News:

Welcome to the Astral Pulse 2.0!

If you're looking for your Journal, I've created a central sub forum for them here: https://www.astralpulse.com/forums/dream-and-projection-journals/



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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eukaryote

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.


PeacefulWarrior

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
We shall not cease from our exploration, and at the end of all our exploring, we shall arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
T.S. Elliot
---------------
fides quaerens intellectum

PeacefulWarrior

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
We shall not cease from our exploration, and at the end of all our exploring, we shall arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
T.S. Elliot
---------------
fides quaerens intellectum

Anonymous

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."

Qui-Gon Jinn

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!´

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesD/sit.jpg" border=0>

Be well, Qui-Gon

- Your focus determines your reality -

Qui-Gon Jinn

...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 -

Qui-Gon Jinn

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 -

Anonymous

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!"

Anonymous

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!"

Qui-Gon Jinn

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 -

Mobius

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


PeacefulWarrior

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
We shall not cease from our exploration, and at the end of all our exploring, we shall arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
T.S. Elliot
---------------
fides quaerens intellectum

Qui-Gon Jinn

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 -

James S

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.


Anonymous

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!"

PeacefulWarrior

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.



We shall not cease from our exploration, and at the end of all our exploring, we shall arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
T.S. Elliot
---------------
fides quaerens intellectum

PeacefulWarrior

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
We shall not cease from our exploration, and at the end of all our exploring, we shall arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
T.S. Elliot
---------------
fides quaerens intellectum