From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Sat Aug 03 2002 - 17:17:06 MDT
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:50:10 -0500
From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Subject: RE: virus: Ann Coulter\'s Rant/Rave
On 2 Aug 2002 at 13:28, Blunderov wrote:
[joedees1] @bellsouth.net Fri 2002/08/02 09:42 AM wrote
[Blunderov0]
Almost I don't believe what I'm seeing. I don't care if there are a
hundred points written in Beelzebub's own personal ink. There is no
justification in international law for deposing a regime you don't
like, no matter how emphatically you may disapprove of it. Bush is
simply inventing a pretext in the time honored fashion of warmongers
everywhere. [/Blunderov0]
[joedees1]
Or no matter what it does?
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov1]
Yes. No matter what he does short of launching, or being clearly seen
to be in the process of launching, an actual physical attack. This is
the law.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
he has already done that. On Kuwait. On his own people. On one of
our ex-presidents.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
If I may refer you to your own later words in this very post?
<snip>Ancient. Not,...contemporaneously.<snap> Last I heard the war is
over.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
(1)But not his threats against us, (2)and his attempts to shoot down the
aircraft protecting his own citizens from him,(3)and his flaunting of UN
resolutions concerning weapons inspections,(4)and his manufacture and
secretion of chemical and biological weapons in direct violation of
those
resolutions,(5)the kind of weapons he has already used on his own people
and those of other countries,(6)and his attempts to obtain nuclear
weapons,(7)and his threats to use them against Israel(8)(which, it
seems,
might please some on this list to no end), (9)and on and on and on...
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
(1) Which threats do you have in mind here? Is it the USA's intention to
exterminate all who utter threats against it? When Bush says "you are
with us or against us" is this a threat? Or in the USA is this called
"pre-emptive diplomacy" or some such doublespeak?
(2)See Pot vs Kettle
{3)I am glad that you agree with me that the flaunting of UN regulations
is a very bad thing. How soon will you be writing to your congressman?
Would you like me to provide you with a list of UN resolutions that that
have and are being violated? And by whom? Including accessories and
accomplices? It makes interesting reading. This does too.
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/020802.html
<snip>
August 1, 2002
War and Forgetfulness -- A Bloody Media Game
By Norman Solomon
Three and a half years ago, some key information about U.N. weapons
inspectors in Iraq briefly surfaced on the front pages of American
newspapers -- and promptly vanished. Now, with righteous war drums
beating loudly in Washington, let's reach deep down into the news
media's Orwellian memory hole and retrieve the story.
"U.S. Spied on Iraq Under U.N. Cover, Officials Now Say," a front-page
New York Times headline announced on Jan. 7, 1999. The article was
unequivocal: "United States officials said today that American spies had
worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors ferreting
out secret Iraqi weapons programs.... By being part of the team, the
Americans gained a first-hand knowledge of the investigation and a
protected presence inside Baghdad."
A day later, a follow-up Times story pointed out: "Reports that the
United States used the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq as
cover for spying on Saddam Hussein are dimming any chances that the
inspection system will survive."
With its credibility badly damaged by the spying, the U.N. inspection
system did not survive. Another factor in its demise was the U.S.
government's declaration that sanctions against Iraq would remain in
place whether or not Baghdad fully complied with the inspection regimen.
But such facts don't assist the conditioned media reflex of blaming
everything on Saddam Hussein. No matter how hard you search major
American media databases of the last couple of years for mention of the
spy caper, you'll come up nearly empty. George Orwell would have
understood.
Instead of presenting a complete relevant summary of past events,
mainstream U.S. journalists and politicians are glad to focus on
tactical pros and cons of various aggressive military scenarios. While a
few pundits raise cautious warning flags, even the most absurd
Swiss-cheese rationales for violently forcing a "regime change" in
Baghdad routinely pass without challenge.
In late July, a Wall Street Journal essay by a pair of ex-Justice
Department attorneys claimed that the U.S. would be "fully within its
rights" to attack Iraq and overthrow the regime -- based on "the
customary international law doctrine of anticipatory self-defense." Of
course, if we're now supposed to claim that "anticipatory self-defense"
is a valid reason for starting a war, then the same excuse could be used
by the Iraqi government to justify an attack on the United States (even
setting aside the reality that the U.S. has been bombing "no fly zones"
inside Iraq for years).
Among the first to testify at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's
recent hearing on Iraq was "strategy scholar" Anthony Cordesman, a
former Pentagon and State Department official. He participated in the
tradition of touting another round of taxpayer-funded carnage as a
laudable innovation -- "our first preemptive war."
