Archive through September 19, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Bush must stop: Archive through September 19, 2002

Goddessatlaw

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:14 am EditMoveDeleteIP
New updates - Clinton just came out and stated that Hussein is a THREAT, along with being a murderer and a thug (his words, not mine). Also, Iran has just announced that it will remain neutral if the US or UN go into Iraq to oust Hussein.

Margie

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:27 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Goddess,

Clinton also said that to leave Hussein no way out - knowing he's out of power and most likely dead no matter what he does, is a recipe for disaster. He said Hussein would use everything he could, and give chemical weapons/technology away to terrorists or whoever would use it against us or Isreal. (Al Queda with serious chemical weapons is NOT something we need right now.)

He said we could take him out in a matter of weeks, but we would be dealing with the repercussions for years. He is not against removing Hussein from power, he thinks it needs to be done in a more deliberative way.

Iran has been an enemy of Iraq's for many years. Although Iran is now backing out of it's promise to back Iraq against us, it's not surprising. Iran is hoping that we decimate Iraq and they can take it over -- one of our most basic goals in that area was to NOT let Iran/Iraq unite, or let one of the countries take over the other. That's one of the reasons why we've been going back and forth aiding each of those countries through the years. We have to tread very carefully here. If we do too much damage and Iran ends up being able to take Iraq over, we have a huge powerhouse in the middle east that will cause us even MORE problems in the future.

BTW, Iran is also an enemy of the U.S. (Part of the axis of evil) and it too is trying to attain nuclear weapons. Iran is just as problematic to us as Iraq is.

Goddessatlaw

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:39 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Ya, personally I see Iran as a potentially bigger hotbed of terrorist activity than Iraq, but I did see a heartening report on the youth movement in Iran that is intent on bucking the Muslim state and lack of freedoms. Gave me a little hope for THEIR future. If nothing else, Iran isn't going to put their butts in the middle of Iraq's immediate and imminent problem. Also, the British Parliament has been called into session September 24 to address Blair's white papers on Iraq. Wish he'd give ME a copy.

Goddessatlaw

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:41 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Did you see the interview with Hussein's mistress last night? It was pretty interesting, although I didn't develop an opinion as to her credibility.

Fluff

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:44 am EditMoveDeleteIP
So, what about Iran? They're doing the exact same thing as Iraq and yet...well...grrrrrr!!!

Iran doesn't need a "good attacking" either. I don't condone attacking anybody else first, which is probably why I just can't point out a super valid reason why well.... I'm tired of repeating myself. I don't understand. I can't wait to see all of this unfold over the next few weeks. Then, maybe my American Government class would become VERY interesting.

I'll be glad when things can be normal again (whenever that is).

Faerygdds

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:45 am EditMoveDeleteIP
No doubt... Goddess... it would be nice to find out the why's...

I have to add... I was just catching up on this thread after I left... Someone stated that we, the American people, don't deserve or need to know everything. Look... there are times when we cannot know everything... when it compromises our soldiers and their lives. But when you are trying to garner support for an invasion... we SHOULD be privvy to that information.

Now... IF we should invade, then we don't need to know details... there is a big difference between invasion and trying to garner support FOR an invasion... one deems information, one requires that it be withheld to save lives.

OK...

I'm done... carry on... I won't be in much today... Dr.'s appintments and "real life" for me here... :)

Goddessatlaw

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:47 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Iran's going to have to be handled at some point unless they start handing over the terrorists (ya, right). The difference is, they are not led by a documented mass murderer. In my opinion, there is a great deal of hope to be found that Iran can be negotiated with. That's a subject for another day, though.

Margie

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 10:09 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Goddess,

(Sorry real life got in the way -- I had to go shopping.) :)

No I didn't watch it. I watched an interview with the reporter earlier in the day. It sounded like it was going to be more of a "celebrity type" interview -- they were talking about how she confirmed Hussein likes Sinatra and Viagra. Was it all fluff or was there anything substantial and seemingly reliable in it?

Fluff, I agree with you. My point was there are other countries out there that are our enemies and are trying to get nuclear weapons that they would use on us. Why Iraq, why now, and what proof do we have?

Faerygdds, You are so right. If this invasion and assasination is going to be done in my name, I want to know what he has done. Why can't they lay out the facts? i.e., He's doing this, this and this, and here are some pictures, or here are the paper trails.

