Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Report: Iraq Asked Finland About Anthrax
guardian ^ | 2/15/03

Posted on 02/15/2003 10:25:37 AM PST by knak

HELSINKI, Finland (AP) - The Iraqi Embassy in Helsinki sought information about anthrax from the foreign ministry in October, Finnish media reported Saturday.

The query - reportedly lodged about a month before the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Baghdad - sought suitable methods ``for the early detection of anthrax,'' the Ilta-Sanomat newspaper reported.

The request also concerned ``ways of protecting against anthrax, as well as methods, procedures and equipment needed for decontamination,'' the tabloid said.

Ilta-Sanomat said that the head of the foreign ministry's political division, Markus Lyra, confirmed the report.

``We did not answer it (the request) at all, and there have been no further discussions,'' Lyra was quoted as saying. ``It is not our field.''

``One wonders, whether it was intended simply for propaganda or similar purposes,'' he added.

Foreign ministry officials were unavailable for comment Saturday.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 next last
To: LaBelleDameSansMerci
While some elements of your argument have merit, the following statement undermines everything else you posted and speaks volumes about your politics:

"...our largest-in-human-history prison population..."

Every time I see or hear this particular screed, I wonder if the person writing or uttering it ever heard of the Gulag, or Nazi prisons (death camps), or the prisons in Communist China today.

51 posted on 02/15/2003 5:02:20 PM PST by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Miss Marple, with considerable respect: The Bush Administration did not put itself in a box, I agree. They were blind-sided by France, which has been actively attempting to build an anti-United States coalition. If we can believe news reports, for domestic political considerations Tony Blair needs a UN resolution authorizing the use of force. France continues to block such a resolution and doesn't appear likely to change its position.

If one has listened carefully to the President, he has said over and over again that he wants UN support (approval), but that if necessary he will lead a "coalition of the willing." That essentially means Great Britain. It also means that the President long ago accepted the premise that the United States cannot act alone for a variety of reasons.

If, due to domestic political pressure, Tony Blair found himself unable to support George Bush, then what? Chirac's real target is Blair, whom the French SOB is trying to bring to heel so that France and Germany can continue to dominate the EU (and, at some point down the road, their hope is to replace the U.S. as the world's dominant power). At the moment, Bush and Blair are badly losing the public relations war. And I do mean badly. Trust me on this point as I know whereof I speak when it comes to PR. This hurts both of them, but Blair first and perhaps worse.

The United States would, in pratical terms, be going it alone if we went into Iraq without Great Britain. None of us on this forum should underestimate the grave risks involved should events transpire in that way. And I'm not talking about military risks, but risks from a possible French-led international coalition against us.

My point is that we cannot keep sitting around giving France and the UN time to come around. As the President, himself, said, time is not on our side. The President is soon going to have to make the choice of whether or not to go or back down.

52 posted on 02/15/2003 5:27:12 PM PST by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Let not your heart be troubled. Everything is going according to plan. Ask Uncle Vlad. He knows.
53 posted on 02/15/2003 5:28:50 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Well, if one asumes that the French blind-sided us, much of your theory would be plausible. However, I see no reason to thnk the administration was blind-sided, since the French merely did what they have been saying for the last few weeks.

I do not think Blair is going to pull out. If he does, he looks weak at home and puts Britain on the list of non-helpfuls (which I am certain Bush is keeping).

Keep this in mind: if we can monitor Iraqi phone calls, as Powell showed in the UN, what makes you think we can't monitor French and German calls as well?

I think everyone needs to look at the track record of this administration and have a little more confidence.

54 posted on 02/15/2003 5:46:03 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
IMO and many probably disagree, but I do not believe the French and Germans are part of some "strategery". I believe they know he was the author of 9/11, the anthrax attacks and that many Iraqi "politicals" reside in their countries. I believe they have come to the conclusion that they would rather live with an Iraq armed with WMD and whatever that may entail than risk the cost of taking him out. My guess is somewhere in the back channels it has been communicated that if they play the game according to his rules they will be spared any retaliation.
55 posted on 02/15/2003 5:50:05 PM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Russia, OTOH, I do not think is playing the same game.
56 posted on 02/15/2003 5:51:28 PM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Whatever is going on, one thing I know to an absolute certainty based on an entire career spent in public communications: The President cannot keep blustering about the use of force in Iraq for much longer without losing all credibility

Have you ever looked around you? Do you think anyone besides a couple hundred freepers and a few thousand left wing agitators really even have a clue what is going on or what is a stake? As long as Joe Millionare keeps running, Wal Mart is still open and stocked and the Circle K is still selling beer and lottery tickets it will be but a blip in the continuum.

57 posted on 02/15/2003 5:57:16 PM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: riri
My guess is somewhere in the back channels it has been communicated that if they play the game according to his rules they will be spared any retaliation.

No specific communication would even be necessary. All the key players understand the forces that are in play here, the incentive structure, the carrots and the sticks.

As regards "strategery," understand that different players call for different tactics. Some players may be "in" and "on board," while others may be exploited to achieve policy ends in a more Pavlovian fashion, leveraging their known stimulus-response characteristics You see the same motifs recurring over and over again in the Bush "strategery." Consider three different aspects of the post-911 situation that he has had to finesse: the anthrax threats, the Arafat problem, and the issue of confronting Iraq. In each case, some kind of stall and/or misdirection has been necessary to avoid things going off half-cocked. In each case, leftist or anti-American forces have been unwittingly leveraged to facilitate the administration's objective. The anthrax cover story leveraged the liberal media's enthusiasm for right-wing villains, and left-wing busybody Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's fixation on the bogeyman of the "military-industrial complex." The usual suspects internationally (France, Germany) facilitated the almost imperceptible removal of Saddam's cat's paw, Arafat, from the world stage, and are now giving Bush the cover he needs to go slow over any military confrontation with Iraq. In each case, in addition to the useful idiots, there have also been aligned forces which having knowingly conspired in the stall or misdirection. In the case of the anthrax, this included, at minimum, the FBI's Operation Amerithrax and it's author, Dr. Steven Hatfill. Colin Powell played the Hatfill/fall-guy role in the Arafat strategy, pretending to be a great, hand-wringing advocate of a continued relationship with our erstwhile "partner in peace." Powell has played the same role with respect to Iraq. My guess would be that, while Powell has, at least for the time being, "uncloaked," he has passed the baton onto that old KGB man, Vladimir Putin. And Vladimir knows how to keep a secret. Notice how, even though Russia's position on Iraq is virtually identical to France's, there's not the slightest indication that has lost his faith in Putin.

I don't know whether the Schroeder and Chirac personally fall into the useful-idiot category, or the knowing-shill category. I tend to suspect the former at this point -- I think they're the Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Nic Kristof of the big strategy. But it doesn't matter, so long as they do what we need them to do. And right now, what we need them to do is to make it look like Bush is fearless and gung-ho for war, while giving him the cover he needs to postpone this thing until we are good and ready.

58 posted on 02/15/2003 6:27:47 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; The Great Satan; riri
The question is not one of having confidence in our Dubya or in Tony Blair. It is a lack of confidence in the general publics of Great Britain and the United States. More to the point, a lack of confidence in the mass media. Headlines and images like the following DO MATTER:

From the AP via Yahoo News: "Millions Worldwide Rally Against Iraq War."


Partial AP/Yahoo News Caption: Anti-war protesters demonstrate near the United Nations headquarters, Saturday, Feb 15, 2003 in New York to protest a possible U.S. - led attack on Iraq, part of a day of global protests. The crowd stretched for 20 blocks along First Avenue...(AP Photo/Shawn Baldwin) [emphasis mine]

Riri, your point that most in the general public are clueless is absolutely correct. To the extent that they pay any attention to news at all, the vast majority of people only skim the surface of news stories. Their opinions are easily buffeted by breathless headlines, dramatic images, superficial talking heads, and malicious polls.

When you or I look at the photo above, we take the time to analyze it. Most FReepers are likely to notice that there are many signs and banners in foreign languages, including Arabic, but not one American flag. Central in the photo is a huge sign from the rabidly anti-American hard Left group A.N.S.W.E.R. You and I will notice, but the vast majority of the public will only notice a sea of prostesters from around the world on TV tonight.

We must never forget that Tony Blair (bless him) is the head of the Labour Party, a coalition of mostly hard Left dolts, many of whom were probably out among the protesters today. Blair could very easily wind up facing a no confidence vote organized by political enemies to his Left. Then what?

