"Our worry is the new emerging fundamentalism in the United States and in the West. Fundamentalism in our region is on the wane. There, it's in the ascendancy. That's the threat."

-Saudi Prince Saud al-Faisal

why, just who could he possibly be talking about?

I'd still worry about it in both places, especially because it sounds like enough fundamentalists on both sides are eager for war. Too bad our foreign policy is based on telling the rest of the world we're going to kick Saddam's ass whether we find a lot of weapons or not; I think we're missing a good opportunity to marginalize the fundamentalist whackos by saying instead, "look, we've got a relatively stable global thing going, and when people like you threaten it, that's when we put our foot down, Monty Python-style, and squash you, because we can live with you, but if you can't live with us, we're not going to keep letting you come after us."
Except, well, that would require admitting that there are fundamentalist whackos on our side, too, and they're just too valuable to the GOP.
Maybe if we got Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, and a host of other folks who infuriate the Republicans to come out in *support* of war with Iraq, we could use reverse psychology on Bush, given his visceral distaste for allowing himself to be seen doing *anything* Clinton would've done (hell, I'm impressed he actually moved into the WH, sometimes, given the amount of smack he talks).

DD-

A BBC poll last week showed that only 10% of Britons supported a war without UN Security Council approval.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2751471.stm

In case the link doesn't work:

"Fewer than one out of every 10 Britons believe it would be right for the country to take part in a war against Iraq without the UN passing a new resolution in favour of it, the survey suggests.

And 45% of people polled said the UK should play no part in a war on Iraq - whatever the UN decides.

Tony Blair has been repeatedly grilled over Iraq The poll was commissioned as part of the BBC's Iraq....

The prime minister has suggested there are circumstances in which he would go to war without the UN.

But only 17% of the Labour voters asked agreed it would be right without a new UN mandate.

Conservative voters are even less inclined to back the prime minister, the ICM poll of 1,000 people suggests - more then half of them say he would do anything US President George W Bush asks."

Bush has also staked his political future on a quick Iraq victory. Expectations are very high for Bush in Iraq. Bush himself promised that the war would be "fast and furious".

At least one poster has observed that the illusion of Bush's foreign policy failure sets Bush up to be "underestimated" yet again. The U.N. turmoil and the peace protests would seem to be setbacks for Bush that will set him up to surprise everyone with a quick Iraqi victory-- an "I told you so" --and thereby claim to be "underestimated" yet again. I can see it now--Newsweek running another "Top Gun" cover with Bush flashing the victory sign. Another BIG BOUNCE in the polls.

But the U.N. turmoil and the peace protests are sideshows. Bush is leading us into a war, which he's been itching to fight. He has promised that it would be "fast and furious". He has the most powerful military in the world and the wind at his back. The bar is very high for Bush in Iraq. He has set it high. He has made some promises to the American people.

Sorry, Karl Rove, no opportunity for Bush to be "underestimated" on the Iraq war issue. If there's a quick victory and a painless aftermath, Bush will merely meet expectations.

I have seen pundit after pundit predicting long costly house to house battles in the blood soaked streets of Baghdad. It’s too late to change expectations now Father of Six. If anything less takes place, Bush will have exceeded expectations.

Everything Bush has said points to a tough but necessary fight in Iraq. Most people are prepared for possible Iraqi biological or chemical attack that would kill many of our soldiers. And after hearing much about how Saddam will put up strong urban military resistance, the people are prepared for a tough battle in Baghdad.

After the majorities of both Democrats and Republicans have voted for the war, any attempt at using war casualties as a chance to make political gain, will be political suicide. Once we go in, the short-lived spotlight on the left-wing war protesters will be extinguished. With the pre-war debate over, Dean will once again be viewed only as the pro-gay marriage candidate from a small left-wing state. Other than the Hollywood and gay communities, the Democratic establishment candidates will quickly overshadow Dean.

"before deciding whether [sic] to attack Iraq"

Huh? There's nothing to object to in this quote. "Whether" is just fine here.

Gephardts website is up http://www.DickGephardt2004.com

"Gephardts website is up http://www.DickGephardt2004.com
Posted by GaDem at February 18, 2003 11:00 AM "
Why in the h#$@ did you post this?
It has nothing to do with the topic. Gaydem please wake up.
Although I do Like Gep. I bet you like Dick better than Bush in 04',huh? I think more guys like Bush. He just seems to be an average guy. What Dem can make us feel that way? I think maybe Dean.

