Axis of Weasels

12Footer · Feb 22, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Plywoody, here are two more reasons (more if I can dig up documentation to back it up with)That France is asking for more delays to military action; 1. Sadamn and Black Jack Chirac have been friends sinces the 70's, before Sadamn was Premier of Iraq (when the sandman was second in command). 2. France has billions invested in Iraqi oil refineries, prefered trade with Iraq, "food for Oil" program, weapons sales (The |Rep Gaurd flies French-made Mirage jets), and shipping frims based in Iraq. In other words, France stands to loose big, when the regime is gone, and the infrastructure is set-ablaze by the sandman. DOCUMENTAION; http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irq99-3.htm Here is more

plywoody · Feb 22, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

I am familiar with 1441. I have no doubt that Saddam is not totally in compliance with it. There are lots of various resolutions out there that lots of countries are not in compliance with. Does that automatically mean war? No. There are not supposed to be WMD in the middle east at all, yet no one is promoting attacking Israel because of their nukes. While it would no doubt be wonderful if the UN could have complete power and cooperation with all nations, and uniformly enforce their regulations (Whoops, that is getting dangerously close to a "World Government" what the right fears the most!) but at any rate, it has never been the case yet, on a myriad of issues. Then the question becomes an analsis of risk and reward of specific actions. I simply don't see, especially with the inspector regime in place as it is, and sanctions as they are, all that great a risk from Saddam. Frankly I see the world facing a much bigger risk from Pakistan and India, and clearly the US and US interests face a much bigger risk with North Korea, and the US homeland faces a much bigger risk with Alqaida and other terrorist groups, and the Saddam thing just distracts us from the real threats to this country. Failure to comply completely may well be an excuse for war, but in my opinion it is not a cause for war, and if the overall goal is to make this country safer, my suggestion is to stock up on duct tape.

ob · Feb 22, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

What makes you feel that you are the only one that is aware of the unstable regimes in Pakistan and North Korea.Do you think the war department is going to release the specifics of their endeavors to keep tabs on them to CNN for your evenings viewing?Maybe you would like to know every detail behind our reasons for keeping certain middle eastern countries in check and then we can disclose the specific nature in which this information was obtained.Not.You can bet your freedom that the US is posed and keeping as close of tabs on North Koreas intentions that its neighboring countries who allowed Korea to become what they are will allow. Don't forget who supplied what little bit of detailed imformation you have on Pakistan ,North Korea ,and India, and suddenly propose that you somehow have more insight into the best interests of the Nation.Also if you are going to draw comparisons of resolutions besides 1441 that pose a risk to US security ,that our coutry has not tried to enforce ,it would behove the reader if you would be more specific.Statements that don't hold water will be construed as propaganda.

NOSLEEP · Feb 22, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Plywood you are concerned about the rising tide of anti-American sentiment. And it has become politically correct to lambase the U.S. and cast doubts on President Bush's motives. The United Nations continues to put on a farce. But then again, thats not surprising. An organization that allowed almost 1 million Tutsis in Africa to be slaughtered, harasses Israel regularly and appoints rogue regimes such as Libya to head major committees would do just what they are doing now.As long as the United States supports Israel the Middle East will include the U.S. as its enemy.The street as it is known in the Middle East has its base deeply rooted in hatred and antisemitism. War is sometimes right. Thats why we have a maple leaf in the middle of our flag and not a swastika.The worst part is when Saddam Hussein is finally exposed for what he is, the same critics will be either jumping on the band wagon or go into remission until another issue arises. The Axis of Weasels have made billions selling arms to Saddam. They are the ones with the questionable motives.

12Footer · Feb 22, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Wheras I agree with your belief that we have our priorities messed up,Plywoody, we do not know all there is to know about us military strategy. IOW, I leave that to those who's job it is to do that. sure, there is a very slim chance that US strategists are that stupid. But I have allready put my entire efforts, including my trust, behind them. In the big-picture, we are but soldiers. On the subject of this thread, here are a couple more links on Iraqi/French relations that may speak volumes...Please at least read them, and then make up your own mind (in the true tradition of a US citizen). http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00786.html http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/latest/wu981109.html