MY POINT TO ALL OF YOU IS THAT PUBLIC RELATIONS MATTERS A GREAT DEAL. In some ways it is even more important than careful war planning.

As for France, they did blind-side Bush and Powell. That's not my opinion, it's what every analyst on Fox News has been saying for the past 10 days or so whenever the subject comes up. It's what many commentators have said in opinion pieces. How have they blind-sided us? By actively and sneakily working to forge an anti-American, anti-British coalition with, among others, Germany, Russia and China to use the UN to tie our hands.

I know it's hard for Americans to even comprehend that it might be possible, but the very international instruments we have used since the end of WWII to keep the peace and foster global free trade could be turned against us. France could easily go the next step and begin seeking sanctions against us if we go into Iraq essentially alone. We would be — heck, we are being — painted as the aggressors; as the danger to world peace.

Please, my FReeper friends, you are all too smart and saavy to under-estimate the danger of losing the public relations aspects of this war.

I would love for us on FR to figure out a way to help this President. But first we need to recognize the very real dangers we face, not just from WMD, but from WMS: Weapons of Mass Stupidity.

59 posted on 02/15/2003 6:37:55 PM PST by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
You make a good point about PR. However, the demonstrations today didn't get nearly the attention I thought they would. In addition, the New York Times came down on the side of the administration and for the war, which quite surprised me.

Since the media, like lemmings, follow the Times, we will see more pro-war stuff from them. I can only conclude that Howell Raines was given a briefing and told to get on board.

I expect that pretty soon a few papers in Britain, as well as the BBC, will begin to change their tune. After all, the British are notoriously disdainful of the French. A few weeks of playing that asinine French foreing minister on BBC and Sky News, and we won't be having too many more demonstrations, I think. (I am only saying this half-humorously.)

You are right that there is a fine line to be walked, and the president is doing so. He came in at the nick of time with that excellent State of the Union speech followed by Powell's presentation, and support for the war soared.

I just think a lot of people are overreacting to the UN. Nothing was a surprise to me, since I expect little from that group.

At any rate, we will see the next act of this drama next week, and I expect all of us will be surprised.

60 posted on 02/15/2003 6:50:00 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
"Satan," I remain deeply impressed by your intellect and your fearless willingness to urge others to think. However, I would urge you to not overlook this fact: Even the incredible Bush team cannot control all events. There are plenty of independent actors in this drama, each with their own agendas and publics to feed. Public relations is a nasty beast that can easily devour the best-laid plans of the best-intentioned people. The PR beast has taken an extremely tricky and worrisome turn in this cold month of February. What I am hoping for is a good old-fashioned massive backlash against all the rabid anti-Americanism coming from the Left. But I am not optimistic, because most people aren't informed enough to understand that it is, in fact, ideologically driven.
61 posted on 02/15/2003 6:51:11 PM PST by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
I remember the same thing in London before Desert Storm. What we have on our hands now is Gulf War II: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.
62 posted on 02/15/2003 6:52:52 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
If TGS' theory is correct (and, I'm sorry to say, I'm beginning to believe that it might be), then the anti-Americanism you cite serves our immediate purpose: to delay without acknowledging that we are being blackmailed by Iraq.

In due time, this antipathy will disappear. I personally expect Bush and Powell to use the next few months to prove their multilateralist and diplomatic bona fides, which should please our European "allies."

63 posted on 02/15/2003 6:55:35 PM PST by cicero's_son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
What you have to understand is, people don't want to be killed with anthrax. Therefore, we aren't getting into a shooting match with Saddam just yet. But, to quote my alter ego in The Exorcist: "In time. In time."
64 posted on 02/15/2003 6:55:56 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
Click on my profile to get Dick Cheney's rationale. See if you can gainsay it.

If I'm reading you correctly, you disagree with the premise of my question: i.e. we are ready to do something about the state sponsored anthrax.

Do you think we are not ready on the warfront or not ready of the homefront?

65 posted on 02/15/2003 6:57:25 PM PST by ConservativeLawyer (Liberate Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeLawyer
Do you think we are not ready on the warfront or not ready of the homefront?

On the homefront. The war front will be a piece of p***. And, by the time we're ready on the homefront, it will be a piece of p*** squared.

