Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Bush war
So what I am I thinking of that is is Wyoming, if anything? I presume >>this means >>that if Saddam Hussein blows up NORAD in retaliation, or on a routine >>bombing mission, that he can expect that we will let it pass as >>self-defense; I mean, why else would he be bombing targets in Wyomong. > >FWIW, Cheyenne Mountain is in Colorado. > >> --jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Bush war
Cf. the books by Jim Mann (of the L.A. Times) book and Patrick Tyler of the Washington Post (or is it the NYT?) on China policy. Michael Pugliese -Original Message- From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 11:59 AM Subject: [PEN-L:8266] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Bush war >Justin wrote: >>Right, a routine bombing, just what one normally does. > >so when the Unabomber sent mail-bombs, these could also be interpreted as >"routine"? (BTW, I'm being ironic, too.) > >>No reason, maybe "self defense"--we had to bomb them because we are over >>there in their country defending ourselves of course. I presume this means >>that if Saddam Hussein blows up NORAD in retaliation, or on a routine >>bombing mission, that he can expect that we will let it pass as >>self-defense; I mean, why else would he be bombing targets in Wyomong. > >FWIW, Cheyenne Mountain is in Colorado. > >>Oh, foolsih me, I forgot, he's the bad guy, we're the good guys. How could >>that have slipped my mind. >> >>This is from the guy who accused Clinton & Gore of unnecessary imperial >>adventures. I suppose I can't be surprised, but I sort of did have hopes >>that he meant that part of it. > >a hopefully more substantive comment: In my experience, even though the >name of the occupant of the White House changes, the changes in US foreign >policy have been typically very trivial. The political forces pressuring >the US on these issues stay the same. The obvious case was Nixon's >about-face on China, but he of course was one of the political forces >against a US opening to China. > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine >
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Bush war
Justin wrote: >Right, a routine bombing, just what one normally does. so when the Unabomber sent mail-bombs, these could also be interpreted as "routine"? (BTW, I'm being ironic, too.) >No reason, maybe "self defense"--we had to bomb them because we are over >there in their country defending ourselves of course. I presume this means >that if Saddam Hussein blows up NORAD in retaliation, or on a routine >bombing mission, that he can expect that we will let it pass as >self-defense; I mean, why else would he be bombing targets in Wyomong. FWIW, Cheyenne Mountain is in Colorado. >Oh, foolsih me, I forgot, he's the bad guy, we're the good guys. How could >that have slipped my mind. > >This is from the guy who accused Clinton & Gore of unnecessary imperial >adventures. I suppose I can't be surprised, but I sort of did have hopes >that he meant that part of it. a hopefully more substantive comment: In my experience, even though the name of the occupant of the White House changes, the changes in US foreign policy have been typically very trivial. The political forces pressuring the US on these issues stay the same. The obvious case was Nixon's about-face on China, but he of course was one of the political forces against a US opening to China. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Bush war
g his first foreign trip as secretary of State--to the Mideast to mark the 10th anniversary of the Gulf War's end. But even if the Bush administration could win foreign support for a more aggressive plan involving opposition forces, the State Department is skeptical about the exiles' ability to stay united or have much impact, officials say. The INC's internal divisions were responsible for fighting that broke out in 1996 among its rival Kurdish wings, opening the door for Hussein to send troops to the northern Iraqi portion of the region known as Kurdistan. Both the INC and the CIA station operating in the region were forced to flee to Turkey. The INC has developed a series of military options for U.S. consideration. They include launching operations from Kurdistan, from a newly created enclave in southern Iraq near the Kuwaiti border, and even from Iran, according to sources within the group. But each would require changing the rules of engagement--and U.S. air support--if Hussein dispatched troops to squelch the resistance. "We want U.S. backup . . . to act in participation with the U.S. military," said Francis Brooke, the U.S. spokesman for the INC. "If Saddam moves his armor in large numbers, then we would expect the U.S. military to be prepared to pursue." Under current rules of engagement, U.S. warplanes bomb areas only when the planes are targeted by Iraq during flights over the two "no-fly" zones established after the Gulf War in northern and southern Iraq. The INC wants the Bush administration to declare "squares in the sand," or zones from which Iraq's military could not move without becoming targets for American planes. That strategy is designed mainly to undermine morale within the Iraqi army and the elite Republican Guard, not to win big battles against Baghdad's estimated 350,000-strong military machine. The INC would, however, need significant training from the United States to pull it off, Chalabi said. "We want training to create an effective force so that we can act as a catalyst to attract members of the Iraqi army to our side," Chalabi said. The group is counting on past supporters who are joining the Bush administration, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense-designate Paul Wolfowitz, to push for a stronger U.S. role. It has also presented its proposals to the Pentagon. "We think we're in a strong position. In general, the Department of Defense is organizing along our lines," said Brooke, the group's spokesman. The State Department appears considerably less receptive. Group leaders met Tuesday with Assistant Secretary of State Edward Walker. The discussion centered on $29 million in U.S. funds earmarked to help opposition forces air anti-Hussein broadcasts, investigate war crimes, ferret out intelligence and distribute humanitarian aid supplies. The funds, which were authorized during the Clinton administration, have been on hold while the INC prepared specific proposals for their use. A group spokesman said Tuesday that the money still has not been released. A State Department official denied that the disagreement over Iraq policy constitutes a major policy rupture, and said he had not heard of any disagreements among the key U.S. foreign policy players. But according to a well-placed U.S. official who requested anonymity, Powell is clearly apprehensive about providing extensive U.S. support to the INC. "Powell knows that this is a feckless group of people whose dreams far exceed their capabilities," the official said. "And he's not at all enthusiastic about relying on them -Original Message- From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 10:09 AM Subject: [PEN-L:8263] RE: Re: RE: Re: Bush war >Well, Cheney can also be seen to have regained access to a position where he can >exact revenge rooted in his position in Daddy B's administration. And then >there's Powell... Maybe Dubba-you can appt Schwartz-cop Ambassador to Iraq... > >-Original Message- >From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 6:41 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:8252] Re: RE: Re: Bush war > > >I can't read their minds. But the continuity of the Bush-Clinton-Bush >policies toward Iraq is pretty clear, while Clinton's policy of killing a >bunch of Iraqi children, though much less dramatic than Bushie's recent >attack, is pretty bloodthirsty. Besides, I bet it was Cheney who really >made the executive decision. The government seems to fulfill the wet dream >of some political scientists, separating the roles of "head of state" and >"head of government," with Bushbaby as the largely-ceremonial Pre
RE: Re: RE: Re: Bush war
Well, Cheney can also be seen to have regained access to a position where he can exact revenge rooted in his position in Daddy B's administration. And then there's Powell... Maybe Dubba-you can appt Schwartz-cop Ambassador to Iraq... -Original Message- From: Jim Devine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 6:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8252] Re: RE: Re: Bush war I can't read their minds. But the continuity of the Bush-Clinton-Bush policies toward Iraq is pretty clear, while Clinton's policy of killing a bunch of Iraqi children, though much less dramatic than Bushie's recent attack, is pretty bloodthirsty. Besides, I bet it was Cheney who really made the executive decision. The government seems to fulfill the wet dream of some political scientists, separating the roles of "head of state" and "head of government," with Bushbaby as the largely-ceremonial President (the former) and Cheney as the hands-on Prime Minister (the latter). (A standard polisci critique of US government is that the two roles are merged in the Presidency.) Mat wrote: >while it is true that bombing continued under clinton, the reports from the >pentagon made it clear that this was on a scale that had not been >undertaken for >some time, and the feeling i got was that other "routine" bombings were not >being directed by the prez, whereas Dubba-u did have a say in this. i could >imagine that the pentagon routinely has several proposals of differing degrees >of harshness, and that Dubba-u is barely able to hold himself back. it >would be >naive i think to dismiss any possibility that the bad blood between daddy bush >and saddam hasn't been transfered to Duba-u. i can just imagine Daddy B. >at the >first news getting himself into a frenzy and rushing into tell Barb "the >Bush's >are back in town, yippee!" He was not happy that 'desert storm' failed to >remove >Saddam. I think people like that must view themselves historically and >symbolically, they certainly saw a lot of symbolism in Dubba-u beating the >VP of >the man who beat Daddy. Does anyone know the specifics on exactly what the >Bush's direct material interest is in Iraq with respect to the oil industry? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Bush war
Right, a routine bombing, just what one normally does. No reason, maybe "self defense"--we had to bomb them because we are over there in their country defending ourselves of course. I presume this means that if Saddam Hussein blows up NORAD in retaliation, or on a routine bombing mission, that he can expect that we will let it pass as self-defense; I mean, why else would he be bombing targets in Wyomong. Oh, foolsih me, I forgot, he's the bad guy, we're the good guys. How could that have slipped my mind. This is from the guy who accused Clinton & Gore of unnecessary imperial adventures. I suppose I can't be surprised, but I sort of did have hopes that he meant that part of it. --jks > >Last night on Nightline, Scowcroft (sic?) was asked by Koppel if Bush >wasn't just continuing Clinton's policies against Iraq? Scowcroft >responded that this was just a 'routine mission' and not a continuation of >Clinton policy, that a new policy is still something that would be for the >future to make... >The implication seemed to be that we ain't seen nothing yet. > >Steve > >Stephen Philion >Lecturer/PhD Candidate >Department of Sociology >2424 Maile Way >Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 >Honolulu, HI 96822 > > >On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Jim Devine wrote: > > > I can't read their minds. But the continuity of the Bush-Clinton-Bush > > policies toward Iraq is pretty clear, while Clinton's policy of killing >a > > bunch of Iraqi children, though much less dramatic than Bushie's recent > > attack, is pretty bloodthirsty. Besides, I bet it was Cheney who really > > made the executive decision. The government seems to fulfill the wet >dream > > of some political scientists, separating the roles of "head of state" >and > > "head of government," with Bushbaby as the largely-ceremonial President > > (the former) and Cheney as the hands-on Prime Minister (the latter). (A > > standard polisci critique of US government is that the two roles are >merged > > in the Presidency.) > > > > Mat wrote: > > >while it is true that bombing continued under clinton, the reports from >the > > >pentagon made it clear that this was on a scale that had not been > > >undertaken for > > >some time, and the feeling i got was that other "routine" bombings were >not > > >being directed by the prez, whereas Dubba-u did have a say in this. i >could > > >imagine that the pentagon routinely has several proposals of differing >degrees > > >of harshness, and that Dubba-u is barely able to hold himself back. it > > >would be > > >naive i think to dismiss any possibility that the bad blood between >daddy bush > > >and saddam hasn't been transfered to Duba-u. i can just imagine Daddy >B. > > >at the > > >first news getting himself into a frenzy and rushing into tell Barb >"the > > >Bush's > > >are back in town, yippee!" He was not happy that 'desert storm' failed >to > > >remove > > >Saddam. I think people like that must view themselves historically and > > >symbolically, they certainly saw a lot of symbolism in Dubba-u beating >the > > >VP of > > >the man who beat Daddy. Does anyone know the specifics on exactly what >the > > >Bush's direct material interest is in Iraq with respect to the oil >industry? > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine > > > > > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: RE: Re: Bush war
Last night on Nightline, Scowcroft (sic?) was asked by Koppel if Bush wasn't just continuing Clinton's policies against Iraq? Scowcroft responded that this was just a 'routine mission' and not a continuation of Clinton policy, that a new policy is still something that would be for the future to make... The implication seemed to be that we ain't seen nothing yet. Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822 On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Jim Devine wrote: > I can't read their minds. But the continuity of the Bush-Clinton-Bush > policies toward Iraq is pretty clear, while Clinton's policy of killing a > bunch of Iraqi children, though much less dramatic than Bushie's recent > attack, is pretty bloodthirsty. Besides, I bet it was Cheney who really > made the executive decision. The government seems to fulfill the wet dream > of some political scientists, separating the roles of "head of state" and > "head of government," with Bushbaby as the largely-ceremonial President > (the former) and Cheney as the hands-on Prime Minister (the latter). (A > standard polisci critique of US government is that the two roles are merged > in the Presidency.) > > Mat wrote: > >while it is true that bombing continued under clinton, the reports from the > >pentagon made it clear that this was on a scale that had not been > >undertaken for > >some time, and the feeling i got was that other "routine" bombings were not > >being directed by the prez, whereas Dubba-u did have a say in this. i could > >imagine that the pentagon routinely has several proposals of differing degrees > >of harshness, and that Dubba-u is barely able to hold himself back. it > >would be > >naive i think to dismiss any possibility that the bad blood between daddy bush > >and saddam hasn't been transfered to Duba-u. i can just imagine Daddy B. > >at the > >first news getting himself into a frenzy and rushing into tell Barb "the > >Bush's > >are back in town, yippee!" He was not happy that 'desert storm' failed to > >remove > >Saddam. I think people like that must view themselves historically and > >symbolically, they certainly saw a lot of symbolism in Dubba-u beating the > >VP of > >the man who beat Daddy. Does anyone know the specifics on exactly what the > >Bush's direct material interest is in Iraq with respect to the oil industry? > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine > >
