Poll reveals world anger at Bush

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

Postby Aegis » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:38 pm

SoloPilot wrote:Sorry Aegis, I don't buy your idea that Iraq wasn't actively supporting the Bad Guys.

But then, I probably have a lot more friends in and from Iraq than most folks do. Many of them fled during the Hussein years.

What makes you think that Syria and the other garden spots aren't also on the To Do list? Iraq was unfinished business from the first Bush, and through the Clintons.


Because of the political fall-out from this war. I find it highly improbable that the majority of the US populace will be willing to support another long-term, overt military action in the near-east any time in the next 5-10 years, absent truly massive provokation (we're talking 9-11 all over again). If they were on a To-Do list, they aren't there now.

And I didn't say that Iraq didn't support the bad guys, just that there are many more countries farther into support of the bad guys than Iraq. Of course the Hussein regime had ties to terrorists. For example, the MKO, which is on the state department's list of terrorist organizations, but which limited its actions to attacking that stalwart ally of ours, Iran.

There was also the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), but it seems their founder (Abu Nidal himself) ran foul of the Husseins and was found dead of four "self-inflicted" gunshot wounds to the head. Go figure.

And then there's Zarqawi, who was actually operating before the war out of an enclave in the Kurdish territories, which lay outside of Saddam's direct control (and within a US and Britain patrolled No-Fly_Zone). Whether there was corroberation between the two or not is still fairly controversial, IIRC.
"[R]emember, Roman, these will be your arts: to teach the ways of peace to those you conquer, to spare defeated peoples, tame the proud."

-Virgil, the Aeneid
User avatar
Aegis
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:32 am
Location: The dark heart of "Red" Oregon... or I guess its "Blue" Oregon now.

Postby britneyfan97 » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:51 pm

we had family visiting from ireland earlier in the year... and their father kept gobbing off about how bad bush is for us, and we should get rid of him (coincidently, this irish horse farmer had never left ireland, let alone his own county until visiting the US).

he was quite promptly told that it doesnt matter a god damn what he thinks in that regard, since he doesnt get to vote in this election.
don't like it???? cry to the UN or something, they're good for... um, uh ok maybe not.
Proud of being first in the schools history to set a Government vehicle ablaze at Army Military Police Special Tactics Training Center.
User avatar
britneyfan97
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:30 am
Location: DPRC-(Chicago, IL) USA

Postby SoloPilot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:57 pm

I disagree that people won't tolerate another military action for 5 - 10 years.

If you want to talk long-term, where's our exit strategy from Bosnia?

Yes, there are other countries more in support of terrorists (which will make it easier to go after them, won't it?), but as I said Iraq was business on hold for a decade.

While Hussein was in power, ignoring UN mandate after UN mandate, all of his buddies in the dictatorship guild were not worried that they were at any risk.

They worry now.

It pleases me that my enemies tremble. It throws off their aim.

When you compare the few small districts in Iraq where the floppies are operating to the whole other 98% of the country, I think that things will settle down soon. And I think that the rest of the dictators will try not to be the next to draw our focus.
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby Penta » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:39 pm

'floppies' ??
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Postby patriot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:57 pm

Solo, you do know that the 9/11 Commission discredited any links between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq, don't you?

Even Bush's own Cabinet admitts there is no connection.

Saddam, as dictator of Iraq, had no interests in dealing with terrorists, or even harboring them. Any terrorist faction operating within Iraq during Saddam's reign would have been considered an opposition to his power, and the Mukhabarat would have dealt with them accordingly.

This was a massive distraction to the actual war on terror, and now we're creating more terrorists than we're destroying.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby Penta » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:14 pm

And you do know that Saddam Hussein had complied with UN resolutions requiring him to disarm, don't you?
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Postby Buzzsaw » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:21 pm

patriot wrote:
This was a massive distraction to the actual war on terror, and now we're creating more terrorists than we're destroying.


While it is fair to make this argument, Patriot, it is wrong to post it as a simple, universal fact. We just don't know whether this is true or not. Also, it's the crux of the whole thing, isn't it?
Buzzsaw
Gynecology Enthusiast
 
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Lavaca

Postby roxy » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:45 pm

I suppose I can empathize with the fuck-you attitude to attempted outside interference in your elections. But consider what is going on here.

If your closest frind started to become unpopular because they were acting like a complete prick, would you tell them?