Speaking alongside Cordesman was Richard Butler, the head of the U.N.
weapons inspection program in Iraq at the time that it was spying for
Washington. At the Senate hearing, Butler suggested that perhaps the
Russian government could be induced to tell Baghdad: "You will do
serious arms control or you're toast."
Like countless other officials treated with great deference by the
national press corps, Butler strives to seem suave and clever as he
talks up the wisdom of launching high-tech attacks certain to incinerate
troops and civilians. As a matter of routine, U.S. journalists are too
discreet to bring up unpleasant pieces of history that don't fit in with
the slanted jigsaw picture of American virtue.
With many foreign-policy issues, major news outlets demonstrate a
remarkable ability to downplay or totally jettison facts that Washington
policymakers don't want to talk about. The spy story that broke in early
1999 is a case in point. But the brief flurry of critical analysis that
occurred at the time should now be revisited.
"That American spies have operations in Iraq should be no surprise," a
Hartford Courant editorial said on Jan. 10, 1999. "That the spies are
using the United Nations as a cover is deplorable."
While noting "Saddam Hussein's numerous complaints that U.N. inspection
teams included American spies were apparently not imaginary," the
newspaper mentioned that the espionage operatives "planted eavesdropping
devices in hopes of monitoring forces that guarded Mr. Hussein as well
as searching for hidden arms stockpiles."
The U.S. news media quickly lost interest in that story. We should ask
why.
<snap>
(4) See Pot vs Kettle.
(5) See Pot vs Kettle. And yes, the USA poisoned Indians with smallpox
infected blankets, agent-orange wasn't a flavour of LSD.
(6) That damn genie just won't go back in the bottle will he? See:
http://www.iacenter.org/maj_iraq.htm
MORE BOMBS OVER BAGHDAD
by Mumia Abu-Jamal
(Col. writ. 2/24/01
<big snip>
If they turn on the radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs
(surface-to- air missiles). They know we own their country. We own
their airspace ... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's
what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially
when there's a lot of oil out there we need . -- (Blum, Wm., p. 159,
Rogue State , Common Courage, 2000)
The general sez, "oil." Shouldn't he know why Iraq is being bombarded?
This is the Voice of Empire, as real and as omnipotent as any empire in
history; the Roman, the Byzantine, or the Ottoman Empire. And empires
do what they do for one real reason: they can.
</big snip>
(8)Oooh! An innuendo. Joe you sly Devil! Naughty, naughty.
(9) Well, now that you mention it, you do rather. I didn't want to say
anything before, didn't want to be the first to break the news, but now
that you know anyway, I suppose it's OK to talk about it. Are you
comfortable with that? Don't feel bad a lot of people have this
uncontrollable urge to just go on and on. It's like a disease without a
cure for them you know, they can't help it. Just when they think that
they might be finished they suddenly realize that they aren't. And
that's the time when they just do it some more, you know, just without
thinking. But it's OK to talk about it. In fact it's really vital to
talk about it. When I think of all of the things that are vital, and all
those things that aren't, well I just know that this is, well, really
important. It's vital to just let it out.
[/Blunderov3]
[joedees1]
Such as attacking their neighbors, creating chemical weapons they use
against those neighbors and against their own people, and attempting
to assassinate a former US president (among other things)?
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov1]
I'm sorry? It is not clear to me whether you are referring to the USA
or Iraq in this sentence.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
That statement speaks volumes concerning your lack of understanding of
world events.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
Clearly we disagree on some matters of interpretation. I would be
happy to attain enlightenment. Perhaps some future post of yours will
cause the scales to fall from my eyes?
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
it would seem that they are memetically riveted there.
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
It is true that my memeplex doesn't have "my country right or wrong"
written on the flipside. Have you read the fine print on yours?
[/Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
If I recall, the USA has very many exotic weapons including chemical
ones.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
Which it has not used.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
Which it has not said that it has used. I suppose I'll have to take
an honest Yankees' word for it.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
It seems that you would prefer to take an honest Iraqi's word for it.
[/joedees2]
[[Blunderov3]
Ooooh! A herring!
