The Astral Pulse

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Wow...that is funny!

WHere did you get that??

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.

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/

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

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.

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

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

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

To the tune of "If You're Happy And You Know It" [:D]
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

ALERT: NEWS JUST IN

(http://www.harkley.co.uk/funnyfiles/1.jpg)

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

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.

LOL check out this website! It's got some stuff on Iraq too.
http://whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/

Quote

"I still think Saddam's not worth fighting"

I agree, there's a lot of other dictators, oppressors that are far worse than Saddam, but hey, Somalia & Zimbabwe don't have anything worth sending aircraft carriers, battleships, stealth bombers etc for.

Quote
"Why should we waste expensive weapons on him?"

How else do the armament companies show off their wares & attract new customers, without giving potential buyers a demonstration via war, of how effective their product is? It was worked out that during the Gulf war (round 1) that it cost the U.S government 2% of it's yearly budget, so war could be waged for years without too much of a dent in the budget.

Quote

"If we don't fight and win this war, oil prices are going to rise dramatically over the next few years, and there is going to be tremendous suffering as a result".

Oil is not an infinite fuel source & has to go sooner or later.Most people in 3rd world countries don't have thirsty V8 motors to push along, in fact, most of them don't have a vehicle, so what difference does oil make to them?

The only reason that countries like France, Germany & Russia (as BD hugh pointed out with his links)are against the war, are their own oil interests & trade with Iraq. So once they are payed off, they will quickly forget their "moral" stance on the U.S war against Iraq.

Besides, Europe didn't band together & form the Euro for no reason. It was/is a direct attempt to weaken the U.S dollar/strengthen their own resource based economies, so I can't see them wanting the U.S to get ahead.

Quote

"Let's be clear: Saddam Hussein is a fascist monster who has murdered thousands of his own people"

I agree, but so has various American presidents. History is written by the winners & Saddam doesn't have control over most of the worlds media.You just don't hear about it when it's on your own soil.

The Roman empire had Imperialist tendencies too & when you race around the globe taking peoples livelihood away from them, to make your own lifestyle better, it only makes many an enemy you need to watch & it makes the target so much easier for your enemy, because they KNOW who has the money & where they should concentrate their efforts.Of cousre the empire will attack if it's homeland is attacked, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? Who attacked who first?

Oil is a short term fuel source, so how is America & it's allies going to improve the lives of 3rd world countries, by ensuring 1st world countries have a better lifestyle? We are at the end of oils run in history, so far I havn't seen 3rd world countries benefiting when it's been the best of circumstances as far as oil supplies go, so how is it going to improve, when wars need to be waged to secure a foreign countries lifestyle & a dwindling supply of oil?

Men & Women from the age of 30 onwards,in first world countries have billions of dollars in investments through superanuation & shares in America. As they watch their bank accounts dwindle as shares plummet, they will suddenly warm to the idea of war & forget about how much harder those in 3rd world countries are doing it, even if it IS for the short term & largely for the benefit of the baby boomer generation.

Peace all

Mobius

And you didn't even acknowledge that cool website I posted up? For shame! (j/k) :). Yeah, Americans are too wayward and short-sighted. We're gonners just like the Roman Empire. I think these forums are good but now I have reached a point where talking about the corruption of our country can only do so much. It's time to take action. Better late than never. Protesting was not what I had in mind, however. A peaceful gathering for people who do not believe in this war would be more ideal. Protesting makes us look bad because it almost makes us look like we're trying to pick a fight with the guys in charge- All the signs, angry voices and taunts, etc. But a peace rally would be good for people who want no part in the war, now that's different. We can protest by not paying taxes (hey, they don't have room for all of us in the jails), not doing our "civil duties" (because the government is not doing its duties for the people) and boycotting companies like Microsoft (because it would have a large effect on our economy and it would be something the government could not ignore). And then there's always the Ghandi approach. I wish I could get a whole bunch of people and stand between the two armies so there would be no killing. But most combat these days is done with aircraft. It's just stupid. I hope someone affiliated with the government is reading these posts.

Italy, along with a host of other European nations are taking sides with the US on the Iraq issue:

Berlusconi discusses Iraq with Bush  
Italy Weekly  January 31, 2003
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told U.S. President George W. Bush during a meeting in Washington Thursday that Italy was among his closest allies in the Iraqi crisis and that he was there "to help President Bush convince everybody that only by standing united - the EU, the United States and Russia - we will be able to force Saddam Hussein see as his only option giving up weapons of mass destruction." Berlusconi mentioned the fear that after the Sept. 11 attacks, terror groups might be planning another horrible assault with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is known to possess and has not yet destroyed.
.
Berlusconi also said a war against Iraq was "the last option." He stressed that the "decision on peace that everyone wants is in Saddam Hussein's hands." Bush said Thursday he will give diplomay "weeks, not months," and said the United States would welcome Saddam going into exile.

< < Back to Start of Article Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told U.S. President George W. Bush during a meeting in Washington Thursday that Italy was among his closest allies in the Iraqi crisis and that he was there "to help President Bush convince everybody that only by standing united - the EU, the United States and Russia - we will be able to force Saddam Hussein see as his only option giving up weapons of mass destruction." Berlusconi mentioned the fear that after the Sept. 11 attacks, terror groups might be planning another horrible assault with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is known to possess and has not yet destroyed.
.
Berlusconi also said a war against Iraq was "the last option." He stressed that the "decision on peace that everyone wants is in Saddam Hussein's hands." Bush said Thursday he will give diplomay "weeks, not months," and said the United States would welcome Saddam going into exile. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told U.S. President George W. Bush during a meeting in Washington Thursday that Italy was among his closest allies in the Iraqi crisis and that he was there "to help President Bush convince everybody that only by standing united - the EU, the United States and Russia - we will be able to force Saddam Hussein see as his only option giving up weapons of mass destruction." Berlusconi mentioned the fear that after the Sept. 11 attacks, terror groups might be planning another horrible assault with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is known to possess and has not yet destroyed.
.
Berlusconi also said a war against Iraq was "the last option." He stressed that the "decision on peace that everyone wants is in Saddam Hussein's hands." Bush said Thursday he will give diplomay "weeks, not months," and said the United States would welcome Saddam going into exile. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told U.S. President George W. Bush during a meeting in Washington Thursday that Italy was among his closest allies in the Iraqi crisis and that he was there "to help President Bush convince everybody that only by standing united - the EU, the United States and Russia - we will be able to force Saddam Hussein see as his only option giving up weapons of mass destruction." Berlusconi mentioned the fear that after the Sept. 11 attacks, terror groups might be planning another horrible assault with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is known to possess and has not yet destroyed.
.
Berlusconi also said a war against Iraq was "the last option." He stressed that the "decision on peace that everyone wants is in Saddam Hussein's hands." Bush said Thursday he will give diplomay "weeks, not months," and said the United States would welcome Saddam going into exile.

dv

Hey Enderwiggan

I was actually wondering whether you & Clandestino are on the same mailing list I'm on called "VML", as the "your happy & you know it" & the "patriotic posters" were posted there about 2 or 3 days before you posted them here, either that, or it's a small world. I did enjoy those posters though.

After I saw those ones, I searched for ones on my own primeminister here in Oz, but turned up nothing. Something like a small lap dog or a rendition of that old looney tunes cartoon, where the little yappy dog follows around this big brute of a dog, doting & agreeing with every word & motion. Except, the little yappy dog (my primeminister)doesn't end up being the top dog, as he is only the toe jam in the big dogs nails.

Although I'm against war, I couldn't see myself using the same negative energy & protesting against war, but I will support peace & rally for it's cause any day.

Some good links there from Mj12 as well.
A quote from the link

"What is missing from the demand and supply argument is the concept of depletion. Depletion is the gradual exhaustion of a natural resource through consumption. The concept of depletion has tremendous implications for our future world that could play havoc with world economies and ultimately, war or peace."

Regardless of what the fuel source, the trade of the day etc. I can't help but feeling it is money itself, that is the biggest killer & there can NEVER have equality while it exists. Talents, abilities, productivity, progress are all squandered & destroyed in the name of money. It only serves as a bench mark for us competitive humans to dream of & try to attain ourselves & be as wealthy as the top 10 in the world. Meanwhile, the cost of this acheivement, has been a slow & erroneous destruction of our planet to supply that drive for the top.

Good journeys all

Mobius

Hey Mobius- No I am not on the same mailing list as Clandestino, I just happen to know about www.milkandcookies.com because of my former roommate. He IM'd me the link. You should also check out www.matazone.co.uk it's a website with some intelligent animations and some rather bizarre stuff :). It's one of the most original sites I've come arcoss.

I like your point about supply and demand. It definitely does come down to money, and I also agree that only when it is gone will we all be equal. Money is what allows third-world countries to exist. There should be no such thing as a country where the starvation and widespread sickness and exploitation of its men, women, and  children are just a part of daily life. Someone really needs to do something about the World Trade Organization. America is no different than the British when they had their huge empire. The Americans founded this country to get away from that control because they didn't believe in it, and now we've become a hypocrite nation. Isn't there a clause somewhere in the Constitution that states that if we the American people feel that the government has failed, that we can start over from the beginning and make a new government? Has anyone tried to exorcise this amendment?

vzx

Greetings everyone,

I was astonished to see the following quote by a member of the UK government in the media:

UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "can be absolutely confident" the UK is willing to use nuclear weapons "in the right conditions", and would use them "in extreme self-defence".

What sort of craziness is this? Are we to believe that we are going to war against Iraq due to their possible nuclear weapons program, and yet the UK government at least is prepared to use nuclear weapons against them?

I am against nuclear weapons, (not fanatically so, but rather as a point of principle), but who has the right to say that the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, N.Korea, India and numerous other countries can develop and manufacture nuclear weapons, but Iraq cannot?

The implication is that Iraq is more likely to use them, but I would suggest that even Saddam isn't that crazy - after all - what could he gain - there is no way he is ever going to be allowed to encroach outside of his own country as we have already seen with Kuwait.

No, this is about at least two things: Oil - is has already been stated that only those participating in an invasion of Iraq can share in the oil reserves. Glory - Bush wants to be seen as the person who finishes off the job in Iraq that his predecessors failed to do. And of course it is no coincidence at all that Colin Powell was the forces chiif in the last Gulf war that failed to go all the way in Iraq. In otherwords it is all about settling old scores at any cost.

The real problem in Iraq is that of human rights, and accordingly the emphasis should be on the humanitarian agenda, not sabre rattling and jingoism - this is supposed to be the twenty first century after all - not the middle ages.

With best regards,

Adrian.


 

Hi all

Thanks for the links Enderwiggan, most excellent.To me, the U.S, Iraq,whoever is made up of 90% people just trying to get on with life as happy & peacefully as possible & then there's the other 10%, made up of the wealthy elite who tell politicians what they should do & try to convince those less fortunate that their interests are the interests of the majority on this little blue ball called earth.It seems that all morals can be thrown out the window once enough money is added to the equation.

Adrian,I saw that report as well & had to wince hearing my own primeminister agree with it & then blast Nelson Mandela for being misinformed after he criticized the U.S over something that is obvious to the world, sheeeesh.

I saw another interview with Tony Blair, where he said something like "After we finish with Saddam, we should quickly move to resolve the nuclear issue with North Korea".

Then, I saw a report in the paper saying one of Saddams henchmen has jumped ship & told of numerous storage areas for biological weapons as well as missiles (whether that is true & they exist at all is another matter), all of which were supplied by North Korea.

It, seems a little odd that Korea is being cast aside as the next one on the hitlist, when it's known by the U.S & others that they are a supplier, unlike Iraq, who are trying to buy these weapons. Doesn't it make more sense to cut off the supplier, as they do with drug dealers etc. instead of the drug abuser?

I can't understand why Iraq evens gets a mention when it comes to ICBM's. In the sixties, the Cuban missile incident showed a closer reality for the use of ICBM's, but if ICBM's are so good at travelling intercontinentally, why did they need them so close to the U.S? I'm not sure if I've ever heard of ANYONE actually testing an ICBM over the distance required to assume mutually assured destruction.These things are 5 storeys tall & were obvious in photo's from the sixties. With satelite technology these days, they STILL can't show the way for UN inspectors.

They can't even get cruise missiles to hit with any sort of consistent accuracy, let alone risk sending a warhead on an ICBM over hundreds of other countries............. "whoops, sorry pakistan or china, that was an accident, we'll get the next one on target".

The only "safe" (can't believe I'm saying that)way of using a nuclear device, is from inside of the borders of the country to be attacked. It really is saber rattling.

Virtually every puppet leader set up by the CIA has turned on the U.S & not always for their own greed.So who's to say that if Saddam DOES go into exile or is killed, that the new puppet wont turn on the U.S as well, once they are dug in enough?

I wonder what would happen if someone shot Saddam & then set all the oil fields on fire? Would we stop to wonder about the biological/chemical/nuclear weapons then? And who might deploy them? Nahhhhhh, just save the oil!

Peace & positivity please you politicians. Or just send your kids to the front line & we'll all be behind you.

Mobius

vdzx

It is sad to see that most of the people in power today are fools with little or no honor at all. Why can't they set aside their pride for once? I will keep my back turned to this country until they do something about these people. God knows I can't just waltz in there and change things, as much as I'd like to. Clinton did great things for our economy. Bush on the other hand, well, quite the opposite. Why is it that republicans seem able to think only of themselves? Our nation: 10% rich, the rest at the mercy of the rich. This country was founded for a reason and now people are ignoring that reason. This is not the USA that I was taught about. This country is a big ball of suck. Because of loopholes in the constitution we have lost many of our freedoms. The government "rules" this country, but the corporations are the ones who run it. Everywhere you look, there's an ad. Every couple of moments, what you hear is an ad. Just about everything you buy comes from something that was made by legalized human slavery in other countries thanks to the WTO. The food you eat is not natural, even animal products, fruits and vegetables have been genetically altered in some way. And now they have cloned a human, maybe even two, called forth a soul to the earth to live a life (probably one that will be full of pain, suffering, and ridicule) just because they wanted to see if they could do it. I really wish someone would take the rug out from under us and make us fall on our arses in a most humiliating and humbling way. And I hope they do it honorably because we would be even more humiliated. Someone needs to teach our government a lesson and show them that they cannot go around being so arrogant. And someone needs to put the word out to some of the rich folks that they are not superior. They are still mortal.

Adrian I agree with you to an extent. However, when you talk about the idea that what gives britain, U.S. and other such countries the right to develop nuclear weapons but not iraq/korea I have to differ. I believe that the fact we have weapons is more of a sad consequence of the cold war, but the fact is we have the technology. When it comes to the iraqie example there are 2 major reasons why they should not have them;

1/ Whatever way you look at it, Saddam is a dictator who is brutal and murderous and has in the past developed biological weapons which he genuinely intended to use and put his feelers out for nuclear weapons. would you want him to have such weapons?

2/ As I mentioned above, we have nuclear and other dangerous weapons, thats just a fact we have to deal with. We know the capability of them so why shouldn't we do our best to make sure that other states dont obtain them as well.

At one time there was emphasis on nuclear non proliferation treaties, but it seems like we are entering an era of rule by the biggest bully. Bush has ignored most of the international treaties on the enviorment and is putting no energy into peaceful solution of nukes and bioweapons-but would Iraq and N. korea comply?
Unfortunately if the US attacks Iraq and Saddam uses bioweapons does that  then make the attack justified?

Greetings,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lysear

Adrian I agree with you to an extent. However, when you talk about the idea that what gives britain, U.S. and other such countries the right to develop nuclear weapons but not iraq/korea I have to differ. I believe that the fact we have weapons is more of a sad consequence of the cold war, but the fact is we have the technology. When it comes to the iraqie example there are 2 major reasons why they should not have them;

1/ Whatever way you look at it, Saddam is a dictator who is brutal and murderous and has in the past developed biological weapons which he genuinely intended to use and put his feelers out for nuclear weapons. would you want him to have such weapons?

---

Well call me cynical, but there are many countries in the world who have produced or are producing nuclear weapons, including, as we know N. Korea - who can hardly be regarded as stable in view of their recent actions. Why aren't the "allies" sending fleets to all of these countries to disarm them so that they can hold the balance of power/terror?

Maybe it has something to do with the 200 billion barrels of oil under Iraq [:)] The USA has already suggested that only those countries who participate in the military action can share in the oil reserves. How does USA invading Iraq for its oil and strategic position differ from Iraq invading Kuwait for its oil and strategic position?

I don't condone the regime of Saddam Hussein, but this weapons thing seems to be just an excuse to take control there. If it is a human rights matter why don't they say so? I while they are about it, maybe the USA, Britain and others would like to contribute a fraction of their defense budgets to underpriveledged countries to help famine, and other cultural problems? What indeed gives the USA and its allies the right to go gung ho anywhere they please in the world? It is notable that even many in the United Nations oppose these actions, including the secretary general who said:

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on Saturday urged the U.S. to seek international consensus before taking military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. The issue of Iraq's disarmament, he said, is "not for any one state but for the international community as a whole."

I have to say I agree with this position - 200 billion barrels of oil or not.

With best regards,

Adrian.

I'm not sure this war is about oil. It's more likely about the US placing a NATO ring around the former Soviet Union's neck.  Oil's just a good distraction to keep people arguing.

NATO has a mandate--it can become nvolved in disputes in neighboring countries--we must be "neighboring" Russian states and countries in order to "get involved," extend our control, use those areas resources (much more valuable than oil in Iraq or gas in Afghanistan), and keep Russia from ever returning to the former balance of power it had with the US.

Take a look at your map and where the US has been involved lately and where we have a NATO presence: Afghanistan (we trained, armed and cooperated with the Taliban), the former Yugoslavia (we trained, armed and operated with the KLO terrorists), Georgia . . . where is Irag?  Very strategically placed in a spot that plugs a hole in that "collar" surrounding the former USSR.

I'm not that scared about a madman with (unproven) one or two nuclear weapons.  But if America is doing what I personally think it is, then we should remember that Russia has traditionally avoided war, but when the Russian people's backs are aganst a wall, they fight like bears.  And they have REAL nuclear power at their disposal . . .

That is a very good point. It will be interesting to see who stoops so low as to use nuclear weapons first. Russia also has an understanding of the apocolyptic power of nuclear weapons, and I don't think they'd use them until a good majority of their soldiers were dead and they had no other means of defense. There are many reasons why I do not join the army- Once you do, you're the government's biatch and they can do whatever they want with you, send you to die in a stupid and meaningless war. Though the government still has a grudge with Russia, even though we supposedly "get along" okay, I once again do not see how their actions are justified. Iraq is its own sovereign state and I think the CIA should stop throwing in puppet leaders, as they often turn against us in one way or another (you think it could have anything to do with them finding out that they are puppets?). The ultraviolence of our culture has seeped into the government, which seems to have to go to war every time it doesn't get its way.

OK boys and girls, shush for a moment! (claps hands, blows whistle) Come with me on a little trip where we shall catch our breaths and gain a little perspective.(we all hold hands and fly to Someplace in the real-time-zone, maybe the moon, where we can look down on big blue marble Earth)

Frequent Astral travelers, like Monroe, Casteneda, etc., came to a disturbing realization long ago that we live in a Predator Universe. Stars and galaxies devour and put out more energy than we can even conceive.  On Earth, what we call the Food Chain is the same energy transfer . . . devouring energy and putting it out . . . life feeding on death.  Humans, as part of the Food Chain, are predators.  We use.  We take energy and transform it into other things.  It's our job.

You can try to get out of the Cycle . . . become a vegetarian, a peacenik, a(pinko [;)]) communist, an envionmentalist, a buddhist, join a co-op, buy a bike, whatever you think it takes to sideline yourself from this deadly dance.  But you just can't.  Even the act of breathing kills . . . little mites you don't even see.  And after all, you have to eat, you have to keep warm. You must transform energy. (I thought I was taking my cats out of the Food Chain by keeping them indoors and feeding them kibble.  But what's in the kibble?  Chicken bits, fish bits, bits I don't even want to know about.  There is no escape.)

In human history, War is the norm, Peace is the exception.  In fact, our very concept of "Peace" might be a little warped.  Is "Peace" nothing more than the rare, brief moment in earth-time where we are blissfully unaware of the Predator Universe?   Or does "Peace" happen when we are in the rare, priveleged situation where we get to do all the devouring, and everyone and everything else here on earth (animal flesh, plants, natural resources like oil, the toil of other people who aren't like "us") is the Devoured?  

I'm starting to wonder.  I wrote a little essay on the Predator Universe and lost it in an unintended keystroke, so I must not have been meant to post that rant that day.  But bear with me here, I might not be the most eloquent in putting this out, but think about War, the U.S., Iraq, the rest of the world and its history in its overall context of a Predator Universe.   The Iraq/US/World/oil/power struggle is just another dance at the Predator Prom. You say it's not RIGHT. But in the predator universe, what is "right?"  I personally want Saddam Hussein and his two brothers to be transformed into tiny bloody bits, to become food for worms and bacteria.  But at what cost?  I've not yet decided.

OK, I've creeped myself out big time.  What to do now?  How are we going to live in this dog-eat-dog universe?  Do we want to be the dog, or the, um, er . . . the dog?  I guess the answer is that we can choose how we play out the Predator drama in our human interactions, if we keep our eyes open and stay aware.  We can devour the earth's resources fast, or we can devour them slow, but we can't stop devouring them.  And someday, we shall become the Devoured.  Our turn will come.

I don't know what to say next.  Perhaps I should log off and eat something, turn up the heat in my home, and gas up my car.  I don't know.  Maybe I'll just go shopping.  That's what I do when I'm stressed out.

Cheers,

Tom Bearden has some interesting point on this whole topic, from the point of a military stretegist facing a whole new type of enemy:
http://cheniere.org/correspondence/010103.htm
Although he does seem to jump to conclusions in places, he presents a whole new viewpoint. A scary one at that....
...madness...

That which lies outside of us we cannot control. Not wanting [to control] what is outside of us is the goal to happiness and balance. Controlling what is inside of ourselves, we can make ourselves happy, and we don't have as much to worry about. There is no escape from the predatorial nature, but we can use it to our advantage. Do not be fooled by any veil. We as humans were given free will. We are the movers, the builders. We can create or destroy out of our free will. We can choose freedom or captivity. We can simply use what is around us. Vegetarians eat plants because plants do not have a central nervous system that would otherwise allow them to feel pain the way animals do when they are slaughtered. It is true that our teeth are designed for eating everything- animal, plant, fungus, etc. But we can control where we get our energy. Let's look at the food chain again. In the energy cycle it makes more sense to eat plants because they get energy from the sun, the primary source of energy on earth. Animals get energy from plants, so some of the plant's energy gets used up by the animal. By the time we get the energy (from eating animals), we have lost a lot of energy from the plants because the animal which we have consumed has used a lot of that energy. Plants provide more energy for us than animals. A diet centered around meat has been proven far less healthy than a diet centered around grains, fruits and vegetables, nuts, etc. Now, if we take this concept and apply it to humanity's relations, we can see that the people who have chosen not to take part in war are happier than those who have taken part in it (*cough* Canada *cough*). The oil that we use will one day run out. That is an undisputable fact. So what do we do about it? We need to research alternative methods of getting and using energy. We need alternate forms of fuel. We have to make sure those companies are not bought out by the oil companies, who did this to many research facilities in the 60's and 70's to make sure that they would stay in business, foiling JFK's plans. It really bothers me that this is allowed to happen. We are human beings, for crying out loud, not a bunch of ravenous animals. We have intelligence and we can communicate in high levels. We should be able to find a way around all of this red tape. We should break through it even. The war clock is at 5 minutes of Midnight. We are so close to war it's not even funny. We must act now by protesting and speaking out. We all have a voice in this country whether the government wants us to or not. Liberate yourselves. The time to act is upon us. If you are against it, act now, and if you're for it, act now. But in either case, act fast.

Just something to keep in mind:

"Violence ends by defeting itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

In light of all that has happened since Sept. 11th, I bring you this quote:

"Tradition is the root of all racism- Many people are still bound by tradition; when the elder generation says 'no' to something, then these other people will strongly disapprove of it as well. If the elders say that something is wrong, then they will also believe that it is wrong. They seldom use their minds to find out the truth and seldom express sincerely their real feeling. The simple truth is that these opinions on such things as racism are traditions, which are nothing more than a formula laid down by these elder peoples' experience. As we progress and time changes, it is necessary to reform this formula."
-Bruce Lee

there have been many acts of violence against those of Middle-Eastern/Arab descent, and it must stop. This war has nothing to do with racism, but I can imagine that in this country there is racism because of what is all over the news. The US has always had tensions with the Middle East since the end of WWII, and there are many things contributing to it, including the Cold War and the need for oil, as well as all the paranoia about Iraq's hidden weapons. If we know they have these weapons, then why don't we try to defend ourselves from them instead of just going to war with them? We definitely have the technology.

this quote can also apply to Palestine and Israel and all the suicide bombings over there. That sort of ties in with the Iraqi war because Israel is the only democracy in that area, and we are giving them weapons and they are attacking Palestine and Palestine is fighting back. Just like the upcoming war with Iraq, I see something wrong with both sides of the struggle between Israel and Palestine. Palestinian suicide bombers are killing innocent civilians in Israel, including men, women, teenagers, and children. This is terrorism and it is a cowardly way to fight. On the other hand, we are supplying Israel with weapons, so Israel has quite an advantage over Palestine. Palestine is not recognized as an official state. Palestine does not like Jews, but I think they should have their own state. Soemone needs to speak out against this hatred over there. It is being overlooked. Little blistering areas of hatred are springing up all over the world, in South America, Africa, the Middle East, and many other places. They will develop into real problems if we don't do something about them now. There is only one race- The human race. And we should think and act as one race would think and act. If this is a predatorial Universe, then it would make more sense for us to act together to dominate anyway.

By the way, Tisha, I would also like to add that I do see where you're coming from, and from that perspective it does make sense. But it's just so horrible I can't believe it. If this is nature, it kind of defeats the purpose of some things. I think the world is man-made or at least re-made by man. Now, where's that MADE IN CHINA stamp located so I can prove it?[:P]

Remember in WWII, all countries didn't jump into the war at once.  It took a period of time for the elites of different countries to decide that it was in our best interests to go to war.  I don't know if many U.S. citizens realize this, but for years the U.S. let hundreds of thousands of jews get gassed because we thought it was "none of our business." It wasn't until the U.S. thought it in its best interest that Congress/the Pres sent troops overseas - - and by then the war had been going on quite awhile.  Then the U.S. bragged like we saved the day.  Maybe we did, sort of, but PLEASE.  

Everyone read their history!   We rarely fight solely for humanitarian reasons (otherwise our troops would be spending more time in Africa).  We SAY we do (example: civil war/slavery? please!), but there is always a REAL reason in the background. It usually has to do with power/resources.

So, G.W. Bush will play the bad guy and start the war, for oil, to get rid of Saddam, to prevent weapons from going to the hands of fanatics, maybe all three.  But if the war drags on, there is no telling who will jump in.  Maybe Russia, France, Belgium, Germany will have a change of heart once their elites feel personally threatened by the situation.  Who knows what will happen?

And folks, we ARE racists.  We've been "fighting" the Arab nations for centuries.  Think crusades.  Jews vs. "Cannanites."  Our modern foreign policies.  It's disgraceful.  We de-humanize Arabs, characterizing them as stupid fanatical nuts with headscarves, i.e., "towelheads."  We don't even remember that our modern civilizations BEGAN with the Arabs - writing, mathematics, commerce, you-name-it.  What a disgrace to US!

One more thing:  I'm a National Public Radio (NPR) nut and listen often to guest historians who KNOW Middle-east history, and understand this situation in this context better than ALL of us do.  NPR is notoriously liberal; however, most of the well-educated and informed experts who NPR interviews know that we HAVE to do SOMETHING about Saddam, he's a bad dude, that containment has done nothing but hurt the Iraqi people, etc. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but for once the U.S. (i.e., GW Bush and his administration) has decided to learn from history and to do the right thing.  

A hard and unpopular choice. Cross your fingers everyone, we're going to war.  We won't know if it was the right thing until it's over.

Tisha: "We are stuck between a rock and a hard place." that we are, Tisha, that we are. And in many ways we helped put ourselves there. Well, if there has to be a war, then I hope that good can come to all sides from it. I hope this benefits the Iraqi citizens and all the Arab nations. I hate war more than anything. Because of it, my friend and former roommate is over there fighting for the US. in the National Guard. So is his girlfriend. But it was their decision to join and I honor them for it. Fighting for our country is not an easy decision to make, especially if you're like me and disagree with a lot of what it does and/or how it works. Still, people like me are kept alive by their sacrafices. Personally I don't think I would ever survive in the army, even with my kung fu training (unless I had been training all my life).

xxc

Five words: "What a crock," and "Red Scare." The government sure is doing a great job of protecting our freedoms, aren't they? If they take them away from us, we can't lose them, now can we?

WAR CRIMES
A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-toc.htm

Mobius

http://www.pbs.org/now/resources/debate.html

HAH. Now I've got a link too [^]  Check it out, it's good stuff.  Responsible journalism.  Educated viewpoints.  I love PBS!

zx

Tisha!  I was very happy to see your complex, objetive take on this issue.  I, like you, see all the negative elements and impacts of this new war...but I too see that it is truly not an entirely bad thing.  When are people going to call a spade a spade.  Recent events have made it painfully obvious that Saddam is no different than other terrorists.  France and Germany will change their minds quickly when they have their own Sept. 11's.

Thanks for the links.
The following was from one of the links:
---------ACLJ Applauds President Bush For His Position On Iraq

September 12, 2002
(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law, said today it fully supports President Bush's strategy in dealing with Iraq. The following statement was issued following President Bush's remarks to the United Nations by ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow:

"The President has put forth a sound and reasonable strategy for dealing with Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein. We support the President's call for a regime change in Iraq and applaud his efforts to challenge the United Nations to enforce numerous resolutions that have been ignored by Iraq. The President presented a clear and compelling case of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein continue to build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, engage in international terrorism, and are responsible for egregious human rights violations.

"Iraq represents a real threat to freedom and security - not only to America - but to our friends around the world. Without question, President Bush is justified in pursuing a strategy that protects America and our freedoms. At a time when we are engaged in a global war against terrorism, we cannot stand by and watch Iraq and Saddam Hussein continue to ignore U.N. resolutions. We encourage President Bush to take whatever action is necessary to protect the United States."

The American Center for Law and Justice is an international public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law. The web site address is www.aclj.org.

xv

Trisha, I don't disagree that there is a natual cycle of life-death-life, but war is not equivalent to the "food chain." War is a wanton, conscious, moral choice of man to destroy other men unnecessarily.

Oh . . . so then we were supposed to let Hitler do whatever he wanted, then?  We should just lie back and let people engage in genocide?  What, folks think we should just shake our fingers and say "tsk tsk you shouldn't do that?" Shun them? What, people think we haven't already tried 12 years of non-military intervention in Iraq?  

I'm not pro-war. Like many, I'm a cynic, and suspicious of the motives of this whole Iraq situation.  To me, George W. Bush personifies agressive, southern (Texan to be exact), pro-military, anti-intellectual religious fundamentalism, the leader of a Southern takeover of the U.S. and the rest of the world, and I don't like it one bit.  So I am always quick to judge him harshly.

But I read history, and it's evident that George Bush is at least listening to other people who KNOW the history of the U.S.'s disgraceful Middle-East policies.  We're up to our neck in excrement. The Arab masses are striking back and actually HURTING us, and the world is too small anymore for the U.S. to ignore the supposedly inconsequential masses on the other side of the world, or to ignore the consequences of our deals-with-the-devil with evil dictators for oil.

So NOW what?  The answer is that the U.S. does whatever it can to make things right. It's too late to apologize. We don't have time to ponder long-term strategies, because revenge is smoking on our front porch. So "making things right" will first be toppling the evil dictator that WE - the U.S. - set up.  The rest of the Middle East hates Saddam, his own people hate him.  

The next step should be seeing to the enfranchisement of the whole world.  Not necessarily to make every place a Democracy, because there are a lot of different ways to run a country.  But at the very least, give the voiceless masses their voice, so they stop blowing themselves up in protest.

As for the U.S. posture overseas, well, absolute power corrupts absolutely, right?  It's my prayer that over time sovereign nations will develop enough power-currency to deal with the U.S. on it's own level. France and Germany are enough of a powerhouse to ruin the U.S.'s day.  World politics should be like that, with no one nation overrunning the rest.

Enough of a rant for the day!  I'm off to sunny Florida on vacation. Let's hope it goes without incident.

One more thing . . . War IS a part of the natural life/death cycle.  Someday, sit outside and watch the weeds battle for domination on your front lawn (they're slow, but effective). Or try maintaining a household with multiple CATS.  Or children even.  Or, watch National Geographic on TV: Those big beasts will kill for territory as fast as they'll kill for a good meal.  Battle is not just a human thing, but rather one of the more painful steps in the Dance.

Not that I like it!

Tisha- To add to your point, Wars also exist because of the Law of Opposites. Yin and yang. In order for there to be peace, war (or at least the concept thereof) must exist. It's good that people think war sucks. That shows that they are using their free will to do good on earth, and not (just) evil. We've all done evil things in one way or another, to one degree or another, no matter how minute they may seem (even your thoughts can be evil). But by doing this we can increase our desire to do well. Mistakes and failure are part of success, just as caving in is part of spiritual advancement, enlightenment, and understanding. What doesn't kill us only makes us stronger.

This does not mean we shouldn't try to stop the war. The effort is an opportunity to put a good mark on your soul. Just as one will use weed killers on their lawn to try to get rid of the weeds, or an animal will defend itself from its predator, we can try to stop the war, for that is also natural.

vd

"The Arab masses are striking back and actually HURTING us"
Striking BACK – that is the critical word here. America and England have already killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam has, through repeated bombing missions, and economic sanctions. Our countries have flows tens of thousands of missions over Iraq, bombing the hell out of their infrastructure – not just military sites, but mostly things like water treatment plants, herds of cattle, innocent farmers, etc etc. What possible legitimate reason could there be for doing this? It certainly isn't in any UN charter – ironic really, we accuse Saddam of breaking the rules, when our governments break them every day.
The reason we are implementing such a horrific program of terror against these innocents is IMO to make sure that they never, ever, pose a threat to our interests in the region, but also to keep everything nice and unstable, because this drives oil prices up, and means that somewhere, there is always a bogeyman (because nobody in the military makes money without a bogeyman – read some Al Martin).
Saddam poses no threat, not to anyone, except perhaps his own people and even then – less of a threat than white-collared economically-driven genocide (500,000 Iraqi children dead – I don't care what he has done, or what he could do, NOTHING can EVER justify this, it is vile to even try and do so), and less of a threat than our multi-$million bombers and smart bombs.
Right now though, sick as I am of Blair and his empty-rhetoric, I am proud of my country. Very proud, because yesterday 1-2 million British people took to the streets – the biggest rally our country has ever seen – to protest on this issue. Not that I can see it doing anything, democracy has essentially been dead for years, only now it is turning more rotten on the surface, and is visible for what it is. Hollow. We shout about our democracy being so superior, but they are all the same now, politicians driven by the economic agenda not of the people, but of the muti-nationals, the CEO's and heads of companies that dwarf governments.
And as someone pointed out on another forum I visit (cloud busters), by the time the troops move in, the war is already over. It has been going on for years now, ever since the Gulf, invasion is just wrapping it up. Democracy? You'd be lucky...
Feeling slightly sick
Rob

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Antiwar_Movement

Every time Bush opens his mouth, I am reminded that he is more a fool than I remember from the last time he opened his mouth. What's he got for a brain, a deformed liver?!

So who wants to help me create a man-made mobile island and call it our own country? Or better yet, how about some sort of biodome on the bottom of the deepest sea or ocean in the world?

This article was in last week's edition of the onion (www.theonion.com)....
Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance
WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

LOL!

I love The Onion! It's such a great site.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist myself, but I've read in a couple places that a nuclear war is no longer possible, even if Bush decides to push the button because the sun has turned from a hydrogen sun to a helium sun which makes all the bombs duds.  This would be nice if true, but it is prob something someone made up.

If you really want to know the answer to that theory, you should try surfing NASA's websites. Or just search a lot of independent websites.

p.s. And yeah it definitely would be nice if that were true. I'm planning on doing some research into this myself.

Here's a link to NASA's site about HOW Hydrogen is converted to Helium and the energy that is created as a result.  So, the sun hasn't changed from one gas to the other, it's converting one gas into the other.  The engergy created is what "heats" our planet.  The link is http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/exhibits/stars/star_6.html

Suffice to say, nukes are NOT DUDS, they're very powerful and destructive creations of mankind.  For more details on just how powerful the various nuclear bombs are ... go to http://www.bilderberg.org/hbomb.htm ... it will be a sad day when someone uses another one of these bombs on humanity.  Specifically, check out http://www.bilderberg.org/hbomb.htm#tests

Yes they are unfortunately powerful.  I hope and pray that I will never see one be used in my lifetime.
I also believe the USA is pretty hypocritical when it asks for everyone else to disarm when it has the largest stockpile of these weapons than anyone else in the world. [V]

And stuff like this really pisses me off about Bush...

=======================================

Feb. 18, 2003, 2:50pm EST
PRES. BUSH NOT SWAYED BY ANTI-WAR PROTESTS

President Bush said Tuesday he would not allow the weekend's protests against a possible war in Iraq change U.S. policy toward the government of Saddam Hussein.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_02-18-03.html

=======================================

I wouldn't lose an second of sleep if he was impeached, in fact, I'd probably sleep better!  And have my first successful OBE because of it! [;)]

Oh yeah, and they are doing a great job of breaking down eupropean unity, forming a split in policy. No doubt that was also part of the plan.
ggrrrr!!!!!!

I gds

A guy I worked told me his nickname for CNN: Communist News Network... He's more into politics than anyone I know.  He's very intelligent and daily writes into news stations or calls them and expresses his opinions.  
Anyways, when it comes to biased news, I'd say Fox News is the worst.  CNN is pretty high up there too.  
I found recently that a good place to look for news is PBS (www.pbs.org)

It's sad how even the news stations are using "mind tricks" to influence us.  As if the government wasn't doing enough of it already...

Looting?! Iraqis themselves are destroying their very own history. It seems that Iraqis people only understand Freedom of looting. Sadly, majority of Iraqis don't appreciate peace. Civil conflicts and oppression will continue in Iraq. Liberation by USA? The people themselves have to liberate themselves first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epsilon

A guy I worked told me his nickname for CNN: Communist News Network... He's more into politics than anyone I know.

---

LOL: I like that. In the UK the BBC is often nickmaned the Blair Broadcasting Corporation.

Yours,
Frank

quote:

---

Originally posted by EnderWiggin

I love The Onion! It's such a great site.

---

Same here, some of the articles have me in stitches. Especially this one http://www.theonion.com/onion3913/oil_wells_liberated.html

Yours,
Frank

If only we could stop using oil altogether... Who needs an economy anyway? We should go back to growing our own fruits and vegetables, as well as finding alternate energy sources for thigns like heat (i.e. designing one's house to retain heat well and be able to increase it using solar power) or even transportation. We could get rid of a lot of stuff.

What people need to survive is not tools, but the knowledge behind their concepts and construction. Some of us are better at doing things than others. But I am sure that we can take our skills with us wherever we go. I still don't believe in money.

I say screw foreign oil. Right now we can turn any carbon based waste into oil, gas, minerals, solid carbon fuels, and sterilized water. I wish they would build on in every major city. We need more of these plants:
http://www.changingworldtech.com

Screw oil period. The oil companies run everything. Why don't we just find alternative energy sources? Oil pollutes anyway.

Hey Enderwiggin

True as far as it goes.  WE MUST, really MUST, get away from oil as fuel.  That much is clear.  It will take time though.  Maybe not as long as Whitley Strieber thinks, IF we had a little vision and were willing to look at things open mindedly as a people.  

That's one of the big problems though.  If you are saying anything other than "Oil then, oil now, and oil forever," (sort of like that infamous segregation comment) then people will naysay and hold you in contempt, even think you "un-American" (if you happen to be from the U.S.).  If anyone believes differently, they are an "environmentalist whacko."

Even many in the enviro community will do that, albeit in their own different way.  If they were smart, they would take President Bush up on the hydrogen economy thing, throw their support behind it, then totally HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE on it (not allowing Bush to get away with making it a smokescreen for other intentions, since that is their concern).  But many of the environmentalists lack vision too.  They want to throw all their energy into a combination of partisan politics and to plans that depend on the idea that oil is all there is and all there ever will be.  (Then too, some pretenders to membership in the enviro community might well be infiltrators from a certain far left movement started in the 19th century, who do not care to see real progress, environmentally or economically, let alone both, by a capitalist country or institution.)

Well I think "Oil then, oil now, and oil forever" (in spirit, not that people are actually using this one as a slogan) will eventually go the way of that similar segregation comment into the ash heap of history, problably with fewer idiotic people pining away for it too.  But the question is how much unnecessary suffering and death in the meantime?

quote:

---

Originally posted by EnderWiggin

Screw oil period. The oil companies run everything. Why don't we just find alternative energy sources? Oil pollutes anyway.

---

It always amazes me how people just stick to society's ways and don't question anything. They do whatever people "in power" tell them to do. It's just one big mess. Everyone's trying to control everyone else. I say we just get rid of all forms of government and be responsible for ourselves. No more blaming things on others. It's our job to become educated and be aware of the consequences of our actions. I'm sick of the government being so involved in everyone's personal life. I'm sick of worrying about losing my rights as a citizen of this country, and I'm sick of paying taxes that fund things I do not support.

Just thought I'd post this interesting alternative-view on the War with Iraq, future world changes and how all of this will affect everyone globally.  This comes from Whitley Streiber's journal entry at http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=111

Whitley has an internet radio show that's similar to Art Bell.  He discusses some very enlightening and "different" topics that mainstream media won't touch with a 10-foot pole.

While I don't completely agree with everything Whitley says below, it does make you THINK about the larger picture behind the looming threat of war with Iraq and the inner "secret" workings of the government of our country.

Enjoy!
- Greg :)

**********************************************
Sadly, we are very close to war with Iraq. This war is being called 'needless' and the president is being excoriated as a warmonger. However, this is not, for the most part, being done by the Democratic leadership, but by people who are not close to the realities, and knowledge, of congress.
The reason is that every diplomatic effort that was made by the previous administration to get Saddam Hussein to change his ways failed, and most congresspeople can see this. Meanwhile, the longer Hussein remains in power, the more unstable the situation becomes. Even if the Democrats had remained in office, they might well have ended up in a situation similar to the one the administration is in now.

Saddam Hussein, by his actions, is demanding war. This complex and brilliant man is much like Adolf Hitler, whose overweening arrogance compelled him to crucify his own people on the cross of his twisted ideals.

There are lots of people beating the drum that this war is needless. Saddam sympathizers, anti-semites, peace-at-any- price idealists who are ill-read in their history, and many ordinary people very much like me, who think that there just has to be a better way. But the current peace movement has the same creepy quality that pre-WWII peace movement had. It was hard to tell where the peace lovers stopped and the Hitler lovers started, and everybody was real quiet about the Jews. Add, in the case of this peace movement, a surprising indifference to the danger to the third world of high oil prices, and you can see a deeply inhumane aspect to it that certainly was not present, for example, in the anti-war movement of the 1960s.

Let's be clear: Saddam Hussein is a fascist monster who has murdered thousands of his own people, and perverted the sanctions process in order to prevent its humanitarian provisions from protecting ordinary Iranians, while using them to surround himself and his croines with luxuries. He's no different from Hitler, and the peace movement, if it is ever to attain credibility, must face that, if it succeeds, it must also take moral responsibility for him.

Normally, I would be in the peace camp, but not this time. There isn't a better way than war, and the situation is much more serious than it appears--not because Saddam has the devastating weapons the administration fears, but because of what is happening in the world of oil.

If we don't fight and win this war, oil prices are going to rise dramatically over the next few years, and there is going to be tremendous suffering as a result. When oil prices are high, the first world is inconvenienced, but the third world starves, and the peril to these helpless people is what we must seek to avoid. That's in the near term. In the medium term, the situation is, if anything, more perilous.

As I write this, evidence is growing that the climate is already in a process of sudden change. The Laurentian sea is being flooded with fresh water from the melting north polar cap. Greenland is melting much faster than predicted. The flow rates of the Gulf Stream and dropping.

Once this climate change takes place--after the upheavals of the first few years--the northern hemisphere is going to be much colder. There will be a massive and permanent increase in fuel needs across the whole northern half of the region, where the most productive (and oil-hungry) segment of the human population lives.

At the same time, there is every evidence that the middle east is going to decline further and further into a stance of profound hostility toward the west, meaning that, just as we are at our most desperate, they will be at their most hostile.

Obviously, we must try to do something to prevent even the chance of such a scenario happening. In itself, though, it isn't a reason to go to war--not as long as it remains hypothetical, anyway.

But there are other reasons, many of them. As sad as it is, going to war may be the most humanitarian thing we can do.

If the preparations Saddam Hussein has been making since the end of the Gulf War mean anything, it will be a dangerous and difficult affair. Unfortunately, the American people are expecting an easy war, if there could ever be such a thing. If that's what happens, all will be well. But if it gets hard, then our resolve will obviously be tested.

What troubles me is the total lack of media interest in educating the public about why the president would think that this war is so essential to our welfare and the welfare of the world that he would be willing to engage in it even without the support of the UN, and even without a coalition of allies. But there are reasons, and they are good ones.

Of course, I cannot be sure of the president's motives. They may be simple and self-serving: a desire to correct a world- historical error made by his father, and to guarantee a flow of cheap oil, thus perpetuating his administration and concealing the riskiness of his long term energy policy behind a curtain of plentiful oil.

Nevetheless, I know that I am going to get excoriated for writing this. But it's the truth. Ideals are not going to change the reality of the situation. We're in a pickle, and it just isn't clear that there is another way out--at least, not one that will actually help.

When Unknowncountry.com ran a poll on war in Iraq, 58% said that you thought that we should not go to war under any circumstances. I deplore war just as much as you do, but there are overwhelming reasons why this must be done, that go far beyond the publicly stated goal of removing a potential future threat from a mad dictator, or rescuing a beautiful country full of good people from slavery and terror.

In recent years, the petroleum community had come to believe, with substantial evidence, that there were around 200 billion barrels of oil in the area of the Caspian Sea. This is as much oil as exists in the middle east. The mere existence of this oil had decisively altered the character of the market. Because the current oil producers saw this as a huge supply overhang, they viewed the world as a buyer's market for their product. OPEC was therefore accommodating and relatively unaggressive, and oil prices stayed low.

However, over the past two years, it has become clear that the Caspian area does not contain nearly that much oil. In fact, it doesn't contain much oil at all. There are perhaps 20 billion barrels in the region, and much of this oil appears to be so highly sulfured that it's not really commercially viable, because the costs of moving it and refining it will exceed its value.

This has radically changed the oil picture. We've moved from a buyer's market to a seller's market, and the oil producing countries are well aware of this. What is worse, there have been rumors for a long time that the Saudi reserves are not as high as published. This means that the market may remain a seller's market for a long time to come. In fact, the only thing that would change that would be a worldwide depression brought on by high oil prices.

Easy to say, oh, we mustn't go to war for oil! We have no right to do that! We've got to conserve, not feed our bloated SUVs more gas we really don't need.

Maybe so, but if that is your position, then please do this: you and your family go absolutely without gasoline. Plus, you pretend that the trucks that deliver food to your grocery store are stranded. Don't even walk to the store for food. See how long you can manage it. A couple of days? A week? When will your kids start to cry from hunger? When will you actually begin to starve?

What you will be doing is living the way more and more of the world's people will be living if oil prices continue to rise. Because this is not just an issue of first world consumption. High oil prices slow down our economies, but out in the third world where live the great masses of human beings, high oil prices flat-out kill.

To those of you who say that war for oil is immoral, have you thought past the SUVs to the little people of the world? Probably not. It's interesting how rhetoric and blind ideals always seem to plant themselves in a bed of human suffering.

War is ugly. But, in this case, the alternative is far uglier.

I have lived through a depression brought on by oil scarcity, back in the seventies. I well remember the terror of the gas lines, of not being able to get gasoline anywhere at any price, and just what that meant. It was bad enough in the US and France and Japan. In Zambia, in Brazil, in Burma it meant that the busses and the trucks stopped, and the food ran out.

Meanwhile, talk show hosts are singing a siren song right now about how the free market will always supply us with more oil.

It's another pipedream, nothing more. The free market is well and good--unless somebody else gains control over something the others can't live without. Then watch out: the free market is liable to make you a slave.

I don't think that we are running out of oil, but what is happening is that control of the market is moving into the hands of the suppliers, and the suppliers in the past have been able to operate as a monopoly, and are showing signs of doing so again.

The war will result in an immediate drop in world oil supplies. The AP has predicted $4.84 a gallon for gasoline in the US. But the International Energy Agency says it can deliver millions of stored barrels for up to a month. If Saddam burns his oil fields, as is highly likely, it is likely that oil will go to $45.00 a barrel in the short term. It is now at $35.00 a barrel, and reserves onshore in the US are at 1975 levels.

But that's the short term. In the long term, Iraq holds a gigantic reserve of oil, enough to convert the market at a stroke from a seller's to a buyer's market and keep it that way for years. Enough, in other words, to keep those trucks in Africa and South America and Asia running, carrying the food and supplies essential to life.

It will give us in the first world the breathing room we need to develop alternative energy sources that are real on the massive scale that we need, and to evolve efficent, useful and--above all--practical means of conservation, so that we can wean ourselves from the oil addiction. Of course, the Bush administration won't hear of this part of the equation. They're dismantling alternative energy research, which is a great shame, not to say downright foolish.

However, they're not entirely to blame. It has been clear since the seventies that we need alternative energy, and, despite the current administration, we may some day get it. But the truth is that the replacement of oil is at least a generation away, and would be even if research was allowed to continue. Administration after administration has had poor energy policy, as is shown not only by our lack of clear energy goals, but also accomplishments that should have been made years ago.

We should be so efficient already that this war should not matter. But we are not that efficient, and the war does matter.

Back before Saddam came long, Iraq was a sophisticated, westward-looking country. It had an educated population and was a functional democracy. There were deep ethnic divisions, but they were not nearly as dangerous as they are now. Saddam is not beloved in Iraq. He's feared and hated-- despised, would be the most accurate word. And the moment the terror is removed, his whole state apparatus will collapse.

There will be a chance then--an essential, golden chance--to allow the wonderful, sophisticated, well-educated Iraqi people to regain their independence and their leadership role in the middle east.

At a time when it seems increasingly likely that Saudi Arabia is going to fall entirely under the influence of fundamentalist Wahhabite Moslems, a free and politically moderate Iraq could be the cornerstone of regional stability. It could provide the moderate majority in Iran with the impetus it needs to throw off the fundamentalist leaders who are choking that country to death as well. Above all, it could provide enough oil to move prices down and get the world economy moving again.

The alternative is stark indeed: an unstable middle east, continuously rising oil prices, and economic turmoil and stagnation for the foreseeable future. Every penny that gas rises, a couple more people curse their gas guzzlers, and that's too bad. But a few more third world mouths remain unfed, and that is cruel.

It could be said that what we need is conservation now and alternative energy now.

Agreed, but what about the real world, as it is now? Let's not forget that small problem, because people's lives depend on our remembering it.

First, alternative energy is not going to change anything in the near term—not in the next ten years or even the next twenty-five. Even draconian conservation and an extremely aggressive alternative energy policy will not be enough to change the situation as it stands right now: without the Caspian, the oil market is going to be a seller's paradise for the foreseeable future.

The president is not going to say that the oil situation is a motive for attacking Iraq. But it is nevertheless the most important of all the motives, and there are many. Mr. Bush has been criticized for describing Iraq and North Korea as a axis of evil. He has been called 'geopolitically challenged.' It's been said that this was an off the cuff remark that forever altered foreign policy, because he did not really understand the power of his position.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. At the present time, North Korea is providing a diversion, attempting to frighten the US into thinking that we could end up with a two-front war. Because of the position of South Korea's capital, Seoul, so close to the border with North Korea, there is a very genuine potential for a damaging attack from the north.

If these are not the actions of one ally in support of another, I don't know what else they could be. North Korea is supporting Iraq, clearly. So the president's notion that they are allies is not wrong, and has never been wrong.

Yesterday, Richard Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, told senior British officials that plans for an early war would not be put on hold, and that the United States would press ahead even without the support of the UN. He criticized the UN inspectors for visiting previously known sites, saying, "they are the last place you'd expect Saddam to put something."

The United States has not offered the inspectors much intelligence about where to look. Ostensibly, this has been to protect intelligence sources, but the real reason may be more stark: we may not have such sources. Despite the obvious threat that Iraq has posed since the day we stopped fighting in the Gulf War, little effort has been made to develop covert sources of intelligence in Iraq. The CIA has not until this administration had the budget or the support to develop an intelligence infrastructure like we had during the Cold War, that were the eyes and ears of this country. Satellite and electronic eavesdropping are no substitute.

So not only is the president in a position where he must fight an essential war, he is going into it with far less knowledge of the ground than would be optimal. As a result, there may be unexpected causalities, and you can be sure that the world media will be screaming bloody murder when that happens. It could be that the Iraqi oil fields will be mined, and probably more effectively than the Kuwaiti fields were during the Gulf War. It could be that our troops will be facing pernicious and awful weapons, and an Iraqi army obsessed with redressing its previous humiliation.

But if we lose this war, it will be lost in the same way that the Vietnam war was lost: at home. Of course, the anti-war movement of the sixties was much more humane and cogent than the present one, and the war far less defensible.

But if it is lost, it will be because the media is failing right now to educate the American people on just how much their futures—and I am talking about the way each of us lives his life—depends on success in this conflict. Believe me, being a buyer in a seller's market can get very, very unpleasant, as those of you who lived through the oil crisis of the seventies must remember. What is worse, this time we could well be facing a hostile Saudi Arabia, its royal family overthrown, its government in the hands of religious leaders who will make the Ayatollah Khomeni look like a real gentleman.

A loss presents a picture of the future that is, to say the least, extremely depressing. It is a picture of the United States as a supplicant nation with a failed foreign policy, forced to rely for its life blood on its mortal enemies.

Of course the president is taking the country to war. This war is essential to our future. It's all well and good to argue peace at any price. It's convenient to brand the United States as a wanton aggressor and the president as a fool, and if, God forbid, we must take significant casualties, the world media is going to be screaming these things. The nascent American anti-war movement will explode in the president's face. He risks ending up like Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, destroyed by his own understanding of the necessity of the conflict. Only the difference is that they were wrong about their war and he is not wrong about his.

Our loss of the Vietnam war did not set the cause of freedom on this planet back many years, and could not have devastated it. But it could have prolonged the agony of Soviet communism. Fortunately, the economic situation in the former Soviet Union enabled us to find an eventual victory, as it were, by another means.

The president is not a fool, and it is outrageous to paint him as one. He has seen the future clearly, and stood up to the hard necessities that must be addressed if the world our children will inherit is to be a place of happiness and prosperity. Maybe his motives are purely national, or even simply to create an economic situation that will get him re- elected. But the effect of his actions is going to be that a whole lot of innocent people in the third world keep eating.

Going to war alone, as it now appears that we will do, perhaps with lukewarm British support, is an act of extraordinary courage, in a world that cares nothing for the overwhelming reasons that we must fight this battle, and seeks in its heart our downfall.

If the war lasts a few weeks, we will be able to stay the course. But what if it last months? What if an aircraft carrier is blown up, or a battle group devastated by some poison? Or an American city infected with smallpox? Will we then have the stomach for a fight?

You will be hearing the screams of those whose secret desire is the destruction of our country's power. Their rhetoric will be convincing, and they will be editorializing, commenting, speaking, demonstrating. We will be dead alone on this planet in our conflict, with even our allies shouting that we must end it. The will of the country is bound to falter.

The president has seen that the future must be built on a stable oil supply, and has had the courage to gamble the destiny of his administration on this bid to guarantee it. But will we be with him if the road gets rough? Will we support him then?

Remember, then, what you have read in these pages. I hate war. My inclination is always to find a peaceful solution. But when you look at what Iraq has become, fallen as it has from the most advanced and sophisticated country in the mideast to a hell of torture and misery run by a paranoid lunatic with children ready to follow him who are just as bad, it could not be more clear that there is no peaceful solution, not this time.

Normally, our prayer group has a monthly intention, but we have instituted a special prayer at this time: for all who must suffer in the coming conflict. In addition, it is going to become important to remember our soldiers in another theater of conflict, which the media will forget entirely: Afghanistan. They are there, living hard lives under the most atrocious conditions, bringing a measure of stability and hope to people who have been without hope for generations. Read the current Insight article, an e-mail from a soldier in that far place, and keep them and the Afghani people who are dependent upon their lonely sacrifice, in your hearts as well.

I know that many of you will write me off because of this journal. But please realize that you're doing this because you're hypnotized by rhetoric and lies. A lot of you will resent the fact that I'm saying, essentially, that sucking gas like there was no tomorrow is inhumane and unamerican. But it's true. Every moral person has to conserve, on behalf of mankind. Others--the peace at any price crowd--are going to excoriate me for being a warmonger. But they don't stop to think who life is really on the line, here--not just the powerful, luxury-loving first world, but the third world, and for the third world the situation is far, far more stark.

Far better to wake up to the reality of the world as it is. The situation isn't pretty. I wish we weren't addicted to oil. If I'd had my way, the roads would already be full of high mileage, low-emission vehicles. But they're not, and that is what is real right now and what has to be faced and lived with.

If you want to see something really ugly, leave Iraq alone. Your children will curse you for your peace. Or, use the fact that we've secured this oil--if we do--as an excuse to keep on sucking it up like there was no tommorrow. You'll create a self-fulfilling prophecy: there won't be one.

I am going to get a load of angry email about this, so if you think I'm right, or have something good to say about it, please do write also. I'll need the moral support!

The address is simple enough: whitley@strieber.com
********************************************************