We think America is acting like a prick. You are pissing your closest friends off. We think we need to tell you this.

Not because we are the US is using its overwhelming military might to rearrange Iraqi society (after all, us Brits have done plenty of that over the past few hundred years, including Iraq) But because you have been conned by one of the greatest political scams of all time, and so few of you seem to have noticed.

What was the scam? The scam was the crap we were fed as an excuse for war.

We did not invade Iraq because of WMD. There are none there.
We did not invade the world because of 9/11. Iraq was not involved.
We did not invade Iraq because we wanted to defeat terrorism; we have made it stronger.
We did not invade Iraq to make Iraq a better or safer place; even without Saddam, it is not.
We did not invade Iraq to make the world a safer place. It is not.

So why did we invade Iraq?

All that is left to explain the war is one or more than one of the following.

1. Securing continued access to the Middle East oilfields.
2. Securing access to large US government contracts for 'well connected' arms suppliers and contractors.
3. To complete daddy’s unfinished business.
4. To launch a crusade against Islam.
5. To scare the population into accepting authoritarian legislation.

Hopefully, 1. was the answer (at least it makes some sense). But whatever the reason, you were conned, and we can't quite believe that you are going to vote get bitten twice when you have a choice.

You see, however shit Kerry is, he is at least better than Bush. Faint praise indeed, but we Brits are still jealous that you have a choice. You see we hate Blair for the same con Bush perpetrated on the US electorate, but somehow the main opposition here have contrived to be more odious and unpleasant. We can only vote for Blair, or something even worse.

And anyway, when was the last time the US baulked at interfering in foreign elections?
Organized religion is like organized crime; it preys on peoples' weaknesses, generates huge profits for its operators, and is almost impossible to eradicate - Mike Hermann
User avatar
roxy
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:45 am
Location: London

Postby Tarkan » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:58 pm

Penta wrote:And you do know that Saddam Hussein had complied with UN resolutions requiring him to disarm, don't you?


No, he did not. Saddam never complied with even half of the resolutions nor was he in compliance with the ceasefire terms signed between him and the United States.
I'd whore myself out just one more time if I knew who to screw to get out of this grind.
User avatar
Tarkan
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 6027
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:57 am
Location: Texas

Postby SoloPilot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:53 pm

Penta: "Floppies" -- an old word for terrorists, perhaps rooted in the acronym for the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

What proof do you have that Hussein complied with ANY of the UN mandates? I can tell you that he hadn't stopped trying to attack Coalition aircraft. One pilot reports that he didn't take a single flight during his tour when the Iraqis didn't try to lock him up with their SAMs' radar.

If Hussein HAD destroyed his WMD, A), where is the residue, and B), why didn't he prove it to the UN inspectors? He had 12 years of chances to do that, up to the first day of the end of his regime.


Patriot: The National Socialists had nothing to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, but we attacked them anyway, concentrating on the war in Europe ahead of the war in the Pacific. We did so because Japan was not the only threat to the US.

Iraq wasn't behind 9/11, but Al Quaeda is not the only threat to the US. And, sorry, Hussein not only had interests in dealing with terrorists and even harboring them, but he was also funding them, if the reports of his paying for supplies and suicide bombers attacking Israel.

ARE we creating more terrs than we are destroying? What is the source of this information? Please provide the strength-of-forces evaluations for worldwide terrorist organisations, showing the numbers before and after our invasion of Iraq.

You are parrotting what you are being told by people whose political agenda matches yours. The fact of the matter is that terrorist activity against Americans has been pretty limited this last year. This is because we are not only active in Iraq, but the media seem mostly interested in American blood, not worldwide success.

The true proof will be in whether there is any kind of major attack in the time before the election. If the floppies have a big trick up their sleeves, this is when it will happen, to try to do to us what they did to the Spanish.


Roxy:

What's going on here is that a bunch of people are buying every line tossed at them by a media which would rather see Kerry in the Oval Office than see Bush there. The same with Kerry's endorsements by such "world leaders" as Kim Jong Il and Yassir Arafat.

Countries don't have "friends," they have allies, enemies and trading partners. In the past, the Brits have been in each of those roles . . .and the same for the Germans, French, Russki, Chinese . . .

You want to talk about "the crap we were fed as an exuse for war"?

If there were no WMD in Iraq, what do you call a mortar shell with nearly a gallon of Sarin in it?

