Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
If Bombing of Iraq Starts . . .
Emergency Response Protest
Although I personally think we should reinstitute the old "In the event of bombing, trash downtown," flier (which indicated some likely downtown targets for those 'precision' actions), this one is also important.
Where : Meet at Powell & Market
When: 5pm on the day of the bombing
coordinated by ANSWER
Here's what they're doing on the inside . . .
Iraqis Told To Prepare for War
Tuesday, July 16, 2002 by Agence France Presse
President Saddam Hussein's powerful elder son Uday urged his father's regime, under threat of a US military strike, to prepare the Iraqi population for war.
As the Iraqi parliament pledged its full support for Saddam and his steps to defend the country, Uday recalled the Gulf War:
"The Iraqi population must be ... prepared on the psychological, military and national levels to oppose any enemy attack and support the burden of the war that risks being more ferocious than that of 1991."
In a document presented to parliament at a special session to discuss the threat of US attack, Uday, himself an MP, called for "strict security measures and the satisfaction of the basic needs of citizens" to avoid a repeat of the "treacherous acts" which Iraq witnessed in 1991.
Uday was referring to the Kurdish uprising in northern Iraq and that of Shiites in the south of the country in March 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War which saw a US-led coalition expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
Preparations were underway and "we will teach the Americans a lesson they'll never forget," Iraqi Culture Minister Hamad Yussef Hammadi told reporters on the sidelines of the parliamentary session.
Foreign Minister Naji Sabri also later went on Iraqi satellite television to warn Baghdad would defend itself against any US attack, and appealed to other Arab countries to show their solidarity.
"Regarding the defense of the dignity and the interests of the nation, there is no flexibility. We will cut off the head of whomever lays their hands on the borders of Iraq," Sabri said.
MPs said in statement released at the session's end that they were "fully behind the command of President Saddam Hussein and support all steps he has taken or will take in the future to defend the security of Iraq, its independence and its national regime."
Parliament will also send delegations to Arab and Islamic countries as part of an information campaign on the US threats, which represent a "violation of the UN charter," Salem al-Qubaissi, head of the Iraqi parliament's committee for Arab and international affairs, told AFP.
Messages will also be sent to the US Congress, Qubaissi said, not ruling out the possibility of holding talks with senators "if they were ready for a just and fair discussion."
Qubaissi later told reporters the parliament would also propose an extraordinary meeting of the 22-member Arab League to discuss the US threats, as well as a similar meeting of the UN Security Council.
US President George W. Bush has renewed a pledge to use "all tools" at his disposal to oust Saddam, whom Washington accuses of developing weapons of mass destruction.
The prospect of US military action was further heightened after July 4-5 talks between Baghdad and the United Nations on the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq broke down.
Monday's 90-minute parliamentary session was attended by most of Iraq's 250 MPs, about 20 of whom took the floor to urge neighboring countries to oppose any facility their governments might lend to a US attack on the sanctions-hit country.
They also called for all borders to be opened to allow Arab volunteers who wanted to help defend Iraq to travel into the country.
Uday said in the document he submitted to parliament that such an attack would be launched from neighboring Iran and Turkey, "which have been, historically, the origin of attacks against Iraq."
But he did not rule out "Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies taking part in carrying out a US plan against Iraq".
Copyright 2002 AFP
Where : Meet at Powell & Market
When: 5pm on the day of the bombing
coordinated by ANSWER
Here's what they're doing on the inside . . .
Iraqis Told To Prepare for War
Tuesday, July 16, 2002 by Agence France Presse
President Saddam Hussein's powerful elder son Uday urged his father's regime, under threat of a US military strike, to prepare the Iraqi population for war.
As the Iraqi parliament pledged its full support for Saddam and his steps to defend the country, Uday recalled the Gulf War:
"The Iraqi population must be ... prepared on the psychological, military and national levels to oppose any enemy attack and support the burden of the war that risks being more ferocious than that of 1991."
In a document presented to parliament at a special session to discuss the threat of US attack, Uday, himself an MP, called for "strict security measures and the satisfaction of the basic needs of citizens" to avoid a repeat of the "treacherous acts" which Iraq witnessed in 1991.
Uday was referring to the Kurdish uprising in northern Iraq and that of Shiites in the south of the country in March 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War which saw a US-led coalition expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
Preparations were underway and "we will teach the Americans a lesson they'll never forget," Iraqi Culture Minister Hamad Yussef Hammadi told reporters on the sidelines of the parliamentary session.
Foreign Minister Naji Sabri also later went on Iraqi satellite television to warn Baghdad would defend itself against any US attack, and appealed to other Arab countries to show their solidarity.
"Regarding the defense of the dignity and the interests of the nation, there is no flexibility. We will cut off the head of whomever lays their hands on the borders of Iraq," Sabri said.
MPs said in statement released at the session's end that they were "fully behind the command of President Saddam Hussein and support all steps he has taken or will take in the future to defend the security of Iraq, its independence and its national regime."
Parliament will also send delegations to Arab and Islamic countries as part of an information campaign on the US threats, which represent a "violation of the UN charter," Salem al-Qubaissi, head of the Iraqi parliament's committee for Arab and international affairs, told AFP.
Messages will also be sent to the US Congress, Qubaissi said, not ruling out the possibility of holding talks with senators "if they were ready for a just and fair discussion."
Qubaissi later told reporters the parliament would also propose an extraordinary meeting of the 22-member Arab League to discuss the US threats, as well as a similar meeting of the UN Security Council.
US President George W. Bush has renewed a pledge to use "all tools" at his disposal to oust Saddam, whom Washington accuses of developing weapons of mass destruction.
The prospect of US military action was further heightened after July 4-5 talks between Baghdad and the United Nations on the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq broke down.
Monday's 90-minute parliamentary session was attended by most of Iraq's 250 MPs, about 20 of whom took the floor to urge neighboring countries to oppose any facility their governments might lend to a US attack on the sanctions-hit country.
They also called for all borders to be opened to allow Arab volunteers who wanted to help defend Iraq to travel into the country.
Uday said in the document he submitted to parliament that such an attack would be launched from neighboring Iran and Turkey, "which have been, historically, the origin of attacks against Iraq."
But he did not rule out "Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies taking part in carrying out a US plan against Iraq".
Copyright 2002 AFP
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"Fight with eagerness and vitality and patience whenever you are forced to defend yourself. Our vision of a world without government is the source of prosperity, freedom, independence, stability and justice to which you aspire. Your comrades will remain unbeatable by the enemy and will come out victorious despite the roaring and boisterousness of the fascist. Anarchy will be victorious, victorious, victorious. All the fascist roaring you are hearing will be withered away by the wind, because the enemy is a greedy oppressor and enemy of truth."
Oops! That's the anarchists version.
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on Wednesday vowed to defeat any U.S. attack on Iraq," United Press International reports:
"Fight with eagerness and vitality and patience whenever you are forced to defend yourself. . . . Your faith is the source of prosperity, freedom, independence, stability and justice to which you aspire," Saddam said in a speech broadcast on official television on the occasion of the 34th anniversary of the Baath Party's taking power in Iraq in a 1968 military coup.
"Your country will remain unbeatable by the enemy and will come out victorious despite the roaring and boisterousness of the foreigners," Saddam said in allusion to U.S. threats to attack Iraq and topple the Baghdad regime.
"Iraq will be victorious, victorious, victorious. . . . All the foreign roaring you are hearing will be withered away by the wind, because the enemy is a greedy oppressor and enemy of God," Saddam said in the 40-minute speech.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020717-081649-4777r
If you're a masochist, here's a special treat: the full text of Saddam's rant.
http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/e2002/e17july-02.htm
Oops! That's the anarchists version.
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on Wednesday vowed to defeat any U.S. attack on Iraq," United Press International reports:
"Fight with eagerness and vitality and patience whenever you are forced to defend yourself. . . . Your faith is the source of prosperity, freedom, independence, stability and justice to which you aspire," Saddam said in a speech broadcast on official television on the occasion of the 34th anniversary of the Baath Party's taking power in Iraq in a 1968 military coup.
"Your country will remain unbeatable by the enemy and will come out victorious despite the roaring and boisterousness of the foreigners," Saddam said in allusion to U.S. threats to attack Iraq and topple the Baghdad regime.
"Iraq will be victorious, victorious, victorious. . . . All the foreign roaring you are hearing will be withered away by the wind, because the enemy is a greedy oppressor and enemy of God," Saddam said in the 40-minute speech.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020717-081649-4777r
If you're a masochist, here's a special treat: the full text of Saddam's rant.
http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/e2002/e17july-02.htm
Check out this passage from an article in the Arab News by Jonathan Power:
Of the three serious wars that the US has fought since 1945--Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War, one ended in defeat and two in draws--not exactly a glorious record.
An Iraq war likewise could end in stalemate. Saddam Hussein is not the Taleban. A war would require a large-scale land invasion of an American-British force that would undoubtedly suffer significant casualties. It would also need staging grounds and this time round Saudi Arabia, the main base for the Gulf War, is unlikely to agree to offer its services.
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=17090
Now check out a passage from an article by Immanuel Wallerstein in Foreign Policy:
Bear in mind that of the three serious wars the U.S. military has fought since 1945 (Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War), one ended in defeat and two in draws--not exactly a glorious record.
Saddam Hussein's army is not that of the Taliban, and his internal military control is far more coherent. A U.S. invasion would necessarily involve a serious land force, one that would have to fight its way to Baghdad and would likely suffer significant casualties. Such a force would also need staging grounds, and Saudi Arabia has made clear that it will not serve in this capacity.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/wallerstein.html
Well, great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.
Of the three serious wars that the US has fought since 1945--Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War, one ended in defeat and two in draws--not exactly a glorious record.
An Iraq war likewise could end in stalemate. Saddam Hussein is not the Taleban. A war would require a large-scale land invasion of an American-British force that would undoubtedly suffer significant casualties. It would also need staging grounds and this time round Saudi Arabia, the main base for the Gulf War, is unlikely to agree to offer its services.
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=17090
Now check out a passage from an article by Immanuel Wallerstein in Foreign Policy:
Bear in mind that of the three serious wars the U.S. military has fought since 1945 (Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War), one ended in defeat and two in draws--not exactly a glorious record.
Saddam Hussein's army is not that of the Taliban, and his internal military control is far more coherent. A U.S. invasion would necessarily involve a serious land force, one that would have to fight its way to Baghdad and would likely suffer significant casualties. Such a force would also need staging grounds, and Saudi Arabia has made clear that it will not serve in this capacity.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/wallerstein.html
Well, great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.
"A war would require a large-scale land invasion of an American-British force that would undoubtedly suffer significant casualties. It would also need staging grounds and this time round Saudi Arabia, the main base for the Gulf War, is unlikely to agree to offer its services."
This statement is incorrect.
"Saddam Hussein's army is not that of the Taliban, and his internal military control is far more coherent. A U.S. invasion would necessarily involve a serious land force, one that would have to fight its way to Baghdad and would likely suffer significant casualties. Such a force would also need staging grounds, and Saudi Arabia has made clear that it will not serve in this capacity."
This statement is entirely wrong.
"Well, great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ."
This cliche is incorrect.
What the U.S. mil can and can not do is a total mystery.
Six thousand five hundred U.S. soldiers could neutralize 80% of all Iraqs mil inside 36 hours.
Replacement government could be accepted by 70% of Iraqs pop within 18 months.
U.S casualties could exceed 500.
[ I could be wrong but low frequency mind altering devices work most effectively inside 30 yards, environmental variance effecting performance. ]
3000 men and women released from 51000 feet. Stealth ultra high altitude para meanies.
50 AC130 gunships.
140 A10 warthogs.
70 various fighter bombers.
120 various helicopters.
1150 various ground assault vehicles.
1 icecream truck.
1 fake swimming pool tarp.
1/2 pack of smokes.
1 roll duct tape.
11 7th son of 7th sons.
1 cheerleader.
430 1.25 Job rolling papers.
Half uh smallmouth bass.
This statement is incorrect.
"Saddam Hussein's army is not that of the Taliban, and his internal military control is far more coherent. A U.S. invasion would necessarily involve a serious land force, one that would have to fight its way to Baghdad and would likely suffer significant casualties. Such a force would also need staging grounds, and Saudi Arabia has made clear that it will not serve in this capacity."
This statement is entirely wrong.
"Well, great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ."
This cliche is incorrect.
What the U.S. mil can and can not do is a total mystery.
Six thousand five hundred U.S. soldiers could neutralize 80% of all Iraqs mil inside 36 hours.
Replacement government could be accepted by 70% of Iraqs pop within 18 months.
U.S casualties could exceed 500.
[ I could be wrong but low frequency mind altering devices work most effectively inside 30 yards, environmental variance effecting performance. ]
3000 men and women released from 51000 feet. Stealth ultra high altitude para meanies.
50 AC130 gunships.
140 A10 warthogs.
70 various fighter bombers.
120 various helicopters.
1150 various ground assault vehicles.
1 icecream truck.
1 fake swimming pool tarp.
1/2 pack of smokes.
1 roll duct tape.
11 7th son of 7th sons.
1 cheerleader.
430 1.25 Job rolling papers.
Half uh smallmouth bass.
Amina Shehada, sister-in-law of slain Hamas terrorist Salah Shehada, tells Fox News that when America invades Iraq, "our support will be for Saddam. He is for us a symbol, a father, and a leader because he is the one who feels our pain."
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58871,00.html
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58871,00.html
Saddam Hussain is the #1 killer of shiite muslims ever.This monster has terrorized Iran for eight years,invaded Kuwait,has commited genocide agaisnt the primative swamp arabs by draining the euphrates swamps,and has slauterd defenseless kurds in northern Iraq.
His son Uday is the arab version of Caligulia, and if the U.S. does not take out Saddam,we can see about 5million americans fry from a suitcase bomb or 20 million from some smallpox infestation via biological warfare.I garrentie that if Saddam is overthorwn there will be dancing in the streets all over Iraq.Remeber this string!
By the way,please spare me the oh,the Indians bullshit.That was over 150 years ago and has no meaning today.
His son Uday is the arab version of Caligulia, and if the U.S. does not take out Saddam,we can see about 5million americans fry from a suitcase bomb or 20 million from some smallpox infestation via biological warfare.I garrentie that if Saddam is overthorwn there will be dancing in the streets all over Iraq.Remeber this string!
By the way,please spare me the oh,the Indians bullshit.That was over 150 years ago and has no meaning today.
> if the U.S. does not take out Saddam,we can see about 5million americans fry from a suitcase bomb or 20 million from some smallpox infestation via biological warfare
And the proof of this is?
And the proof of this is?
The proof is in the pudding. The proof is you disagree. The proof is the Pentagon never left the ground sweetie. The proof is of zero value here in Indy Media day care.
Why are you here? If you hate it so much, I mean....
You're just a troll. Go back to Stormfront.
Pussy.
You're just a troll. Go back to Stormfront.
Pussy.
I enjoy my work.
Whats stormfront ?
Why you always sign your sign your posts , Pussy. ?
Your name is Pussy ?
Funny parents there son.
Whats stormfront ?
Why you always sign your sign your posts , Pussy. ?
Your name is Pussy ?
Funny parents there son.
Still among the living is Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, the airplane that nuked Hiroshima. Studs Turkel interviews him for the Guardian and asks his views on current events:
Turkel: One big question. Since September 11, what are your thoughts? People talk about nukes, the hydrogen bomb.
Tibbets: Let's put it this way. I don't know any more about these terrorists than you do, I know nothing. When they bombed the Trade Centre I couldn't believe what was going on. We've fought many enemies at different times. But we knew who they were and where they were. These people, we don't know who they are or where they are. That's the point that bothers me. Because they're gonna strike again, I'll put money on it. And it's going to be damned dramatic. But they're gonna do it in their own sweet time. We've got to get into a position where we can kill the bastards. None of this business of taking them to court, the hell with that. I wouldn't waste five seconds on them. . . .
Turkel: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?
Tibbets: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.
Not for nothing are Tibbets and his peers called the Greatest Generation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,769634,00.html
Turkel: One big question. Since September 11, what are your thoughts? People talk about nukes, the hydrogen bomb.
Tibbets: Let's put it this way. I don't know any more about these terrorists than you do, I know nothing. When they bombed the Trade Centre I couldn't believe what was going on. We've fought many enemies at different times. But we knew who they were and where they were. These people, we don't know who they are or where they are. That's the point that bothers me. Because they're gonna strike again, I'll put money on it. And it's going to be damned dramatic. But they're gonna do it in their own sweet time. We've got to get into a position where we can kill the bastards. None of this business of taking them to court, the hell with that. I wouldn't waste five seconds on them. . . .
Turkel: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?
Tibbets: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.
Not for nothing are Tibbets and his peers called the Greatest Generation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,769634,00.html
So the point Ffutal is trying to make is lets turn the middle east into a giant sea of molten glass. And then all of our problems would be solved because setting off mass amount of H-bombs is good for everyone who is not getting hit with them directly. Oh and Ffutal in case you didnt know, I was being sarcastic.
A hoody gun packing crack dealer tried to steal from a friend of mine. He put a gun to her head. Had there not been some elderly witnesses nearby he would have shot my friend. Counting on his effective reputation of violence to protect him, he hoody limped away smiling.
When the news reached the victims father and I, everything hoody had ever known as his life changed. We stalked and terrorised hoody and his family till we had enough evidence against them to send his entire family to prison. His mommy and daddy and brother and sister didnt point a gun at my friends head. But they are all in prison now. One punk hoody shows his ass. Whole hoody family turned to glass. Sweet justice.
One vermin islamasist aims at and kills little kids. Whole cheering crowd turns to dust. Sweet justice.
When the news reached the victims father and I, everything hoody had ever known as his life changed. We stalked and terrorised hoody and his family till we had enough evidence against them to send his entire family to prison. His mommy and daddy and brother and sister didnt point a gun at my friends head. But they are all in prison now. One punk hoody shows his ass. Whole hoody family turned to glass. Sweet justice.
One vermin islamasist aims at and kills little kids. Whole cheering crowd turns to dust. Sweet justice.
It is an extremely rare occurence to find people who promote nuclear war, I thank you Alex for pointing out to me that there are some really imbecilic sacs of puss still lingering out there, who desire radiation poisoning for masive amounts of people. Thanks.
Chemo therapy is a horrific form of therapy. Have you any knowlege of it ? Its like taking a branding iron to a open wound instead of a few stitches.
You ever cheer the death of a child T ? You ever give your child a gun without a safety, fully loaded and send that child to play at the park ? Oh, and I'm brainwashed because I love my country, my people. Fuck you T.
And fuck a few hundred million vermin/cancers who love to frenzy the death of children. Oh I feel so bad for them and their futures. Like the sheriff of kent county said, "Theres one son of a bitch we wont have to rehabilitate".
Sit on your hands T. Hide in your little currogated steel pipe in the ground. Sissy ass brain damaged piece of shit you are. 'An ad hominumionium is not a rebuttass'.
You ever cheer the death of a child T ? You ever give your child a gun without a safety, fully loaded and send that child to play at the park ? Oh, and I'm brainwashed because I love my country, my people. Fuck you T.
And fuck a few hundred million vermin/cancers who love to frenzy the death of children. Oh I feel so bad for them and their futures. Like the sheriff of kent county said, "Theres one son of a bitch we wont have to rehabilitate".
Sit on your hands T. Hide in your little currogated steel pipe in the ground. Sissy ass brain damaged piece of shit you are. 'An ad hominumionium is not a rebuttass'.
"You ever cheer the death of a child T ? You ever give your child a gun without a safety, fully loaded and send that child to play at the park ? Oh, and I'm brainwashed because I love my country, my people. Fuck you T."
And fuck you too...why do I feel like I have had this conversation before...smashy is that you old boy?
I never recall cheering for the deaths of children. i have never sent mine out with guns to play in the park. i do not promote violence, you do. you promote cooking people, turning cities into giant microwave ovens, turning childrens bones into pieces of rubber at best. When did I say I hate my country. I would like you to point that out for me please.
" And fuck a few hundred million vermin/cancers who love to frenzy the death of children."
You would be one of those people cheering, as you support the use of nuclear weapons.
'An ad hominumionium is not a rebuttass'.
Sorry i was a little too sophisticated in my diction the last time, next time I will walk you through how to formulate a logical arguement, you know, one that makes sense. But there it is, I never said that to you. In fact I have not said that to anyone here in quite a while...
And fuck you too...why do I feel like I have had this conversation before...smashy is that you old boy?
I never recall cheering for the deaths of children. i have never sent mine out with guns to play in the park. i do not promote violence, you do. you promote cooking people, turning cities into giant microwave ovens, turning childrens bones into pieces of rubber at best. When did I say I hate my country. I would like you to point that out for me please.
" And fuck a few hundred million vermin/cancers who love to frenzy the death of children."
You would be one of those people cheering, as you support the use of nuclear weapons.
'An ad hominumionium is not a rebuttass'.
Sorry i was a little too sophisticated in my diction the last time, next time I will walk you through how to formulate a logical arguement, you know, one that makes sense. But there it is, I never said that to you. In fact I have not said that to anyone here in quite a while...
I'm up for some serious cd when the bombing starts . . . I was going to say a lockdown (at least) at Feinstein's office, but she's actually come out against the bombing! I think because she's worried she'll run out of money for Israel.
Desert Storm saw a cop car turned over, among other things.
Any other ideas for actions (besides turning the middle east into molten glass)?
Desert Storm saw a cop car turned over, among other things.
Any other ideas for actions (besides turning the middle east into molten glass)?
There is a religion that is controlling the actions of a few hundred million men and women in the middle east right now. This religion tells its followers that when someone wrongs you, kill their children. Dont attack their military which is performing the wrong. Dont attack their government. Attack their children where ever they may be. They take their children and strap bombs to them and tell them to walk into video game arcades, pizza parlors, grocery stores, parks, schools, and get as close to the children as you can before you explode.
I say, if this is how they want to fight their wrong doers, they do not deserve to breathe. They dont deserve to eat or walk or sing or dance or cheer. They deserve to die, quickly and without chance of living. If this means turning them to vapor, then so be it.
Oh I'm so awful. Oh I'm so vile and disgusting. I do not deserve to breathe or laugh or sing or dance.
The religion that stones to death women for showing affection to others, for driving a car, for wanting a job, for loving another. Is a religion of illness. Is a cancer. Is without hope of rehabilitation.
Oh and I am such a heathen. So ignorant. So worthless. but Islam must be defended by any means. When a religion cheers at the instant death of thousands of innocent working people, yes, nuke that god damned religion.
I'm not out to catch bees nessie, pointer, debate coach, sick lost loser mr t. So unlike you I do not need to suger coat my opinions. I'm no tafraid the kids at teh coffe house will think I am uncool. I dont model myself after forgotten sick lost losers from histories archives.
I'm me, right now, right here, in your face.
I say, if this is how they want to fight their wrong doers, they do not deserve to breathe. They dont deserve to eat or walk or sing or dance or cheer. They deserve to die, quickly and without chance of living. If this means turning them to vapor, then so be it.
Oh I'm so awful. Oh I'm so vile and disgusting. I do not deserve to breathe or laugh or sing or dance.
The religion that stones to death women for showing affection to others, for driving a car, for wanting a job, for loving another. Is a religion of illness. Is a cancer. Is without hope of rehabilitation.
Oh and I am such a heathen. So ignorant. So worthless. but Islam must be defended by any means. When a religion cheers at the instant death of thousands of innocent working people, yes, nuke that god damned religion.
I'm not out to catch bees nessie, pointer, debate coach, sick lost loser mr t. So unlike you I do not need to suger coat my opinions. I'm no tafraid the kids at teh coffe house will think I am uncool. I dont model myself after forgotten sick lost losers from histories archives.
I'm me, right now, right here, in your face.
I really like your style, truly insightful. Islam has become polarized much to the dismay of the modern world, or at least us here. I am never for non secular governments, as I have repeated time and time again. i do think that they are a problem. i do agree with the Constitution, I think it was a damned good idea to separate church and state. It prevents at least religious radicals, that is people who take their opinions from something that is based on faith, that is not reason, in the political realm. So your proposal to remedying this problem is ethnic cleansing. To kill all Arabs. Genocide is a highly contemptious thing. Now what Aleander, Alexander, Exender, SmashtheLeft do you want me to tell you why genocide is immoral?
"If you believe the way to punish those you believe have wronged you, is to target and kill their children. You do not deserve to live.
If you are such vermin that you kill children to get your point across, you do not deserve to live."
Nuking Arab countries would accomplish nothing less than this. Then I guess they would have the justification to nuke us back right?
Organizing against your countries policies is almost never done with bad intentions. One could even argue the KKK is actually in their own twisted minds trying to make the country a better place. Aside from maybe a couple of idiots who celeberated in NYC after 9/11, mostly Arab Muslims i mind all of you, on Atlantic Ave, Richmond Hill, Patterson NJ, and a couple of other places which were effectively barred from news networks along with the people who beat them up, most people here at least on IMC are trying to make their country a better place. We are trying to reform it, or at least calling for some change. We are allowed to do this, and are even encouraged to do this by the founding fathers of the country. One time slavery was legal, people protested slavery. They, like us now, do not protest the country itself that is looking to destroy it, they protest a particular policy of our country. A lot of things have needed to change in the country, and patriots themselves brought about that change. Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive for his time, he also was the president. he also did things that were not so good either. But the march of events will tell us in the future what we now are doing wrong. 9/11 shot out as probably the biggest shock of my entire life, as I literally watched 8 people I knew die on the television. i do everything in my power not to let that happen again. What I do here, and elsewhere in my life is to try to make sure things like that do not happen again. In the country you will need force sometimes and you will need diplomacy at other times. Anyone who says you only need one is an idiot. At the current moment, I unlike you, want to improve relations with the Arab countries. We have befriended our former enemies in the past, Britan and Japan are perfect examples, and I think we could do that here too. And I will, Alex do everything possible in my power to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, always. I am not a pacifist, but anytime you promote using nukes I will immediately be there to criticize you.
If you are such vermin that you kill children to get your point across, you do not deserve to live."
Nuking Arab countries would accomplish nothing less than this. Then I guess they would have the justification to nuke us back right?
Organizing against your countries policies is almost never done with bad intentions. One could even argue the KKK is actually in their own twisted minds trying to make the country a better place. Aside from maybe a couple of idiots who celeberated in NYC after 9/11, mostly Arab Muslims i mind all of you, on Atlantic Ave, Richmond Hill, Patterson NJ, and a couple of other places which were effectively barred from news networks along with the people who beat them up, most people here at least on IMC are trying to make their country a better place. We are trying to reform it, or at least calling for some change. We are allowed to do this, and are even encouraged to do this by the founding fathers of the country. One time slavery was legal, people protested slavery. They, like us now, do not protest the country itself that is looking to destroy it, they protest a particular policy of our country. A lot of things have needed to change in the country, and patriots themselves brought about that change. Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive for his time, he also was the president. he also did things that were not so good either. But the march of events will tell us in the future what we now are doing wrong. 9/11 shot out as probably the biggest shock of my entire life, as I literally watched 8 people I knew die on the television. i do everything in my power not to let that happen again. What I do here, and elsewhere in my life is to try to make sure things like that do not happen again. In the country you will need force sometimes and you will need diplomacy at other times. Anyone who says you only need one is an idiot. At the current moment, I unlike you, want to improve relations with the Arab countries. We have befriended our former enemies in the past, Britan and Japan are perfect examples, and I think we could do that here too. And I will, Alex do everything possible in my power to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, always. I am not a pacifist, but anytime you promote using nukes I will immediately be there to criticize you.
"do you want me to tell you why genocide is immoral?"
No. I dont need you to tell me anything about morality.
What I would like for you to tell me is, why its alright to target children ?
You can banter the spots off a dog about how Israel is in the wrong. But not a single blip in protest against terrorists targeting children.
Can you explain that ? Nessie etc etc etc etc etc etc.
No. I dont need you to tell me anything about morality.
What I would like for you to tell me is, why its alright to target children ?
You can banter the spots off a dog about how Israel is in the wrong. But not a single blip in protest against terrorists targeting children.
Can you explain that ? Nessie etc etc etc etc etc etc.
"What I would like for you to tell me is, why its alright to target children ?"
Both sides target children, busting water manes, destroying civic buildings, curfews, buldozing houses all target children. Then there was that one ton bomb that was dropped into the middle of a heavily populated area not too long ago. Anytime you do something like that you concede to killing children, you effectively target children. Hamas and Islamic Jihad and co. are not exactly the people that I am speaking in favor for, at the least. Extremists on both sides target civilians, and most specifically children. Malnutrtion since the recent incursions has reached unprecendented levels in palestine, children bear the brunt of it. The Idea is to push for peace, that would be the way to end this shit. That would mean denouncing the Sharon government and Hamas. I support neither. Like I have said time and time again, if there is anyone that I support in this would be Israel's left, that is people like Peres, who I do believe want peace. The biggest obstacle to peace is beyond any shadow of a doubt Sharon and co. for are the ones with power in this situation, and they have proved time and time again that they want it.
Both sides target children, busting water manes, destroying civic buildings, curfews, buldozing houses all target children. Then there was that one ton bomb that was dropped into the middle of a heavily populated area not too long ago. Anytime you do something like that you concede to killing children, you effectively target children. Hamas and Islamic Jihad and co. are not exactly the people that I am speaking in favor for, at the least. Extremists on both sides target civilians, and most specifically children. Malnutrtion since the recent incursions has reached unprecendented levels in palestine, children bear the brunt of it. The Idea is to push for peace, that would be the way to end this shit. That would mean denouncing the Sharon government and Hamas. I support neither. Like I have said time and time again, if there is anyone that I support in this would be Israel's left, that is people like Peres, who I do believe want peace. The biggest obstacle to peace is beyond any shadow of a doubt Sharon and co. for are the ones with power in this situation, and they have proved time and time again that they want it.
That you guys cant just come out and say that it is wrong for palestinian citizens to aim their guns and bombs directly at Israeli children is amazing.
In the year 2002, in a world of such wickedness, you cant just say, Palestinian citizens strap bombs to themselves and go looking for groups of Israeli children to kill, and this is wrong.
you have to hide it and pollute it with your explanations of why it is wrong for Israel to fight back.
If you believe in a god or a higher power, which I do not, I hope you please him with your blind insanity.
I could care less about Israel. If israel agrees to run in defeat I seriousley could not care less.
That palestinian citizens openly intentionally and with no regret target for death Israeli children is the most vile thing I will ever know.
In the year 2002, in a world of such wickedness, you cant just say, Palestinian citizens strap bombs to themselves and go looking for groups of Israeli children to kill, and this is wrong.
you have to hide it and pollute it with your explanations of why it is wrong for Israel to fight back.
If you believe in a god or a higher power, which I do not, I hope you please him with your blind insanity.
I could care less about Israel. If israel agrees to run in defeat I seriousley could not care less.
That palestinian citizens openly intentionally and with no regret target for death Israeli children is the most vile thing I will ever know.
Or have we just given up on Iraq now that we can have yet another Israel-Palestine argument. Yummy! I'm dying to hear more about Israel and Palestine . . . I just can't get enough of them.
Oh, Bush is gonna drop a nuke?
Who cares! Let's get back to historical facts about what God said about Israel . . . Mmm good! Or how about some more Haliburton dirt? Just what the doctor ordered! Lovin' it! And what's that rascal Worldcom up to now? Aren't they just the cutest corporate crooks you've ever seen? Even turn themSELVES in - now they should get a break for that. It's not like it's their third strike or anything.
What? The pentagon is missing another 3 trillion?
So what! Let's keep the ball rolling with more historical myth-facts about ISRAEL! - yippie! Made my day. Yessir, this is something I look forward to every minute of the day, Israel and Palestine. Better still, what's up with the dog mauling? Someone ought to complain to the Chronicle that they haven't had the dog mauling on the front page in too long now.
What? They're selling land on the moon? But I thought . . .
Never mind, you'd never understand anyway.
Oh, Bush is gonna drop a nuke?
Who cares! Let's get back to historical facts about what God said about Israel . . . Mmm good! Or how about some more Haliburton dirt? Just what the doctor ordered! Lovin' it! And what's that rascal Worldcom up to now? Aren't they just the cutest corporate crooks you've ever seen? Even turn themSELVES in - now they should get a break for that. It's not like it's their third strike or anything.
What? The pentagon is missing another 3 trillion?
So what! Let's keep the ball rolling with more historical myth-facts about ISRAEL! - yippie! Made my day. Yessir, this is something I look forward to every minute of the day, Israel and Palestine. Better still, what's up with the dog mauling? Someone ought to complain to the Chronicle that they haven't had the dog mauling on the front page in too long now.
What? They're selling land on the moon? But I thought . . .
Never mind, you'd never understand anyway.
Check out these luscious lakefront villa sites on the senic shore of beautiful Lake Steadman:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/steadlake.html
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/steadlake.html
Alex, I did condem suicide bombers killing children when I said this:
"The Idea is to push for peace, that would be the way to end this shit. That would mean denouncing the Sharon government and Hamas. I support neither."
The idea is that you cannot divorce the two from each other. Both of them feel that it is quite alright to kill children on the other side as a 'neccesary evil.'
"The Idea is to push for peace, that would be the way to end this shit. That would mean denouncing the Sharon government and Hamas. I support neither."
The idea is that you cannot divorce the two from each other. Both of them feel that it is quite alright to kill children on the other side as a 'neccesary evil.'
Often times, friends of Israel invoke the tragedy of Native Americans to excuse the tragedy of Palestinians. "Your house belongs to the Lenape, give it back" is what one reader said in response to something I wrote about the dispossession of Palestinians and their right of return and restitution.
Of course, my house was not built or ever occupied by an American Indian. But there are certainly many parallels between Palestinians and Native Americans.
On December 21, 1866, in a little valley by Peno Creek, nearly one hundred American soldiers lay dead, disemboweled, dismembered and scalped. White men would come to call it the Fetterman massacre, named after the slain commander, Captain William Fetterman.
Native Americans called it the Battle of the Hundred Slain, where a coalition of Arapahos, Cheyenne and Sioux held a rare victory against invading settlers.
Colonel Carrington, who witnessed the aftermath of the battle, concluded that the Indians were savages driven by a wild impulse to commit slaughter upon the white man. But had he been near Sand Creek, less than two years earlier, he would have seen the result of a raid carried out by soldiers under the command of Colonel Chivington. He would have seen 135 mutilated Cheyenne, most of them women and children. All were scalped. One woman was ripped open exposing her unborn child.
During that massacre, Chief Black Kettle stood with squaws and children beneath the American flag, which was given to him by President Abraham Lincoln with a promise that no soldier would ever harm him or his people beneath that flag. Almost all who cowered under the flag, including babies, were shot, clubbed or knifed to death. Chief White Antelope's privates were cut off by a soldier who said he was going to make a tobacco pouch out of them.
Chivington defended the killing of all Indians that day, even babies, saying that "Nits make lice."
Almost two centuries later, in another land, one of Israel's leading ministers defended Israel's efforts to brutalize and expel Palestinians, saying they are "lice" and a "cancer" that must be excised.
Like the sometimes merciless acts of violence by Native Americans, recent suicide bombings have left 25 Israelis dead, almost all of them brutally dismembered and torn.
Retired General Anthony Zinni called the act "evil" and laid a wreath at the site of the blast. Yet, only one-week before, five Palestinians boys from the same family, walking to school at 5:30 in the morning, were blown to pieces by a bomb, which the IDF admitted it had planted inside a heavily populated refugee camp. Zinni had no wreaths nor expressed sadness for them.
Had Zinni been to Bethlehem, only one month before, he would have seen the altar boy in Manger Square gunned down by Israeli soldiers. He would have seen children shot dead outside their school, a mother of eight mowed down by machine gun fire, cars and shops squashed beneath the weight of tanks. He would have seen the daily torment and humiliation with which Palestinians live. Zinni would have seen 20 innocent Palestinians willfully and deliberately killed in a span of 4 days with American-supplied guns.
Later, American-made F-16 fighter jets terrorized Palestinians in Gaza during a six-hour bombardment of what is believed to be the most heavily populated place on earth. Eyewitness accounts told of close range executions in the West Bank by undercover Israeli death squads. One man was shot in his home in front of his wife and children. A boy in Khan Yunis was shot in the head as he walked out of his home. Two more Palestinians were shot during a funeral procession.
An Israeli soldier said on national television that "we [IDF] shoot them in the head and no one asks any questions."
Palestinian schools are closed, electricity is shut off. Water tanks are destroyed. Not even the sick can cross checkpoints to seek medical attention. Those who can cross are humiliated, like the university students who were ordered to walk on all fours across the checkpoint or undress to their underwear first.
The whole Palestinian population is terrorized. They're besieged in their own homes, which are being bulldozed by the dozens each day or arbitrarily occupied and turned into army outposts. But when the next Palestinian living under Israeli brutality decides to blow himself up in a shopping mall, it will saturate the media and people of the world will look disgustingly at Palestinians, believing the lie that Arabs are inherently "terrorists," as those before them believed that Indians were inherently "savages."
It's the same ancient script of colonialism and domination. Only the people, time and place are different:
The natives are brutalized and dispossessed. They are murdered or removed from their ancestral homeland for being "savages" or "terrorists."
So, it is appropriate to invoke the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans when speaking of the Palestinian plight. It is, however, a bitter irony that such an ugly part of history is invoked as a precedent, rather than in the context of "never again."
Susan J. Abulhawa is a Palestinian who resides in Pennsylvania. She is the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine, a non-profit organization dedicated to building playgrounds and recreation areas for Palestinian children living under military occupation. To find out more about this vital project, visit: http://www.playgroundsforpalestine.org/
Susan can be contacted at: JABROLE [at] aol.com
Of course, my house was not built or ever occupied by an American Indian. But there are certainly many parallels between Palestinians and Native Americans.
On December 21, 1866, in a little valley by Peno Creek, nearly one hundred American soldiers lay dead, disemboweled, dismembered and scalped. White men would come to call it the Fetterman massacre, named after the slain commander, Captain William Fetterman.
Native Americans called it the Battle of the Hundred Slain, where a coalition of Arapahos, Cheyenne and Sioux held a rare victory against invading settlers.
Colonel Carrington, who witnessed the aftermath of the battle, concluded that the Indians were savages driven by a wild impulse to commit slaughter upon the white man. But had he been near Sand Creek, less than two years earlier, he would have seen the result of a raid carried out by soldiers under the command of Colonel Chivington. He would have seen 135 mutilated Cheyenne, most of them women and children. All were scalped. One woman was ripped open exposing her unborn child.
During that massacre, Chief Black Kettle stood with squaws and children beneath the American flag, which was given to him by President Abraham Lincoln with a promise that no soldier would ever harm him or his people beneath that flag. Almost all who cowered under the flag, including babies, were shot, clubbed or knifed to death. Chief White Antelope's privates were cut off by a soldier who said he was going to make a tobacco pouch out of them.
Chivington defended the killing of all Indians that day, even babies, saying that "Nits make lice."
Almost two centuries later, in another land, one of Israel's leading ministers defended Israel's efforts to brutalize and expel Palestinians, saying they are "lice" and a "cancer" that must be excised.
Like the sometimes merciless acts of violence by Native Americans, recent suicide bombings have left 25 Israelis dead, almost all of them brutally dismembered and torn.
Retired General Anthony Zinni called the act "evil" and laid a wreath at the site of the blast. Yet, only one-week before, five Palestinians boys from the same family, walking to school at 5:30 in the morning, were blown to pieces by a bomb, which the IDF admitted it had planted inside a heavily populated refugee camp. Zinni had no wreaths nor expressed sadness for them.
Had Zinni been to Bethlehem, only one month before, he would have seen the altar boy in Manger Square gunned down by Israeli soldiers. He would have seen children shot dead outside their school, a mother of eight mowed down by machine gun fire, cars and shops squashed beneath the weight of tanks. He would have seen the daily torment and humiliation with which Palestinians live. Zinni would have seen 20 innocent Palestinians willfully and deliberately killed in a span of 4 days with American-supplied guns.
Later, American-made F-16 fighter jets terrorized Palestinians in Gaza during a six-hour bombardment of what is believed to be the most heavily populated place on earth. Eyewitness accounts told of close range executions in the West Bank by undercover Israeli death squads. One man was shot in his home in front of his wife and children. A boy in Khan Yunis was shot in the head as he walked out of his home. Two more Palestinians were shot during a funeral procession.
An Israeli soldier said on national television that "we [IDF] shoot them in the head and no one asks any questions."
Palestinian schools are closed, electricity is shut off. Water tanks are destroyed. Not even the sick can cross checkpoints to seek medical attention. Those who can cross are humiliated, like the university students who were ordered to walk on all fours across the checkpoint or undress to their underwear first.
The whole Palestinian population is terrorized. They're besieged in their own homes, which are being bulldozed by the dozens each day or arbitrarily occupied and turned into army outposts. But when the next Palestinian living under Israeli brutality decides to blow himself up in a shopping mall, it will saturate the media and people of the world will look disgustingly at Palestinians, believing the lie that Arabs are inherently "terrorists," as those before them believed that Indians were inherently "savages."
It's the same ancient script of colonialism and domination. Only the people, time and place are different:
The natives are brutalized and dispossessed. They are murdered or removed from their ancestral homeland for being "savages" or "terrorists."
So, it is appropriate to invoke the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans when speaking of the Palestinian plight. It is, however, a bitter irony that such an ugly part of history is invoked as a precedent, rather than in the context of "never again."
Susan J. Abulhawa is a Palestinian who resides in Pennsylvania. She is the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine, a non-profit organization dedicated to building playgrounds and recreation areas for Palestinian children living under military occupation. To find out more about this vital project, visit: http://www.playgroundsforpalestine.org/
Susan can be contacted at: JABROLE [at] aol.com
For more information:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Sus...
"If you believe the way to punish those you believe have wronged you, is to target and kill their children. You do not deserve to live. "
--alex e.
That would apply to most Americans and Israelis. Israel of course has killed about 1800 Palestinians most of which were children. The US government bombed Iraq "back to the stone age" in George Bush's words and used depleted Uranium which is still killing people there. Our bombing and sanctions which we've forced the UN to implement have been responsible for around 2 million deaths and 500,000 of those were innocent Iraqi children. The first casualties were children with diseases like diabetes who died because they could not get their medicine.
Then by Alex E.'s standards, the crimes of 9-11 were justified as we Americans target children in Iraq and support Israel which targets children and occupies Palestine.
--alex e.
That would apply to most Americans and Israelis. Israel of course has killed about 1800 Palestinians most of which were children. The US government bombed Iraq "back to the stone age" in George Bush's words and used depleted Uranium which is still killing people there. Our bombing and sanctions which we've forced the UN to implement have been responsible for around 2 million deaths and 500,000 of those were innocent Iraqi children. The first casualties were children with diseases like diabetes who died because they could not get their medicine.
Then by Alex E.'s standards, the crimes of 9-11 were justified as we Americans target children in Iraq and support Israel which targets children and occupies Palestine.
trying to explaing to Alex or smash or Mr somebody what the problem is with his opinions about Israel and Palestine! Hurray! Then, on our death bed, after years and years of explaining that goes nowhere, let's suddenly realize how much time we've wasted!
Mmm, yummy. More Isreal mythology please, and a second helping of zionazi lemon pie.
What? You mean the rest of the planets are already subsidiaries of Dyncorp? But I thought they were . . .
Well, at least we got some more Israel mythos propoganda pudding!
Mmm, yummy. More Isreal mythology please, and a second helping of zionazi lemon pie.
What? You mean the rest of the planets are already subsidiaries of Dyncorp? But I thought they were . . .
Well, at least we got some more Israel mythos propoganda pudding!
Let's topple Saddam's regime for developing weapons of mass destruction. And when we've done that, let's continue and destroy the governments of Britain, the United States and France who are hiding an estimated three thousand or more nuclear warheads.
i read where that alex guy left here so i think you all can stip bitching at him and stuff.
Get a load of ABC News's take on U.S. public opinion with regard to toppling Saddam Hussein:
Amid repeated calls by President Bush for a "regime change" in Iraq, an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll found that a majority of Americans--69 percent--favor military action to oust Saddam Hussein. But the number drops as Americans consider the price of U.S. involvement.
Fifty-seven percent of those asked said they supported invading Iraq with ground troops. But only 40 percent supported an invasion if there would be significant American casualties.
The American public's lukewarm support for a strong military campaign comes as Saddam and his government mount a public relations campaign designed to show the world Iraq is not the threat the Bush administration says it is.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq020813.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/iraqwar_poll020812.html
So let's see if I have this straight: Nearly 70% of Americans support the liberation of Iraq, but their support is "lukewarm" unless they're keen to see large numbers of Americans killed in the process.
America is lining up more ducks in preparation for action in Iraq: The Associated Press reports that Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, has resolved a longstanding dispute with the State Department over the dispersion of $8 million in U.S. aid to the INC. CNN reports that "a prominent Iraqi Kurdish opposition leader said Tuesday U.S. military forces would be 'welcomed' at areas in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq to stage attacks against Saddam Hussein's regime."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=736&e=3&u=/ap/20020813/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_94
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/13/iraq.opposition/index.html
Meanwhile, "U.S. intelligence agencies spotted activity at an Iraqi factory last week that is increasing fears that Saddam Hussein is advancing his germ-weapons program," the Washington Times' Bill Gertz reports. "A convoy of about 60 trucks was photographed by a U.S. spy satellite at a known biological weapons facility near Taji last week, according to U.S. intelligence officials."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020814-70344777.htm
And London's Daily Telegraph reports that "radical Islamic leaders in London issued a thinly-veiled threat yesterday that the United States and Britain could face a terrorist onslaught akin to the September 11 attacks if they go to war on Iraq." Why doesn't Britain round up these guys and charge them with incitement?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/14/nmula14.xml
Amid repeated calls by President Bush for a "regime change" in Iraq, an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll found that a majority of Americans--69 percent--favor military action to oust Saddam Hussein. But the number drops as Americans consider the price of U.S. involvement.
Fifty-seven percent of those asked said they supported invading Iraq with ground troops. But only 40 percent supported an invasion if there would be significant American casualties.
The American public's lukewarm support for a strong military campaign comes as Saddam and his government mount a public relations campaign designed to show the world Iraq is not the threat the Bush administration says it is.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq020813.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/iraqwar_poll020812.html
So let's see if I have this straight: Nearly 70% of Americans support the liberation of Iraq, but their support is "lukewarm" unless they're keen to see large numbers of Americans killed in the process.
America is lining up more ducks in preparation for action in Iraq: The Associated Press reports that Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, has resolved a longstanding dispute with the State Department over the dispersion of $8 million in U.S. aid to the INC. CNN reports that "a prominent Iraqi Kurdish opposition leader said Tuesday U.S. military forces would be 'welcomed' at areas in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq to stage attacks against Saddam Hussein's regime."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=736&e=3&u=/ap/20020813/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_94
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/13/iraq.opposition/index.html
Meanwhile, "U.S. intelligence agencies spotted activity at an Iraqi factory last week that is increasing fears that Saddam Hussein is advancing his germ-weapons program," the Washington Times' Bill Gertz reports. "A convoy of about 60 trucks was photographed by a U.S. spy satellite at a known biological weapons facility near Taji last week, according to U.S. intelligence officials."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020814-70344777.htm
And London's Daily Telegraph reports that "radical Islamic leaders in London issued a thinly-veiled threat yesterday that the United States and Britain could face a terrorist onslaught akin to the September 11 attacks if they go to war on Iraq." Why doesn't Britain round up these guys and charge them with incitement?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/14/nmula14.xml
""radical Islamic leaders in London issued a thinly-veiled threat yesterday that the United States and Britain could face a terrorist onslaught akin to the September 11 attacks if they go to war on Iraq." Why doesn't Britain round up these guys and charge them with incitement?"
because the 'islamic leaders' are on the CIA payroll, and are informing the public to expect another covert CIA sponsored attack on America or Britain to fan the flames of war.
because the 'islamic leaders' are on the CIA payroll, and are informing the public to expect another covert CIA sponsored attack on America or Britain to fan the flames of war.
Here's a nice example of America's morally superior position in the world: "The US has launched a public bidding process for humanitarian relief organisations to work in Iraq and surrounding areas in the run-up to a possible military campaign against the regime of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein," the Financial Times reports:
A document sent by the State Department to NGOs last month, a copy of which has been obtained by the FT, states : "The office of northern Gulf Affairs [a department within the state department] announces an open competition for proposals for humanitarian assistance projects in Iraq (south, central or northern) and for Iraqi refugees in neighbouring countries."
To say the least, most countries, when preparing to go to war, do not make plans for "humanitarian" efforts on behalf of the countries whose people they're attacking.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1028185767490&p=1012571727088
Meanwhile, CNN reports that "the movement of trucks and missiles inside Iraq has U.S. officials wondering if the nation is preparing for a U.S. military action." Is this really something they need to "wonder" about?
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.us/index.html
"Saddam to Run for Another Term as Iraq President," says the headline of a Reuters dispatch. Here's a case in which those famous Reuterville scare quotes would actually clarify rather than obfuscate the story, which Reuters "reports" as if this were an actual democratic process rather than a sham. Consider this paragraph:
A referendum on October 15, 1995, to endorse Saddam as president was the first such vote in Iraq since it became a republic following a 1958 revolution which toppled the monarchy.
It would be much more accurate had Reuters written:
A "referendum" on October 15, 1995, to "endorse" Saddam as "president" was the first such "vote" in Iraq since it became a "republic" following a 1958 revolution which toppled the monarchy.
Not that Reuters has abandoned scare quotes entirely. This story does use them around "regime change" and "axis of evil."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020815/ts_nm/iraq_referendum_dc_1
A document sent by the State Department to NGOs last month, a copy of which has been obtained by the FT, states : "The office of northern Gulf Affairs [a department within the state department] announces an open competition for proposals for humanitarian assistance projects in Iraq (south, central or northern) and for Iraqi refugees in neighbouring countries."
To say the least, most countries, when preparing to go to war, do not make plans for "humanitarian" efforts on behalf of the countries whose people they're attacking.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1028185767490&p=1012571727088
Meanwhile, CNN reports that "the movement of trucks and missiles inside Iraq has U.S. officials wondering if the nation is preparing for a U.S. military action." Is this really something they need to "wonder" about?
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.us/index.html
"Saddam to Run for Another Term as Iraq President," says the headline of a Reuters dispatch. Here's a case in which those famous Reuterville scare quotes would actually clarify rather than obfuscate the story, which Reuters "reports" as if this were an actual democratic process rather than a sham. Consider this paragraph:
A referendum on October 15, 1995, to endorse Saddam as president was the first such vote in Iraq since it became a republic following a 1958 revolution which toppled the monarchy.
It would be much more accurate had Reuters written:
A "referendum" on October 15, 1995, to "endorse" Saddam as "president" was the first such "vote" in Iraq since it became a "republic" following a 1958 revolution which toppled the monarchy.
Not that Reuters has abandoned scare quotes entirely. This story does use them around "regime change" and "axis of evil."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020815/ts_nm/iraq_referendum_dc_1
"Here's a nice example of America's morally superior position in the world: "The US has launched a public bidding process for humanitarian relief organisations to work in Iraq and surrounding areas in the run-up to a possible military campaign against the regime of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein,"
Could you please explain how the intention to inflict a humanitarian crisis can be construed as a morally superior position?
Could you please explain how the intention to inflict a humanitarian crisis can be construed as a morally superior position?
You state that Reuters should use scare quotes in relation to proper words such as referendum, vote, republic, etc. This is some pretty transparent propaganda.
The reason Reuters use quotes around "regime change" and "axis of evil" is because these are not words. They are quotations. That's right, quotations. Say it with me: quo-ta-tions. VERY good.
Come back when you pass high school English.
The reason Reuters use quotes around "regime change" and "axis of evil" is because these are not words. They are quotations. That's right, quotations. Say it with me: quo-ta-tions. VERY good.
Come back when you pass high school English.
Because 8 out of 10 archys say smashing jojo is smashing your own better layed plans. Right Forest?
I saw "Al Zheimer" oops, I mean "Ronnie Ray-Gun's" name and I knew there would be extreme nuttiness here.
This particular cartoon character wrote on July 30:
"Saddam Hussain is the #1 killer of shiite muslims ever.This monster has terrorized Iran for eight years"
Since you are using the name "Ronnie Ray-Gun", I'm surprised you would point this out. Who was aiding the monster in his project against the Iranians? The U.S. Read a book.
You also say "has slauterd defenseless kurds in northern Iraq." And what was the U.S. response when it happened? the U.S. INCREASED aid to the monster.
Then cartoon character says "if the U.S. does not take out Saddam,we can see about 5million americans fry from a suitcase bomb or 20 million from some smallpox infestation via biological warfare."
What an astounding whopper. First Iraq was declared free of a nuclear weapons program by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Second, they never had a nuke. Third, having the ability to make a nuke and having the ability to make a "suitcase nuke" are radically different. Iraq cannot make the former thus certainly not the latter. Then, if Iraq has any small pox capacity, it is almost certainly only in the form of seed stock. And even if they had a quantity to kill 20 million Americans, they have NO way to deliver such a weapon to the U.S. Remember the Gulf War? Remember the best missile Iraq had: the Scud? What a joke. You expect any rational person to believe that within the last 3 years and 8 months while the UNSCOM inspectors have been out of Iraq (but not the UN - they are still there) Iraq has secretly developed a successful space program? That's what it takes to make ICBMs; it takes a space program. How you could dream up anything so stupid to post is beyond me.
For Mr. Evers, it's always a pleasure to see such a depraved racist. Not only that, you are an irrational lunatic:
"You ever cheer the death of a child T ?"
Actually Mr. Evers, you do:
"One vermin islamasist aims at and kills little kids. Whole cheering crowd turns to dust. Sweet justice."
Gah! Readin further, your crap goes on and on and on, doesn't it. I don't have time for this. You discreditted yourself a long time ago, so I'll be skipping over the rest of what you say unless there is anything intelligent (unlikely).
Ffutal, you say " Those complacent souls now arguing that Saddam Hussein wouldn't do anything mean like develop weapons of mass destruction..."
I'm not sure hwo said that, maybe I missed it. Nice of you to try tro frame the argument that way. Saddam might like to, but under the sanctions, he can't. If I'm wrong prove it.
May I quote Scott Ritter?
"Whenever the Iraqis blocked me and other inspectors from a site, these were sites that dealt with Saddam Hussein's personal security, not Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. These are sites that dealt with Saddam's bodyguards, with Iraqi intelligence, with Iraqi signal intelligence. Why [go there]? Because we thought they might be hiding documents. Not weapons. Documents. But when we went to the factories that capable of being converted to produce weapons of mass destruction, we were never once blocked. And since 1994, we monitored these factories. Not only did we find that they didn't have the capability, and that they weren't producing weapons of mass destruction, [we found] that it would take them 5 to 6 years, with full access to technology, with full access to money that's denied them by economic sanctions, to begin the reconstitute to a level that could be of concern to us. - http://radio4all.net/pub/archive5/mp3_3/ug113-hour1mix.mp3
And what credence can I have in Terry Taylor when he outright lies:
"We eventually cracked the case, but sadly by the time the inspectors were effectively thrown out in 1998, there were still important parts of the programme about which we needed to learn more. "
First, the inspectors were NOT thrown out of Iraq. Even the State Department admits that:
"The inspectors were not thrown out of Iraq. [U.S. State Department] - http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/factsheet.htm
Second, Iraq was very close to being declared free of WMD, which would lift the sanctions, which is counter to U.S. policy:
"...Madeleine Albright has said: "We do not agree that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted." If this means that Saddam Hussein is the target, then the embargo will go on indefinitely, holding Iraqis hostage to their tyrant's compliance with his own demise...." - http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/pilger.htm
"May 20, 1991: President George Bush: "At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." James Baker, Secretary of State: "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.
"March 26, 1997: Albright, in her first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected. Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."
"November 14, 1997: President Clinton. [During a standoff on weapons inspectors] "What he [Hussein] says his objective is, is to relieve the people of Iraq, and presumably the government, of the burden of the sanctions. What he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the end of time or as long as he lasts. So I think that if his objective is to try to get back into the business of manufacturing vast stores of weapons of mass destruction and then try to either use them or sell them, then at some point the United States, and more than the United States, would be more than happy to try to stop that."
Source - http://www.accuracy.org/iraq.htm
Ah, and I see you discredit yourself by saying that those who don't agree with your position are "pro-Saddam".
Ah Ffutal, let me rip off you phrase. "Here's a nice example of America's morally superior position in the world:"
"Thanks to the oil-for-food program, the people of Iraq, especially those in the north, are getting needed foods and medicines” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
The "oil-for-food" programme, in many ways, is a failure because sanctions are an outgrowth of a strategy conceived by the United States to simply inflict the most economic hardship on Iraq as possible. The programme mandates that 25 per cent of oil sale revenues be handed over to the UN Compensation Committee which administers reparations payments related to war damages, while 5 per cent of revenues are shared equally between Turkey, for the transportation costs of oil, and the United Nations, for its administration and operational costs related to Iraq. A further 13 per cent of revenues pay for the administration of the Kurdish territories which act autonomously under cover of the US-UK imposed "no-fly zone." Thus, the Iraqi Government receives only 58 per cent of the revenues from the "oil-for-food" programme, which are to be distributed among 87 per cent of the Iraqi population.
Of the items which had been given the green light, less than 50 per cent have made it to Iraq. As Abbas Alnasrawi, an economy professor at the University of Vermont, has noted, of "the $20.8 billion appropriated to all of Iraq, only $8.4 billion-worth of goods for all sectors of the economy had arrived in Iraq by the end of July 2000." Compounding the misery is the fact that once items make their way to Iraq, it is not guaranteed that they will be distributed in a timely fashion. A 1999 UN Report noted that nearly half of medical supplies which had been imported to Iraq "remained in warehouses and had not been distributed to local clinics and hospitals," in part, because Iraq has not been able to rebuild the infrastructures required to distribute these items. - http://www.zmag.org/content/Iraq/allain_criminalenforcers.cfm
...In March 1999 an expert 'Humanitarian Panel' convened by the Security Council concluded the UN's 'oil-for-food' programme could +not+ meet the needs of the Iraqi people...
The Panel continued:
"Regardless of the improvements that might be brought about - in terms of approval procedures, better performance by the Iraqi Government, or funding levels - the magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such that they cannot be met within the context of [the oil-for-food programme] ... Nor was the programme intended to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people ... Given the present state of the infrastructure, the revenue required for its rehabilitation is far above the level available under the programme." - http://www.zmag.org/content/MainstreamMedia/cohen_reply.cfm
MYTH: “Thanks to the oil-for-food program, the people of Iraq, especially those in the north, are getting needed foods and medicines” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
FACT: Former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday, oversaw the oil-for-food program and believes otherwise. “The OFF program as conceived is completely inadequate. It was designed in fact not to resolve the situation, but to prevent further deterioration of both mortality rates and malnutrition. It has failed to do that; at best it has just about sustained the situation. It’s grossly under-funded, and it has not even begun to address the needs, the dietary needs of the Iraqi people… And on top of that you have a medical sector which gobbles up the rest of the money to a great extent, so again we have not managed to provide the basic needs of the Iraqi people” (The Fire This Time, April 1999). Halliday resigned from his post in September 1998 in protest of the sanctions against Iraq. He had worked for the UN for 34 years. - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
“Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
MYTH: “Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
FACT: Several United States Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents clearly and thoroughly prove, in the words of one author, “beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway” (The Progressive, August 2001).
One document entitled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” [read the document here - http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html] dated January 22, 1991, is quite straightforward in how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens. It explains Iraq’s heavy dependence on the importation of specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water. Failing to secure these items (which is nearly impossible to do under the sanctions), the documents adds, will result in a shortage of drinking water and could “lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease” (U.S. Department of Defense, January 1991).
Other DIA documents confirm that the U.S. government was not only aware of the devastation of the sanctions, but was, in fact, monitoring their progress. The first in a lengthy series of documents entitled “Disease Information” is a document whose heading reads “Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad.”[read the document here - http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0504rept_91.html] The document states, “Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems.” The document then itemizes the likely disease outbreaks, noting which in particular will affect children (U.S. Department of Defense, January 1991).
A second DIA document, “Disease Outbreaks in Iraq” [read the document here - http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0pgv072_90p.html] from February 21, 1991 writes, “Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing.” It continues, “Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm.” Similar to the preceding document, it explains the causes of the disease outbreaks and itemizes them, again paying close attention to which will affect children (U.S. Department of Defense, February 1991).
The third document, written March 15, 1991 and entitled “Medical Problems in Iraq,”[read the document here- http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19951016/951016_0me018_91.html] states that diseases are far more common due to “poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplied and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war.” It then cites a UNICEF/WHO report that “the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply,” that “there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants,” and that diarrhea and respiratory infections are on the rise. Almost as a sidenote, it adds “Children particularly have been affected by these diseases” (U.S. Department of Defense, March 1991). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
...if we look back to the last U.S. war with Iraq, we know that the Pentagon planned and carried out knowing and documenting the likely impact on civilians. In one case, Pentagon planners anticipated that striking Iraq's civilian infrastructure would cause " Increased incidence of diseases [that] will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/ distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks…." The Defense Intelligence Agency document (from the Pentagon's Gulflink website), "Disease Information -- Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad" is dated 22 January 1991, just six days after the war began. It itemized the likely outbreaks to include: "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children." And yet the bombing of the water treatment systems proceeded, and indeed, according to UNICEF figures, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, "particularly children," died from the effects of dirty water. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-02.htm
"Holds on inappropriate contracts help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods to further Saddam’s personal interests” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
MYTH: “Holds on inappropriate contracts help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods to further Saddam’s personal interests” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
FACT: Requests for desperately needed equipment routinely get held up in the Security Council for months at a time. The delays have gotten so bad that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Office of the Iraq Program Director Benon Sevon have written letters decrying the excessive holds placed on items ordered under the program (Education for Peace in Iraq Center).
The holds that perpetuate the detrimental health impacts of the sanctions have gained the attention of one House member. In the summer of 2000, Representative Tony Hall of Ohio wrote a letter to then Secretary of State Madeline Albright “about the profound effects of the increasing deterioration of Iraq’s water supply and sanitation systems on its children’s health.” Hall wrote, “Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment… I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation” (The Progressive, August 2001).
Despite the minimal coverage by Congress, holds continue to expedite the process of destruction within Iraq. “Earlier this year [2001], U.S. diplomats blocked child vaccines for Iraq, including for diphtheria, typhoid, and tetanus. Over $3 billion worth of contracts remain on hold. To date, no hearings have been held” (Education for Peace in Iraq Center, August 2001). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
The United Nations levied the sanctions against Iraq, so the United States is not to blame.
MYTH: The United Nations levied the sanctions against Iraq, so the United States is not to blame.
FACT: Van Sponeck addresses this point head on. “The UN doesn’t impose sanctions. It’s the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions… I don’t see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that’s the outcome, but I don’t see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime” (The Fire This Time, April 1999). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
Don't forget that Saddam is one of many of Washington's creations:
The irony is that the US helped bring Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq, and that the US (and Britain) in the 1980s conspired to break their own laws in order, in the words of a Congressional inquiry, to "secretly court Saddam Hussein with reckless abandon", giving him almost everything he wanted, including the means of making biological weapons. [Under secretary of state] Rubin failed to see the irony in the US supplying Saddam with seed stock for anthrax and botulism, that he could use in weapons, and claimed that the Maryland company responsible was prosecuted. It was not: the company was given Commerce Department approval. " - http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/pilger.htm
Throughout the Iran-Iraq war, the Reagan administration chose to give priority to maintaining U.S.-Iraq relations over concerns about Iraq’s use of chemical warfare. Although Washington regarded the issue as an impediment to expanding the relationship, the U.S. evidently viewed chemical weapons use as, to some extent, a public relations problem for Iraq. The U.S. monitored Iraq’s use of chemical weapons closely. A State Department document from November 1983, for example, refers to Iraq’s "almost daily use of CW" and suggests approaching Baghdad in response. Another recommends that the approach occur as soon as possible to avoid "unpleasantly surprising" the Iraqis with "public positions we may have to take on this issue." (In March 1984, the U.S. publicly condemned Iraq’s chemical weapons use.) These documents also indicate that the U.S. was aware that Iraq, relying primarily on western technology, had acquired a chemical weapons production facility.
Iraq continued its use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces throughout the war. The issue became more problematic for the Reagan administration, however, in the spring and summer of 1988, when Iraq engaged in chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds in the village of Halabja and at other locations. As early as September 2, the State Department confirmed an attack against Kurdish insurgents that had taken place on August 25, while a memorandum to the secretary of state commented that "the failure of the international community to mobilize an effective response has lowered the inhibitions on use of these weapons in the region and elsewhere." Nevertheless, the Reagan administration opposed congressional efforts to respond by imposing economic sanctions, arguing that they would be contrary to U.S. interests. Among the possible negative results cited were the endangerment of contracts for "massive postwar reconstruction" in Iraq. The administration succeeded in blocking the legislation.
The Bush administration became a particular focus of criticism because it followed its predecessor in making strengthened U.S.-Iraq relations a key objective, despite the fact that the end of the Iran-Iraq war had eliminated a major rationale for this goal. A transition paper prepared for the new presidency outlined the conflicts that characterized U.S. policy toward Iraq. The paper recommended assigning high priority to U.S.-Iraq relations because of Saddam Hussein’s potential as a "major player," but reviewed persistent divisive issues, including Iraq’s chemical weapons use which "aroused great emotions" in the U.S., and its "abominable human rights record." These negative factors were contrasted with Iraq’s value as a market and its potential as a trading partner, and wit the fact that it shared an interest with the U.S. in containing Iran. The paper recommended that the new administration should begin with a high-level message calling for further development of political and economic relations.
Critics of U.S. policy toward Iraq during the Reagan and Bush administrations charged that it was based on short-term calculations, a commitment to a risky economic relationship, and the mistaken belief that Iraq could be persuaded to adopt policies compatible with U.S. objectives. Instead of addressing these criticisms, both presidents chose a path which simply reinforced existing policy choices. When the Bush administration confronted reports of widespread abuse by Iraqi officials of U.S. government-backed programs in late 1989, for example, its response was to ensure that an additional $1 billion in credit guarantees would be authorized in 1990. When concerns were expressed both within and outside the administration that Iraq’s purchases of U.S. technology were destined for its nuclear and other nonconventional weapons programs, the White House dismissed them in favor of continued efforts to increase exports and protect the U.S.-Iraqi economic relationship.
For its part, the Reagan administration had downplayed Iraq’s systematic - and illegal - use of chemical weapons throughout the Iran-Iraq war, again for stated foreign policy reasons. Reagan officials went through the motions of responding to the issue by expanding controls on chemical agents and by approaching other governments on the subject. However, there was no serious U.S. or international response to Iraq’s sustained violation of international law through use of these agents. As some government officials have since commented, Iraq got away with using these weapons; demonstrated that they could be used effectively; and undermined inhibitions that had prevented their use in previous conflicts.
...The U.S. provided assistance despite its awareness of Iraq’s active programs to develop indigenous production capabilities for missiles and chemical and biological weapons - and perhaps nuclear weapons as well. Despite controls governing U.S. exports of dual-use (civilian and military) technology, a considerable range of militarily useful material was legally exported from the U.S., including some that could be utilized in nuclear weapons development programs. - http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm
Throughout the 1980s Baghdad received from the U.S. high-quality germ seed stock for anthrax, botulism, E.coli, and a host of other deadly diseases. (The Commerce Department's decisions to license those shipments, even after revelations of Iraq's 1988 use of illegal chemical weapons, are documented in the 1994 hearings of the Banking Sub-Committee.) - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-02.htm
Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.
That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.
Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”
In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”
The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.”
Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.”
A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld’s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld’s achievements helping to “reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.” The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.
Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:
“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”
In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department?in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”- pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”
In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”
In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.
Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.
In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world’s attention to Saddam’s chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had “available evidence” Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm
"Was there legal authority under UN resolutions for the US bombing raids [from 1998 onward]?"
Was there legal authority under UN resolutions for the US bombing raids? (What is the Clinton administration claiming and what's the reality)
The bombing strikes are a violation of international law. There is NO UN resolution that calls for, allows, justifies, or accepts unilateral acts by a member state against Iraq in retaliation for real or alleged violations. U.S. officials usually refer to two possible UN resolutions to justify military strikes. Both claims are false. a) Security Council resolution 678, passed November 29, 1990, which authorized the use of force against Iraq. This was the U.S.-initiated resolution providing a UN cover for Washington's decision to force a military response to Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait. It is taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (the only way use of force can be authorized) and authorizes "all necessary means" to make Iraq "withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces" from Kuwait. That resolution's authorization inherently expired with the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. There are no Iraqi troops in Kuwait, therefore one cannot rely on a legitimating instrument limited to the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, to justify bombing Iraq for a different reason eight years later. b) The Council resolution 1154, passed March 2, 1998. After heated debate and with widespread reluctance, U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson succeeded in getting the Council to pass a resolution including the threat of "severest consequences" for Iraq if there should be any future violation of Iraq's commitment to provide access to UNSCOM. However, virtually every Council ambassador, with the exception of those of the U.S. and Britain, stated explicitly that they did not define "severest consequences" to mean automatic authorization for any Member State to use military force on its own. The Russian ambassador coined the term "automaticity" to describe what the Council was NOT authorizing -- the U.S. or another country claiming an "automatic" UN authorization to simply launch military actions on its own. Rather, the definition of "severest consequences" was that, in the event of a further Iraqi violation, the Council must be reconvened to discuss what the "severest consequences" should be. The resolution includes the words "The Council remains seized of the matter," meaning the Council maintains control over the issue, continues to monitor the situation, and that the relevant issue (how to respond to a future violation) belongs to the Council for decision-making. - http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/bennisiraq.htm
U.S. Brig. General William Looney, who directed the bombing of Iraq in the late 1990s, put the point out bluntly:
If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs [surface-to- air missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need." [Wm. Blum, Rogue State (Common Courage, 2000) p. 159] - http://www.zmag.org/jamaliraq.htm
...the United States led to a fabricated crisis that had nothing to do with legitimate disarmament. This crisis led to the United States ordering UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq two days before the start of Operation Desert Fox, a 72-hour bombing campaign executed by the United States and Great Britain that lacked Security Council authority. Worse, the majority of the targets bombed were derived from the unique access the UNSCOM inspectors had enjoyed in Iraq, and had more to do with the security of Saddam Hussein than weapons of mass destruction. Largely because of this, Iraq has to date refused to allow inspectors back to work. The ensuing uncertainty has created an atmosphere that teeters on the brink of war. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0731-09.htm
Why has the U.S. resisted chances to oust Saddam?:
Let us not forget that at the conclusion of the 1991 war, the United States allowed Hussein's forces to use helicopter gunships to put down uprisings. In their book, Bush and Scowcroft offer a pathetic explanation for that decision (see p. 490 of "A World Transformed"), but the real reason is clear: A breakaway Kurdish state in the north and Shi'a [note: some use Shitte; not sure what AP style is] Muslim state in the south would have made it more difficult for the United States to control the region; a dictator of a unified Iraq who supports U.S. policy is much preferred. Governments that might truly represent the people are feared by U.S. policymakers, given that those people sometimes have funny ideas about who should control the resources of their lands. - http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/etiquette.htm
US leaders, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, speak of their desire to see 'regime change' in Iraq. However, ever since 1991 US administrations have shied away from provoking fundamental change in Iraq, and have sought instead 'an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein', according to Thomas Friedman, Diplomatic Correspondent of the New York Times, writing on 7 July 1991: sanctions were there to provoke a coup to create 'the best of all worlds', a return to the days when Saddam's 'iron fist... held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia.' In March 1991 this prospect was described by Ahmed Chalabi (now leader of the Iraqi opposition group the Iraqi National Congress) as 'the worst of all possible worlds' for the Iraqi people. (Quoted in Noam Chomsky, World Orders, Old and New, 1994, p. 9)
The US commitment 'leadership change' rather than 'regime change' was demonstrated when Kurds and Shias rose against the regime in March 1991: the US granted permission to Baghdad to use helicopter gunships against the rebels, refused to release captured arms dumps to rebel forces, and refused to intervene to defend the rebellions. Richard Haass, director for Near East affairs for the US National Security Council, explained in March 1991, 'Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime.' (Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, HarperCollins 1999, p. 37) 'Washington's calculation is that a break-up of Iraq would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, especially if it led to the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Turkey, a steadfast US ally with a large Kurd minority, would be destabilised. Iran could exploit the vacuum.' (FT, 1 Feb. 2002, supplement p. III)
An officer involved in US planning says, 'Our question was, "What about the day after?" For example, do you take the Republican Guard [the military unit most loyal to Saddam] and disarm it? Or is it preferable to turn it from having a capability to protect Saddam to a capability to protect Iraq?' (New Yorker, 24 Dec. 2001, p. 63) Protect Iraq from fragmentation, that is. In Feb. 1991, large elements of the Republican Guard, including the Hammurabi Heavy Division, the most powerful single force in the Republican Guard, were boxed in near Basra, almost certainly about to be destroyed, when President Bush Sr. called a ceasefire, preserving this central pillar of the regime. It appears that under President Bush Jr. military planning is governed by the same desire to preserve the military regime in Iraq - the Republican Guard is noticeably absent from the targeting plans being floated in the media. - http://www.zmag.org/content/Iraq/rai_no_justification_for_war.cfm
To aviod being a hypocrite:
In December, your negotiators tore the biological weapons convention to shreds. The 1972 convention, as you know, was impossible to implement. While the treaty banned the development and production of bioweapons, it contained no mechanism for ensuring that its rules were enforced. So for six years, the 144 signatories had been developing a "verification protocol", which would permit the United Nations to examine suspected bioweapons facilities. In July, your government refused to sign the protocol. In December, you deliberately scuttled the negotiations by insisting, at the last minute, that the resolution be rewritten. One European delegate, referring to the commitments your delegation had made before the meeting, observed, "they are liars. In decades of multilateral negotiations, we've never experienced this kind of insulting behavior." Your actions have rendered the convention useless, leaving the world unprotected from the very weapons you say you want to eliminate.
Four years ago, Republican members of Congress, working alongside the Clinton government, voted to inflict similar damage to the chemical weapons convention. This treaty already possessed the means to force nations to open their laboratories to inspection, which is the key determinant of effective weapons control. But in 1998, your party decided that the United States should not be subject to these provisions. By passing legislation banning the removal of chemical samples from the US by international weapons inspectors; limiting the number of laboratories which the US needs to declare and permitting the United States president to refuse "challenge inspections" of its chemical plants, Republican congressmen effectively hobbled the convention worldwide. Under your presidency, even routine verification has been vitiated, as government officials have told the inspectors which parts of a site they can and cannot visit, just as Saddam Hussein has done in Iraq. Other countries have used your intransigence as an excuse for undermining the convention themselves.
In September last year, the New York Times reported that "the Pentagon has built a germ factory that could make enough lethal microbes to wipe out entire cities". The factory's purpose was defensive: your employees wanted to see how easy it would be for terrorists to do the same thing. But it was constructed without either congressional oversight or a declaration to the biological weapons convention, in direct contravention of international law. We could, perhaps, agree that if the US had discovered a similar undisclosed plant in a poor nation, then that country's government, if it survived your initial response, would have a good deal of explaining to do.
But of still more concern is the recent discovery that your government has been planning to test warheads containing live microbes in large aerosol chambers at the US Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Maryland. Experts in this field say that the scale of the experiments suggests that they are not defensive, but designed to help develop new biological weapons.
Your government has also refused to destroy its stocks of smallpox, and has insisted on developing new and more lethal varieties of anthrax. You say that this is purely for defensive purposes: to study how they might be used by enemy forces, or to develop new kinds of vaccine. But the Federation of American Scientists warns that some of the new research you are funding could be categorized as "dual use": it could lead just as easily to attack as to defense Even if we were to accept your government's assurances that these programs are solely defensive in nature, it is surely plain that they are generating the very hazards they claim to be confronting. The anthrax attacks in October appear to have been launched by a scientist from within your own biological warfare laboratories, making use of a strain developed by the US Army's medical research institute. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0319-05.htm
Cartoon character go away!
This particular cartoon character wrote on July 30:
"Saddam Hussain is the #1 killer of shiite muslims ever.This monster has terrorized Iran for eight years"
Since you are using the name "Ronnie Ray-Gun", I'm surprised you would point this out. Who was aiding the monster in his project against the Iranians? The U.S. Read a book.
You also say "has slauterd defenseless kurds in northern Iraq." And what was the U.S. response when it happened? the U.S. INCREASED aid to the monster.
Then cartoon character says "if the U.S. does not take out Saddam,we can see about 5million americans fry from a suitcase bomb or 20 million from some smallpox infestation via biological warfare."
What an astounding whopper. First Iraq was declared free of a nuclear weapons program by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Second, they never had a nuke. Third, having the ability to make a nuke and having the ability to make a "suitcase nuke" are radically different. Iraq cannot make the former thus certainly not the latter. Then, if Iraq has any small pox capacity, it is almost certainly only in the form of seed stock. And even if they had a quantity to kill 20 million Americans, they have NO way to deliver such a weapon to the U.S. Remember the Gulf War? Remember the best missile Iraq had: the Scud? What a joke. You expect any rational person to believe that within the last 3 years and 8 months while the UNSCOM inspectors have been out of Iraq (but not the UN - they are still there) Iraq has secretly developed a successful space program? That's what it takes to make ICBMs; it takes a space program. How you could dream up anything so stupid to post is beyond me.
For Mr. Evers, it's always a pleasure to see such a depraved racist. Not only that, you are an irrational lunatic:
"You ever cheer the death of a child T ?"
Actually Mr. Evers, you do:
"One vermin islamasist aims at and kills little kids. Whole cheering crowd turns to dust. Sweet justice."
Gah! Readin further, your crap goes on and on and on, doesn't it. I don't have time for this. You discreditted yourself a long time ago, so I'll be skipping over the rest of what you say unless there is anything intelligent (unlikely).
Ffutal, you say " Those complacent souls now arguing that Saddam Hussein wouldn't do anything mean like develop weapons of mass destruction..."
I'm not sure hwo said that, maybe I missed it. Nice of you to try tro frame the argument that way. Saddam might like to, but under the sanctions, he can't. If I'm wrong prove it.
May I quote Scott Ritter?
"Whenever the Iraqis blocked me and other inspectors from a site, these were sites that dealt with Saddam Hussein's personal security, not Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. These are sites that dealt with Saddam's bodyguards, with Iraqi intelligence, with Iraqi signal intelligence. Why [go there]? Because we thought they might be hiding documents. Not weapons. Documents. But when we went to the factories that capable of being converted to produce weapons of mass destruction, we were never once blocked. And since 1994, we monitored these factories. Not only did we find that they didn't have the capability, and that they weren't producing weapons of mass destruction, [we found] that it would take them 5 to 6 years, with full access to technology, with full access to money that's denied them by economic sanctions, to begin the reconstitute to a level that could be of concern to us. - http://radio4all.net/pub/archive5/mp3_3/ug113-hour1mix.mp3
And what credence can I have in Terry Taylor when he outright lies:
"We eventually cracked the case, but sadly by the time the inspectors were effectively thrown out in 1998, there were still important parts of the programme about which we needed to learn more. "
First, the inspectors were NOT thrown out of Iraq. Even the State Department admits that:
"The inspectors were not thrown out of Iraq. [U.S. State Department] - http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/factsheet.htm
Second, Iraq was very close to being declared free of WMD, which would lift the sanctions, which is counter to U.S. policy:
"...Madeleine Albright has said: "We do not agree that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted." If this means that Saddam Hussein is the target, then the embargo will go on indefinitely, holding Iraqis hostage to their tyrant's compliance with his own demise...." - http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/pilger.htm
"May 20, 1991: President George Bush: "At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." James Baker, Secretary of State: "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.
"March 26, 1997: Albright, in her first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected. Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."
"November 14, 1997: President Clinton. [During a standoff on weapons inspectors] "What he [Hussein] says his objective is, is to relieve the people of Iraq, and presumably the government, of the burden of the sanctions. What he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the end of time or as long as he lasts. So I think that if his objective is to try to get back into the business of manufacturing vast stores of weapons of mass destruction and then try to either use them or sell them, then at some point the United States, and more than the United States, would be more than happy to try to stop that."
Source - http://www.accuracy.org/iraq.htm
Ah, and I see you discredit yourself by saying that those who don't agree with your position are "pro-Saddam".
Ah Ffutal, let me rip off you phrase. "Here's a nice example of America's morally superior position in the world:"
"Thanks to the oil-for-food program, the people of Iraq, especially those in the north, are getting needed foods and medicines” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
The "oil-for-food" programme, in many ways, is a failure because sanctions are an outgrowth of a strategy conceived by the United States to simply inflict the most economic hardship on Iraq as possible. The programme mandates that 25 per cent of oil sale revenues be handed over to the UN Compensation Committee which administers reparations payments related to war damages, while 5 per cent of revenues are shared equally between Turkey, for the transportation costs of oil, and the United Nations, for its administration and operational costs related to Iraq. A further 13 per cent of revenues pay for the administration of the Kurdish territories which act autonomously under cover of the US-UK imposed "no-fly zone." Thus, the Iraqi Government receives only 58 per cent of the revenues from the "oil-for-food" programme, which are to be distributed among 87 per cent of the Iraqi population.
Of the items which had been given the green light, less than 50 per cent have made it to Iraq. As Abbas Alnasrawi, an economy professor at the University of Vermont, has noted, of "the $20.8 billion appropriated to all of Iraq, only $8.4 billion-worth of goods for all sectors of the economy had arrived in Iraq by the end of July 2000." Compounding the misery is the fact that once items make their way to Iraq, it is not guaranteed that they will be distributed in a timely fashion. A 1999 UN Report noted that nearly half of medical supplies which had been imported to Iraq "remained in warehouses and had not been distributed to local clinics and hospitals," in part, because Iraq has not been able to rebuild the infrastructures required to distribute these items. - http://www.zmag.org/content/Iraq/allain_criminalenforcers.cfm
...In March 1999 an expert 'Humanitarian Panel' convened by the Security Council concluded the UN's 'oil-for-food' programme could +not+ meet the needs of the Iraqi people...
The Panel continued:
"Regardless of the improvements that might be brought about - in terms of approval procedures, better performance by the Iraqi Government, or funding levels - the magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such that they cannot be met within the context of [the oil-for-food programme] ... Nor was the programme intended to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people ... Given the present state of the infrastructure, the revenue required for its rehabilitation is far above the level available under the programme." - http://www.zmag.org/content/MainstreamMedia/cohen_reply.cfm
MYTH: “Thanks to the oil-for-food program, the people of Iraq, especially those in the north, are getting needed foods and medicines” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
FACT: Former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday, oversaw the oil-for-food program and believes otherwise. “The OFF program as conceived is completely inadequate. It was designed in fact not to resolve the situation, but to prevent further deterioration of both mortality rates and malnutrition. It has failed to do that; at best it has just about sustained the situation. It’s grossly under-funded, and it has not even begun to address the needs, the dietary needs of the Iraqi people… And on top of that you have a medical sector which gobbles up the rest of the money to a great extent, so again we have not managed to provide the basic needs of the Iraqi people” (The Fire This Time, April 1999). Halliday resigned from his post in September 1998 in protest of the sanctions against Iraq. He had worked for the UN for 34 years. - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
“Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
MYTH: “Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
FACT: Several United States Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents clearly and thoroughly prove, in the words of one author, “beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway” (The Progressive, August 2001).
One document entitled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” [read the document here - http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html] dated January 22, 1991, is quite straightforward in how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens. It explains Iraq’s heavy dependence on the importation of specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water. Failing to secure these items (which is nearly impossible to do under the sanctions), the documents adds, will result in a shortage of drinking water and could “lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease” (U.S. Department of Defense, January 1991).
Other DIA documents confirm that the U.S. government was not only aware of the devastation of the sanctions, but was, in fact, monitoring their progress. The first in a lengthy series of documents entitled “Disease Information” is a document whose heading reads “Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad.”[read the document here - http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0504rept_91.html] The document states, “Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems.” The document then itemizes the likely disease outbreaks, noting which in particular will affect children (U.S. Department of Defense, January 1991).
A second DIA document, “Disease Outbreaks in Iraq” [read the document here - http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0pgv072_90p.html] from February 21, 1991 writes, “Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing.” It continues, “Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm.” Similar to the preceding document, it explains the causes of the disease outbreaks and itemizes them, again paying close attention to which will affect children (U.S. Department of Defense, February 1991).
The third document, written March 15, 1991 and entitled “Medical Problems in Iraq,”[read the document here- http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19951016/951016_0me018_91.html] states that diseases are far more common due to “poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplied and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war.” It then cites a UNICEF/WHO report that “the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply,” that “there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants,” and that diarrhea and respiratory infections are on the rise. Almost as a sidenote, it adds “Children particularly have been affected by these diseases” (U.S. Department of Defense, March 1991). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
...if we look back to the last U.S. war with Iraq, we know that the Pentagon planned and carried out knowing and documenting the likely impact on civilians. In one case, Pentagon planners anticipated that striking Iraq's civilian infrastructure would cause " Increased incidence of diseases [that] will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/ distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks…." The Defense Intelligence Agency document (from the Pentagon's Gulflink website), "Disease Information -- Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad" is dated 22 January 1991, just six days after the war began. It itemized the likely outbreaks to include: "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children." And yet the bombing of the water treatment systems proceeded, and indeed, according to UNICEF figures, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, "particularly children," died from the effects of dirty water. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-02.htm
"Holds on inappropriate contracts help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods to further Saddam’s personal interests” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
MYTH: “Holds on inappropriate contracts help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods to further Saddam’s personal interests” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
FACT: Requests for desperately needed equipment routinely get held up in the Security Council for months at a time. The delays have gotten so bad that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Office of the Iraq Program Director Benon Sevon have written letters decrying the excessive holds placed on items ordered under the program (Education for Peace in Iraq Center).
The holds that perpetuate the detrimental health impacts of the sanctions have gained the attention of one House member. In the summer of 2000, Representative Tony Hall of Ohio wrote a letter to then Secretary of State Madeline Albright “about the profound effects of the increasing deterioration of Iraq’s water supply and sanitation systems on its children’s health.” Hall wrote, “Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment… I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation” (The Progressive, August 2001).
Despite the minimal coverage by Congress, holds continue to expedite the process of destruction within Iraq. “Earlier this year [2001], U.S. diplomats blocked child vaccines for Iraq, including for diphtheria, typhoid, and tetanus. Over $3 billion worth of contracts remain on hold. To date, no hearings have been held” (Education for Peace in Iraq Center, August 2001). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
The United Nations levied the sanctions against Iraq, so the United States is not to blame.
MYTH: The United Nations levied the sanctions against Iraq, so the United States is not to blame.
FACT: Van Sponeck addresses this point head on. “The UN doesn’t impose sanctions. It’s the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions… I don’t see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that’s the outcome, but I don’t see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime” (The Fire This Time, April 1999). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
Don't forget that Saddam is one of many of Washington's creations:
The irony is that the US helped bring Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq, and that the US (and Britain) in the 1980s conspired to break their own laws in order, in the words of a Congressional inquiry, to "secretly court Saddam Hussein with reckless abandon", giving him almost everything he wanted, including the means of making biological weapons. [Under secretary of state] Rubin failed to see the irony in the US supplying Saddam with seed stock for anthrax and botulism, that he could use in weapons, and claimed that the Maryland company responsible was prosecuted. It was not: the company was given Commerce Department approval. " - http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/pilger.htm
Throughout the Iran-Iraq war, the Reagan administration chose to give priority to maintaining U.S.-Iraq relations over concerns about Iraq’s use of chemical warfare. Although Washington regarded the issue as an impediment to expanding the relationship, the U.S. evidently viewed chemical weapons use as, to some extent, a public relations problem for Iraq. The U.S. monitored Iraq’s use of chemical weapons closely. A State Department document from November 1983, for example, refers to Iraq’s "almost daily use of CW" and suggests approaching Baghdad in response. Another recommends that the approach occur as soon as possible to avoid "unpleasantly surprising" the Iraqis with "public positions we may have to take on this issue." (In March 1984, the U.S. publicly condemned Iraq’s chemical weapons use.) These documents also indicate that the U.S. was aware that Iraq, relying primarily on western technology, had acquired a chemical weapons production facility.
Iraq continued its use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces throughout the war. The issue became more problematic for the Reagan administration, however, in the spring and summer of 1988, when Iraq engaged in chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds in the village of Halabja and at other locations. As early as September 2, the State Department confirmed an attack against Kurdish insurgents that had taken place on August 25, while a memorandum to the secretary of state commented that "the failure of the international community to mobilize an effective response has lowered the inhibitions on use of these weapons in the region and elsewhere." Nevertheless, the Reagan administration opposed congressional efforts to respond by imposing economic sanctions, arguing that they would be contrary to U.S. interests. Among the possible negative results cited were the endangerment of contracts for "massive postwar reconstruction" in Iraq. The administration succeeded in blocking the legislation.
The Bush administration became a particular focus of criticism because it followed its predecessor in making strengthened U.S.-Iraq relations a key objective, despite the fact that the end of the Iran-Iraq war had eliminated a major rationale for this goal. A transition paper prepared for the new presidency outlined the conflicts that characterized U.S. policy toward Iraq. The paper recommended assigning high priority to U.S.-Iraq relations because of Saddam Hussein’s potential as a "major player," but reviewed persistent divisive issues, including Iraq’s chemical weapons use which "aroused great emotions" in the U.S., and its "abominable human rights record." These negative factors were contrasted with Iraq’s value as a market and its potential as a trading partner, and wit the fact that it shared an interest with the U.S. in containing Iran. The paper recommended that the new administration should begin with a high-level message calling for further development of political and economic relations.
Critics of U.S. policy toward Iraq during the Reagan and Bush administrations charged that it was based on short-term calculations, a commitment to a risky economic relationship, and the mistaken belief that Iraq could be persuaded to adopt policies compatible with U.S. objectives. Instead of addressing these criticisms, both presidents chose a path which simply reinforced existing policy choices. When the Bush administration confronted reports of widespread abuse by Iraqi officials of U.S. government-backed programs in late 1989, for example, its response was to ensure that an additional $1 billion in credit guarantees would be authorized in 1990. When concerns were expressed both within and outside the administration that Iraq’s purchases of U.S. technology were destined for its nuclear and other nonconventional weapons programs, the White House dismissed them in favor of continued efforts to increase exports and protect the U.S.-Iraqi economic relationship.
For its part, the Reagan administration had downplayed Iraq’s systematic - and illegal - use of chemical weapons throughout the Iran-Iraq war, again for stated foreign policy reasons. Reagan officials went through the motions of responding to the issue by expanding controls on chemical agents and by approaching other governments on the subject. However, there was no serious U.S. or international response to Iraq’s sustained violation of international law through use of these agents. As some government officials have since commented, Iraq got away with using these weapons; demonstrated that they could be used effectively; and undermined inhibitions that had prevented their use in previous conflicts.
...The U.S. provided assistance despite its awareness of Iraq’s active programs to develop indigenous production capabilities for missiles and chemical and biological weapons - and perhaps nuclear weapons as well. Despite controls governing U.S. exports of dual-use (civilian and military) technology, a considerable range of militarily useful material was legally exported from the U.S., including some that could be utilized in nuclear weapons development programs. - http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm
Throughout the 1980s Baghdad received from the U.S. high-quality germ seed stock for anthrax, botulism, E.coli, and a host of other deadly diseases. (The Commerce Department's decisions to license those shipments, even after revelations of Iraq's 1988 use of illegal chemical weapons, are documented in the 1994 hearings of the Banking Sub-Committee.) - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-02.htm
Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.
That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.
Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”
In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”
The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.”
Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.”
A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld’s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld’s achievements helping to “reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.” The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.
Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:
“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”
In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department?in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”- pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”
In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”
In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.
Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.
In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world’s attention to Saddam’s chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had “available evidence” Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm
"Was there legal authority under UN resolutions for the US bombing raids [from 1998 onward]?"
Was there legal authority under UN resolutions for the US bombing raids? (What is the Clinton administration claiming and what's the reality)
The bombing strikes are a violation of international law. There is NO UN resolution that calls for, allows, justifies, or accepts unilateral acts by a member state against Iraq in retaliation for real or alleged violations. U.S. officials usually refer to two possible UN resolutions to justify military strikes. Both claims are false. a) Security Council resolution 678, passed November 29, 1990, which authorized the use of force against Iraq. This was the U.S.-initiated resolution providing a UN cover for Washington's decision to force a military response to Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait. It is taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (the only way use of force can be authorized) and authorizes "all necessary means" to make Iraq "withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces" from Kuwait. That resolution's authorization inherently expired with the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. There are no Iraqi troops in Kuwait, therefore one cannot rely on a legitimating instrument limited to the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, to justify bombing Iraq for a different reason eight years later. b) The Council resolution 1154, passed March 2, 1998. After heated debate and with widespread reluctance, U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson succeeded in getting the Council to pass a resolution including the threat of "severest consequences" for Iraq if there should be any future violation of Iraq's commitment to provide access to UNSCOM. However, virtually every Council ambassador, with the exception of those of the U.S. and Britain, stated explicitly that they did not define "severest consequences" to mean automatic authorization for any Member State to use military force on its own. The Russian ambassador coined the term "automaticity" to describe what the Council was NOT authorizing -- the U.S. or another country claiming an "automatic" UN authorization to simply launch military actions on its own. Rather, the definition of "severest consequences" was that, in the event of a further Iraqi violation, the Council must be reconvened to discuss what the "severest consequences" should be. The resolution includes the words "The Council remains seized of the matter," meaning the Council maintains control over the issue, continues to monitor the situation, and that the relevant issue (how to respond to a future violation) belongs to the Council for decision-making. - http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/bennisiraq.htm
U.S. Brig. General William Looney, who directed the bombing of Iraq in the late 1990s, put the point out bluntly:
If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs [surface-to- air missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need." [Wm. Blum, Rogue State (Common Courage, 2000) p. 159] - http://www.zmag.org/jamaliraq.htm
...the United States led to a fabricated crisis that had nothing to do with legitimate disarmament. This crisis led to the United States ordering UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq two days before the start of Operation Desert Fox, a 72-hour bombing campaign executed by the United States and Great Britain that lacked Security Council authority. Worse, the majority of the targets bombed were derived from the unique access the UNSCOM inspectors had enjoyed in Iraq, and had more to do with the security of Saddam Hussein than weapons of mass destruction. Largely because of this, Iraq has to date refused to allow inspectors back to work. The ensuing uncertainty has created an atmosphere that teeters on the brink of war. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0731-09.htm
Why has the U.S. resisted chances to oust Saddam?:
Let us not forget that at the conclusion of the 1991 war, the United States allowed Hussein's forces to use helicopter gunships to put down uprisings. In their book, Bush and Scowcroft offer a pathetic explanation for that decision (see p. 490 of "A World Transformed"), but the real reason is clear: A breakaway Kurdish state in the north and Shi'a [note: some use Shitte; not sure what AP style is] Muslim state in the south would have made it more difficult for the United States to control the region; a dictator of a unified Iraq who supports U.S. policy is much preferred. Governments that might truly represent the people are feared by U.S. policymakers, given that those people sometimes have funny ideas about who should control the resources of their lands. - http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/etiquette.htm
US leaders, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, speak of their desire to see 'regime change' in Iraq. However, ever since 1991 US administrations have shied away from provoking fundamental change in Iraq, and have sought instead 'an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein', according to Thomas Friedman, Diplomatic Correspondent of the New York Times, writing on 7 July 1991: sanctions were there to provoke a coup to create 'the best of all worlds', a return to the days when Saddam's 'iron fist... held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia.' In March 1991 this prospect was described by Ahmed Chalabi (now leader of the Iraqi opposition group the Iraqi National Congress) as 'the worst of all possible worlds' for the Iraqi people. (Quoted in Noam Chomsky, World Orders, Old and New, 1994, p. 9)
The US commitment 'leadership change' rather than 'regime change' was demonstrated when Kurds and Shias rose against the regime in March 1991: the US granted permission to Baghdad to use helicopter gunships against the rebels, refused to release captured arms dumps to rebel forces, and refused to intervene to defend the rebellions. Richard Haass, director for Near East affairs for the US National Security Council, explained in March 1991, 'Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime.' (Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, HarperCollins 1999, p. 37) 'Washington's calculation is that a break-up of Iraq would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, especially if it led to the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Turkey, a steadfast US ally with a large Kurd minority, would be destabilised. Iran could exploit the vacuum.' (FT, 1 Feb. 2002, supplement p. III)
An officer involved in US planning says, 'Our question was, "What about the day after?" For example, do you take the Republican Guard [the military unit most loyal to Saddam] and disarm it? Or is it preferable to turn it from having a capability to protect Saddam to a capability to protect Iraq?' (New Yorker, 24 Dec. 2001, p. 63) Protect Iraq from fragmentation, that is. In Feb. 1991, large elements of the Republican Guard, including the Hammurabi Heavy Division, the most powerful single force in the Republican Guard, were boxed in near Basra, almost certainly about to be destroyed, when President Bush Sr. called a ceasefire, preserving this central pillar of the regime. It appears that under President Bush Jr. military planning is governed by the same desire to preserve the military regime in Iraq - the Republican Guard is noticeably absent from the targeting plans being floated in the media. - http://www.zmag.org/content/Iraq/rai_no_justification_for_war.cfm
To aviod being a hypocrite:
In December, your negotiators tore the biological weapons convention to shreds. The 1972 convention, as you know, was impossible to implement. While the treaty banned the development and production of bioweapons, it contained no mechanism for ensuring that its rules were enforced. So for six years, the 144 signatories had been developing a "verification protocol", which would permit the United Nations to examine suspected bioweapons facilities. In July, your government refused to sign the protocol. In December, you deliberately scuttled the negotiations by insisting, at the last minute, that the resolution be rewritten. One European delegate, referring to the commitments your delegation had made before the meeting, observed, "they are liars. In decades of multilateral negotiations, we've never experienced this kind of insulting behavior." Your actions have rendered the convention useless, leaving the world unprotected from the very weapons you say you want to eliminate.
Four years ago, Republican members of Congress, working alongside the Clinton government, voted to inflict similar damage to the chemical weapons convention. This treaty already possessed the means to force nations to open their laboratories to inspection, which is the key determinant of effective weapons control. But in 1998, your party decided that the United States should not be subject to these provisions. By passing legislation banning the removal of chemical samples from the US by international weapons inspectors; limiting the number of laboratories which the US needs to declare and permitting the United States president to refuse "challenge inspections" of its chemical plants, Republican congressmen effectively hobbled the convention worldwide. Under your presidency, even routine verification has been vitiated, as government officials have told the inspectors which parts of a site they can and cannot visit, just as Saddam Hussein has done in Iraq. Other countries have used your intransigence as an excuse for undermining the convention themselves.
In September last year, the New York Times reported that "the Pentagon has built a germ factory that could make enough lethal microbes to wipe out entire cities". The factory's purpose was defensive: your employees wanted to see how easy it would be for terrorists to do the same thing. But it was constructed without either congressional oversight or a declaration to the biological weapons convention, in direct contravention of international law. We could, perhaps, agree that if the US had discovered a similar undisclosed plant in a poor nation, then that country's government, if it survived your initial response, would have a good deal of explaining to do.
But of still more concern is the recent discovery that your government has been planning to test warheads containing live microbes in large aerosol chambers at the US Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Maryland. Experts in this field say that the scale of the experiments suggests that they are not defensive, but designed to help develop new biological weapons.
Your government has also refused to destroy its stocks of smallpox, and has insisted on developing new and more lethal varieties of anthrax. You say that this is purely for defensive purposes: to study how they might be used by enemy forces, or to develop new kinds of vaccine. But the Federation of American Scientists warns that some of the new research you are funding could be categorized as "dual use": it could lead just as easily to attack as to defense Even if we were to accept your government's assurances that these programs are solely defensive in nature, it is surely plain that they are generating the very hazards they claim to be confronting. The anthrax attacks in October appear to have been launched by a scientist from within your own biological warfare laboratories, making use of a strain developed by the US Army's medical research institute. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0319-05.htm
Cartoon character go away!
If Bush is going to announce an attack on Iraq to the UN it could be real soon:
"Bush to Address U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020820/pl_nm/bush_un_dc_1
"Bush to Address U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020820/pl_nm/bush_un_dc_1
The New York Times magazine reports from Iran on the difficulties of maintaining a culturally backward society amid technological progress:
"The computer has become particularly important in the lives of urban girls, often confined at home by traditionalist parents who, by the same token, have absolutely no clue what their daughters are doing online.
A lot of what they're doing, it turns out, is blogging. For the uninitiated, a blog is a Web log, a kind of online diary or journal. Many blogs, Iranian or otherwise, are boring accounts of people's daily lives, or gibberish-like streams of consciousness. But in Iran, bolstered by the anonymity their computer screens provide, female bloggers are catching attention for their daring and articulate mix of politics, dirty jokes and acid comment.
Here a female blogger simply lets rip: "I hate those people who pray and with their prayers make our life a disaster. I hate all those dumb people who go to those marches and shout 'Down with America.' I hate those people I am supposed to bribe for no reason." And then: "I hate cigarettes, I hate men and I hate my emotions as a woman. I hate that feeling of lust and I hate my big nose." In a country where a court can sentence a woman to be stoned to death, and 13-year-old brides are nothing extraordinary, such words amount to the most outrageous sedition and heresy."
Here's an example of what motivates the young blogresses:
"Soon a police doctor will administer a compulsory virginity test, the result of which may have a profound effect on the rest of Fatimah's life. . . . In Tehran, some surgeons specialize in restoring a girl's virginity, technically speaking at least. This illegal operation costs $50. Abortion, of course, is also strictly illegal, except under certain conditions, like a threat to the woman's life. So the current price of a back-alley abortion can run as high as $500. If the father has fled, . . . young women have been known to sleep with another man and convince him that the pregnancy is his responsibility."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/magazine/01IRAN.html?pagewanted=all
Meanwhile, the Guardian quotes a "senior Western diplomat" in Tehran: "No one is saying it out loud, but the secret hope of many Iranians is that if the US army takes neighbouring Iraq, it will come and straighten out this place as well."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,785460,00.html
"The computer has become particularly important in the lives of urban girls, often confined at home by traditionalist parents who, by the same token, have absolutely no clue what their daughters are doing online.
A lot of what they're doing, it turns out, is blogging. For the uninitiated, a blog is a Web log, a kind of online diary or journal. Many blogs, Iranian or otherwise, are boring accounts of people's daily lives, or gibberish-like streams of consciousness. But in Iran, bolstered by the anonymity their computer screens provide, female bloggers are catching attention for their daring and articulate mix of politics, dirty jokes and acid comment.
Here a female blogger simply lets rip: "I hate those people who pray and with their prayers make our life a disaster. I hate all those dumb people who go to those marches and shout 'Down with America.' I hate those people I am supposed to bribe for no reason." And then: "I hate cigarettes, I hate men and I hate my emotions as a woman. I hate that feeling of lust and I hate my big nose." In a country where a court can sentence a woman to be stoned to death, and 13-year-old brides are nothing extraordinary, such words amount to the most outrageous sedition and heresy."
Here's an example of what motivates the young blogresses:
"Soon a police doctor will administer a compulsory virginity test, the result of which may have a profound effect on the rest of Fatimah's life. . . . In Tehran, some surgeons specialize in restoring a girl's virginity, technically speaking at least. This illegal operation costs $50. Abortion, of course, is also strictly illegal, except under certain conditions, like a threat to the woman's life. So the current price of a back-alley abortion can run as high as $500. If the father has fled, . . . young women have been known to sleep with another man and convince him that the pregnancy is his responsibility."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/magazine/01IRAN.html?pagewanted=all
Meanwhile, the Guardian quotes a "senior Western diplomat" in Tehran: "No one is saying it out loud, but the secret hope of many Iranians is that if the US army takes neighbouring Iraq, it will come and straighten out this place as well."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,785460,00.html
Hello its me again.I feel like a masochist going on this site but I have my opinions like everyone else.
First of all,the U.S. had nothing to do with bringing Saddam into power.The Bath party was backed at a distance in 1958 becouse they were anti-communist.
Also the Iran/Iraq war was also not started by the U.S. but from long tensions between arab/persion shiite/sunni tensions going back to ancient times.
The Iranian goverment of that time was very hostile to the U.S. and Saddam invading Iran did create a sort of "Ally".The hope was that the two would just destroy each other.Not very nice but thats politics.Also the Iran contra scandle angered Saddam and saved Iran from losing the War.
But that was then and this is now.Now Saddam is a dangerous threat that should be removed like a cancer.Defectors from Iraq are warning the goverment about Saddam having nukes.Do you really want this pychco with nukes?And hey,if Europe does not want an invasion why can't they come up with a peaceful way of replacing him?It worked in Romania.
Also,I picked the name "Ronnie Ray-Gun" as a lark.
Libs hated(and still do) Reagon and it gets really under there skin.I am my self.I'm not anybody that I have been claimed to be.Cartoon charactor?I can live with that,just don't throw cheap shots about alzheimers,imagine if someone joked about AIDS and see the reaction there!
First of all,the U.S. had nothing to do with bringing Saddam into power.The Bath party was backed at a distance in 1958 becouse they were anti-communist.
Also the Iran/Iraq war was also not started by the U.S. but from long tensions between arab/persion shiite/sunni tensions going back to ancient times.
The Iranian goverment of that time was very hostile to the U.S. and Saddam invading Iran did create a sort of "Ally".The hope was that the two would just destroy each other.Not very nice but thats politics.Also the Iran contra scandle angered Saddam and saved Iran from losing the War.
But that was then and this is now.Now Saddam is a dangerous threat that should be removed like a cancer.Defectors from Iraq are warning the goverment about Saddam having nukes.Do you really want this pychco with nukes?And hey,if Europe does not want an invasion why can't they come up with a peaceful way of replacing him?It worked in Romania.
Also,I picked the name "Ronnie Ray-Gun" as a lark.
Libs hated(and still do) Reagon and it gets really under there skin.I am my self.I'm not anybody that I have been claimed to be.Cartoon charactor?I can live with that,just don't throw cheap shots about alzheimers,imagine if someone joked about AIDS and see the reaction there!
"First of all,the U.S. had nothing to do with bringing Saddam into power."
No, the U.S. just supported him.
"Also the Iran/Iraq war was also not started by the U.S. but from long tensions between arab/persion shiite/sunni tensions going back to ancient times."
Who said otherwise? Funny though that it was ok that Saddam invaded another country (Iran) at that time, but it was not ok when he invaded at a later time (Kuwait). Hypocrisy? Nonetheless, it was a war crime and the U.S. should not have been supporting it.
" The Iranian goverment of that time was very hostile to the U.S. and Saddam invading Iran did create a sort of "Ally".
And the U.S. supported that "Ally".
"Also the Iran contra scandle angered Saddam and saved Iran from losing the War."
To quote Noam Chomsky:
"The US warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner just taking off from an Iranian airport, killing 290 people. The plane was clearly in a commercial air corridor. In fact, the Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters. By that point, Iran recognized the reality. They might be able to fight a war with Iraq, but they could not fight a US-Iraqi alliance, with the US Navy now acting aggressively." [Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of the Sanctions, Cambridge:South End Press, 2000. p.50]
" Now Saddam is a dangerous threat"
Yes, to the Iraqi people, he is. To anyother countries? That is a ludicrous suggestion that has no proof to back it up.
"Defectors from Iraq are warning the goverment about Saddam having nukes."
What defectors? Who? Could it possibly be Khidir Hamza? Here's a news flash for you: Khidir Hamza is a liar.
""Khidir Hamza portrays himself as "Saddam's bomb maker", as the preeminant nuclear scientist in Iraq. He is somebody who was educated in the west. He has a physicist's background. But he left the Iraqi nuclear program in the late 1980s and was transfered instead to the presidential office - the special security organization where he worked for Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kamal. He [Khidir] was a procurement agent. And what this means in the Iraqi government is he was a corrupt bureaucrat who took kick-backs. And then he defected. And he claimed in his defection that he was Saddam's bomb maker - that he knew all the secrets about the Iraqi weapons programs. Well, the CIA tested him. [They] didn't believe him. Nobody believed him. Anybody who knows about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program, nuclear program, knows that, you know, we've had real defectors come out who know what they're talking about, they've laid out the program. Hamza's information does not match this. We have administrative files seized in 1991 in which his name never once comes up. Neither his real name, nor any of the aliases he claims to have used. Khidir Hamza is a fraud. But he's a convincing fraud. He's a western educated fraud. And therefore they can put him on national TV and he can speak with his thick Iraqi accent and people take him seriously. And he makes just some outrageous statements about Iraq's past capabilities, current capabiities and future intentions - all of which have no basis in fact. I've challenged Kadir Hamza to a debate on TV, on radio, on public. And he has repeatedly backed down because he knows that should he appear on stage with me, he will be embarrassed. - http://stream.realimpact.org/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/cspin/cspin20020510.rm&start="10:44.3
"Do you really want this pychco with nukes?"
I don't want anyone with nukes. Duh. You might want to look into what it takes to develop a nuclear weapons program. It takes large facilities like the ones the International Atomic Energy Commission declared that it had dismantled 100% in 1998. The idea that Iraq could develop a nuclear weapons program in less than 4 years under the current sanctions regime is utterly ridiculous. Then there is the problem of delivering any such weapon.
"Now, missiles, I happen to know a little bit about ballistic missiles. [It's] the same thing. Even if Iraq possessed the long range missiles that they had during the Gulf War, the one's that they launched against Israel, take a look at the pathetic payload that these missiles had. You know, we're talking a couple hundred kilograms [payload]. The nuclear weapon that Iraq was designing was 1.2 tonnes. They didn't have a missile capable of delivering this. Even if they had shrunk the [payload] down to the proper diameter, they didn't had a missile capable of delivering this. It would have taken Iraq five to eight years of continuingly developing their program unhindered by weapons inspectors before they could come up with a delivery system capable of bringing a nuclear weapon, a nuclear device to Tel Aviv. But they don't have a missile program worthy of the name. We destroyed it." - http://radio4all.net/pub/archive5/mp3_3/ug113-hour1mix.mp3
"And hey,if Europe does not want an invasion why can't they come up with a peaceful way of replacing him?"
Forget Europe, what about the U.S.? The last offer by Iraq to let in weapons inspectors was rejected out of hand by the White House.
As for the rest, if I hurt your bellicose sensibilities, I apologise.
No, the U.S. just supported him.
"Also the Iran/Iraq war was also not started by the U.S. but from long tensions between arab/persion shiite/sunni tensions going back to ancient times."
Who said otherwise? Funny though that it was ok that Saddam invaded another country (Iran) at that time, but it was not ok when he invaded at a later time (Kuwait). Hypocrisy? Nonetheless, it was a war crime and the U.S. should not have been supporting it.
" The Iranian goverment of that time was very hostile to the U.S. and Saddam invading Iran did create a sort of "Ally".
And the U.S. supported that "Ally".
"Also the Iran contra scandle angered Saddam and saved Iran from losing the War."
To quote Noam Chomsky:
"The US warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner just taking off from an Iranian airport, killing 290 people. The plane was clearly in a commercial air corridor. In fact, the Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters. By that point, Iran recognized the reality. They might be able to fight a war with Iraq, but they could not fight a US-Iraqi alliance, with the US Navy now acting aggressively." [Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of the Sanctions, Cambridge:South End Press, 2000. p.50]
" Now Saddam is a dangerous threat"
Yes, to the Iraqi people, he is. To anyother countries? That is a ludicrous suggestion that has no proof to back it up.
"Defectors from Iraq are warning the goverment about Saddam having nukes."
What defectors? Who? Could it possibly be Khidir Hamza? Here's a news flash for you: Khidir Hamza is a liar.
""Khidir Hamza portrays himself as "Saddam's bomb maker", as the preeminant nuclear scientist in Iraq. He is somebody who was educated in the west. He has a physicist's background. But he left the Iraqi nuclear program in the late 1980s and was transfered instead to the presidential office - the special security organization where he worked for Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kamal. He [Khidir] was a procurement agent. And what this means in the Iraqi government is he was a corrupt bureaucrat who took kick-backs. And then he defected. And he claimed in his defection that he was Saddam's bomb maker - that he knew all the secrets about the Iraqi weapons programs. Well, the CIA tested him. [They] didn't believe him. Nobody believed him. Anybody who knows about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program, nuclear program, knows that, you know, we've had real defectors come out who know what they're talking about, they've laid out the program. Hamza's information does not match this. We have administrative files seized in 1991 in which his name never once comes up. Neither his real name, nor any of the aliases he claims to have used. Khidir Hamza is a fraud. But he's a convincing fraud. He's a western educated fraud. And therefore they can put him on national TV and he can speak with his thick Iraqi accent and people take him seriously. And he makes just some outrageous statements about Iraq's past capabilities, current capabiities and future intentions - all of which have no basis in fact. I've challenged Kadir Hamza to a debate on TV, on radio, on public. And he has repeatedly backed down because he knows that should he appear on stage with me, he will be embarrassed. - http://stream.realimpact.org/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/cspin/cspin20020510.rm&start="10:44.3
"Do you really want this pychco with nukes?"
I don't want anyone with nukes. Duh. You might want to look into what it takes to develop a nuclear weapons program. It takes large facilities like the ones the International Atomic Energy Commission declared that it had dismantled 100% in 1998. The idea that Iraq could develop a nuclear weapons program in less than 4 years under the current sanctions regime is utterly ridiculous. Then there is the problem of delivering any such weapon.
"Now, missiles, I happen to know a little bit about ballistic missiles. [It's] the same thing. Even if Iraq possessed the long range missiles that they had during the Gulf War, the one's that they launched against Israel, take a look at the pathetic payload that these missiles had. You know, we're talking a couple hundred kilograms [payload]. The nuclear weapon that Iraq was designing was 1.2 tonnes. They didn't have a missile capable of delivering this. Even if they had shrunk the [payload] down to the proper diameter, they didn't had a missile capable of delivering this. It would have taken Iraq five to eight years of continuingly developing their program unhindered by weapons inspectors before they could come up with a delivery system capable of bringing a nuclear weapon, a nuclear device to Tel Aviv. But they don't have a missile program worthy of the name. We destroyed it." - http://radio4all.net/pub/archive5/mp3_3/ug113-hour1mix.mp3
"And hey,if Europe does not want an invasion why can't they come up with a peaceful way of replacing him?"
Forget Europe, what about the U.S.? The last offer by Iraq to let in weapons inspectors was rejected out of hand by the White House.
As for the rest, if I hurt your bellicose sensibilities, I apologise.
"In a new poll, 6 out of 10 Europeans said they would favor an American-led invasion of Iraq if the United States first receives the support of allies and the United Nations," the New York Times reports. The survey, conducted by the German Marshall Fund, polled 1,000 people each in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. In a companion poll by Harris Interactive, 65% of Americans also said the U.S. should "act in concert with other nations." Only one in four Europeans said America "should not invade Iraq at all."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/04/international/europe/04POLL.html
It's curious that two of the most prominent critics urging President Bush to stay out of Iraq--Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger--were senior members of his father's administration. James Baker has also weighed in with an op-ed urging caution. This has prompted a wave of speculation about a split between the two President Bushes. "This is high political drama worthy of a Shakespeare," writes William Safire. "As the great debate heats up; as Democratic doves use the Old Bush Guard to undermine the present Bush administration; as the moment arrives when Congress must decide whether to back up the current president--the elder Bush will have to face the younger in private and then take a public stand."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/opinion/02SAFI.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/opinion/25BAKE.html
Here's Maureen Dowd: "It seems that Mr. Cheney now regards the end of the gulf war as a great historic gaffe and wants to earn his immortality correcting it. But the more [Bush] Junior goes along with his vice president and surrogate Daddy and stakes his entire presidency on trying to finish the job, the more he underscores the contention that his real Daddy went wobbly."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/04/opinion/04DOWD.html
This is jejune, but Dowd may be on to something. Hindsight being 20/20, almost everyone--even those who lacked the foresight to favor the liberation of Kuwait--now agrees it was a mistake not to overthrow Saddam in 1991. Thus Bush fils would seem to benefit from comparison to Bush père.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies offers a more substantive (though still speculative) analysis. "The real fork in the road for the two Bushes is that, when it comes to the subject of Iraq, their disagreement is really about Saudi Arabia":
Bush senior's camp views the Saudi ruling family as the key to stability, but his son's followers increasingly disagree. They are not eager to see the Saudis overthrown, but they now believe that the Saudis' blind greed and overt profligacy are undermining their rule and that, in any case, U.S. policies should not be inhibited by Saudi needs.
Above all, there is a difference in strategic concepts. Bush senior and his followers compare the certain costs, high risks and uncertain benefits of a war against Hussein to conclude that it should not be fought, especially because it risks a Saudi collapse. In business terms, they see war as a losing proposition.
By contrast, Bush junior and cohorts are not planning a war against Hussein in the hope of achieving any positive gains but rather to avoid the catastrophic losses of another Sept. 11. . . . Having presided impotently over the Sept. 11 catastrophe, he is determined to avoid a repetition--at all costs, including the survival of the Saudi regime that his father views so highly.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-luttwakaug30.story
This raises the interesting question of Iraq's postwar government. If America had toppled Saddam a decade ago, it would have been with Saudi help, and Riyadh likely would have had a big say in the formation of a new regime in Baghdad. Presumably the Saudis would prefer to see Saddam replaced with a less malevolent but still authoritarian Sunni-dominated regime, though the majority of Iraqis are Shiites. If an American-led coalition overthrows Saddam without Saudi help, Riyadh will have no claim to participate in the postwar settlement. If the Saudis are smart, they will join the coalition even if at the last minute. If the Bush administration is smart, it will insist on a democratic postwar Iraq anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/04/international/europe/04POLL.html
It's curious that two of the most prominent critics urging President Bush to stay out of Iraq--Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger--were senior members of his father's administration. James Baker has also weighed in with an op-ed urging caution. This has prompted a wave of speculation about a split between the two President Bushes. "This is high political drama worthy of a Shakespeare," writes William Safire. "As the great debate heats up; as Democratic doves use the Old Bush Guard to undermine the present Bush administration; as the moment arrives when Congress must decide whether to back up the current president--the elder Bush will have to face the younger in private and then take a public stand."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/opinion/02SAFI.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/opinion/25BAKE.html
Here's Maureen Dowd: "It seems that Mr. Cheney now regards the end of the gulf war as a great historic gaffe and wants to earn his immortality correcting it. But the more [Bush] Junior goes along with his vice president and surrogate Daddy and stakes his entire presidency on trying to finish the job, the more he underscores the contention that his real Daddy went wobbly."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/04/opinion/04DOWD.html
This is jejune, but Dowd may be on to something. Hindsight being 20/20, almost everyone--even those who lacked the foresight to favor the liberation of Kuwait--now agrees it was a mistake not to overthrow Saddam in 1991. Thus Bush fils would seem to benefit from comparison to Bush père.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies offers a more substantive (though still speculative) analysis. "The real fork in the road for the two Bushes is that, when it comes to the subject of Iraq, their disagreement is really about Saudi Arabia":
Bush senior's camp views the Saudi ruling family as the key to stability, but his son's followers increasingly disagree. They are not eager to see the Saudis overthrown, but they now believe that the Saudis' blind greed and overt profligacy are undermining their rule and that, in any case, U.S. policies should not be inhibited by Saudi needs.
Above all, there is a difference in strategic concepts. Bush senior and his followers compare the certain costs, high risks and uncertain benefits of a war against Hussein to conclude that it should not be fought, especially because it risks a Saudi collapse. In business terms, they see war as a losing proposition.
By contrast, Bush junior and cohorts are not planning a war against Hussein in the hope of achieving any positive gains but rather to avoid the catastrophic losses of another Sept. 11. . . . Having presided impotently over the Sept. 11 catastrophe, he is determined to avoid a repetition--at all costs, including the survival of the Saudi regime that his father views so highly.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-luttwakaug30.story
This raises the interesting question of Iraq's postwar government. If America had toppled Saddam a decade ago, it would have been with Saudi help, and Riyadh likely would have had a big say in the formation of a new regime in Baghdad. Presumably the Saudis would prefer to see Saddam replaced with a less malevolent but still authoritarian Sunni-dominated regime, though the majority of Iraqis are Shiites. If an American-led coalition overthrows Saddam without Saudi help, Riyadh will have no claim to participate in the postwar settlement. If the Saudis are smart, they will join the coalition even if at the last minute. If the Bush administration is smart, it will insist on a democratic postwar Iraq anyway.
" If the Bush administration is smart, it will insist on a democratic postwar Iraq anyway."
Yeah, sure they would. I mean they've only been training all the governments over there on how to kill torture ferret out destroy and ruin all democratic movements for the last 50 years, and the British before them. Democracy in the middle east and central america has NEVER been on the agenda, except as a threat to American interest.
Yeah, sure they would. I mean they've only been training all the governments over there on how to kill torture ferret out destroy and ruin all democratic movements for the last 50 years, and the British before them. Democracy in the middle east and central america has NEVER been on the agenda, except as a threat to American interest.
The maestro of malaise, peanut farmer turned home builder Jimmy Carter, weighs in on the Washington Post op-ed page with an article entitled "The Troubling New Face of America." Carter, last seen repeating Arab lies about the Jenin "massacre," opines that America should leave Saddam alone, since "there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad." In his view there is, however, a current danger to the United States from Washington: "Formerly admired almost universally as the preeminent champion of human rights, our country has become the foremost target of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles of democratic life."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38441-2002Sep4.html
What people often forget--or at least try to forget--is that Carter actually served a term as president of the United States, and during that time such fatuity was official American policy. The results included the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the seizure of power in Iran by Islamic lunatics, who invaded the U.S. Embassy and took dozens of Americans hostage, releasing them only after Ronald Reagan had been inaugurated.
I’m not sure what drove the editors of the Post to publish Carter's silly piece, but I have a sneaking suspicion they meant it as a joke at his expense. A front-page story in today's Post gives the lie to Carter's complacency about Iraq:
Both the CIA and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency believe that Iraq's missile arsenal now includes two types of short-range missiles and a small number of medium-range Scuds that Iraq's military managed to hide from U.N. inspectors after the Gulf War. In addition, they say, Iraq probably retains dozens of missile warheads and possibly many more rockets and artillery shells that were filled with biological or chemical weapons years ago.
But large gaps exist in the West's knowledge of each of these programs.
The unknowns are critical, because they bear directly on the central question in the Iraq debate: whether Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose a significant threat to the United States and its allies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38183-2002Sep4.html
Blogger Scott Koenig has a useful summary of Saddam's nuclear program. Among other things, he quotes the nonpartisan Nuclear Control Institute:
- All of Iraq's nuclear scientists are still in place.
- None of the nuclear-bomb components they built before the Gulf War have been found.
- If Iraq could steal or buy plutonium or bomb-grade uranium, Saddam could have the Bomb in short order.
http://www.koenighaus.net/indepundit/archives/000903.html#000903
http://www.nci.org/
As for Carter's contention that this should concern us less than the good opinion of "respected international organizations," I note this BBC report that one such organization, the U.N. Commission for Human Rights, may soon be chaired by . . . Libya! "Libya maintains an extensive security apparatus," a State Department human-rights report notes. "The result is a multilayered, pervasive surveillance system that monitors and controls the activities of individuals. The various security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2237457.stm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8273.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38441-2002Sep4.html
What people often forget--or at least try to forget--is that Carter actually served a term as president of the United States, and during that time such fatuity was official American policy. The results included the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the seizure of power in Iran by Islamic lunatics, who invaded the U.S. Embassy and took dozens of Americans hostage, releasing them only after Ronald Reagan had been inaugurated.
I’m not sure what drove the editors of the Post to publish Carter's silly piece, but I have a sneaking suspicion they meant it as a joke at his expense. A front-page story in today's Post gives the lie to Carter's complacency about Iraq:
Both the CIA and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency believe that Iraq's missile arsenal now includes two types of short-range missiles and a small number of medium-range Scuds that Iraq's military managed to hide from U.N. inspectors after the Gulf War. In addition, they say, Iraq probably retains dozens of missile warheads and possibly many more rockets and artillery shells that were filled with biological or chemical weapons years ago.
But large gaps exist in the West's knowledge of each of these programs.
The unknowns are critical, because they bear directly on the central question in the Iraq debate: whether Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose a significant threat to the United States and its allies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38183-2002Sep4.html
Blogger Scott Koenig has a useful summary of Saddam's nuclear program. Among other things, he quotes the nonpartisan Nuclear Control Institute:
- All of Iraq's nuclear scientists are still in place.
- None of the nuclear-bomb components they built before the Gulf War have been found.
- If Iraq could steal or buy plutonium or bomb-grade uranium, Saddam could have the Bomb in short order.
http://www.koenighaus.net/indepundit/archives/000903.html#000903
http://www.nci.org/
As for Carter's contention that this should concern us less than the good opinion of "respected international organizations," I note this BBC report that one such organization, the U.N. Commission for Human Rights, may soon be chaired by . . . Libya! "Libya maintains an extensive security apparatus," a State Department human-rights report notes. "The result is a multilayered, pervasive surveillance system that monitors and controls the activities of individuals. The various security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2237457.stm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8273.htm
For months now I've been hearing the mantra that President Bush needs to "make the case" for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But now the French are taking a position against making the case. "France said it was against publishing top-secret evidence on Iraq's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction, saying the public arena was not the place to wage such a campaign," Agence France-Presse reports.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020904/1/32fi8.html
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020904/1/32fi8.html
you mean the France that joined Bush Sr.'s orgy of death in Iraq?
war with iraq is awful,but i am just hoping that all you sinners know the lord because when he sounds the trumpets in the sky,you will be sorry.this war wouldent be going on if bush didnt push further,but each and every day i am praying for all who are in terror or scared.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network