[[Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
It has no compunction about using depleted uranium shells in aircraft
and artillery weapons. [/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
Not as chemical weapons (they are extremely inefficient at that
purpose), but because of their physical penetrating power when
directed at hardened targets. [joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
Well I'm not sure how glad I am that the US managed to solve its'
problem with hardened targets by using a weapon that, if I recall
correctly, is illegal under the provisions of the Geneva Convention,
no matter how efficiently it is used.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
There is, I am reasonably sure, a program underway to find a way to
achieve the penetration coefficient without the use of depleted uranium,
in order to avoid the bad PR, at least. But those who attack the US,
physically or verbally, will simply find another target.
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
I'm sure that those who wish to inflict PR harm to the US are comforted
in their beds at night by the warm knowledge that the US will leave no
shortage of reprehensible grist for their hungry little mills.
[Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
It has a history of genocide against its indigenous people.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
Ancient. Not, like Iraq, contemporaneously.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
OK Joe, you got me on this one. You have rendered me almost
speechless. You are prepared to judge other nations on the basis of
their histories but not your own?
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
Ancient vs. contemporaneous is a valid distinction. Should I likewise
condemn present-day Great Britain for its massacres in India much
more recently?
[Blunderov3]
But it doesn't seem to me that you are at all prepared to countenance
the USA being judged on its' own recent history either. What are you
going to do with that cake, BTW?
[Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
The USA has frequently attacked its neighbours. It has issued an open
fatwa on the life of Fidel Castro, for instance, not to mention Saddam
Hussein in, as far as I know, in flagrant contravention of
international law and convention.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
Fidel Castro was allowing the stationing of nuclear weapons 90 miles
from our shores. For their removal, we pledged not to invade.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
It is not clear to me that the assassination of a foreign head of
state would influence matters for the better or accord with
international law just because the USA really, really, really wanted
it to.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
A dead Saddam could not obtain or use WMD's (weapons of mass
destruction), as the live one has done, and has sworn to do again.
[joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
As you keep on repeating. I wonder which threats these were and what the
context was.
Oh and BTW, see Pot vs Kettle
[/Blunderov3]
[Blunderov2]
(Interestingly America has murdered at least two of its' own
presidents; is this a genetic thing?)
[Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
Four of them - and assassination of their leaders is an international
sport, engaged in by citizens of many countries, as well as those from
outside them.
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
Four of them you say? Well I suppose Italy might score higher it's true,
maybe the former USSR as well. Odd that 500 yrs of progress has made
little impact on the ethics of politicians. That assassination is still
a favoured diplomatic option is a testament to it's legitimacy. Except
if you do it with explosives strapped to you own body. That's right out.
[/Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
It was very sporting of the USA
to refrain from investing Cuba. Three cheers.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees2]
We got the missiles out.
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
That's true. Only just though.
[/Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
It is still the only nation on earth ever to have used nuclear weapons
in anger. [/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
You mean in war.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
You have understood me correctly. Have I understood you correctly? It
seems to me that you are implying that if Suddam Hussein, for
instance, finds himself attacked by an hypothetical aggressor, he
would be entitled to resort to nuclear weapons because he would, when
all was said and done, be "in war"? Or does this apply only to the
USA?
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
He has made it abundantly clear that he would would use them , as he
has used other weapons of mass destruction, whether he was attacked
or not. That's why he must be deposed before he obtains them.
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
These threats to which you continuously allude; are they ancient or
modern?
[Blunderov3]
[joedees1]
No reason WHATSOEVER????? You apparently must then, by following your
own statement to its logical conclusion, disapprove of the deposing of
the Taliban, Hitler,Duvalier,Idi Amin, and Pol Pot. You have little
company. [/joedees1]
[Blunderov1]
No, not "no reason whatsoever". International law lays out the
circumstances that may constitute adequate grounds for a pre-emptive
attack. The reckless USA seems to think it can cherry-pick the bits of
international laws, treaties and conventions which it finds tasty and
leave the nasty bits for everyone else to swallow.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
Apparently, you did not read the Iraqi articles I posted; they make a
strong pre-emptive self-defence case for such imposition.
[joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
I don't recall a strong case being made for this anywhere.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
Selective recall tends to go hand-in-hand with bias.
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
It is also a useful technique for freeing up bandwidth that is
needlessly occupied by bullshit.
[/Blunderov3]
[Blunderov2]
With regard
to your own posts, it maybe that my memory, an admittedly dodgy organ,
is at fault. I believe I have the gist of the argument though - how
does it go - The USA is afraid, so it will attack first in
self-defence. Anyone else, however, who does this is a rotten doctor
commie rat.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
No, Israel finds itself having to do such things to stem the tide of
suicide
bombers plaguing their land by halting them at their sources. The
Phillipines engages in preemptive attacks upon Abu Sayyaf rebels
(aligned with Al Quaeda) with the full support of the US. Yemen has
attacked cells of Al Quaeda within their own borders, as has Morrocco.
