What are the odds for a nuclear attack?

[SDR]

". . .There you go again. . .!" (R Reagan, w/ twinkle in eye) "Can't use the Declaration of Independence in [California] class[rooms]'?

The United Nations was born on American soil and continues to do its best against increasing odds (and without a portion of her agreed dues owed every year by the USA), often opposed only by. . .the USA (and, sometimes, Israel). This brands the UN as "a decidedly anti-American institution"?

"The majority of member nations of the UN openly wish for a weakened United States"? Where do you GET this stuff, Richard? On Fox News? From Rush Limbaugh? You really shouldn't believe everything you hear in the "Liberal Media." Which governments openly said what, exactly?

Really, you make this just too easy. . .and I'm not even trying!

Pride goeth before a fall, they say. . .

[SDR]

Oh, yeah, how about the part where Secretary of State Colin Powell spends ALL of his "political (and professional) capital" LYING to the UN on behalf of his war-hungry bosses, only to be dismissed post-election with no vote of confidence from those same "men". . .our international "respect quotient" (and yes, we will suffer without all the respect we can earn) has taken a major hit -- not a favorable beginning to a new century.

SDR

[Architorture]

i think you have to admit that powell left on his own terms... what would have been bush's reason for forcing him out? powell is always the good soldier, he never gets out of line

[Richard Haut]

my guess (and it is only a guess) is that Powell thought that he could be a moderating influence.

however, his performance at the UN - and his lies about Iran after he had resigned - indicate that he had become too heavily compromised.

perhaps he found that what the Bush Gang are up to is about to become even worse.

- or let me put it more literally, some of what has already been done is about to become public.

he is a soldier and over 25,000 US casualties - 9% dead or hospitalized - may have made him wonder what it is all for.

[Donald]

Here we go again with the media (and RH) blaring again about all the troops that have died in Iraq. So what's missing in these messages? One word: perspective. Consider the facts:

American military deaths in previous wars:

* World War II - 408,306
* Korean War - 54,246
* Vietnam War - 58,219
* Operation Iraqi Freedom - 1,251 as of yesterday.

Bloody milestone? Hardly. Remember ... the same media voices who are screaming "milestone!" are the ones who, prior to our military action in Iraq, were saying that American casualties would exceed 10,000 within months after the beginning of the war. Every loss of life is regrettable. But the words of Winston Churchill in a speech before the British Parliament in 1939 rings true today:

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

There, my friends, is one of my favorite quotes of all time...and its not from a US President this time.

[Donald]

Oh yea, almost forgot the most important part of the last post, rumors abound in the media and on the left that Powell was somehow run out of office by the "hawks," that would be Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. All of this talk completely ignores two facts. One, Powell serves at the pleasure of the president, and no one else. Two, it had been widely know for quite some time that Powell's original intention was to serve but one term as Secretary of State. The MEDIALEFTSDRRH et al conspiracies just don't wash.

[Richard Haut]

25,000 - so the pinko-leftie-terrorism-loving-media-freaks at the Pentagon say.

A third of the US properties allegedly under the control and management of Halliburton in Iraq do not even exist.

Which limp-wristed liberals say that ? The US army auditors.

Cheney is not a hawk - he is just a thief.

Shame about the announcement from the British Embassy in Baghdad, isn't it ? Security is so out of control that not only is it unsafe to get on a flight in Baghdad, but one of the most important roads - going to the airport - is no longer safe for anyone to use.

What was that huge explosion in the middle of the Green Zone the other day ?

Typical bloody Brits - you set them up, compromise their troops, and they go and tell everybody what losers you are.

I see that Dubya is too timid to address the Canadian Parliament.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - Dubya's frightened of the Canadians !

à bientôt !

[Donald]

Sour grapes now sounds like we better get on with that "more sensitive" approach to the war on terrorism RH.

Back to the origins of this thread...remember when Cheney reminded voters what the election should be about. The truth is that the United States was attacked 3 years ago, and that was nowhere near as bad as it could have been. All an Islamic terrorist would have to do would be to smuggle a small nuclear device or a biological weapon into a major city and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions could be killed.

