Archive through September 12, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Bush must stop: Archive through September 12, 2002

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:11 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Bush clearly laid out the past infractions of Iraq, but he added nothing new in this speech. He did imply that Hussein had a way out of this, but there were so many demands that there is no way Hussein is going to go for it. At the end he said that if Hussein goes for everything eventually the UN will help to install a democratic government in Iraq. Basically, go along with everything we say and you're still out of there. LOL

Most of those infractions were 10 years old or more. If he has proof that Hussein is a serious threat right now we need to hear it.

Nightcrawler

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:16 am EditMoveDeleteIP
THANKS Azriel
I was thinking that no one would look at it as I do.
BIG high five back to you:)

Faerygdds
back fireing is done most of the time with wild fires (ie grass fire,forest fires)
what we do is get ahead of the fire and start another fire and head it right in to the frist fire. so that when the two fires meet they have nothing to burn and they just go out.

I'm seen this work many times.
my fire dept. has mosty farm land and a forst in it. so most of are fires are grass, hay filds, forests.

there now you know how it works

now back to why we should go after Iraq.

Goddessatlaw

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:17 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I think he just did, OI, and I'm pretty sure if a jetliner landed in the middle of the Louvre the French might have a bit of an attitude adjustment. Smart move to challenge the UN on it's failure to enforce its own laws right down the line. I am hoping that this, and Annan's speech also, will spur the Security Council to take action designed to prevent a need for unilateral action. I am all for the UN handling it, but they haven't shown any willingness whatsoever to put teeth into their resolutions. If we had any faith whatsoever that the UN intended to enforce its own resolutions on the matter, I'd be middle of the road about now too. The next couple of weeks are going to be right interesting. What did you think, Margie? The speech was different than I expected - I liked the line itemization of offenses approach, but I expected to see documentation. I don't know, aerial shots or what. The speech itself was strong, but on the weapons buildup I did expect to see hard evidence. Maybe that's before the members in binders or something.

Goddessatlaw

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:18 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Sorry, Margie - I was drafting my post when you posted yours.

Goddessatlaw

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:23 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I think this speech differed radically from that which may eventually come before the American people. This speech was about the UN failing to meet its mission. And it was pretty strong on that. A speech to us is going to need to be much more directed toward "this is why he's a threat to us now."

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:24 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Goddess, Bush might have to make a few concessions, but I'm almost certain the UN will go along with an attack on Iraq. You know the administration got the count on the votes before they sent him up there to speak. It would be humiliating to Bush for him to give an impassioned speech and then get voted down by the organization which we helped to found.

Having said that... Without further proof, I still don't think it's right. 10 year old violations don't make the case for me.

Since I have such low expectations for Bush's speaking skills, I do think he did well today. The speech was very emotional and did keep my interest. However, just as I feared, it was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Goddessatlaw

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:26 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Did Bush call in Karen Hughes for this? I sensed her fingerprints on the speech. His delivery exceeded my expectations, although I was holding my breath a couple of times.

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:28 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Goddess, that is what he needed to tell the UN also.

Basically, he needed to say this is how Hussein has screwed us in the past, and this is how he's screwing us now. Lay out the past offenses and finish with the current threat.

The UN is concerned (just as we are) with why we should attack Iraq now. He plainly laid out why the UN should've attacked in the past, but failed on the current events final. ;)

Goddessatlaw

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 08:30 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Sorry, guys - I have to head out to meetings for most of the rest of the day. Hopefully someone can figure out how to link the speech over so we can take it apart. I'll check back in when I'm done. What was it that Survivor contestant said? Play nice, be fair, or something like that. Words to live by.

Margie

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 09:38 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Here's a link to the speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

My problem is not what he said, it is what he left unsaid.

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 10:03 am EditMoveDeleteIP
"My problem is not what he said, it is what he left unsaid."

one word Margie...

TYPICAL!

No really.. this is what I've ben saying for a week.. that we knw hat he did in the past, but what's new??? some vauge thing about aluminum cylinders??? So,... because they are getting alum. cyliders they are building nukes right??? WRONG!!!!!!

You can't make a nuke with ALUMINUM cylindars... how do I know this? because someone who used to be a nuclear missile maintentance person told me... well.. that's not accurate... I asked them if you could make a nuke from an alum. cylindar.. they replaied, No... aluminum won't hold the radioactive material... it would have to be steel.

So what does that tell me???

