so they blatantly lie and you dont care

[STING2]

Klaus,

Thats because the journalist article primarily rested on incorrect fact, while the Presidents case rested on a large number of facts that were true. I'm not critical of the President on the Niger case, because it was never the key reason for going into Iraq. It was simply another piece of information showing the danger of Saddam. Now that single piece of information is disputed, as does often happen with such intelligence matters. The number of US troops in Iraq is not a secret or the result of special intelligence that can be subject to change. To the journalist the US troop strength, was the key piece of information. For the President, the Niger case was a small piece of information, and not the main reason for going into Iraq.

RONO,

Because it was a small piece of a very large puzzle. Just because a puzzle is missing a small piece or its discovered that the piece does not fit, does not mean you can see the picture the rest of the puzzle makes.

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

id just like to say that war is wonderful for the economy, and bush couldnt even do that right either.

war =

 

[Klaus]

STING2:
So what do you think was was the key reason for going into iraq?
The Oil and the chance for new US bases after Saudi Arabia thew the US military out of the country?

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

The key reason for going to war against Iraq was that it became the only way to insure that Saddam was disarmed of his WMD. Saddam and his WMD were a continued threat to every country in the region. Saudi Arabia has not thrown the USA out of the country. There are plans to move a large number of US troops from Saudi Arabia, but there will probably continue to be a smaller presence there for many years to come, as their was prior to Saddams invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

 

[Klaus]

A few months/weeks before Iraq war the Saudi Kings asked the US military to leave the country. Since they don't have the military power to enforce it it's as much "throwing you out" as they can.
So - where will that "large number of US troops from Saudi Arabia" be moved to? Iraq? - what an coincidence.

You wouldn't say that the Oil and the Strategic importance of Iraq played a keyrole for going to war?

If it was just about the WMDs the invasion increased the risk of a) using the WMDs and b) selling and moving the WMDs in the war-chaos to Terrorist organisations.
Remember that - thanks to the US presure - Iraq started to destroy the Weapons which Mr. Blix was asking for.
Lots of the other UN members weren't asking for much - just for letting Mr. Blix doing his job and waiting for his final report before starting a war.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

"A few months/weeks before Iraq war the Saudi Kings asked the US military to leave the country. Since they don't have the military power to enforce it it's as much "throwing you out" as they can."
"So - where will that "large number of US troops from Saudi Arabia" be moved to? Iraq? - what an coincidence."

Do you have an official transcript of this request or a US or Saudi government pronouncement saying this is indeed the case?

There were only a few thousand American troops in Saudia Arabia in any event.


"You wouldn't say that the Oil and the Strategic importance of Iraq played a keyrole for going to war?" Oil was indeed important because of Iraq's potential ability to threaten the supply of it to the world. WMD gave the Iraqi military potential capabilities to help in this regard.

"If it was just about the WMDs the invasion increased the risk of a) using the WMDs and b) selling and moving the WMDs in the war-chaos to Terrorist organisations."

Temporarily it is true that there was an increased chance of the use of WMD, but it was in the context of a military invasion that was going after Iraq's ability to use such weapons immediately. Iraq's options for using WMD against certain civilian targets were complicated by a large scale military invasion of the country to destroy those very weapons.

In order to properely use and get the best effect from WMD, a good deal of planning and ideal conditions are needed. The best time to launch such an attack is after plenty of time and preperation, not in the middle of a fast moving armored invasion of the country.

War-chaos is not the time to be moving and selling sensitive WMD. The Proper transfer, techniques in handling, and training in the use of such weapons, happens best in a time of peace, not war and chaos. In addition, no terrorist organization could offer Saddam the amount of money he siezed from Baghdads central bank.

"Remember that - thanks to the US presure - Iraq started to destroy the Weapons which Mr. Blix was asking for."

This is false. At the time Mr. Blix entered the country no one was concerned about the Ballistic missiles that were later discovered to be only 20 miles over the allowed range. Rather than an actual Iraqi violation, they were most likely a mistake in Iraqi engineering. Extending the range of a Ballistic missile by 20 miles does not confer any real new advantage. If the Iraqi's were intending to actually cheat with those missiles, the ranges would have been far greater.

None the less, it proved to be a great opportunity for Saddam to dupe the rest of the world into thinking he was really cooperating which was totally false.

Saddam has yet to account for 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax and hundreds of tons of mustard gas among other things that we was found to have as late as 1998 when the inspectors left Iraq.

"Lots of the other UN members weren't asking for much - just for letting Mr. Blix doing his job and waiting for his final report before starting a war."

Mr. Blix's job is pointless if Saddam is unwilling to cooperate. If Saddam was cooperating, all 30,000 Bio/Chem shells, the Anthrax and mustard gas, would be lined up for UN inspectors to look at near Baghdad international airport. The inspectors job was never to find proof that Saddam had WMD, it was Saddam's job to prove that he did not have WMD.

Mr. Blix cannot do his job if Saddam is unwilling to cooperate. Mr. Blix does not have tanks and troops to get through Saddam's military if by chance he thinks he is onto something. Without Saddam's cooperation, it would be impossible for any peaceful inspector to disarm Iraq.

 

[Klaus]

STING2: chances are high that i posted a link in FYM allready, i am no premium member and therefore i am not allowed to use the search function.
If you can't find it there i'll take another look at my references (could take a week).

Since the Borders of Iraq were controlled the war was a chance to get these things out of the country - Saddam would have interest in it because he could get the money to a new banking account.

The UN members were interested, that's why he destroyed them (some were convinced they were violating the resolutions). With the presure of the US military next to his borders Saddam was willing to do a lot.

It was Mr. Blix job to judge if Saddam cooperates or not - i guess he can do that better than you and me. I know he wasn't 100% happy with the cooperation but he told that it was getting better and better.

So from my point of view a wise President of the US would have taken that chance to solve the Iraq problem without that war.
If that wasn't possible he could have convinced his former allies - and the Pentagon could have used the time to create a plan b "What if Chalabi isn't accepted as the new leader by the Iraqis"

Klaus

 

[Klaus]

Sting: here is one source:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,234390,00.html

it is from february this year but the article is german and you have to pay for it.

 

[STING2]

Klaus,


"Since the Borders of Iraq were controlled the war was a chance to get these things out of the country - Saddam would have interest in it because he could get the money to a new banking account."

Control over the border of Iraq only increased with the start of the war. It in fact made it more difficult to get things in and out since at any moment, US troops could land near you and intercept or fire on you if you that thought you might be Iraqi military or security services or terrorist.


"The UN members were interested, that's why he destroyed them (some were convinced they were violating the resolutions). With the presure of the US military next to his borders Saddam was willing to do a lot."

Saddam gladly destroyed the short range Ballistic missiles that were only 20 miles over their actual range because he knew many around the world including yourself would mistakenly point to this as a sign of cooperation.

Cooperation would come in the form of accounting for 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, thousands of tons of Mustard Gas, etc. Saddam was no more closer to complying with the UN resolutions in 2003 than he was in 1998. Sorry, but that is not a sign of cooperation.

"It was Mr. Blix job to judge if Saddam cooperates or not - i guess he can do that better than you and me. I know he wasn't 100% happy with the cooperation but he told that it was getting better and better."

The type of cooperation that is needed for peaceful disarmament is the type that was shown by Ukraine, Kazaksthan and South Africa when they went under disarmament by the UN. In each case it tool less than a year. Its been 12 year with Saddam and there have been plenty of lies by Saddam and harrassment and barring of UN officials in order to hide his WMD.

Not accounting for 30,000 Bio/Chem shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, and thousands of tons of Mustard gas, is not cooperation.

Mr. Blix's job is to verify what Saddam shows him or his claims and nothing else. At the end of Blix's inspection process, Saddam was still in material breech of nearly every UN resolution passed against it and had failed to show Mr. Blix any of the WMD that they had back in 1998. That is not cooperation. If your asked to do something and you don't do it, your not cooperating! Simple as that.

 

[Klaus]

You are right, the UN (incl. the USA) wasted most of the time of the 12 years - but at the end the US was in such a hurry that they couldn't even wait that mr.blix would finish his document.

I see it verry different what Unmovic did and what they were able to do.
If you were right Mr. Schwarzkopf (known from Iraq war 1) must be a verry senile man because he also wanted longer inspections.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

Its very simple. You can inspect until hell freezes over, but if Saddam does not cooperate, he is not going to ever be disarmed by the UN inspectors. The UN inspectors are not armed and have no power to force Saddam to do anything. If war would not force Saddam to cooperate, why would UN inspections be able to do that, when it had not done that for 12 straight years. Peaceful inspections are pointless if the dictator in question is not going to cooperate 100%. Either give up the WMD or show the remains of the WMD, its that simple.

 

[Klaus]

There were no 12 years of inspection Sting, the inspections stoped after UNMOVIC had to remove their inspectors because of US bombings years ago.

You're right you can't inspect if the other side dosn't cooperate, thats why we needed presure (not a war) to make him cooperate.

Klaus

 

[Klaus]

Sting:
Another OP/ED of PAUL KRUGMAN in the NYTimes:

Who's Unpatriotic Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.

The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.

Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq, the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.

And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One weekend a month, my ass."

To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American ? and administration pleas for more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.

How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."

But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."

Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden ? who really did attack America ? and Kim Jong Il ? who really is building nukes.

And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him ? it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.

Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.

So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.

And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.

Did he correct the numbers of the military or are they still wrong?

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

"There were no 12 years of inspection Sting, the inspections stoped after UNMOVIC had to remove their inspectors because of US bombings years ago."

Inspectors had to be removed because Saddam was NOT cooperating! Inspectors were removed in November 1998 after 7 and half years of inspections in which Saddam played games with them. In addition, Saddam did not let inspectors back in, in 1999, 2000, 2001, and most of 2002. That is a material breech of Iraq's obligations under the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement as well as a violation of resolutions 678 and 687. Those resolutions call for the "use of all means necessary" to bring about Iraqi compliance with the resolutions.

"You're right you can't inspect if the other side dosn't cooperate, thats why we needed presure (not a war) to make him cooperate."

Iraq was already under every sort of pressure short of war. The only thing left was war! War has accomplished what 8 years of inspections over the past 12 years failed to do. Allowing Saddam more time to play his shit games with the inspectors and kill thousands more of his own people would have been a mistake.

"Did he correct the numbers of the military or are they still wrong?"

He is still wrong! It is true that the Army has 33 Brigades, but only 10 of them, not 16, are in Iraq. The 4th infantry division has 3 brigades, the 3rd infantry division has 3 brigades, the 101st division has 3 brigades, all of them in Iraq. One brigade from the third infantry division is withdrawing. In addition, there is one brigade from the 82nd airborne division in Iraq.

 

[Klaus]

Right, Saddam did not cooperate, thats why the US wanted to bomb Iraq, the Inspectors left, the bombs fell and after that Saddam didn't let the inspectors back into the country.

After that the priority solving the Iraq problem werent verry high. Most people in the world forgot Saddam Hussein until the US government told them that hi WMDs are a danger for the US and he is linked to Ossama Bin Laden.

So it is approx. 1/3rd of the US Army in Iraq? In that situation would it be possible to send the military to Korea? Or how many of the brigades should stay at home for defending the country? (not that i think that canada or mexico will invade the US..)

What do you think about the idea that Turkish troops will support US troops in Iraq now? (i guess a few weeks ago we had the same opinion "bad idea")

As she came home today...
...what's your opinion in the "Jessica Lynch rescue show"?
I've heared that the US military said that her wounds were from a car accident, not from shootings

Do you think the things we saw on TV were "based on a true story" or did we see the true story?

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

"After that the priority solving the Iraq problem werent verry high. Most people in the world forgot Saddam Hussein until the US government told them that hi WMDs are a danger for the US and he is linked to Ossama Bin Laden."

The priority was still high and the US worked to get UN inspectors back into Iraq without any success. Kosovo war happened in the Spring of 1999, and then 2000 was an election year, so despite the efforts to get inspectors back in Iraq, no one was ready to deploy large numbers of US troops to do that. WMDs in possession by Saddam were declared a danger in March of 1991 to the world which is why Saddam was forced to give them up.


"So it is approx. 1/3rd of the US Army in Iraq? In that situation would it be possible to send the military to Korea? Or how many of the brigades should stay at home for defending the country? (not that i think that canada or mexico will invade the US..)"

The US army is currently capable of conducting two wars at the same time in both Korea and the middle east. If war were to break out in Korea suddenly, the USA already has one army division stationed there and two other divisions that would deploy from Alaska and Hawaii.

Lets not forget the US Marine Corp. The US Marines have one division in southern Iraq that my friends are serving in. They have one more division back in the USA and another stationed in Japan that could be deployed to Korea or Tawain depending on what is needed.

In addition, there are over 40 COMBAT brigades in the US Army National Guard and Reserve that can be called up if needed.
There is one Marine Division in the Marine Reserve.


"What do you think about the idea that Turkish troops will support US troops in Iraq now? (i guess a few weeks ago we had the same opinion "bad idea")"

I don't want Turkish Troops in Iraq. If they serve in the south where the Shia are and it is far from the Turkish border, it might be ok, but if its in the North where the Kurds are, it could get ugly.

"As she came home today...
...what's your opinion in the "Jessica Lynch rescue show"?
I've heared that the US military said that her wounds were from a car accident, not from shootings"

"Do you think the things we saw on TV were "based on a true story" or did we see the true story?"

Its great she is home. Whether her wounds were from a shooting or a car accident caused by an RPG rocket is irrelevant. The US military mounted an operation to bring Jessica Lynch out of the hospital in Nasaryia. Nasaryia was the most dangerous place for US troops during the war. A raid or ambush could happen at any time and the military appropriately sent a well armed squad to insure she was safely moved from the Hospital to a secure US Army location.

 

[Klaus]

Sting:
So it will be 3 wars.. or is Afghanistan over (afik the goal was to hunt Ossama Bin Laden)? So 3 wars because of the international troops in Afghanistan or possibly 4 wars if there will be international troops in Iraq?

Anyway, i'm glad the article is wrong in that point (also i think he mentions some interesting things in the other points)

I agree with your opinion in the "Turkey-question" i guess even in the south it could be tricky - chances are high that Turkey troops try to make some special operations in the north and Kurds will come to the south for revenge (for what has bin done to them for years).

I also agree that its great that she is home - and besides she lost some memory she seems to be ok again. I'm really glad about that.
But still it's a question about credibility of the Pentagon - IF the rescue mission was faked they fooled the American citizens just to get the support for war.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

There is about as much evidence of UFO's by farmer Browns barn as there is evidence that a rescue mission was faked. The US military is the most credible organization on the planet.

"So it will be 3 wars.. or is Afghanistan over (afik the goal was to hunt Ossama Bin Laden)? So 3 wars because of the international troops in Afghanistan or possibly 4 wars if there will be international troops in Iraq?"

Depends on your definition of war. There US troops at work in Afghanistan, a full brigade of the 82nd Airborne division is there. The operation in Afghanistan though is more of a CIA-FBI hunt though. US troops are currently deployed in Iraq rebuilding the country and capturing or killing the last remnents of Saddam's regime. If there was a problem in Korea that would be a third area of conflict.

 

[Klaus]

Sting:
I think the US Army is more trustworthy than the US Government - and the US Armys (2 weeks ago) description of the wounds fit to the things the Iraqi M.D.s said, not to the version of the US Government - thats where i started to think it might be a faked story.

Klaus

 

[Klaus]

Since they found a document where the CIA warned on 5.Oct. 02 Michael Gerson (Speechwriter) and after there was no response another document at 6. Oct 02 directly to Mr. Hadley (America's deputy national security adviser who reports Mrs. Rice)

BBC News:
Mr Hadley said the Central Intelligence Agency director, George Tenet, had warned him that the intelligence was suspect, and had earlier asked him to remove similar language from an October speech by the president, Reuters news agency reported.

The lie is getting closer to the center of the Power. Didn't they tell us a few days ago it was just the CIAs fault? Mr George Tenet didn't report?

Let's see which documents they can find next weekend

Klaus

 

[Klaus]

Reuters:

Billionaire's ads challenge U.S. case for Iraq war
Fri Jul 25, 7:45 PM ET


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Billionaire philanthropist George Soros is running full-page ads in major U.S. newspapers on Sunday challenging the honesty of the Bush administration's case for waging war in Iraq.

The ads in The New York Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Houston Chronicle, are titled, "When the nation goes to war, the people deserve the truth."

A dozen statements made by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld making the case for war are reprinted and described as either exaggerated or false.

The statements center on claims about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and large quantities of poison gasses.

The Hungarian-born Soros, 72, emigrated to the United States from Britain in 1956 and built a fortune as a financier. He is founder of a network of philanthropic organizations active in more than 50 countries that focus on education, public health, human rights and economic reform.

The ads, estimated to cost about $185,000, were co-sponsored by U.S. philanthropists Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman.

"Both George Soros and Lewis Cullman have been deeply concerned about the deception used to justify the war in Iraq," said Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Soros.

"They believe their fellow citizens should also be concerned and took out these ads to move them to action."

Bush has defended the case for war, saying he is confident that weapons of mass destruction will eventually be found in Iraq and that criticism of intelligence about Iraq's military capabilities amounts to quibbling.

Public opinion on the issue is closely divided, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released this week. It showed U.S. voters believed the administration did not intentionally exaggerate evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons by 50 to 44 percent with a 3 percent margin of error.

 

[Scarletwine]

I read this today at TomPaine.com. Just a little white lie to protect his and Cheney's oil buddies.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8466
Operation Oil Immunity
Steve Kretzmann and Jim Vallette are analysts with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies.

"The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil. "

This is much the same way Africa debt was created.

"In the creation and expected implementation of this Development Fund for Iraq, one finds the fingerprints of the global economic structural adjustment that has attracted so much protest in recent years. World Bank and IMF programs, backed by the rigged rules of the World Trade Organization, have imposed dramatic financial restructuring upon much of the world. Developing countries have amassed huge debts in exchange for selling out their natural resources to powerful Northern corporations. This paradigm cloaks corporate welfare and neocolonialism in terms of "poverty alleviation," and now in Iraq as "humanitarian assistance."

New debt for Iraq will accrue through the very program that President Bush pledged would "benefit the people of Iraq." The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, will apparently be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit and direct financing for U.S. corporate forays into Iraq. Besides financing reconstruction projects, some of the funds will also be used as collateral for projects approved by the U.S. Export-Import Bank (ExIm), whose mission is not development or poverty alleviation, but rather the creation of U.S. jobs and the promotion of American business abroad."

The kicker is what executive order contains.

"Executive Order 13303 decrees that "any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void," with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."

In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law. "

And they said it wasn't about OIL.

 

[deep]

http://www.we deserve the truth.com/

 

[deep]

"I feel confident that more than 100 activities on the part of al Qaeda have been disrupted and interrupted around the world," Ashcroft said

He claimed that he had a list of 205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party.

McCarthy's first years in the Senate were unimpressive. People also started coming forward claiming that he had lied about his war record. Another problem for McCarthy was that he was being investigated for tax offences and for taking bribes from the Pepsi-Cola Company. In May, 1950, afraid that he would be defeated in the next election, McCarthy held a meeting with some of his closest advisers and asked for suggestions on how he could retain his seat. Edmund Walsh, a Roman Catholics priest, came up with the idea that he should begin a campaign against communist subversives working in the Democratic administration.

McCarthy thought this was a great idea and at Wheeling on 9th February, 1950, he made a speech where he attacked Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, as "a pompous diplomat in striped pants". He claimed that he had a list of 205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party. McCarthy went on to argue that some of these people were passing secret information to the Soviet Union. He added: "The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give."

 

[verte76]

Ugh. This is scary. It doesn't look good.

 

[TylerDurden]

In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

George " " Bush

 

[Klaus]

Scarletwine/TylerDurden: yeah an "excelent" lession in democracy
I guess the iraqi people won't cheer if they hear that laws, they will believe that this is some modern form of colonialisation
Klaus

 

[oliveu2cm]

I read this today at TomPaine.com. Just a little white lie to protect his and Cheney's oil buddies.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8466
Operation Oil Immunity
Steve Kretzmann and Jim Vallette are analysts with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies.

"The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil. "

This is much the same way Africa debt was created.

And it seems like now the US has the opportunity to thwart another Africa from happening. If Bush really cared about the Iraqi people this bs wouldn't be happening. And the US can cut corners and not help Africa as much as it should- yet we have an opportunity to refuse to let Iraq fall into the same black void..... let's all pray that the administration puts these people first (it makes me ache to say that, knowing in my heart that's not this administrations agenda)...

 

[deep]

so they blatantly lie and you dont care

if this is true, and i hope it is not.





Report: Marines dropped devices similar to Napalm on Iraqi troops
The Associated Press

Last Updated 11:18 a.m. PDT Tuesday, August 5, 2003
SAN DIEGO (AP) - Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders say they dropped firebombs similar to napalm on Iraqi troops earlier this year, according to a report published Tuesday.
The Marines say that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," Alles added.

He could not provide estimates of Iraqi casualties.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles. "It has a big psychological effect."

The firebombs were used again in April against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, the Marines said. There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen denied that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago. Napalm, a thick, burning combination of polystyrene, gasoline and benzene, was used against people and villages in Vietnam. Its use drew widespread criticism.

The newspaper said the spokesmen were apparently drawing a distinction between the terms firebomb and napalm.

The Marines dropped "Mark 77 firebombs," which use kerosene-based jet fuel and a smaller concentration of benzene. Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily acknowledged the incendiary devices were "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons, but said they had less of an impact on the environment.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Jim Amos confirmed aircraft dropped what he and other Marines continue to call napalm on Iraqi troops on several occasions. He commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Musil described the Pentagon's distinction between napalm and Mark 77 firebombs as "pretty outrageous."

Before March, the last time U.S. forces had used napalm in combat was the Persian Gulf War, again by Marines.

 

[Scarletwine]

Feep, I read the same report today.

Same article as you just longer.

I did a search on this subject and the US swore it didn't have any napalm, course now they call it firebombs.

Results are ' remarkably similar' to using napalm

By James W. Crawley
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 5, 2003

American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs ? similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War ? in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.

Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," he added. How many Iraqis died, the military couldn't say. No accurate count has been made of Iraqi war casualties.

The bombing campaign helped clear the path for the Marines' race to Baghdad.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen disputed reports that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago.

Apparently the spokesmen were drawing a distinction between the terms "firebomb" and "napalm." If reporters had asked about firebombs, officials said yesterday they would have confirmed their use.

What the Marines dropped, the spokesmen said yesterday, were "Mark 77 firebombs." They acknowledged those are incendiary devices with a function "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons.

Rather than using gasoline and benzene as the fuel, the firebombs use kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene.

Hundreds of partially loaded Mark 77 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas, Marine Corps officials said. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.com, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Musil described the Pentagon's distinction between napalm and Mark 77 firebombs as "pretty outrageous."

"That's clearly Orwellian," he added.

Developed during World War II and dropped on troops and Japanese cities, incendiary bombs have been used by American forces in nearly every conflict since. Their use became controversial during the Vietnam War when U.S. and South Vietnamese aircraft dropped millions of pounds of napalm. Its effects were shown in a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of Vietnamese children running from their burned village.

Before March, the last time U.S. forces had used napalm in combat was the Persian Gulf War, again by Marines.

During a recent interview about the bombing campaign in Iraq, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Jim Amos confirmed aircraft dropped what he and other Marines continue to call napalm on Iraqi troops on several occasions. He commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing.

Miramar pilots familiar with the bombing missions pointed to at least two locations where firebombs were dropped.

Before the Marines crossed the Saddam Canal in central Iraq, jets dropped several firebombs on enemy positions near a bridge that would become the Marines' main crossing point on the road toward Numaniyah, a key town 40 miles from Baghdad.

Next, the bombs were used against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, in early April.

There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

Two embedded journalists reported what they described as napalm being dropped on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill overlooking the Kuwait border.

Reporters for CNN and the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald were told by unnamed Marine officers that aircraft dropped napalm on the Iraqi position, which was adjacent to one of the Marines' main invasion routes.

Their reports were disputed by several Pentagon spokesmen who said no such bombs were used nor did the United States have any napalm weapons.

The Pentagon destroyed its stockpile of napalm canisters, which had been stored near Camp Pendleton at the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, in April 2001.

Yesterday military spokesmen described what they see as the distinction between the two types of incendiary bombs. They said mixture used in modern firebombs is a less harmful mixture than Vietnam War-era napalm.

"This additive has significantly less of an impact on the environment," wrote Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily, in an e-mailed information sheet provided by the Pentagon.

He added, "many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark 77 as 'napalm' because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar."

In the e-mail, Daily also acknowledged that firebombs were dropped near Safwan Hill.

Alles, who oversaw the Safwan bombing raid, said 18 one-ton satellite-guided bombs, but no incendiary bombs, were dropped on the site.

Military experts say incendiary bombs can be an effective weapon in certain situations.

Firebombs are useful against dug-in troops and light vehicles, said GlobalSecurity's Pike.

"I used it routinely in Vietnam," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor, now a prominent defense analyst. "I have no moral compunction against using it. It's just another weapon."

And, the distinctive fireball and smell have a psychological impact on troops, experts said.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles, who has transferred to Washington. "It has a big psychological effect."

? Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.