We DID attack because of 9/11, because we got involved in the War on Terror because of 9/11. We went after Hussein as part of the War on Terror. Notice that it's not a "War on Al Qaeda," it's a war on ALL terrorist, which is why we are not only in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iraq is a FAR safer place now than it was under Hussein. The rape rooms are closed, the children's prison, the torture cells, the "Wall of Flies" is GONE, destroyed by grieving family members who even smashed every block into gravel.

You don't think the world is safer? What proof do you have that it is not? After we went into Iraq, suddenly North Korea, Iran and Syria wanted to "play well with others." Don't you think that makes the world even a LITTLE bit safer?

Funny, if all we wanted was the oil fields, we could have bought the oil, like France was planning to do.

Which "large US government contracts" would those be?

Yep. That one is right. Bush the First should have finished the job.

Lessee, we've handed Afghanistan over to Muslims. We are handing Iraq over to . . . Muslims? Some crusade against Islam! And let's not forget all the support that we are giving to Muslims who have been attacked by Muslim extremists.

Uh . . .WHAT authoritarian legislation? This is actually pretty amusing, coming from a Brit. Or did they overturn the Civil Justice Bill, the Football (Disorder) Act, RIPA, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994), the Police Act of 1997, SSFA, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act . . ? The Patriot Act, with it's problems, is still not even in the same league as British law. With all the noise, we expect the PA to be fixed or repealed, but it would take you the next decade to do the same job on the authoritarian legislation which Brits take for granted.

For the last . . .I don't remember having cared much one way or another about elections in the UK, Auz, NZ, Japan, Russia, Bosnia . . .the list goes on. Yet it's amazing how many people around the world seem to be hyperventilating about Bush.

Fix your own countries before you start worrying about mine.
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby Aegis » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:56 pm

SoloPilot turned off Fox News and wrote:I disagree that people won't tolerate another military action for 5 - 10 years.


I said "Long term, overt military action." I won't count out covert operations, but another full-scale invasion? Without a massive provokation from the party we would be invading? Naw. Not likely.

If you want to talk long-term, where's our exit strategy from Bosnia?


And also, talk about the cost in lives and funds that Bosnia is costing us! Oh, wait....

Yes, there are other countries more in support of terrorists (which will make it easier to go after them, won't it?), but as I said Iraq was business on hold for a decade.


And where are we going to get the troops to invade the other nations that are supporting terrorists? I mean, aren't like 9 out of 10 active-duty divisions ALREADY occupied with actions in Iraq or Afghanistan? Once again, minus a major provokation and resultant mobilization of forces (up to and including conscription) I don't see it happening.

While Hussein was in power, ignoring UN mandate after UN mandate, all of his buddies in the dictatorship guild were not worried that they were at any risk.

They worry now.

It pleases me that my enemies tremble. It throws off their aim.


See my "Hugo Chavez" thread before you start thinking you can read dictators' minds. Hell, there's a new, militantly socialist one popping up right here in our own hemisphere. And you thought THAT shit was over and done with during the Cold War.

When you compare the few small districts in Iraq where the floppies are operating to the whole other 98% of the country, I think that things will settle down soon. And I think that the rest of the dictators will try not to be the next to draw our focus.


Only two percent of the country is in a state of revolt?
"[R]emember, Roman, these will be your arts: to teach the ways of peace to those you conquer, to spare defeated peoples, tame the proud."

-Virgil, the Aeneid
User avatar
Aegis
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:32 am
Location: The dark heart of "Red" Oregon... or I guess its "Blue" Oregon now.

Postby Penta » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:07 pm

SoloPilot wrote:What proof do you have that Hussein complied with ANY of the UN mandates?
If Hussein HAD destroyed his WMD, A), where is the residue, and B), why didn't he prove it to the UN inspectors? He had 12 years of chances to do that, up to the first day of the end of his regime.


The proof is the absence of WMDs (as confirmed by the ISG and now accepted by virtually everybody -- perhaps not you) which he destroyed. He didn't prove it presumably because he didn't want to shout to all the world, and particularly Iran and Israel, that he was naked as a baby. Hard to pose as a regional strongman in that situation. He and his scientists had been telling the UN that he'd destroyed the WMDs for years. They chose not to believe him, for whatever reason.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Postby SoloPilot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:24 pm

Aegis:

I didn't say "overt" but I was running with your definition, long-term and all. After all, they put up with Bosnia on the heels of Mogadishu, and we are STILL waiting to hear Clinton's "exit strategy."

Afghanistan is winding down, Iraq is being contained (despite what you hear on the Nutly News), but as I said elsewhere, other countries are deciding not the become the next upraised target in the "Global Whack-a-Mole" game. Expect them to learn the words "Diplomatic Measures."

Dictators' minds are actually very easy to read. ANY politician's first duty is to remain in power, but for the dictators it's "Stay in power, stay alive." Very few serious dictators have survived losing their office. Marcos is the worst of the lot that I can think of who outlived their stationery. When you know their motivation, you can figure out their thoughts.

Maybe not 98% but the vast majority of Iraq is NOT involved in terrorist "revolt" (actually, a last-ditch effort of Hussein's insiders). Fewer than 30 towns are on the "To Do" list, and most of these are more like villages. The rate of attacks is dropping steadily, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the Jordanian Al Qaeda leader who was Hussein's guest) is losing support (and troops) at a rapid rate.
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby Dim » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:30 pm

After all, they put up with Bosnia on the heels of Mogadishu, and we are STILL waiting to hear Clinton's "exit strategy."


Clinton isn't the president anymore (maybe you didn't hear?). I think what you're waiting for is Bush's exit strategy.

Say, when was the last time a US soldier was KIA in Bosnia anyway?

I can't tell if the rest of your post is sarcasm or not. Here's a brief rundown of the last days events in Iraq - my point is that just because they don't mention it on the news doesn't mean it's not happening.

Al-Zaman says that violence killed 15 and left 52 persons injured in a series of explosions and attacks on Sunday and Monday, in Baghdad, Mosul, Baqubah, al-Hillah and Tikrit.

AP reports that In Mosul on Monday, a car bomber ran into a civilian convoy, leaving one dead and four wounded.

On Sunday in Mosul, guerrillas detonated a car bomb on a bridge. They killed five Iraqis and wounded 15 others.

In western Baghdad late on Monday, guerrillas detonated a roadside bomb, wounding three US soldiers.

In Baghdad late on Sunday, guerrillas detonated a car bomb next to a police convoy in Jadiriyah. The explosion left six people dead, including 3 policemen, and injured 26. Also, a commander in the Shiite paramilitary, the Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, named Qasim al-Ma`muri, was assassinated with a pistol that had a silencer attached.

In the eastern city of Baqubah, according to az-Zaman, police fought guerrillas, with 7 police being wounded, along with a woman and a child.

In Balad near Tikrit, a headless body (probably a Turk was discovered). Elswhere, guerrillas killed two Macedonian hostages.

Reuters reports that guerrillas detonated a car bomb on Sunday near a Baghdad cafe frequented by Iraqi police, killing seven persons and wounding 20. The police were having their evening meal to break the fast during Ramadan.

On Saturday, guerrillas had opened fire south of Baghdad on nine Iraqi policemen in a convoy that was returning from training classes in Jordan.

On Sunday morning in Baghdad, guerrillas fired a mortar round at an office where weapons had been collected from the Mahdi Army militiamen. Caretaker Prime Minister Iyad Allawi had been scheduled to visit the site, but changed his itinerary hastily. He did meet with Sadrist leaders in the vast slum of East Baghdad. US military sources complain that the weapons turn-in program for the Mahdi Army has so far yielded only a few old guns and has not been a real success.

In Fallujah, US warplanes bombed the Jolan district again, with US military spokesmen saying that the target was a checkpoint established by the fighters of Monotheism and Holy War. Fallujah hospital officials reported four civilians wounded by US bombing of this residential district, one of them a child.
The reader this message encounters not failing to understand is cursed.
Dim
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:01 am
Location: New Zealand

words of wisdom from ren and stimpy

Postby DawnC71 » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:44 pm

"The Lorrd lovesah hangin'
and so do we by heck!
So go grab a ro-hope
and decoh-rate your Neck!!!!'
Cheers,
Dawn
Passion is necessity. It is not diligence, or simply being committed to a goal. Passion consumes you while you chase down your goal. Passion should always be your natural state of mind for it is what sparks momentum and sets the pace.
User avatar
DawnC71
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:17 pm
Location: stickitupyourarsenya

PreviousNext

Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests