Sept 11, your feelings& if should we attack Iraq?

[Blossom]

As I read this thread over and over,  I can see how pointless everything is.  

The most truthful words here:  What has anything outside of the USA to do with the USA?...

We are only physical shells of what we really are.  What is inside us is much more important and much more powerful than anything they are trying to do or getting ready to do.  Politicians are not concerned with humanity.l.  The power they are looking for with all of their talk of war is nothing but an illusion and a facade of what is going to come back to bite them hard.  

The ones with the real power are the people who are at peace.  It takes much more effort to be at peace and to maintain that peace.  Be it with our immediate neighbors or with our faraway neighbors.  OR with ourselves.  This situation is only symptomatic of all the existing world problems.  It will never end and the ones in control can't help it.  They just don't get it.  They just don't understand and it is sad that people will suffer because of it.  

We are all at different stages of our developement and the ones in charge of it all, sadly enough, are probably on the low end of the totem..  They just can't see what they are doing..

Sincerely,
Blossom/Jennifer





Just wanting to learn....

[Adrian]

Greetings Blossom!

Excellent words and very true!

There are many higher intelligences in the higher spheres concerned with the evolution of mankind, and have been from the very beginning - from before in fact. But ultimately man has to face him/herself and the destiny of mankind  - no being, however exalted, can interfere - the Law forbids it.

Man has moved further and further away from reality in search of ever increasing power and material gain at all levels of humanity. Until mankind understands the greater, eternal reality, reversing this trend is very difficult.

Of course there are other factors such as dogmatic religion and science which are indoctrinated in the material world, and seeks to prove everything in material terms - and I myself used to be an organic and physical chemist.

I am not concerned with religions, but people in the west are quick for example to blame those hiding behind Islam for the current troubles. Yet the deaths and bloodshed attributable to those purporting to be "christians" are many, many times worse than Islam ever was. This goes back hundreds of years to include (but certainly not limited to) such times as the inquisition, the witch hunts, and even as recently as Northern Ireland. How are these people better than Islam for example?

You have to say that there is a striking parallel between the "christian" activists of yesteryear, and followers of Islam today. The same applies to other religions throughout history.

Man must look to himself before he looks at countries and religions for blame and justification of unjustifiable actions against his fellow brother and sister.

With kind regards,

Adrian.

[BDHugh]

Adrian,

For me the importance of economic conditions means being able to have the independence of supporting my self. It is a sense of personal accomplishment, of value and worth in doing the things you like to do. As far as materialism goes, you have to have it for spiritual development, for balance, for seeing it for what it really is. On the Iraq thing, no I personally don't want to see war with Iraq. There has been way too much of innocent lives lost due to the economic sanctions. 5,000 children continue to die there every month because of these sanctions. There has to be new leadership in there. But only more lives in the future can be lost if long term goals are not established. It would be wonderful if some democratic ideals were established there.

P.S. How come you are never at the Franz Bardon board anymore?

[Adrian]

Greetings BDHugh!

Yes I agree with you. But sanctions are again another type of warfare are they not, and which have an even worse effect - especially on the young and the weak as you say. This is all due to external intervention in matters that do not concern those that are intervening and causing the misery.

The people of Iraq have to determine their own destiny. Is this as unrealitic as many would believe? Look at the collapse of the entire communist block and its consequences for example - and they achieved it themselves. Compare the standards of life of these ex-communist block people today withjust 10 years ago - and again - they achieved it themselves.

External interference in foreign affairs only makes matters worse for the people of the oppressed countries. Why - because it gives the leadership much more power - power that they abuse. If they were left to their own destinies, the people would realise for themselves that they could do alot better for themselves, their childrent and future generations - and would proceed accordingly. They don't need Bush or Blair or anyone else interfering.

As for the FB board - I am there as ever - but I prefer to simply listen these days http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile.gif" border=0>

With best regards,

Adrian.

[BDHugh]

<>

Yes, I agree it's another type of warfare, and I am not proud when my leaders say it's justified because Saddam is losing millions of dollars.

The people of Iraq do have to make their own choices, we can not do it for them.

<>
Only a handful of people in Iraq have shortwave radios. Everyone else is forced to watch a few channels such as the al-jazeera network. No satellites are allowed. How can they dream of a better life when this is the only life they know.

I'm not sure if this example will make any sense, but I'll try anyways. France intervened on behalf of the 13 colonies against Britain. It's not that the King Geroge ever abused the poor Americans, it's just that we didn't feel like paying for the protection from the American Indians. http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_tongue.gif" border=0> We couldn't have done better for ourselves if it was not for France's help.

And yeah, RC makes my head spin whenver he tries to explain the Kabbalah.

[Adrian]

Greetings BDHugh again!

Yes - but the reality is Iraq is an extremely oil rich nation - once the Iraqi people can take control of their own destinies, they should prosper.

As I said before though - there are many, many precedents for this - the entire communist block is one.

Of course, on another continent there is Zimbabwe and South Africa - both mineral rich countries freed from colonial rule and oppression by the people. Whether those countries are materially better or worse off is irrelevant - the important thing is they control their own destiny.

As for RC - yes I know him very well. Of course, FB would say that the "true Kaballah" is nothing to do with Hebrew mysticism at all, but is rather the true cosmic language of creation -  I agree with him. "In the beginning was the word......."

With best regards,

Adrian.

[andy]

Peacfulwarrior,

As for being on track to stop terrorism id have to say that militrayly speaking,yes,the U.S is on track.It is a track in *my opinion* that will never run out unfortunatly and it is this I fear most.As soon as the U.S catchs every so called terrorist a whole new crop of names will appear,and the process will repeat itself.If the international community and like minded citizens of the U.S thinks of the U.S as having been bullys in the past,I say just wait see what the real term for Bully is......Scarry stuff when you consider the possible spin-offs from that.
As for Iraq,I can only hope for a peaceful resolution. GW Bush is trying desperatly to get in there to the point of sportin a woody when the subject comes up.He REALLY wants Saddam! Personaly I dont view Saddam as a threat.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Saddam will wait for the U.N to step in and then he will comply with weapon inspectors.
Saddams game of cat & mouse have never been anything more than just that.If he had any weapons of mass destruction that any terrorist group wanted to get a hold of i think they would have gotten them by now and used them as well.Certainly Osma Bin Laden would have anyways.
Thats my take!

Fallenangel,

Why GW Bush wants war first is the easy part for me to understand.On 9/11 his ratings went from " Zero to Hero". War for Bush is a method that works.
(im sure ill catch flack for the that last one http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_blackeye.gif" border=0>

Peace!

[Adrian]

Greetings!

It would seem that many leaders become heros in times of war. We see it time and again. We saw it with Thatcher and the Falklands war, we are seeing it with the allied leaders of the Gulf war and recently Afghanistan,  and are seeing it again with Bush and Blair in the latest jingoism.

The irony is of course, they automatically make the opposition leaders heros - bin Laden, Sadam Hussein and so on, and that very power makes it much more difficult for the people of those countries to think and behave for themselves - they think they will be subsumed by the evil "infidels".

If only people like Bush and Blair new that they are being used by the forces of darkness to create war, terror, bloodshed and misery - emotions that feed the power of the likes of bin Laden and Sadam Hussein.

If Bush and Blair would only focus on the positive aspects fo their own people, and in defense etc., then the darkness would lose its power, and so would the so called terrorist leaders that feed on it. As wth other countries, once the population of those countries realise that there is no threat, and indeed the only threat is from their own so called leaders  by way of repression, then they will have the will to overturn the darkness and start a new life  - as we have seen happen many times recently in many countries. How many true communist leaders remain? Cuba? N. Korea? China? Look at China even compared to ten years ago - and it is all people power.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[BDHugh]

Good points Adrian. I don't know if they are going to show it else where or not, but tonight on tv they are giving an interview of Saddam's former mistress. So far they've previewed the interview that Saddam would 'relax' in the evenings with watching videos of executions and movies and documentaries of Hitler.

[PeacefulWarrior]

The following is info about why we should take out Iraq.  I don't agree with all of it, but much of it is very convincing:


OVERTHROWING SADDAM HUSSEIN: THE POLICY DEBATE
Max Singer
The Search for a Response to the Problem / The Political Base in Iraq for Overthrowing Saddam / Ahmed Chalabi and the Future of Iraq / The U.S. Role and Policy for the Future / How Much Military Force is Required to Defeat Saddam? / Can Saddam Prevent Defeat by Using His Weapons of Mass Destruction?



The Search for a Response to the Problem
Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, has biological weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands of Israelis with infectious diseases such as anthrax. These weapons could be delivered either by missiles, by small pilotless planes, or by infecting the passengers of a plane landing at Ben-Gurion Airport with less than an ounce of agent spread through the plane's air conditioning system. Saddam also has at least several nuclear weapons that are missing only highly enriched uranium which he is likely to be able either to make himself or to buy this year.

Saddam is extremely brutal, ready to kill his own people, even his own family, without hesitation. He hates Israel and needs no excuse or reason to decide to kill as many Israelis as he can. While so far he has been deterred by Israel's ability to retaliate against Iraq with nuclear weapons, no one can be confident that he will be deterred in the future, particularly if he feels he is about to lose power or be killed.

In brief, Iraq under Saddam is one of the greatest dangers facing Israel, and there is no reliable protection against this danger except to remove Saddam. If Israel does not do everything in its power to protect itself from this visible threat, it will have to answer to its citizens and to history if Saddam succeeds in killing a substantial fraction of Israelis.

At the end of October 1999, the National Assembly of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the Iraqi umbrella opposition organization, met in New York City where more than 300 Iraqi delegates agreed on a policy of overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party through an uprising of the Iraqi people supported by military force from the INC and any other source.

The INC leadership team is composed of Ahmad Chalabi, who has been the operating leader of the INC since its founding, representatives of the INA (Wifaq) and the two Kurdish parties, and three independents who support Chalabi.

It might seem that the obvious thing to do is to give the INC the help it needs to overthrow Saddam Hussein. However, a number of policy-makers believe that an INC-led popular overthrow of Saddam is impossible, and that if it happened it might well lead to some bad results.

The Political Base in Iraq for Overthrowing Saddam
There are four major parts to Iraq. The north is populated primarily by Kurds, who are a very fractionated community. The center is populated primarily by Sunni Arabs, most of whom have loyalties to various tribal groups and clans. (The center also includes Baghdad which has a Shia majority and many Kurds.) The south is primarily Shia and includes the city of Basrah and access to the sea. The west is essentially empty, with a civilian population of less than 50,000 people, including nomads.

While Arabs are a clear majority (75-80 percent), there is a large Kurdish minority (15-20 percent). The Muslims are divided between Shia (60-65 percent) and Sunni (32-37 percent) communities. There are also other smaller communities such as Turkomen, Assyrian, and others.

Ever since Ottoman times, the Iraqi army has been controlled by Sunni Arabs, although the great majority of enlisted men are Shia, who fought loyally against the non-Arab Iranian Shia forces because they identify as Arabs and Iraqis. Since Saddam is a Sunni it is possible to describe Saddam's regime as a Sunni regime, but most Sunnis do not see the current regime as representing them, since there are no members of most Sunni tribes in the controlling group. The real power is held by men from Saddam's relatively small Sunni tribe of Tikritis. (A good number of Tikritis also do not support the regime.) Most Sunnis will not feel compelled to defend Saddam and the Baath party unless they are attacked by a force that excludes Sunnis and is explicitly anti-Sunni, or which proposes to exclude Sunnis from a share in power, or to persecute them because of Saddam.

The professional military leadership is in a similar situation. They have been subordinated to Tikritis, and while they have important positions in the current government, they have not been immune from execution or torture. A number have already defected to the opposition. They do not feel a need to defend the regime, except against a force that is explicitly against professional military officers. Most of them would not choose to defend the Baath regime in order to prevent non-Sunnis from having a fair role in the professional military leadership (though some observers insist that the Sunni officer corps will still not accept non-Sunnis as top officers, or accept a government not headed by a Sunni).

Since Saddam came to power, one Iraqi in ten has been killed or forced to leave the country. Most Iraqis who remain have suffered a decline in living standards as well as a loss in freedom and dignity. This gives a certain plausibility to the INC claim that the great majority of Iraqis will support almost any alternative to the current regime whenever it is safe enough to do so.

In 1991 a widely broadcast message from President Bush called on Iraqis to replace Saddam. A popular uprising followed in Iraq that was gaining control of 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces until the U.S. allowed Iraq to use its armed helicopters to put down the uprising. Some 250,000 Iraqis were killed by Saddam in suppressing the uprising. Certainly this is likely to have made them more cautious about rising against the regime in reliance on the U.S.

The INC view, based on its widespread contacts with Iraqis in and out of Iraq, is that most Iraqis believe that Saddam can only be overthrown if the U.S. decides to make it happen, and that there is no point in supporting an effort to replace Saddam unless that effort has U.S. support that will continue until Saddam is defeated. The INC believes that the great majority of Iraqis favor and will join in a U.S.-supported effort to overthrow Saddam, as soon as they see results and evidence of U.S. commitment.

Ahmed Chalabi and the Future of Iraq
Backing the Iraqi opposition would be almost unthinkable if it were not for its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, a person of extraordinary integrity, competence, and stature. Chalabi, 55, is from one of the leading traditional Baghdadi families of wealth, power, and connections. He was educated in the West (Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago) and is deeply imbued with Western democratic thinking and modern ways of doing business. On the other hand, Chalabi's family connections with tribal, clan, and community leaders go back generations, and he has been able to form a coalition of such leaders.

Saddam's long totalitarian reign has destroyed the modern civil and political institutions of Iraq. What Saddam could not destroy are the traditional attachments to family, clan, tribe, and ethnic and religious community, because those do not depend on formal organizations which can be penetrated or destroyed. The INC, and Chalabi's vision of how Iraq can make a transition to decent modern government, are based on these traditional sources of social strength.

The INC was formed in 1992 when the CIA decided that a small political opposition was needed to put pressure on Saddam in order to improve the possibility of organizing a coup within the Baath party. They knew that the Wifaq, the organization they had been funding and working with up to then, did not have the political acceptability among Iraqis that they needed, because it was limited to Baathists, and they asked Chalabi to work with the Wifaq to start a new organization that they suggested should be called the Iraqi National Congress. They wanted a small, tame, political organization; Chalabi used the opportunity they provided to build a very broad-based and independent organization committed to using a popular uprising to overthrow Saddam, and even to build a 2,500-man military force which the CIA prevented from acquiring modern anti-tank weapons. The INC, led by Chalabi, also started newspapers and radio and television stations, and became a major center of opposition to Saddam in northern Iraq from 1992 to 1996, meeting with representatives from all strata of Iraqi society through the porous borders. During this time the INC was funded primarily by the CIA plus roughly $8 million from Chalabi and his family.

From 1996 to the end of 1999, when some Congressional appropriations for the INC were dispersed by the State Department for the National Assembly meeting in New York, the U.S. government provided no money to the INC - and even prevented it from raising money. Chalabi has used personal and family funds to keep minimal operations going. Meanwhile, the CIA has continued to provide funds to the Wifaq and to others whom the U.S. hoped would supercede Chalabi as leader of the opposition.

Saddam tried seven times to kill Chalabi while he was operating in northern Iraq. He failed primarily because the INC was more successful in penetrating Saddam's secret services than Saddam was in penetrating the INC, which is the real test of the viability of an internal opposition movement. In August 1996 Saddam decided to throw the INC out of northern Iraq. He took the great risk of sending 40,000 of his best troops and 400 tanks to attack the INC in the U.S.-declared "security zone." Despite weeks of warnings from the INC and a number of days during which Saddam's force was an easy target as it headed north, the U.S. did nothing to stop Saddam. Instead it evacuated thousands of INC personnel and supporters by air, many to the U.S., to prevent their being executed by Saddam.

The U.S. officials, especially in the National Security Council and CIA, who made the decisions to cut off the INC, naturally became committed to the view that Chalabi was a villain, and they have been a major source of negative information about the INC in the U.S. government and elsewhere ever since. However, a number of CIA personnel who had been closely connected to the INC operation and have since left the agency are strong supporters of Chalabi, including James Woolsey, who had been the CIA Director until shortly before the CIA decided to drop the INC.

The reasons for the State Department's and the U.S. administration's opposition to Chalabi and the INC are complex. Some of the opposition reflects bureaucratic and personal considerations - especially in the CIA; part of it reflects the administration's reluctance to increase risk of a crisis with Saddam at an inconvenient time; and partly it may be a normal reluctance to be pushed into a foreign policy initiative of the Congress. The State Department story about the opposition being divided and unable to account for its money is absurd. The startling thing about the Iraqi opposition is how well it has kept together since the INC was organized in 1992. Even when the KDP deserted to Saddam to fight its Kurdish rival, it did not deny the authority of the INC as Saddam's opposition. In addition, all major Iraqi groups and individuals continued to support Chalabi's leadership, and the original INC principles, despite a year's effort by the State Department to install other leadership. All of this, as well as the superficiality of the conflicts and disputes within the opposition, was demonstrated at the INC National Assembly in New York in October 1999.

The U.S. Role and Policy for the Future
The U.S. government is now divided about Iraq. A strong bipartisan majority in Congress actively supports the Iraqi opposition's program of trying to topple Saddam. The administration argues for postponing action, and continues to rely primarily on the policy it has pursued for the last eight years of trying to stimulate a coup against Saddam by military officers.

Part of the administration's problem is that it cannot take even substantial first steps to overthrow Saddam without committing itself to go all the way to ensure his defeat. Any serious action requires cooperation from one or more of the other countries in the region, but these countries have to choose between accommodating themselves as best they can to Saddam or supporting his overthrow. After the failure of all U.S. efforts against Saddam since the Gulf War, Saddam's neighbors have decided that they have to accommodate him until the U.S. makes a real commitment to his overthrow.

As a result, when the U.S. administration responds to Congressional demands for stronger action against Saddam, it can point to the objections of local governments in the region to the INC or to proposed measures against Saddam. While these local objections are real, they are primarily a reflection of the administration's reluctance to challenge Saddam. If the administration changed its policy, so would the local governments.

If the administration decides to move against Saddam, it can choose to use a purely U.S. military effort or it can help the INC build a military force and use U.S. forces in support of the INC. This would take longer, but it would provide more legitimacy, better prospects for stability after the defeat of Saddam, and require a smaller U.S. military commitment.

It is uncertain how much an INC military force could reduce the amount of U.S. military force needed. If Saddam's forces are as strong and the INC as politically weak and ineffective as the administration has been saying, then the U.S. would not gain much by waiting while the INC created a military force. If the INC is correct about the weakness of Saddam's military, and about the INC's own ability to create a military force if they are allowed the opportunity, then the only U.S. military support needed might be airpower and standby support.

Both uncertainties can be resolved by testing. If the INC receives the political support it needs to have a chance to build a force, U.S. military experts will be able to judge in six months or so whether the INC is on the way to building a competent force. If INC military units again attack Saddam's army, as they did in 1995, we will find out whether Saddam's army is more willing and able to fight a serious military force than it was in 1995.

How Much Military Force is Required to Defeat Saddam?
An important part of the U.S. administration believes that the U.S. should not support any Iraqi opposition effort to use force in removing Saddam unless the U.S. is prepared to commit enough U.S. military force to defeat Saddam, in case the other effort needs to be rescued, or in case the U.S. decides that it cannot afford to be discredited by supporting an unsuccessful effort. (The U.S. twice abandoned efforts to defeat Saddam that had begun because of U.S. encouragement.)

While "how much force might be needed?" sounds like a military question, it depends a great deal on political issues. If one believes that a U.S. attack on Iraq would cause even Iraqi military units who are not loyal to Saddam to rally to the Iraqi cause and to fight bravely and with strong motivation against invasion by the U.S., if one also believes that the U.S. public and/or political leadership will require that the fighting be completed in a few days with practically no U.S. casualties, and if there is no political reason for limiting the military preference to have too much force available rather than to take any chance of not having enough, then a very large U.S. ground force would be indicated. U.S. commanders are likely to recommend perhaps three or more divisions of ground forces which, with supporting forces, would amount to a commitment of 200,000 or 300,000 personnel. This would be a major mobilization requiring a number of months and very large expenditures, and there is little chance that it will be politically feasible.

On the other hand, Colonel Scott Ritter (USMC, ret.), who had a great deal of contact with Iraqi forces when he served as an UNSCOM inspector and during the Gulf War, and General Wayne Downing, former Commander of U.S. Special Forces, believe that not many more than the number of U.S. ground forces currently in the theatre, perhaps a ground attack force of some 25,000 men, plus U.S. airpower, would be more than sufficient to march to Baghdad and overthrow Saddam's regime with low casualties and low risk of getting into serious trouble.

Such low estimates of how much U.S. force would be required are based on the following conclusions about the weakness of the Iraqi military, each of which is subject to dispute:

1. Most units of the Iraqi army and Republican Guards have become much less capable than they were in 1991 (when they were already less capable than in the Iran-Iraq war). Soldiers have received very little pay, and even inadequate food. Units have not been getting enough money or spare parts to maintain their equipment. Nor have they been given enough fuel and ammunition for adequate training. Very few army units have received the training necessary for serious mobile combat against a professional military force.

2. Few units of the Iraqi army are loyal enough to Saddam or to the regime to fight hard if they are attacked by a competent military force. Not only have there been defections, but other officers have sent word that they are ready to defect. The best evidence of the lack of loyalty of the army is that Saddam is unwilling to rely on it, which is one reason he does not make the effort that would be necessary to restore its fighting ability. Saddam relies on a few selected units of the Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guards, which are a constabulary, not a military force, and on the Fedayai Saddam, which is a special force commanded by his son that is not part of the professional military establishment and not capable of professional military combat. He has to keep his effective and loyal forces in the Baghdad area to protect himself and his regime.

3. Outside of the center of the country almost all of the army is deployed in small units at fixed bases. In 1995 when such bases were attacked by the INC force, they were defeated because nearby Iraqi army units did not reinforce the bases that were being attacked. The Iraqi army units are either incapable or unwilling to leave their bases to protect nearby units from being defeated. The Iraqi army's lack of mobility means that a mobile opposition force that is large enough to defeat the forces at a single base can gradually overcome a much larger force spread through the area.

4. The Iraqi secret police and security agencies are unable to survive where they are not protected by the army. In any area where the people believe that the army has lost, or is losing, control to an opposition force, they are likely to rise against the regime and provide support to the opposition. This popular support would make the task of an opposition military force much easier.

In response, U.S. military recommendations will probably be made by a consensus of all services, which cannot overrule the views of the Army about the size of the ground force required for any proposed ground attack. Because of the Army's rejection of the view that wars can be won by airpower alone, Army estimates of the size of the ground force required will not be calculated with great reliance on possible uses of airpower in support of the ground forces. Specifically, the Army will probably not be willing to rely on airpower to protect against even a slight possibility that a ground force unit could be endangered by the enemy massing troops against it. The Army is likely to estimate the enemy's ability to bring his forces together at a critical time and place using the assumption that the Air Force may at some point for some reason be unable to seriously reduce the enemy's ability to maneuver his forces enough to endanger some U.S. ground force unit. In many situations such a reluctance to take reasonable account of how the services can be used together can multiply estimates of the forces required.

There are a number of reasons why the U.S. military says and believes that a very large force is required for a prudent attack on Saddam. (i) If a small force is enough, doubt is cast on the Gulf War mobilization. (ii) If a small force is enough to overcome Iraq, which has one of the largest armies in the world, some would argue that the U.S. does not need as large a military structure as it has. (iii) Many officers are not comfortable assuming that the enemy is not as capable as U.S. forces. (iv) It may seem too much like racism to believe that a U.S. force can overcome a much larger Iraqi force. (v) Realistic analysis runs into deep Army/Air Force differences. Therefore, it may well be impossible to get the Pentagon to accept a reasonable estimate of the force required to defeat Saddam.

If the question is, "How much force does the U.S. need to mobilize in order to attack Saddam in a way that it is sure of winning and of minimizing casualties?," a case can always be made for the extra insurance provided by a very large force if it can be made available. But a very different question may be more relevant. Suppose an emergency arose and it became urgent to defeat Saddam: Would U.S. airpower and a ground force of 25,000 troops be enough to expect to win easily? Realistic analysis suggests that the answer is "yes." Whether the U.S. can afford to support an Iraqi opposition, despite the possibility that doing so could lead to the U.S. having to attack Saddam, is not the same question as whether the U.S. should plan to initiate an invasion of Iraq.

Can Saddam Prevent Defeat by Using His Weapons of Mass Destruction?
While Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are a potential danger to civilian targets, or possibly to U.S. regional bases, they are very unlikely to affect military battles because Saddam does not have forces capable of delivering them effectively against mobile military forces.

Any program to overthrow Saddam runs the risk that if it is successful Saddam will "retaliate" with nuclear or biological weapons as he goes down to defeat. But this risk cannot be avoided by refusing to try to overthrow Saddam, because the longer he is in power the more nuclear and biological weapons he will have and the better able he will be to deliver them.

There may be objections to a policy of supporting an INC effort to overthrow Saddam that might not succeed, and if it did succeed might produce serious instability in the region. But if one asks what can be done to protect Israel and the U.S. from Iraq, it is not at all clear that these objections are enough. The main alternative - seeking a coup from within the military leadership - has already failed for eight years. It is hard to see why the chance of "instability" is worse than Saddam is. While there may be good objections to all proposals, the job of leadership in response to a grave threat is to implement the best action available. INC confidence that it can make a major contribution to Saddam's defeat if given reasonable support in building its own military force has been rejected up to now primarily because of prejudice against the INC and bureaucratic overcaution.

*     *     *

Max Singer was a founder and President of the Hudson Institute, and is the author (with Aaron Wildavsky) of The REAL World Order: Zones of Peace/Zones of Turmoil (1996), winner of the Grawemeyer Award for ideas for improving world order. He lives half the time in Israel and in 1975-76 was Managing Director of Mahon Tevel in Jerusalem.


fides quaerens intellectum

[density]

I think what we forget here is why a person like Saddam Hussein has power at all. If these reasons did not exist the situation would change naturally.

Why is Saddam Hussein threatening Israel?

Problably some of you have forgotten what Israel in the 60s did. Within 6 days they attacked all of their neighbour except the Lebanon and occupied a territory three times the size of their own country.

All of these countries were islamic countries while the State of Israel did not even exist before World War II. Unfortunately, Israel only made one serious attempt to regain a normal relationship to her neighbours which ended with the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister.

How this was related to the cold war is of course unclear at least we know that Israel was and is supported by the US and many Arabian countries were supported by the Soviet Union.

At least it is this relationship between Israel and the US that makes it difficult for some Arabian countries to trust the US.

You can say that Saddam Hussein is exactly doing the same thing as Bush when he wants to attack Israel.

It makes no sense to replace a dictator if you do not erase the roots of his power.

It makes even less sense to support a coup d'etat if it is not your own country and it is not supported by the people of that country.

And it makes even lesser sense if you see the world from a spiritual view.



"Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open."  -  unknown

"Real science can be far stranger than science fiction and much more satisfying."   - Stephen Hawking

[density]

Create the enemies you need!

Have a look at this: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/



"Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open."  -  unknown

"Real science can be far stranger than science fiction and much more satisfying."   - Stephen Hawking

[WalkerInTheWoods]

quote:Originally posted by andy:

Fallenangel,

Why GW Bush wants war first is the easy part for me to understand.On 9/11 his ratings went from " Zero to Hero". War for Bush is a method that works.
(im sure ill catch flack for the that last one http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_blackeye.gif" border=0>

Peace!

Good point. I guess I was not thinking about that exactly. I mean he already has a lot of popularity with this so called "war of terrorism". It just did not occur to me that he would still be trying for even more numbers. Which I think could blow up in his face. I do not think that most Americans want war, but instead would rather have peace. I think most that wanted revenge are satisfied with the Afganistan thing and would like to have time to heal. It just seems like every American President has to have their own personal war. Would it not be nice to have a President that was for Peace? But I guess Spiritual maturity and politics just do not go together in the present day US.

Everyone has posted such good points on this. It leaves me little to add.

[clandestino]

I feel ashamed that the US and the UK are about to embark on military action.

The facts are that the US govt only intervene when there is something for them in it. The following was posted on an earlier thread, it seems pretty apt here.

Major-General Smedley Butler
on Interventionism

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defence at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns six per cent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 per cent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again, as I have done, to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for: one is the defence of our homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss": supernationalistic capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had--as the boys in the back room would say--a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

(Source: Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major-General Smedley Butler, USMC.)

[Adrian]

Greetings!

Yes, I think that people here make excellent points here, and indeed, there is little more to add.

I would just hope that Bush, Blair and the other so called leaders look to themselves before they take any actions, and ask themselves honestly what their motives really are. Because they will ultimately be judged by their motives. Would they really be doing this for humanity, or would it rather be for revenge, retribution, and a few more percentage points in the popularity polls?

They should always remember that they are using as instruments the lives of real people - both their own people and those living in the countries who they seek to destroy.

Finally, let us hope that, before taking precipitate actions in foreign countries, they remember Vietnam, and the affect that catastrophic war had on countless Americans, and people of other countries, and on the people of Vietnam itself, who were largely just trying to live their lives as best they could in their huts and paddy fields. Where are these people now, and how do they feel about the actions they were forced to take by their "leaders". And what of all those families who lost loved ones in that far away war?

With best regards,

Adrian.

[density]

another link:

the complete timeline to 9/11 (1979-2002)
http://208.187.163.46/completetimeline/[

[PeacefulWarrior]

Bush, Powell push for Iraq resolution
President wants U.N. action within 'days and weeks'
September 13, 2002 Posted: 11:36 AM EDT (1536 GMT)


 
President Bush speaks at a meeting of Central and West African leaders at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York, Secretary of State Colin Powell at his side.    


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The United Nations must act quickly on Iraq to avoid unilateral U.S. action, U.S. President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday.

At an appearance Friday morning, President Bush -- who warned the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday that it must make Iraq comply with its resolutions or the United States would act -- said he expected the U.N. action within "days and weeks, not months and years."

He said "there will be deadlines" in any new U.N. resolutions, but he was "highly doubtful" Saddam Hussein would adhere to them.

"He's had 11 years to meet the demands," the president said. "For 11 long years, he has basically told the United Nations and the world he doesn't care."

 EXTRA INFORMATION  
Background and details on the United Nations' Security Council  and how it works.  

Colin Powell said the United States would make clear that the credibility of the United Nations is on the line.

Powell is in New York to press members of the U.N. Security Council for tough new resolutions requiring Iraq to end its weapons program.

"This time there have to be consequences for the failure to abide by those resolutions," Powell said during a round of television interviews.

'Lost legitimacy'

In his address to the United Nations on Thursday, Bush said: "The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced. The just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable, and a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."

Scott Ritter, former chief of the U.N. weapons inspection team, provided the most vocal opposition to the administration's words, while defending himself against charges that he is off-base.

"I'm not saying Iraq doesn't pose a threat," Ritter said on CNN's American Morning. "I'm saying it has not been demonstrated to pose a threat worthy of war at this time. Bush needs to make the case."

Ritter is a strong advocate for the return of weapons inspectors, saying they are the only real way to determine the status of Iraqi weapons programs.

"I've never once said I know what is happening in Iraq today," said the one-time U.S. Marine intelligence officer. "What I'm saying is no one knows what is happening in Iraq today and we can't go to war based upon ignorance. Get the inspectors back in."

Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CNN on Friday that the president challenged "the United Nations to be more than a paper tiger" in his speech Thursday.

"It was to say to the United Nations, 'By your standards ... you have not done your job relative to Saddam Hussein,'" said Biden, D-Delaware.

The senator said officials were privy to "more intelligence information" that he said was "more appropriate at a closed setting than a public setting." Biden also said he expected Bush would "get whatever authority he seeks" once he makes public more detail of his plan.

Powell said while the United States is trying to work with the United Nations, U.S. policy remains that the government of Saddam Hussein should be replaced.

"At the same time, the United States is not walking away from its objective that regime change is the best way to solve this problem," Powell said.

Sen. Rick Santorum, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he believes "some support within the international community" is building for action against Iraq.

"That is a positive sign," the Pennsylvania Republican said.


fides quaerens intellectum

[McArthur]

Bare with me while i try to respond to some of the points raised in this thread.

Economic development? Man i really have to laugh at some peoples naivite. Allow me to translate the PoliticianSpeak for you;

Economic Development= We, the rulers and saviours of your world are planning to give a load of Third World countries more loans so we can get them in more debt for the many years to come so they will have to grow cash crops to pay off the interest instead of growing food to feed thier starving millions (African farmers are forced to grow flowers for cash that end up on Western restaurant tables while Millions starve in Africa). Arent we nice?
Also, we will send in our capitalist corporations to rape thier country of minerals and oil and anything else that is worth any mony and give them pittence for it so we can make our much needed billions of dollars in profit to satisfy our greed for wealth and power. We will also give millions (a small percentage of our raping profits) in aid to these countries provided for by the general population so that we can cover up our blood sucking activities and therefore make sure our own citizens actually believe we are doing something charitablle. Arent we nice?
Oh, we almost forgot, we will sell these countries weapons, tanks and aircraft (making a tidy profit, and getting them in more debt) so that the puppet dictators our secret services have helped to install, can subdue any kind of uprising by thier freedom-seeking citizens. Arent we nice?

On Another note: It has nothing to do with religion really. It does though, have everything to do with a large amount of oppressed people who are quite obviously sick of thier countries being bullied, raped, and pillaged, causing the death of untold millions of innocent civilians all in the name of Western greed by capitalist corporations and governments.

Another thing: We force sanctions on Iraq for over ten years causing the death of 1 million children because they failed to follow some UN resolutions. Why, then, is Israel not being sanctioned in the same way when it breaks the, literally dozens, of UN resolutions that have been made against it? And why does America try to vetoe as many of these UN resolutions against Israel as it can (Over the years, there have been many UN resolutions put forth against Isreals  criminal actions, some got through (of which Israel ignores), the others were vetoed by ONE country (All other countries had voted against Israel), America. Of course it only takes one vote against to stop a UN resolution, lovely).
In a post in this thread there is a quote from Mr Shrub about Saddam saying;

"He's had 11 years to meet the demands," the president said. "For 11 long years, he has basically told the United Nations and the world he doesn't care."

Now lets change that slightly to;

"Israel have had over 50  years to meet the demands," the president said. "For 50 long years, they have basically told the United Nations and the world they don't care."

Powell also says;

"This time there have to be consequences for the failure to abide by those resolutions," Powell said during a round of television interviews.

Israel has ignored a LOT more resolutions than Iraq ever could. And they have weapons of mass destruction too....

Nice eh?


Terrorism will not stop until America (and other "western" countries) stop being an International Terrorist.

War Propaganda: Of course, i have also read how Saddam likes to drive nails into peoples brains and that he has a small penis also. Where does this information come from? The CIA, MI6 and Mossad. You dont really believe all of it do you? I am not saying he is a nice person, i am just hoping that not many of you are falling for the disinfo propaganda they are dishing out to try to make War more palatable to the rest of us.


Tune in next week folks, over and out.

McArthur on the front line.
p.s. i read in the paper the other day that the UK goverment has given 200 million pounds worth of tanks to Jordan as a sweetener. Originally they had planned to sell them on the open market. I wonder how many hosptials we could build with 200 million? (If youre not British you probably dont know how bad a state our hospitals are in).

[Adrian]

Greetings McArthur!

Nice post!

At the final analysis the solution must be for each country to leave every other country well alone, and let them develop on an evolutionary basis as was intended in the great and perfect cosmic scheme of things.

OK - countries will have difficulties from time to time, just as we, as very human beings have difficulties from time to time - but difficulties are placed before us for one reason - to learn, evolve and progress by overcoming them - and in the case of mankind, perhaps to pay off some karmic debt.

I thought hard about making the next observation, but then I thought why not? We have to all live by the same standards after all do we not?

While Bush and his cohorts are getting all gung ho and jingoistic about Iraq and the double standards of Israel vis a vis  Palestine due to the very high Jewish voting population in the USA - perhaps they and Central/South Americans should look towards themselves, and what they appallingly did to the entire continent of the Americas and its native inhabitants - the native Americans who's country it really is and always will be.

The native American Indians, including the North American tribes, and those further south - the Mayans, Toltecs, Incas to name but a few - where among the very finest (and the most advanced) people ever to have inhabited this planet, and the original American settlers as good as wiped them out in the most attrocious of circumstances - and still oppress them today I think.

If anyone here has any reason or justification why they think that the American native Indians do not have an absolute God given right to live, work and be the trustees, guardians and rulers over the lands that they were placed in for the purpose, then I would like them to post those reasons right here in this thread please.

Again - each country and person should first and foremost look within.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[BDHugh]

The whole idea of economic development was not mine, it was Clinton's. Now tell me exactly how is he naiveté. The whole point of this economic development was to get them off on there OWN two feet. The are many people in Iran and Iraq which are 25 and younger are very pro American and want our help. Now there are alot of people who like to point fingers at America for what has happened to the middle east. The thing that nobody understands is that WE the people knew nothing about it. But the more we know about this the more we want to make it better. But it seems some countries around the world will not even let us do that. They just want to blame and be miserable. Doing nothing is just was worse as doing the wrong thing.

Yes, American Indians are still being screwed around with today, they are oppressed economically. Depression and alcoholism is a major problem for the reservations. More and more American Indians are going off to college every year with the help of scholarships, which is a very good thing.

[Tom]

According to my mom, I am either 1/8 or 1/16 of either Sioux or Cherokee. Either way, it is actually enough to register as a native american if I can find documents to prove it. I am also Scottish to the same percent. Most of my family that I know of is from England. If I ever decide on exactly how to proceed, I can feel free to oppress myself.

In a book by Carlos Castaneda, Don Juan said that having dangerous oppressors is a valuable opportunity which must not be wasted. The more dangerous the threat, the more incentive there is to adjust to compensate. Don Juan was not a very nice guy. He really didn't care about anyone, which left him free to choose how to behave with everyone.

I know nothing about Iraq or about Israel, and I want to keep it that way. It is not possible for me to know who is right and it is not a good idea to go see for myself.

[Adrian]

Greetings BDHugh!

I would submit that every country has a right to say and do whatever they want to say and do  - just the same as every single person does likewise.

Ultimately though it is all a part of evolution, countries and people sooner or later become dissatisfied with the sitting around doing nothing and blaming others, and eventually they realise that they have to do something - that is when their evolution accelerates - assuming that they do the right thing that is - if they don't then they have to learn those lessons first of course.

Evolution is an integral part of Universal law - it is perfect and cannot be altered or abused - ultimately anyway. Look at what happened to ancient civilisations that took the wrong path.

As for the American Indians - they had reached a stage 200 years ago where mankind generally will have to reach sooner or later. They will have their day again for sure, regardless of what their oppressors do to them.

With kind regards,

Adrian.

[BDHugh]

Adrian, I think thats whats the whole problem with humanity as a whole. When the world tries to define itself with identity such as countries, factions, and religions we actually limit ourselves from understanding each other. Peace keepers ask for tolerance and I disagree with that value. People don't want to be tolerated they want to be appreciated. I know this is possible in this world, because within this country it has already happened. This is a culture with many cultures with in it appreciating the differences between it. Americans are just waiting for everyone else to join them. http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile_big.gif" border=0>

I love American Indian culture. They all seem calm and very reserve people with very soft eyes. There is a sadder situation than the one with the American Indians though. My sociology professor who is American Indian has told me that the Aboriginees (sp?) have chosen they will die off. He was going to go to Australia to study the culture but told he couldn't because they want nothing to do with the rest of the world. To me it seems even more sad than the American Indians. I hope something will be solved.

P.S. Have you ever seen the movie "Dances With Wolves". If you have not, I recommend you see it.

[andy]

#1-Tom,You are a true gem!

#2-Every country has blood on its hands regardless to issue.As do each of *US*once we look around.(what are wars fought for after all?)hint,$$$,control+$$$,yadda,yadda,"No one country has set a perfect,peaceful example yet. Peacefulwarrior said,"whats realistic?"I say whats the price of life????Once more blood on our hands!
Whos to ultimitly blame? Recorded history in my opinion does not go that far back.

#3-I see *some* (not all!) points being made about the U.S/Americas for being a list of anything but good,or if not at least certainly to blame for acts comited on current or past civilizations without credit being given due for the acts to those posting from thier own countrys that have themselfs comited the same acts somewhere in time if not currently or recently as anything less than oversite on there own part.
(cough,cough,there,its out,hope it makes sense,http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile.gif" border=0> )
I realize this post is about the u.s,9/11 & iraq so pardon me for straying.

#4-The question is how do we overcome the ignorance of one another universaly and move on globaly?I dont know that I have any good ideas,What about all of you? This I suppose is another thread.I'll post later else where on chat,gotta go!


Peace!  ( and lots of it!!)

[Blossom]

We could always pay iraq a little $$$money$$$ to change it's people mind and boot their leader out... I'm an american but isn't that the american way.  Bribery...

If I remember right, in the not so distant past, we paid a certain country 30billion dollars [or erased their debts might be a better term]  for use of their air space...  A very brave leader said yes..  You gotta respect that guy..

Why couldn't we do the same for Iraq?  Money would probably make him our friend... or make the people want to help us...
==================
I don't really mean all that about paying iraq , but you guys are getting too deep ... I had a liver biopsy yesterday and have spent my day meditating on darvon...

Cheers, Blossom..


Just wanting to learn....