Return-Path: <sentto-279987-5247-1030370775-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30401 invoked by uid 510); 26 Aug 2002 14:04:28 -0000 Received: from n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.93) by all.net with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 14:04:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-5247-1030370775-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.194] by n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Aug 2002 14:06:15 -0000 X-Sender: fastflyer28@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 26 Aug 2002 14:06:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 72145 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2002 14:06:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2002 14:06:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web14508.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.224.71) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 14:06:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20020826140614.91979.qmail@web14508.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.100.117.19] by web14508.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:06:14 PDT To: iwar@yahoogroups.com, Information Warfare Mailing List <iwar@onelist.com> In-Reply-To: <200208260505.g7Q55sx25846@red.all.net> From: "e.r." <fastflyer28@yahoo.com> X-Yahoo-Profile: fastflyer28 Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [iwar] [fc:New.York.Times.under.fire.over.stance.on.Iraq] Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,SUPERLONG_LINE version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: I can hardly believe that the Bushies are seriously contemplating any major Iraq action. In one foolish stroke, they will damage any credibility we might have had in the arab world and larger Islamic community. We would also alienate most of our European allies, as well. The most disconcerting thing of this entire escapade is in taking unilateral action-an unsupported move- we can also throw away any positive relationships we had other guld area nation. Finally, we are placing Isreal is grave danger as the Iraqi's may hit them with a chem, or bio attack as a regional show of force. Our response must be measured and carefully orchestrated if we choose this plan of action. I would love to see a unified group of nations in agreement that their is a rational for entering into this fight . One more problem-at present their is not substantive war plan. That is normally considered SOP for an military ops. If you examnine the presently stated rational, there are at least 10 other nations that fit the Bush definition of rogue nation-aka-own chems, bios, potentially nukes and the means to deliver them. Just to make matters worse, we will piss off Russia and China, no end. The bottom line herein, is that we will give up most of our critical foreign policy bi-lateral breaktroughs of the last 20 years. All that in order to "saddam" hunt. As Mr. Bush was quoted in "Runner's World" magizine-no joke-his jogging time improved during the Afgan incursion. While in Texas, he recently stated that his Iraq strategy will become clear in the near future. In so many words, he is looking for a good reason to start a war with a nation when our only plausable fight is with Saddam and his"bunker buddies". We have no gripe with the Iraqi people althogh they will bear the brunt of any warfighting. With 50 palaces all over Iraqthe way , not to mention several underground command and control structures, he is hart to find. Since becomming President, Mr. Bush has shown almost no understanding, or interest in many policy areas, and the true rat bastard dictotors of the world have taken note. While the Saudi's nicely asked us to leave over two years ago, now they are officially refusing us basing right for this "war of the year" for Mr. Rumsfeld. The real tale of the tape will be a finding out if Turkey allows us to use INCIRLlK NATO air base. Mr. Bush has failed to note that in present day, the US cannot go in to the attack a soverign nation and remove it's government if we simply do not like their methods of governance-brutal, but is this a supise? nope As mentioned before, there are more than the three nations in"the axis of evil" that have succeeded in making the poor man nuke-chems or bios, yet there is no justifiable reason for the US, alone,to start a war. It is interesting to note that the Bush War Cabinet does not include frm. General Colin Powell-present Sec State. Perhaps the General is trying to send out a message through his absense, but the Boss and his pal Rummy are uninterested. I thought it was against US LAW to assassinate the sitting ruler of a country regardless of how we view his actions. Another fine potential mess we may end up in, brought to you by Jr. Bush and-to quote Forrest Gump- "his best good friend" Don Runsfeld. If you are feeling patriotic about your country within a few weeks of the 1st anniversary of 9/11, call, or write you Congressman, or Senator, and tell them to "cut off DOD funding if they attempt to make a move towards Iraq. I firmly believe that the Congress will invoke the War Powers Act if this occurs and the funding will run out quicker that Mr. Bush would have hoped. Note: The Sunday New York Times had some great op-ed pieces on this issue. Fred Coh, . en wrote:. a New York Times under fire over stance on Iraq By Stephen Robinson in Washington (Filed: 24/08/2002) Leading hawks in Washington who back a military attack on Iraq have turned their guns on the New York Times, charging that America's most influential newspaper is deliberately distorting its news coverage to undermine the case for war. There have been rumblings of concern within the Bush administration and rival sections of the press for some weeks, but the dismay has broken into the open with some trenchant criticism this week of alleged appeasement of Saddam Hussein. The New York Times, reflecting the views of its predominantly liberal, metropolitan readership and editorial staff, has long been hostile to the Bush administration and to Mr Bush's presidential candidacy in 2000, with its leaders and star columnists almost unanimously hostile - and frequently scathing - about him and his circle. But the charge is now more serious that the paper's news columns have been turned into propaganda instruments of the anti-war party. Comments sceptical about the use of military force by once powerful Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft, who served the first president Bush as national security adviser, have been highlighted with front page treatment, even though Mr Scowcroft has been out of the public eye for many years. Last week the paper gave prominence to a report that the Republican Party was splitting over Iraqi policy, partly based on a highly selective interpretation of comments by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state. The New York Times seized on some of Dr Kissinger's caveats to suggest he opposed an American attack, when in fact he had declared there to be "an imperative for preemptive action" against Saddam Hussein. Other recent news stories have sounded the alarm that a war could wreck the American economy, while a selection of interviews with members of the public appeared skewed to suggest almost no Americans support military action, which is sharply at odds with opinion poll data. Another story reminded readers that Washington sided with Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war, which would not have surprised many readers as it was common knowledge at the time. Charles Krauthammer, a hawkish commentator in the Washington Post, thundered: "Not since William Randolph Hearst famously cabled his correspondent in Cuba and declared, 'You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war', has a newspaper so blatantly devoted its front page to editorialising about a coming American war." By convention, American newspapers have opinionated editorial pages while the news pages are supposed to be "objective", though in practice most big city newspapers reflect a faint liberal bias. Critics blame the editor, Howell Raines, a southern liberal who took over a year ago after running the opinion pages and now seems to be changing the whole paper's outlook. The Bush administration loathes the paper, as was obvious during the 2000 campaign when Mr Bush was caught on microphone referring to a well-known New York Times reporter as "a major league asshole", a slip which seemingly did him no harm with the public. Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:32 PDT