Show Posts
18046
Everything Else / Re: France Makeing sence.....What?!?!
« on: February 12, 2003, 06:34:38 PM »
I've been thinking about this again. Some of my thoughts may seem scattered, but I think they're all related.
There were a few accusations in Powell's remarks that he backed up with evidence. Most were not, but still remained simply accusations without any proof. A few of these latter have been seriously contended for several reasons. Some for their complete lack of evidence. Others because there is good evidence that contradicts directly what Powell says. I'm not convinced that Iraq has the capability to destroy as much as the current U.S. executive administration claims.
Bush needs to lay out ALL the evidence. He needs to share it with the executives and intelligence divisions of the entire world. He needs to stop fronting and stop trash talking. He should put a leash on Rumsfeld and Powell as well. His rhetoric and threats obviously fail to affect Hussein, Chirac, or anyone else. They don't seem to affect the population of Europe, which, while many of their governments back Bush, seem by all accounts to be against this war. A more diplomatic approach may be more likely to sway Europe, the leaders still opposed, and who know, possibly even Hussein (though I doubt it). If Bush MUST maintain a policy of violence to stop devestation, at least he could try to show the necessity of doing it rather than simply say he will no matter what.
Incidentally, Bush *IS* adversely affecting the US economy, which even Alan Greenspan tells us (though not in those direct words). War bluster and terrorism alerts seem nearly calculated to cause fear in the population (who needs al Qaeda when you can get scared by the Department of Homeland Defense -- interesting digression, Robin Williams joked that a lot of old Germans thought creating that department was very shrewed). Anyway, Greenspan points out that these activities very much hurt the performance of the stock market, investor mood, employment, purchases, etc. The diplomatic approach I mentioned earlier may allow some stabilization, or at least cause LESS damage.
Now, as for France. While I agree with them that it's not appropriate to go to war, I have a couple of reasons why I think they're not on the up and up. These are the guys that did nuclear testing in the 90's. Yes, just last decade. The entire world asked them not to do those tests. Yet, in typical French style, they waved their private parts at us and did it anyway. They aren't exactly alarmed by WMD activity that the world doesn't approve of.
{Time for more speculation and foundless rumors. Please note how I've started this section and when you disagree with me, realize that I'm basically saying this section is, in fact, a joke}. I wouldn't be surprised if France was engaged in bio/chem weapons production itself, and would feel guilty about attacking Iraq for the same.{/Baseless Slander}
In other words, while I agree that we shouldn't be going to war yet, I think that France is less than pristine about the issue. So again, I'm still not confident about the evidence they present either. Because of this, I'm not hardline pacifist. Either side could be right, but because neither is what I can call forthright, I'm still on the fence, thinking that, all things being equal, no war is better than war in most cases.
Now, on the other other hand, we have North Korea. Who has SAID they're working on nuclear weapons (though now they say they haven't said that), who breaks non proliferation treaties by skipping over the annullment procedure they agreed to. Who is building facilities in the public eye capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. Who basically say that if you don't sell them something they'll blow everyone up (give it a break, and embargo is NOT a declaration of war, it would NOT free your nation of guilt for the millions of deaths you'd cause). Now, if Iraq is so bad, why isn't North Korea. My first response is to say because they're not Muslim. But then again, I think there might be reasons for it. N Korea has acted this way before. It's their version of throwing a tantrum so they get their way. So I'm not sure I agree that even if war in Iraq is justified, military action against N Korea is as well. Yet, Bush is again shaping up for the same approach. Screw diplomacy, do as I say or we'll kick your butt. only, in this case, it's really, do as I say or we won't even talk to you and let you force us to kick your butt.
{sigh} I'm beginning to think of the end of the world in much closer terms.
There were a few accusations in Powell's remarks that he backed up with evidence. Most were not, but still remained simply accusations without any proof. A few of these latter have been seriously contended for several reasons. Some for their complete lack of evidence. Others because there is good evidence that contradicts directly what Powell says. I'm not convinced that Iraq has the capability to destroy as much as the current U.S. executive administration claims.
Bush needs to lay out ALL the evidence. He needs to share it with the executives and intelligence divisions of the entire world. He needs to stop fronting and stop trash talking. He should put a leash on Rumsfeld and Powell as well. His rhetoric and threats obviously fail to affect Hussein, Chirac, or anyone else. They don't seem to affect the population of Europe, which, while many of their governments back Bush, seem by all accounts to be against this war. A more diplomatic approach may be more likely to sway Europe, the leaders still opposed, and who know, possibly even Hussein (though I doubt it). If Bush MUST maintain a policy of violence to stop devestation, at least he could try to show the necessity of doing it rather than simply say he will no matter what.
Incidentally, Bush *IS* adversely affecting the US economy, which even Alan Greenspan tells us (though not in those direct words). War bluster and terrorism alerts seem nearly calculated to cause fear in the population (who needs al Qaeda when you can get scared by the Department of Homeland Defense -- interesting digression, Robin Williams joked that a lot of old Germans thought creating that department was very shrewed). Anyway, Greenspan points out that these activities very much hurt the performance of the stock market, investor mood, employment, purchases, etc. The diplomatic approach I mentioned earlier may allow some stabilization, or at least cause LESS damage.
Now, as for France. While I agree with them that it's not appropriate to go to war, I have a couple of reasons why I think they're not on the up and up. These are the guys that did nuclear testing in the 90's. Yes, just last decade. The entire world asked them not to do those tests. Yet, in typical French style, they waved their private parts at us and did it anyway. They aren't exactly alarmed by WMD activity that the world doesn't approve of.
{Time for more speculation and foundless rumors. Please note how I've started this section and when you disagree with me, realize that I'm basically saying this section is, in fact, a joke}. I wouldn't be surprised if France was engaged in bio/chem weapons production itself, and would feel guilty about attacking Iraq for the same.{/Baseless Slander}
In other words, while I agree that we shouldn't be going to war yet, I think that France is less than pristine about the issue. So again, I'm still not confident about the evidence they present either. Because of this, I'm not hardline pacifist. Either side could be right, but because neither is what I can call forthright, I'm still on the fence, thinking that, all things being equal, no war is better than war in most cases.
Now, on the other other hand, we have North Korea. Who has SAID they're working on nuclear weapons (though now they say they haven't said that), who breaks non proliferation treaties by skipping over the annullment procedure they agreed to. Who is building facilities in the public eye capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. Who basically say that if you don't sell them something they'll blow everyone up (give it a break, and embargo is NOT a declaration of war, it would NOT free your nation of guilt for the millions of deaths you'd cause). Now, if Iraq is so bad, why isn't North Korea. My first response is to say because they're not Muslim. But then again, I think there might be reasons for it. N Korea has acted this way before. It's their version of throwing a tantrum so they get their way. So I'm not sure I agree that even if war in Iraq is justified, military action against N Korea is as well. Yet, Bush is again shaping up for the same approach. Screw diplomacy, do as I say or we'll kick your butt. only, in this case, it's really, do as I say or we won't even talk to you and let you force us to kick your butt.
{sigh} I'm beginning to think of the end of the world in much closer terms.