Replies to post #10543 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[webster groves]

<<probably no nation in the history of the earth has conquered more territory only to give it all back>>

That was the "Old America".

Now we have "New America" to go with the "New Europe".

We'll have war, and lots of it. I presume you are pleased.
Obviously you don't have any kids of draft age at home.

-wg

[ergo sum]

March 10, 2003

Bush Sr warning over unilateral action
From Roland Watson in Washington



THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity.
Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations.

He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany.

“You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,” he said.

The former President’s comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. Mr Bush Sr is a former US Ambassador to the UN and comes from a family steeped in multi-lateralist traditions.

Although not addressed to his son in person, the message, in a speech at Tufts University in Massachusetts, was unmistakeable. Mr Bush Sr even came close to conceding that opponents of his son’s case against President Saddam Hussein, who he himself is on record as loathing, have legitimate cause for concern.

He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held “could be debated”. The case against Saddam was “less clear” than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were “a little fuzzier today”, he added.

After the Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr steered Israel and its Arab neighbours to the Madrid conference, a stepping stone to the historic Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords, in much the same way that the present President has talked about the removal of Saddam as opening the way to a wider peace in the region.

In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.”

Also drawing on the lessons of 1991, he said that it was imperative to mend fences with allies immediately, rather than waiting until after a war. He had been infuriated with the decision of King Hussein of Jordan to side with Saddam rather than the US, but while criticising the Jordanian leader in public and freezing $41 million in US aid, he also passed word to King Hussein that he understood his domestic tensions.

Mr Bush Jr, who is said never to forget even relatively minor slights, has alarmed analysts with the way in which he has allowed senior Administration figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, aggressively to criticise France and Germany.

There are, however, signs that Mr Bush Sr’s message may be getting through.

Father and son talk regularly and it was, in part, pressure from Mr Bush Sr’s foreign policy coterie, that helped to persuade the President to go to the UN last September.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html

[Koikaze]

mlsoft, we see things differently. The differences in our opinions are probably great enough that we're unlikely to resolve them. I'm not given to chest-thumping, but I will make a few comments.

I have much less fear of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" than I have of the Weapons of Mind Destruction so prevalent in our society. You constantly do battle against these weapons as you make your trading decisions. Occasionally, you even comment on the topic. It should not surprise you that the flood of misinformation and disinformation to which we're subjected is not limited to the market.

For me, navigating such a morass of noise requires making the best judgment I can about the events around me. You ask for evidence. The best I can offer you ... and it's better than any I've seen to justify our aggression ... is the evidence of my senses.

When I see my nation send an army to find a man, within a week of an atrocious event attributed to that man, I think, "That's odd. One doesn't send an army to find a man." When I see that army turn to face a different foe, I think, "Wait a minute. What the hell's going on here?"

As I continue to ponder these circumstances, surrounded by an incessant din of hate propaganda, when I hear "newscasters" saying "IF this building were used to manufacture chemical weapons, here is the kind of equipment they would have ...", I think, "That's classic incitement."

Then, I think, Poppycock!!! This doesn't make sense. Someone is pulling my chain."

I don't like being manipulated. I don't like being lied to. I don't like being misled. To say that we, the American people, are being gulled is to understate the case.

After our army turned to face Iraq, I expressed the opinion (on this board) that this was a thinly disguised attempt to seize control of Iraq's oil resources. I still think that's true, but Mr. Bookman has supplied a more complete background for our agenda. What he said fits the events I've seen.

You don't agree. Given the way spin-meisters control the flow of information to us, it's probable that neither of us will ever know, for sure, which is the correct interpretation.

Fred