Fluff

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 10:46 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Yes!!!

It's not like we would be giving out any secrets if they told us the reasons!

You know what's funny? When the War on Terrorism was on TV all of the time, Rumsfeld, the other army person, and the media were telling EVERYTHING!!!! I thought this was wrong because then the other countries would know our strategies and what our plans were. These people were on TV telling everything, like where the army would invade next, etc., some stuff that I thought should have been kept quiet.

But now, they don't want to tell any specific reasons.

Loppes

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:05 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Margie,
Where was it said that Saddam intended to use Nuclear weapons on USA if he had them?
Lon

Whowhere

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:10 am EditMoveDeleteIP
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html

Boston.com article

www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha-imagery.htm

www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020907-iraq1.htm

Somehow I get the feeling that even when Hussein attacks us some of you will still be wanting more proof.

I'm done with this thread - as Popeye would say, "That's alls I can stands and I can't stands no more!"

Whowhere

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:21 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Okay - so I lied.......

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect3.html


In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had visited twenty secret facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with stacks of Iraqi government contracts, complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the United Nations - and then secretly used the equipment for their weapons programs.


Iraq admitted to producing biological agents, and after the 1995 defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to the weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinim toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft.


United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) experts concluded that Iraq's declarations on biological agents vastly understated the extent of its program, and that Iraq actually produced two to four times the amount of most agents, including anthrax and botulinim toxin, than it had declared.


UNSCOM reported to the UN Security Council in April 1995 that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program and had failed to account for 3 tons of growth material for biological agents.


The Department of Defense reported in January 2001 that Iraq has continued to work on its weapons programs, including converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft for potential vehicles for the delivery of chemical or biological weapons.


The al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility is one of two known biocontainment level-three facilities in Iraq that have an extensive air handling and filtering system. Iraq has admitted that this was a biological weapons facility. In 2001, Iraq announced that it would begin renovating the plant without UN approval, ostensibly to produce vaccines that it could more easily and more quickly import through the UN.


Saddam Hussein continues its attempts to procure mobile biological weapons laboratories that could be used for further research and development.


Chemical Weapons


Saddam Hussein launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack against Iraq's Kurdish population in the late 1980s, killing thousands. On at least 10 occasions, Saddam Hussein's military forces have attacked Iranian and Kurdish targets with combinations of mustard gas and nerve agents through the use of aerial bombs, 122-millimeter rockets, and conventional artillery shells. Saddam Hussein continues his efforts to develop chemical weapons:


Gaps identified by UNSCOM in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains stockpiles of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard.


Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads.


Iraq has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicle for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.


Iraq continues to rebuild and expand dual-use infrastructure that it could quickly divert to chemical weapons production, such as chlorine and phenol plants.


Iraq is seeking to purchase chemical weapons agent precursors and applicable production equipment, and is making an effort to hide activities at the Fallujah plant, which was one of Iraq's chemical weapons production facilities before the Gulf War.


At Fallujah and three other plants, Iraq now has chlorine production capacity far higher than any civilian need for water treatment, and the evidence indicates that some of its chlorine imports are being diverted for military purposes.


Nuclear Weapons


Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before the Gulf War and continues his work to develop a nuclear weapon:


A new report released on September 9, 2002 from the International Institute for Strategic Studies - an independent research organization - concludes that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material.


Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes which officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.


Iraq has withheld documentation relevant to its past nuclear program, including data about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, experimental data, and technical documents.


Iraq still has the technical expertise and some of the infrastructure needed to pursue its goal of building a nuclear weapon.


Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over the past two years, signaling his continued interest in developing his nuclear program.


Ballistic Missiles


Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers - as prohibited by the UN Security Council Resolution 687.


Discrepancies identified by UNSCOM in Saddam Hussein's declarations suggest that Iraq retains a small force of Scud-type missiles and an undetermined number of launchers and warheads.


Iraq continues work on the al-Samoud liquid propellant short-range missile (which can fly beyond the allowed 150 kilometers). The al-Samoud and the solid propellant Ababil-100 appeared in a military parade in Baghdad on December 31, 2000, suggesting that both systems are nearing operational deployment.


