Wake Up America (Merged)

[Dreadsox]

Wake Up America

*** AMERICA WAKE UP! Speech given by US Navy Captain Dan Ouimette, to the Pensacola Civitan Club Feb 19, 2003. Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer of NAS, Pensacola, FL. ***



Pensacola Civitan
19 Feb 2003


America WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the next
23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Viet Nam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had been decimated and downsized / right sized since the end of the Viet Nam war. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more. Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over
2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more. Two months later in December
1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber. The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the Snooze Alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US soil is continually attacked. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. America wants to treat these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war...the Wake Up alarm is louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.

The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision, they kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since
1979. The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough.

America has to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to hit the Snooze Button again and roll over and go back to sleep. We have to make the terrorists know that in the words of Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor "that all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."

Thank you very much.

Dan Ouimette

 

[Dreadsox]

Dang...this is supposed to be in WAR. Sorry people.

 

[Klaus]

It was pretty much teamwork how Iraq got to it's Chemical Weapons, US and France gave most of the technology, Germany most of the Fabrication equipment.

It was allso teamwork how fe f**ed up that situation in Iraq, it was US who installed the baath regime because they were affraid of communistic contacts of the previous regime, than they sold weapons to Iran and Iraq at the same time and complained later that others did the same (France for example, later Russia too)

Eearlier than that, the western world was also the "inventor" of Holy wars. It's a "great" western tradition to cheat at our arabic neighbours.. (see lawrence of arabia) and after a few centuries we are surprised that we grew extremists who really hate us? is that a surprise to anyone?

Maybe we should ask for forgivness what we've done to them?

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

It was pretty much teamwork how Iraq got to it's Chemical Weapons, US and France gave most of the technology, Germany most of the Fabrication equipment.

It was allso teamwork how fe f**ed up that situation in Iraq, it was US who installed the baath regime because they were affraid of communistic contacts of the previous regime, than they sold weapons to Iran and Iraq at the same time and complained later that others did the same (France for example, later Russia too)

SO many things...Ummm...

#1 Saddam was already in power as was the Ba'ath party by the time the US was involved.

US sold weapons to Iraq? I believe that is not correct.

Peace

 

[deep]

I am sure this went over big in Pensicola FLA.

This guy should have his own show on FOX.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

US sold weapons to Iraq? I believe that is not correct.

Peace

dear dreadsox,

i believe you must have kept the reciepts somewhere.

t
h
a
n
k

y
o
u

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

Please name the weapon system or systems that the USA sold to Iraq in the 1980s. I don't mean biological cultures that went to Iraq for medical use but also had a duel use as well.

I think it might be time for me to clarify in detail where the weapons Iraq had in its military came from before sanctions were imposed in 1990. Its a very large weapons chart, and shows clearly where every weapon system came from. The only American weapons systems on the chart are a few that were captured by Iraq from Iran during the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-1988. These US weapons were sold to Iran during the 1970s when the Shah had control.

What I get tired seeing is the techinical military inaccuracy when people say the USA sold weapons to Iraq. Indeed though, of the 87 billion dollars that went to Iraq to support the war effort against Iran and stabilize the economy there, 5 Billion came from the USA.

But when one speeks of Support for Saddam and his military in the 1980s, one really need not look farther than the Soviet Union. 70% of Iraq's equipment came from there. 2,000 Soviet Troops and advisors were still in Iraq 3 months before first Gulf War.

 

[pax]

Okay, it's all fixed.

 

[Klaus]

STING2:

The helicopters, oh sorry they were for civil things - at least iraqis had to change 2 parts to make them identical tot he military version

 

[Klaus]

STING2: :

p.s. what i wanted to say is that every country who sold weapons has his own legend that they were innocent and just trying to do the best.

Maybe some were really that naive. I reacently hereared a conservative who was in power when Germany sold the factories stuff to iraq.
The Factories were to produce fertilizer and medicine to reduce hunger and diseases in Iraq, the centrifuges for teh plutonium for scientific use ... erm, yes sure ...
..sorry i don't trust these excuses, everyone knew what kind of man Saddam is, and everyone saw how he treated his men.

Klaus

 

[Basstrap]

At any rate, for the next ten or more years I'd say the US will have a predominately militaristic foreign policy
I hope it that doesn't happen, but I think it's highly likely.

 

[verte76]

At any rate, for the next ten or more years I'd say the US will have a predominately militaristic foreign policy
I hope it that doesn't happen, but I think it's highly likely.

Bush doesn't have a choice. This is the only way he can get re-elected in 2004. The economy could still get him the way it got his father.

 

[filledeperle]

originally posted by Klaus

Eearlier than that, the western world was also the "inventor" of Holy wars. It's a "great" western tradition to cheat at our arabic neighbours.. (see lawrence of arabia) and after a few centuries we are surprised that we grew extremists who really hate us? is that a surprise to anyone?

Maybe we should ask for forgivness what we've done to them?

I don't think so.

Klaus,

From what I understand, extremism is partly from the Mid-East having difficulty adjusting to the modern world, economically and politically.
The US did support some regimes that were very unpopular with their people, and that did make them hate us. But I don't think America has to get on its knees and beg for forgiveness. Just a change in policy is what needs to be done. We, and the West, are not all to blame for extremism in the Mid-East.
As for Iraq, we did support Saddam up until the early 1990s, but I don't think we helped install the Baath party. If we did, well, we were dealing with certain issues at the time that are far different from what's going on now.
Also, the West didn't come up with holy wars just for the hell of it, or because they were looking to justisfy military actions. Holy wars come from anyone with irrational and extreme views about one's religion being superior to others, and anyone can start those.
There's no use in carrying around regrets for something that happened fifty years before. It's not going to solve any problems.

Perle

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

If you want to accurately look at Saddams entire Military machine, you will notice that 99% of equipment came from the Soviet Union, China, and France. So it would be more accurate if you reserved 99% of your criticism for those 3 countries. I've not once seen you criticize the Soviet Union or China for supplying most of the weapons to Iraq.

Transport Helicopters, yes, a few were supplied but they had no relevant impact on Saddams repression of his people or the wars that he fought against other countries. Its possible to turn virtually anything into some type of a weapon.

Just ask any US soldier in Gulf War I and Gulf War II. They will tell you the types of weapons they were facing. None were made in America, the vast majority were Soviet made, with a few Chinese, French and other western countries thrown in.

 

[Klaus]

Sting:
I would do it if there were any Soviet Union, China or French guys here who would talk like you

The main reason why i'm talking about US/French/German exports is that i have much higher expectations to our free peaceloving and democratic countries.

the US sold more than 1% of the dangerous weapons. You can't count it in percent at all if it comes to the knowhow of chemical and biological weapons. You can destroy Factories and Tanks, but Knowhow stays there forever.

With how many percent do you want to count the satelite photos which were provided to Saddam so that he could use his Chemical weapons more efficent against Iran?
Information is a verry valuable good in times of war.

So .. wake up America! Fight the causes not the effects.

Klaus

 

[deep]

As for Iraq, we did support Saddam up until the early 1990s, but I don't think we helped install the Baath party. If we did, well, we were dealing with certain issues at the time that are far different from what's going on now.

The US, CIA did support Baath coup to topple pro Soviet/Communist Iraqi leadership.
Along with Afrikaner oppressors in South Africa. ANC / Mandella accepted Communist concepts/support because the West supported the oppressors.
Typical of simplistic "with us or against us" mentality.

Also, the West didn't come up with holy wars just for the hell of it, or because they were looking to justisfy military actions. Holy wars come from anyone with irrational and extreme views about one's religion being superior to others, and anyone can start those.

Most Arabs / Moslems would agree this describes GW actions to a tee.

There's no use in carrying around regrets for something that happened fifty years before. It's not going to solve any problems.

So the improper actions of the Nazis should be forgotten?

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

The USA gave Biological cultures that had "Duel Uses". In another thread, another person in the anti-war crowd is argueing about how such "duel use" items were not allowed to go to Iraq during sanctions. Sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The USA gave biological cultures for medical use. But it was Iraq that took these cultures which they got from other places as well, and then started the difficult process of weaponizing them. The thing is, Iraq never used Biological weapons. One reason that the cultures were probably sent to Iraq was because at the time those in the commerce department probably did not think Iraq had the capability to weaponize the cultures.

Iraq used chemical weapons, but the USA did not supply chemicals to Iraq, it supplied Biological cultures. Biological weapons themselves have very little effect on the battlefield because if used properly, the effects do not happen until days later. Biological weapons are far more effective against defenseless civilian populations. Chemical weapons are also more effective against civilian populations as well. Iraq won their war with Iran because of Soviet Tanks and other Soviet weapons. Their use of chemical weapons, while deadly, was not the deciding factor on the battlefield. The conventional weapons they recieved from the Soviet Union were. Iraq's most successful use of chemical weapons was against their own civilian population. Iraq never did use biological weapons.

So again, the USA may share a good percentage of the blame for supplying biological cultures for medical use to Iraq. But there are all kinds of "duel use technologies" that are going all over the world as we speak today because there are no sanctions. Realize that much of this technology has important medical benefits which is why protestors get so angry when sanctions are used. Iraq did weaponize the biological cultures they recieved from the USA and elsewhere, but they never used them.

Its far more relevant to look at what Saddam did use and what kept him in power and allowed him to attack and invade four different countries. I have seen you on to many occasions simply say the "USA supplied Iraq with its weapons" or the "USA created Saddam". These assertions are completely false and mis-leading.

America is indeed awake unlike are allies France and Germany. The USA has removed Saddam from Iraq, the French and Germans had nothing to do with that and in fact tried to prevent it from happening.

 

[filledeperle]

Originally posted by deep:

So the improper actions of the Nazis should be forgotten?

Deep:

I was not talking about the horrible acts of the Nazis. I was talking about not letting the guilt of America's wrongdoings interfere with any future relations between the US and the Mid-East. The Nazis had nothing to do with what I was saying.

And I also was not talking about forgetting past events as though they never happened.

Perle

 

[Klaus]

STING2:
I have a problem to believe that they didn't see the risk of exporting that technoligy, giving access to satelite photos to use chemical weapons more efficiently, "accidentially" giving Saddams regime the feeling that the US wouldn't react at the invasion of Kuwait and then calling even pencils "duel use"

Somehow i have the feeling that they wanted to use this bastard but he was too smart and as long as there was danger from Russia he could do what he wanted to do.. now there was time for revenge.

The US regime cheated ways to often that i could believe that they are doing it for humanitarian reasons (do you remember this rediculous lie of babies taken out of incubators and thrown to earth?) remember the faked proofs at the UN security council? You really think that someone who is honestly interested in democracy and someone who cares about the humans down there would act like that?

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

The satelite photos were used to help the Iraqi military prevent better prevent the Iranian military from overrunning Iraq despite all the help they were getting from the Soviets.

The USA said it had "no opinion" on the oil dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. It is a fantasy to believe that meant giving a green light to Iraq to invade and rape Kuwait.

Thousands of Kuwaities were killed, and much of the medical equipment brought out in the stories that were brought into question were taken out and brought back to Iraq. US soldiers last week are finding looted material from Iraq's 7 month occupation of Kuwait in Saddam's palaces. I'm surprised you would attempt to make light of the tragedy that thousands of Kuwaities(many of whom are still missing) experienced.

Klaus, I want to remind that the USA is a democracy and we are argueably more interested in democracy than any country on the planet. Lets not forgot who solved the problems of Bosnia and Kosovo, it was the USA. The fact today is that the USA has overthrown Saddam, one of the worst violators of human rights in history. Anyone who is interested in human rights should be rejoicing over this fact.

If the USA had gone along with the French/German proposal of months more of so called "tough inspections", Saddam would still be in power, thousands of more Iraqi's would be dead from being tortured or denied humanitarian assistance by Saddam. Its obvious that the Bush administration was right and the French and Germans were wrong. The more time that passes, the more that will sink in for them. The French and Germans are great at a lot of things, but right now, foreign policy is not one of them.

 

[deep]

Somehow i have the feeling that they wanted to use this bastard but he was too smart and as long as there was danger from Russia he could do what he wanted to do.. now there was time for revenge.



Klaus

This is pretty mch correct.

Bush 1 and US had a wait and see posture for awhile after Kuwait takeover. It was the concern that Saddam might take Saudi Arabia next that forced the Calition to attack.

 

[STING2]

On the day the invasion of Kuwait happened, Colin Powel was already talking about the possiblity of deploying enough combat force to invade and retake Kuwait.

 

[Klaus]

Saddam asked before the invasion of Kuwait the american diplomat what US would do if Iraq would invade kuwait.
He said something like US has no defense-contract with Kuwait and "America would look in the other direction"

Klaus

 

[V Nura]

Saddam asked before the invasion of Kuwait the american diplomat what US would do if Iraq would invade kuwait.
He said something like US has no defense-contract with Kuwait and "America would look in the other direction"

Klaus

klaus I've heard this before..but I've never been able to find anything to support it..do you have an article or something?

 

[Dreadsox]

Klaus, that is an extremely misleading to say that the Ambassador, who happened to be a "SHE" and not a he said that! It is not even close. Here is the official trasncript of the conversation it was declassified years ago:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

And here is Ambassador April Glaspie's part in that conversations. Anything I have read indicates that she misread his response to her comments. HE NEVER said he was invading Kuwait. CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack, however, picked up in Saddam's response that he was indeed willing to take a military action in the situation. Something that the Ambassador missed.

HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.

TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.

HUSSEIN: We do not ask people not to be concerned when peace is at issue. This is a noble human feeling which we all feel. It is natural for you as a superpower to be concerned. But what we ask is not to express your concern in a way that would make an aggressor believe that he is getting support for his aggression.

We want to find a just solution which will give us our rights but not deprive others of their rights. But at the same time, we want the others to know that our patience is running out regarding their action, which is harming even the milk our children drink, and the pensions of the widow who lost her husband during the war, and the pensions of the orphans who lost their parents.

As a country, we have the right to prosper. We lost so many opportunities, and the others should value the Iraqi role in their protection. Even this Iraqi [the President points to their interpreter] feels bitter like all other Iraqis. We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines -- King Fahd -- to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed.

Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement. We also discussed the issue during the Baghdad summit. I told the Arab Kings and Presidents that some brothers are fighting an economic war against us. And that not all wars use weapons and we regard this kind of war as a military action against us. Because if the capability of our army is lowered then, if Iran renewed the war, it could achieve goals which it could not achieve before. And if we lowered the standard of our defenses, then this could encourage Israel to attack us. I said that before the Arab Kings and Presidents. Only I did not mention Kuwait and U.A.E. by name, because they were my guests.

Before this, I had sent them envoys reminding them that our war had included their defense. Therefore the aid they gave us should not be regarded as a debt. We did not more than the United States would have done against someone who attacked its interests.

I talked about the same thing with a number of other Arab states. I explained the situation t brother King Fahd a few times, by sending envoys and on the telephone. I talked with brother King Hussein and with Sheik Zaid after the conclusion of the summit. I walked with the Sheik to the plane when he was leaving Mosul. He told me, "Just wait until I get home." But after he had reached his destination, the statements that came from there were very bad -- not from him, but from his Minister of Oil.

And after the Jidda agreement, we received some intelligence that they were talking of sticking to the agreement for two months only. Then they would change their policy. Now tell us, if the American President found himself in this situation, what would he do? I said it was very difficult for me to talk about these issues in public. But we must tell the Iraqi people who face economic difficulties who was responsible for that.