War with Iraq ... an interesting alternate view

[ralphm]

This is one of the most frightening things i have read lately! Whitley is usually makes intellegent judgements and statements, however going to war just to control oil is idiotic, that is one of the prime reasons the terrorist want to kill us so bad. Is he making this statement because the powers that be are too balless to mention it? Is this really why the American people are supporting the president and war? To spend billions to kill people that don't deserve to die so that multinational corporations can sell us that oil? There are probably a few judgements that are questionable, the one that jumps out is comparing Sadam to hitler, hitler was given a few countries in Europe before the west stepped in, Sadam does not really have control of his own country and has  no way to overtake his neighbors-remember quwait?
Interestinly enough this fits in with the thoughts I had while driving around today- we have just become a monster ready to overrun whatever gets in the way of having our material goods!

[Shawn McCaffrey]

I agree with you both.  Passifict.  Needing to help the 3rd worlders, and our country is corrupt.  But, I can't think of any other way.  I dispise war. I dispise Americas Empire. I just can't seee any other way to help those poor people. Except Armagetton.

[Rob]

This is making me re-think my whole perspective in the Iraqi issue.
The way I see it, we were put in this situation by the corrupt politicians who didn't pour money into conservable energy (zero point being the best, along with hydrogen) when they should have been doing this for years. But we are here....and now I am just plain confused.

[wildbank]

To me all of this is evitable, part of the vibration of materialism, while we idealists scratch our heads. However, we can influence this by pumping up MORE ENERGY toward the good vibrations, good dreams, etc. For example, everyone dreaming up a Disney ASIA FANT"ASIA" complex like EuroDisney smack into that region is sure to upset the status quo and change everyone's way of thinking, more slanted toward our children, the kind of world we'd like for them, or for us, even!
Are we doing this? This is the danger of over-politizing, being distracted from ideals toward how bad people are. I just plain think that some of us spectators would do best by redirecting our energies making other points of light more compelling. There is a such thing as distracting people away from war. Do we want war or don't we?
This hopefully will incite young engineers to get to work on alternative means of energy, to work on loving within schools, to work on creating as many exotic penpals around the globe. Do a search perhaps in foreign countries engines for discussion groups.

Saddam is not Hitler. Why hoop up old stuff? The world has changed so much positively. The internet is a wonderful tool. We can sway opinions of others toward dreams. Any discussion of Saddam is ridiculous to me. They need LOVE out there. Their people do not necessary believe love is coming from here unless we ACTUALLY DO IT and they shall be convinced.

Start reaching out! WE ARE NOT ON BRINK OF WAR. Where is your focus? Whoever wrote that damning article? Good or evil?  The one that you feed the most shall WIN. Get others to join. Sometimes an exciting trend that unifies people is more preferable to taking a day off to strike or do peace marches. Let the keyboard march! Make friends after work! without leaving your home. More gets done in this regard.

[PeacefulWarrior]

I don't think the US has fully made the case against Iraq, I know that there are a lot of complex, political reasons for the US to be there (it actually makes perfect sense based on the way the world works, ie. the core-periphery nation based global community) and I think war is wrong, but honestly I am not against the war.  Saddam is a madman, a hundred...or even 25 years ago there wouldn't be half as much opposition to a war like this one, but the world is coming to the realization that war is often times not inevitable and is based upon $$$$.

I feel bad for the innocent men and women (AMerican and Iraqi) who will die.  But Saddam can burn for all I care.  I just wish we could snipe him and make it that simple, but it's not and really I don't even pretend to promote or decry this war...there's too much I don't know about it either way.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you on this one, amcturbo. I hate war too, but I don't like the alternate future, as you have told it. I see exactly where you are coming from. Unfortunately, oil means survival. It is not so much oil, but those in control of it, and those in control distribute it to only those people who support them. Saddam will charge a lot of money for some and more for us. The value of the American dollar is already going down, which will make oil prices go up even faster, in a sense. Our economy's in a sh** hole right now. Would the world rather have Saddam as a leading nation or us? I think an assassination of Saddam Hussein would be appropriate. Someone should hire some bounty hunters to take him out. LOTS of snipers, ninjas, whatever you can get. Infiltrate and destroy. Saddam needs to die. He's had his chance to change, and has chosen not to, and will never choose peace. The guy's an ***hole. No, that's too much of a complement. I think that the fall of the Taliban gives him more reason to hate and defy us. It was predictable that we would attack Afghanistan first, and I fear that Saddam and his allies may be planning something we were not expecting. Iraq harbors and abets terrorists. But really, Saddam is the one who harbors and abets terrorists, not Iraq. For the good of the world, Saddam and his allies must be stopped, even if it means killing him. Making assassination illegal was stupid. The Bay of Pigs operation may have failed miserably, but I think it was still stupid to make assassination illegal. We could really use an assassin on our side right now. Killing one man would save a lot of lives.

Iraq is like a person possessed by the devil. If we can rid it of Saddam, it will hopefully be rid of the evil and become good again. Germany was possessed by Hitler, and we got rid of him. We can get rid of Saddam, but with the weapons of today, and the alliance of nuke-bearing North Korea with Iraq, I have a feeling it's going to be a tough war. I hope those nations aren't crazy enough to use those terribly destructive nuclear weapons, but I know Saddam is sick in the head and will likely do such a stupid thing, even though it means he suffers too, and so does the rest of the world. It's like being in a pool filled with gasoline and having a box of matches. It only takes one match to start an inferno. I don't know about some people. It's been a cold winter, and I don't want a nuclear winter next year. Or ever, for that matter. I hope the government will start making underground evacuation tunnels soon to protect us. I am not against the government, despite the patriot act, and other screw-ups it is responsible for. I don't know if I would stay or flee if I was drafted. I think it depends on the war and our reasons for fighting.

If you really want to be scared, do some research on what will happen if someone did detonate a nuclear weapon. There is a reason to fight. And a damned good one- Stop the nukes from falling into the hands of the paranoid psychotic enemy!

[Anonymous]

You know what you should try? Take a map of the current world and for each alliance of each nation, draw a green like between those nations. And for each enemy of a nation, draw a red like. Watch what happens. Countries that we are allied with are also allied with our enemies. This means that those countries are potential sellers of nuclear, chemical and /or biohazardous weapons for our enemies to buy from. It also means that those nations could be a medium through which we could come to some peaceful solutions when conflicts arise. Look at Iraq's connections, both good and bad. Then look at ours, and look at where the lines meet, which countries connect us both. Look at the history of each of those countries and their motivations for their actions and what could potentially be their next actions. Look at where they stand with us and our enemies. It's like a big game of chess, but a more complex game with more sides. It's not just black and white on the board.

One thing that really bothers me is that I don't know what to believe anymore. I feel like we've done this to ourselves. As a college student, my life consists of lots and lots of schoolwork, trying to get an internship to land a good job in my field someday, and when I get out of school I'm going to have to work a LOT. When will I have time to research what is really going on and what is not? And who can I trust? As I have said before, Americans have become much to busy and distracted with their daily lives to really know the truth. So much depends on trust, and so many people are not trustworthy. A few are, and I know that I have heard the truth somewhere, but I cannot distinguish it from the lies. If your children are fighting, do you have to punish the one who started the fight or both of them? How do you know who started the fight if all you know is what they are telling you? No one can possibly know, unless you're a mind-reader. One thing I know for certain- We are very close to war. Another thing I know for certain- Someone, be it terrorists or some insane group of people, hijacked and flew planes into the WTC towers, and they fell. One other thing I know for certain- Oil prices are rising, someone screwed up in the government, someone else will screw up in the future, and when a person dies they do not come back to earth. That is all I really and truly know for certain. The rest I believe, some things strongly and others only a little, and I am forced to act on those beliefs, because I have to trust someone. I just hope I am trusting the right people.

[clandestino]

To the tune of "If you're happy and you know it"
> > > >
> > > >   If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
> > > >   If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
> > > >   If the terrorists are frisky,
> > > >   Pakistan is looking shifty,
> > > >   North Korea is too risky,
> > > >   Bomb Iraq.
> > > >
> > > >   If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
> > > >   If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
> > > >   So to hell with the inspections,
> > > >   Let's look tough for the elections,
> > > >   Close your mind and take directions,
> > > >   Bomb Iraq.
> > > >
> > > >   It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
> > > >   Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
> > > >   They've got weapons we can't see,
> > > >   And that's good enough for me
> > > >   'Cos it'all the proof I need
> > > >   Bomb Iraq.
> > > >
> > > >   If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
> > > >   If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
> > > >   If you think Saddam's gone mad,
> > > >   With the weapons that he had,
> > > >   (And he once p*ssed off your dad),
> > > >   Bomb Iraq.
> > > >
> > > >   If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
> > > >   If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
> > > >   If your politics are sleazy,
> > > >   And hiding that ain't easy,
> > > >   And your senates getting queasy,
> > > >   Bomb Iraq.
> > > >
> > > >   Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
> > > >   For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
> > > >   Disagree? We'll call it treason,
> > > >   Let's make war not love this season,
> > > >   Even if we have no reason,
> > > >   Bomb Iraq.

[PeacefulWarrior]

Wow...that is funny!

WHere did you get that??

[amcturbo]

Here's an interesting news story about the Iraqi Oil Fields and their high-priority for protection, once a war is started ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880437,00.html

I found this newstory, while surfing over at http://www.antiwar.com

While much can be speculated about the "true intentions" for going to war with Saddam, it is interesting that the US and Britian are the only countries really adamant about it.  A thought that just dawned on me, is that if our world did undergo the drastic climate changes and a stopping of the gulf stream, as Whitley predicts, that this would drastically effect the US and Britian ... precisely those most interested in booting Saddam and setting up a Democratic govt. in Iraq.

[Frank]

quote:Originally posted by clandestino

To the tune of "If you're happy and you know it"
> > > >
> > > >   If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.

SNIP

That's the best post I've ever seen on this whole issue and spells out the situation EXACTLY IMO. Well done, mate.

Yours,
Frank


PS
As the subject of the thread is the posting of interesting alternate views I thought the following link may provide a good read: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/

[jjnewbin]

I think we should remember the old saying about the 7 deadly sins, there is not just one...so I don't think Bush wants war with Iraq just for oil. That is a simplistic way of looking at it. There is also a lot of pride and desire for revenge...remember that Iraq (or its sympathizers) arranged to assasinate George Bush Sr. on a visit to Kuwait but failed.

But the pro-war people also use really simplistic arguments and ways to stir up and scare people. I suggest we not be fooled by either side.

I want to see Hussein gone and I want to arab leaders to tremble in their shoes when/if they see a democracy rise up in another arab country. I just hope the Iraqi's take care of it themselves.

Say, has anyone who actually *can* consciously astral project ever thought of visiting Saddam Hussein in the astral? Sure, it sounds crazy, but so do OBE's in general on first glance. Maybe enough people visiting him in his dreams could make bombs irrelevant.

I swear I am not drunk, maybe just a slight bit loony with this idea.

jj

[Adrian]

Greetings Clandestino!

quote:Originally posted by clandestino

To the tune of "If you're happy and you know it"

etc..

Excellent!  As the saying goes "many a true word said...."

This is mostly about two things - politics and oil.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[ralphm]

check out www.rense.com/general34/scd.htm

[Anonymous]

I don't care what kind of government they have in Iraq, but I just want Saddam gone.

[dovelady]

to Clandestino and RalphM:

These are the BEST posts.

Whereas we all know that Hussein is a bad person, I don't feel all the Iraqi people should pay for his sins.
I deplore the thought of war.  We need to take plenty of time for the inspections to be completed before we take drastic steps.