"...With the pre-war debate over, Dean will once again be viewed only as the pro-gay marriage candidate from a small left-wing state. Other than the Hollywood and gay communities, the Democratic establishment candidates will quickly overshadow Dean."

Finally somebody acknowledges the pink elephant standing in the living room.
Thanks Mkt.

Mkt.,

I accept your take on Dean. Civil unions will sink his candidacy, plain and simple.

However, I'm not so confident that the American people are ready for a relatively long Baghdad bloodbath. The polls I have seen don't show that. Bush hasn't prepared America for an extended war. Afghanistan, though still a problem, took a short time. Also, the peace protesters won't go away once we go in. Let's face it, this is a pre-emptive strike.

We just disagree on expectations. I maintain that Americans expect a quick resolution to this pesky Iraq thing. They're not prepared for a long bloodbath. The economy is waiting on a quick resolution. I predict people will use the quick victory in the '91 Persian Gulf War (bombing, then 4 days on the ground), and Afghanistan as their frame of reference, not Vietnam or Korea.

If Bush "gets his war", he'll be expected to deliver a pretty quick victory with the best military in the world. If he doesn't, he'll be held accountable to the degree that it isn't a pretty quick, clean victory.

What victory in Afghanistan? We're still fighting there, pinned into little safezones. In the countryside, the warlords are coming back, and Omar send in radio messages from Pakistan.

There was no victory over there. Not yet.

Of course, Georgie boy wants us to forget all about that...

Preemptive strike? Please, let's call it what it is: unprovoked agression.

They'll listen to the Saudis but bush will ignore the home grown protests.

SAD? SAD.

Greetings to my old friends:

AC/PC/TXDEM et al

Oh how I long to argue about Bush States vs. Gore States and how many Congressional Districts are truly in play.

Received a directive from my Branch Manager at USAR Personnel Command in St. Louis instructing me to update my sec. clearance and get a current physical.

I might be putting my uniform back on here in a few weeks (hope it fits).

anyway....

CPT Dieguito

Bush's simplistic way of looking at things is truly disturbing. Do all the Republicans go along with this? I have long ago given up on my Democratic Party. The only hope I have is that Tony Blair and Colin Powell will back down. Dubya sure won't. This is all just crazy!!!!

Clark was asked to elaborate on his vague comments about foreign policy on his way out of the forum (yesterday I think). He said he must make a call before answering. In front of the camera he made a call to his CNN handlers. "They want more details" he asked. Then he hung up and told the reporters. "No questions, she said no." This was a big blunder made in front of the TV cameras. Be sure that the anti-Clark people will use this footage over and over again. It made him look pretty pathetic I must admit.

I'm less certain Dean's going to suffer for signing VT's CU bill -- part of that's probably dumb optimism about most voters being able to recognize it as an issue of little importance to straight folks (well, if they think about it much), but part of that's based on looking at the field and not seeing anyone who's going to stand up and irritate the gay/lesbian/straight-pro-CU voters who make up a discernible chunk of the Democratic primary electorate. Plus, I think the big field will discourage candidates from writing off any niche of the primary electorate.
Veiled chatter about "electability" is another thing, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if *that*'s how it came up as an issue. Dunno if it'd be easier for a candidate who's otherwise supportive of sexual orientation issues to raise it, or not (would an ENDA supporter get crap for being hypocritical? would it stick?).
And it'd be especially interesting to see Bush use CUs against Dean in the general, though, given that Cheney has a daughter who's out (contrary to Lynne Cheney's la-la-la-la-I-am-not-listening-to-you noises), and that in the 2000 veep debate, when asked about gay marriage, Cheney said, "People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. Should these relationships be treated the way traditional marriage is? That is a tougher problem. I try to be open minded as much as I can."
Or maybe Dean can just say, "Civil unions affect several thousand people in Vermont. Unemployment affects six million Americans. The lack of health insurance affects forty-four million Americans. Bush's idiotic economic plans affect 280 million Americans. And picking a fight/war in Iraq when we could be focusing our attention and energy for other, more pressing (how many weeks 'til NK goes nuclear?) issues that affect everyone on the planet. But if you want to focus on a few thousand people in Vermont, go ahead."

"Gaydem please wake up.
Although I do Like Gep. I bet you like Dick better than Bush in 04',huh? I think more guys like Bush. He just seems to be an average guy. What Dem can make us feel that way? I think maybe Dean."-Joe Average

Well I doubt many gay bashers like you are supporting Dean but thanks for the update from the red states!

and oh "Joe Average" is Bushrep in case anyone is wondering

Bushrep is back? Aaaarrrrggghhh...the scourge continues...

The American people have not been prepared for a multi-year military occupation of Iraq, which is what it is going to take to bring the kind of democratic system and stability there to really make a difference in keeping Americans safer from terrorists and/or rogue states. Bush has said nothing about post-Saddam and rebuilding Iraq. All Bush has done has been to prey on the fears people have about terrorism and to conjure up a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, when nothing of the kind has been shown by the facts, to justify invasion.

That's only Act I in the show.

Take a good look at how things have unfolded in Afghanistan and ask whether this administration has any ability to finish things that it starts.

Nice point about the Bush Administration's attention span, Richard P. -- I just hope that the press actually pays attention to what happens afterwards in Iraq. I'm astounded at how much unadulterated and disingenuous crap Bush gets away with, and it's pretty much every time he opens his mouth about accountability and consequences, whether it's on economic stuff ("we're not passing problems on to future generations") or foreign policy ("we'll help rebuild Afghanistan to prevent it from returning to a lawless staging ground for terrorism, and see that they start educating and treating their women decently.").
How soon do you think it'll be before Bush just admits he doesn't care about what happens in the rest of the world? If David Broder and Sally Quinn got snippy because they thought Bill Clinton had come into DC and trashed the place, they should check out the real dimensions of Bush's vision for the *world*...

Regime change is looking all the more likely these days--especially in D.C. The latest Harris poll has Bush's approval rating at 52% and disapproval at 46%

The American people are in no way, shape or form prepared for massive casualities from Iraq. Anthony Zinni, who once ran Central Command, said a serious fight for Baghdad could cost 800 men a day. That a battalion a day. There are nine in a US infantry division.

The military has allowed footage of urban warfare training for a reason. They are scared to death of it. If we get in a city fight with Saddam, the casualities could be intense and US units are infantry light. The mechanized units have 6 men infantry squads. They could get ground up in hours in a serious fight.

Every training footage I've seen has squads losing 5-6 men in 20 minutes. Baghdad is an easily defensible city, rivers, narrow streets, skyscrapers. You could not only get trapped in there, but cut off and ambushed. Keep in mind, a battle will be a free for all with kids and women armed with weapons as well.

George Bush has discussed none of this or the potential of guerilla warfare after the battle by the demobed Iraqi Army.

The expectation is that the Iraqis will sit in their bunkers and wait for the US to bomb them. They wil not. They will go off the grid and fight like the Russians did in WWII, with runners, field telephones and the regular telephone network. They will be concentrated in urban areas.

This war will be neither quick nor easy. The Israelis fought in Beirut for a couple of days and gave up.

Some Urban Warfare/Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) links

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/confseries/urbanwarfare/urbanwarfare.html

http://earthops.org/sovereign/urban_warfare/

http://www.g2mil.com/cities.htm

http://www.urbanoperations.com/

http://www.urbanoperations.com/shaw.htm

I don’t think so steve, the truth is the Iraqi people don’t want Saddam to win. They know we are not going to war with Saddam to conquer Iraq, but to liberate the people. They will probably turn on the Saddam regime as soon as the war starts. Baghdad will have its Saddam defenders, but far fewer than those who won’t.

Miki,

They may hate Saddam. Plenty of people hated Stalin. But most fought in the Red Army.

This is so frustrating. What if they fight and fight hard? Read the links. They're not pleasant reading. If even a fraction of the Repubiican Guard and their families fight, thousands of Americans will die. If we have to fight 100,000 troops in a city of five million people, God knows how many people will die.

Who are the Useful Fools

http://www.netslaves.com/messages/pg-message_read.asp?tid=200302191900076318&tkey=6532