SCO · Feb 24, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Plywoody, The UN and antius protesters mindset you might say is led by France, and so that view, and yours is ALL ABOUT OIL. France is ready to throw us to the wolves for oil. Doesn't that make you a little angry? Also, why equivicate about Israel and Iraq in saying Israel has nukes? This isn't about fairness, it's about who is likely to attack us. Israel isn't. Finally, Pakistan is a problem so we shouldn't deal with Iraq? How is that rational? There is a fear there granted. They(Pakistan) are the ones likely to overthrow their government and are most unstable. Many of us think if we appease Iraq on that basis, and show our fear, were lost and put things off to a much greater scale war down the road(sort of like what happened in WWII). I realize there is little likelyhood that I can change your mind. I almost agree some with Jean Garafalo(spelling, sorry) in that the policy of the US has created this monster. The BofB has had a siege mentality since the Iranian war and has been working feverishly to develop capability to be able to bully his way out of it. Now is now and then is then. We cant just back off at this point because it will be perceived(correctly) as fear or impotence and the enemies momentum will escalate. The US/UN policy up to now has been to walk loudly and carry a small stick. That's why we have the current problem, and why we need to change our ways, and a very good example of how appeasement is the wrong thing to do. Been there Done that.

62_Kiwi · Feb 25, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Arrogant Chirac stumbles around world stage I think he's his own worst enemy...

PARIS - A series of resounding political mistakes has weakened the position of French President Jacques Chirac as his standoff with the United States over a war on Iraq reaches a decisive stage. Misstep one was at a European Union summit, where the 70-year-old president made an extraordinary attack on 10 eastern European countries wanting to join the EU next year. He blasted them for having separately declared support for Washington, dealing a blow to the goal of a united European foreign policy. Seething with anger, Chirac said those countries were "badly brought up" and "unaware of the danger" of aligning themselves with the United States. His defence minister, Michele Alliot-Marie then went even further, warning that France could still block these countries from joining the EU. Chirac left friends dazed and critics nodding their heads at a classic case of hubris. His outburst deeply offended young democracies grateful to the United States for standing up to the Soviet Union and worried that they will be bullied by the bigger countries - notably France and Germany - when they join the EU. Unabashed, Chirac forged ahead with a Franco-African summit to which he had invited Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe - a political leper in almost every western democracy. The reason why Mugabe was invited was simple. According to French diplomats, several other leaders would have boycotted the summit had he not been allowed to attend. This would have ruined an event crafted to revive French prestige and place Chirac in the spotlight. "Mugabe's presence in Paris for this summit is an insult to all the victims of his regime," said the Le Monde newspaper. "Did Jacques Chirac really think that giving him a ticking-off, in a corridor, about democracy and human rights, would really change the mind of this ageing autocrat?" What makes Chirac act this way? The best bet is that he feels the winds of history filling his sails. For five years, his room for manoeuvre in defence and foreign policy was crimped, for he had to share power with a socialist-dominated National Assembly. That all changed last year, when Chirac was re-elected by a thumping majority and his party wrested back control of the legislature. But Chirac's election triumph was less than it seemed. Chirac, despite a reputation for corruption, won because the French public were appalled by his contender, the ultra-right xenophobe Jean-Marie Le Pen. Initially humble at his astonishing good fortune, Chirac has become increasingly self-confident. He no longer fears any challenge from parliament, where loyalists hold all the levers of power, nor is there any threat from the press. He enjoys a daily chorus of media praise for standing up to Washington. Opinion polls say that four out of five voters consider him "justified" and "courageous". If Chirac has crossed the boundary of good judgment into arrogance, a perilous road lies ahead. It is easy to play to the gallery, drawing on latent anti-Americanism to play the role of Europe's paramount politician. The real test is whether Chirac will push his anti-war policy to the limit. To do so would incur American wrath and risk the destruction of the UN, along with France's precious veto, and split the EU. The alternative is for Chirac to back down, which is increasingly difficult to do, for a headlong retreat would destroy his credibility at home and abroad.

SpinnerBait_Nut · Feb 25, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

I was not gona get into this one, but I had to say something after reading all the posts. When a country is in trouble, who do they call? USA. When a country has a "badman", who do they look to to get rid of him? USA. The weapons inspectors are allowed to see what Sadam wants them to see, plain and simple. He has moved things, destroyed sites and everything. Powell showed that. Don't know about these other countries, maybe their kahunas ain't big enough or something. But we need to take care of business for "OUR" people and if your not with us, then get out of the country cause when it comes time for war, I sure don't want some coward in my corner that I have to rely on to have my back. Thats what it amounts to. These other countries are the ones that the USA has to look forward to having their back!!!! I don't think so. As far a GW goes, he is doing what "HE" thinks is the best for this country and if you agree or not with him, you should stand behind him.

9/11 was a devastating event in American history and will live on in the memories of many people and in history books till the end of time. The people responsible for it are connected to Sadam in some way and you can bet the farm on it. The worst mistake America did was when they had the chance, they did not take Sadam "OUT". Period, plain and simple. No other way to put it. They should have killed him when they had the chance, but noooooo!!!!!, let him rebuild what he can and with help from other sources, get a little more technical as far as WMD goes. I'll shut up now. The thought of 9/11 gets my blood boiling

and I just ramble on. Sorry.

SCO · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Eye opening post Kiwi. Maybe France's motives are more sinister than I realized. Another reason to listen to our leaders(Bush administration). They are a lot more on top of this stuff than most of us ignoramases. Makes me wonder if France wants the future EU to align with the middle east, Africa, against us???

ob · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Weren't the Coneheads from France?

SCO · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

LOL , thats right, that was their cover.

plywoody · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Re: France's motivations. Yes, indeed there is no doubt that France's position is motivated in large degree by self-interest. What is new with that, and isn't every country, including us, also motivated by self interest? Actually, I was reading in the Toronto Globe and Mail not too long ago that there is a concept in international law, called the rule of odious debts, which basically says that a country under a repressive regime, when that regime goes, the country and its people cannot be held liable for debts incurred, or contracts entered into, by that repressive regime. Now I have found absolutely no evidence that France has been supplying them military hardware, not to mention Mirage jets, but there is no doubt that French have economical interests in Iraq, as do Russia and other countries. It seems to me that this should have been an diplomatic opportunity for us over the last couple of years to get France onboard that we seem to have ignored. We are spending a humongous amount of money, up to something like 94 billion dollars at last count, to bribe the direct neighbors of Iraq (Turkey, Jordan, Saudi, etc.) into allowing us to "protect" them. I of course find it curious that the direct neighbors of Iraq would demand so much money--you'd think if they were that threatened they would pay us to do it. Apparently they do not feel all that threatened by Saddam. As far as assuming the administration knows lots more than we do, and we should trust them--History books are full of examples of fundamental errors made by us and other countries--I look at how this president has handled other problems, including the economy, including a consumer confidence rating at a ten year low, etc. An economic plan that has little chance of success--a diplomatic effort that has been virtually a complete failure, and I lose confidence in this administration and their judgement. I further get concerned when our reasons for this action seem to change depending on the political winds. It started out as regime change, it turned to an expansion on the war on terror, then it turned again to disarming Saddam, and now our reason seems to be "liberating" the Iraqi people. What doesn't change from day one is the need for war to implement it. And then I read where the key players in this (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, etc.) have published a foreign policy review in the 90's, long before 9/11, calling initially for a war on Iraq, then spreading to Iran and Syria, ultimately progressing to other places including North Korea (which is reason enough for North Korea to think they are a target whose time has not yet come...) So I come to the conclusion that this is part of a grand plan, and has nothing to do with terror or Osama Bin Laden or anything related to 9/11. It is also a fundamental shift from the defensive posture that has served this country so well for so many years, and that we somehow are shifting to a more imperialist policy that is bound to have dramatic repercussions. It is one thing to be the lone superpower, and be the apparent force for peace in the world--It is quite another to be the lone superpower that wishes to impose its will on the world. I think we are going to see some dramatic and new alliances in short order to attempt to limit the power of the US in the world, and it will not make this a safer world. I do think there are legitimate reasons why a good share of the world considers Bush the biggest threat to peace and security of the world, however. Those reasons may or may not be unfounded, but we have done little to dispell them. Why not go after our real enemy, and the enemy of peace in the world, Osama Bin Laden and other forces of terror?

ob · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

plywoody,your anti Bush this and anti Bush that reeks of Democratic left wing partisanship and your insight and theories are shot full of holes with no defined remedy.These exact subjects have been hashed out several times with thorough examples of why the US is facing hurdles of middle east diplomacy and home based recession.It is my conclusion that you niether are capable of sound reasoning nor will anything short of a wet kiss from Al Gore and a breakfast of frosted dangling chads give you positive motivation as to the direction the US is persuing.I'm heartfully sorry that Donahue has been canceled ,however soon you can tune in to Alan Colmes' new radio show for more liberal hogwash. edit: My comment about Gore and chads was not meant as a personal atttack but rather a comical anti-liberal quip.

DJ · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Hmmm, If the people of the countries that have displaced leadership are not responsible for the agreements made by their former leaders, then the promises to some of the countries might not be valid when those regimes topple too. The plan is brilliant! How many times does it have to be said. A person in the Executive office has about as much control over the economy as I do. I would have to say that the "ethics" or better said, the lack of during the 90's, got us into this funk. Everyone is scared that their investments are being controlled by people that have none. Those investment leaders had a shining example to follow. The "defensive" posture (even that was a joke) got us 9/11. Same with Pearl Harbor. Perhaps, Osama was put over the edge by the aspirin factory bombing. Is it so hard, for so many, to believe that perhaps we have the best intertests of those oppressed people in mind? Some say, "why not go after Cuba". Simple. Castro might be a nut, but he is a harmless nut and fading fast. Don't think for a minute that Havana won't become the next Las Vegas within ten years.

SCO · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Plywoody, some of your comments and my responses: Plywoody Re: France's motivations. Yes, indeed there is no doubt that France's position is motivated in large degree by self-interest. What is new with that, and isn't every country, including us, also motivated by self interest? SCO answer Nothing is new with that, just don't second guess the US citing Frances reluctance. They may very well turn out to be our enemies. Plywoody It seems to me that this should have been an diplomatic opportunity for us over the last couple of years to get France onboard that we seem to have ignored. SCO answer You're assuming that we can make France get onboard and havn't tried. This is pure blame America first rhetoric. Plywoody As far as assuming the administration knows lots more than we do, and we should trust them--History books are full of examples of fundamental errors made by us and other countries SCO answer I trust his judgement because I think he has been almost right on all the way since 911. The almost refers to his UN involvement, but I concede that I might be on the wrong side of that issue. Maybe they are trying to see just who our friends really are while preparing, and also giving it that 1 in 1000 shot for a diplomatic solution. Plywoody I further get concerned when our reasons for this action seem to change depending on the political winds. It started out as regime change, it turned to an expansion on the war on terror, then it turned again to disarming Saddam, and now our reason seems to be "liberating" the Iraqi people. SCO answer Bush 43 declared a war on terrorism straight away after 911 and this is what he was talking about. He is straight on track, buffeted only by the forces stating your perspective. In this case, denying weapons is the primary goal, rooting out terrorists and regimes that support them. It is ridiculus to say he is changing publicly stated motivations...a patently false accusation. Plywoody And then I read where the key players in this (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, etc.) have published a foreign policy review in the 90's, long before 9/11, calling initially for a war on Iraq, then spreading to Iran and Syria, ultimately progressing to other places including North Korea (which is reason enough for North Korea to think they are a target whose time has not yet come...) So I come to the conclusion that this is part of a grand plan, and has nothing to do with terror or Osama Bin Laden or anything related to 9/11. SCO answer I don't know valitity of the review you cite nor have I read it, have you? The master manipulation of us and the world. There is in fact no terrorist threat or danger to us, is that what you're saying? Just a luckey break allowing manipulators of Bush43 to put this master plan in place? Maybe we have always had people looking out for the best interest of the US, working out contingency plans, surveying gathering threats. If so, they were right to be concerned as validated by 911. Plywoody It is also a fundamental shift from the defensive posture that has served this country so well for so many years, and that we somehow are shifting to a more imperialist policy that is bound to have dramatic repercussions. It is one thing to be the lone superpower, and be the apparent force for peace in the world--It is quite another to be the lone superpower that wishes to impose its will on the world. SCO answer We don't want to impose our will on the world, we just don't want the world to impose its will on us. This is defensive for us. This is a new time. Rome fell you know...because they were bad?...or because they were there(ref reason mountain climbers climb) and the "Barbarians" finally had the capability to take them down. I think it naive believing we can just live and let live. We could, but they can't. Plywoody I think we are going to see some dramatic and new alliances in short order to attempt to limit the power of the US in the world, and it will not make this a safer world. Sco answer This has already been going on for a while. Did you read 62 Kiwi's post? What do you think the EU is all about. Why does Chirac sound like Mandella. Why are France and Germany in bed with Iraq, and most frightenly, why are you aligned with the the forces that are against us? I know the answer to the last one I think. Its the blame America first ideology that was spawned during the Vietnam war. Wake up man. Plywoody Why not go after our real enemy, and the enemy of peace in the world, Osama Bin Laden and other forces of terror? Sco answer We finally find agreement. That is exactly what our President is doing. I take the liberty of lumping the BofB in with "other forces of terror".

plywoody · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

People with different viewpoints from the far right are not the enemy of America. Why do you think we are? My problem with the right is that they generally think there's is the only opinion that can or should be considered--and any other opinion needs to be ridiculed. and the argument for Bush's successes since 9/11 are interesting. I just wish someone would articulate what exactly they are. We put the Taliban on the run, but Afghanistan is in chaos as we speak, with no end in sight, and no plan in view for change. And we call it "liberation". And, of course, we let Osama escape. And I am truly glad that you give the president a pass on the economy. I guess after two years it is a hard sell to still blame the economy on Clinton. So the answer has to be "Well, he's doing his best!" And yes indeed I have read the Cheney;Rumsfeld;Perle;Wolfowitz plan for global dominance. It is available at www.newamericancentury.org under "rebuilding america's defenses." Frankly, I hope you all are right about all this. I hope we go into Bahgdad and find Saddam on that balcony waving his .22 that is in all the news shots, and some American sharpshooter takes him down--and then all Iraqis start dancing in the streets, and the warring tribes of Iraq sit down and form a constitutional convention and come up with a democratic republic that they are all happy and content with-- And then of course the rest of the middle east falls in line with a new enlightened democratic. society and everybody is happy ever after. I do hope it happens. I am normally somewhat of an optimistic person, but I am just a touch skeptical over this one.

NOSLEEP · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

The world is getting smaller and small. Distance is not what it used to be. Information is available like never before. The Arab world is not as isolated as it once was. neither do I believe they are stupid. The generation of today know what freedom is.Don't be fooled into thinking they cannot embrace it given a chance.

SCO · Feb 26, 2003

Re: Axis of Weasels

Plywoody People with different viewpoints from the far right are not the enemy of America. Why do you think we are? SCO answer I don't think you are an enemy. I think your opinions are playing into the hands of the enemy. I don't think you have adequate basis for many of your opinions, believe me I've read a lot of them, and these are serious accusations. Do they stand up? We Americans and Allies are putting each others feet to the fire. I think we all have a personal responsibility to look the truth in the face. It's not about winning arguements...it's about making the correct choices based on good information. If you have basis to back up your claims, I'm all ears. check this link ...Peggy Noonan http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/ Plywoody My problem with the right is that they generally think there's is the only opinion that can or should be considered--and any other opinion needs to be ridiculed. SCO answer The left is completely contemptuous of the right as well. I think the right considers the opinions then accepts or rejects them. Thats what we all do hopefully. Plywoody and the argument for Bush's successes since 9/11 are interesting. I just wish someone would articulate what exactly they are. We put the Taliban on the run, but Afghanistan is in chaos as we speak, with no end in sight, and no plan in view for change. And we call it "liberation". And, of course, we let Osama escape. SCO answer 1st, he broke up the Afghan terror setup and its terror government. Thats pretty good. Maybe it's not that easy to catch a terrorist leader. They think about their escape plans all the time. 2nd, he's dealing with the problem though many of you want to do nothing. Give inspections time to work you say? We would still be begging Saddam to let the inspectors back in if Al was Pres. Plywoody And I am truly glad that you give the president a pass on the economy. I guess after two years it is a hard sell to still blame the economy on Clinton. So the answer has to be "Well, he's doing his best!" SCO answer I'll offer my impressions. Clinton presided over the rise and fall of the dot com boom. He lucked out. It had nothing to do with his policy, but in fact his fiscal policy was guided by the Legislature. Remember that no one wanted to fly post 911? We're reeling from that, and fear of war. I do agree that Bush 43 is giving away the store right now. I don't like his immigration policy. No. 1 though is dealing with the terrorist threat which trumps all. All pales by comparison. Plywoody Frankly, I hope you all are right about all this. I hope we go into Bahgdad and find Saddam on that balcony waving his .22 that is in all the news shots, and some American sharpshooter takes him down--and then all Iraqis start dancing in the streets, and the warring tribes of Iraq sit down and form a constitutional convention and come up with a democratic republic that they are all happy and content with-- And then of course the rest of the middle east falls in line with a new enlightened democratic. society and everybody is happy ever after. SCO answer I also have a bad feeling in my gut about this. Things can go wrong and it is hard to imagine that it will all go just right. We have to pick door #1 or door #2. I'm not sure any of us can ever know which would have been the best door. Were afraid, but we proceed because we think it is the best option. I know Plywoody that your gut says were walking into a firestorm, that you're heart is in the right place. So is ours. Let's hang on here and support our troops, the really brave ones.

Axis of Weasels

Fleet Admiral

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Admiral

Commander

Fleet Admiral

Lieutenant

Lieutenant Junior Grade

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Lieutenant

Admiral

Lieutenant

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Admiral

DJ

Guest

Lieutenant

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Commander

Lieutenant