I remember quite a lot about WW2, and the fear.  

When we find out conclusively that he deserves it, THEN bomb the b*****d![^]

dovelady

[Spirit Raven]

To the tune of "If You're Happy And You Know It" []
I love it.....says it all and with wonderful humor, which, in light of how things are right now, is much needed.
As to the point of this thread, I think something is being forgotten or maybe some don't know.
Do you all know how Saddam came to power in the first place? Do you also know where he purchased the WMD he has/had or the materials to make such WMD? The Good Ole U S of A. This is what comes of meddling in other countries affairs. Our government didn't like the government in Iraq before....they helped Saddam take over. Now it has come back to bite our government in the a**. Our government, once again, wants to step in and change regimes. Yes, Saddam should be removed from power BUT how long before the next one "bites" as well?
This war would not be just for oil and politics; although, that is the main reasons. War is BIG $$$ for BIG corporations. And said corporations are owned and run by people who are already quite wealthy. The little man, the ones who will be putting their lives on the line will be seeing very little or none of that money that is made from the war. I do believe in fighting for freedom if neccessary. I just don't think that this one is neccessary for our freedom...I also think that our country and it's people need to get their heads out of the sand and start using other forms of energy that have been developed and are out there and quite being so dependent on oil. Yeah, I know, easier said than done, eh?
Ok, I will stop my rant now and mosey along. I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes or offend anyone. If I did, I apologize in advance.

[Anonymous]

I have changed my mind on this issue. There is no reason to fight. It was the oil companies who bought out the alternative energy source companies. If we lose this war, just remember that we did this to ourselves. We have no one to blame but ourselves for not standing up to the oil companies and boycotting oil. It is dishonorable to fight Iraq for something we brought upon ourselves. We took actions and those actions had consequences, and we must accept those consequences, not make Iraq accept them. The oil consequences of the war affects both us and Britain the most. There really is no reason for this war. But I would like to see Saddam go somehow, in a way other than war. Though his own people fear and hate him, he is also the only Arab leader to stand up to the US and Britain. There are many reasons why we should not just go in there and kill him. Kidnapping him might work. Killing him would make him a martyr and we don't want that. Like I said before, I don't care what kind of government Iraq has as long as the people there are happy. It's their nation, not ours. Our government does overstep its bounds, simply because it has too much power. And as Murphy's Law states, anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. If another nation had our power, they would probably use it the same way. No one nation should have as much power as we do. There should be no super-power nations. Different nations exist for a reason. We don't like what our nation is doing? Ok, we'll create our own nation so we can live the way we want to. War is silly. It is one thing if a country threatened to take away our freedom and sent troops over here to fight, but that is not the case. We are the ones sending our troops to other countries to tell them how to live. I don't think I want to be a citizen of a country that does this kind of stuff to other nations. This is why I would run to Canada if I ever got drafted. And what about the World Trade Organization? There's a hypocracy if I ever saw one. We helped in its formation, helped make the majority of the laws and policies of it, and now look at what it's doing to other countries. That's why they're so poor. We say we want to help the civilians of less fortunate nations, but look what we're doing. The WTO makes it possible for our corporations to pay them less-than-minimal wage. Far less. And god forbid they should be payed more so they can actually buy food and clothing for themselves and their families. And other nations can't do anything about it, because the WTO makes it so that these corporations don't have to obey their laws. The end of the world really is coming. Evil grows rapidly, and I do not want any part of it. I suggest that, rather than having anti-war rallies, we should simply assembe for peace itself, and not think about war at these rallies, but think about peace. Boycott oil, and do some research on alternative energy and start putting it to use. Walk places. Ride your bike. Do what Amcturbo suggested and don't use oil in any way directly or indirectly. Solar heating can be very effective in the winter. Use electric heating instead of oil and gas at night. We really need to start speaking out. I am not going to let the government walk all over me. The indifference of good men and women is an evil we must cast out. My soul is mine, and I will not sell it or compromise it. It is my duty to help anyone I can however I can.

