Job Discussion Forums

Lucy Snow · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 218 Location: US

Now that most of the shooting has stopped in Iraq, the question remains:

Where are the WMD's--the ostensible reason for going to Iraq in the first place?

Will they find any? Or were they a figment of the Bush administration's collective imagination?

R · Joined: 07 May 2003 Posts: 277 Location: United Kingdom

The idea of the Bush Administration's Collective Imagination is a terrifying one. Forget WMDs, I'm now far more concerned about the BACI!

Rob.

Lucy Snow · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 218 Location: US

Think about Dick Cheney's fantasy life....on second thought, maybe I won't.

Shonai Ben · Joined: 15 Feb 2003 Posts: 617

I don't think they will find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.I really believe that Saddam Hussein would have used them if he had them.
The Bush government used them as an excuse to invade Iraq.Remember the axis of evil speech?One down and two to go.I wonder who will be next?Iran or North Korea?I would bet my money on N. Korea.

Lucy Snow · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 218 Location: US

A week or two ago I would've bet on Syria, but they seem to be toeing the line now, so I think you're right--North Korea's next. Didn't Rumsfeld circulate some kind of memo about "regime change" in North Korea?

The thing that'll stop the Bushies is that North Korean wouldn't be as "easy" as Iraq. Americans like clean and easy victories--and with an army as big and as well-equipped as North Korea's, it would get pretty ugly.

I just noticed that in my ealier post that Cheney's first named was beeped!

SueH · Joined: 01 Feb 2003 Posts: 1022 Location: Northern Italy

Who's next?
Probably France, or maybe they'll just selectively target the French dairy industry; possibly they make take out the UN building in New York. I could go on but I really shouldn't pander to my cynical streak.[/quote]

Lucy Snow · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 218 Location: US

One of the more bizarre happenings during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq was the renaming of french fries to "liberty fries."

Did they start calling french kissing something else?

xnihil · Joined: 06 May 2003 Posts: 92 Location: Egypt

Shonai Ben · Joined: 15 Feb 2003 Posts: 617

Yes I agree that taking on N. Korea would be very messy.They have a very large army and seem to have a very capable missile defense system.Not to mention the possible nuclear weapon arsenal.Scary stuff.Another wild card to consider is that China may get involved and back up N. Korea.Then we have the potential for all out war.I can only hope that cooler heads in the Bush administration will think this through and help change the current course that this administration seems doomed to follow.

Gary B · Joined: 19 Feb 2003 Posts: 35

Wha'z up?
The buzz I've been hearing in the U.S. from conservatives who supported the war in regards to WMDs are explanations such as these: chemical weapons were dumped into the Eupharates River, Bio weapons were moved into Syria in mobile bio weapons labs, many of them are buried somewhere and it will take a long time to find them, and Saddam's regime destroyed many of the weapons a day or two before the war started. Many people here are saying it doesn't matter if they are found or not at this stage because the world is a safer place without Saddam and he can no longer carry out human rights atrocities against Iraqis. In fact, there was a poll taken and I think it was something like 70% of Americans said that it isn't important if these weapons are found or not. I don't agree with it, I'm just responding to the post. For the record, I'm one of the 30% of Americans that were against the war and I still am against the current U.S. policies. Believe me, I'm taking a slight risk for posting my opinion becuase despite this notion that we have the freedom of speech in America, I wouldn't say it's true across the board. Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks.
Chow for Now,
Expressed Opinions Can Be Risky In The States From Motown Gary B

thelmadatter · Posted: Sun May 11, 2003 12:26 am Post subject: North Korea

I agree that we will not take on N. Korea because of China. Last the the U.S. needs is an all-out war with China in its 'backyard' - we will lose... That is why Kim Jung Il can afford to take the risks he does. Saddam was vunerable because he did not have any friends.

We (the US) will make noise over NK from time to time but we wont really do anything - the Bush administration will find another diversion until the election...

Roger · Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Posts: 9138

America is big and varied; internally the different Americas seem to diverge often, but on the international front they often rally around the loudest lout-mouth.
America still wants the whole world to be the US' dog's tail, wagging with those who run America. Those who don't do so are punished - French fries become 'freedom fries' and the Germans must kowtow to the bushies in order to be allowed back into the fold of the NATO family.

But America has many agendas, and many different Americas have many, many agendas.
Since America has manifestly been unable to reform China, it is working stealthily at it. ESL teachers are one of their agents.
I knew one guy who was a practising Mormon. He divorced his US wife although he stayed in touch with her and their several children. His family sense was certainly admirable, although it was not quite innocent.
He married a Chinese woman so that he could spread the GOspel of his Mormon CHurch in China. I don't know if he succeeded at this although several of his in-laws lived with him and his CHinese wife.
The most notable impact he had on the one-child family policy. As an outsider he was exempt from this rule, and he told me that China must stop its implementation as it was "against God's holy intentions".
And he succeeded at this quite well - his wife in their first year of marriage became pregnant and bore him twins!

Roger · Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Posts: 9138

...just read on an European website:
The US special task force that had been sent to Iraq to locate MWD's has been recalled.
They have been unable to find ANY weapons of mass destruction in spite of Colin Powell's numerous "proofs".

Methinks they could have deposed Saddam Hussein a lot cheaper, without losing their arrogant face in front of the whole world!

Lucy Snow · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 218 Location: US

What concerns me is that most Americans probably won't care that the Bushies lied to the about the reasons for going to war.

Seth · Joined: 05 Feb 2003 Posts: 575 Location: in exile

There have been powerful elements in Washington who have wanted to take out Iraq for a while now. I read about some of these undertows on the Carnegie institute for world studies website (which I don't know offhand but I'm sure a search engine will find it). When Bush and 9/11 happened, they jumped at their chance.

The thing that scares me is that the main pushers for this war, Bush's cabinet, most of all Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Powell, are people who are not elected. They are appointed.

So basically, nonelected people are making some serious foreign policy decisions. Bush has little sense other than to agree and declare 'Jesus day' or somesuch nonsense.