66 posted on 02/15/2003 6:59:55 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I hate the UN and remain sorry that the President chose to go that route. I, like many others on the Right side of the politial spectrum, do not believe our foreign policy should be held hostage to phony global governance institutions. However, since the President did choose that route, he's stuck with having to continue to play it out. I think if that latest UN deadline (3/14) passes, and we are all still be playing this year's great guessing game, the President will begin to be in serious trouble here at home. I do not want to see that happen.
67 posted on 02/15/2003 7:00:01 PM PST by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Allan
Ping
68 posted on 02/15/2003 7:21:45 PM PST by Nogbad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
I don't know whether the Schroeder and Chirac personally fall into the useful-idiot category, or the knowing-shill category. I tend to suspect the former at this point -- I think they're the Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Nic Kristof of the big strategy. But it doesn't matter, so long as they do what we need them to do. And right now, what we need them to do is to make it look like Bush is fearless and gung-ho for war, while giving him the cover he needs to postpone this thing until we are good and ready.

This is baby vomit. We will be good and ready by the end of the month. We will be even more ready by the middle of March, when I believe this thing is scheduled to jump off.

Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. This is all about logistics. It really never had anything to do with anthrax; it has to do getting all the men, equipment, arms, and POL in position to engage in a fast moving blitz operation.

The object of that operation is to actually put us in Baghdad by D+4 at the latest, to take advantage of the speed of our mechanized units and the confusion that will reign among Saddam's command.

The United States will have upwards to 200,000 men in and around Iraq by the end of the month. No amount of anthrax can alter this fact, nor can it remove the political imperitive to undo Saddam Hussein's regime. Military buildups take on a life and momentum of their own, and this one is no different.

We attack by the middle of the March.

Convoluted scenarios cannot explain away an obvious military buildup. The military is not designed to remain at a high state of readiness for an extended period of time. There's a lot of talk going 'round that the United States could attack in the fall. People who believe that have no idea what it takes to keep an army in the field, fed, and its morale up.

Great Powers do not take risks like this without being willing to act. We are willing to act, and we will.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

69 posted on 02/15/2003 7:34:22 PM PST by section9 (The girl in the picture is Major Motoko Kusanagi from "Ghost In the Shell". Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: LaBelleDameSansMerci
In response to your question: "Why Sadaam in particular? What precisely is it about Sadaam---who has been pinned down by the Anglo/Saxon airforce for 12 years--that makes him a greater threat than the North Korean dictator? Than the government of Pakistan? Or India? How about the big moo shu porker--China?"

How about one question for you? What ruler in current times is known for having used WMD intentionally against people? And not once but multiple times.

North Korea?...No
Pakistan?...No
India?...No
China...No

Iraq?...Yes, something like 20 times he has used WMD against his people and possibly some people of Iran as his troops were pulling out at the end of that war. Iran is not even known for that. Combine that with such weapons as chemical, or biological that can be stored and moved in small packages and the 12 years of overflights have not stopped his ability to have these weapons. The means which he could use them are through others. He could not do much himself, but he could cause a huge number of deaths simply by getting someone else who was willing to do his bidding for him. Are you willing to bet the lives of the ones you love that he would not do that? Or do you think that our planes can detect 1-2 ounce bottles, jars etc of Smallpox, or anthrax etc. and stop them from several thousand feet? I am not willing to risk the lives of those I love just so that you can sing your Kumbaya.

70 posted on 02/15/2003 7:39:31 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
"What Iraq wanted Finland to do...was explain how you would go about detecting the stuff. They want the technology and means to prevent UN detection in Iraq of Anthrax spores. If you can buy the technology...my guess is $10 mil or less...then you can effectively hide all of the equipment and never worry about some bumbling idiot stumbling upon it."

Bingo!

71 posted on 02/15/2003 7:54:14 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
Thanks for the article!
72 posted on 02/15/2003 7:57:17 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: section9
Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. This is all about logistics. It really never had anything to do with anthrax; it has to do getting all the men, equipment, arms, and POL in position to engage in a fast moving blitz operation.

ROFL!

73 posted on 02/15/2003 7:57:50 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: section9
It really never had anything to do with anthrax; it has to do getting all the men, equipment, arms, and POL in position to engage in a fast moving blitz operation.

LOL

74 posted on 02/15/2003 8:27:29 PM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
I was just looking at goodnesswins' thread, The New United Nations, and I had a rather interesting thought. I've been wondering what the gambit is going to be to keep forward momentum going and avoid losing face as we string this out over summer and probably beyond. There has to be a game plan. I think I see a nifty possibility here. Bush could make the failure of the UN the immediate issue, and leverage the situation to replace it. This would make sense from so many different angles, it's not even funny. It would allow us to put Saddam on the back-burner (but still warming up) while we haggle over the ending of the UN and the establishment of the new "Liberty Alliance" -- we could kill a year on that without looking weak. It would allow us to kiss Kofi Annan goodbye -- and he, more than anyone outside of Iraq, is responsible for the current crisis in world security. We could blow off all the crap, all the losers, all the sadists and psychos on the world stage, and leave them to stew in their own muck. And then, sometime next year, when the realignment is complete and we have our defenses together, we could go in there and kick Saddam's ass. Look, I've only had a few minutes to think about this scenario, but wouldn't this just be classic George W. Bush?
75 posted on 02/15/2003 8:41:13 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins; Frank_2001
I should have addressed the last post to you, too.
76 posted on 02/15/2003 8:43:20 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: riri
"Have you ever looked around you? Do you think anyone besides a couple hundred freepers and a few thousand left wing agitators really even have a clue what is going on or what is a stake? As long as Joe Millionare keeps running, Wal Mart is still open and stocked and the Circle K is still selling beer and lottery tickets it will be but a blip in the continuum"


Couldn't have said it better! And besides not having a clue, no one even wants one for free! Have you ever tried to talk to someone, other that on FR, about this? The average Joe doesn't pay attention.
77 posted on 02/15/2003 9:27:15 PM PST by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: section9
Good heavens....pull your head out.
78 posted on 02/15/2003 9:35:39 PM PST by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: OneLoyalAmerican; Fred Mertz; Badabing Badaboom; patriciaruth; bonfire; Grampa Dave; Wallaby
Bumping you on my earlier post. Basically, what I'm suggesting is that the next phase in the campaign will be the final Arafatization of the UN, and the assembly of a new "Liberty Alliance" to replace it. I have had some more time to think about it and I'm increasingly convinced that (a) this is what Bush is going to do and (b) it's an insanely great plan. There are so many angles to it, I don't know where to begin. To be continued...
79 posted on 02/15/2003 11:09:48 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
Bush could make the failure of the UN the immediate issue, and leverage the situation to replace it.

What a delightful idea. I don't know how likely this is, but if Pres. Bush is looking for a bold step that would take us in the right direction, one that would at the same time strengthen our international position, explain yet another delay in the war, and bolster the support of his conservative base, that would do it.

80 posted on 02/15/2003 11:17:14 PM PST by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
Bush has already promised, if the UN does not act, he will lead a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein. The great thing about Bush is, if you listen very carefuly to what he says, he always gives people a heads up as to what's going down. Bush is going to make good on that promise. Note, BTW, that he never committed to attack Iraq in a matter of weeks -- he simply said that the UN must act in a matter of weeks. So, now we find out what "leading a coalition" implies. And, my prediction is, it's going to imply the complete humiliation of the UN -- no more "sanction of the victim," to use Ayn Rand's term -- followed by the careful, systematic assembly of a new world body that will do the job the UN was supposed do. We're going to put together a by-invitation-only, self-perpetuating fraternity of freedom-oriented nations. The "fraternity" aspect is a wonderful piece of poetic justice, given the scorn heaped on Dubya for his "frat boy" mentality. Francois de Villepin, or WTF that frog pillowbiter's name is, will have the smile wiped of his silly, smug face when he finds himself out in the cold with a bunch of freaks and whack-jobs -- a veritable "Trenchcoat Mafia" of outcast, loser nations. Gerhard Schroeder will have to take up a new occupation, like searching for his approval ratings with a microscope. Kofi Annan, who bears more responsibility for 9-11 than any human being outside Iraq, will have to get used to paying his parking tickets like a normal human being. This humiliation is very necessary. All of this will be enormously popular with the American people. All of this was foreshadowed in the administration's Arafat strategy. Bush has given ample warning to all the offending parties. The verdict of history will be decisively in favor of Bush's New World Order, and the likes of Annan, Schroeder, de Villiepan, Chirac, etc., will be remembered in the same breath as Chamberlain, Quisling, Lord Haw-Haw, Benedict Arnold, Kurt Waldheim, and Marshal Petain.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm coming and I think I'll have to go change my underwear.

81 posted on 02/15/2003 11:46:19 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell

What do you think Bush's approval ratings will be the day after the announcement?

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw the United Nations forever. We begin evictions in five minutes."

82 posted on 02/16/2003 12:01:56 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
What do you think Bush's approval ratings will be the day after the announcement?

Way up, no question about it.

The key that makes this work is that it wouldn't just be scrapping the U.N., it would be replacing it with a different international organization, one with a solid political foundation based on the principle of freedom of the individual, unlike the U.N.

If the socialist claptrap promoted by a sovereignty-usurping U.N. can be replaced by a loose federation of free countries, it would be a fitting start for the new millennium. This organization would, by its nature, be libertarian-leaning, just as the U.N. is socialist/authoritarian-leaning. The repercussions on domestic politics in the member countries would be positive as well, because of a mutually reinforcing effect.

The U.N. could move its headquarters to Beijing or Damascus or some such place. The lines would be clearly drawn between freedom and slavery, between liberty and tyranny.

Well, I guess I've gone on about this long enough, but I really like the idea.

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw the United Nations forever. We begin evictions in five minutes."

LOL! He'd be more diplomatic than that. I haven't really given this idea any thought though -- how would you get there from here?

83 posted on 02/16/2003 12:25:45 AM PST by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
I haven't really given this idea any thought though -- how would you get there from here?

I don't think it would be that difficult. Bush is a businessman. He thinks like a businessman. That's his genius -- his characteristically American genius. If one of your investments isn't making a profit, you cut your losses and get out. When the Enronites came to him begging for a bail-out, he just told them to get lost. There's nothing so important that the UN does, even in purely PR terms, that could not be nixed or grandfathered into a new and better organization. I think that, unlike the Enronites, the UNites probably don't understand how precarious their position is -- they are totally divorced from the world of accountability, not merely on vacation from it. And, boy, would I like to see the looks on their faces when the axe goes down.

The only problem I see with this idea is, how come I didn't think of it before? Oh, well. Even the Great Satan can't think of everything.

84 posted on 02/16/2003 12:35:28 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
The key that makes this work is that it wouldn't just be scrapping the U.N., it would be replacing it with a different international organization, one with a solid political foundation based on the principle of freedom of the individual, unlike the U.N.

Very important point.

85 posted on 02/16/2003 12:36:22 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
It might be useful if, after the announcement of the new Liberty Alliance, Vladimir Putin went into a "Should I stay or should I go?" routine for, say, 12-18 months.
86 posted on 02/16/2003 12:40:43 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
[The key that makes this work is that it wouldn't just be scrapping the U.N., it would be replacing it with a different international organization, one with a solid political foundation based on the principle of freedom of the individual, unlike the U.N. ]

Very important point.

Most people I know are basically internationalists these days. As such, they support the U.N., because the alternative would seem to be isolationism and xenophobia. But even these strong U.N. supporters cannot abide the respect given to the likes of Arafat, Mugabe, etc. And these aren't isolated cases; supporting such people has become the bedrock on which the U.N.'s foundation is built.

The U.N. has lost the respect of the American public, but people see no alternative, since isolationism is unacceptable. Once there's a realistic alternative out there, the U.N. will be over.

87 posted on 02/16/2003 12:46:41 AM PST by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan; Stefan Stackhouse
From Stefan Stackhouse on another thread: "The price, of course, is that the rupture between the US & UK on the one hand and France, Germany, and Belgium on the other, will become total and permanent. NATO will not survive, neither will the UN, and the EU may split in two. It is not inconceivable that France and Germany might even break diplomatic relations with us.
"This all might not be seen as actually being much of a downside. The point is, of course, that the old order has come to a close, the world is in the midst of one of those times of profound change, and the world that follows for the next decade or more will look very much different from the one we have become accustomed to for the past decade.
"Your thoughts?"

As I said on another thread, "History is sweeping away the cobwebs of the past."

I agree with both of you that this is a huge watershed in history. Countries are having to take stock in a way they haven't had to do for over half a century.

88 posted on 02/16/2003 12:48:52 AM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
If one of your investments isn't making a profit, you cut your losses and get out.