[BDHugh]

Hey everybody. Oil and big business is a big part in the decison in war, as well as WMD's. But please take a look at the following links because the assumption that Bush is the only oil hungry maniac is contradicting to what the current information says.

http://www.usainreview.com/1_21_Security_Council.htm

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00786.html

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnm00491.htm

http://archive.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/iraq1119_russiafrance/

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/wsjoil.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqfull.html

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/20020924_362.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

[PeacefulWarrior]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.excerpts/

After reading this report, how can people continue to blame the US?  I find it strange the way no one wants to admit how easy it would be for Saddam to declare the whereabouts of his weapons in order to avoid a conflict.  Why is everything the fault of the US?  The responsibility and power to stop this war is in the hands of one man and his regime.

[Anonymous]

It is true that Saddam could easily stop all of this from happening. However, his people probably do blame the US for imposing all those sanctions which in turn cause them to starve to death. War is simply not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right. Saddam is obviously missing a few chromosomes. No one in their right mind would do the things he does to his own people. He's a terrible leader and a poor role model. All he does is for his interests alone. Freud would probably have some very interesting things about him. He's a waste of space, and someone probably should assassinate him, but he'd be considered a martyr. Karma will do its job. He's going to have one hell of a tough time in the afterlife. No pun intended. There are lies coming from both sides and it is so easy to believe them if you don't have first-hand knowledge. The media embellishes and distorts facts, and also has a way of expressing its opinions through some sort of loophole, i.e. the facts they present. They can provide facts that express only their opinion, and no one will know. One group of people wants to fight with another group. That's all I know.

We do need to get the radicals out of power in the Middle East, but we do not need to change the governments of those countries. It is up to their peoples to do something about it. African countries are also in need of  help. There are horrible leaders there too. We cannot continue to go about being the world's police officer country, however. Why don't other countries stand up to tyrany? The problem is, whatever happens, there will always be troublesome leaders in power who do terrible things. And so it is world's job to make sure that those leaders are removed from positions of power as soon as possible to ensure the safety of the world. If another country has doubts about a leader being evil or dangerous, then it should also do some investigating and get intelligence reports. Countries should be nonviolent in general. What kind of example are we setting for the rest of the world? Our international policies are bad. Nobody should have to deal with them. Another country is another country because it has a group of people who want to live a certain way. Our policies do not make it easy for them to do that. I am not just talking about Iraq and the Middle East. I am talking about all kinds of countries all over the world. If any country does something that angers the US, we go and bomb it until it's a smoldering crater in the ground. We bomb Iraq every day. Is that not enough to make its people suffer? Saddam doesn't care what happens to those people. Why do we not allow refugees into the US for awhile? If we are going to bomb another country, the least we could do is give the refugees a place to go when we destroy their homes and their lives as they were used to living them.

What we need less of are laws and policies, and we need more of common courtesy and morals. Just about every religion (satanism excluded) believes we shouldn't kill people, shouldn't steal or lie to them, steal their spouses away from them or cheat on their own spouses, should respect our elders, etc. I think that's pretty basic. Can't we form international laws from those beliefs?

