1. IrvingSnodgrass - Dec. 16, 1998 - 6:57 PM PT
Earlier today, the United States, aided by the United Kingdom, began bombing Iraq. The intended targets are reportedly the installations involved in the creation of weapons of mass destruction, although the administration has made clear that innocent victims will likely be injured as well.
Did Iraq leave this as the only alternative? Is this a proper reaction? Is this, as Trent Lott has indicated, merely a political maneuver by Bill Clinton to save himself? Or did Saddam Hussein miscalculate and assume the Americans were too mired in impeachment proceedings to act?
Talk about it here.
2. DanDillon - Dec. 16, 1998 - 7:01 PM PT
Good god.
3. LivingFree - Dec. 16, 1998 - 7:05 PM PT
Okay, the war has begun. Let's get on with the Impeachment vote.
4. jexster - Dec. 16, 1998 - 8:24 PM PT
Bob Barr and his racists buddies have been out to get Clinton for years. Now they are in a feeding frenzy, even to the point of giving aid and comfort to Sadam Hussein.
I applaud our President's guts, in the face of Sadam's provocations he stands tall.
Time to stop kow-towing to Repuglicans, especially those nut cases on Capitol Hill. No more apologies. No more delays.
I do not want Trent Lott or Tom Delay running my government or trying to remove a twice elected president, thereby depriving me and 50,000,000 people of their vote.
I have had quite enough of the Republican Party for years to come.
5. jexster - Dec. 16, 1998 - 8:26 PM PT
Rule Brittania!
Had we known that our international standing and our resolve would be challlenged by the likes of Trent Lott and Bob Barr we never would have rebelled.
6. bottomfdr - Dec. 16, 1998 - 8:39 PM PT
If this were just a maneuver by Clinton to save himself, how would it work? How would it save him? The vote in the House can take place tomorrow or next week. Or next month. Some one please explain. It might make him look more presidential. That's a possible make-over, but I doubt that it would impress many people, considering Clinton's obnoxious behavior as of late.
7. AuNaturel - Dec. 16, 1998 - 8:57 PM PT
Message #6
If he could delay the vote into the next Congress the Repugs would only have a 5 vote advantage on the floor. Plus some of the hard core impeachers might be gone. Much easier to salvage a Clinton victory.
8. AuNaturel - Dec. 16, 1998 - 9:00 PM PT
It would be simple enough to say to Saddam whenever they decided to inspect a building "Either we inspect it right now or we blow it up in a couple of hours. Your choice." But Clinton doesn't have the balls any more than Bush did.
9. RyckNelson - Dec. 16, 1998 - 9:02 PM PT
bottomfdr
a news report i saw this evening mentioned that, historically the government puts aside partisan politics during a war. Therefore it stands to reason that creating a war will stop impeachment in the short term. In Clintons case it seems that will be just a few days.
The bombing of these sites is a waste of life and resources. What do we think Saddam is building, are we to believe that these sites we're bombing have in no way been inspected in the last seven years? It's a waste because now Saddam will divert even more capital to rebuild and take away from infrastructure and food. That will undoubtedly cause much more starvation and hardship for the non combatant civilians. This is a rediculous cycle. Any moron with half a brain will realize that Clinton is running and bombing to save his cock! I say fuck you Clinton, Stick your cock up your nose. You lieing son of a bitch!
I voted this cretin in and now I want his ass handed to him. Impeach him or whatever, just do it!
Gore will be so much more reliable,,hahahahaha!
Are we having fun yet? Yes it's cynical, who gives a shit anymore?
10. spudboy - Dec. 16, 1998 - 9:12 PM PT
"Wag the Dog"? Hm. Why doesn't it occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, Saddam assessed the situation in the States, saw that Clinton was weak and about to be impeached, and believed he could get away with shutting off the UNSCOM inspectors? Naaah. That would be too *logical.*
"Aiding and abetting the enemy" used to mean something. Guess it's just a warning for defecting Republicans now.
11. RyckNelson - Dec. 16, 1998 - 9:17 PM PT
Before you go with that train of thought spudboy, answer the question I raised in Message #9 , what were we inspecting for seven years? Then you can raise the point of Saddam using Clintons woes to make armament material gains.
12. jonesatlaw - Dec. 16, 1998 - 9:37 PM PT
"What do we think Saddam is building, are we to believe that these sites we're bombing have in no way been inspected in the last seven years? It's a waste because now Saddam will divert even more capital to rebuild and take away from infrastructure and food."
This assumes that his priorities include food and infrastructure. Let us not forget that this man is a despot who has invaded Iran, Kuwait, used mustard gas on Kurds, Ordered the destruction of Kuwaiti oil fields resulting in one of the largest enviromental crimes in history, and has ordered the murder of members of his immediate family for purposes of holding power. He is Stalin with a smaller military, or Pol Pot with a larger one. Save your sympathy with the poor people of Iraq who have little choice but to endure his willingness to sacrifice them for his own purposes.
13. jonesatlaw - Dec. 16, 1998 - 9:38 PM PT
Save your sympathy with the poor people of Iraq who have little choice but to endure his willingness to sacrifice them for his own purposes.
Should be "for the poor people"
14. JJBiener - Dec. 16, 1998 - 9:41 PM PT
Spudder - Many phrases had meaning in the past. The excessive use of hyperbole in recent debates has made these phrases meaningless.
15. jonesatlaw - Dec. 16, 1998 - 9:50 PM PT
JJBiener- I agree. I am rather partisan, and even I blanch at recent postings. They are squandering our precious linguistic resources. We may have to resort to a sort of invective "newspeek" just to maintain some sort of continuum. From the mildly annoying, to the disturbing, to throwing down the gauntlet, to "I'm going to tear off your arm and club you to death with it." How will we know where we are? What will we do when we've run out?
16. JJBiener - Dec. 16, 1998 - 10:08 PM PT
Jones - I think we have already run out. The most vile insults are almost a daily occurance in the Fray. They have been so overused, they have lost all meaning. Jexster is getting so desperate he is calling for the extermination of all Republicans. It is a pathetic display. I am embarassed for him.
17. LadyChaos - Dec. 16, 1998 - 10:13 PM PT
JJ, Re: Your Message #9904 from the GOPII thread, in which you quoted some Dem congresspersons expressing their opposition to Gulf War I,
I knew that someone would bring that up. It's a fair point. However, it was a different world eight years ago, when not many people knew or cared much about Hussein, and there were well-founded suspicions that a major screw-up in the State Dept. had brought about the crisis.
Today, our relationship with Iraq has become very complicated, to say the least, as we have tried to balance the interests of keeping Hussein under wraps while respecting Iraq's sovereignty to the extent possible, while maintaining an inspection regime and all the while trying to hold our rather tepid allies together.
With the help of Kofi Annan, we were painted into an ever increasingly tight corner, one from which the only way we could extricate ourselves without losing total credibility in the face of world opinion was to take military action. Hussein is Clinton's doppleganger, in a way; both are wiley politicians who know how to emerge victoriously from certain defeat. Hussein is gambling that: (a) Clinton wouldn't attack, lest he risk looking like he was doing so to distract from his problems, or; (b) Clinton would attack, but once the attack was over, neither the U.S. nor the United Nations would have the stomach for continuing the sanctions/inspections regime. It's more likely that the alliance will completely collapse when this is over, and sanctions will be lifted.
18. JJBiener - Dec. 16, 1998 - 10:32 PM PT
Let's move this over here.
Lady - It *was* a different world then. Saddam hadinvaded and occupied Kuwait. He was threatening Saudi Arabia and Israel. It was believed that he had the 4th largest army in the world and it was suspected that he had chemical and biological weapons. Today we have him contained within his own borders with about half of his country controlled under a no-fly zone. Saddam is far less of a threat today.
I am not going to be critical of Clinton's use of the military today. If he follows through and manages to resolve the Iraqi situation, I will be the first to congratulate him. Unfortunately, I have no faith in Clinton to follow through. I hope he will be successful, but I am afraid this current salvo will end with no fundamental change in the situation
19. spudboy - Dec. 17, 1998 - 12:08 AM PT
JJ: My point, lest it be mistaken for something overstated (as you suggest), is simply that the bar has been raised. Even during Nixon's tribulations, no one screwed with him when he was undertaking important foreign-policy measures. It would have been unthinkable for a member of Congress of either party, when Reagan or Bush or even Nixon were president, to have called them a liar who could not be trusted (and one could make a case for membership in that club with all three of these presidents, as well as Clinton) when they were undertaking an important peace-seeking mission in Israel -- as did Tom DeLay this week. It would have been considered nearly treasonous to have accused any of them of venal motivations for undertaking a military mission. I know this from having to watch politicians rein in their mouths when Reagan hit Grenada and Bush hit Panama; no one -- other than the usual bomb-throwers -- wanted to be seen as undercutting the boys in the line of fire.
That this has changed, you say (I assume), is Clinton's fault. I say that it cuts both ways. Some of it is Clinton's fault; and some of it is simply overheated perceptions on the part of Republicans. The hatred of Bill Clinton has become like a virus -- its victims almost feverish in their desire to get him out, November elections be damned.
Now, what about those Democratic quotes? They were interesting, I thought.
20. viewpoint - Dec. 17, 1998 - 1:34 AM PT
Trent Lott's image of reality -
Clinton says to all his military advisors, "OK guys, I need your help on this Monica thing, I need us to bomb Iraq, and fast!" And Secretary of Defense Cohen says, "Sure thing, chief. Right guys? We'll get right on it!"
That may sound absurd, but given Lott's comments, it must be the correct gist.
The reasons for attacking now were clear and well organized. I would challenge Lott to go over those reasons point by point and make any credible case against even a part of them. I believe he would fail miserably. Secretary of Defense Cohen's following expansion into the details of the reasons would also have to be dealt with. Senator Lieberman on PBS totally blew Lott's thinking away on the timing issue. When Clinton diverted the planes last time, it was clear to all that another Butler report of non-compliance would trigger the attack.
Pretending Clinton could steamroller all the people involved in this decision is a diservice to the American people.
The truth will out because ultimately absurdities become obvious, and it becomes too much work to maintain them.
21. viewpoint - Dec. 17, 1998 - 1:40 AM PT
Rep Livingston: "As to the matter of timing, we'll leave that to the best judgement of the American people." Koppel reported on Nightline that their poll showed the familiar 2/3 - 1/3 split, with 2/3 thinking the attack was because "it was the right thing to do", and NOT because of the impeachment hearings. Now if he would just leave the impeachment decision to the best judgement of the American people.
22. wexxford1 - Dec. 17, 1998 - 4:11 AM PT
WELL WELL WELL!PR students.Will anyone find it rawthah amazing that ABC's war reporting team in Baghdad were given a perch on the rooftop of the Iraqi Public Relations building ? Yes,students.Bill Blakemore of ABC was escorted to the roof of the Information HQ by the Iraqi PR people !!!.Cokie and Sam were analyzing like mad in DC.ABC had another man with a pointer telling us that it was a hopelessly one-sided military affair.The U.S. Could blast away effortlessly at all the tagets in Iraq,because the Iraqi's were armed with pathetically outmoded gunnery .All in all, a rawthah amazing night,PR-wise,wouldn't you say?
23. wexxford1 - Dec. 17, 1998 - 4:20 AM PT
PR -wise againon "Iraq attack"...Come to think about it,how come all big U.S. network broadcasters were given total freedom to send pictures live to the home audience ? Nobody was cut off the air !!!Are we not told that Iraq is a totalitarian regime,hammering its little people into the ground ? Yet, this same totalitarian regime gives Amurrican teams full assistance in sending pictures back home via satellite.Needs explanation.
