Meanwhile, A Few Brave Souls Take Direct Action Against the War Machine...

I love seeing these . . . lone people taking action, or tiny groups. It's amazing how important it is that we're all different and that some of those differences result in smashed satellite dishes for the military! And having to call in more military to protect their equipment.

But someone needs to also figure it out - - picture this image on the rooftop of a skyscraper with MSNBC below, and her hacking away and corporate media satellite dishes . . . news anchors below dissapear from the screens of TVs all across AmeriKa . . .

all the more so, because if the same direct actions were attempted here in the u.s., the activists would probably be shot by the m.p. and their body dumped somewhere to prevent the media from getting their hands on the story.

or, better yet for the government, an activist would do something to get media attention, but the media in their infinite wisdom would ignore it as editorially "unimportant" and continue doing reports on murder trials and sex scandals and new washing machines.

they are not afraid of their government's in europe. meanwhile, here, we cower...

Because they have had a deepdish helping
of facism and they know the end result.

Now that they've neutralized one side, are they going to go to Iraq and smash their military bases?

Smashing a few communication dishes
hardly neutralizes the murder machine.
We could hope that a little sting now
and then would remind the bastards that
human beings do not willingly offer
them selves as slaves to weasels of death.

And if we take out Saddam and the Iraqi people are happy to live in freedom, will you admit you are wrong?

If the Iraqi people are willing to make sacrifices to depose a leader who has killed over a million of them, will you admit you are wrong?

If all the families of Saddam's victims over the past 20 years cheer and dance in the streets when American troops blast the Republican Guard into pieces, will you admit you are wrong?

And finally, when Iraqis show up en masse for UN-monitored elections, when sanctions are lifted, and they embark upon a path to free market prosperity, will you admit you are wrong?

I doubt it.

hmm..
-And if we take out Saddam and the Iraqi people are happy to live in freedom,
will you admit you are wrong?-
I can always admit I was wrong. When I am.
After 800 'shock and awe' stikes, I should think
that there wont be many dance cards filled
except with body bags or grave markers.

how nice that you are so certain. then allow me a look into my own crystal ball:

if we invade and find no WMD's, and no saddam, will you admit you are wrong?

if we invade and a civil war begins in iraq, between kurds, shi'ia's, sunni's, and islamic fundamentalists, thereby assuring all these groups will not be cheering and dancing and engaging in free market prosperity, will you admit you are wrong?

if we invade and turkey goes to war against the kurds in northern iraq, and the kurds launch a guerilla war against turkey, thereby assuring they will not be cheering and dancing and engaging in free market prosperity, will you admit you are wrong?

if we invade iraq and are still there 5 or 15 years down the road fighting against the kurds or the islamic extremeists, and being bodyguards for the puppet regime in baghdad, will you admit you are wrong?

if we invade and set up a puppet regime that has to be just as repressive and ruthless as saddam hussein's so that it can keep iraq from splintering apart and threatening world oil supplies, therby assuring that the people of iraq will be liberated from saddam only to see that in return they get another dictator and more repression and bloodshed, will you admit you are wrong?

if we invade iraq and occupy that country, only to see terrorism against american troops increase, and terrorism in america increase, and america's puppet regime overthrown as it was in iran, meaning that the invasion of iraq made the situation WORSE, will you admit that you are wrong?

i doubt it.

i'm prepared to eat my words.

but there are conditions on that statement. i will not eat my words: as soon as the invasion is over, when shown pictures of iraqi's dancing in the streets 24 hours after it's over, or when president bush pompously declares it's been a success one freaking month after it's over. i wil eat my words when the long term repercussions of this are over. 2 years, 5 years, 10 years down the road. THAT IS WHEN WE ALL SHALL SEE IF THIS HAS BEEN A WISE UNDERTAKING. FOCUSING ON THE SHORT TERM IS USELESS, AND WILL PROVIDE FLAWED DATA AND FLAWED CONCLUSIONS. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE WAR. IT'S ABOUT WHAT COMES AFTER.

800 shock strikes? That's nothing compared to 1980-1988. Over a million people gone. Not to mention the political purges. Funny how nobody protested back then. All of the sudden they care about the Iraqi people?

So don't act like this is some new unprecedented thing in the region, or that the U.S. is bringing war to an otherwise peaceful neighborhood. Our goal is to end the countless wars that have ravaged the region in the past 50 years.

Five years down the road we will see if this is a success, whether Iraq is more democratic and prosperous, or plunged deeper into civil war (hard to imagine considering Iraq's sordid history). I, too, am prepared to eat my words then. We shall see.

And of course the same 5-year test should be applied to Afghanistan. Less or more war, less or more freedom, less or more people being skinned alive?

That is the only test to be passed.

-Our goal is to end
the countless wars that have ravaged the region in the past 50 years.-
How could this be when we FUNDED the murder?

If we had funded all the wars in the Middle East in the past 50 years, we would be bankrupt.

Please explain how we funded the wars in Algeria, Sudan and Libya, Somalia, Lebanon (before Israeli involvement), and Yemen, to name a few.

All part of this myth that the Middle East was a peaceful bastion of justice and human rights before the USA came along.

I'll just point out that we sure did fund
the Bagdad buger up untill the 1st gulf war.
All the chemical and biologicals he could
want.
What do the Al Quada and Saddam have in
common? The CIA.

GIVE WAR A CHANCE

"All part of this myth that the Middle East was a peaceful bastion of justice and human rights before the USA came along."

I don't think there's many people who believe that. There's not too many places in the world that fit that description, especially not in the Middle East. But that's not the issue...the issue is America putting it's iron boot down on the region.

A more commonly believed myth is the myth that the US Government uses its military to defend people, or to bring them peace, justice and human rights. In reality, the US cares nothing for these things and only uses its force to protect its own corporations' interests.
If the US cared about the Iraqi people, why did they support Hussein going to war with Iran while secretly selling weapons to the Iranians, thus encouraging, prolonging and propheting form a vicious war at the expense of the people? Why did they sell Hussein the chemical weapons he used to murder 5,000+ Kurds, and then reward him by increasing foreign aid to him after he did it? Why do they continue to allow Turkey to bomb Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq under the protection of the US/UK imposed "No-fly zones"? Why do they uphold sanctions that have killed over 1.5 millions Iraqis since 1992?
This war is not about helping the Iraqi people, or the people of the Middle East in general. Instead, it is about establishing American hegimony over an oil-rich land.
Yeah, the place was messed up before America stuck its nose in. But America has no intentions of fixing it...just exploiting it.

You mean we gave agriculture loans to Iraq? Oh the horror!

U.S. never sold CW to Iraq. The UN has verified this fact. Admit it.

Furthermore, the only two peace treaties in the Arab-Israeli conflict are entirely sponsored by the U.S.

Further, the ONLY chance for free elections in Iraq rests on the use of military power against Saddam's regime. Your time to prove otherwise has nearly run out.

How many people are YOU willing to kill to Get Sadam? (or how many are you willing to kill to get Iraq oil?)

In Gulf War I:
"13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system..."
Toting the Casualties of War (BusinessWeek online)
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/businessweek02-07-040002a.asp?t=BWCOM

Infant mortality doubled after GW1 because of our destruction of their sewage treatment systems.

War planners want to drop 3,000 Bombs on the FIRST DAY of Gulf War II - including 300-600 cruise missiles on Bagdad.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1569596.php

After the invasion will the Iraqis say to themselves "They killed my parents and my daughter and I lost my leg- but hey, Sadam is in exile - Yeee Haw - I love the USA!"

You don't save someone by killing them.
I'm sure that some Iraqis are willing to sacrifice their lives to get rid of Sadam. But that's their choice to make, not Bush's.

Are you willing to accept the increased risk of terror attacks on you and your family as a result of an iraq invasion?

Are you willing to accept the increased risk of Nuclear (that's the same as Nucular) War?

RealVideo:

Smalband
http://media.rtl.nl/media/actueel/rtlnieuws/20030209_1848-vernielingen_Real_narrowband_Normal.RM?mode=compact&title=via_http://www.indymedia.nl

Broadband
http://media.rtl.nl/media/actueel/rtlnieuws/20030209_1848-vernielingen_Real_Broadband_Normal.RM?mode=compact&title=via_http://www.indymedia.nl


Website: http://www.rtl.nl/(/actueel/rtlnieuws/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2003/02_februari/09/binnenland/0209_volkel_vernielingen.xml

B.S.( and I don't mean boy scout)
-"According to a 1990 report, "The Poison
Gas Connection," issued by the
L.A.-based Simon Wiesenthal Center
(See sidebar), more than 207 companies
from 21 western countries, including at
least 18 from the United States,
contributed to the buildup of Saddam
Hussein's arsenal. Subsequent
investigations turned up more than 100
more companies participating in the
Iraqi weapons buildup.-"
http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html

Contributed to...? By selling weapons, or dual-use chemicals that can be made into weapons? By selling weaponized BW agents, or culture samples available to any research university? The B.S. is the insinuation that Saddam bought pre-made WMDs. He bought the ingredients using research, agriculture, and manufacturing fronts, and weaponized the agents in-country. These are important documented facts, missing from the article you cite. In fact, the article you cite only names a single item we supplied to Iraq before international sanctions were in place, and that is a cropduster.

You may as well blame fertilizer companies for Oklahoma City. Highly specious.

Ineresting, also, that the outcry at the time came mostly from Washington, and not from the peace movement so vocal now.

It's well known that the US assisted Hussein in the 80s. Reagan initiated contact in the early 80s and throughout the rest of the 80s supplied credits, weapons, and advanced intelligence to the Iraqi regime. Nothing out of the ordinary, of course.

Here's Rumsfeld expressing his heart-felt concern for human rights in 1983.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.msnbc.com/news/812805.asp&h=253&w=330&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drumsfeld%2Band%2Bhussein%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

just do a google "images" and jot in Rumsfeld and Hussein

Or search the library of congress for "Iraq mustard gas" for the 1989-90 legislative session:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r101query.html

Or search the 1987-1988 legislative session for "Iraq"

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d100query.html

I mean, you don't want to get your political education from google, do you? Go to the source.

In 1963, the US helped smooth Hussein's B'aathist Party to power in a coup d'etat against Kassim.

In the 80s, the US gave credits, weapons, and advanced intelligence to Iraq during its war against Iran (which the US also assisted, but to a lesser extent). Reagan refused to censore Hussein for his use of chemical weapons, preferring to maintain cordial relations.

During Gulf "War" One, the US dropped plutonium-tipped bombs on Iraq, deliberately destroyed its water treatment infrastructure, and massacred thousands of retreating conscripts while giving Hussein a go-ahead to smash uprisings against his regime after being driven from Kuwait.

After the "war" was over, the US--through the UN--imposed a starvation blockade on Iraq which has killed huge numbers of Iraqi civilians. Conditions for the average Iraqi have deteriorated massively in the past dozen years, and not because the US' former ally has become any less humane in that time.

It's only in Weasel's fervid imagination that the US is a friend of the Iraqi people.

Aaron I've seen you write this before and wonder if you don't mean "depleted uranium". Please provide a reference for "plutonium tipped".

The "depleted" in depleted uranium refers to the fact that it is not a radioactive isotope of uranium. Because the atomic weight of uranium is 238.02891, it is much heavier and dense than lead (atomic weight 207.2) and therefore provides the munition with greater penetrating power.

The high toxicity of plutonium would preclude its use on the tip of a weapon, as it would be toxic to combatants on both sides.