If someone attacks me, I will defend myself, killing if necessary, but only if they first have the intent to kill me and perform actions demonstrating this (i.e. trying to kill me and incapacitation and all other methods are uneffective). I will defend my friends and my family, and I will defend innocent and less fortunate people. It is the Shaolin way. I will treat others with kindness and benevolence, friendliness and frankness. I will try my best to speak with reason, treat others with courtesy, move others with emotion, and act with result. And I will never stop trying. There is generally no need to kill anyone. If Saddam wants to nuke us or use biological weapons on us, let him be the bad guy and go to hell for it. That goes for any leader of any nation. I'll laugh at him when I am in heaven and he's frying in Satan's dungeons. Better yet, I won't even think about him. He won't deserve it. Why should we be the bad guys? Just because what Saddam has done is worse than what we'd be doing to him, it doesn't make us right. We need to improve our own country first. We need to get rid of things like the Patriot Act and look to things like a possibility of alternative energy sources. We need to get our people educated and find the truth for them and show them the difference between the truth and the lies, and the intents behind them. Only when people in this country stop being so materialistic and wrapped up in their own little lives will they be able to see the truth and see what is happening to them. We need to stop people like Bush from getting into office. And not just Bush, but people like the oil tycoons and CEO's of large corporations. That's what will make us right, improving ourselves, not worrying about what some other country is doing. We should question another country's leader only if we think it may directly affect our safety or the world's. Saddam may harbor terrorists and abet them, and that is wrong. But the rest of the world must also take steps to stop him and the terrorists he harbors. I'm sick of the US always being the country to do the fighting.

[PeacefulWarrior]

War in Iraq to Focus on Saddam Hussein


Monday January 27, 2003 3:20 PM


One lingering image from the 1991 Persian Gulf War was of terrified Iraqi soldiers waving their arms in surrender to an unmanned Navy reconnaissance drone as it skimmed overhead, videotaping the desert terrain.

That incident underscored a vast difference between the two sides - the battlefield technology that enabled a U.S.-led coalition of forces to easily defeat a million-man army, then billed as the world's fourth largest, in six weeks.

Twelve years later, American surveillance and ``smart weapon'' technology is far more sophisticated and reliable, and the key to what U.S. planners hope would be an even swifter, more decisive and less bloody victory than Desert Storm.

Despite an already big buildup of U.S. combat forces in the Gulf region, experts say a new war will not be a throwback to the desert tank battles of 1991. Nor will it be another Afghanistan, although ``special operators'' - Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs or Air Force commandos - could play crucial roles in trying to capture or kill Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein.

``What we can expect this time is some increased kind of mobility from the U.S.,'' said Francois Boo, an analyst at Global Security.org, an Alexandria, Va.-based think tank. ``The objective of this war is not to recapture some land, but to remove Saddam Hussein from power. That's the center of gravity, and that means Baghdad.''

Even if Saddam anticipates that, ``the idea is that the U.S. force will be so powerful, and so fast, and take him by so much surprise that the regime will collapse by itself,'' Boo said. This ``plausible scenario,'' as he calls it, anticipates that Iraq's forces, much weaker than in 1991, can be bypassed without a serious fight.

As in 1991, any attack is sure to begin with precisely targeted U.S. air attacks to blind Iraq's air defenses, destroy communications and cripple Saddam's ability to fight back.

This time, the weapons are guided by GPS - global positioning satellites - rather than lasers, and will comprise far more than the 10 percent of all explosives unleashed on Iraq the first time around. They include the Predator, the Air Force's multipurpose unmanned aerial vehicle; the Navy's long-range Tomahawk cruise missile used in the Gulf War and against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan; and new or upgraded missiles that can be guided from air to target from as far as 15 miles away. They have already tested in Afghanistan, Kosovo and against Iraqi air defenses in the no-fly zone.

``There will be an increased reliance on surveillance and intelligence means, and on precision-guided munitions. The point is not to destroy everything in sight but to take out specific installations and facilities,'' Boo said.

In making Iraq's anti-aircraft defenses the top priority, U.S. officials cannot dismiss the potential threat of chemical and biological weapons, which are hard to detect and can be delivered by several means, including the Scud missiles of Gulf War notoriety.

As for ground action, Boo said, the objective will be to ``drive straight to Baghdad,'' and with overwhelming forces at the city limits, wait for Saddam's regime to crumble under the pressure. ``Anything else will just be a diversion.''

While protracted World War II-type street fighting is the Pentagon's ``nightmare scenario,'' Boo doesn't expect it. ``The whole theory is that by the time the U.S. military reaches the gates of Baghdad, Saddam will have surrendered, or will be floating in the Euphrates as the result of the Iraqi people revolting.''

Other experts are skeptical of that - or of a coup d'etat, given Saddam's record of purging aides he suspects of disloyalty. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger says that if Saddam's generals tried to topple him, ``they'd all be dead'' before they succeeded.

In a defiant speech on Jan. 17, Saddam appeared to reject any idea of compromise or abdication from power, and said an attack on Baghdad would be ``suicide.'' He also claimed - as he has before - that Iraq actually won the 1991 Gulf War.

That conflict came after Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990, accusing the neighboring emirate of using ``slant drilling'' to infringe on Iraq's oil fields, and of cheapening Iraqi oil by overproducing its own. He nullified debts owed Kuwait from Iraq's eight-year war against Iran, and ``re-annexed'' Kuwait as Iraq's 19th province.

By that lightning stroke, the Iraqi dictator gained control of 20 percent of the world's oil reserves, and hinted at a further drive into eastern Saudi Arabia, where another one-fifth of the world's oil lay underground.

Declaring that Iraq's ``aggression will not stand,'' President George Bush gained U.N. backing for sanctions and armed action to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait.

Threatened by Saddam's move, Saudi Arabia invited U.S. military intervention. Bush assembled a 33-country coalition that included not only traditional U.S. allies like Britain and France, but a dozen Islamic nations.

After a five-month buildup of nearly a half million allied troops, ``the mother of all battles'' promised by Saddam turned out to be a one-sided air campaign - 48,000 strikes on 1,200 targets in 42 days - and a fast-moving ground war that lasted only 100 hours, a little longer than a holiday weekend.

Baghdad, a city of 4 million people, was bombed at the outset, but allied forces stopped short of invading Iraq, on grounds that was not their mandate. Postwar critics charged that Bush and his generals failed to complete the job, and misled anti-Saddam factions in Iraq with empty promises of support.

Many analysts have said since that the allies wanted to preserve Iraq, even in a weakened state, as a buffer against Iranian dominance of the region.

Threats to the world's oil supply being the issue in 1991, some antiwar groups claim oil is what also motivates George W. Bush, despite his avowed concern about the dangers of Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear ``weapons of mass destruction.''

The younger Bush also has U.N. backing, but only in trying to prove through inspections that those weapons exist. Instead of heading a coalition of many flags, the United States may be acting alone or with a handful of like-minded allies.

Its state-of-the-art weaponry and forces would go up against an Iraqi foe that analysts now estimate at 400,000 troops - less than half the 1991 strength - and filled with reluctant conscripts; aging tanks plagued by spare-parts shortages; and an air force that fled to Iran in 1991 and remains there.

Estimates of Iraqi losses have been repeatedly scaled back since the war, reflecting the fact that thousands of Saddam's front-line soldiers fled or surrendered and were sent home, and ``many were never there in the first place,'' Boo said.

In Desert Storm, 10 percent of bombs were guided and overall target accuracy was less than half. Four percent of allied losses - which included 148 Americans killed - were from ``friendly fire,'' and hundreds of Iraqi civilians were killed or wounded in several high-profile incidents, including a U.S. attack on a Baghdad bunker that had been targeted as a command center.

In Kosovo in 1999 and Afghanistan two years later, 60 percent of the bombs were guided - 87 percent in the Navy's case - and three-fourths hit the target, Pentagon studies said.

Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, called that ``the most accurate bombing campaign ever.''

Even satellite-guided weapons are imperfect - as shown in Afghanistan, where human error was blamed for misdirected bombs that killed civilians and allied troops. But officials say technical inprovements, and the use of GPS-equipped commandos to identify targets, minimize chances of unintended casualties.

---

Gulf War coalition members: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.

Source: ``Contributions to the Multinational Coalition,'' The Middle East, 8th ed. (Washington, D.C.; Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1994).

---

EDITOR'S NOTE: Richard Pyle covered Operation Desert Storm for The Associated Press.

[Rob]

All this talk of "ooh saddam has weapons of mass destruction" etc - so what???!!
What has he ever done to us?
There are plenty of nasty, evil regimes in the world. Many of them supported by the west. This is not a good thing but if you are going to invade Iraq, you would have to go at all the other places too.
Saddam might be an animal but wild animals will only attack if you corner them, or threaten their young. By doing both we are just asking for him to release the horrible things the US sold to him years ago right back on us. He will NOT attack, anywhere, not any more. He has been scared too thoroughly. He will ONLY attack, if he himself is attacked.
As for "he might be making nukes!!!" yeah he might. But he also might have just bought a load off the Russian black market. Be much cheaper. And you can't stop that.
The whole thing about nukes - two classic arguments. 1 They are bad and should be banned (unrealistic). 2 - They keep the peace because everyone has them but everyone is too scared to use them. If only one country has all the big weapons, they can terrorise whoever they want. If two opposing sides have nukes, tense stability is maintained on the equal basis of MAD  - Mutual Assured Destruction.
I might add that the only country who are going to use WOMD are...you guessed it. Depleted uranium - very nasty, falls in the category. And what was that I heard Bush say, they are thinking of using nukes!? What purpose would that serve except to enrage the entire world??? THAT is the American govenments (and....sick....UK to an extent) fault, among many others.

"Iraq harbors and abets terrorists" naa, they don't. If they did, you could be sure it would be ALL over the whore media outlets by now. And his regime is opposed to Islamic fundamentalist. But still, 50% of Americans think he had some part in 9/11...

Did you know that more innocent Afghanis have been killed than there were deaths in 9/11? Think about it.

All insane. I really don't know what to think any more. As was rightly ponted out, you don't know who to trust. Rarely do you ever see the bigger picture. Which is why Whitleys article was so interesting. War for oil? I dunno. I'm just going to send my love and blue light.

laters

Rob

ps that song....cracked me up!

[Hephaestus]

ALERT: NEWS JUST IN



'Iraq brings out its WMD's in preparation for the American invasion, a donkey strapped to a payload of gunpowder.'
.
.
.
.

[Anonymous]

LOL nice image. That probably is their secret weapon they're not telling us about. I still think Saddam's not worth fighting. Why should we waste expensive weapons on him? Besides, it just makes us the bad guys. I predict that WWIII is not too far away. A few more countries and someone's gonna get really ticked off at us. ticked off enough to band together and do something about it. I couldn't stand Bush's State of the Union address. I turned it off when he started talking about Iraq. What he said just confirms the fact that he's paranoid and oil-hungry, and so are those who support him, both members of congress and normal citizens and civilians. I don't think all his ideas are bad but he definitely needs to stop thinking. His brain didn't work the first few times he tried and it's not gonna start working now. I am so sick of this war and it hasn't even started yet. My kung fu brothers and sisters are against the war, and so is our teacher. We train to kill every class, but we refuse to use this training unless put into a life-threatening situation. I don't think I will ever need to use the training, but I do it just in case. I use it only to help less fortunate people than myself or if I get into a life-threatening situation, which is yet to happen. I would not hesitate or think twice about killing terrorists, however, as they have no regard for innocence. Anyway, more of us are against this war than are for it. We could be using other means to fuel power plants instead of using oil. We could stop destruction of the rainforest. We could do a lot of things. But we don't. And I refuse to be a part of the mass destruction of the earth and its inhabitants any longer.

In any case, I've said what I believe, and I'm not changing my mind. We did this to ourselves in many ways. I refuse to watch the news anymore. I am sick of hearing about the next idiotic move made by Bush. We need a new president. I can't believe his four years aren't up yet. Time drags by too slowly.

You know what we should do? Forget about all the countries and people who have ever done any wrong to us, come together, and celebrate in the name of peace, play music, live off the land, enlighten and educate ourselves. And not pay taxes. I do not support the war, therefore I do not pay taxes to fuel the machine of death. Thoreau's philosophy on civil disobedience applies to our country's current status so well.