US threat to [wait for it..] stop Iraq inspections

September 19, 2002 6:01 PM

US threat to [wait for it..] stop Iraq inspections
Ri-iiiight. What was that about giving clear and determined leadership to the world? About the need for "Mr Saddam Hussein ... to let inspectors back in his country to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction"? That man is making a fool of his government, policies and his own people. What next?
posted by dash_slot- (98 comments total)

Mr Bush called [said]
"...Washington would find ways to thwart any attempt to return the inspectors without any such resolution. "
'I'm gonna puncture your ball.'

The US faces opposition in the Security Council on the Iraqi issue - notably from Russia and France which have veto power.
'I don't care if on my own.'

Mr Bush said negotiations with the Iraqis were over.
'I'm not talking to you anymore.'

"If the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will."
'I don't care if you won't be in my gang, Tony will.'

Sheesh, I fear for your democracy, your economy and our lives.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:11 PM on September 19, 2002

The one thing that is constantly driving me nuts, the $100 billion question ... what is their motivation? Ever since Dubya was "elected," I feel like the whole world is on Candid Camera. What the hell are they thinking? What is truly driving this course of action? Anyone?
posted by quirked at 6:12 PM on September 19, 2002

I remember meeting irony as a small child, and all the fun times we had together, running through the rain on wedding days and the like.

I weep as all of you do today at his tragic, tragic death. He was cut down well in his prime, in an era where so much irony was still so very, very needed.

In lieu of flowers, the family of irony wishes for you all to make donations to lesser emotional states such as maudlin, pensive, and reciprocal.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:13 PM on September 19, 2002

This pretty much sums it up for me.
posted by trondant at 6:13 PM on September 19, 2002

The American secretary of state, Colin Powell, has said the United States will find ways to stop weapons inspectors going back to Iraq unless there is a new United Nations Security Council resolution on the issue.

This just shows that all Bush wants is war or a UN resolution to force a war so he can get reelected.
posted by Bag Man at 6:14 PM on September 19, 2002

Hey dlash_slot, before you go making comments like that how about you read the President's speech to the UN. No where in that speech does it say that we are after inspectors back in Iraq.

But never mind that, let's have this turn in to yet another pointless "I hate Bush" thread.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:17 PM on September 19, 2002

i wish i could tell y'all what sums it all up for me. but that kind of speech is very, very dangerous to one's liberty these days.
posted by quonsar at 6:19 PM on September 19, 2002

try "i hate frivolous wars" steve.
posted by donkeyschlong at 6:19 PM on September 19, 2002

BBC report of the UN speech, about 12 points down...
Iraq has broken every aspect of its pledge to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and allow inspectors into the country.

Verbatim:


"But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced..." - just after several paragraphs discussion of UN Resolutions agreed at the end of the War.

Steve?
posted by dash_slot- at 6:30 PM on September 19, 2002

This sums things up for me pretty well.
posted by techgnollogic at 6:34 PM on September 19, 2002

"Addressing a Congressional committee, Mr Powell said the Security Council must spell out to Iraq the serious consequences if it fails to co-operate with the inspectors."

Do any of you remember the last time that weapons inspectors were in Iraq, and were unable to complete their duties when barred from inspecting any suspicious non-military sites that could have housed dangerous weapons? And hmm, guess what, there is a hitch to the "free access" allowed to the inspectors this time around, as well. No non military sites can be inspected...that means no hospitals, a logical place to conduct biological weapons research undetected. I don't believe that Bush is a raging warlord bent on destruction, and the white house is not saying that we don't want inspectors in Iraq...they are saying that the conditions under which the inspectors are allowed in are not acceptable, and it is pointless for them to "go through the motions". What Saddam is doing is like playing hide and seek, but having a certain area where you are allowed to hide, but no one is allowed to look. Doesn't sound fair, does it? Would you play that game? Neither would Bush.
posted by StrangerInAStrainedLand at 6:35 PM on September 19, 2002

Your right donkeyschlong, all the "frivolous" wars that we have fought... We shouldn't have checked the German or Japanese aggression in the '30 & '40, what a waste of time.

so he can get reelected.

What a load of shit this, God I am sick of hearing this. Bush said many times before we was elected (Yeah, Gore lost) that we was for removing Saddam, so don't give me this crap that it is an election year tactic.

dot_slash: Yes ALL of the resolutions, not just inspectors. That incudes alot of things.....

• Security Council Resolution 688: Iraqi must cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities.
• U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands.
• U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq
• Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections.

posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:39 PM on September 19, 2002

Questioned by journalists over what America would do if Iraq did not allow inspectors back, Mr Bush replied that Saddam Hussein would find out.

I'm glad to see that our foreign policy has degenerated to smart-ass threats.
posted by sklero at 6:41 PM on September 19, 2002

I'm glad to see that our foreign policy has degenerated to smart-ass threats

I also, am glad of something. It's so great that MeFi has degenerated to smart-ass comments.

Is it NOT obvious that Bush is pushing for war if Iraq does not give unlimited access to inspectors? When Bush made the said comment quoted by sklero, he was probably rightfully assuming that most people know that the US will go to war with Iraq if they do not comply with all Un Resolutions...which they have most definitely not. Now tell me, is "Saddam will find out." a smart-ass threat, or is it Bush having at the chuckle at the expense of the journalist for asking such an ignorant question?
posted by StrangerInAStrainedLand at 6:52 PM on September 19, 2002

I wonder when the "chimp" and "shrub" comments are gonna start flying?

For the love of pete, it's right there in the first paragraph:

"The American secretary of state, Colin Powell, has said the United States will find ways to stop weapons inspectors going back to Iraq unless there is a new United Nations Security Council resolution on the issue."
posted by hama7 at 6:54 PM on September 19, 2002

this is all a crock....who here or anywhere really thinks that whatever the UN does is going to stop this war?
posted by amberglow at 7:03 PM on September 19, 2002

... unless there is a new United Nations Security Council resolution on the issue.

Like that's worked in the past.
posted by mfli at 7:07 PM on September 19, 2002

Steve. Let's see, where do I begin.

Germany and Japan attacked other countries. We liberated those countries. Like we did eleven years ago. I'll race you to see how fast you and I can each name the number of countries since the Gulf War Saddam Hussein has attacked. Go! I win! But hey, let's attack Saddam anyway, I'm sure he won't actually put up a fight or do any highly-deadly or dangerous desperation moves when he realizes he's about to be forcibly removed from power from the percieved soldiers of the Zionist entity. He'll just say "hey, Israel isn't so bad after all" and go quietly. And he'll tell us where bin Laden and all of the rest of Al-Quaeda is too. And we'll all go get ice cream.

Please. How is it that you're so sure Saddam has WMD, and then you refuse to believe that when we attack them to get rid of him for having WMD he's not going to use them? It may just be my silly pragmatic look on this, but that seems a lot like the US is gambling that Saddam really doesn't have the weapons and will make that "oh well" revelation to the rest of the world after Saddam has five or six bullets in his head. What a great thing to risk countless lives on! Let's Roll!

Bush said he's for replacing Saddam. I'm also for replacing Saddam The Iraqi people deserve a better leader. I am not for replacing Saddam by spending up to $200 billion and risking the lives of several hundred thousand people, not to mention Iraqi civilians, to get rid of a dictator who, although shitty, is in no way a military threat while contained.

If you think Bush isn't even remotely using the war for electoral ratings, you're either a horrible liar or legally insane. Give me one good reason why a vote of Congressional approval can't wait until after November. One good reason why it HAS to be made before the session adjourns. "Expedience" doens't count. We've contained Iraq for twelve years and there has been no remote level of support to any theory that Iraq NEEDS to be invaded in the next five weeks.

I feel like I'm taking all the space here... who wants to do the whole "US and Israel both ignore UN security resolutions too" thing with Steve? Because I'm tired of repeating this stuff. Anyone? Or seeing how we've gone there so often we can just assume that no one here is going to take Steve's argument about the resolutions seriously so we don't have to waste the space anyomore? Aaaaaaaaalrighty then.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:09 PM on September 19, 2002

But we are asking: why?

Why does he want a new, broad UNSC Resolution?

He recently asked for Inspectors to be allowed in: now thats not enough.

Your own politicians are worried by his stance. The majority of EU member states are. The majority of the Arab world is. Many of us don't know where we stand, apart from this: any day further away from a potentially huge, regional war is a good day. This is not appeasement, it's containment.

And then the money shot:
"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations."

It's the big lie, all over again. And it's revolting.

The next question will be, how will it look to the international community when the Inspectors [who are virtually on their way] have to be withdrawn, in order to fulfil US war plans?


[O/T: When will he apply the same standards to Israel as he does to Iraq, if its compliance with all UN Resolutions he's concerned about?]
posted by dash_slot- at 7:10 PM on September 19, 2002

Sheesh, I fear for your democracy, your economy and our lives.

MY democracy, MY economy? Please, speak for yourself. Let's all keep the fearmongering, melodramatic hype and conspiracy theories to a minimum please. As for our lives, well, ya know, ain't nothing gonna last forever.

I do agree though that there has been a decisive shift in the administration's rhetoric regarding the Iraq situation. What does it mean? I guess we'll see.

...so he can get reelected.

What a load of shit this, God I am sick of hearing this.

Me too! And I'm f___ing liberal (at least I used to think so before reading MeFi)! Jeez Louise. If you're all so goddamned concerned about our government and their policies then why don't YOU run for office. Oh, wait, that would mean that you're part of the problem. It's much better to sit back and wave fingers at someone else. Don't you feel so much better about your all-so-self-righteous self now?
posted by poopy at 7:10 PM on September 19, 2002

We shouldn't have checked the German or Japanese aggression in the '30 & '40

what are you smoking? iraq = wwii axis?

Bush said many times before we was elected (Yeah, Gore lost) that we was for removing Saddam, so don't give me this crap that it is an election year tactic.

um yeah, that was an election year too, dude.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:11 PM on September 19, 2002

StrangerInAStrainedLand : I also, am glad of something. It's so great that MeFi has degenerated to smart-ass comments.

Degenerated? Ha. This is a new high for MeFi.
posted by matrix77 at 7:13 PM on September 19, 2002

What next?

I'm not sure but I'm sure it'll get posted to the front page so we can have the exact same conversation we have every time a news item winds up on the front page.

The same 10-12 people we'll bemoan Bush (or ashcroft), then either steve or Midas will make a post defending the administration then someone will bitch about the endless circle jerk (that's what you're reading now).

Then 6 hours later we get to do it all over again! It's like fuckin' Groundhog's Day around here.
posted by Mick at 7:13 PM on September 19, 2002

Now tell me, is "Saddam will find out." a smart-ass threat, or is it Bush having at the chuckle at the expense of the journalist for asking such an ignorant question?

Well, I think it's pretty much the both. But you're right, my comment was smart-ass as well.

The thing that I don't understand here, and I'm not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, is why the U.S., unilaterally, gets to dictate what happens to Iraq, when it's U.N. resolutions that are the linchpin issue here. We put pressure on Iraq to comply with the U.N. resolutions they agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, right? So then Iraq decides to allow the inspectors back in, right? So then the U.S. decides that new resolutions must be passed? Why? Am I just incredibly naive, or is the Bush Administration simply hell-bent on having Saddam's head on a platter, no matter what the U.N. says?
posted by sklero at 7:16 PM on September 19, 2002

Urg. "the both"="both."
posted by sklero at 7:16 PM on September 19, 2002

Then 6 hours later we get to do it all over again! It's like fuckin' Groundhog's Day around here.
yah. i blame bush. ain't he an asshole?!
posted by quonsar at 7:18 PM on September 19, 2002

It's like fuckin' Groundhog's Day around here.

bravo. another perfect tagline.

hehe. what time is it?
posted by poopy at 7:19 PM on September 19, 2002

Do the fucking math, Steve_at_Linnwood :
a. Bush and uncle Dick say Iraq is dangerous because it is developing weapons of mass destruction.
b. The world decides to find out if this is true.
c. Bush and uncle Dick say there's no time to find out if this is true, we must just attack.

