The provisions of the cease fire agreement do not to my understanding specifically provide for the no-fly-zone regiime, and above all not the the northern no-fly-zone. As such, the US and GB are treading a fine line insofar as there is an argument to be made that these more or less unilaterally declared zones are themselves not supported in the agreement. Not my position, but I’ve heard this argument more than once from various sources. Sign of weakenig support.
And vice-versa. Nothing in the text per se prevents Iraq from defending sovereign air-space.
Irrelevant. Iraq is not Korea and vice-versa.
Well, the devel’s advocte position would note that it was our choice and our decision for our own purposes. Something of a bootstrapping argument. In any event most non-USA folks I meet find that lie has been played for all its worth.
The reality is, neither santions or anything else works if international support collapses. Given Iraq is not a small island, once that support collapses, the game is over.
Well, again it is not all crapola, the sanctions had real effects, although Saddam’s elite have clearly profiteered from them. But that’s the name of the game. As for hook-line-and-sinker, I don’t think so. Behind this is the issue of power politics. There are limits to how much other countries accept someone throwing around their weight --for whatever good or bad reasons-- before there is a reaction.
Well, as of this morning, Colin Powell, returning from a series of introductory meetings with several mid-East leaders, has suggested that the sanctions be eased on non-military materiel (including some potentially military-use equipment such as pumps and refrigerants) while maintining a direct embargo on military equipment.
The Iraqi Foreign Minister, Said Al-Sahaf, has called Powell’s comments “stupid.”
In re Powell. I am impressed, I see the emergence of a policy which begins to grapple with the facts which constrain our current range of choices. Perhaps reason will reign.
It looks like we the “winners” will be: Scyllya, freido, RD, and several others, for predicting Afghanistan or Arab countries in general.
Yes, I know Bush didn’t “start” a war. He is responding to an attack on the US. So my title should have said, “Where will Bush get the USA in a war first?”, but
that didn’t read as well.
Also, it looks like Bush hasn’t declared a traditional war on a country’s gvmt, it is only a war on terrorists so far. However, he does say he will hold gvmts responsible who knowingly host terrorists, and will attack their countries.
I know people will say the war isn’t Bush’s fault. They will say the 9/11 attacks would have happened if Gore or anybody else were president. However, I don’t
think so. I think a better prez like Gore would have paid more attention to the mid-East and terrorists. Also, I think Bush dares terrorists to attack, with his shootin’,
rootin’ tootin’ Texas cowboy style. He is a hawk, not a man of peace.
Look at what he is saying. He says he is going to ‘hunt down the terrorists’, as if this is a fun hunting trip out in the country. “You can’t hide, I’m goin’ to git ya”! Yee-hah! You’ve got the war you wanted, Georgie!
To imply even for a moment that George Bush practically “invited” terrorists to kill 5,000+ American, British and Canadian citizens, and that he wanted something like this to happen, is so obscene as to defy comment.
Has anyone noticed that it appears to be primarily liberals on the SDMB – Stoid, Chas.E, curious george, ElvisL1ves, and a few others – who are attempting to make partisan political points off of this attack? Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.
A “better prez”? And you would know this how? Bush dared terrorists to attack how? If you can’t figure it out, Bush has been in office less than a year, while this attack has been in planning much longer. This makes it have anything to do with Bush how?
Cite showing that Bush wanted a war?
Actually, why don’t you come answer these questions in the Pit.
I did not vote for Bush.
I have a low opinion of him, his talents etc.
I find your claim that had anyone else been at the White House the attack wouldn’t have happened to be absolutely false, without merit, without any shred of evidence and totally offensive. It is right up there with Falwell/Robertson’s claim that it was due to the liberals, gays, feminists etc.
This attack was planned for the past 18 months or more. It was the fault of those who planned and executed the attack.
Dammit, pld, I was right with you on the first paragraph, then you had to throw a gratuitous jab at liberals. One could just as easily ask “hey, has anyone else noticed it’s mainly conservatives on the SDMB who are blasting Clinton for not blowing up bin Laden ‘when he had the chance’, and calling his New York stroll ‘politically motivated’?”
The people bashing Bush are primarily not conservatives. The people bashing Clinton are primarily not liberals. In other news, the sun rose in the eastern sky this morning.
Partisanship comes in many stripes, Phil; you can find examples of all of 'em on the SDMB in the past week.
I am reminded of a line spoken by Julianne Moore in Hannibal: “Mr Krendler, I was not talking to you. When I am talking to you, you will know it because I will be looking at you.” I mentioned four people by name; a couple of other names escaped me. They all happen to be liberals. I did not say “the liberals” or “all liberals”; if I had meant that, I would have said it.
You know, xeno, if you spent a little time chastising the folks I mentioned for their poor representation of the liberal viewpoint on the SDMB, rather than jerking your knee anytime a nonliberal mentions the word “liberal” in conjunction with criticism, maybe the level of discourse would improve around here. Just a suggestion. I’m certain you’ll give it due consideration.
Indeed one could. And when I happen to read one of those threads, I will express similar sentiments if called for. I don’t, by the by, think there’s anything wrong with criticizing Clinton’s handling of international terrorism–there’s little doubt that it was completely ineffective. Now, however, is not the best time for it.
I have posted in the Pit regarding curious george’s tact and decor.
Here, I will only suggest that curious george’s post represent liberals as well as Baruch Goldstein represents Jews, Timothy McVeigh represents Christians, or bin Laden represents Muslims.
No one can seriously defend the idea that an attack planned for over a year is the reult of a Bush presidency. Of course, if curious george wishes to produce an argument for this proposition - one that does not involve simpy a post hoc, ergo propter hoc assertion… as Ross Perot once said, I’m all ears.
Quite the contrary, I see far more of this from conservatives and republicans.
Just because there is a crisis, that is no reason to suspend one’s judgement on el Presidente. It is at times like this, when Jorge Bush wants to suspend our civil rights, that critical judgment is most valuable. Just call us the “Loyal Opposition.” My loyalty is to America, not to its current leaders who may or may NOT have America’s best interests at heart.
Let me suggest to you, Chas.E, that there is no rhetorical value in saying ‘Jorge’ for George.
That said - I agree with the thrust of your point. While in times of crisis, there is value in uniting behind a leader, that doesn’t mean blindly surrendering the independence of thought, critical analysis, and even speech that we all enjoy as a birthright. No one should be silenced from legitimate critiques of the President just because we’re in the middle of a disaster. Such silencing would be un-American, I think, while airing your concerns is very American.
But when I say “legitimate critiques” I exclude gratuitous shots, and little digs that don’t really constitute good-faith criticism of a particular point.
If someone wants, for example, to criticize the administration’s requests for legislation that would seem to erode civil liberties, and point out that they’re using this disaster to further a distasteful agenda… by all means, point that out. It’s good fodder for discussion.
As I suggested above, on the other hand, if someone wishes to imply that this disaster happened because Bush is in the White House, and that his swaggering cowboy ways made it happen… frankly, I think that’s a much less defensible position.
So, too, with your post, above. Your basic message is a very valid one, in my view… but the ‘Jorge’ business added nothing. Much better, I would humbly suggest, to stick to legitimate critique rather than snide asides.
Not to mention the fact that ** I ** have not said a ** single thing ** about Bush at all, nor have I pushed any agenda…unless, of course, failing to jump on the “Damn them all it’s WAR!” bandwagon is making a partisan political point.
And I don’t think I’ll ever forget that before the buildings had even collapsed, we heard from ** PunditLisa ** thusly:
FINALLY! Someone GETS it!
Yes, you are correct. It is stupid for me to refer to him as El Presidente Jorge Bush, just as it is insanely idiotic for a child of privilege, born in Kennebunkport, educated at Yale and Harvard, to pretend he’s a Texan, complete with faked accent and deliberately coached misprononciations. Some of us are not fooled.
I have referred to him as Jorge ever since I watched his horrific “international diplomacy” with Mexico. Jorge said that “our most important international relationship is with Mexico.” How ridiculous. There is an old saying, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Our most important relationships are with China, Russia, and perhaps smaller countries like Iraq, Syria or Afganistan. Or perhaps it is with our major trading partners, like Japan. But it sure as hell isn’t Mexico. He just likes them because it’s a suck-up to latino voters, and it’s an easy political slam-dunk to cozy up to friendly Norte Americanos. Perhaps Jorge should have been paying attention to the SERIOUS international relationships instead of goofing around on El Presidente Vincente Fox’s broccoli farm.
In other words, we must sometimes use hyperbole to get a point across. Even IF most people don’t understand it, some will. If I really wanted to be gratuitously insulting, I would call him El Guapo or El Jefe or something out of a bad Western movie.
Or for a child of privelege born in Washington, D.C. and educated at Harvard and Vanderbilt, who has lived nearly his entire life inside the Beltway, to pretend he’s a Tennessean.