24. gravel - Dec. 17, 1998 - 4:49 AM PT
Republican genius: "We should have bombed hell out of them months ago! Why didn't Clinton do this months ago?! Yes, it's a shame innocent people will have to die, but we must get rid of Hussein!!! I just happen to find, my fellow Americans, that this one particular night is not convenient to me. I had other plans for tomorrow."
25. envision - Dec. 17, 1998 - 5:18 AM PT
The attack on Iraq is a manufactured response to a manufactured crisis. The crisis was manufactured because Clinton and the Pentagon need a bogey man as an excuse to stay in office and for maintaining their budget.
This entire episode is a farce--but it is a farce which will cost lives.
26. DanDillon - Dec. 17, 1998 - 5:40 AM PT
This whole ordeal makes me very sad and embarrassed to be American.
27. FreeToChoose - Dec. 17, 1998 - 5:42 AM PT
spudboy
“Even during Nixon's tribulations, no one screwed with him when he was undertaking important foreign-policy measures.”
So those anti-war demonstrations were just a wild rumor?
28. Msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 5:42 AM PT
Envision
I'm willing to grant the Rabid Right some slack wrt the timing of this event, however, the entire crisis is not manufactured. It's been an ongoing problem, which, frankly has dragged on for far too long.
I believe we should have bombed them a month ago at the show down, that was when Clinton's response was wrong. My sense is that Spuds is correct in that Hussein believes the President has been completely undermined, and that now was the moment to act up.
Your hyperbole grows daily. Perhaps you need a tranquilizer to calm your excited nerves. Too much happiness over the recent political events tearing the country apart can do that to you.
29. millhead - Dec. 17, 1998 - 5:53 AM PT
Hey Ms.,
I think "BadVison" has finally snapped. Look at what time he is posting...I get this creepy picture (vison, if you will) of him sitting in a dark room with only the glow of his 486 Compaq running Windows 3.1 on 28.8 modem with a bottle of Old Thompson half full on the table littered with Camel butts. The stench from the stained carpeting is overwhelming and hard white rice with soy sauce is all over the table...His eyes are glazed over as he throws darts at a picture of WJC on the wall. Yuck!
30. Msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 6:12 AM PT
Millhead
More than just envision have snapped. The most disturbing comments for me are those of people who say they want Clinton impeached to just get rid of this mess, even when they don't think the entire investigation was appropriate to begin with. Even if they believe he may not have committed perjury.
But because they are "tired" of it all, are "embarrassed" by what has been discussed in the public arena, they want him to be impeached.
Now that is a scary response. Scary and depressing, that even a few otherwise moderate and rational citizens would rather see constitutional issues swept under the rug, would rather see dangerous precedents set, so that they can go back to their safe, insulated world.
31. envision - Dec. 17, 1998 - 6:23 AM PT
Millhead/MsIvoryTower: You have a point about calming down. Jex got me really pissed off and I overreacted. Sorry. I take back the part of calling Clinton a murderer.
Let's do what it takes to take Saddam out, America. On to Bagdad!
32. envision - Dec. 17, 1998 - 6:24 AM PT
Millhead/MsIvoryTower: You have a point about calming down. Jex got me really pissed off and I overreacted. Sorry. I take back the part of calling Clinton a murderer.
Let's do what it takes to take Saddam out, America. On to Baghdad!
33. cllrdr - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:11 AM PT
"soy sauce is all over the table"
Millhead! What manner of aspersions are you casting in en's direction?
(Those keeping track of Pseudo's recent posts in "Gender Switching" will know what I'm talking about.)
34. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:32 AM PT
Well, it seems to me that IF the bombings are necessary, the timing is precisely right. Ramadan starts on Sunday.
35. marjoribanks - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:39 AM PT
In this instance, Wexxford's recurring cry of "PR! PR!" is justified, and on all sides.