One doesn't have to hate Bush to realize that this adds up to a big pile of nonsense and malevolence. The world has seen enough of this holy war shit, and since the administration is so dead-set against any path other than war, then they are just as much on the jihad wagon as Osama and company. You remember Osama, right, or does that name not register on the CNN bottom-feeder radar anymore?
posted by holycola at 7:24 PM on September 19, 2002

Steve_at_Linnwood: Japan attacked the United States. Germany? It declared war on the U.S. afterward.
posted by raysmj at 7:27 PM on September 19, 2002

A war in the Gulf will affect the world. We cannot foresee the consequences. The case for war has not been made, imho. Anti-war voices have always been drowned in jingoistic, fearmongering speeches and manipulations - that doesn't mean we have to stop now.

Not all of us are entitled to run for US office (MeFi, the www, civil society is after all, international), but that doesnt stop me particularly for fearing what your leaders are plotting. Many of us continue to press for changes simply because our piss-ant so-called government are riding on Georgie's coattails.

I personally tend not to find main posts about W's flip-flops: this one just made me go "WTF?" It seems to be a legitimate fear for lots of folks, so I think its a valid item to post.

I'm not sure if you mean me as being "all so self righteous", poppy: if so, where exactly?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:29 PM on September 19, 2002

why the U.S., unilaterally, gets to dictate what happens to Iraq, when it's U.N. resolutions that are the linchpin issue here.

Because there's no other country, or even group of countries with the ability or resolve to declaw a madman. Ask yourself instead why everyone else is so impotent. And/or corrupt.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:30 PM on September 19, 2002

Sklero, I would tend to agree with you about the lack of need for additional UN resolutions on the matter...that is, if Iraq would indeed follow the resolutions verbatim. In the past there were numerous resolutions that should have sufficiently dealt with Saddam. But then again, it doesn't really appear that Iraq is adhering to the requirements of the resolutions...so what alternative remains, aside from force? If a UN Resolution doesn't work...the time for diplomacy is over.
posted by StrangerInAStrainedLand at 7:38 PM on September 19, 2002

The reason the U.S. gets to decide what it does re: Iraq regardless of what the U.N. ultimately decides to do is because the administration believes that the current regime in Iraq is a current and/or future threat to the security of the U.S. And while he may or may not be that close to nukes, there's no doubt he has bio and chem weapons. And with the wakeup call on 9/11 to our vulnerability, that's probably enough. And given the 65% support in polls for dealing with Iraq, I would guess most Americans feel that way as well.
posted by chris24 at 7:40 PM on September 19, 2002

This summarizes my feelings right now.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:43 PM on September 19, 2002

Ask yourself instead why everyone else is so impotent. And/or corrupt.

?
posted by sklero at 7:49 PM on September 19, 2002

Germany and Japan attacked other countries.

Hey try this one on for size.... We knew Germany war rearming and building an army to attack, what would have happened if Britain, France, or the United States would have attacked before Germany attacked, saving us all that trouble, taking out Hitler when he was weak? Oh wait, we have to wait until they attack us... Oh my, my bad, that happened too, didn't it?

I'm sure he won't actually put up a fight
What are you smoking? Do you even remember the 1st Gulf War? All the Iraqis who couldn't wait to surrender.

he's not going to use them?
God forbid, I would rather know when the USMC is storming the gates of Baghdad, than for him to set it off in LA, London, or Paris.

legally insane
opposed to illegally insane?

Give me one good reason why a vote of Congressional approval can't wait until after November.
Well the issue of going to war seems damn important to you. I would even say it is the most current and relevant issue in the government. I sure as hell want to know were my representation stands, pro or anti war. The only reason you don't want it brought up is the fact that Democrats will either have to support Bush, or risk losing at the polls, since more Americans support war, than not.(question #3)

How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice to keep your head in the sand?

Mick: Someone has to be the devils advocate around here. All these lefties might begin to think everyone agrees with them.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:50 PM on September 19, 2002

I'm not sure if you mean me as being "all so self righteous", poppy: if so, where exactly?

No, nothing personal. I meant...well...everyone, except for me of course;)
posted by poopy at 7:54 PM on September 19, 2002

if there is anything amusing to be had in this situation, it's the fact that nobody gave a damn about Iraq until Bush decided it would be a hell of an idea and that we should all talk about it for the next couple months.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:59 PM on September 19, 2002

Steve, without getting personal, or invoking Godwin, the man who most resmbles a 1940's dictator - demanding more and more concessions - is the man at the helm in America: ask for the moon, and when that has been served up, say 'I'm still hungry for more.'

See, only a week ago the world was under the impression that Inspections were the issue. What changed? Saddam's acceptance?

That's the point: as usual, it's had a derailment, and it's late here, so I'll check back tomorrow. Before I go, i want to restate the question as above:

"Why are Inspectors not enough anymore"?
posted by dash_slot- at 8:04 PM on September 19, 2002

Saddam wasn't saying boo to anybody, hadn't ruffled his neighbors since the U.S. kicked the crap out of him a decade ago. He wasn't going to do anything now, either, with all our boys still in Saudi.

But then the corporate scandals started getting out of hand and oops! we needed a war to get our minds off it. Just poor Saddam's bloody luck.

Tomorrow: Hussein founds Brutal Dictators for Sound Accounting Principles.
posted by sacre_bleu at 8:08 PM on September 19, 2002

it's the fact that nobody gave a damn about Iraq until Bush...

errr, You mean Clinton didn't give a damn about Iraq... There were plenty of people who were worried...


the man who most resembles a 1940's dictator... is the man at the helm in America

Stop the Presses: You are telling me, that you think the Bush is more dangerous than Saddam.
Are we talking about the same people? Tell me you didn't just say that. Bush is not perfect but, but lets run a tally:

Invaded foreign countries:
Bush: 0
Saddam: 2 (Iran & Kuwait)

Number of villages of minorities poisoned with VX nerve gas:
Bush: 0
Saddam: 40

Number of UN resolutions broken:
Bush: 0
Saddam: at least 5 I can think of

Alows disitant opinions of the goverment to be heard(like your's)?
Bush: True
Saddam: False

"Why are Inspectors not enough anymore"?
Hey, I am all for inspections. As long as they have the 82nd Airborne Division as an escort.

Before I go, i want to restate the question as above:
How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice to keep your head in the sand?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:20 PM on September 19, 2002

Spare me the bleats about how we need to get Saddam to be safe. Blowing the shit out of his peeps won't do dick for us in the safety department.

The people who want to destroy the U.S. don't need special gizmos to do their damnedest.

Every time a U.S. official says we need to invade Iraq to stay safe, I remember three words:

Boxcutters and jets.

Boxcutters and jets.

Paving Iraq gonna keep us safe, huh? Tell it to the Twin Towers.
posted by sacre_bleu at 8:39 PM on September 19, 2002

well instead of having the same convo every day a story like this is posted... eventually we're gonna have to do something about it -- organize, assemble, vote, etc... it may be unpalatable, but this ain't the nineties anymore.

no picket signs though -- too many splinters. I like those funny jester hats. Maybe giant helium balloons. ideas? organizations?
posted by condour75 at 8:46 PM on September 19, 2002

techgnollogic Just want to say that the article you linked is very interesting. I'm halfway through it (dang, that's long) and it's reaffirming a lot of the things I've heard from some pretty reputable sources. It's perhaps a little simplistic, maybe a little un-PC, but it may hold the answer so many liberals have been calling for: "Let's understand why they want to attack us!" Well, if you're curious, this is a pretty reasonable explanation. Crisis of faith: Islam society/religion (same thing) is plagued with the idea that they should be top of the world, but their beliefs strictly keep them from being able to do just that. They get jealous that our blasphemy is allowing us to succeed, and they want to knock the infidels down a notch. Very interesting read.

As for objective in Iraq, I'd say our best bet would be to westernize them. They already were a pretty progressive people before Saddam, and would flourish greatly if given the chance. Once we have a true ally there, we have a model that other Mideastern countries can aspire to. I'd love to see that part of the world succeed, since it seems like a crime to let them rot as they are. Turkey is the best example of how this can work.

Do people really believe that Bush is a warmonger and needs to be engaged in conflict to get off? Do they also believe that Saddam is doing any sort of service to his people? Do they believe that it's best for the Mideast world to sit like it is, stagnating, growing hate and envy for the west?

That's the bigger picture I see. It's also wishful thinking, but a man can dream.
posted by askheaves at 8:55 PM on September 19, 2002

Do you know where Saddam got the VX nerve gas, the anthrax, and his military hardware?

Reagan and Bush sold them to him in the 80s. The goal was to get access to Iraq oil reserves.

Now, Bush & Cheney want access to the Iraq oil reserves again. They can't buy Saddam off with with more weapons ("It wouldn't be prudent."), so then need to invade and let Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, and others get to work.

It's all about oil.

It's not about WMD.
It's not about freedom.
It's not about UN resolutions.
It's not about American security.

It's all about GREED.
posted by Argyle at 8:59 PM on September 19, 2002

So stop driving your car, and contributing to this conspiracy.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:04 PM on September 19, 2002

Josh Marshall, a liberal hawk on Iraq, points out that any future "regime change" would benefit from a solid groundwork of UN/America-sponsored inspections. Marshall writes:

Properly done, however, inspections are not a way to avoid war but to build the ground work for it. Before a single soldier hits the ground in Iraq, the U.S. should demand a virtually air-tight inspection regime--not the half-measures the U.N. is currently negotiating with Saddam.

Given that, and given the fact that the US has more or less been at war with Iraq since last spring, what reason is there to play this game of jerking the UN around. Why--if Bush truly wants to replace Hussein--isn't he pressing for the tightest possible UN inspection schedule and why isn't Bush promising to back the UN in any way that will make such inspections possible? Isn't that a win-win proposition? I can't help thinking that this daily will-he/won't-he drama reflects the intractible divisions of Bush's own administration as much or more than any clearly thought out strategy.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:06 PM on September 19, 2002

Argyle It's all about oil. [...] It's all about GREED.

There's the war cry of the liberal. The fundamental thought that:

Oil = GREED.

Oil = Progress. It equals energy, production, infrastructure, technology, wealth, etc.

If you really hate oil, do as steve says. Stop driving your car, stop heating your home, stop using electricity, stop using anything made with plastic (like that keyboard), stop using anything manufactured, stop using anything prepared, stop eating food you didn't kill or pick out of your own garden.

In the 80's, the US realized that Iraq holds a good portion of the oil we could use to keep ourself going. The reason the US supported Iraq through the 80's was because Iran was hell-bent on invading Iraq, taking over their oil fields, and holding them hostage from the world. That was unacceptable. Reagan said that it would be the chokepoint of prosperity (or democracy, or freedom, or something... don't remember exactly). Oil makes the world continue to work.

Wealth of nations is created when raw materials combine with energy and design to create useful products.
posted by askheaves at 9:11 PM on September 19, 2002

Invaded foreign countries:
Bush: 0
Saddam: 2 (Iran & Kuwait)

Afghanistan doesn't count? What about Bush Sr. attacking Iraq? A couple more examples if you go back a few years...

Number of UN resolutions broken:
Bush: 0
Saddam: at least 5 I can think of

You don't need to break UN resolutions when you can veto them...
posted by Stuart_R at 9:21 PM on September 19, 2002

Because there's no other country, or even group of countries with the ability or resolve to declaw a madman. Ask yourself instead why everyone else is so impotent. And/or corrupt.

I agree that someone should do something about Bush, Paris, but what to do? Should the whole world gang up on him? Should the whole world stop listening to him? In seriousness, if might made right you wouldn't have a home to live in or food to eat or teeth to chew with - someone else would have taken them from you already. There's always someone.
posted by holycola at 9:27 PM on September 19, 2002

I'm not against oil, I'm against deceit by our elected leaders. If America needs the oil and won't give up using it, then let's go get it. Might still makes right in the realpolitik of the world.

Bush and Cheney are lying to the American public and the world in regards to why we are going to invade Iraq.

If they openly told everyone they we going in for the oil, all the cards would be on the table.

So much for the return of truth and dignity to the White House...
posted by Argyle at 9:31 PM on September 19, 2002

Hey, I am all for inspections. As long as they have the 82nd Airborne Division as an escort.

I hear ya (Rambo! Talk to me Johnny!).

But it looks like the 82nd Airborne could use some help. And if I weren't so interested in keeping people out of the military, my recommendation for you hawks (nonchicken, I'm sure) who seem to feel that it's so crucial that we now forget about the inspections we've been whining continuously about for months...who seem to feel we're so justified in a first strike.... who now seem to feel that it's the American thing to do to invade a sovereign nation to effect "a regime change" in a regime that Reagan and Bush the Elder helped to provide with the tools of its miserable trade... my recommendation would be to do this:

Turn off the computer (you'll be saving oil/energy that the rest of us will use to create wealth) and head down to enlist.

Just think of the OIL = PROSPERITY you'll be guaranteeing for us all as you fight the nasty Iraquis (hey, "wealth" gives us the right to do whatever we want, right?). And plan on spending some time in the military, because I assume you'll also want to hump your web gear over to China and about a dozen other spots where "raw materials combine with energy and design to create useful products" can be stolen.

With the war on terrorism continuing, and military enlistment slumping to a low in the late 1990s, the Army has scrambled to find new soldiers in recent years.

So it has taken the cause to the Internet.

That's according to Gen. Dennis Cavin, who heads the Army's Accession Command, the department that oversees recruitment and training.

"The war on terrorism brings a slightly different twist," said Cavin, who is in Las Vegas for a three-day symposium on Army training. "The twist is that it's less clear who the enemy is. So it requires us to train soldiers that are more flexible, resilient, physically fit and mentally stable to be able to handle those issues."

But the events of Sept. 11 alone aren't enough to get new recruits, Cavin said.

"After 9-11 there was a surge in patriotism, but that wasn't manifested in people lining up at the armed services recruitment offices to join."

Wednesday, July 24, 2002
Las Vegas Review-Journal


All right. On second thought, don't enlist. Here's one case where I hope people actually follow the example of Bush, Cheney, et al...and try to avoid military service. They had someone else fight for them -- why shouldn't you?

Let's get weapons inspectors into Iraq. Let's get weapons of mass destruction out of these rogue nations (Iraq...and the United States). Then maybe we won't have young people fighting and dying in the military.

And remember: the life we wacky liberals save may be your own.

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:34 PM on September 19, 2002

Afghanistan doesn't count?
Nope, that was going after al-Queda.... not with out provocation.

What about Bush Sr. attacking Iraq?
1. This is about Bush Jr and his administration, not his father's.
2. Did you for get that a. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and b. that we did not enter (or invade) Iraq, only expelled Saddam from Kuwait...

You don't need to break UN resolutions when you can veto them...
Well that is our privilege, being the only Super Power.

What, no rebuttal about gassing the Kurds?

Oh, that's right, Bush isn't a mass murderer. My fault.

Bush and Cheney are lying to the American public and the world in regards to why we are going to invade Iraq.

So saying hypothetically, that your theory that we are only in this for oil, what do you want? Bush to go on TV and tell Americans: "Yeah, all of you know about all that oil over there, well we are all going to go take it, hope you don't mind"

No, I am sorry but you are backpedaling from the Liberal Anti-War cry you have heard so many times, that you now belive it.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:36 PM on September 19, 2002

Let's get weapons inspectors into Iraq. Let's get weapons of mass destruction out of these rogue nations (Iraq...and the United States).

Sorry. I meant Iraq and the United State.

~chuckle~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:37 PM on September 19, 2002

head down to enlist
Already did, smartass. Going on my fourth year.
1st Battalion 121st Field Artillery, 57th Brigade, Wisconsin Army National Guard. E-4.

And remember: the life we servicemen & servicemen save may, be your own.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:45 PM on September 19, 2002

Steve_at_Linnwood

Invaded foreign countries:
Bush: 0
Saddam: 2 (Iran & Kuwait)

?????

I call you out as a liberal plant. That’s just too easy. What do I win?

Way I see it is that Sadam, the cunning chess-master has positioned all his pieces, sat back and said ‘Check’ whereas Dubyas is evaluating proceedings as though it were a game of checkers and he’s all set to land on Sadam and acquire his pieces.

Wouldn't it be nice to resolve this without a whole lot of dead people? My solution: Tie a rock around both their necks and drop them in the middle of the North Atlantic. Should one of their gods part the water and save them then they will be declared the winner and to the victor the spoils.

In saying that though, should George win, his god may leave a bit of slick.
posted by The Great Satan at 9:47 PM on September 19, 2002

This is about Bush Jr and his administration, not his father's.
Do you really believe that?

no rebuttal about gassing the Kurds?
The one Ronald Reagan blamed on Iran, when Saddam was our best pal?

I don't think this is really about oil at it's heart (though it's a fringe benefit). It's about Dick Cheney and the Retread Cabinet making up for their mistake last go around (after suffering a pesky 8-year interruption by that Arkansas guy that refused to go away). It's also about winning elections when the Dow keeps dipping (though that may or may not work).

the life we servicemen & servicemen save may, be your own
The whole idea of being the greatest democracy with the greatest military is that your fellow servicemen won't have to ever fight a war. Shouldn't we do everything in our ability, within reason, to prevent that? Especially an unjust one?

America should stand for that, more than anyone else.
posted by owillis at 9:50 PM on September 19, 2002

This isn't this hard folks:
If we are going to have inspections again, we need a new resolution because the ones that are in place did a shit job of being able to actually enforce the inspections.

Inspections were never the 'goal' - despite dash_slot-'s assertations to the contrary. Nowhere in Bush's speech to the UN did he advocate inspections. I'm not going to quote it here because its so long but just search for If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, in the text of Bush's speech to see exactly what he was advocating. Nowhere will you see the word inspect, inspection, or inspector in that section. He refers to inspection only in the past tense.

