we were before Bush got drunk on power. September 11 gave Bush the dopamine substitute he needed, and the need for more grows each and every day.

Bush's speech aboard the aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, was pure theatre, designed to exult in maximum power. The tactics included arriving by jet fighter, which he proudly claimed to have piloted when he could have more safely arrived by helicopter (the carrier was not at sea, but close in to San Diego). Then, the ship was positioned in such a way to give Bush the maximum effect with the ocean behind him, as if he was an admiral of the open sea, of the world-not just aboard a ship close in to a safe port. And in wearing the official flight suit of the ship's squadron (when he shunned the trappings of his National Guard squadron), it was transparently clear that Bush was on a high like no other. Doubtless, it surpassed any alcohol binge.

But of course, like the family of an alcoholic, we, the family of G.W. Bush, the citizens of the United States, pay a heavy price for the drunkenness of our "father," if you pardon the analogy. This week, the Dean of the U.S. Senate, Senator Robert Byrd, lashed out at Bush for making a "campaign speech" that "disrespected" the U.S. military and shamed the country. Ask any one who has had a parent or a spouse who is an alcoholic-they will tell you what shame is all about. Shame and disgrace aptly describe Bush's drunken excess on board that Navy vessel.

Bush is now demonstrating what Alcoholics Anonymous refers to as the "dry drunk syndrome"--a sense of false self-aggrandizement, a belligerency against those who disagree with him, a logic that brooks no shades of gray or complexity, a glorification of having "conquered alcohol" (but not realizing that another addiction has taken its place) and an unsatisfied feeling at the core of his being that must constantly be fed by new and exhilarating experiences or adventures to satisfy his new addiction.

Sam Hamod is an expert on world affairs, especially the Arab and Muslim worlds, former editor of THIRD WORLD NEWS (in Wash, DC), a former professor at Princeton University, former Director of The National Islamic Center of Washington, DC, an advisor to the US State Department and author of ISLAM IN THE WORLD TODAY. He is the editor of www.todaysalternativenews.com, and may be reached at [email protected]

Elaine Cassel teaches law and psychology and practices law in the District of Columbia and Virginia. She is a contributor to CounterPunch and Findlaw.com's Writ, and keeps a watch on the Bush Administration's rewriting of the Bill of Rights on her Civil Liberties Watch site hosted by Minneapolis, Minnesota's City Pages. Cassel can be reached at: [email protected]


http://www.counterpunch.org/hamod05092003.html
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 06:04 am
I'll have some of what gelisgesti is drinking...
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 06:15 am
Edgar be careful what you wish for ......

symptoms

People with Parkinson's Disease (PD) suffer an increasing motor behaviour impairment, usually at an older age. The primary symptoms include: muscular rigidity, resting tremor, difficulty with movement initiation (bradykinesia), slowness of voluntary movement, difficulty with balance, and difficulty with walking. This disease was named after the English MD. James Parkinson, who in 1817 was the first person to describe these symptoms as 'the shaking palsy'.
dopamine deficiency

More than a century later, one believes that the cause of the disease is a dopamine deficiency in the basal ganglia of the brain. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, a chemical messenger in the nervous system. In PD the neural cells which produce dopamine deteriorate. When these neurons start to disappear, the normal rate of dopamine production decreases. It was discovered that when dopamine supply is abnormally low, Parkinson's symptoms start to appear. Next to PD's primary symptoms mentioned above, a patient may also start to suffer from secondary symptoms which include: depression, senility, postural deformity, and difficulty in speaking.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 06:41 am
Which brings us to something I was thinking about last night...has anyone heard anything about the prisoners at Camp Xray?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 06:42 am
Sofia wrote:
Additionally, the parties need to assess the job at hand, not continue to belabor...what if...concerning their former pre-war positions. [..]

Now, the Iraqis are free of Saddam, free of the horrors that tyrant perpetrated on them--but they are still not out of the woods. They need as much help as they can get. Withholding it due to political purposes isn't helping anyone, most notably the Iraqis.


Well, various European countries are very eager to provide help to the Iraqis. They are saying so, too - as soon as the US gets a proper international arrangement in place, with a real role for the UN so we can trust our support is not wasted - we'll help generously.

Take development aid. This is something we'd probably agree on: the time of blank credits for third world governments is past. If there's hunger in Zimbabwe, you're not just going to give 100 million $ to Mugabe; you're going to want to make sure that your 100 million $ actually goes to the hungry. Right?

Well, many EU countries want to help fight instability in Iraq like they'd want to fight hunger in Zimbabwe. They think a long-term continued go-it-alone US administration of the country is not going to yield stability - so they're obviously not going to pour support into that. Why contribute to a bad thing? That wont help the Iraqis, either.

If they're going to send (more) men there, staking their lives, and pour money into it, its going to have to be into an operation that they think will help the Iraqis. I.e., one with a central role for the UN and a rapid devolution of authority to an Iraqi government. Nothing to do with "pointless, self-serving geopolitical power games", there so far, no?

(I'm really getting tired of Americans who dont seem to understand that we can simply well think they're just not doing the right thing, they're making things worse - and thats why we wont pour our men and money in if we can help it - not until theres an actual chance to do something that will help. I mean, would you want the US to pour men and money into an operation that you think is just making things worse? This whole automatic assumption - and I hate to admit that Timber positively specialises in it - that 'if you dont agree with us, you must have bad intentions or ulterior motives' is ... simply exasperating.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 06:52 am
Sofia wrote:
Quote:
In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war.

Cleland is wrong. Bush addressed Saddam in at least one Presidential debate, and stated he would address the issue, which Clinton had neglected.


I think not everyone imagines a full-scale war and the occupation of an entire country for a long period of time when they're told "the issue will be addressed".

Then again, perhaps Bush was more specific about it back then, I cant remember. (Citations welcome).
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 06:54 am
So, should one be glad that the Council is starting to try and act like a council, or worry that Chalabi is sbout to become Hussein mark II?Chalabi shows Bremer the size of his danglies
Quote:
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 06:54 am
nimh--
It is certainly the right of countries and entities not to add in to a formula they think it wrong.

But, what is wrong with it? Everything the US put down in the resolution is pressing for self-determination for the Iraqis. They seem to want us to close up shop and leave the Iraqis to chaos. It seems, as I read their 'objections', the time table is all they disagree with.

Are there more specific disagreements with our methods that I may have missed?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 06:57 am
hobitbob wrote:
Which brings us to something I was thinking about last night...has anyone heard anything about the prisoners at Camp Xray?


Yes. Timber had some news a few posts up.

Also, "prospects for trials receded still further this month when Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, said that the United States was not interested in trying the men and letting them out. It was interested only, he said, in "keeping them off the streets" as long as the War on Terror continued. Critics say that the "war" could last for decades."

Thats from Monday's The Times (emphasis mine).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 08:33:16