A strike on Iraq - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-11-2002, 04:34 AM   #91
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:11 AM
Hello Sting,

There was a reason why i marked this stuff as "polemic" these points shouldn't become part of a discussion - it was just to ilustrate that sometimes it's dangerous to argue with short "facts" like these.

But two short statements:

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In response to Klaus:

Quada. Both of these organizations came into existance after the USA had pulled out of Afghanistan economically, politically, and militaryly in 1989!!!!!


Afik Bin Laden got money from various Official US organisations like the CIA up to 1999.
But the year isn't that important i just wanted to show that "we" also use Terrorists as alies (This guy was never a good one, the only reason that we liked him was that he hated the Russians)

Quote:
We do have weapons of mass destruction to deter their use against, not to be used against other countries though in an attack. That only happened in 1945 and was done in Japan because it was the best way to force a surrender of Japan there by saving millions of Japanese lives that would have died in a ground invasion.


G.W.Bush pointed out that Nuclear weapons are no more "Defense only" (which resulted in indignation here in Europe). Newertheless it would be interesting to define "Mass Destruction" I think you want to reference to "ABC" Weapons (Also in my mind most wapons are designed for "mass destruction" )

Quote:

Sorry, a lone gun man killed the president, or yes if you listen to the liberals and Oliver Stone it was the government supported by space monkey's or something. Perhaps there was more than one gun man but that does not mean that the government or a corperation killed him. Jeez, total rubbish!


Maybee another interesting Topic we could call it "Conspiracy Theories" ;-)

Quote:

President Bush was elected President under the laws and constitution of our country. The one who wins the most electoral votes wins the election. 99% of the time, the person with the most
...


Again you don't have to convince me that the US is a great country - as i mentioned before i love the USA.
I was just trying to show you the US with the eyes of one who dislikes the US like we dislike Sadam. And imho we should argue with a higher moral not just with some details - we could talk about details for years and compare the darkest episodes of our world. That wouldn't lead to much except: We shouldn't repeat historical mistakes.

Quote:
My arguement only presents ONE country for possible regime change! Iraq is the only country who's behavior PLUS having weapons of mass destruction threatens the world. Most of your examples of other countries did not fit my conditions because the countries behavior was not like that of Iraq or they did not have weapons of mass destruction of both! AGAIN, its Behavior PLUS weapons of mass destruction that makes a country a candidate for regime change!
As someone other pointed out the USSR fitted in there also quite well - and Stalin was one of the worst dictators ever.

Your President at that time decided not to start a war and that was verry wise.

And again there are some international laws that decides what Countries are alowed to do to each other. If the US starts to break these rules it's hard to tell some other countries why they should care about international contracts.

(I also pointed out how a invasion could be legal in international terms from my point of view)

Quote:
Sorry, were not shooting a shoplifter, were shooting at a one of the worst violators of international law, and butchers the world has ever known. No, were not going to stop and let people who commit terror get away! Nope no way!
It's like with the Police (you started that example ;-) if the Police stops to care about its own laws it destroyed the thing it should protect.



Quote:

The UN is made up of several countries of which the USA is one and usually the only one out of 160 that enforces UN law and resolutions. If other countries or in fact the rest of the UN decides to ingnore its own laws and ceacefire resolutions that were passed, were not going to sit there be in violation as well. Were going to do what the UN resolution calls for and bring Iraq into compliance with the UN ceacefire agreements they signed and which the UN is called on to enforce. If the rest of the UN decides not to abide by its own rules, that is not going to stop us from doing what is right
The US is one (the biggest and most important) member of the UN. But the UN is doing a good job also lots of coutries try to blackmail them - even the USA (remember at 2001 9/11 the US had debts of 2.000.000.000,00 $ by the UN. The UN was nearly Bancrupt and the US tried to force the UN to withdraw some of their (imho greatest) laws)
It's the UN job to decide international things like this because only by that way we can make sure that Invasions are not made because of Financial or Political reasons of single Countries.

Only the UN can help to prevent wars. Sometimes it takes longer than the way we all would prefer it but it's important, it's like a court. It takes longer than just lynching him - sometimes guilty persons might escape but it's a fundamental of our system and giving that up has a verry high price!


Quote:
World War II:
Not only Germany who bombed London. It was also the Alied over most of the huge German cities (also when there were no Factories or Millitary) one of the most obvious examples: Dresden.
It was (on both sides) to weaken morale of the enimy. It was a bad thing but wars are cruel.
Maybe we should start the Worldwars thread when i'm back (see end of the mail)

And for me some things like Toybombs (Russians in Afghanistan) or Daisy Cutters (as mentioned before) are a perfect example of unnecessary cruelness.

Quote:

I'm sorry you think 11 years is long enough to change the law or a signed resolution but its not!
11 years are enough - but not if we ignored the problem for about 10 of these 11 years


Quote:
The USA and the rest of the world was Attacked by Iraq when they invaded Kuwait
I'm sorry i might have forgotten something over the years but for me Iraq attacked Kuwait without a mandate of the UN and because of that it was unlawful. But because of that the Iraq didn't attack the whole world and the USA.


So still the same argument from me:
Either America gets attacked from Iraq or it's business of the UN.
the USA as the (most important and biggest) member has the chance to discuss these points in the UN - they had time for almost 11 years.
A invasion of a country is a serious violation of a international war

The UN decides, the Armies of the members act and after all the Sadam should be judged by the ICC

No matter what we know and feel what to do we have to care about the law.s.


It's like a Policeman he's not allowed to kill the evil person because he has the proof that he's a guilty person. He has to show it to the Court and they decide.

Maybee you or me would decide different (invasion yes/no) but we should accept it like we accapt our laws and courts.

That what's (imho) the difference between civilization and barbarism

Klaus

U2Bama:

Comparisions like that are imho highly respectless, it's like comparing the US with the "third Reich" because they both hated the Communists.

Historical comparisions fail most of the time, especially comparisons to Hittler.
Comparing Hittler to anything like Sadam is belittling and therefore makes me feel like someone is making bad jokes about the victims of the thrid Reich.

If you want to learn more about Hittler and Europe at that time i can strongly recomend visiting "The Museum Of Tolerance" in LA or visit a former extermination camp like the mauthausen-memorial.
Sorry, i might be a little too sensitive on that subject.

Maybee we should really start a "Worldwars" Thread to discuss that...


I'm sorry that i can't join this discussion for a while i'm off for vacations at the Lake Of Constance and playing a little with my nephew.
I enjoyed talking with you - off course including the people that didn't share my ideas and the impulsive z edge ,-)

Klaus

p.s. Sorry i can't resist adding a picture of my cute nephew
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-11-2002, 01:06 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Published on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 by the BBC

Nelson Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace by Tim Radford

One of the world's most respected statesmen, Nelson Mandela, has condemned United States intervention in the Middle East as "a threat to world peace".

In an interview with the US magazine, Newsweek published on Wednesday, the former South African president repeated his call for President George Bush not to launch attacks on Iraq.

He said that Mr Bush was trying to please the American arms and oil industries.

And Mr Mandela, 84, called some of Mr Bush's senior advisors, including Vice President Dick Cheney "dinosaurs".

He said that the United States' backing for a coup by the Shah of Iran in 1953 had led to that country's Islamic revolution in 1979.

On Afghanistan, Mr Mandela said that US support for the mujahideen (including Osama Bin Laden) against the Soviet Union and its refusal to work with the United Nations after the Soviet withdrawal led to the Taleban taking power.

"If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace," he said.

Mr Mandela said that the US was clearly afraid of losing a vote in the United Nations Security Council.

"It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America," he said.

He said that no evidence had been presented to support the claim that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, while former UN weapons inspector in Baghdad Scott Ritter has said there is no such evidence.

"But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody mentions that," he said.

The former South African leader made it clear that the only member of the Bush team he respects is Colin Powell.

He called Mr Cheney a "dinosaur" and an "arch-conservative" who does not want Mr Bush "to belong to the modern age."

Mr Mandela recalled that Mr Cheney had been opposed to his release from prison.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-11-2002, 01:08 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
Let me just say that the quality of debating has been excellent over the last few pages in particular.

STING2, Klaus, Joyfulgirl, Ultraviolet7, U2Bama and Not George Lucas - your names stand out in particular. Great points, all of you.

Cool.

Ant.
Well, I don't really have the time to get into a real debate here so I've just been offering articles for people to read. But thanks.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-11-2002, 09:48 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Comparisions like that are imho highly respectless, it's like comparing the US with the "third Reich" because they both hated the Communists.

Historical comparisions fail most of the time, especially comparisons to Hittler.
Comparing Hittler to anything like Sadam is belittling and therefore makes me feel like someone is making bad jokes about the victims of the thrid Reich.

If you want to learn more about Hittler and Europe at that time i can strongly recomend visiting "The Museum Of Tolerance" in LA or visit a former extermination camp like the mauthausen-memorial.
Sorry, i might be a little too sensitive on that subject.

Maybee we should really start a "Worldwars" Thread to discuss that...
Klaus:

I hope you have a great vacation, and I look forward to hearing from you upon your return.

I still don't see why it is "respectless" for me to point out some similarities between the two assholes. Do you deny that Saddam Hussein has killed thousands of his own people merely for their political opposition to his rule? Do you deny that he has funded terrorist acts against Israel? I am making no jokes, good or bad. I am merely referencing a few statements and actions made by one of the most powerful and established dictators in the Middle East who happens to have probably very good resources to wreak terror on more of his citizens and neighbors.

It is perfectly fine with me if such historical comparisons fail; God knows I do not wish for Hussein to continue and soon be an equal of Hitler in terms of atrocities. But perhaps such comparisons have failed because other parties in the world have kept a check on such tyrants and stopped them soon enough?

I know very much about Hitler, the Third Reich, World War II, etc. I also know that a lot of theocratically-inclined and racist terrorists in a certain part of the world have been reading up on the Third Reich for inspiration, as they have also been sharing information with red-neck anti-semitic militia groups int he U.S. (the FBI and CIA have been monitoring such exchanges).

I in no way mean to diminish the atrocities commited by Hitler. At the same time, I wish to expose the atrocities that HAVE been commited by Hussein, and I wish to bring to light some of the things he has said that are in line with things that Hitler said. Do you think that I am being "respectless" to Hussein? Should I overlook some of the things he has said and done and give him the benefit of the doubt and say, "Oh, it is just part of his culture?" Honestly, I think that figureheads such as Hussein and The Osama are the reasons that such cultural excuses are allowed to flourish. The majority of the people in that part of the world likely do not share their hatred, but the hatred is pretty much the only "opinion" that is allowed to be expressed.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 02:03 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 09:11 PM

Published on Thursday, September 12, 2002 in the Toronto Star CNN's Hatchet Job on Scott Ritter

Media smear ex-Marine for seeking answers on Iraq
by Antonia Zerbisias

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt


OF COURSE it was just coincidental that, on Sunday, as CNN was discrediting former United Nations weapons' inspector Scott Ritter, it was running promos for the remake of Four Feathers, A.E.W. Mason's tale of the coward who would not go to war.



By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."


Ritter, who had that day urged Iraq's National Assembly to let in weapons inspectors or face annihilation, is no chicken hawk. After his 12-year turn as a U.S. Marine intelligence officer, he faced down Saddam Hussein's goons as chief inspector of the United Nations Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). In 1998, he quit in protest over differences between what Washington wanted and what Iraq allowed.

Ever since, he has been very vocal about what really led to UNSCOM's failure to complete its mission — a failure Ritter largely blames on Washington — and how weapons' inspectors must be allowed back in to avert what will certainly be a brutal, bloody war. He insists that, if the Bush administration has evidence showing that Saddam is building nukes, then the American people have a right to see it before they sacrifice their lives.

So, naturally, CNN talking head Miles O'Brien on Sunday questioned Ritter on his loyalty.

"As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I feel my government is acting in a manner, which is inconsistent with the — with the principles of our founding fathers," said Ritter. "It's the most patriotic thing I can do."

Not in this climate. Not when there's the ironically named U.S.A. Patriot Act which abrogates civil rights. Not when those who criticize the administration are considered to be "with the terrorists." Not when the U.S. media let President George Bush's advisers — who, with the exception of Secretary of State Colin Powell, have never served their country as Ritter has — gallop all over the airwaves.

You couldn't flip a channel on Sunday without catching one of the Bush bunch, including wife Laura, Powell, vice-president Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security adviser Condoleeza Rice, promoting an attack on Iraq as if they were actors flogging their latest project on Leno and Letterman.

Certainly, the line of questioning was no more tough. Nowhere was any of them asked seriously, if at all, about such trivia as the costs of a war, or what, if anything, is known about connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or what proof there is that Iraq has the ability to make and deliver nuclear weapons, or why that country as opposed to others, or what oil has to do with it, or how Cheney justifies his former business dealings with the regime he now so desperately wants to change ...

Still the demonization of Ritter continued.

First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behaviour has really bewildered a lot of people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility..."

The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter, neither of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On what grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided," "disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein."

By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."

Over on MSNBC, Curtis & Kuby co-host Curtis Sliwa compared him to "a sock puppet" who "oughta turn in his passport for an Iraqi one." But the nadir came later on CNN when makeup job Kyra Phillips interrogated him, implying that he was being paid by Iraq —and all but calling him a quisling.

"Ha! Excuse me; I went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991. I spent seven years of my life in this country hunting down weapons of mass destruction. I believe I've done a0 lot about Saddam Hussein," he replied. "You show me where Saddam Hussein can be substantiated as a threat against the United States and I'll go to war again. I'm not going to sit back idly and let anybody threaten the United States. But at this point in time, no one has made a case based upon facts that Saddam Hussein or his government is a threat to the United States worthy of war."

Maybe today, in his speech to the United Nations, Bush will make that case.

Maybe not.

Whatever happens, the list of cowards and traitors here won't include Scott Ritter.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 02:06 PM   #96
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 11:11 PM
Normal

i don't think scott ritter is a coward or a traitor, however, i do worry that since he left his position in 1998, his statements on iraq might not be as valid anymore.
__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 08:01 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:11 AM
In response to Klaus:

Bin Laden's role in the 1979-1989 occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was primarily that of supplier and financer of Mujahadeen rebels. At this time, Bin Laden had not been apart of any terrorist attack or any military attack, except for actions against Government Afghan forces and Soviet forces. It is unlikely although possible that some CIA support found its way into the hands of Bin Laden, but even if true is not relavent since Bin Laden at that time was NOT a terrorist. In 1989 the USA pulled out of Afghanistan militarily, economically, and politically. Bin Laden and his organization Al Quada formed after the 1990/1991 Persian Gulf conflict, and at that time was NOT based in Afghanistan!

A weapon of mass destruction is a weapon that causes damage and loss of life of a magnitude many times greater than average weapons systems or conventional munitions. It is also usually dificult to control its effects when used. It is for that reason usually not a good weapon for military use, but an excellent one for terrorist and their goals.

The USA is not breaking any international laws by invading and changing the regime in Iraq. In fact by doing so, we are complying with UN resolutions by enforcing the ceacefire agreement.

The Soviet Union, might and I underline might fit into my criteria for nations that are candidates for regime change, but we did not attack because we did not have the military capability to invade and change the regime in the Soviet Union. In fact we were barely strong enough to deter a Soviet invasion of Europe. So the #1 reason we did not we was were not even close to having the capability. #2 there was considerable evidence that we were successful in detering the Soviet Union from certain actions. Everything we see with Saddam Hussain is that he is a risk taker, unpredictable, and it is therefore unknown if deterence can be effective. In the world of 9/11, a man like Saddam may feel he can strike the USA covertly through a terror organization and escape being targeted in retaliation.

Again the USA is obiding by international law by resuming offensive operations against Iraq which is called for in the ceacefire resolutions which Iraq has violated!

Again, the USA seems to be the only country willing to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq which call for military force if Iraq is in violation of the ceacefire agreement and other resolutions. IF the UN is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions, it ceaces to be of any revelance! It becomes a joke like the League of Nations in the 1920s and 1930s. The USA is doing what the UN has already called for by launching an attack on Iraq, which is mandated if the 1991 ceacefire agreement is violated!

German cities like Dresden were bombed because of their importance in the war effort. What is so cruel about a Daisy cutter weapon rather than another weapon. Its got a larger radious of fragmentation and effects, which makes it an effective weapon when properly used than can help to bring a conflict to a quick resolution and save lives!

I'm sorry but the passage of 11 years does not in anyway change what is called for under the UN ceacefire resolution. How could it? Thats like saying maybe in 11 years shoplifting and murder will all of a sudden become legal! How strange can you get?

The world was attacked by Iraq when it attacked Kuwait because the world has strong international trade ties with Kuwait that effect everyone on the planet economically.

AGAIN, LISTEN, The US invasion of Iraq is mandated because they have violated the UN CEACEFIRE AGREEMENT! The US invasion of Iraq in 1991 was put on hold because of the ceacefire agreement which Iraq is now in violation of! Violation of that and other UN resolutions calls for the enforcement of those resolutions through military force. This has nothing to do about who has attacked someone today, ITS about Iraq's failure to comply with the UN ceacefire agreement which calls for the resumption of US offensive military operations against Iraq in order to enforce the resolution!

By invading Iraq and changing the regime, the USA is the only UN member that is complying and enforcing the UN resolutions that call for such an invasion of Iraq if they violate the UN ceacefire agreement! Your idea's go against UN resolutions and are there for a violation of international law. If the UN is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions it ceaces to be relevant. The USA is the only country that is acting in accordance with international law when it comes to Iraq, because it is the only country ready to enforce UN resolutions which the law(ceacefire agreement) calls for if Iraq is in violation of its agreements!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 08:08 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:11 AM
It is interesting to note on SCOTT RITTER, when he resigned from the UN inspections team in August of 1998, he stated that Iraq still had substantial amounts of Chemical and bio weapons not found, and was still a threat to the international community! Those are his words as he left the job he was in!

Now years later he says Iraq is not a threat and does not have weapons, yet, he has not been in a position the past 4 years to be able to refute his final statements when he resigned from the inspections team in August 1998.

Because he is the only member of the former inspection team speaking out against invasion and because his views today contradict his own views the last time he was in a position to know anything, I really don't think has any idea what he is talking about, and wonder what is real motives are? I'm sure he certainly sells more books this way.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 08:14 PM   #99
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 11:11 PM
I heard that Iraq has about 3 oil factories and one nuclear reactor , USA will bomb this country , Chernobyl2 ??? , do the U.S . even need to re-establish new government , after all alive will be destroyed ??????????????????????????????
__________________
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 09-12-2002, 09:45 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Was it Chernobyl 2 when Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981? Honestly they have more Oil factories than most countries in the world, thats a good thing. That does not worry the USA. Were concerned about his weapons of mass destruction and his history of behavior. Those two things are why the USA is considering regime change in addition to the fact that the UN ceacefire agreement signed by Saddam which he is in open violation of, mandates that military force be used to bring him into compliance.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 01:30 PM   #101
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Published on Friday, September 13, 2002 by www.CommonDreams.org

Ten Reasons Why Many Gulf War Veterans Oppose Re-Invading Iraq by an anonymous Gulf war veteran

With all the war fever about re-invading Iraq, the press and politicians are ignoring the opinion of the veterans of our last war in the Gulf. But we veterans were there, and we have unique and critical first-hand knowledge of the course and consequences of warfare in Iraq. Our opinions should be solicited and heard before troops deploy for battle, not after they have returned wounded, ill or in body bags.

Another invasion of Iraq in 2002 will be very different from the invasion of 1991. The war's mission has changed in the intervening years, from removing Iraq from Kuwait to removing the entire Iraqi government and military establishment from power. Because the goal of the U.S. military has changed, the Iraqi army may retreat to the cities, where they may face better odds than in the desert.

During the open desert tank battles of '91, U.S. tanks out-classed and out-fought obsolete Iraqi tanks, and U.S. infantry captured tens of thousands of poorly supplied Iraqi soldiers operating without command and control from Baghdad. But in the urban warfare scenario of 2002, pitched infantry skirmishes and ambushes in cities may present a more level battlefield for Iraqi troops fighting in their hometowns. The Iraqi military can be expected to fight for each block within each city with the most ruthless means available. When faced with the impending overrun of their nation, the Iraqi military didn't hesitate to use chemical weapons against Iran.

Because of these significant differences, here are 10 reasons why, as a Gulf War combat veteran, I oppose a second Gulf War as a costly and preventable mistake.

1. U.S. troops are vulnerable to Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents -- if Iraq is capable of using them. The gas masks, detection alarms and protection suits don't work, according to internal Department of Defense documents uncovered during investigations by the U.S. General Accounting Office. This leaves U.S. troops highly vulnerable to chemical and biological attack. U.S. chemical and biological warfare agent casualties in 2002 could be significantly higher than in 1991. Only a few months ago, the Pentagon sent out a press release stating 140,000 U.S. soldiers were exposed to low-levels chemical agents near Khamisiyah, Iraq during the Gulf War. While these soldiers appeared to return home healthy, many tens of thousands face long-term disabling medical problems that are difficult to treat.

2. Scientific evidence shows that even low-level chemical exposures are dangerous. According to a recent National Academy of Sciences report (Gulf War and Health, September 2000), low-levels of chemical warfare agents cause long-term medical problems. This conclusion is based on research resulting from the sarin attack in Japan in 1995.

3. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory vaccines given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to the product label insert made by BioPort in Michigan, the sole producer, the experimental anthrax vaccine has caused several deaths. The National Academy of Sciences this year concluded there are some risks to the hotly debated vaccine.

4. The Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic. Scientific research funded by the military and released two years ago links exposure to depleted uranium (DU) ammunition with cancer in rats. Solid depleted uranium bullets, ranging in size from 25mm to 120mm, are used by U.S. tanks, helicopters and planes to attack enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers. The Gulf War battlefield is already littered with more than 300 tons of radioactive dust and shrapnel from the 1991 Gulf War. Another war will only increase the radioactive and toxic contamination among U.S. soldiers. As of today, U.S. troops are not fully trained about the hazards of depleted uranium contamination, even though Congress enacted a law in 1998 requiring extensive training, especially for medical personnel.

5. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory pills given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to testimony before Congress (Rand Corporation, 1999), the experimental pyridostigmine bromide (PB) anti-chemical warfare agent pills "can't be ruled out" as linked to Gulf War illness. During the war, soldiers were told to take one pill every eight hours. After the chemical alarms sounded, some soldiers, out of legitimate fear for their lives, took more than the prescribed amount. To date, the long-term consequences of PB pills remain largely unknown.

6. The Iraqi civilian opposition was abandoned by U.S. troops in the first Gulf War. After U.S. troops had liberated Kuwait and conquered southern Iraq at the end of February 1991, former President George H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi opposition, mainly civilians, to rise up against the Iraqi dictatorship in March 1991. However, former President Bush left the rebels twisting in the wind to be ruthlessly killed by the Iraqi army's Republican Guard flying helicopters allowed by the cease-fire arranged by U.S. military and political leaders. U.S. troops in southern Iraq in March 1991 were ordered not to interfere. How can U.S. troops or Iraqi rebels be confident this won't happen again? Long oppressed by the Iraqi military, what will the civilian population do if Iraq is liberated? The American public won't support a long-term occupation and high casualties.

7. Many post-cease-fire military actions of the first Gulf War were deplorable. In March 1991, the Iraqi army was in a full route inside Iraq. Against orders, former General Barry McCaffrey slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after the cease-fire (documented in the article, "Overwhelming Force," by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, 2000). Many U.S. soldiers returned home with serious objections about the course and consequences of such actions, including the horrific carnage of the "highway of death," littered with hundreds of destroyed cars, tanks and human remains (see "Prayer at Rumayla" by Gulf War veteran Charles Sheehan-Miles, Xlibris, 2001). Will there be another massacre of Iraqi soldiers? Will Iraqi troops slaughter U.S. soldiers in retaliation, killing U.S. prisoners or retreating U.S. soldiers? And will the press be allowed onto the battlefield to record what really happens?

8. No one has been held accountable for arming Iraq with chemical and biological weapons from 1980 to 1990. A recent news article reported that top aides for former presidents Reagan and Bush armed Iraq with these weapons during Iraq's war against Iran between 1980 and 1988 ("Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002). Some of these former George H.W. Bush aides now work for President George W. Bush. These advisors did nothing to stop the sale of the chemical agents to Iraq, did nothing to stop the use of the agents by Iraq, and did nothing to tell the world about Iraq's crimes, even when the world learned Iraq used poison gas against civilians. These top political aides have remained silent for more than 14 years, and many refused to comment on the recent news reports.

9. U.S. allies in Europe oppose invading Iraq. They have refused to supply soldiers, funding or logistical support. Some of the serious U.S. battlefield casualties from 1991 were sent to U.S. military hospitals in Germany. Where will our casualties be flown to for emergency care if Germany follows through on its policy to remain neutral and not allow the use of German airspace? This contrasts sharply with the more than 30 nations allied with the U.S. during Desert Storm in 1991. Today, the U.S. has no Arab allies. In 1991, the U.S. forgave billions in outstanding loans owed by Egypt to buy its support. Now Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations oppose a second invasion of Iraq. If something goes wrong, where will U.S. troops retreat if Saudi Arabia won't allow U.S. troops within its borders? We must avoid another Gallipoli.

10. The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be able to care for additional casualties because VA can't even take care of current VA patients. Most veterans now wait six months to see a VA doctor, and most veterans wait more than six months to receive a decision on a VA disability claim. Many of those waiting in line are Gulf War veterans, many with unusual illnesses. According to VA, of the nearly 700,000 veterans who served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, more than 300,000 have sought VA healthcare, and more than 200,000 have filed VA disability claims. Two weeks ago, President Bush slashed $275 million from the healthcare budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Although the Iraqi government is a corrupt dictatorship that must eventually be removed, current proposals to remove the government by deploying hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops are deeply flawed. A premature attack against Iraq, especially when the public opposes it, would be a horrible mistake. Since 1990, more than 400 U.S. soldiers have died in the Gulf War theater of operations. Untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, both soldiers and civilians, also died. A second invasion of Iraq for one man is not worth one more life; let's use common sense and avert a second Gulf War.

The author is a Gulf War combat veteran
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 02:31 PM   #102
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
It is interesting to note on SCOTT RITTER, when he resigned from the UN inspections team in August of 1998, he stated that Iraq still had substantial amounts of Chemical and bio weapons not found, and was still a threat to the international community! Those are his words as he left the job he was in!

Now years later he says Iraq is not a threat and does not have weapons, yet, he has not been in a position the past 4 years to be able to refute his final statements when he resigned from the inspections team in August 1998.

Because he is the only member of the former inspection team speaking out against invasion and because his views today contradict his own views the last time he was in a position to know anything, I really don't think has any idea what he is talking about, and wonder what is real motives are? I'm sure he certainly sells more books this way.
I'm not sure yet what I think of Ritter either, but I don't think he is interested in only selling books. He is completely passionate about this issue in a way that gives him some credibility for me. I can't see that he has much to gain otherwise except being called a traitor. However, I have not heard him adequately address the question of this discrepancy between what he said when he left and what he says now so I am not exactly 100% on his team, but I am most interested in what he has to say. My guess is that he was working for a corrupt organization and did not feel free to speak his mind truthfully at the time, but I would like to hear him say more about it. I think it's also worth noting that he's a card-carrying Republican who voted for Bush and a Gulf War veteran.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 05:29 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Having talked and interacted with over 100 Gulf War Combat Veteran's and done extensive reading and research into these issue's, I reject nearly everything this LONE Anonymous "Gulf War Combat Veteran" from an obviously biased unobjective source website, has said an here is why.

First it is sick that this Anonymous "Gulf War Combat Veteran" is attempting to speak for other Veterans who do not in anyway share his/her views. This person should of stated that in the first paragraph instead of absurdly and falsely claiming this is how most veterans feel. In addition, he/her is wrong that Gulf War veterans have not been consulted. I wonder if this anonymous "veteran" is really a writer for the biased unobjective website?!

It is true that the Iraqi military may retreat to the cities, most likely Baghdad because it affords them better defensive capability. But that does not mean that US Tanks, so effective in the Desert battles, would not be used in the cities. Iraqi soldiers will continue to face a tank(the US M1A1 now M1A2) that is impervious to Iraqi ground fire and nearly any countries ground launched anti-tank weapons, across the frontal arch of the tank armor. This fact will not change in the cities although there will be greater opportunity for Iraqi soldiers to hit from the flank, top, and rear where armor protection is much less. Still US military tactics will take this into account, and only use it in situations where it can take advantage of its frontal armor and powerful 120 mm main gun. The US military will not send infantry into buildings or situations where they will suffer mass casaulties. We did not send infantry into messy situations in the mountains of Afghanistan and we won't in Baghdad either. The area of resistance will be marked, whether it be a building or several buildings, then either artillery or precision airstrikes will be called in to destroy the buildings or area where Iraqi soldiers are. It is a slow process, and US infantry will move slowly in armored vehicles behind tanks and helicopter support. Iraqi forces, pinned down in the city, will be easy targets for mass bombing. Having sacrificed mobility for the temporary protection of the city, their forces will be destroyed slowly by US artillery and airstrikes, as US forces move up slowly after resistence in those area's has been destroyed.

Iraq was seldom if ever threatened with being overrun by Iran, and chemical weapons had no effect on the overall battlefield situation, because Iraq only used them in controlled and limited circumstances. One reason for this is that the use of such weapons is often unpredictable do to the effects of whether on its spread and lethality. It should be noted that US military forces approaching from the southwest will NOT be downwind, rather Iraqi forces will be. Prevailing winds blow from the Southwest to the Northeast, meaning Iraqi forces must face the strong possibility that their use of chemical and bio weapons could cause casaulties among their own forces, especially since most Iraqi force have no protective gear at all for Chem/Bio warfare!

1. Many reason's for "Gulf War Illness" have been discussed, but there has never been any conclusive evidence linking Gulf Veterans symptoms to service in the Gulf War. The low level possible exposure at Khamisiyah may have been less dangerous than the polution one faces in many US cities. Examination of the area effected by Khamisyah does not reveal a higher concentration of "Gulf Illness" among those that would be effected, than anywhere else in the Gulf region where US forces were serving including on ships in the Gulf. In addition there is no evidence that US chemical and protective gear does not work. I have used this gear myself in training, and from what I have experienced it does work!

2. It is not clear that US forces were really exposed to low levels of chemicals in a concentration still high enough to have any effects. Given the random distrubution of "Gulf Illness" in the Gulf region, rather than a concentration at Khamisiyah or any other place, the only scientific conclusion for the time being is that "Gulf Illness" is the result of "stress" or other events not related to service in the Gulf.

3. Any vaccine has the chance to cause deaths or ill side effects among a very large population. Over 99% of Men and Women taking the anthrax vaccine have not suffered side effects. More importantly, they now can survive an Anthrax attack.

4. Not only do US forces use depleted Uranium in shells and bullets, but they also use depleted Uranium in the armor protection for US tanks. US forces have used and trained with Depleted Uranium for decades. US forces exposed to depleted Uranium dust or shells recieve more radioactivity from watching TV! While the mistaken demolition of chemical weapons at Khamisiyah raises some possibilities for concern, which are unproven, the risk of depleted uranium is non-existent. The level of radiation is to low to be of a risk, in addition the shells and their use in the Gulf war is spread over a vast area and NOT concentrated, and what was there was easily dispursed by whether conditions at the time. In both this case and above, the Gulf War oil fires by Saddam are more of a threat due to their wider area of effect and concentration.

5. None of the Gulf War veterans I have interacted with talked about problems with these pills. The Rand Corporation "think tank" has been wrong on many issue's besides this one. Just look at the Rand Corporations estimates for US losses before the 1991 Gulf War started.

6. George Bush incouraged not only Iraqi citizens, most of whom never saw Bushes comments, but also the Iraqi military to rise up against Saddam before and during the Gulf War. It was well understood by everyone that the mandate was for the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and the restoration of that country. The USA got everything it needed in the ceacefire in order to completely secure that mandate although now that ceacefire agreement has been terribly violated which is why we are going back in. The US soldiers will be fighting to remove the regime, so there will be no ceacefire this time. Iraqi civilians long opprossed by the Iraqi military will finally be able to enjoy freedom and have the opportunity to create a prosperous life for themselves. The American public will support a long occupation as evidence by US troops stationed in Bosnia now 7 years, Kosovo 3 years, and of course, Italy, Germany, and Japan, nearly 60 years! Not really occupation in the last three now, but still their stationing supported by the American public.

7. Barry McCaffrey forces were attacked by Iraqi forces who were not aware of the Gulf War ceacefire. His forces took appropriate action to defend themselves and destroyed the attacking Repulican guard units saving the lives of American soldiers. There was never at any time a massacre of Iraqi soldiers. We destroyed any and all vehicles in the region moving north, but did not target people on foot. Iraqi soldiers that did escape the "highway of death" later massacred Shiats in the south and Kurds in the North. Perhaps the Anonymous "Veteran" would of prefered that more Iraqi soldier had survived the "highway of death" in order to slaughter Shia women and childern. This person is really starting to contradict him/her self.

8. Most of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons build took place in Iraq itself. Duel use components and agents may have been sold to Iraq, Iraq was not under sanctions then, but not with the purpose that they be used for the production and manufacture of weaponized chemical agents. In any event, their use was limited and not a factor in the Iran/Iraq war, and Iraq had other sources of these resources do to the fact there were no sanctions at the time. Most aid in building Iraq's military infrastructure came from the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent China. I can list the weapons tables for Iraq back then that clearly show this. US support was limited to meaningless diplomatic support, and the supplying of food, trucks, and a few transport helicopters. Its unfortunate that people take limited and insignificant transfer of supplies, and then extrapolate that into "we built Saddam". Nothing could be further from the truth. Saddam's military was built by the Soviet Union, that still had 2,000 troops and advisors in Iraq two months before the Gulf War.

9. The USA does not nead Saudi Arabia for an invasion nor does it need European allies that contributed little if nothing to the 1991 Gulf War. The US has the medical support in the region to deal with nearly anything, but if need be, Germany is not going to deny US wounded. In addition, the United Kingdom is next store, if Germany experiences a sudden form of insanity and cruelty.

10. Certainly more needs to be done for the VA. The numbers of Gulf War vets having a reported illness is 120,000 out of 700,000. It is not proven that the illness they have is due to service in the Gulf after 10 years of study. Non-the less, anyone that is sick for any reason who has served are country should be cared for, and the money can be applied to the budget to accomplish this goal.

All polls show the public in America supports a war against Iraq. One has to ask what the cost of a event worse than 9/11 would be. Allowing an event worse than 9/11 to happen again is unacceptable under any conditions. There is no margin for error, which is why we must enforce all UN resolutions regarding Iraq, with force if necessary!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 06:09 PM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 09:11 PM
you talked to 100? what about the other half million? why would you presume that this 'lone' anonymous veteran has not talked to as many veterans as you have? you may not like the website, but it has a lot of integrity within the progressive community.

but hey, at least YOU'RE nonbiased and objective even if those of us who are against invading iraq are not.

as i said previously, i don't have the time to debate this issue or to even comment on every article i post. but i will continue posting articles that i find interesting.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 06:37 PM   #105
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Albert Interviews Chomsky on Iraq

By Noam Chomsky

Various questions are circulating among people worried about war. On Sept 1, 2002, Michael Albert put a dozen of these to Noam Chomsky, via email. Here are the first three questions and his responses...the whole interview will appear in the October issue of Z Magazine.

1. Has Saddam Hussein been as evil as mainstream media says? Domestically? Internationally?

He is as evil as they come, ranking with Suharto and other monsters of the modern era. No one would want to be within his reach. But fortunately, his reach does not extend very far.

Internationally, Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support), and when that war was going badly turned to chemical weapons (also with Western support). He invaded Kuwait and was quickly driven out.

A major concern in Washington right after the invasion was that Saddam would quickly withdraw, putting "his puppet in [and] everyone in the Arab world will be happy" (Colin Powell, then Chief of Staff). President Bush was concerned that Saudi Arabia might "bug out at the last minute and accept a puppet regime in Kuwait" unless the US prevented Iraqi withdrawal.

The concern, in brief, was that Saddam would pretty much duplicate what the US had just done in Panama (except that Latin Americans were anything but happy). From the first moment the US sought to avert this "nightmare scenario." A story that should be looked at with some care.

Saddam's worst crimes, by far, have been domestic, including the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late 80s, barbaric torture, and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are at the top of the list of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned, rightly. It's useful to ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and eloquent expressions of outrage are accompanied by three little words: "with our help."

The crimes were well known at once, but of no particular concern to the West. Saddam received some mild reprimands; harsh congressional condemnation was considered too extreme by prominent commentators. The Reaganites and Bush #1 continued to welcome the monster as an ally and valued trading partner right through his worst atrocities and well beyond.

Bush authorized loan guarantees and sale of advanced technology with clear applications for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day of the Kuwait invasion, sometimes overriding congressional efforts to prevent what he was doing. Britain was still authorizing export of military equipment and radioactive materials a few days after the invasion.

When ABC correspondent and now ZNet Commentator Charles Glass discovered biological weapons facilities (using commercial satellites and defector testimony), his revelations were immediately denied by the Pentagon and the story disappeared. It was resurrected when Saddam committed his first real crime, disobeying US orders (or perhaps misinterpreting them) by invading Kuwait, and switched instantly from friend to reincarnation of Attila the Hun.

The same facilities were then used to demonstrate his innately evil nature. When Bush #1 announced new gifts to his friend in December 1989 (also gifts to US agribusiness and industry), it was considered too insignificant even to report, though one could read about it in Z magazine at the time, maybe nowhere else.

A few months later, shortly before he invaded Kuwait, a high-level Senate delegation, headed by (later) Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, visited Saddam, conveying the President's greetings and assuring the brutal mass murderer that he should disregard the criticism he hears from maverick reporters here.

Saddam had even been able to get away with attacking a US naval vessel, the USS Stark, killing several dozen crewmen. That is a mark of real esteem. The only other country to have been granted that privilege was Israel, in 1967. In deference to Saddam, the State Department banned all contacts with the Iraqi democratic opposition, maintaining this policy even after the Gulf war, while Washington effectively authorized Saddam to crush a Shi'ite rebellion that might well have overthrown him -- in the interest of preserving "stability," the press explained, nodding sagely.

That he's a major criminal is not in doubt. That's not changed by the fact that the US and Britain regarded his major atrocities as insignificant in the light of higher "reasons of state," before the Gulf war and even after -- facts best forgotten.

2. Looking into the future, is Saddam Hussein as dangerous as mainstream media says?

The world would be better off if he weren't there, no doubt about that. Surely Iraqis would. But he can't be anywhere near as dangerous as he was when the US and Britain were supporting him, even providing him with dual-use technology that he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons development, as he presumably did.

10 years ago the Senate Banking Committee hearings revealed that the Bush administration was granting licences for dual use technology and "materials which were later utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and chemical purposes." Later hearings added more, and there are press reports and a mainstream scholarly literature on the topic (as well as dissident literature).

The 1991 war was extremely destructive, and since then Iraq has been devastated by a decade of sanctions, which probably strengthened Saddam himself (by weakening possible resistance in a shattered society), but surely reduced very significantly his capacity for war-making or support for terror.

Furthermore, since 1991 his regime has been constrained by "no fly zones," regular overflights and bombing, and very tight surveillance. Chances are that the events of Sept. 11 weakened him still further. If there are any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, they would be far more difficult to maintain now because of the sharply intensified surveillance and controls.

That aside, links are not very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, nothing has been found, which is not too surprising. Saddam and bin Laden were bitter enemies, and there's no particular reason to suppose that there have been any changes in that regard.

The rational conclusion is that Saddam is probably less of a danger now than before 9-11, and far less of a threat than when he was enjoying substantial support from the US-UK (and many others). That raises a few questions. If Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn't that true a year ago? And much more dramatically, in early 1990?

3. How should the problem of the existence and use of weapons of mass destruction in the world today be dealt with?

They should be eliminated. The non-proliferation treaty commits countries with nuclear weapons to take steps towards eliminating them. The biological and chemical weapons treaties have the same goals. The main Security Council resolution concerning Iraq (687, 1991) calls for eliminating weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems from the Middle East, and working towards a global ban on chemical weapons. Good advice.

Iraq is nowhere near the lead in this regard. We might recall the warning of General Lee Butler, head of Clinton's Strategic Command in the early 90s, that "it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so."

He's talking about Israel of course. The Israeli military authorities claim to have air and armored forces that are larger and more advanced than those of any European NATO power (Yitzhak ben Israel, Ha'aretz, 4-16-02, Hebrew). They also announce that 12% of their bombers and fighter aircraft are permanently stationed in Eastern Turkey, along with comparable naval and submarine forces in Turkish bases, and armored forces as well, in case it becomes necessary to resort to extreme violence once again to subdue Turkey's Kurdish population, as in the Clinton years.

Israeli aircraft based in Turkey are reported to be flying reconnaisance flights along Iran's borders, part of a general US-Israel-Turkey policy of threatening Iran with attack and perhaps forceful partitioning. Israeli analysts also report that joint US-Israel-Turkey air exercises are intended as a threat and warning to Iran. And of course to Iraq (Robert Olson, Middle East Policy, June 2002). Israel is doubtless using the huge US air bases in Eastern Turkey, where the US bombers are presumably nuclear-armed. By now Israel is virtually an offshore US military base.

And the rest of the area is armed to the teeth as well. If Iraq were governed by Gandhi, it would be developing weapons systems if it could, probably well beyond what it can today. That would very likely continue, perhaps even accelerate, if the US takes control of Iraq. India and Pakistan are US allies, but are marching forward with the development of WMD and repeatedly have come agonizingly close to using nuclear weapons. The same is true of other US allies and clients.

That is likely to continue unless there is a general reduction of armaments in the area.

Would Saddam agree to that? Actually, we don't know. In early January 1991, Iraq apparently offered to withdraw from Kuwait in the context of regional negotiations on reduction of armaments, an offer that State Department officials described as serious and negotiable. But we know no more about it, because the US rejected it without response and the press reported virtually nothing.

It is, however, of some interest that at that time -- right before the bombing -- polls revealed that by 2-1 the US public supported the proposal that Saddam had apparently made, preferring it to bombing. Had people been allowed to know any of this, the majority would surely have been far greater. Suppressing the facts was an important service to the cause of state violence.

Could such negotiations have gotten anywhere? Only fanatical ideologues can be confident. Could such ideas be revived? Same answer. One way to find out is to try.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright Β© Interference.com