Yet, many Americans don't see the threat. They're more worried about their health care..or their jobs...or what government handout US is going to give them. They're more worried about their security than their freedom. The president's #1 responsibility is to protect and defend the United States of America, and sadly not enough people understand that...including Canada.

So should we be as aggressive in the fight against terrorism as George Bush has been? Of course not...after all, RH and JK have already said we need a more sensitive approach to the war on terror...toot suit'

[Richard Haut]

The "war on terrorism" ?

You better wait until the Russians announce the proof that they have against a Western intelligence service - and its active involvement in arranging the 'terrorist' murder of several hundred children at Beslan.

Now, I wonder who that could be - which country has a long history of training, paying and equipping terrorists like bin Laden to attack Russians ?

Hmmm ....... perhaps they did it three years ago as well.

Hey, but you wouldn't mind, would you donald ? anything for a buck.

[phansford]

[Richard Haut]

I heard about the visit from the BBC (which is the "official" British media), and it was made clear that anti-war (and anti-Bush) feelings run high in Canada.

the way that it came across was that Bush does not go anywhere that he might hear people who disagree with him - whereas in Europe heckling is not seen as being anything unusual. If people disagree, then they can demonstrate and say so.

however, there is much more comment about the large amount of money that has gone into Ukraine from the US government with the apparent intention of causing the current electoral disruption (and with the clear statement that Rumania is next). Now that is taken very seriously.

Also the EU-Iran agreement over the stopping of uranium enrichment is seen, not as an EU success (since it is really the UN), but as an emphatic US defeat (and that Britain had changed sides).

Prosecutions for war crimes are discussed a lot - there is an impeachment motion against Blair in Britain, and US human rights lawyers lodged proceedings against Rumsfeld and others for the Abu Ghraib abuses in a German court today.

In addition, there is a very ugly story that Bush and his cronies are trying to coerce countries into supporting the stopping of any prosecutions of US citizens for war crimes - and the method used is to tell the countries concerned that unless they support America, any aid payments will be stopped (nice, isn't it ?).

the general view (rather quieter in France than elsewhere) is that Bush, Blair, etc. have to be stopped.

This can either be done by US citizens waking up to what is done in their name (and there is full understanding that the truth does not reach most in the US), or by a Nurnberg-style prosecution (which makes a statement but is unlikely to succeed), or by the international community freezing out US extremism (as has at least temporarily happened over Iran), or by what is in effect a fight: step one is the attack on the Dollar (if the Far East sells its US holdings, then the orderly decline in the Dollar will become freefall) - or it means war.

in the last few days a very senior Turkish politician said that Bush's behaviour in Iraq was "worse than the Nazis".

the hope is that Bush's international credibility is so low that he will have little chance of getting any support for his extremist actions - but that may be wishful thinking.

[phansford]

There is some interesting legal actions occuring here in the states.

One is out of California (AP Nov.8, 2004) in which a National Guard is challenging his involuntary extension of his enlistment under the "Stop Loss" program. It is a backdoor draft. The arguement the soldier is making is that the Military can not extend his commitment because Congress has not declared war and committments can only be extended during war or national emergencies.

Another is a veteran who after 8 years of being discharged is being called back to duty. He is suing the government stating that we are not at war - because Congress has not declared war.

If these lawsuits are sucessful, then things are going to get very interesting very fast.

[Richard Haut]

I had always assumed that the difference between the "good guy" armies and the "bad guy" armies what that we (the good guys) did not have to obey an illegal order.

With a war with no legal backing, that has to come up before an honest judge sooner or later.

Strangely the biggest advantage is that both Bush and Blair have shamed their legal professions (and Blair is a lawyer). There are some very angry lawyers in both countries.

I find it very encouraging that the people who have so far had the greatest effect are the US Army auditors. They see an illegal contract (which is effectively stealing from troops in the field) and they won't let go until they have unravelled the dishonesty.

If lawyers keep on and on, then they will succeed.

Bush and Blair are terrified of honest professionals - but they won't go without a fight. Remember that the top British bio-weapons scientist said that the evidence that Powell presented to the UN was false, and why it was false. He was found dead not long afterwards. The first killed going into Iraq ? Journalists.

[Architorture]

[Donald]

This quote from RH back in August goes something like this: