The Astral Pulse

Personally I do not understand why the US President wants war first. Usually you use war as a last resort. Yes we have had problems from Iraq and Saddam in the past, but I do not think that we should jump to war before we explore and try all other possibilities. There is a bigger picture here than just the US and Iraq. Almost all the other countries of the world do not wish to attack Iraq unless there is more proof. Several countries are even thinking of joining with Iraq if the US should attack them. This little war could turn into something big, which no one needs. If we wait then maybe one day Saddam may do something. But if that should happen then it is likely that most if not all the rest of the world would want to stand against Iraq and stop Saddam. That in itself will most likely keep Saddam from doing anything.  I do not want war. We tried ousting Saddam before but we only, excuse my language, half a$$ed it. We even offered support to the citizens to get rid of him back in the 90's. Then when they needed the US we backed out and left the rebels high and dry to face Saddam. So is it any wonder the US is so disliked? Instead of killing everyone that opposes us, maybe we should try to be more friendly and stick by our promises. In doing so we might, just maybe make a few friends. I think the US has become too big for itself. It is becoming the bully. If the US does not like someone they just try to remove them reguardless of what may happen to other people or nations. The US just seems so trigger happy. Why not look for other more peaceful means of doing things?

As for the terrorist attack on the US, well it was only a matter of time. I mean as I explained above we do not fulfill our promises and treat other nations like crap if they can offer us nothing of value. We will most likely see more acts as long as we continue in such a manner. But the average citizen should not worry. Think of all the times that they actually tried to blow up the WTC. They were bound to succeed someday if they kept trying. For the most part I think such acts are stopped before anything happens. There are probably many more attempts at terrorist attacks that we do not know about but they were stopped. It was only a matter of time before someone got through our line of defense. It happens, life goes on and hopefully we learn from it. Giving up freedom will not help anything. Making things more efficient and making people do their jobs right will prevent most attacks. But I think it is impossible to prevent all terrorist acts as there is always a weakness in every defense and if someone really wants they will find it and exploit it.

Personally i take the view that the United States Government is a world aggressor and the unsavory activities of its secret services and its dubious foreign policies are directly responsible for the 911 attacks. Read some Noam Chomsky. Heres a link to a short video of him (i have copied&pasted the transcript and comments here)  at the BBC website, along with another article about Nelson Mandelas critcisms too; Wake up America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2002/september_11_one_year_on/2229628.stm

Noam Chomsky - Full transcript
It is generally assumed that the September 11 terrorist attacks have changed the world dramatically, that nothing will be the same as the world enters a new and frightening "age of terror." There surely is some truth to that. The target on Sept. 11 was not Cuba, or Lebanon, or Chechnya, or one of the numerous other traditional victims of large-scale criminal violence, but a country with the power to shape the future, to an extent without historical precedent.
Nevertheless, I think there is reason to expect essential continuity: to expect policy choices to remain within a framework that is well-entrenched, modified perhaps in important ways but not fundamentally changed. One reason is the stability of the basic institutions in which decisions are rooted. But there are also narrower ones.

It is worth recalling that the war on terror was not declared on Sept. 11, but 20 years earlier, when the Reagan administration came into office, announcing that a primary focus of policy would be the war against international terrorism, primarily in Central America and the West Asia/Mediterranean region. The rhetoric was much the same as today. Many of the same people are playing a prominent role.

We know a good deal about the first phase of the war on terror. In brief, its commanders compiled a record of terrorism that vastly exceeds anything that could be charged to their adversaries, continuing until the present day. And they were not forging a new path. Twenty years earlier, John F. Kennedy had ordered his staff to unleash "the terrors of the earth" against Cuba because of its "successful defiance" of the United States, and they did so, with grim effects. Meanwhile senior statesman Dean Acheson announced that legal issues do not arise in the case of a US response to a "challenge [to its] power, position, and prestige."

When President Bush proclaims the right of preemptive strike against potential threats, he is basically adopting Acheson's principle. More closely, he is paraphrasing the Reagan administration doctrine that the US is entitled to use military force in what they called "self-defense against future attack," the official justification for the bombing of Libya. Current rhetoric about Iraq has earlier roots. A century ago Woodrow Wilson wrote that "Our interest must march forward, altruists though we are; other nations must see to it that they stand off, and do not seek to stay us." He was referring to the "liberation of the Philippines," with a ghastly toll. And Wilson was merely borrowing from Europe's global conquests.

After tragic experiences that we need not recount, efforts were made to construct an international order in which the powerful would not be free to resort to violence at will, on shameful pretexts that we also need not review. But it is now fashionable to hold that the framework of law and treaties that was laboriously constructed must be discarded in favor of a new principle -- which is in fact the old principle: the self-anointed "enlightened states" will serve as global enforcers, proclaiming a new era of justice and freedom under the guidance of "the idealistic New World bent on ending inhumanity," as the world's leading newspaper assures us.

A rich record is available that allows us to evaluate such pronouncements, which are all too familiar. The record can be ignored only by those who choose to have blind faith in the nobility of the leadership that pledges to drive evil from the world.

Others will prefer to examine closely what has been achieved in the name of "ending inhumanity." They will seek the reasons that lie behind the standard pretexts. To take one current case, they will discover that the reasons now offered for invading Iraq held with at least comparable force before Sept. 11. And that the reasons held with far greater force a few years earlier, when Saddam Hussein was being welcomed as an ally and trading partner by the US and Britain, who even provided him with the means to develop weapons of mass destruction. His worst crimes were then in the past, and well known; and he was a far greater threat than today -- facts that surely raise some questions.

Those who are not satisfied with blind faith should also listen to the words of high officials when they are not strutting on the stage. If they do, they will find that planners expect a "widening economic divide," so that the rich and powerful will have to develop more powerful means of control and destruction, which pose awesome threats even to survival.

We can choose to huddle under the wings of enforcers who proclaim their allegiance to the highest principles and values, or take responsibility for our fate, and that of future generations. The latter choice is far harder, but is the only one that can be contemplated by decent and honest people.

Comments by readers;

A voice speaking to the wind, reason flauted by facts, a lamentation to the humanity's inability to thus far to end the violence, greed, self centeredness at the core of individual and collective consciousness.
Don, USA

It is good to be reminded that Bush represents only 25% of the North Americans. His simplistic and dogmatic approach to everything he has dealt with since he became president has strengthen for me and many others in the 'ally' countries the image of the US as a nation that abuses its power, uses extremely hypocrite double standards, and has a total lack of respect for this planet. Many of Clinton's policies, including Kosovo, were also more than questionable, but it seems that every time the republicans are in government the US has to attack some Arab country. The shameful track record of North America's military actions started with its war declaration against Spain in 1898. They discovered then how to use lies (in this case the sinking of the Maine) to pursue their economic interests and they have not been able to change this attitude ever since. We saw it happening again in the previous Iraq war, when the false testimonies about the disconnected incubators proved to be decisive in getting the Congress' go ahead and the population's support. This can only be changed from the inside, by all those who did not believe they could make a difference by voting in the last elections, by all those who can understand that honesty is more valuable than a billion dollars. If only the moderate and educated North Americans were given more voice inside than outside the US.
Paloma Castro, Spain

Noam Chomsky's points about the War on Terror bring to mind the idea that the first victim of War is Truth. Unfortunately, most Americans' view of the world is "dictated" by what they see on TV. Tragically for Americans, this is a very biased view. As Americans remember the anger of a year ago, and the tragic loss of life, do they consider the thousands of innocent lives that have been lost in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Haiti etc? Do they have in-depth coverage of the firemen who died trying to put out fires in Nicaraguan Hospitals and Schools that American planes bombed? Until we have a balanced view of the world, we can expect these tragedies to continue. Fortunately there are Americans like Howard Zinn, Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky, among many others, who help shine a light of truth in these dark times.
Simon Geraghty, Ireland

Well done! The essays were both thought provoking and important on a day such as today. If only we had Noam instead of George leading the US!
Laurence Kenney, UK

Great Stuff, I think these video essays should be delivered to George Bush's inbox, the man needs to know what everyone else is thinking outside of the US. Please post more Noam Chomsky essays and videos.
Chris McDowell, UK

"Unfortunately, most Americans' view of the world is "dictated" by what they see on TV. Tragically for Americans, this is a very biased view." As much as I am 'American,' I have to disagree. After visiting many foreign countries, this sort of attitude is prevalent in Europe, and its not hard to see why-- our president seems to think the US *should* be the world's policeman. But I assure you, there are plenty of people here in the US who are speaking out against the far-right rhetoric. I only wish to request that those seeing our president's actions and hearing his flag-waving speeches should not be so quick to attribute them to the will of US citizens. Many of us are doing all we can to stop them.
Henry Behnen,USA

Noam Chomsky is needed in the world as there should always be a reverse opinion so democracy can continue. However I lived in NYC at the time and never want to experience fear like that again. It may be selfish but we need countries like the US and UK to attack rogue nations so we can live our life in freedom.
Alan, Scotland, UK

Thank you for what seems to be a sane and unbiased view on the actions of the modern western powers. How though can we 'take responsibility for our fate, and that of future generations' when the systems that are in place and that are responsible for such behaviour are, as you say, so firmly in place. It seems that the situation is now getting even worse. In particular with the merging of new corporate media giants having an even greater influence on public opinion which ultimately lays down the borders within which politicians can act.(i.e. enough pro-war propoganda in the media can justify almost any war). As these new corporations are private money making enterprises (a proportion of which may be owned by politicians themselves) they will have their own interests which may not be in common with those of humanity in general. So basically my question (to everyone) is this: what can you do on an individual level to make things better when faced with such a powerful propoganda ! ma! chine.
David Williams, England

Very intereasting, these people all seem to have very valid points, and it's made me think, but why is everybody airing on the side of caution. It's very easy to do this a year on, but they all seem to have forgotten how angry everybody was a year ago.
Anon, UK
************************

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2251067.stm

One of the world's most respected statesmen, Nelson Mandela, has condemned United States intervention in the Middle East as "a threat to world peace".
In an interview with the US magazine, Newsweek published on Wednesday, the former South African president repeated his call for President George Bush not to launch attacks on Iraq.

Mandela on the US  
Bush motivated by arms sales and oil
willy Cheney a 'dinosaur'
US responsible for Iran's Islamic revolution
US action led to Taleban  
He said that Mr Bush was trying to please the American arms and oil industries.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

excellent last post..yep..read Noam Chomsky..USA freignpolicy has been a disgrace...more folks killed in Afghanistan than in twin towers..but that is apparently ok....I deplore what happend in USA but i deploreed gulf war in 1991(for oil..damn all to do with the crooked Kuwait regime)..vietnam cambodia etc etc....cheney?avoided fighting in Vietnam as did Dubya..his pop got him to jump a list of 100 000 to get into the national Guard.......

Greetings!

The forces of darkness will never be defeated by more, or worse greater forces of darkness. The forces of darkness exist in order that mankind can excercise its own freewill in choosing the path of light. And it is the light that will always defeat the darkness.

Those that perpertrated 9/11 and other such attrocities, either in their own name or the name of religion, any religion, will suffer the inevitable, inescapable consequences by immutable Universal Laws of cause and effect. The terrorists and other agents of darkness can run, but they cannot hide.

A pre-emptive strike against Iraq (or anywhere else) would be driven by the forces of darkness, and those that instigate and participate will not escape the laws of cause and effect which work beyond the minds of human material justification.  Motive is taken into account, but revenge is not a motive.

Only when humanity can rise above primitive actions and instincts, will the entire world live in peace and progression towards its true destiny.

It isn't for man to deal with Iraq, natural laws will always prevail by metering out the perfect divine justice.

With kind regards,

Adrian.

hr

"It isn't for man to deal with Iraq, natural laws will always prevail by metering out the perfect divine justice."

Natural laws will surely prevail, but that doesn't negate the need for law and action against criminals and evil movements. Example:
A criminal robs a bank. OK. The natual laws will prevail. The guy will suffer karmatically. But I hope that noone thinks that it's enough.

Personally I haven't come to a conclusion re. Iraq, but what I do know is that they refuse access by the UN investigators. That's reason (when considering the possibilities) enough for being a bit tough against Iraq.
It's quite possible that Iraq is manufacturing devastating weapons. Sometimes it's painful to do what you need to do, to evade future greater pains.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying Free Bird:

Natural laws will surely prevail, but that doesn't negate the need for law and action against criminals and evil movements. Example:
A criminal robs a bank. OK. The natual laws will prevail. The guy will suffer karmatically. But I hope that noone thinks that it's enough.

---

It is enough! Surely, it is not enough if you want to sustain a sick society like this one but it is enough as a karmic punishment. The evil always punishes itself. If not the robbers punish the banks for their evil deeds the next depression will do it.

quote:

---

Personally I haven't come to a conclusion re. Iraq, but what I do know is that they refuse access by the UN investigators. That's reason (when considering the possibilities) enough for being a bit tough against Iraq.
It's quite possible that Iraq is manufacturing devastating weapons. Sometimes it's painful to do what you need to do, to evade future greater pains.

---

Here a list of countries that produce nuclear weapons:

the United States
Britain
France
Russia
Kazakhstan
Ukraine (correct me if this is wrong)
PR China
India
Pakistan

if I forgot any send me a PM


Now imagine your neighbour just bought a tank including ammunition. He uses that tank to blast away another neighbours house who raped his daughter. Then he warns you that he would blast anybody's house who dares to attack him or tries to buy another tank.

Now have a look back at the list of all the neighbours that own a tank.

.
.
.



"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

Dunno, Saddam is evil, but then I can't think of any regime which the US has put in place after replacing the old one which has really lasted. And some of them have failed in quite a horriffic way eg Sierra Lione. Also an attack on Iraq would further destrabalise the Arab world, which is currently very tetchy and unbalanced anyway, so the consequences could be far reaching. Hey, isn't 2003 prophesised as an important year? Could be connected, as the attack which is almost certainly coming will probably happen at the end of this year/start of next. What makes me sick is that Blair is acting as the US's lacky again, when a large majority of British don't support him ("Mr Flibbles very cross" - Red Dwarf).
One other thing - Iraq is not a threat. Saddam may be an absolute ba***rd but he isn't stupid enough to mount a direct, even nuclear, attack against the west, that would be pure suicide and he would be crushed like an insect if he did. As for supporting terrorism, we have no proof of that, but we DO have LOTS of proof against Saudi Arabia on this change. Also since Mr Hussein knows there is a very real threat that he will be ousted and probably killed he won't be thinking of trying to annoy anyone, but (hopefully) pacify. If he has any sense he will allow the inspectors back in. The reason he chucked them out was because he was getting nothing in return - they had been inspecting for years and the sanctions were as tight as ever (causing massive death of young innocent Iraqis). Why then should he bother letting them snoop on him? To then say he is flouting UN resolutions well maybe, but who can really blame him. So he invaded Kuwait - but the US has invaded more countries than I could possible hope to list. More hypocrist, more greed, more power mongering, more war, and more money for the rich. I really hate politicians sometimes.

About half of the US population does not want to go to war with Iraq either, Inguma. So clearly from a political view going to war is not smart for either US or UK leader. I guess the Pres is thinking that once we are are war he can just use the good old propaganda to stir American's patriotism into supporting him. Personally the abuse of this is getting annoying.

Greetings!

Yes I agree. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no excuse for pre-emptive aggression under any circumstances (and indeed it will not excuse the perpetrators whoever they are, or whatever their motive is), two of the main issues appear to be propaganda and revenge - both very, very wrong.

Everyone sympathises with those affected by the 9/11 attrocity, but, as has been pointed out, there are places in the world where humans suffer every single day. Look at the last few decades in Northern Ireland for example.

Before the USA or UK do anything, they have to examine their motives very, very closely, because they will be held accountable by Universal laws.

One of the main problems is that people tend to have a very singular and short term perspective of the world, and do not see it as part of the eternal evolution in the eternal and infinite  now, and everything should be seen from the perspective of everywhere, everywhen and everywhy.

With best regards,

Adrian.

On another day of September more than 60 years ago German soldiers in Polish army uniforms attacked Germany. A faked attack that was meant as an excuse for war.

We know that of course because the Germans lost the war eventually. If they had been victorous the history books would possibly write it differently.

In World War II the US hesitated to enter the war. Although the government wanted to help Britain a majority of the Americans was against involvement. Pearl harbour changed the situation over night.

Have a look at this: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Was the pentagon really the objective of a terrorist attack? If it was a faked attack it would mean that the US government at least knew what was going to happen. Even the possibilty that it was supported or produced by the US government exists. Until now noone has taken responsibilty for the attacks as it is quite normal for terrorists to do.

What we know, however, is that this all gives Pr. Bush enormous powers to do things he would not be able to do otherwise.

I have read of another hoax produced by the Bush administration. Right after taking over the white house they claimed that the Democrats left it unusable and chaotic. Later they rectified this but still it had the wanted effect.

density

PS: Adrian, I thought you aren't interested in politics ;-)  This post of yours is too good. It would be a pity if not posted. I am not interested in politics either but nowadays you have to understand how politicians use their appeasing skills to manipulate the people's minds. If you do not you become one of these mindless creature that would cry "yes" when another "Hitler" would ask them if they wanted war.
Well, maybe I would be interested in it but it is a too dirty business.

.
.
.


"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

Logically speaking:

FROM...http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-0911.shtml

American Airlines Flight 77
Pentagon (DOD Building), Washington, D.C.

American Airlines Flight 77, operated by a Boeing 757- 223 (N644AA) on the morning of September 11, departed Runway 30 at Washington Dulles International Airport for the 4+ hour flight to Los Angeles, California at 8:10am local time.

On board the aircraft were 58 passengers (including five hijackers), four flight attendants, and the two pilots.

Shortly after departure, the aircraft disappeared from FAA radar screens and ceased responding to air traffic control radio transmissions.

The aircraft was turned around and flown back toward Washington, D.C. from the north. The aircraft then reportedly proceeded to descend over the White House, enter a tight 270° turn, and fly toward the U.S. Department of Defense Building (Pentagon) in northern Virginia.

Witnesses reported that the aircraft clipped trees and lightposts as it descended at a high rate of speed, before impacting the the south-west face of the Pentagon Building.
======================================
Questions regarding above... If you believe a plane did not hit the pentagon, what do you supposed happened to the above plane with it's passengers??


--------------------------------------
NEXT:  okay, after reading the above article and printing it here for you guys, and I am biased about the pentagon though I can't say why,  I decided I wanted to send/find some eye witness accounts of the crash and it seems the cameras were conficated by the DOD.  How odd...

Check this site out...http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm  This is really a strange site.

Does anyone remember the initial news coverage saying a helicopter had hit the pentagon???  It seems I do.  I am fixing to do a search and see what I find about it.  But I remember this because I was sitting in front of the tv glued to the set because of the Tower coverage.

What happened to the people on the plane?  Do I dare say a thought that is going through my mind?? Do we shoot the plane down and cover our butt?

I am still looking for stuff...  I'll be back..
Blossom


Just wanting to learn....

What do you think all the talk about attacking Iraq is doing to the people in Iraq who are listening to it? I can tell you that it would make me nervous to hear that someone was thinking about starting a new war where I live. Just the weeks or months of hearing the idea debated would be stressful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
What do you think all the talk about attacking Iraq is doing to the people in Iraq who are listening to it? I can tell you that it would make me nervous to hear that someone was thinking about starting a new war where I live. Just the weeks or months of hearing the idea debated would be stressful.

---

You do not need to be an Iraqi to feel like that.



"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

I don't want to sound patronising, but I do feel strongly that September 11th, 2001 was the day America was introduced to the real world.

I don't want to lose any online friends here, but I would like to respectfully stress (again) that there is a large proportion of the world's population who live and die in the most awful conditions. So I would ask those who live in the USA to please get this incident in perspective.

Killing people in Iraq isn't going to make things right. All that is going to do is make you yet more enemies.

Yours,
Frank




   

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/index1.htm
Takes awhile to load. Has 5 pages with roman numerals at the top for browsing.  Interesting photos and worth looking at..

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/lies911/lies.htm
This is very interesting.

okay, I don't what to say.  I feel sorry for all the innocent people that have been hurt and will be hurt as we progress down this path our government is on.  I feel we [usa] are choiceless in the fact that we have to be behind our president.  But, on a personal note, I hate all this.  No good will come of it at all.  I think regardless of what happens at the UN about this decision concerning war, we will attack.  The president does not need their approval.  He merely wants them behind him.

I think in my heart that our president wants war and saying that Iraq is consorting with terrorists is an excuse.  He opened his mouth last year and he is trying to pull his foot out.

I remember talking to my brother n law a few months ago and I mentioned how sorry I felt for the true afghans at the delimina they were in at the hands of the taliban and the state of their country.  He attitude about it is typical of politicians.  He said all people can change and it their fault...

How the h*** can someone change in a situation like that.  Honestly, if I lived in a country like afghanistan and the Taliban were the source of food for my family and they would die if I didn't join, I would join.  I think most people would whether they would admit it openly in a forum or not.  How many people would truely watch their families die for their cause?  I hear so much talk about you can't trust them... They change sides too easily.  I would too if changing was better and I were given a different choice...  Any choice is better than starving or dying.  Obviously being a martyer is better to some of them than their life is.  Can you imagine a life so terribly that dying is better?? And once you are committed to being a martyer, you couldn't change your mind because you would get killed.  Their families are taken care of.  They are hightly honored in a society that is starving.  It would be the choice of the choicelss... Where ever you go would have to be better.  They have so few choices there..  Living, dying and eating.. if they are lucky they have a tent... It is so ironic..  During all that, we fed them and killed them.  Jeez... how utterely sad... I sat and cried while I was compelled to read about the women, children and young people there during those terrible times. ..  It was heartwrenching to me.  Before I go further, NO, I am not condoning anything the terrorists did.  They were wrong wrong wrong and we had to defend our turf by attacking.  I believe our attack was justified.   I just feel sorry for the true afghans that live there however.  I would hate to make their decisions about life.  I don't think I would be strong enough to handle it.  Maybe that's why martyers exist over there.  Could that possibly be the easy way out of a hard life hoping where they go is better than what their life is?? Knowing their families will be honored for a change??  Those things we cannot change..  Those are beliefs and ways of life...  And I am getting carried away here.. Forgive me please...  I am new here and certainly don't want to be an outcast..  I just hear about this all the time at home and nobody feels about it like I do...

Iraq:  There are innocent people there too.  Caught up in their government just as we are here...  like Bush..  Caught up in his power trip about war.  Wanting to be #1.  No, I correct  that.  Enjoying being the number one power in the world...  That's what this is really about.. a power trip which will cost many people their lives.

I know innocents die in war..  It's just how it is and that is true in any war and will always be so.  The casualities...  

I agree with the person above.  Part of me wants this and part of me doesn't want it.  But this war...with people who have nucleur weapons..  We are going to attack because they have nucleur weapons..  I guess Bush wants them to use them while we are prepared.

I read in an undisclosed site that Iraq was selling nuc's to the Tabiban..  Maybe that's what Bush is trying to stop..  

But no matter what, the innocents are the ones who will suffer the most.

I have suggested to my husband a move to Canada or Switzerland.  Switzerland is cool.  They are nutreal to everyone.  They have bridges set with explosives to blow ANONE up who crosses trying to do them harm.  They harm noone, but will do major damage to defend itself.  Too bad more countries don't have that philosphy... including the us of a....

Blossom
[a confused republican]

Just wanting to learn....

I agree with Frank...Sept 11th was basically the day that many Americans woke up...and I think a lot of AMericans are even moe zealous about war now than they were before, which isn't a good thing.  I stand in the middle on this issue.  I see Adrian's point of view, which is indeed the truth (Universal Law, etc.).  But I also realize that we live in an imperfect world and regrettably, people like Saddam invite violence because they are violent.  I mean, if someone robs a bank and we get their liscense plate and photo do we not go after them because natural spiritual laws need to take their course?  Of course not, we arrest them and make them pay for the temporal laws that they broke.  The natural law will take its course whether the guy is in jail or not.

I think the the US should seek help form the UN for one more try o get inspectors back in Iraq and if Saddam refuses again...then what?



fides quaerens intellectum

I truly feel it would help if people were to please, please get in mind that no-one actually dies. There is no such thing.

Yours,
Frank

I truly feel it would help if people were to please, please get in mind that no-one actually dies. There is no such thing.

Yours,
Frank

Thank you Frank... Such simple words and suddenly everything is in perspective again...

Blossom/Jennifer

Just wanting to learn....

Greetings,

Yes, Frank's words are simple but profoundly important.

The lack of knowledge and understanding of these realities is one of the main problems facing humanity today.

Regarding the law - the law is perfect -  created by, and administered by perfection. Motive is an extremely important consideration of the law -  revenge, retribution and propaganda are not positive motives.

With best regards,

Adrian.

Did anyone happen to watch The Late Show with David Letterman last night? Former President Clinton was on it. I have to agree with what Clinton says. I know that my country has pretty much been involved directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of 8,000,000 innocent people worldwide. But it's time for peace now. The only way for there to be peace in the Middle East (according to Clinton) is to stop the killing between Palestinians and Israelis, removal of Saddam, and end to terrorism, and most importantly economic development. Economic development is key. Yes I have to say its time for the removal of Saddam. He is a threat to the Middle East. The CIA funded and trained Saddam because he WAS a violent man, and could kill his own people. He does this whenever his position is threatened. If we want peace in this region, we can't have this kind of leader in charge. Also according to Clinton is that the Middle East should try not  to become the oil capitol of the world, but the energy capitol of the world. They can begin to install solar panels all of the desert. This will be good for two reasons. China and India are growing fast, and dependency on oil when these two countries become super economic powers is not good for any country.

Greetings!

I am trying very hard to stay out of this thread

But one has to ask - what has anything outside of the USA to do with the USA? Has not the USA embarked on similar foreign excursions and failed to achieve anything positive? As has Britain before them in the colonial days, And the Vikings before them, and the Romans before them and so on. What became of it all when one country has global ambitions of power? Nothing.

The same goes for every other country of the world relative to every other country of the world - not just the so called "super powers" who grant themselves the de-facto right to manufacture and wield weapons of terror and mass destruction.

The destiny of mankind is not determined by Bush, Blair or anyone else living on the physical plain in the temporal moment.

Yes - every country and individual has the right to defend itself if threatened, and to heal his brother and sister - but the reality of it is, the USA was attacked because it, at the time, failed to adequately identify the dangers, and take the necessary measures to defend itself - for the reasons which are now becoming apparent - and it now seems to be engaged on a face saving excercise of retribution under the guise of being the self-appointed police force of the world.

All perpertrators of "evil" and their agents will pay according to the law sooner or later - there are no exceptions to this - none - ever.

Man needs to focus on the positive aspects of humanity and the higher realms of existence, and once it starts to do this, and realise the realities of the Universe, the planet will start to become a much better place for all that temporarily inhabit it.

Please do not take my comments out of context - I like the USA and its people, and have a great many friends there and elsewhere. I sympathise with those that lost loves ones on 9/11, but if only they knew more about where their loved ones are right now, what they are enjoying, and what all of this means in the grand scheme of things things could be very different.

With kind regards,

Adrian.

I agree with you Adrian, the thing that George Washington when he died wanted the most for America is to stay out of the affairs of other nations. We should not be the police, we should not revenge because there is no justification. My whole point was that for there to be peace there must be economic development for these people. We exploited them and they gave us a wake up call. We have to make things better collectively for quality and benefit of humanity, not just for  the U.S. in particular.

I only hope that this war on terrorism doesn't stop after the bullets have run out. The war should extend to the eradication of the social and economical problems that are the cause of terrorism.
Terrorism is the lashing out of those who have no other way of affecting their predicament. This is not to say that it's in any way justified.
The bad guys need to get caught with as little harm to the bystanders who are the vast majority and then the conditions which spawned the acts need to be remedied.
As far as removing Saddam and replacing him with someone else, how does anyone know what kind of a guy the new one will be and how long before he gets bumped by a new Saddam? As mane examples poasted in this thread show the best thing usually is to stay away from other countries internal politics.

2cents

jouni

Greetings BDHugh!

Yes - I see your point, and Washington was indeed a great man.

But let us analyse "economic conditions" for a minute. It is all coming back to the same thing ultimately - materialism, money and power - some of the nemesis of mankind right now - there are others, but that is another thread

Why do people think that ever increasing materialism is a good thing?

Of course people require living conditions, but who is to say that the person living in a cave or a tree is worse off than the person living in a mansion?

Of course mankind should try to right any wrongs he does against his fellow man, but in the case of Iraq for example, I don't see how cruise missiles are going to help anyone - especially innocent people.

And while the leaders of the world pay lip service to the plight of the starving in Africa and other places, they might like to reflect on how many people could be fed and sheltered for a long time for the cost of a cruise missile.

With kind regards,

Adrian.

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....

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.

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?

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

With best regards,

Adrian.

<>

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. 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.

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.

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

Peace!

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.)

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.

another link:

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#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, )
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!!)

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....

First, let me say that I am surprised to find so many opinions here that are not mainstream and, gladdly, more like mine regarding the issue. I have been hassled for my seemingly radical opinions (ie, America isn't all it's cracked up to be) and theories (ie, Osama has been in Cleaveland for the past two years)
During all the remembrance ceremonies, candelight virgils, paradaes, etc, I just sat around and went on with my life. I gave a moment of remembrance for the victims, but too few focus on the victims so much as they focus the buildings as a whole, or those considered 'heros', or American self-esteem, and many seem particularly ignorant regarding that last point.
Waving a bunch of flags doesn't make you a patirot. It makes you a flag-waving yes-man. By standing up for my beliefs despite their unpopularity as I have been doing ever sense I learned to think for myself, is more American than a bunch of flags ever could be.
Also, while I'm on the topic: Flag waving yes-men: If you are going to put up flags everywhere, at least pretend that you respect it. If I was someone who cared about the flag, I'd be insulted when I saw a tattered flag exposed to the elements on a car antenna, or flag-patterned boxer shorts at the store. Thirty years ago there was outrage when rock stars wore the flag as a shirt. My point is, if you think you are patriotic when you put the flag up everywhere, at least act like you understand the flags role as a symbol.
Yes, I was one of the few people I knew who was opposed to attacking afganistan (I thought if these terrorists were half as smart as we talked about them being, they would have a trap waiting for us) And it turned out okay. We had to bring the criminals to justice (I'm still not sure if Karmic law is part of my beiliefs) We had minimal casualites. But we can't forget all the innocents taken out by our seemingly-randomly fired cruise missiles. During the afgan-stage of the "war" on terrorism, we would hear news stories like "american killed by enemy fire" or "three americans die in helecopter crash" how many people did we lose over there? 20? What of the taliban loses? Northern Aliance? Innocent civilians? Hundreds? Thousands? Apart from the terrorist attacks, we've been pretty easy during this war. During the Gulf War, we lost fewer soldiers there than if they same number had stayed home and died in car accidents and such. America knows how to fight a war effecintly, although I'm not sure if that's a good thing.
There. I've had my two cents. As you can imagine, I have alot of random anger towards my country, and fortunantly that's about all the anger I carry.

Just some more news on the issue (from CNN):

Saddam's Last Chance
President Bush goes to the UN to make the case for attacking Iraq. Even if he's successful, can Washington take yes for an answer?  
BY TONY KARON

TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP
Bush warns the UN that Iraq could build a nuclear weapon within one year
 
Weblog: How Nuclear is Iraq?
TIME: How Iraq Will Fight
CNN: Bush: Iraq a 'Grave Danger'

 
Wednesday, Sep. 11, 2002
Addressing the United Nations General Assembly has never been President Bush's idea of fun, and it's the last place he'll find endorsement for his policy of "regime-change" in Iraq. But the Bush Administration appears to have recognized that even if it remains unable to convince most of the world of the need for military action to oust Saddam Hussein, the lonely road to Baghdad runs through the international organization located at the east end of 47th Street. That's because the support of even Washington's most faithful ally, Britain's prime minister Tony Blair, cannot be assured for a unilateral attack that bypasses the UN, and because taking the matter there will help make the case to a wary Congress that war may be the only way of eliminating Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

So President Bush on Thursday gave Iraq one last chance to comply with UN resolutions requiring that he end his weapons of mass destruction program and submit it to unfettered inspection. Striking a bellicose tone, the President warned Baghdad that complying fully with UN resolutions was its only hope for avoiding war.

Taking matters back to the UN, of course, was not the option favored by Administration hawks. Their reason: The international body is unlikely ever to sign on to the objective of "regime-change," given that non-interference in the internal affairs of nations is one of its founding principles. But the UN is committed, by its own resolutions, to destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and preventing their reemergence, and that commitment — and Saddam's flagrant violations of his obligations — looks set to become the "trigger" issue used by the Bush Administration to claim international legitimacy for any new attack on Iraq. Bush's speech challenged the UN to enforce its own resolutions, or surrender its credibility.


Convincing the world to act against Iraq remains an uphill struggle. Washington has not established any convincing link between Iraq and the events of September 11, and Britain and Israel are the only countries to have publicly endorsed the Administration's view that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction present an imminent danger requiring immediate, preemptive action. And despite the efforts of the Administration to court the support of skeptical U.S. Senators and Congressmen over the past two weeks, many insist they have been told nothing new in behind-closed-doors briefings and remain unconvinced of the imminent danger. NATO members and Arab allies have been openly skeptical of the case for going to war; Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has made rejection of any U.S. "adventure" in Iraq a central plank of his reelection campaign. And South African elder statesman Nelson Mandela this week branded Washington's Iraq policy a "threat to world peace."

Still, on the matter of Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions, Bush has a cast-iron case — and he devoted much of his speech to cataloguing Saddam's multiple and continuing infractions. UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn in 1998 after their work was frustrated by Iraq, ahead of a four-day punitive bombing campaign by the U.S. and Britain. The inspectors have not been allowed back since, and the resulting standoff has seen the UN sanctions regime crumbling, while substantial components of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs remain unaccounted for. Thus President Bush's exhortation to the international body to tackle Saddam's "contempt for the UN."

Bush's repeated references to the credibility of the UN being on the line were clearly aimed at shaming the international body into enforcing its own writ. But that goal may be beyond the reach of an administration openly disdainful of international consensus on so many other issues. The administration's stance on issues ranging from the Kyoto protocol to the International Criminal Court have led even NATO allies to view the Bush Administration as a delinquent global citizen, and pro-Western Arab governments make the argument that when the unconventionally-armed country defying U.N. resolutions is Israel, the U.S. responds with a nod and a wink.

But even if he can't shame them into action, President Bush may well manage to scare them — his "if Iraq wants to avoid war" mantra was an unmistakable warning that if the UN can't stop Saddam's scofflaw pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, Washington is more than ready to do so alone. And what the European and Arab allies want more than anything else is to avoid a war whose consequences they fear will be more devastating than any threat posed by Saddam right now. It is fear of what the U.S. may do that has galvanized France, Russia and Arab regimes to press Baghdad urgently to readmit weapons inspectors.

But the UN route to action on Iraq raises a strategic dilemma for the Bush administration: Is the U.S. prepared to accept yes for answer? The Administration plans to call for a toughly worded Security Council resolution setting an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq, and authorizing the use of force in response if Baghdad fails to comply. But if Saddam submits to inspection in order to avoid war, he potentially buys himself time and muddies the waters of legitimacy even if he plans to resume his cat-and-mouse game with inspectors. This is precisely the scenario Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney have been determined to avoid. Yet to insist, as they have done, that inspections won't remove the need to oust Saddam carries the risk of undermining the sincerity of Bush's appeal to the UN to enforce its own rules — after all, Washington won't be able to sustain the argument that Saddam was given a last chance to comply if he was also being told that he's toast even if he does. The U.S. may try to make the inspection regime as unpalatable as possible to Saddam, with the consequences of defiance swift and deadly, but it is likely nonetheless to offer Iraq a final opportunity to mend its ways. The decision, then, on whether or not the U.S. goes to war in Iraq in the coming months may soon rest principally with Saddam Hussein.



fides quaerens intellectum

I thought I would allow this topic to resurface in the wake of all the things that have gone on recently in Iraq (with the US weapons insepctors, etc.)  I have so many feelings, mixed feelings that is, regarding this whole issue.  

What do you think about recent events over there?  Is the US going to attack?  If they do, what will the result be?



fides quaerens intellectum

Personally I think President Bush is a moron because I think he's a little too cocky when it comes to war. Our enemies -some of them anyway-  posess nuclear arms and would not hesitate to use them. I think we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, personally. Some of those countries don't care if they kill off the whole world, as long as they think they're proving that they are right. Countries are a lot like people in some ways. You got your assholes, the control freaks, the meek ones, the nice guys, the nerds, etc.

I think that the attrocities that we have committed against other countries is a shame. I think that the wrong people are in power. Yes, I think Saddam and people like him should be removed from power, but people in our country should also be removed from power. I don't think war is the solution at this time. Maybe when (if) we get effective people in power, people who know when and how to strike, maybe we should try to remove him from power.

I think education is extremely important when it comes to choosing our leaders. An ideal leader is one who is open-minded, smart AND intelligent (they are not the same thing), merciful, wise, well-disciplined, hard-working, and charismatic. I think our tax dollars are being unwisely spent. The balance of things is not preserved and I think the Republican party could take more power than it should have if things continue the way they are going. I don't think our people want to go to war, generally speaking. We live in a world where countries are all linked to each other in different ways. To attack one is to attack many.

I guess what I am saying is, I think the politics are too complicated for me to form an opinion on this. To find an answer we'd have to stop and think, but by the time we find the solution we would not have the same circumstances. The world is moving too fast for its own good. We're all gonna die.

"Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you."

If W Bush (well it is not him really, the ones ruling the us of a aren´t who the public thinx) wants to attack Iraq, and much points to this, "he" will do so no matter what, make no mistake about that!!´  It won´t be hard for him to find, or create, something "wrong" with the iraqies that will, to "him", justify an attack... no matter what Saddam & co do, the leaders of the us of a (I am not pointing any fingers at the people of the us or the country itself) will attack if it suits their personal interrests - this I am absolutely convinced about... it´s like the roman empire all over again!´



Be well, Qui-Gon

- Your focus determines your reality -

...oh and may I add, an attack will most certainly suit their interrests, and the Empire will attack before the month of January 2003 I am rather convinced - hope I am wrong though!!´

- Your focus determines your reality -

Ran across this article just now at rense.com;

Bush's Mideast Plan -
Conquer And Divide
By Eric Margolis
Contributing Foreign Editor
Toronto Sun
12-9-2


NEW YORK -- Arms inspections are a "hoax," said Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, in a forthright and chilling interview with ABC News last week. "War is inevitable."
 
Aziz is the smartest, most credible member of President Saddam Hussein's otherwise sinister regime - my view after covering Iraq since 1976.
 
What the U.S. wants is not "regime change" in Iraq but rather "region change," charged Aziz. He tersely summed up the Bush administration's reasons for war against Iraq: "Oil and Israel."
 
Aziz's undiplomatic language underlines growing fears across the Mideast that U.S. President George Bush intends to use a manufactured war against Iraq to redraw the political map of the region, put it under permanent U.S. military control, and seize its vast oil resources.
 
These are not idle alarms.
 
Senior administration officials openly speak of invading Iran, Syria, Libya and Lebanon. Influential neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington have deployed a small army of "experts" on TV, urging the U.S. to remove governments deemed unfriendly to the U.S. and Israel.
 
Washington's most powerful lobbies - for oil and Israel - are urging the U.S. to seize Mideast oil and crush any regional states that might one day challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly or regional dominance.
 
The radical transformation of the Mideast being considered by the Bush administration is potentially the biggest political change since the notorious 1916 Sykes-Picot Treaty in which victorious Britain and France carved up the Ottoman-ruled region.
 
Possible scenarios under review at the highest levels:


 
Iraq is to be placed under U.S. military rule. Iraq's leadership, notably Saddam Hussein and Aziz, will face U.S. drumhead courts martial and firing squads.
 
Iraq will be broken up into three semi-autonomous regions: Kurdish north; Sunni centre; Shia south. Iraq's oil will be exploited by U.S. and British firms. Iraq will become a major customer for U.S. arms. Turkey may get a slice of northern Iraq around the Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields. U.S. forces will repress any attempts by Kurds to set up an independent state. A military dictatorship or kingdom will eventually be created.
 
The swift, ruthless crushing of Iraq is expected to terrify Arab states, Palestinians and Iran into obeying U.S. political dictates.

Independent-minded Syria will be ordered to cease support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, and allow Israel to dominate Jordan and Lebanon, or face invasion and "regime change." The U.S. will anyway undermine the ruling Ba'ath regime and young leader, Bashir Assad, replacing him with a French-based exile regime. France will get renewed influence in Syria as a consolation prize for losing out in Iraq to the Americans and Brits. Historical note: in 1949, the U.S. staged its first coup in Syria, using Gen. Husni Zai'im to overthrow a civilian government.
 
Iran a principal foe

Iran will be severely pressured to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs or face attack by U.S. forces. Israel's rightist Likud party, which guides much of the Bush administration's Mideast thinking, sees Iran, not demolished Iraq, as its principal foe and threat, and is pressing Washington to attack Iran once Iraq is finished off. At minimum, the U.S. will encourage an uprising against Iran's Islamic regime, replacing it with either a royalist government or one drawn from U.S.-based Iranian exiles.

Saudi Arabia will be allowed to keep the royal family in power, but compelled to become more responsive to U.S. demands and to clamp down on its increasingly anti-American population. If this fails, the CIA is reportedly cultivating senior Saudi air force officers who could overthrow the royal family and bring in a compliant military regime like that of Gen. Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Or, partition Saudi Arabia, making the oil-rich eastern portion an American protectorate.

The most important Arab nation, Egypt - with 40% of all Arabs - will remain a bastion of U.S. influence. The U.S. controls 50% of Egypt's food supply, 85% of its arms and spare parts, and keeps the military regime of Gen. Hosni Mubarak in power. Once leader of the Arab world, Egypt is keeping a very low profile in the Iraq crisis, meekly co-operating with American war plans.

Jordan is a U.S.-Israeli protectorate and its royal family, the Hashemites, are being considered as possible figurehead rulers of U.S.-occupied "liberated" Iraq; more remotely, for Saudi Arabia and/or Syria.

The Gulf Emirates and Oman, former British protectorates and now American protectorates, are already, in effect, tiny colonies.

In Libya, madcap Col. Moammar Khadafy remains on Washington's black list and is marked for extinction once bigger game is bagged. The U.S. wants Libya's high-quality oil. Britain may reassert its former influence here.

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, short of revolution, will remain loyal western satraps under highly repressive, French-backed royalist and military regimes.

Yemen's former British imperial base at Aden and former French base at Djibouti will become important permanent U.S. bases.

The White House hopes Palestinians will be cowed by Iraq's destruction, and forced to accept U.S.-Israeli plans to become a self-governing, but isolated, native reservation surrounded by Israeli forces.
 
The lines drawn in the Mideast by old European imperial powers are now to be redrawn by the world's newest imperial power, the United States. But as veteran soldiers know, even the best strategic plans become worthless once real fighting begins.


- Your focus determines your reality -

I certainly agree with you, Qui-Gon.  How can anyone justify a preemptive strike? That's what the start of this war would be, probably. And you're right about Bush. He's just a puppet, a figurehead. Sure he's "commander-in-chief" but he's not the one doing the thinking, or rather, lack thereof. I do not approve in the mettling of foreign countries' affairs. I think we have every right to be paranoid of Saddam after what we did to his country, but war is not the answer. There are some countries that are a problem out there, but not necessarily to us. Do you see anyone backing us up besides Israel (from the Gulf War) in the post-WWII wars and skirmishes we get involved in? I haven't seen anything. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Unfortunately I can't say I trust the Media either. They taint all their news, and their opinion is always implied. We all know the Media, despite what it says, is not completely neutral in anything. It's too bad the majority of people in this country amount to nothing more than a herd of cattle when it comes to making a major decision or voting. We are easily manipulated because we don't know what's really going on. You know why? Nobody has time. Work and school keeps everyone busy. It's a positive thing when a country works together, but not like this. We're achieving the wrong goals. We get everything we want when we want it, and we lose valuable human qualities in the process. Patience. Trust. Honesty. We're getting greedier and more impatient. We want everything faster and exactly the way we think it should be. If it isn't that way, we sue someone. We are so concerned with ourselves that as a whole we are missing what's happening to us. I am running to Canada if they reinstate the Draft for a reason other than for the resistance of invasion. I can't support a war I don't believe in.

"Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you."

-Douglass Adams

"Shaolin men and women NEVER give up!"

Another thing I forgot to mention- In the Star Wars movie trillogy, the evil empire had a resemblence of Nazi Germany. Well now it looks like we're the evil empire the way we are controlling the world. There are some differences between us and the Nazis, and don't think I'm trying to compare us to them. But watch Star Wars again and look at the similarities. From where we are things look good, but there are many nations directly or indirectly oppressed by us. This war is about money and nothing else. Bush is an oil tycoon and so his family has great involvement in the oil business. No wonder they want this war. And as for Sept. 11th, we had it coming. Our lazyness has cost us innocent lives. Someone wasn't doing their job. It would probably have been very easy for them to take over the country if they figured out how to do it. We were wide open for a strike. We were in a fight with our backs turned to the enemy.

"Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you."

-Douglass Adams

"Shaolin men and women NEVER give up!"

I am impressed of your knowledge EnderWiggin, really I am!!´  I hope there are many more as "up-to-date" as you in your country!
 You made a couple of really good points there, no doubt about that... for example; "We are easily manipulated because we don't know what's really going on. You know why? Nobody has time. Work and school keeps everyone busy." So true, folks don´t have the time to "investigate", the little time they´ve got apart from making their living they don´t have enough energy to lay on finding out the truth for themselves, instead they unfortunantly listen - and rely - to the extremly one- handed and bigtime controlled, media which is NOT telling the truth... simple as that, the best alternative news source I´ve ever had the pleasure running across is rense.com, if you haven´t been there I strongly suggest you do, it is marvelous...  the articles posted there aren´t so much written by mainstream media...  and listen to his radio show as well... LIVE or the archives.. I just listened to a great program dating back to the 30th of October this year starring David Icke, you can reach if you simply click on "archives", free of charge of course.

Have a great day mate, Qui-Gon (as you hear frmo my nick name I have watched star wars a few times, and yea you have a point...)

- Your focus determines your reality -

Hi all

I'm just amazed at how fervent people get about this business of Saddam having nuclear weapons etc. & the prospect of him launching ICBM's at america or dropping an atom bomb on american soil. How rediculous & how quickly americans seem to forget that America is the ONLY nation who has PROVED it will drop nuclear weapons on unarmed civilians, even when they had total control of naval & air power at the end of WW2.

Personally, I don't like Saddam Hussein & believe he is a ruthless dictator. But has he or any other countries who HAVE nuclear weapons actually used them like the U.S did against the japanese?

If the pentagon has definate proof that Saddam has ANY weapons of mass destruction, why don't they just simply tell the weapons inspectors where to look? Why waste time sending U.N inspectors all over the place when the pentagon has said Saddam has DEFINATELY got weapons of mass destruction? Just point out the spot & bust the guy.

Yes, I'll agree with Qui Gonn here. Ender Wiggan (Fallenangel too), it's refreshing to see an american who isn't waiting for CNN, TIME & George Bush to tell them what they should think & blindly accept one side of the story.

For anyone remotely interested in another point of view on the war on terror, that you wont find in ANY of your major news networks & why so many people around the world INCLUDING many americans (some very high profile americans in this link too) are majorly peeved at this war on terror (grab for oil & continuation of the armament empires).

It's quite long, but I can gaurantee, it's quite cutting & direct.

http://www.astrologyforthepeople.com/stranger_than_fiction.htm

Then again, if you believe all the trash the major news networks around the world are feeding us, you might want to wait for their next installment of lies, which might help you to sleep easier at night.

Good journeys all

Mobius

New from the BBC news network regarding IRAQ dossier:
UN row erupts over Iraq dossier

The US and UK are sceptical about the bulky declaration

The United States has distributed copies of Iraq's weapons dossier to all four of its fellow permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, after apparently seizing the initiative from the UN itself.
Syria - a non-permanent Council member - has protested against the decision to limit early access to the declaration to the US, France, China, Russia and the UK.

Reports say several other members of the Council are upset at the extent to which the US took charge of handing out copies to the others and editing the versions to be given to the non-nuclear powers.


America is still preparing for war with Iraq

The BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington that the move amounts to a mini-coup by the US following the lengthy document's arrival in New York on Sunday night.

It had been previously agreed that the UN would make copies of the 12,000-page declaration and hand them out itself.

But, our correspondent says, American diplomats pressed Colombia, which holds the Security Council's rotating presidency for December, to allow the US to take charge of the copying process.

The official reason given for the transfer was that the photocopying facilities were better and more secure, as US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher explained:

"We have been asked to ensure that the document is copied in a controlled environment in order to guard against the inadvertent release of information."

'Embarrassing reading'

The Security Council's latest resolution on Iraqi disarmament had explicitly stated that the document should be handed to the Security Council as a whole, not just to a select few members.

But Colombia's UN ambassador, Alfonso Valdivieso, said the decision on early access to the report was taken only after extensive consultations with all the other Council members.

It was based, he said, on the premises that the five big nuclear powers were the only nations qualified to assess potential risks and that the report might contain information which could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weaponry.


 

Iraq's dossier

Contains 12,000 pages in Arabic and English covering Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.
2,100 page nuclear component being studied by IAEA in Vienna.
Declaration being examined first by five nuclear powers on Security Council.
See also:

First failure?
Resolution 1441


 
Syria has led the way in protest at the decision to allow the US and the other four permanent Security Council members exclusive access to the declaration.

"It's in contradiction to... every kind of logic in the Security Council," said Syria's ambassador to the UN, Mikhail Wehbe.

In a BBC interview, Mr Wehbe expressed the fear that the five big powers might claim Iraq was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 - triggering "serious consequences" - before non-permanent members of the Security Council had even seen the dossier.

Another diplomat quoted by the Reuters news agency said he believed the Iraqi declaration listed foreign suppliers which had dealt with Iraq.

The disclosure of their names could prove embarrassing for members of the the UN Security Council and other nations, he said.

The CIA is examining the document, and there is no word on how long it will be before America issues a considered verdict.

Correspondents say it is likely to take days, or possibly, weeks.

Inspections continue

UN weapons inspectors are continuing their searches of suspect sites in Iraq using the extensive powers given them by the Security Council resolution.

On Monday, a team visited the al-Tuweitha Nuclear Research Centre for the third time since the inspectors' return last month after a four-year absence.

Other experts checked a military complex near the town of Fallujah, 90 kilometres (55 miles) northwest of Baghdad, which has been repeatedly investigated by the UN.
     




fides quaerens intellectum

Bush's Mideast Plan -
Conquer And Divide
By Eric Margolis
Contributing Foreign Editor
Toronto Sun
12-9-2


NEW YORK -- Arms inspections are a "hoax," said Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, in a forthright and chilling interview with ABC News last week. "War is inevitable."
 
Aziz is the smartest, most credible member of President Saddam Hussein's otherwise sinister regime - my view after covering Iraq since 1976.
 
What the U.S. wants is not "regime change" in Iraq but rather "region change," charged Aziz. He tersely summed up the Bush administration's reasons for war against Iraq: "Oil and Israel."
 
Aziz's undiplomatic language underlines growing fears across the Mideast that U.S. President George Bush intends to use a manufactured war against Iraq to redraw the political map of the region, put it under permanent U.S. military control, and seize its vast oil resources.
 
These are not idle alarms.
 
Senior administration officials openly speak of invading Iran, Syria, Libya and Lebanon. Influential neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington have deployed a small army of "experts" on TV, urging the U.S. to remove governments deemed unfriendly to the U.S. and Israel.
 
Washington's most powerful lobbies - for oil and Israel - are urging the U.S. to seize Mideast oil and crush any regional states that might one day challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly or regional dominance.
 
The radical transformation of the Mideast being considered by the Bush administration is potentially the biggest political change since the notorious 1916 Sykes-Picot Treaty in which victorious Britain and France carved up the Ottoman-ruled region.
 
Possible scenarios under review at the highest levels:


 
Iraq is to be placed under U.S. military rule. Iraq's leadership, notably Saddam Hussein and Aziz, will face U.S. drumhead courts martial and firing squads.
 
Iraq will be broken up into three semi-autonomous regions: Kurdish north; Sunni centre; Shia south. Iraq's oil will be exploited by U.S. and British firms. Iraq will become a major customer for U.S. arms. Turkey may get a slice of northern Iraq around the Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields. U.S. forces will repress any attempts by Kurds to set up an independent state. A military dictatorship or kingdom will eventually be created.
 
The swift, ruthless crushing of Iraq is expected to terrify Arab states, Palestinians and Iran into obeying U.S. political dictates.

Independent-minded Syria will be ordered to cease support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, and allow Israel to dominate Jordan and Lebanon, or face invasion and "regime change." The U.S. will anyway undermine the ruling Ba'ath regime and young leader, Bashir Assad, replacing him with a French-based exile regime. France will get renewed influence in Syria as a consolation prize for losing out in Iraq to the Americans and Brits. Historical note: in 1949, the U.S. staged its first coup in Syria, using Gen. Husni Zai'im to overthrow a civilian government.
 
Iran a principal foe

Iran will be severely pressured to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs or face attack by U.S. forces. Israel's rightist Likud party, which guides much of the Bush administration's Mideast thinking, sees Iran, not demolished Iraq, as its principal foe and threat, and is pressing Washington to attack Iran once Iraq is finished off. At minimum, the U.S. will encourage an uprising against Iran's Islamic regime, replacing it with either a royalist government or one drawn from U.S.-based Iranian exiles.

Saudi Arabia will be allowed to keep the royal family in power, but compelled to become more responsive to U.S. demands and to clamp down on its increasingly anti-American population. If this fails, the CIA is reportedly cultivating senior Saudi air force officers who could overthrow the royal family and bring in a compliant military regime like that of Gen. Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Or, partition Saudi Arabia, making the oil-rich eastern portion an American protectorate.

The most important Arab nation, Egypt - with 40% of all Arabs - will remain a bastion of U.S. influence. The U.S. controls 50% of Egypt's food supply, 85% of its arms and spare parts, and keeps the military regime of Gen. Hosni Mubarak in power. Once leader of the Arab world, Egypt is keeping a very low profile in the Iraq crisis, meekly co-operating with American war plans.

Jordan is a U.S.-Israeli protectorate and its royal family, the Hashemites, are being considered as possible figurehead rulers of U.S.-occupied "liberated" Iraq; more remotely, for Saudi Arabia and/or Syria.

The Gulf Emirates and Oman, former British protectorates and now American protectorates, are already, in effect, tiny colonies.

In Libya, madcap Col. Moammar Khadafy remains on Washington's black list and is marked for extinction once bigger game is bagged. The U.S. wants Libya's high-quality oil. Britain may reassert its former influence here.

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, short of revolution, will remain loyal western satraps under highly repressive, French-backed royalist and military regimes.

Yemen's former British imperial base at Aden and former French base at Djibouti will become important permanent U.S. bases.

The White House hopes Palestinians will be cowed by Iraq's destruction, and forced to accept U.S.-Israeli plans to become a self-governing, but isolated, native reservation surrounded by Israeli forces.
 
The lines drawn in the Mideast by old European imperial powers are now to be redrawn by the world's newest imperial power, the United States. But as veteran soldiers know, even the best strategic plans become worthless once real fighting begins.


- Your focus determines your reality -

I remeber reading an article put out by one of the universities here in Aus about 10 years ago. They did a study into the accuracy of the media, both TV and printed, and concluded that approximately only about 20% of what we are told is the truth. Think about who owns the various media corporations and what they're agenda's might be.

My own personal take on the whole Iraq thing still dates back to their original invasion of Kuwait.  An aquaintance at the time was a middle aged Egyptian fellow who used to travel in and out of the various middle eastern countries on govenment business.

He said Kuwait was one of the most unlikable, grubby and corrupt little countries full of ridiculously wealthy and arrogant people. He'd often wondered why one of the larger nations hadn't taken it over years ago. When someone finally did, the financial giants of the world, led by the good ol' US of A became thoroughly incensed and decided to take action.

Now at roughly the same time, little counties in Africa were being annexed by ruthless military dictators who make Hussein look like a saint, and lets not forget Mr warm & cuddly himself - Slobodan Milosevic, who decided genocide was a good answer for Yugoslavia's problems. What was done to stop these atrocities? Who cares! They're not brimming with precious oil so greedily craved by the superpowers. A few token troops for the UN's innapropriately name Peacekeeping forces will do.

It's a shame that the people can't do things like boycott oil and gas because it would make their lives so inconvenient. Plus it would send everything they worked for down the tubes- Jobs, etc. How would they get to work? If we were more like Vietnam or China we could ride our bikes to work. We need to find another energy source and we need to find it NOW. The key to stopping this war lies within the awareness of the citizens and civilians of each nation about what's really going on. The problem is getting them to believe people like us over the corporate media. It is also about energy sources. If we could come up with an inexhaustible, much cheaper source of energy to power cars, we could perform such a boycott. I think if there is a war, then there will be a big revolt after it, then we'll get attacked by terrorists somehow. According to the news, Iraq just gave an al-quida linked group some deadly nerve gass (bx or vx gas).

"Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you."

-Douglass Adams

"Shaolin men and women NEVER give up!"

OK- I felt the need to bring this post back up to the surface for obvious reasons...a lot of people have said a lot of different things regarding what is going on and what will go on.

I had an interesting thought and I invite you to think about what is going on from a more historical point of view.  Think of the Roman Empire, probably the last superpower before the US.  What do think they did/would do if they were attacked on their own soil and in the biggest city in their country?  Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they would completely destory the enemy, domestically or abroad.

Well, on Sept 11 the US was invaded and attacked and thousands of innocent lives were lost.  It's like walking up to a sleeping lion and stabbing it in the butt...what do you think is going to happen.

Iraq has connections with terrorists (I should say Saddam, because I don't think there are too many Iraqis who are anything lke Saddam) and now the US is going after him.

I am not trying to sway anyone's opinion.  I am simply saying that hey, when you tinkle off a giant, you can expect some repercussions...if you don't then you are not living in the real world, which is a world of hate, sadness and war.  

The war is going to happen.  One of my good buddies ships out today and his wife (newly weds) is devastated.  I just pray that the conflict will end quickly and that not too many innocent people are killed.

It's been a year since the infamous attacks of September the 11th and I am sitting here wondering where we're at...and how I feel.  How do you feel?  Are we on track to stop terror?  

Another issue:
Should we take on Iraq now and force Saddam out of power?  Part of me says yes and the other says no.  Somtimes I think of how we had Osama in our hands about 5 years ago, about the time of the embassy bombings in Africa, etc. and we didn't do anything.  Many felt that evidence was scant and that it was none of our business...and besides few Americans died in those attacks.  We didn't do anything to Ossama and then look what he did.  Now I fear we are in the same situaion with Saddam.  Don't get me wrong, attacking Iraq will be a tragedy.  Innocent people wil die...but what do we do?  Do we wait until he detonates or launches a nuclear weapon at some city?  

Obviously the answer is to destroy all of our weapons and the come together.  Establish free trade, look for new sources of fuel....world peace.  But is that realistic?  We would still have those who would argue about spiritual matters and then they would make weapons and....you get the idea.

Where does this all end?  Well, I don't think it does end while we are in this spehere of existence we call life...it's part of this experience.  Therefore people like Saddam need to be forced out of power.  Does anyone even know how Saddam came to power?  Look up that story and then tell me that he deserves to be in power there.  Even his own people are constantly trying to kill him...

Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts...and please tell us how you feel about these things (ie. Sept 11, where we are at on the "war against terrorism", and whether we should attack Iraq or not.)

-Daniel

fides quaerens intellectum