The al-Rafah-North facility is Iraq's principal site for testing liquid propellant missile engines. Iraq has been building a new, larger test stand there that is clearly intended for testing prohibited longer-range missile engines.


At their al-Mamoun facility, the Iraqis have rebuilt structures that had been dismantled by UNSCOM that were originally designed to manufacture solid propellant motors for the Badr-2000 missile program.

Margie

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:36 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Loppes,

That's an assumption. Since Iraq is no friend of the United States, I'm assuming if Hussein were capable of using a nuclear weapon against us, he would. However, I'm sure it is much more likely he would use it against Isreal.

Faerygdds

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 12:17 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Now Margie... I see we agree on this... Most likely if Iraq did get nukes.. he would most likely bomb Isreal first.

Loppes

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 04:06 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Margie,
Or Iran.
Lon

Kapow

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:10 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
My final two cents in this thread...

I posted something here last night regarding my young child learning about oral sex through the Lewinsky scandal amd was told that what my child watches on TV is the parent's responsibility. I agree completely. Unfortunately when my child comes homes from public school with that knowledge is another story. I DO have the sense to guard my children from things they are too young to see on TV. Unfortunately, a trained, licensed teacher did not.

I also add that I find it vaguely humourous that the same posters who said that Clinton was the past still seem to reference his opinion on the impending Iraq confronation.

Ah well, I am heading back to the land of BB3 only. I'd rather be critized for my thoughts on an inane show which I enjoy immensely rather than my personal political and social beliefs. Should have known better than to open my big mouth! LOL

Margie

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 08:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Kapow,

Your child's kindergarten teacher taught your child about oral sex and you're mad at an ex-president??? I think you might have misplaced your anger just a bit...

And about the Clinton opinion? What Goddess brought up was entirely current and topical. (It's not like she was comparing Bush's libido to Clinton's -- which has nothing to do with Bush invading Iraq.) I don't see anything wrong with her post or my response at all.

There is nothing wrong with political debate, Kapow. Open your mouth any time you feel like it, because if we all agreed with eachother on every issue, it would be a very boring world. :)

Kapow

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 09:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Margie,
Once again, I think you are trying to place the blame for public awareness of Clinton's behavior on anyone other than the man himself. First, you blame me as the parent. Next, you blame the teacher. I will agree that I hold the teacher at fault for letting such young children hear about oral sex. However, neither I nor the teacher were the reason that topic became sensationalized in the news. I do hold people in leadership of this country responsible for their actions, as well as the media.

I voted for Clinton... twice. But I lost faith in both him and the party that protected him after the Lewinsky scandal. Then I found fault with additional actions following that, even those actions unrelated (i.e. pardons).

Let the blame/responsibility lie with the person who acted out the behavior. That is how we teach and discipline our children.

I agree that what you and Goddess brought up was topical.... my note of interest was that there was unwillingness to discuss Clinton issues UNLESS it was in a positive spin. My take is that if it is talk about bad things and Clinton - it is the past - but if we want to talk about how great he is - that is current and therefore legitimate.

Oh man.... I said I was through here, but obviously I can't just shut up. I don't mind debating - as long as we are comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Need to add - all meant to be fodder for discussion only....not bad vibes....just talking.

Margie

Friday, September 13, 2002 - 10:35 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Kapow,

Clinton had an affair.

If you want to hate him for screwing around on his wife, fine. If you want to be consistent, then you have to hate Gingrich (Who asked his wife for a divorce while she lay in a hospital bed sticken with cancer), Dick Army (Who pressured female students for dates when he was a professor at North Texas State University), Dan Burton, Gary Bauer, Helen Chenoweth, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, Ronald Reagan (How do you think he met Nancy?), Charles Canady, J.C. Watts, Sue Myrick, Ken Calvert, John Peterson, Bush I (Linda Tripp ratted on Poppy just as she ratted on Clinton), and now Bush II has been rumoured to have had an affair, but it's not yet proven.

You can fault Clinton (and everyone else) for having an affair, but you cannot fault HIM for publicizing it. He tried to keep it a secret. The REPUBLICAN house and KENNETH STARR are the ones who made it public knowledge. If it were up to President Clinton, neither you nor your child would have ever heard about it.

You lost faith in Clinton for the affair and the fact that the democratic party did not abandon him for it? Look at the list of republicans who've had affairs. (And it is by no means, complete) It's general knowledge, and most of them are still in office, and the republican party is actively working to keep them in office. Haven't you lost faith in them also? If you're looking for a party of pure people, you're not going to find it because we're all human.

Basically, if your problem is with the affair, you've got a problem with all the political parties. If your problem is with you and your child learning about it, your problem is with the republican house, Kenneth Starr and the Media. You see, the republican party is guilty either way. You went from the frying pan into the fire.

My unwillingness was to rehash this old tired Clinton had an affair crap. Hasn't it become old for you yet? When people are trying to discuss an invasion and assasination of another country and its leader, what the heck does Clinton's private parts have to do with it? And what Goddess brought up was NOT a positive spin. I said before - she does not like him. She used his statements to try to undermine my points, and I used the rest of his statements to buttress my points.

I can argue the impeachment debate all day, I have a ton of resources to back myself up, but I would prefer not to because it will accomplish absolutely nothing. I doubt there is anything I could say -- any proof I could give you that would change your mind even a little. It's a lose-lose situation. We can't change the fact that he had an affair, and the republican house lost their minds. (And plenty of their seats, too.)

What's going on now and in the future can be altered. Why waste our time bickering back and forth over something that happened over eight years ago when the invasion/assasination is imminent? It seems so silly to me...

By the way, being a mother myself, when I say your anger should be directed at that teacher, I was dead serious. If any of my son's teachers dared to teach them that I would have his/her job. (Especially a five-year-old!)

Kaili

Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 07:20 am EditMoveDeleteIP
*clap clap clap* Margie!!!
Clinton's affair? Not as issue of global security.
GW's plans to attack Iraq? HUGE issue of global security.

Sanfranjoshfan

Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 09:27 am EditMoveDeleteIP
This is the first time I poked my nose in here.....I am amazed that folks are still debating Clinton's Lewinsky affair! I voted for the guy twice and I wish I could do it again.

Just wondering...if some of the Clinton judgers had a brain tumor and needed expert brain surgery and the BEST brain surgeon in the world was right there willing to fix you all up...if you learned he'd had an extramarital affair and then lied about it in court, would you tell him to forget about it?...that you'd prefer a second stringer that had remained faithful to his wife to an expert that hadn't? If you were maimed by a faulty car and wanted to sue the manufacturer, and you had a lawyer that was expert in the field and had successfully won against that defendent in previous cases (but one who had had an extramarital affair) would you want him on your side or a second stringer who had not had an affair?

My point is an old one....I still believe that Clinton was a great president. As a "husband" he needed some work....but I didn't vote for a "husband"....I voted for a LEADER.

okay....nuff said. I'm outta here.

Troj

Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 10:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Just something I have been thinking about if we invade Iraq. Its been 10 years since the gulf war so if you where 10 years old when that happened you would be 20 now and most of your life would revolve around constant misery from US bombing and sanctions. When you live in such conditions you feel that your life is not worth much and you become prime recruiting for fundamental religious groups.These are the people that America thinks will willing give there support for a regime change.

Lauword

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 09:51 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Doesn't it make you the least bit afraid that the man who gets to decide whether or not we go to war cannot speak a sentence in proper English unless someone else writes it for him, and even then sometimes he can't read it.........there are days when I am watching the president speak and I just cringe, waiting for the next ignorant slip to come out of his mouth. Its really a nail biter if he is speaking to the press "off the cuff." Its just embarassing to have the leader of the free world come off with the IQ of a kindergartener.

Hillbilly

Thursday, September 19, 2002 - 03:32 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I used to work for a man who had an engineering degree. He was brilliant, there wasn't anything you could put past him...he was that sharp. But when you looked at the drafts of his engineering reports it would stun you. The man couldn't spell worth a darn and his grammar was atrocious. But he was smart enough to hire a good secretary who cleaned it all up for him. I'm telling ya ...the man knew his business.

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 19, 2002 - 06:41 am EditMoveDeleteIP
HILL!!!!!!!!!!!

<< But he was smart enough to hire a good secretary who cleaned it all up for him. >>

TOO TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!

ROFLMAO

You are right... he WAS smart!!!