The US, having become aware of the Al Quaeda connections, has no
condemnation for pre-emptive attacks upon Chechen terrorists by
Russia or Uighur terrorists by China, or, in fact, Kashmiri terrorists
by
India.
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
"Israel finds itself"? It woke up one morning from a sort of hibernation
only to discover that the whole damn place was infested with terrorists?
Holy Shit, where did they come from?
[/Blunderov3]
[Blunderov2]
The term "pre-emptive self-defence" sounds as if it was minted in the
Soviet Union of yore, not the enlightened West.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
Two jumbo jets flying into twin towers filled with clueless civilians
has
quite an enlightening effect as to the realities of a situation, and
what
must be done to forfend against them.
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
Would that were true. Really.
[/Blunderov3]
[Blunderov0]
How is this splendid indifference to international law different from
Islamic, or any other, extremism? [
/Blunderov0]
[joedees1]
It is in response to an expansionist and fascist extremism, rather
than itself being same. [joedees1]
[Blunderov1]
I love it here in wonderland.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
You seem to perpetually inhabit it
[/joedees1].
[Blunderov2]
Just lucky I guess.
[/Blunderov2]
[Blunderov1]
It is a marvelous place where pre-emptive self-defence (for instance)
can be justified to one's adoring electorate as a righteous response
to an intolerable situation that was in, no small part, precipitated
by the USA itself. I am sickened to the marrow by the speculation that
the USA's attack will be timed to coincide with some elections. I fear
it is all too true.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
It will occur when it is possible to succeed with an acceptable cost,
but before an unacceptable attack by Iraq upon the US becomes possible
(according to the articles, that outer limit is 2005).
[/joedees1].
[Blunderov2]
Nothing to do with the elections or a 2nd term of office then. I'm
delighted. Bush is allowed to have 2 terms. The fact that the AD2005
"deadline" falls within the range of his possible 2nd term is probably
no more than a monstrous coincidence.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
That is correct. And Bush II might not have two terms, war or no war,
if
the stock market keeps tanking; Bush I was popular after the Gulf War,
but Clinton defeated him on the basis of the economy. BTW, Lyndon
Johnson, who could have won re-election, refused to seek it BECAUSE
the US was at war; interesting, hunh?
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
Thank you for the info which is indeed interesting to me. I did not know
that about LBJ. There seems to be every possibility that the market may
continue to tank. Attacking Iraq will not help this. Intensive trade
with new, previously inaccessible, oil rich market might though.
[/Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
I ask with tears in my eyes:
If the USA is in a position to allow itself the luxury of attacking on
high-days and holidays that are convenient (for reasons only remotely,
if at all, connected to the war) to it's leaders, how can there be
said to be a clear and imminent danger, as required by international
law, in the situation ?
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
The US is dealing with a real deadline, and is not in a position to
attack now, so far as I know. It will do so when it can succeed
without prohibitive US cost, before that deadline. The attack will be
in the best interests of the US and the people of the region, not of a
party or a president. When the stakes are that high, no such
game-playing is going to happen, because with the stakes that high, it
is no game. Cry all you want and shed big watery tears for that
vicious and bloodthirsty dictator; I cry for him not.
/joedees1].
[Blunderov2]
This addresses the point that I made how?
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
The threat is clear, and it is becoming more imminent as time goes on;
but it cannot be dealt with instantaneously, so prudence demands that
preparations be made in advance. And they are being made in the full
light of day.
[joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
This addresses the point that I made how?
[/Blunderov3]
[Blunderov2]
If the US is not in a
position to prevent an attack, and has not yet, in spite of that fact,
been attacked, how can it be in imminent danger of being attacked?
Either there is no danger, or it is not imminent.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees1]
When the US goes in to protect its interests and those of its allies,
it leaves when the job is done (and sometimes, regrettably, too soon).
Saddam was planning to seize Kuwait (and most probably the entire
Arabian peninsula) for the duration.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov1]
The complicity and duplicity of American diplomacy prior to the Gulf
War have been well documented in these annals. I don't buy the
"righteous indignation" pose. [/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
The US was hoping to counterbalance Iraq and Iran, and for a while, it
worked. When he turned his gaze south, towards a sparsely populated
but globally critical Arabian peninsula, he had to be met and stopped.
Period. I criticize Bush, senior, for not deposing him during the
Gulf War; it was a miscalculation that has cost the region, and the
world, dearly. It will not be repeated.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
Spilt milk I suppose. But this does not mean that the USA can just
resume hostilities against Iraq anytime it wants. The war, as I have
remarked, is over. Yay.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
See remarks above. No, I'lll cut and paste them.
But not his threats against us, and his attempts to shoot down the
aircraft protecting his own citizens from him, and his flaunting of UN
resolutions concerning weapons inspections, and his manufacture and
secretion of chemical and biological weapons in direct violation of
those
resolutions, the kind of weapons he has already used on his own people
and those of other countries, and his attempts to obtain nuclear
weapons, and his threats to use them against Israel (which, it seems,
might please some on this list to no end), and on and on and on...
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
and on and on and on...
[Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
I have no doubt that any feebleness in the legal rationale will be
satisfactorily obscured by gunfire, much as is the case in Israel.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
The rationale IS gunfire (Saddam's), and his continuing attempt to
augment same with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, which he
would most certainly use, as he has used chemical weapons already
against his own people and against those of other countries.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
But I must accept that America will play nice from now on because it
sees the error of its' former ways?
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
We have been; most of our military actions recently have been to save
other countries' own peoples from the depredations of their own vicious
regimes, to protect food distributors (distributing food we donated)
during famine, and to support nation building towards participatory
democracies, complete with citizen human rights, against the threats
posed to them by religio-fascist terror insurgencies.
[joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
Just how big is this empire anyway? Sounds verrrry big. Uneasy lies the
crown they say and I can well imagine it must be heavy. Especially with
a big jewel like Israel in it. (No pun intended I swear) But getting
back to the subject of the attacking sovereign nations on the basis of
what they might or might not do....
[Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
It is true that Iraq is firing on American personnel. The fact that
these Americans are in airspace that doesn't belong to them may have
something to do with it.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
You would prefer to allow him to commit genocide on the people within
his borders? How did you feel about Rwanda, or Serbia? How did you
feel about Germany? Not me, and not most conscientious and civilized
people.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
Insofar as the USA has conformed to international laws and treaties I
have no problem with its' conduct in any of the above.
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
But by the definition you are attempting to impose here, in such
actions,
which meet with your approval, it has not.
[joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
Umm. I'm genuinely confused here. Unless this is this post-modern thing
again. In which case I'm still confused.
[Blunderov3]
[Blunderov1]
Or does it belong to them? Maybe international law is tiresomely
archaic in promoting outmoded concepts such as "sovereign airspace"
and "non-interference"; clearly these things have no part in the
modern world if America finds them irksome. After all, America is
nothing if not modern.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
America does what it does because someone has to, no one else can, and
the entire world looks to us to do it. They bitch and moan when we
do, and they bitch and moan when we don't. I wish that we were NOT
the world's policeman, but we catch hell whether we wear the cap or
not.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov1]
Granted it must not be easy. It could be done much better than it is
though. It would help to have leaders that are not preoccupied with
grandstanding to an electorate in preference to finding sustainable
solutions.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees2]
Actually, finding such solutions is good for both world stability and
one's
reelection chances, although by no means assuring same (not to
mention one's historical legacy). The US has been engaged in the
Mideast, at the demand of all parties involved and uninvolved, for
thirty
years in search of a sustainable solution; the president who pulls it
off,
if and when it happens, will have assured a greater place in the annals
of history.
[joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
A consummation devoutly to be wished.
[Blunderov3]
[Blunderov0]
This is horrible. The next thing the whole world will be in flames.
[/Blunderov0]
[joedees1]
No, just one mustachioed madman's crazed ambitions. [/joedees1]
[Blunderov1]
The USA is setting a terrible example that will not go unnoticed.
[/Blunderov1]
[joedees1]
By other would-be aggressors, power-and-territory-hungry dictators,
and tin-horn satraps, I most sincerely hope.
[/joedees1]
[Blunderov2]
No need for the uncertainty. I very much fear that your wish was
granted long ago. I seem to recall reading, long ago, about the
long-range weather prospects for persons who find it expedient to "sow
the wind".
[/Blunderov2]
[joedees2]
Yep. For Saddam Hussein, the whirlwind is a' coming.
[/joedees2]
[Blunderov3]
The USA has developed smart whirlwinds now? That's amazing! Do they work
better than smart bombs?
[/[Blunderov3]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:51 MDT