- Our goverment doesn't know how to make a nuke - DOUBTFUL

- Or government is lying to us to create more of a danger than there is - HIGHLY POSSIBLE

- Hussein is making bios-chemical weapons with these cylendars - HIGHLY POSSIBLE (but then again he's ben trying to repair he beat up old duds for 10 years)

- There is a new type of nuke that can be made out of ALUMINUM cylinders - DOUBTFUL (I can't go into why, let's just say that an hour after I asked the question I was tired of hearing about the metal's weaknesses and the imporabability of this theory)

So the only thing I see that really glares at me, seeing as Hussein HAS been trying to make his missiles operational again for 10 years, is that our government might be lying to us. Well.. it wouldn't be the first time and it probably won't be the last. But I'm not jumping on some war mongering bandwagon based on a lie about some stupid cylinder that can't be used for what the gov't says they are using it for!

That being said... Margie I agree with you... Hussein can't win this one... Bush said last night on an interview with 60 minutes that he would settle for nothing less that a regime change. Frankly... IF I was Hussein I woiuldn't be too eager to jub through hoops for a nation that wants me out of power whether I cooperate or not.

Bush need to learn to be a little flexible if he actually intends to lessent he threat rather than going to war, but after the last 24 hours I am a firm believer that for some reason (be it political or economic) Bush WANTS to go to war.

Maybe the Carlyle group thing is a factor... maybe it's about his lagacy... his place in history... maybe it's just about getting re-elected, but for some reason Bush is trying to keep us scared enought o support him without question. Only problem is that THIS American tends to look deeper when someone is trying to affectuate my emotions.

No... Bush wants to go to war at all cost... and frankly I don't care about the why... I just want to focus on stopping it!

Sorry for rambling... fist post of the day and I think I just worked the cobwebs out of my brain on that one lol

Oregonfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 10:21 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Goddess, do you mean this speech?

"But if I was ever to pass you along in life again and you were laying there dying of thirst, I would not give you a drink of water. I would let the vultures take you and do whatever they want with you, with no ill regrets. ... This island is pretty much full of only two things, snakes and rats."

--Susan Hawkes

Marysafan

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 10:23 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Wow Faerygdds, that was very astute. I applaud your willingness to dig to deeper and not accept things at face value.

Margie, I so agree with your assesment. For all the sound and fury...he simply failed to connect the dots.

I see difficult days for our country ahead. We will not be as united as folks seem to think we are. I urge everyone to contact their congressmen. This is a very serious issue and we need to let them know our thoughts. They will have difficult decisions to make.

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 10:31 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I did a pile of snooping on the net, and the tubes are not used to make the weapon, but are used in gas centrifuges to enrich the uranium.

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 10:31 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Mary... and that's what I do when I'm half asleep and just trying to add 1 and 1 and actually get 2!

You should see me after 2 cups of coffee! :)

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 10:40 am EditMoveDeleteIP
crossfire... not to be obstinate, but that is ONE of the uses of aluminum tubes, not THE ONLY use... I know it's not popular, but there may acutally be a valid reason they need those tubes OTHER than building a bomb.

Oh no.. I forgot... they are "evil" and therefore everything they do is "evil" and the evil will not stop unless there is a change in regime.

Yeah... I buy that as much as I buy into McCains claim that it is their (Iraqies) inalienable right to have a democracy. Then he went on to say that we would never be at peace with them unless they embraced a democracy! HELLO??! So now if the whole world doesn't bow down, kiss our feet and become a democracy they are evil???

Now I'll agree that a democracy is the greatest! I'm an American and a Patriot... and I can't deny that I love our democracy! But Democracy carries a burden with it.. a responsibility that some other countries simply are not ready for! {muttering} inalienable right...

As far as I am concerned... you either buy into the rhetoric or you don't... those of us that don't tend to look deeper... we ask the questions..WHY? What do they have to gain?

When Pres Bush shows me some REAL proof other than his words that they are building nukes... then and only then will I believe it... even KENNEDY had pictures!!!!!!!!!!! I want evidence.. NOT rhetoric!

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 10:48 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Regardless of the fact that they can be used for other things, you specifically said that they can not be used to create a nuclear weapon.

Just setting a match to the strawman.

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 10:58 am EditMoveDeleteIP
That's fine... but when you try to show me a smoking gun.. you need to find the gun first...

Also... we refine uranium all the time... we even tranport it over our highways in America. How do I know this? Because when I lived in Colorado I got stuck in a traffic jam because one of these trucks wrecked and there was refined uranium all over the highway... they had to shut it down for a LONG time while Hazmat teams cleaned it up!

So... going by that fact... I guess we are just as dangerous as the Iraqies... yet I see no one saying that we need to be bombed... WE have the capability of wiping a region off the map, but surely you don't suggest that WE deserve to be overthrown because of it.

Of course not... that would be silly...

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 11:04 am EditMoveDeleteIP
What exactly are you suggesting here, that we stop being meanies, and give every two-bit dictator a nuke they can call their own?

No thanks, as a Canadian, I sleep much better knowing that the US has a pile of them, and Iraq, hopefully does not.

Maris

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 11:05 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Just to remind folks of what Sadam Hussein is absolutely guilty of and it IS pretty evil:

- the Anfal campaign of 1988, in which the Iraqi army killed more than 50,000 Kurds and destroyed 1,500 villages.

I do not endorse invading Iraq because I believe that the middle east should defend themselves and stop looking to the United States to bail them out time and time again. We made the mistake of defending Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and what did we get for it? The Saudis still refuse to let us intetrrogate an Al Quaeda operative that they have in cusody. However, make no mistake about it Hussein is evil, Hussein will use misilles against Israel and Hussein will use gas against his own people or any people that he wants to conquer.

I am amazed at the naievete of people who actually believe that Hussein is not guilty of anything he is being charged with. He is evil but as far as I am concerned, he isnt our problem. Let the Saudi's buy themselves an army and materials and fight him.

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 11:48 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Hey Corssfire... just did a littler esearch myself.

It seems that in Saddams quest for a nuke he used to employ a German company that would pirofy and distill uranium from raw ore. That company left long long ago. The arcticle (also found on CNN) states that even IF he had been able to use this equipment non stop for the last 5 years without the need of any maintenance, or had he done the maintenace himself... they would not be able to make enough refined uranium for a bomb. The article went on to say that his bet bet would be to buy it through the former Soviet Union via the black market, but as of yet, he has not been able to do so.

So help me out here... where's the immediate threat???

Faerygdds

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 11:55 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Hey.. my other post got ate up.... hmm... be right back...

OK... it went something like:

Maris... I'm not so niave to think that Saddam is all sweetness and light. in fact I know he has been a very bad man and done some horrible things. But that is irrelavent. The question is, "Is what our government accusing him of NOW true?"

Here's an article from CNN: click here for full article

Ex-weapons inspector: Bush 'has no credibility'

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter told the Iraqi National Assembly on Sunday that his country, the United States, "seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake" in its calls for ousting Saddam.

In Baghdad as a private citizen to voice his criticism of the U.S. policy, Ritter said Iraq was not a threat to the United States.

"Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamental extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day," Ritter said.

In his address, Ritter denied Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction but acknowledged that concerns exist about Iraq's weapons programs.

On Saturday, Ritter said the Bush administration appears to be using the issue of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to go to war.

"One of the problems with President Bush issuing that kind of ultimatum is that he has no credibility," Ritter said. "Members of his administration have said inspections don't matter.

"Members of his administration have said that, even if they get back in Iraq and succeed in disarming Iraq, that they're still going to seek regime removal."


And from another article: click here fore full article

Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC's "Today" show Monday that the U.S. has the intelligence to prove that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction - but "It is not for us to prove they have it; it is for them to prove they don't have it," he said.

OK... I'll bite... first, you do have to prove it if you are going to garner both national and international support... and second... how do you prove you aren't doing something IF you are not doing it???

Nightcrawler

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:01 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Faerygdds
the USA in nothing like Iraq
we do have nukes but we would not use them in the same way that Iraq will if they get some or have some!!!

where's the immediate threat?????????

if Iraq has nothing to hide the why don't they let us come in and look around.( like they said we could when the war was over) by them not doing this. it makes them look like they are hiding something. if they had nothing to hide them why kick out the inspectors? or not let them back in?

I just don't see how people can't see he is a bad man and needs to be stoped?
if he is willing to kill his own people then why would he not try and kill us or others?

Karuuna

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:04 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
So Bush has taken it upon himself to be the enforcer for the UN?

Maybe he should consider the number of times the US has not followed recommendations, appeals and directives of the UN.

But then, that wouldn't really fit his agenda, would it?

Sigh.

Crossfire

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 12:05 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The immediate threat is that there is some question as to the availability of enriched uranium on the black market.

The attempt to potentially get the tubes may or may not be an immediate threat, we don't know if he wants the material for a new tool, or replacement equipment for existing machinery, but it points to intentions.

If we can conclude that it appears he would like to get his mitts on a bomb or make one, and that there is the possibility that some of the materials he needs may be available on the black market, then we are racing against the clock. This is not a race we want to lose.

If we could A) get the inspectors into the country, or B) clear the way ourselves, we can then take a look around to see what risks we are facing already, and deal with that, and potential future problems.

As for indicators as to what we are up against, I would rather use deductive reasoning to learn of his intentions than count bodies in a major American city after the fact.