So dash_slot-, if that was the world's impression from Bush's speech - then the world wasn't paying attention. Inspections are a means for complying with the UN resolution Iraq agreed and Bush paraphrased as: If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material. Inspections in and of themselves do nothing but confirm whether Iraq has complied with this resolution. Bush wants compliance from Iraq. What Bush doesn't want is to have to babysit Saddam for another decade while he dinks around with the inspectors yet again.
posted by schlyer at 9:58 PM on September 19, 2002

Bush wants compliance from Iraq.
That's the last thing he wants. He has counted on Iraqi non-compliance (knowing old Saddam, this isn't that hard to provoke - being nuts and all) to further his agenda.
posted by owillis at 10:01 PM on September 19, 2002

Do you really believe that?
Yeah, I'm not much for conspiracy theories

The one Ronald Reagan blamed on Iran, when Saddam was our best pal?
Try reading this
Furthermore, mistakes in the past do not justify stagnation in the future.

And don't self link, if you have something to say, post it. You know the guidelines.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:05 PM on September 19, 2002

{ignoring the above sixty comments, for the sake of my sanity and the fact I need to sleep}

I do not wish for this country to go to war with Iraq. I have strong doubts for the reasons we are going to war. However, making the consequences of preventing inspections very visible before we go in and inspect makes sense.

If we're going to give Saddam another chance, let's make sure everyone agrees to what happens if/when he tries to back out again. That way if military action becomes necessary, we won't go in alone.
posted by Be'lal at 10:15 PM on September 19, 2002

Steve, it's time to take a deep breath, take your hands off those keys and take a walk around the block... We've had our fair share of shrill, insistent minority voices around here supporting Bush and Uncle Dick's War to Save the Oil, but you're making my friggin' ears bleed, man. Do you really think that by so relentlessly pummeling people who disagree with you that they - or anyone else for that matter - is going to magically conclude that you've been right all along? Repeat after me:
IT'S.
JUST.
A.
WEBSITE.

(Oh, and reprimanding Oliver with your snide little "You know the rules, young man!" just sounds kinda pretentious coming from someone who's been a member here for just over a month, don't ya think? Lighten up, Steve...)
posted by JollyWanker at 10:24 PM on September 19, 2002

Do you really think that by so relentlessly pummeling people who disagree with you that they - or anyone else for that matter - is going to magically conclude that you've been right all along?
Not any more so than the non-stop Bush bashing threads that litter the front page.

...sounds kinda pretentious coming from someone who's been a member here for just over a month...
Actually that sounds kinda pretentious to try to put me in my place coming from someone, themselves, who hasn't been here all that long.
And guidelines are guidelines, I have seen people called out for smaller things.


Boy oh boy, I can't wait for the same people to post the same Anti-War article tomorrow!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:35 PM on September 19, 2002

JollyWanker, Steve is showing a hellova lot of fortitude in standing up to the dogpile on top of him, continuing to articulate his views clearly and not losing his temper.

Arrayed against him are a bunch of conspiracy wacks, people whose knowledge of history goes back all of two years, Saddam apologists, carpet-chewing Bushophobes, and guys who take as an article of faith everything they read on Zmag or IndyMedia.

Steve is the one being relentlessly pummeled.

And you're complaining that he won't just dry up and go away? Yes, it's just awful when people actually defend unpopular views, isn't it?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:38 PM on September 19, 2002

Last time I checked (and I've hung around here for a while), a self-link in the context of a thread is perfectly fine. Unless you want me to retype my whole damn essay here, invalidating the whole concept of the inter-nut web world wide.

mistakes in the past do not justify stagnation in the future
You're new, so I won't blame you for thinking I'm part of that crowd - I am the first to say we can't let our past sins hinder us. I'm also the first to say we need to remember them and not "conveniently" expunge them from the collective psyche - lest we repeat them again (paging Pakistan!)

Also, JollyWanker, Steve has as much right to defend his POV as you or I do. I've been on the minority on many issues on Mefi - and "shut the fuck up" is a terrible debating technique.
posted by owillis at 10:54 PM on September 19, 2002

Steve, self-linking is acceptable within a thread, especially when you're pointing to, for example, a piece you've written up on your own site which would take up a lot of mefi page space.

Now, on the point: We still don't have a good explanation as to why we're invading Iraq. Iraq has not done anything since the end of the Gulf War that constitutes a justification for war; the only thing they have done is to break an agreement which they had with someone else. We do not have the right to force Iraq to obey the United Nations unless the United Nations delegates that right to us, which they have not.

As for the idea that the invasion of Iraq is but a battle in the larger war against Terrorism, I still have yet to see any sort of evidence linking Iraq to Terrorism. Mr. Bush has said several times that Iraq is involved in such, but nobody seems to be able to provide an example.
posted by hob at 11:45 PM on September 19, 2002

the man who most resmbles a 1940's dictator - demanding more and more concessions - is the man at the helm in America

Yaay! Bush is a Nazi. Now we can all go home.
posted by hama7 at 11:53 PM on September 19, 2002

IT'S.
JUST.
A.
WEBSITE.

Bullshit. There's no reason he should "take a walk around the block" any more than anyone else should. Thus far in the thread he's been called legally insane, among other things. He's wrong, IMHO, but let the man defend his position, and we might learn something.

Arrayed against him are a bunch of conspiracy wacks, people whose knowledge of history goes back all of two years, Saddam apologists, carpet-chewing Bushophobes, and guys who take as an article of faith everything they read on Zmag or IndyMedia

Steve is showing a hellova lot of fortitude in standing up to the dogpile on top of him, continuing to articulate his views clearly and not losing his temper.

Yeah, he has. You might learn from his example.

Back on topic: what will be good enough, steve? Short of war, what can Saddam do to convince the world he has no WMD?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:56 PM on September 19, 2002

he could step down, but that still wouldn't be quite enough.
posted by techgnollogic at 12:04 AM on September 20, 2002

Short of war, what can Saddam do to convince the world he has no WMD?


How about inspections?
posted by hama7 at 12:15 AM on September 20, 2002

Let me clarify me self. I do not want war. No one (Well maybe Saddam...) wants war.