1) No doubt whatsoever that the Iraq regime is using the media to broadcast virtually stock footage of victims and damage, in order to build opposition in the public in the West. They are dangerous and megalomaniacal, not stupid, or lacking in savvy.
2) Obviously, Hussain has played this brinksmanship game again and again when he thought he could see some weakness in his sole consistent opponent : the USA. This (month-long) recalcitrance is par for the course.
3) There is no doubt at all that Hussain is strengthened (at least his hold on power is) by limited acts like this, and he only gains more sympathy in the Arab world.
4) These bombings aren't doing jack shit to Iraq except further convincing the general public that the USA is determined to destroy it.
5) On the USA PR side, I wouldn't at all be surprised if part of the motivation in bombing was not to distract the American public (they aren't that stupid) but rather to elicit the very response from the Republicans that emerged yesterday. They look bad, and everyone will remember that these are the same fuckers who want Clinton's head at any cost.
6) And Blair. What the fuck was he squirrelling on about yesterday? Highly unimpressive display from him. Hope he reads some more Churchill, gets some grey hair and tries to deepen his voice next time he clambers on the platform of "world leader". The floppy bunny routine he displays ain't cutting it.
36. marjoribanks - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:42 AM PT
BTW, I am rather unhappy about the timing of these bombings since I am going to *be* in the region, in Dubai, for New Years, and frankly was not expecting fireworks.
37. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:44 AM PT
Visting some subcon guest worker families, are you?
38. marjoribanks - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:47 AM PT
Pseuder,
Of course, and checking out in detail some of the territories covered by the masochistic travel freak Wilfred Thesiger in his bizarre 'Arabian Sands."
39. envision - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:47 AM PT
Former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter says U.S. officials prodded inspection teams to retun to Iraq last month to provoke a crisis to justify bombing.
"What Richard Butler did last week with the inspections were a set-up," Ritter told The New York Post on Wednesday. "This waa designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing."
Ritter said U.S. government sources told him three weeks ago when the inspections resumed that "the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan and impeachment.
"You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have no choice," he said.
Ritter insists Butler's report--while necessary--was politically motivated.
40. Msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:55 AM PT
Marj
I agree with some of the points you made in Message #35, except that I think Hussein will be weakened by this, and Iraq will suffer the consequences of its megalomanic leader again.
I hope you have a safe trip to the Middle East otherwise.
41. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:56 AM PT
Oh, the boy won't be in any danger. It's bloody Dubai he's going to, not Basra.
42. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:56 AM PT
The UAE, all those hardships to contend with!
43. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 7:57 AM PT
Of course, if he's visiting some manual labourers from the subcontinent who keep the Gulf countries humming along, that's another story...
44. marjoribanks - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:00 AM PT
MsIT,
Thanks. But why do you think Hussain is weakened by this? On the contrary, he looks better to the Iraqi people because he is displaying some strength and old-fashioned Arab obduracy. His "weapons capability" may or may not be degraded, if it exists at all after these years of searching. After all, if they knew where these systems existed, they could have launched snap inspections over the past few months.
I advise listening closely to Tariq Aziz, his foreign minister, if and when he speaks after these attacks. He'll be celebrating more than anything.
45. marjoribanks - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:03 AM PT
Pseuder,
You obviously haven't been to the Emirates. They aren't Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.
In the case of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Sharjah especially, subcons are filthy rich (as well as maids and waiters) and control huge parts of the economy for the Emiratis.
46. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:06 AM PT
Quite. I've never been to the emirates. But why the hell would anyone go there?
"In the case of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Sharjah especially, subcons are filthy rich (as well as maids and waiters) and control huge parts of the economy for the Emiratis."
The vast majority are maids, waiters, tractor operators and the like.
47. marjoribanks - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:09 AM PT
Pseuder,
Snorkelling. The Emirates offer great snorkelling.
48. Msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:10 AM PT
Marj
I think it's just wishful thinking on my part, plus the fact that my Arab roots shudder and rebel at the mere thought of Hussein. I keep thinking the Iraqis are smarter than this, but you are probably right.
Btw, I wouldn't go anywhere near the Middle East if you paid me a substantial fortune. I grew up with the culture, that's enough for me, thank you very much.
49. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:11 AM PT
All the gulf states, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, will be bankrupt by 2002 anyway. Impoverishment and social unrest in Saudi Arabia. How fun!
(By the way, the UAE has about double the average income of Kuwait & Saudi Arabia.)
50. CoralReef - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:13 AM PT
What is the rationale for attacking on at Ramadan? Pissing off a billion people?
51. lowlife - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:14 AM PT
pseudo--does Ritz Carlton State, your alma mater, have a campus in Kuwait?
52. marjoribanks - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:16 AM PT
Pseuder,
Links, I want to see links.
MsIT,
I agree its no fun travelling in the Middle East for a liberated woman. But for guys, it's marvellous!
53. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:16 AM PT
Message #50
But Ramadan doesn't start until Sunday! The timing was clearly to squeeze the action in before then.
54. ChristiPeters - Dec. 17, 1998 - 8:18 AM PT
Has Saddam declared a Jihad against the USA yet?
55. marjoribanks - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:01 AM PT
Peters,
The Iraqi regime is not Islamic.
56. jexster - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:05 AM PT
JJB,
Thanks for being so concerned about me. But don't waste your slim resevoir of good feelings nor strain credulity further.
57. spudboy - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:07 AM PT
FTC: WRT Message #27 ... Context please. I wasn't talking about the citizenry. I'm talking about those in positions of officialdom. Particularly members of Congress. Even more particularly, those in leadership positions in Congress.
58. msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:07 AM PT
Is anyone else as queasy about this guy "lowlife" as me? I'm telling you, this guy is creepy, has all the makings of a stalker.
59. lowlife - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:13 AM PT
Excuse me?
60. ChristiPeters - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:16 AM PT
marj -
Thanks
(I guess my ignorance is *really* showing this time.)
61. CharlieL - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:17 AM PT
MsIT, lowlife = teller = the former L.Fein.
62. lowlife - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:18 AM PT
lowlife=teller=educator=pgramm=lewisfein
63. msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:18 AM PT
Yes YOU!
Your obsession with PE and your bleating questions seeking affirmation are borderline sicko, bub. Your pseudo-intellectualism is not even packaged well.
You are not amusing, indeed, you are very disturbing.
64. CoralReef - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:19 AM PT
= someone not wanting to pay for a sub!
65. msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:19 AM PT
Chuck
I know, I just don't remember Fein as being this crazy.
66. lowlife - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:20 AM PT
why is my "pseduo-intellectualism" not packaged well?
67. msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:21 AM PT
Because you aren't even entertaining in your ranting, you're just idiotic.
68. lowlife - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:21 AM PT
crazy?
69. lowlife - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:21 AM PT
why am I idiotic?
70. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:25 AM PT
Re Message #68 We'll make our own judgements about.
Lowlife-we have been asking the same question re Message #69.
71. ChristiPeters - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:28 AM PT
marjoribanks -
(or anyone else who knows)
What is the majority religion, if any, in Iraq?
72. msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:29 AM PT
ChristiP
I believe Islam.
73. ChristiPeters - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:33 AM PT
MsIt -
See Message #55.
I thought it was Islam, too. Apparently, I'm wrong. So now I'm curious.
74. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:35 AM PT
Iraq is majority Muslim, with small minorities of Christians, and I believe Bahai. There is a split in the Muslim communities. I think that the majority are Sunni Muslims, but that there is a Shi'ite minority in the marsh areas to the south.
75. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:36 AM PT
The confusion is that Iraq has a secular government. The majority of citizens are Muslim.
76. philistine - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:36 AM PT
ChristieP
Marj said the Iraqi regime is not Islamic; that has nothing to do with what the majority religion is. Take the United States as an example, and you will see what I mean.
77. Jenerator - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:37 AM PT
It *is* predominantly Muslim.
A good friend who attends the American University at Sharjah (U.A.E.)says that he and his fellow students suport the US's decision and respect that we will not bomb on Ramadan.
78. msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:37 AM PT
Jonesatlaw
It was a toss-up whether I was going to say Islam or Muslim. I hate to say it, but I have a hard time distinguishing between the two. Provincial, I know.
79. philistine - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:39 AM PT
Islam is a relgion, muslims (or moslems) are its adherents.
80. ChristiPeters - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:39 AM PT
OK, I guess now it's time to reveal how confused I really am ...
I thought Muslim equates to Islamic. I asked in <MSG NUM+54> if there had been a declaration of Jihad against the US by Sadam.<BR><BR>Marjoribanks, in <MSG NUM=55>, said "The Iraqi regime is not Islamic."<BR><BR>????<BR><BR>(I *hate* it when I get confused)
81. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:41 AM PT
I believe that Islam is the proper noun for the religion while its members are Muslim- but would welcome correction from someone more knowledgeable
82. ChristiPeters - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:42 AM PT
geez! wha' happened now!
I'll try again and preview this time:
OK, I guess now it's time to reveal how confused I really am ...
I thought Muslim equates to Islamic. I asked in Message #54 if there had been a declaration of Jihad against the US by Sadam.
Marjoribanks, in Message #55, said "The Iraqi regime is not Islamic."
????
(I *hate* it when I get confused)
83. msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:44 AM PT
Okay
My ignorance is glaring in this area. I admit to being patently uninterested in religions, hence my scant knowledge.
I shouldn't have tried to dredge my mind for an answer in the first place.
84. philistine - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:44 AM PT
Christi -
The source of the formatting problems was a + instead of an = in your msg num tag.
85. ChristiPeters - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:53 AM PT
OK.
I got it.
The majority religion *is* Islam, but the gov't is secular.
Actually, that's a bit of a relief. If I understand a former Iranian friend (US citizen, now) correctly, if Jihad is declared the belief a straight trip to heaven if you're killed. As a veteran, that concerned me. We have already seen, by the Japanese suicide planes in WWII and terrorist activity since, this make an enemy more difficult to deal with.
An insane ruthless leader and a brainwashed citizenry are enough to have to deal with without adding religious fanaticism to the mix.
(I get the other msg, too. Watch my syntax and proof before posting - to say nothing about refreshing, as I see someone had already answered me. Are you sure it isn't Monday?)
86. lowlife - Dec. 17, 1998 - 9:55 AM PT
does everybody in the fray like me?
87. carr46 - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:04 AM PT
Did Bill Gates start this war to divert attention from his impeachment...oops, I mean the Microsoft trial?
88. FreeToChoose - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:24 AM PT
spudboy
“Context please. I wasn't talking about the citizenry. I'm talking about those in positions of officialdom. Particularly members of Congress. Even more particularly, those in leadership positions in Congress.”
Fine.
Do you assert that there was no criticism of the Viet Nam war by members of Congress?
Let's not be absurd.
Let's seriously examine the unstated rules.
I think you will find that when a President initiates relationships with foreign countries, or initiates foreign policy initiatives that affect foreign countries, there is an implicit understanding members of Congress will be publicly supportive.
However, after a period of some time, members of Congress, even those in leadership positions, can make public criticism of the administration's position.
Thus, you saw solidarity behind Viet Nam for quite some time, but eventually, with no resolution, members of Congress criticized publicly our position on Viet Nam.
We've been in Iraq for 8 years, 6 under Clinton's watch. I think the time is past to suggest that public criticism is no longer acceptable practice.
89. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:36 AM PT
Even if you discount Vietnam entirely, Nixon was FREQUENTLY criticised during Watergate of conducting foreign policy with an eye toward deflecting domestic attention away from his political troubles. For example, the conservative Jackson Democrats, led by Senator Jackson, openly accused Nixon of signing treaties with the Soviet Union in order for this reason. When U.S. satellites detected nuclear weapons aboard Soviet ships heading toward Egypt (this is soon after the Yom Kippur War), Nixon declared a world-wide nuclear alert -- for which he was derided in Congress, again accused of trying to deflect attention away from Watergate. There are countless such instances in his administration.
90. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:37 AM PT
I am simply amazed at the discussion that transpired about Islam in this thread.
91. Ronski - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:40 AM PT
And we didn't even get into Sunnis and Shiites.
92. msivorytower - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:40 AM PT
Yeah well, I'm pretty embarrassed about it myself.
Maybe I can use the excuse that my brain is mush from reading ten thousand papers and exams in the last few days (an exaggeration, but it *feels* like it).
93. JJBiener - Dec. 17, 1998 - 10:52 AM PT
Spudboy - Have you forgotten the Congress in th 1980's trying to dictate Central American policy to the Reagan Administration? Have you forgotten the leaking of classified material from "congressional sources" that undermined US covert activities around the world? The questioning of the President's timing with this attack doesn't even show up on radar.
94. ChristiPeters - Dec. 17, 1998 - 11:18 AM PT
pseudoerasmus and Ronski -
Yeah, well, I know some things very well, some things not at all, and some things I just have a vague grasp on. I have long since passed the point of being embarrassed by showing my ignorance. Acquiring knowledge is more important to me than my *image*. I am very well aware that the course of my life 'til now has not led to any breadth of knowledge. Now that mere survival isn't consuming all my time, I'm trying to rectify the situation.
95. Ronski - Dec. 17, 1998 - 11:45 AM PT
Christi,
I hope you're not suggesting that I know anything.
As I posted a while back, I would like nothing better than to go back to school and study something in depth, probably constitutional law or economics, but I still have to work fulltime to survive.
In the meantime, I enjoy the Fray in large part because one can get pointed in the right direction for further study, and shown the gaps in one's education.
(g)
96. ChristiPeters - Dec. 17, 1998 - 11:52 AM PT
Ronski -
I have never met anyone I couldn't learn something from.
I studied equestrian science in depth. I studied electronic engineering in depth (not enough depth - I want to go on to at least a Masters)
I long for more breadth of knowledge now. The old thread on a liberal arts education convinced me that I want to go back to school and take classes on a wider variety of subjects.
97. toonces - Dec. 17, 1998 - 12:06 PM PT
/*
Tomahawk missiles contain depleted uranium, DU, in their tips. When a depleted uranium projectile strikes, up to 70% of the DU penetrator is oxidized and scattered as particulates. According to the U.S. Army, this creates "smoke which contains a high concentration of DU particles. These uranium particles can be ingested and are toxic."
…
Some DU ingested through breathing and wounds lodges permanently in bones and tissue, and acts as a chemical and radiological toxin for the remainder of a person's presumably-shortened lifetime. The Military Toxics Project reports that "large numbers of children near contaminated areas have developed leukemias and other health problems" likely associated with exposure to DU.
*/
98. toonces - Dec. 17, 1998 - 12:20 PM PT
/*
Many Gulf War veterans and their families are currently exhibiting symptoms of depleted uranium poisoning, including kidney and liver problems, immune system disfunction, and reproductive problems. The long-term health effects of depleted uranium, including cancers, may not have fully manifested in exposed veterans and civilians at this time.
*/
99. toonces - Dec. 17, 1998 - 12:22 PM PT
/*
UN personnel and aid workers have seen children playing with empty shells, abandoned weapons and destroyed tanks. In Basra, a foreign doctor saw a child using depleted uranium shells as hand puppets.
*/
100. toonces - Dec. 17, 1998 - 12:36 PM PT
This site has quite a few good links to information on the nuclear war we are waging on Iraq:
Metal of Dishonor