Especially when you see an excellent investment elsewhere.

You're right about the precariousness of the U.N.'s position. The U.N. has no moral authority, no political authority, no military authority. It's a facade.

In fact, it's a faded, fraying facade that could fall over with the next gust of wind that comes along -- or with just the slightest push by somebody who doesn't want to wait for that gust of wind.

89 posted on 02/16/2003 12:52:54 AM PST by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: section9
Great Powers do not take risks like this without being willing to act. We are willing to act, and we will.

The Great Satan and I have a bet (loser to donate $50 to Free Republic). I say Bush attacks Iraq within three weeks, but TGS has given me till April for the balloon to go up.

My reasons are identical to yours. However, unlike others, I agree with TGS that the risks to our civilian population and our troops from Saddam's WMD are enormous. I just don't think this will deter Bush like TGS believes.

90 posted on 02/16/2003 1:17:27 AM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
If he did what you posted, I would be even more impressed with him!

I think that both are going to start happening very soon.

He has allowed the UN perverts to show their irrelevance and danger to the world. As you noted, "We could blow off all the crap, all the losers, all the sadists and psychos on the world stage, and leave them to stew in their own muck."

I don't think that he will wait to hammer Soddomite!
91 posted on 02/16/2003 7:43:23 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
His first message to the UN was his refusal to knell and take the phony global warming Kyoto treaty as gospel.

Since then there has been a list of slaps in the face of the anti Americans in charge of the UN.

I believe that he set this entire fiasco for the UN and France/Germany up last year. Then, he set the trap in his speech at the UN in September. He told them to act and do something or become irrelevant.

They behaved just like he expected and last week was they started to slide into irrelevance.
92 posted on 02/16/2003 7:50:55 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: bonfire
Have you ever tried to talk to someone, other that on FR, about this?

I try to nonchalantly bring up subjects and then gauge the reaction. I usually get one of three reactions a. Some extremely simple point of view or 2. A reaction that almost borders on hostility that I would even bring up something besides sports, gossip or sitcoms or 3. The ever famous, "Well, you can't do anything about it anyway, so why watch it, worry about it, etc?"

93 posted on 02/16/2003 7:57:11 AM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Mitchell; Badabing Badaboom; Fred Mertz; OneLoyalAmerican; patriciaruth
The giveaway here is that this whole thing with the UN is so eerily reminiscent of the Arafat gambit -- especially the way Powell has been deployed. I should have seen this coming a mile off. (So should Kofi and his pals, but they're smug, self-satisfied nincompoops who couldn't find their arses with both hands.) As you pointed out a while back, Dubya is using the post-9/11 crisis as a pretext to clean house. Bad actors are being removed from the stage. In the wake of 9/11 and the ensuing WMD blackmail threats, Team Bush sat down, took a good long look at the chessboard, and figured out who needed to be taken out. Saddam, of course, but he's the scorpion with the sting in his tail, so we have to deal with him last. But, in the interim, there were a lot of soft targets: Osama bin Laden, terrorism's foremost pitchman; al-Qaeda, now the largest supplier of human missiles to Saddam; the Taliban, AQ's hosts and enablers; Yasser Arafat, Saddam's ally and legitimator in the eyes of the eurosnobs; the United Nations, especially Kofi Annan and the "Axis of Weasels," whose duplicity put WMD in the hands of the world's most dangerous tyrant. They all had to go. And, one by one, they're being picked off. Before each one is taken out, we go through an exercise in which their true nature is very publicly exposed. Bush and Powell knew from the get go that Arafat wasn't going to pull it out. They knew from the get go that the UN weapons inspections were a sham -- it is obviously physically impossible for weapons inspection to disarm Saddam Hussein, given the nature of his arsenal. But, we had to go through the motions: it buys us valuable time, and legitimates the hammer, once it comes down. This is all quite brilliant, I have to say. Can you imagine Al Gore doing this?
94 posted on 02/16/2003 8:16:30 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Whatever is going on, one thing I know to an absolute certainty based on an entire career spent in public communications: The President cannot keep blustering about the use of force in Iraq for much longer without losing all credibility.