The least I would be satisfied with, and I think you should demand no less, is inspectors with a armed military escort, and has 100% freedom to look where ever it wants, when ever it wants. But I do not see that happening.

This man is creating a whole hell of alot of problems for everyone in that area.

The man threatens his neighbors. He uses nerve gas on his own people. Most of use belive that he has ties to al-Queda. We already know he is funding the Palestinian Suicide Bombers. We know in the past he has tried to build Nuclear weapons, what is stopping him from trying again?

The United Nations has lost it's nerve. It has spent the last 10 years not enforcing it's own mandates, why would it start now?

And if Saddam refuses 100% access with inspectors, what then? We tried to hurt him economically, but sitting on top of all that oil makes it kinda hard... some one will buy it from him. Then what do the doves suggest? Just ignore him, and hope he goes away?

I would rather fight Saddam now, before he becomes a nuclear power, than later.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:19 AM on September 20, 2002

Invaded foreign countries:
Bush: 0
Saddam: 2 (Iran & Kuwait)

The United States has a grand history of invading foreign counties:

• Dominican Republic
• Grenada
• Panama

And with Iraq, Bush may soon get a point added to the score.


Number of UN resolutions broken:
Bush: 0
Saddam: at least 5 I can think of

True, you don't have to break them when you can just veto them, but the US has scoffed at many international agreements including the ABM treaty.
posted by 4easypayments at 1:06 AM on September 20, 2002

The United States has a grand history of invading foreign counties:
Once again, the comparison was who is more Hitler-like: Saddam or George W Bush, not Saddam or Everything that has happened in US History....

The ABM Treat was between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The USSR no longer exists, therefore the treaty was void. If the Federal Government of the United States would have had been owner thrown, the USSR surely would not have stayed bound to this document.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:20 AM on September 20, 2002

Steve: Enough! The painfull truth is causing my ears to bleed! Your not gonna get through to these people. Isn't it a waste of time trying to discuss important issues with people when it's probaly just a limitation of simple logic and reason on their part?
posted by ZupanGOD at 1:21 AM on September 20, 2002

It serves a purpose.

I could go hang out over at Little Green Footballs, where it would be nothing but slapping each other on the back, on how "right" (in both meanings of the word) we all are, but then I get lazy and sloppy, and forget why I feel like I do. I would start to use the rhetoric that I hear over and over again, instead of forming logical arguments.

At the same time, I am helping the people I disagree with, by challenging them to counter my arguments, and not just use the rhetoric that they hear. I very well could be wrong about very thing I saw. I just haven't found any one to prove it to me.

By not voicing my opinion, I am agreeing with them.

Besides, I just can't get to sleep tonight... Nothing better to do.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:36 AM on September 20, 2002

Steve: I'm with you on the 100% access, the armed guards, and yes, even the invasion if it turns out Saddam is deliberatley denying access to sites.

But what Bush is doing is more like sanctioned unilateralism than anything truly multilateral. He's asking the the United States pre-emptively be given permission to invade:

Addressing a Congressional committee, Mr Powell said the Security Council must spell out to Iraq the serious consequences if it fails to co-operate with the inspectors.

Why not send in the inspectors, armed guard and all, and then let the UN view the results and make a decision based on them? Bush is applying for a license to do whatever he wants to Iraq.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:36 AM on September 20, 2002

Besides, I just can't get to sleep tonight... Nothing better to do.

With you on that one, at least.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:39 AM on September 20, 2002

He's asking the the United States pre-emptively be given permission to invade

I personally belive this is Bush & Co. calling the UN's bluff. He is saying:

"Look if you don't pass this harsh resolution, then, well fuck it, we're going to invade."

And the UN will then see that they have the option of passing a resolution with armed escort and so on, or the US is going on it's own. And as much as they bitch about us, they need us. So then they will pass the resolution.

In negotiation, don't you normally ask for more than you really want. That way the other side can counter with less, feel good, but you still get what you want, in the end?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:48 AM on September 20, 2002

Sure, if you're negotiating.

United States will find ways to stop weapons inspectors going back to Iraq unless there is a new United Nations Security Council resolution on the issue.

Problem is, we're demanding. And I count myself among the people worried about what happens when our government's demands (about anything) are always fulfilled to the letter. Why, also, do we feel like we're entitled to do whatever we want in this world? Without getting off on yet another tangent, the UN should be more than the USA's international policy rubber stamp.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:53 AM on September 20, 2002

Why should it be anything else? Do you really expect the United Nations to be a international forum to solve problems?

Look at the some of the members:

China sits on the Security Council. It is a communist dictatorship, that has human rights violations up the ying-yang. Yet, as well as veto power on the Security Council, it is also a governing body on the U.N. High commissioner of Refugees. You know, a body to deal with people fleeing oppressive governments.. like China. Is that a conflict of interest?

By "rubber stamping" US policy it is an easy way for the French, Germans, Russians, so one, to explain back home to the people, that, they didn't tell the US to do it, it was the UN.... passing the buck, that is all it is about....

Syria recently won a seat in the UN. Yeah, Syria, a country on the State department's list of states that sponsors terrorists.

Basicly it comes down to a big club, where nothing gets down, because over all the members have nothing in common, except self-interest.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:13 AM on September 20, 2002

Do you really expect the United Nations to be a international forum to solve problems?

Why should it be anything else? Yes, China violates UN charter all the time. If it was all up to me, they'd be censured for it (of course, the charter would likely undergo a substantial rewrite if it were up to me.) It strikes me that we're making almost the same argument here: you're saying "forget the UN, it's irrelevant and corrupt." This is fine, as long as you wish to eschew any form of formalized multi-national communication/decisionmaking for the long term.

Here's what I'm saying: if you want the United Nations to be a body with some actual authority over world affairs, you're going to have to start treating it like it deserves some; i.e., involving members in intelligent debate, and dealing with those who break the rules. If you treat the UN as a formality, as the United States has been wont to do (under Bush, Clinton, Bush, and previous), it will remain just that: a formality.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:31 AM on September 20, 2002

This is fine, as long as you wish to eschew any form of formalized multi-national communication/decisionmaking for the long term.

I think that is my point. The UN was formed after the devastation of World War II, when people had the consequences of unchecked dictorial aggression fresh in their mind. People have gotten soft. People have forgotten. I think there is much more worth in organizations like NATO, that do not include governments like the Chinese. The UN should be abandon. Not because we can't get a rubber stamp approval, but because it has become something that no longer reflects our values. It has become ineffective, like the League of Nations. If I maybe so bold as to coin a term, they have become Global Isolationists. The members of the UN, see themselves in this bubble, that unless they are actually being attacked by another nation, they prefer to ignore problems. They feel protected by knowing that they are a memeber of the UN, that if they are attacked... Instead of stoping that first attack. They all are yelling, where is the proof, the smoking gun????

Rumsfeld had a great quote the other day:
"The last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it has been fired."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:55 AM on September 20, 2002

"I am helping the people I disagree with, by challenging them to counter my arguments, and not just use the rhetoric that they hear. I very well could be wrong about very thing I saw. I just haven't found any one to prove it to me."

Well than I retract my statement. Good to have people like yourself on board that question the conventional wisdom on MiFi.

C'ya on the next Bush Bash thread!

-Jason
posted by ZupanGOD at 3:01 AM on September 20, 2002

Backstory. Anyone who believes that the Bush administration gives a monkeys about inspections is fooling themselves.
posted by ToothpickVic at 4:02 AM on September 20, 2002

And don't self link, if you have something to say, post it. You know the guidelines.

Just to confirm: it's ok to link to your own things as comments in threads, if it adds to the discussion and/or saves space because you're written a reply elsewhere (quoted directly from the guidelines).

Might be worth having a read, Steve ...
posted by walrus at 4:09 AM on September 20, 2002

Thanks for the backstory link, ToothpickVic, although I did find the handbag battle in that thread between riviera and dhartung almost as interesting (which only reflects badly on me, I'm aware).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:33 AM on September 20, 2002

If you can't find "Wanted, Dead or Alive, Smoke Him Out Osama" then you have to settle for Saddam I guess, eh Duhbya?

This "War on Terra" thing is going about as well as the "War on Drugs."

I hear many express the sentiment that they are tired of this war on Iraq meme. OK, let's talk about privatizing Social Security, being in bed with corporate crooks, making the IRS the official offering plate for religious fundamentalists, the rise in unemployment, the suffering stock market, the loss of personal freedoms at home, the fraud perpetrated by the energy companies on California, the paranoid obsession over secrecy by the Bush cabal, the Bush/CIA sponsored coup attempt in Venezuela, WOW I better stop, this list could go on for years!!!

Summary, Bush still sucks, war or no war. And it's my patriotic duty to say so.
posted by nofundy at 5:19 AM on September 20, 2002

Bush still sucks, war or no war. And it's my patriotic duty to say so

And it is my patriotic duty to inform you that you are not only frivolously venting your inadequacies and incompetence, but also showing your insecurity. *slap*

Hysterical screeds do nothing but magnify your ignorance on terrorism (you can have it if you want it), and bitching about freedom just shows how little you appreciate it
posted by hama7 at 6:37 AM on September 20, 2002

And it is my patriotic duty to inform you that you are not only frivolously venting your inadequacies and incompetence, but also showing your insecurity. *slap*

when all else fails, attack the charger? this is typical neocon behavior: dissent or disagreement as a personality flaw.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:33 AM on September 20, 2002

"and bitching about freedom just shows how little you appreciate it"
Yeah, quit moaning or we'll take away the other half of the constitution.
posted by ToothpickVic at 7:34 AM on September 20, 2002

I personally belive this is Bush & Co. calling the UN's bluff.

God, I hope you're right. Seriously. It'd be great if it turned out that the hawks are actually doves, with Bush the wise Solomon figure, offering to cut the baby in half. But I just don't think that's the case.

Let the UN pass new resolutions regarding what the UN will do if Sadam does not comply with UN resolutions, but please don't send anyone else to die just to prove a point.
posted by mikrophon at 8:03 AM on September 20, 2002

On the OIL=GREED issue:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't we get most of our oil from Venezuela?
posted by sharksandwich at 8:50 AM on September 20, 2002

You're wrong, Canada
posted by Mick at 9:12 AM on September 20, 2002

Remember this Doctrine? The last words : It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . . .

Of coarse this is up for argument with our current technologies. Like missiles but have we tried lately?
posted by thomcatspike at 9:12 AM on September 20, 2002

Ask yourself instead why everyone else is so impotent

Because America has, geographically speaking, the best land in the world. And because America has successfully exploited it's really good land to fuel technological advances.
posted by moonbiter at 9:21 AM on September 20, 2002

The question, SharkSandwich, is not where American consumers get their oil from, but where American/British oil companies get their oil from.
posted by cell divide at 9:56 AM on September 20, 2002

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't we get most of our oil from Venezuela?

...Bush/CIA sponsored coup attempt in Venezuela...

You're missing a connection here, sharksandwich.

And Steve, we're having problems getting our NATO allies to cooperate, too. The Germans, for example. The point of the UN was to get everyone to talk to each other, to prevent one arguably reckless nation from doing something stupid. It's basically the same reason we have a checks-and-balances based government.

people had the consequences of unchecked dictorial aggression fresh in their mind. People have gotten soft. People have forgotten

Now we're comparing Saddam to Hitler? Okay, maybe. The UN was supposed to stop WWII from happening again; we've perhaps lost sight of that purpose, but it doesn't mean the idea is no longer valid. The entire UN saying "stop," like it or not, carries more weight than just the United States saying it. That is, if UN resolutions had any teeth.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:34 PM on September 20, 2002

What happens after the war? A thought provoking analysis of US entanglement in Iraq in the days and months following the march on Baghdad. (via talkingpointsmemo.com)

Big bonus Voltaire points to Steve for this metapost. Disagree with his presentation of the facts, but great to have civil discourse and a real range of views.
posted by stinglessbee at 2:12 PM on September 20, 2002