Why the need for war drums..

[Equity Trader]

Today's presentation by Dr.Blix was an appeasement towards a more lengthy inspection and presented itself that inspections could actually sniff out WMD..First,without the cooperation from the host country (Iraq)you will never find a damn thing...On top of that,the inspection team is there not to dismantle,but the acknowledgement of existing WMD and to destroy them. ..What went on today was a total disregard for the article 1441 that Iraq must comply and they didn't,for 12 years..The French with their self disingenuous behavior,acted like,well we can live with it,Germany as well,but that is another story and not worth discussing..Their beer is pretty good though..After all the French have 50-70 billion in possible oil contracts..Yeah right, it is about oil,not from the American standpoint,but the French..France has another problem and that is their self esteem..See folks, they just can't be second best,therefore,they are taking on the only very oldest democracy of a very new country.Darn socialist will never give up..Oh I forgot..After we liberate Iraq,you can bet how many munitions that will have the label made in France and Germany..Is this their real concern,certainly will make them look like very complicitary..But the latter is only their greed,which we all swell in..

One positive aspect of all this is, we finally know who are friends are,but Wait,the French will be onboard,once the sh-it it's the fan..America made it quite clear,if you are not with us going in,you will not be with us on the reconstruction...How many want to bet that the French will change their tact very shortly and come onboard,only not to be left out.That you can count on..It's politics on a global scale and the French are playing their last hand..They will lose and the UN will be nothing more than a lap dog for the League of Nations..

We certainly could stand by and do nothing...One has to consider that diplomacy at times, does not work..Especially with terrorist and tyrants,they don't want to talk,their aim is to destroy and all diplomacy in the world isn't going to resolve these issues..Is war the answer,probably not,but one can't stand by and have these villians build their WMD and then one day it becomes a hurdle that will most certainly be a very grave situation and irreversable and then these same countries will resort to blackmail,then where or how will the outcome be?War!!

When Hitler was running his mouth in 1934 and to the onslaught that brought the world to it's knees,the left in Europe were not concerned with his rhetoric and just pushed it off as another politician making a name for himself...Well he did just that and then it was too late and he became the power that most felt he would never be..

We can take this further to 9/11 when Al-Queda hit us, many on the left felt we needed to open a dialog with the Taliban and talk this thing out..I mean who are they kidding,do you actually believe that an open dialog will change anything with people that are bent on destroying for whatever reasons they have...

Saddam wants power and he knows that the only way to achieve this is through acquiring WMD..Once he has these weapons it will be very difficult to put him in check..Incidentally,he already has said if there is an invasion,he will use these same weapons that he says he doesn't have...No my friends,this regime has to be taken down and diplomacy isn't going to achieve this,just prolong the inevitable..

When Reagin went up against the Russians and said those famous words "Gorbychov take down that wall" Man!! The Democrats were screaming "what in the h-e-ll are you doing,you will launch us into world war 3"..Now take a look and see how Eastern Europe has changed,all for the good.This is because he took a stand,although unpopular with the liberial left,it was freedom and foresite that brought this one dark chapter to a close..

Another situation,Bosnia..Western Europe tried diplomacy and it didn't work,Why?? Because Milosivic was a tyrant and all the talk in the world wasn't going to change his thinking and it also was in the French and Germans backyard,why didn't they go alone..Why didn't they do something about it,like they are now perceived as doing with Iraq??It's the economics Stupid"Just speaking in general here.

About Viet-nam,well,the French did say to America not to go in,because you will not win..Why were the French there,because they needed to protect their imperialistic ideology of colonalism..The French is now trying to protect their last colonal stronghold in Africa and it's all about economics and maintaining the power they once had and no longer possess.The British and Germans have long realized that once their colonal rule over lessor developed countries has become a thing of the past and extracted all the goodies out of the ground they moved on.. The French hasn't yet realized this inevitable fate and still appling their imperialistic,not so well known globally,but is still today being the practice..

The liberial left has a long standing in the world of doing nothing and probably why we now have such a problem..Terrorist have to be taken down and illiminated and until this is accomplished, all the diplomacy will not bring these evildoers,tyrants and other dispots to the table....If they are allowed to continue,which they will,one day you will look back and blame the exact people that are taking a very unpopular stand today,then it's to late and the only blame that can be issued is towards the world that stood by and did not act in a more direct method..


Yes war is unpopular,but sometimes a necessary precuser for the good of all..



Watch for the War to start in the first week of March,if not then,it will be a peaceful conclusion.



Have a good day..

 

[Snake Plissken]

Well Said E.T :clap:

It is time to care of business!!!

And for all those anti-war people marching today with their "No Blood for Oil" signs

Don't worry if you Nuke 'em they won't bleed they'll just

Sizzle :gf:

 

[THE KOD]

Re: Why the need for war drums..

We can take this further to 9/11 when Al-Queda hit us, many on the left felt we needed to open a dialog with the Taliban and talk this thing out..I mean who are they kidding,do you actually believe that an open dialog will change anything with people that are bent on destroying for whatever reasons they have...

Equity

I agree with alot of what you are saying. Its interesting to hear it from that perspective. Watch out we may send you to the United Nations wearing a Madjacks T-Shirt to represent.

I hope you dont mind if I post sections and respond rather than trying to type it all at once.

If we would have opened a dialog with the Taliban and brought them to the United Nations building to meet with rational people.

They would have shown up with a group of killers and terrorists. These are not normal people that negotiate. Thats not what they do. And I would make sure we had some bomd sniffing dogs also as they will be carrying their wares.



Scott King of Dogs

 

[THE KOD]

Re: Why the need for war drums..

One positive aspect of all this is, we finally know who are friends are,but Wait,the French will be onboard,once the sh-it it's the fan..

How many want to bet that the French will change their tact very shortly and come onboard,only not to be left out.That you can count on..It's politics on a global scale and the French are playing their last hand..They will lose and the UN will be nothing more than a lap dog for the League of Nations..

The world is becoming a very scary place to live. I hate to say this but we may have to become a World Order of some kind to solve the terrorists and nuclear threat problems we are faced with daily now. All civilized countrys will have to be a part of it. The ones like Iraq, Iran, N Korea are going to have to be handled by all the world and not just the US. As the big dog we will handle the business of war, everyone else just has to go along with us.

There seems to be too much at stake now. Too late to turn back. And after all that is what his Dad did when he was right outside Bahgdad. No way he is going to face that embarressment.

France will waffle for as long as possible to save face with their oil friends the Iraqis. Then at some point they will say ....holy hell we are being left behind and jump on board. Germany too I would guess.

Scott King of Dogs

 

[djv]

We may be going in but not as fast or with as many friends as we should have with us. Embarrassing to see all the protest world wide today against the war or our Presidents goals. Remember a world of only conservatives would soon burn. You cannot live with only that line of thought. With all conservatives thinking they are right on all issues. Well that leaves no give and take. You would have a constant on going war. But enough such talk. Lets get our country back to the world leader for pieace and rights of everyone to think as they please. I dont want to go back to covered wagons.

 

[TIME TO MAKE $$$]

The Case Against Powell's Case For War

The Case Against Powell's Case For War

interesting article....

by Anthony Arnove and Eric Ruder




GEORGE W. BUSH said that Colin Powell would present the definitive case against Iraq at the UN. Did he do that?

Anthony: All that Powell did was to rehash a series of unproven, speculative and at times ridiculous accusations that did nothing to prove the case. The French newspaper Le Monde put it very well, when it said we were waiting for the "day of evidence," but it ended up being the "day of reiterated suspicions."

Eric: It was a fraud in so many ways. For all the photographic and recorded evidence that Powell used, absolutely none of it was direct evidence about chemical weapons or nuclear weapons. For example, Powell showed pictures of weapons factories where Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction until December 22, but the weapons were moved before inspectors got to them.

With these satellite photos, Powell demonstrated that Iraq is under a telescope all the time. So why don?t they know where those supposed weapons were taken? If they know that they were moved and hidden, why can?t they say where?

The reason that Powell never really backed up anything is that this makes his claims unverifiable. The whole case has been kept at the level of speculation and accusation, rather than the presentation of hard evidence, so that it can?t be disproved.

Anthony: The day after Bush gave his State of the Union address, Hans Blix--the chief UN weapons inspector--gave an interview to the New York Times. Blix said that there was no evidence of a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. He said there was no evidence of any clear development of Iraq?s nuclear program. He refuted the claim that there was any evidence that Iraq had infiltrated the inspections teams. He also said that no case had been made for going to war against Iraq.

Actually, it?s the United States that has a history, which goes back years, of infiltrating the inspection teams in order spy on Iraq. And right now, with the U.S. threatening war daily, Iraq is expected to believe that the U.S. is no longer collecting information on targets and so on, via the inspectors. It really is remarkable that they?re talking about trying to disarm a country at the same time as they talk about invading. It?s hard to imagine what the incentives are for cooperation.

Eric: Another of Powell?s claims that attracted a lot of attention was about Iraq?s supposed mobile weapons laboratories or facilities. A lot of this was supposed to be based on the testimony of Iraqi defectors, which is completely unreliable, or al-Qaeda detainees--alleged statements from people who are being held in detention, denied access to lawyers and subjected to psychological pressure.

But even setting that aside, Powell then showed slides of these so-called weapons factories--except that they were just artists? renderings. And Powell presented this as if it were somehow obvious evidence of what Iraq possessed.

Then there?s the document that Powell cited from British intelligence services that goes into all sorts of detailed allegations against the Iraqi government. But the document turned out to be at least half made up of information from old magazine articles that are available on the Web. All they did was cut and paste information that wasn?t based on intelligence or any other sources. Any junior high school student with access to the Internet could have produced this thing.

Anthony: The Bush administration has come up with a clever strategy of presenting Colin Powell as the moderate--to show that even he has been compelled to support the case for a war. But Powell has been part of the strategy of selling this war all along.

This is a man who was not only the leader of the 1991 Gulf War and the devastation of Iraq in that war, but he was centrally involved in the expansion of U.S. imperialism as the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Bush administration.

This is a man who was a field commander in Vietnam, with authority and responsibility for the troops who carried out the My Lai massacre. And it will be Powell?s doctrine of military force that we?ll potentially see played out in Iraq--of using overwhelming military power to crush and devastate any U.S. enemy.

POWELL REPEATED allegations about aluminum tubes imported by Iraq as evidence of Iraq?s nuclear weapons program. What?s the truth about this?

Anthony: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly said that the aluminum tubing and equipment that Iraq has imported is used for short-range missiles. There?s been no evidence of this material being used as part of a nuclear weapons program. Yet the Bush administration has continued to try to float these allegations, and Colin Powell did it again.

Eric: Powell presented himself as backing up the claims of Hans Blix and [IAEA chief inspector] Mohamed ElBaradei and adding evidence to their case, when in fact the things that Powell said were exact contradictions with respect to nuclear weapons capabilities. Their reports say that there?s no evidence that Iraq has tried to restart its nuclear program from when it was dismantled in the early 1990s.

Meanwhile, last week, the Washington Times printed a document that says the United States is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive first strike against Iraq. I think that they?re looking for an opportunity to use a bunker-buster nuclear weapon, as a way to push the envelope and cross what?s really been an unthinkable threshold. It?s really to put other countries on notice not to cross the will of the United States, because if you do, we will turn your country into a radioactive wasteland.

WHAT ABOUT the supposed link between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda?

Eric: Iraq?s Ba?athist Party regime is a secular regime, and al-Qaeda is made up of hard-line Islamists. These are people who?ve been bitter rivals. But ever since September 11, the administration has directed the FBI and CIA to devote a tremendous amount of effort to documenting a link.

So far, they have the presence of one individual, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who was in northern Iraq mainly. That?s basically outside the control of the control of Baghdad and Saddam Hussein. What?s more, the faction of al-Qaeda that al-Zarqawi is connected to is called Ansar al-Islam. And the head of that faction lives in Norway--freely.

Of course, there?s no discussion of bombing Norway for harboring terrorists. That?s because for the United States, this isn?t about a war on terrorism. It?s about a war to extend the U.S. government?s global reach and get a hold of Iraq?s oil.

Anthony: There?s a great cartoon that was in some newspapers of George Bush giving a presentation, in which he?s written out the words "al-Qaeda" and "Iraq," and drawn a circle around the "q" in the two words. And he says, "See, I told you there was a connection." When it comes down to it, that?s about the depth of the evidence.

A team of reporters went to the facility in northern Iraq connected to Ansar al-Islam that Powell called a "terrorist poison and explosives factory." And according to the New York Times, "They found a wholly unimpressive place--a small and largely underdeveloped cluster of buildings that appeared to lack substantial industrial capacity." So, for example, the "terrorist factory" didn?t have plumbing.

In addition, the Times noted that Powell withheld a bit of information that the United States had on al-Zarqawi, which was that a member of the royal family in Qatar operated a safe house for al-Zarqawi when he was going in and out of Afghanistan.

 

[TIME TO MAKE $$$]

So if you really want to look at the connections that this guy has, he comes out of the groups that the United States was supporting in Afghanistan against the ex-USSR during its occupation of the country in the 1980s. And he?s now very closely tied to Qatar--which is the base of United States Central Command in the Middle East and a staging point for the attack on Iraq. But the United States won?t talk about that connection.

EVEN IF there was any evidence of an Iraqi weapons program, is there any way that Iraq could be considered a threat to the U.S.?

Anthony: The complete opposite is the case. Iraq is a country that?s suffered 12 years of siege warfare. Its economy has been destroyed by the most comprehensive embargo ever imposed on a country in history. It?s a country whose infrastructure hasn?t been rebuilt since the last Gulf War.

The New York Times reporters who visited the al-Rafah and al-Rashid sites that Powell talked about in his speech said both "were bombed extensively," either in the 1991 Gulf War or by U.S. and British warplanes patrolling the "no-fly" zones. These are attacks that have taken place over the last decade under the cover of protecting the Kurds or Shiites that have been used to further erode Iraq?s military capacity.

Iraq?s military is a shadow of what it was. Sanctions have kept out essential goods needed for the health care system, for the water and sewage system. This is a country that?s in an absolute crisis. In fact, in anticipation of the U.S. bombing, doctors in hospitals around Iraq are having to withhold what limited supplies they currently have in order to prepare for what they?ll face.

A number of humanitarian groups estimate that the consequences of a war on Iraq will be far greater suffering than even the 1991 Gulf War, precisely because the country is so much more vulnerable to a humanitarian crisis after the destruction of its infrastructure during the last 12 years of sanctions and bombing. Iraq poses no threat to its neighbors, let alone the United States.

THE HYPOCRISY of Powell?s statements was incredible at times, wasn?t it?

Anthony: One thing that was particularly galling was when Powell said: "We have an obligation to this body [the UN] to see that our resolutions are complied with." The hypocrisy of that statement is hard to describe.

Has Powell come to the United Nations to discuss the Israeli nuclear weapons program? Is he coming to the UN to discuss the lack of enforcement of numerous resolutions about Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories? About Israel firing on health workers and Red Cross ambulances?

Is the UN having special sessions to discuss U.S. violations of UN resolutions? The list goes on and on. They trumpet the rights of Kurds in Iraq, but they don?t talk about Turkey?s war on the Kurds. In fact, they?re in conversations right now with Turkey, which is engaged in a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Kurdish population, about occupying parts of northern Iraq.

Turkey will be allowed to occupy this area to prevent Kurds from fighting either for autonomy within a new Iraq or an independent Kurdistan in the broader region, which would obviously mean a challenge to the Turkish government.

Eric: If you want to see a barbaric use of weapons of mass destruction, look at what the United States did to Iraq with the use of depleted uranium munitions during the first Gulf War. The use of depleted uranium continues to take victims throughout Iraq, particularly in the areas that were hard hit in the south. The cancer rates are through the roof, children are dying of leukemia, people are dying of pulmonary and bone diseases.

This is just horrific savagery. And yet the U.S. claims that Saddam Hussein and Iraq are the ones that have horrible weapons of mass destruction.

WHAT DO you think are the real motives behind this war drive?

Eric: At one point where he was summarizing his case, Powell said: "Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows: intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world?s most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he must hold to fulfill his ambition."

All you have to do is substitute for Saddam Hussein and Iraq, George W. Bush and the United States, and for the Middle East, substitute the world, and you have a perfect description of the way that the U.S. acts as a global bully.

Anthony: The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently quoted one hawk who put it very clearly. "By setting up our military in Iraq," this source said, "we can set an example to other countries: ?If you cooperate with terrorists or menace us in any way or even look cross-eyed at us, this could happen to you.?"

 

[Blitz]

Remember a world of only conservatives would soon burn. You cannot live with only that line of thought. With all conservatives thinking they are right on all issues. Well that leaves no give and take. You would have a constant on going war. But enough such talk.

Give me a break will ya!
Do you actually believe the shit you are spewing here?

 

[AR182]

It's funny that people hear the same speech but come to different conclusions from that speech. I guess people twist it to fit what they believe.

The agreement that saddam signed after he invaded Kuwait, where he raped, tortured,killed, & imprisoned the people of Kuwaiti, was that saddam was supposed to among many things was to dissarm himself of WMD, show proof that he did dissarm & have missles not to succeed 93 miles. This was to protect his neighbors from saddam attacking them.

Blix, in his speech, conceded that iraq hasn't accounted for 1000 tons of chemical agents, like VX nerve gas, & bio weapons like antrax. He went on to say that iraq's missles DO exceed the 93 mile range & has illegally imported 380 missle engines.

This is two examples where saddam VIOLATED the agreement that he signed after the gulf war.

The problem is not that iraq's army can invade other countries, but the problem is that some of iraq's stooges can be infected with anthrax & take a plane to a few of the major cities in the US, like NY,Chi, LA, Det,Phil,Wash, Atla,& who knows how many others. All they have to to do is walk around the airports of these major cities & there will be millions of people getting infected. That is the problem & the mighty US will crumble.For those who think what I just said is too far out, please re-think this, because it could happen.These terrorists only know one thing, & that is force.You can not reason with them.

In today's editorial, the NY Times, who is a very liberal newspaper, came out in support of the US position on this issue. They know that saddam is jerking evrerybody's chain. The Times went on to say that saddam has developed plans to blow up dams,& destroy bridges. He will also ignite it's oil fields as he did in the Gulf War, this is called a scorched earth strategy.The newspaper also said that saddam may deny food to iraq's civilians in the southern part of the country to try to create a crisis that would slow down advancing allied forces with the responsibility of caring for millions of iraqi's. The Times also said that according to cia operatives that are inside iraq, protective gear, that is used to combat chemical weapons, was seen to be delivered to some of iraq's troops.

As far as these protesters are concerned, there were people protesting the US plan to get involved against germany in WW2. They also said that hitler was not a threat against the US, so why fight him.

 

[djv]

Not to worry folks. If not Iraq we will get some thing going with N Korea. Still not sure why we are not gitting after Saudi and Iran. They have more to do with 9/11 then Iraq. I thought all along we were after 9/11 suspects. Where did the money take us. Not Iraq. And yes Blitz a world of only one line of thought is a world of nothing. No indepentent thinking leads to nothing. And our friend England with 750000 protester marching does not sound like there with us as much as we think. Over 1 million in Italy. More then 100000 in Thailand, over 75000 in two differant Australian cites. New Zealand estmates 80000, S Korea over 50000. All friends of ours. Closer to home Canada over 100000, NYC 500000. Bush now thinking of rewording the UN Resoulution. Im for us gettining that SOB in Iraq. But I was first for getting what out main gola was the ones that either didi 9/11 or helped pay for it. Thats the onlypoint I tryed to make for last 3/4 weeks. That and for those who want war so dam bad and never had to be in one. Get your asses singed up and help your country. Don't sit back and say when my country calls ill be there. Why wait. And last but least Fox news. There reporting of the protest. A few protesters in a couple of countries. What a dis-serves to the truth. If fox wants to omit there a puppet of the government now a good time. We dont need that chit in this country let keep it open and honest.

 

[RAYMOND]

WHERE THE FLAGS AT =avatar

 

[StevieD]

Fox news is all Bush news all the time. Not even all Republican or all conservative but all Bush. I love this country and our flag but Bush is not the country or the flag.

 

[RAYMOND]

THE PEOPLE ARE FUVK UP THIS WAR NOT FOR OIL , WE DO THE OLD FASION WE BUY OUR OIL

 

[Stewy]

Conservatives had to sit back and watch CNN kiss Clintons A** for 8 years. No one every complained, if you don't like Fox then don't watch it.

 

[StevieD]

No one complained!!!!! All you hear from Conservatives is crying about the Liberal Media. Usually on their Conservative shows. LOL! But Fox is even more than Conservative. It is All Bush. If a conservative doesn't agree with Bush they are ready to try to humiliate him. But I watch it for the hot conservative babes!

 

[djv]

Hot what? For just news and not much BS. Watch CNN headline news. Just news every 30 min's. Not to many talking heads that think thy have answers. CNN reguler news can be as bad as Fox at times. I will say CNN does at least give more of both sides of the story then Fox. Not all he time but its better. Fox does what owner says or good bye to you. I like the chance to make up my own mind. When i was a strong conservative my family was so right on isues most times. I felt you believe only that or you were wrong. It took me to after Nam and around 28 years old to get smarter.

 

[Chanman]

Gulf War 2

Gulf War 2

In case you haven't already seen this site-

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

 

[Blazer]

Re: Gulf War 2

Re: Gulf War 2

In case you haven't already seen this site-

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

Scary stuff Chan, but true. We are going to make alot of enimies.

 

[AR182]

It is scary stuff, but madmen like Saddam should not be allowed to have WMD. He will become stronger if he is left alone, & will start bullying his neighbors & control the oil in that region.

It's funny that people don't learn from history. There were many people opposed to the US entering the fight against Germany. These people said that Hitler did not pose a threat to the US. But he kept taking over countries, until the allies got involved. Saddam's aim is to control the middle east, & the oil. You can make book on that.

 

[djv]

Ar182 Saddam cant control nothing. Isarel and Iran could both kick chit out of Iraq. He has little of any good stuff left after we battered the hell out of him in 91. And if he ever gives up his bug weapons as we call them he wont have anything left. He has no nukes. Has half the tanks he had in 91. Has half the planes he had in 91. Has fewer soldiers that have been train correct way since 91. Many of those are 18 or younger. Hes only real threat is his bug weapons. That and lots of anti air craft guns. The air craft guns are almost useless in land wars with men and tanks.