Thanks for stating this so clearly. This has been my biggest stumbling block in considering The Great Satan's hypothesis regarding the current state of affairs. I simply can't believe that Bush can hold out for another year given the rhetorical benchmark he's set. And I can't believe that the master communicators of the WH would have allowed him to adopt such a strong line if the possibility existed for him to have to sit on this words, and this level of national emotional buildup, as a bluff. Domestically, politically, it's just too risky. Bush surely realizes that the absolute worst outcome to all of this would be leaving the job unfinished and turning it over to a Democrat in 2004.

Although, I have to admit that after giving up television about a month ago and only getting my news from the Internet, it's amazing how less the "pressure" seems. Perhaps the great mass of Americans doesn't feel like Bush has built up to the rhetorical breaking point after all. Hmm...

95 posted on 02/16/2003 8:21:52 AM PST by Wordsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan; Miss Marple; Dog; Dog Gone; hchutch; Ernest_at_the_Beach; BOBTHENAILER
I think that you have done an excellent summary on Miss Marples Stealth President has identified the evil agents and those who enable them like the UN.

Then they set this who thing in motion as you noted. What has happened since September 2002 is incredible.

The only thing you and I don't agree on is when we whack Saddam. I think that we will start the whacking and pruning early this coming March. If we don't then your theory applies.

Re the Goron. The Goron was the really dummy running for president in 2000. The really smart guy is our president, Thank God! I will be heading to our 10 am services/Mass to say just that and to pray for him and our nation very soon.
96 posted on 02/16/2003 8:23:39 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Wordsmith
You posted an interesting observation: I have to admit that after giving up television about a month ago and only getting my news from the Internet, it's amazing how less the "pressure" seems. Perhaps the great mass of Americans doesn't feel like Bush has built up to the rhetorical breaking point after all. Hmm...

I gave up watching the Rat mantras/agendas posing as news on ABCNNBCBS years ago. Before that I stopped watching the screaming heads on Sunday tv.

I don't subscribe to a left wing fishwrap or the weekly non news mags, Slime and Newsweak.

Thanks to Free Republic, I'm more up on what is really happening and not caught up in the latest agenda/mass rage generated by the mediots.

97 posted on 02/16/2003 8:27:36 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
I think I see a nifty possibility here. Bush could make the failure of the UN the immediate issue, and leverage the situation to replace it.

Fascinating idea. Could certainly work, for the better of all. Even give the leftists something to do with their time, as they love setting up bureaucracies. Yes, classic Dubya. We shall see...

98 posted on 02/16/2003 8:34:38 AM PST by Wordsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Wordsmith
Perhaps the great mass of Americans doesn't feel like Bush has built up to the rhetorical breaking point after all.

The majority of Americans don't want to be killed with anthrax, and will be quite happy to leave Saddam in the pressure cooker for another year or two if it means we can avoid that. But, yes, Bush has to follow up his rhetoric with something big -- he has to have something up his sleeve. And I think we've just figured out what that is likely to be. Immediately post-9/11, Team Bush recognized that we were in no position to retaliate against Saddam, and yet some kind of productive action was psychologically imperative. They needed to identify second-tier soft targets to hit back at. Their solution to that problem was to make the issue bin Laden and the Taliban. This is the same story, all over again: the intractable conflict with Saddam has been transmogrified onto a very tractable conflict with the UN and the Axis of Weasels. And, it's not that these proxy adversaries are innocent: they are 100% guilty. OBL needed killing. The Taliban needed killing. The UN needs killing. And that's what's coming down. Woo-hooo!

99 posted on 02/16/2003 8:47:01 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan; Allan
Here are some quotes from Pres. Bush's Sept. 12, 2002, speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations:

Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

...Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

...If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
Pres. Bush virtually spelled everything out.

The UN can choose: to "serve the purpose of its founding," or to become "irrelevant." Implicit here is that the U.N. will wither away if it becomes irrelevant, and why would we waste time, energy, money, or political capital on a counterproductive empty shell?

Pres. Bush calls this a "test." A test is something which one passes or fails. And failure is failure, with consequences.

The final paragraph I quoted connects the purpose of the U.N. with the great traditions of liberty and learning, concluding with the very interesting statement that "the
promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time." Notice that he does not say that the U.N. will fulfill this promise itself, only that the promise of the U.N. can be fulfilled. This is very carefully worded to be consistent with it not being the U.N., but a newly organized group, who will fulfill that promise.

100 posted on 02/16/2003 9:45:00 AM PST by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson