US Speeds Plans to Murder 500,000 Iraquis
Related Topics
"DW Suiter" dwsui...@toast.net
This article explains and describes what war weapons are to be used to murder Iraqis. Official estimates have placed the number of Iraqi causalities at 500,000. Already sanctions have caused the death of approximately 500,000 children in Iraq. This does not include the elderly and sick adults who have died as a result of the sanctions; depriving the people of food and medicine.
This is the reality of political war. This is the reality of madness and obsession.
Attacking Iraq and murdering people is unnecessary. Hussein has been cooperating with the inspectors. Bush has not. Bush has not informed the inspectors of where the WMD are supposed to be hidden.
Iraq is not a threat to the USA or any other country. Iraq has not built up its military nor its weapons since most were destroyed in the Gulf war.
As long as Iraq complies with the inspectors demands, there is no need for war with Iraq.
An unjustified war with Iraq is merely a plan to murder.
To God, it is an abomination brought to be by abominable men, those refusing to honor God.
--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Military Speeds Preparations for Iraq War WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Speeding preparations for a "shock and awe" war with Iraq (news - web sites), the Pentagon (news - web sites) is moving B-2 stealth bombers and a dozen more missile-firing warships to the Gulf region, defense officials said on Thursday.
The bat-wing, radar-avoiding B-2s, packing one of the biggest punches in America's military arsenal, began flying out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on Wednesday night, a base spokesman said.
Other defense officials told Reuters the Navy planned to move about a dozen missile-firing cruisers and destroyers from the eastern Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf region in coming days to join more than 60 other U.S. ships arrayed there against Iraq.
The officials said the cruisers and destroyers, many carrying more than 100 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, would soon move through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea.
"All are (missile) shooters," said one of the defense officials, who asked not to be identified.
The ships and bombers, believed flying to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, would be part of a m***ive "shock and awe" attack at the outset of any war against Iraq, using thousands of satellite-guided bombs and cruise missiles.
Officials said there were no current plans to move the aircraft carriers USS Theodore Roosevelt or USS Harry Truman from the Mediterranean into the Gulf to join the carriers USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Kitty Hawk and USS Constellation.
The bombers from the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman and the warships will join a m***ive potential attack force of more than 250,000 U.S. and British troops, hundreds of warplanes and dozens of ships already gathered in the Gulf region.
HIGH-FLYING FIREPOWER Air Force Lt. Matt H***on, the Whiteman spokesman, would not say how many B-2s had been sent or where they were would be based. But the high-tech bombers, each capable of carrying 16 satellite-guided 2,000-pound bombs, were believed headed for the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.
The Air Force has built special hangars on an air base at Diego Garcia as well as at the Royal Air Force Base at Fairford in the United Kingdom.
Support crews for bombers began leaving Whiteman, where 21 B-2s are based, earlier this week.
"We have deployed B-2s to the Central Command area of responsibility," H***on said. "Last night we launched them." The B-2, originally developed for long-range missions in the Cold War, was not available in the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). Whiteman is the bombers' only base, where the first of the aircraft was delivered in 1993.
The aircraft made its debut in combat operations in the Kosovo campaign in 1999. It flew nonstop all the way from its base in Missouri, attacked targets in Yugoslavia and returned to the base with the aid of aerial refueling.
The B-2 also saw action in the opening three days of the war in Afghanistan (news - web sites) launched weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
The Air Force says the B-2 has four key characteristics: stealth, precision weapons, large payload and long range, making the warplane a real revolution in air warfare.
It's low-observable, or "stealth," characteristics give it the ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued and heavily defended targets.
The B-2s join a long list of Navy and Air Force warplanes already mobilized for possible war with Baghdad.
The Pentagon on Feb. 3 sent F-117A "Nighthawk" stealth fighters to the region from Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. The angular Nighthawk was the only western aircraft used to strike targets in heavily defended downtown Baghdad during the Gulf War.
stillsunny stillsun...@yahoo.com
Oh, DW.
I don't think so.
The sanctions were put in place by the UN prior to even Desert Storm.
They were to be lifted when Hussein complied with some UN resolutions, to include: withdrawing from Kuwait, stopping killing his own people, returning the people and things stolen from Kuwait, and providing proof he'd destroyed the means to make aggressive war (meaning, WMD).
I hate sanctions -- they don't work, and they harm innocents. But the UN wanted the sanctions, not the US, and the reason they wanted the sanctions is that the entire middle east was afraid of the US toppling Hussein. In other words, the sanctions were basically the precondition for him remaining in power. To be frank, it's a lesson we all should have learned a long time ago -- that fighting a halfway war is ultimately more harmful than just finishing the thing, and then helping people rebuild.
To say that he's cooperating with inspectors is to ignore the history that he has *not* cooperated with inspectors, and that in fact there *were* no inspectors in that country after he threw them all out in 1998. Here's a speech by Clinton on exactly that: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html The history of dealings with Iraq (as evidenced through the Clinton years) is that he only even makes an effort to pretend to cooperate when faced with force.
http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-981216-174252.html http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraqtimeline981216.html In other words, the only reason inspectors are even now *in* Iraq is because somebody pushed the issue and started sending troops. And until the whole thing started, there wasn't a sane person in the world who looked at the history and said: Iraq was developing WMD The history of Hussein's rule demonstrated repeatedly that he was more than happy to use those weapons, on all sorts of occasions Iraq was told to stop developing WMD Iraq said it would But inspectors were in the country (off and on) for some six and a half years, and through that time, it was clear that he was still doing that which he promised not to do (re, for example, the information provided by his son in law in 1995, which led to a m***ive find on a farm of all sorts of previously undisclosed evidence of nuclear development) And then, in '98, all the inspectors are thrown out of the country, which can only mean that Hussein, lacking inspectors, has stopped doing all the things he was hiding from the inspectors while they were there.
Then there was all the stuff coming from defectors after 1998: Here, Hamza was an Iraqi scientist involved with the nuclear weapon program in Iraq: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/act1298.html Then there are these, and they're just a few of what you can find if you look for what was happening prior to the war talk: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html http://www.nci.org/02NCI/09/iraq-fs-925-draft.htm http://www.nci.org/s/sad-new-bomb-st-122400.ht http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nukesusp.htm http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/INC-Saddam-threat.htm There are probably some good arguments regarding whether it's reasonable or moral to instigate a war, ever, and under what circumstances. There's no doubt war us ugly, and madness -- and I personally have an instinctive aversion to it.
But the question, if it's honest, doesn't involve the "innocence" of Hussein, or his pacifist nature, or the question of whether he has and will use the weapons he's prohibited from having. He's a mean, despicable, horrible man, responsible for a heck of a lot of suffering, and his sons are worse. For me, anyhow, the question is what moral quandary is presented when there's a man who's determined to get a weapon that, in his hands, has the capacity to kill thousands, knowing he'll use it; and what the moral equation is for allowing him to terrorize and starve his people versus the need to kill some of those same people he's killing in order to make him stop.
Looking at the protests worldwide, it looks a whole lot more like simply dislike of Bush, with the facts edited or ignored to fit that agenda. I neither love nor hate Bush. Yet Bush is not doing anything different than Clinton did; it's just that he's doing it with more determination.
Sunny
"DW Suiter" dwsui...@toast.net
Hello Sunshine, Any war is archaic and barbaric. This war lacks "necessity." It is therefore unjustifiable to wage war without need for war. There is hardly anyone who defends Hussein, but millions and millions who defend the right of people to live and not be murdered in an unnecessary war.
The sanctions were imposed in an effort to effect Hussein's actions. Had they known the man, they would have understood it would not affect him, only helpless innocent victims such as the half million children who have died because of the sanctions.
To add another expected half a million deaths to this toll is absurd in light of what is happening.
It is against the will of God and the principles of God. It is against the common sense of most people in the world. It defies logic and reason. It does explain what madness and obsession lead to.
Iraq is not a threat and Hussein is not a fool. Any overt acts of aggression of his part would bring the whole world of armies down on him. He has not committed such an act recently, therefore negating arguments for war.
One life is no more dear or precious than another in the eyes of God. The victims are the result of abominable acts of mankind. Wanting to wage war is merely another contemplated abominable act against sanity and God.
People, especially Americans, have been conditioned and hardened in regards to war and death. Desensitized by the disinformation machinery. Murder, by war or any other means is horrible. The victims usually have families who love them as you love your family. They are not numbers, they are people, and human beings with human rights as well as God given rights. The USA was not singled out in regards to the rights set forth in our constitution.
These same God given rights were given to all mankind; the right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
War and murdering people violates these rights.
I say it is a senseless obsession of Bush and his regime to want to invade Iraq. It is unnecessary. Other national leaders in the world have expressed the same thought and stand against Bush and the USA. They have chosen wisdom over brashness and the horrors of war. Their way of disarming Hussein must be given the necessary time to prove whether it will work or not. War is always an option, however it is not always justified. There is no need to hurry and speed up plans to commit to war. Hopefully reason will win.
However, when a person is as obsessed as Bush is, there is not much room for reason.
...
stillsunny stillsun...@yahoo.com
Hi again :-) Just for the record, it's a rare pleasure to be able to talk about these things, even when there's disagreement, without acrimony.
I agree that war is archaic and barbaric. I'm not sure I'm convinced that the war lacks necessity, and I'll explain why, because there are a couple of reasons.
I know that sanctions are stupid. They were almost guaranteed to fail, but it was the will of the UN that they be put in place. As the US is a member state of the UN, and I'm a voting citizen of the US, there's some measure of my own responsibility for continuing sanctions which I know are harming innocent people -- for a long, long time.
That Hussein took the money designed to feed those people in the various "Oil for Food" programs for his own purposes doesn't really mitigate my own sense of responsibility.
The US, in agreeing to sanctions, was trying to follow the will of the international community -- but everybody had to know it wouldn't work.
And the thing is, there's no way to lift the sanctions right now, because however much suffering they're causing, they're *also* a limiting factor on a man who quite clearly is motivated only by his own thirst for power. Free flow of money, and we're back to business as usual -- and eventually, he'd have the things we fear to an even greater degree than he does now. He's a thug, DW. He's like Stalin.
He uses terror very effectively to inhibit even the slightest movement toward freedom or prosperity or even just a decent life for his own people. I've read a lot about him.
So -- we're stuck with sanctions, because there's no other way to inhibit him making war.
And as to the necessity, the scientist from Iraq asked a question which seems pertinent. See, Hussein doesn't have to actually *use* a weapon. But what happens when (not if, but when) he acquires nuclear capability, and simply test explodes one? I know you say that if he goes to make war, the rest of the world will descend on him -- and yeah, they would. But it takes time to mount an effective defense if the troops aren't already there; he can do a lot of damage while people discuss the whole thing (as he did in Kuwait); and what happens to the discussion if, say, he goes *back* to Kuwait after he's demonstrated that yes, he's got a nuclear bomb? It's the hardest thing, to twist my mind around to try to see things from a perspective that doesn't care about the people, and doesn't care about the environment, and doesn't even really care about family or peace or any other thing but the acquisition of power, and what can be done with it. But that's what he is. That's what he's shown, over and over and over. And if he ever managed to get a nuclear weapon (and he's close, DW, nearly all the scientists from there agree on that), just *having* it would mean a huge shift in the power dynamic in the region.
So again, I keep coming back to: I hate sanctions, but we can't lift them.
Indirectly, those of us who enforce those sanctions are therefore responsible for the deaths and suffering caused by those sanctions.
The only way those sanctions can reasonably be lifted is if he complies with the resolutions, or goes away. It's been twelve years.
It's clear he's not going to comply -- the only reason inspectors are there now is because Bush started building up the troops over there, and suddenly he's all conciliation. But that will only last as long as the pressure's up, and it's ridiculous to plan on that many troops staying there forever.
<sigh> Nothing's easy. And I'll say here that, when all the war talk first started, I was vehemenly opposed to it -- because I couldn't figure out what prompted it, and I felt like I was being manipulated emotionally. Of course, then I got mad at the other side, because I felt like *they* were using emotional manipulation, too. It was only when I started looking back, and realized that this decision wasn't sudden, but that it's probably a decision Clinton would have liked to have made (and tried to make, but lacked any national standing to get away with it); that it was a decision Gore would have ultimately had to make; and that it landed on Bush not really because of who Bush is, but because of the specific time frame of his presidency, that things fell more into place.
If you have a better suggestion, I'd be glad to hear it. But so far, all I've heard is either letting the inspectors work (which inspectors will be kicked back out of the country just as soon as the pressure's off) or leaving Hussein alone to do what everybody in the world knows he wants to do, or even lifting sanctions to make it easier for him to do it.
Seriously, at what point is it immoral to allow a condition to continue which imposes so very much suffering -- torture and fear and hunger and lack and wrongful imprisonment and g***ing of women and children -- when you have the means to end that condition? There were already Iraqi troops who tried to surrender -- starved and in pitiful condition. That should not be. I only hope the paratroopers gave them some food before they told them they had to go back over the border.
Sunny ...
"DW Suiter" dwsui...@toast.net
Hi Sunshine, This news report verifies what a lot of people already know; lies and disinformation used to attempt to justify war and to manipulate public opinion.
WASHINGTON - The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the FBI (news - web sites) on Friday to investigate forged documents the Bush administration used as evidence against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his military ambitions in Iraq (news - web sites).
Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said he was uneasy about a possible campaign to deceive the public about the status of Iraq's nuclear program.
An investigation should "at a minimum help to allay any concerns" that the government was involved in the creation of the documents to build support for administration policies, Rockefeller wrote in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) has denied the U.S.
government had any hand in creating the false documents.
"It came from other sources," Powell told a House committee Thursday. "We were aware of this piece of evidence, and it was provided in good faith to the inspectors." Rockefeller asked the FBI to determine the source of the documents, the sophistication of the forgeries, the motivation of those responsible, why intelligence agencies didn't recognize them as forgeries and whether they are part of a larger disinformation campaign.
The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Sarah Ross, a spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts, said the committee will look into the forgery, but Roberts believes it is inappropriate for the FBI to investigate at this point.
The documents indicated that Iraq tried to by uranium from Niger, the West African nation that is the third-largest producer of mined uranium, Niger's largest export. The documents had been provided to U.S. officials by a third country, which has not been identified.
A U.S. government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it was unclear who first created the documents. The official said American suspicions remain about an Iraq-Niger uranium connection because of other, still-credible evidence that the official refused to specify.
In December, the State Department used the information to support its case that Iraq was lying about its weapons programs. But on March 7, Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N.
Security Council that the documents were forgeries.
Rockefeller said U.S. worries about Iraqi nuclear weapons were not based primarily on the documents, but "there is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq." At a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing Thursday, Powell said the State Department had not participated "any way in any falsification." Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin, the committee's top Democrat, noted a Washington Post report that said a foreign government might have been conducting a deception campaign to win support for military action against Iraq. When Obey asked Powell if he could say which country that was, Powell replied, "I can't with confidence." The Niger documents marked the second time that ElBaradei has challenged evidence presented by the United States meant to illustrate Iraq's nuclear weapons program. He also rejected the U.S. position that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended to make nuclear bombs.
ElBaradei has said his inspectors have found no evidence that Saddam has revived its nuclear weapons program.
...
...
stillsunny stillsun...@yahoo.com
Hi, DW.
I pasted the link for the story you posted, and then sort of cut to what seemed pertinent. I've added a few more links.
I wanted to say, before I go through this, that I'm fully aware that the first thing to go out the window any time people are making their cases is strict truth. It's never been more apparent than in this worldwide debate. Yes, Mr. ElBaradei questioned *two* of the sources of information; and Mr. Rockefeller used those two questionable sources to cast a shadow on all the rest. That's the reason I went back to things written prior to the Bush presidency, because there's a real tendency right now for those who see the war as necessary to discount things that might suggest otherwise, and there's an equally strong tendency for those who oppose war (for whatever reason) to ignore things that might suggest it's the best of all bad options.
That said, there's an abundance of evidence that: Hussein *wants* a nuclear weapon Hussein made great progress in trying to build that weapon, under the noses of both the IAEA (prior to the Gulf War) and the inspectors in Iraq even after the Gulf War Hussein is willing to lie, intimidate, and throw out inspectors He hid his program while inspectors were there before, and then it's been five years since he threw inspectors out.
Now, as you noted that it would be clear to anyone who looked at Hussein's history that sanctions wouldn't work, it seems equally clear that the man who continued to seek nuclear power while inspectors were there would not be less inclined to do so when inspectors were gone.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030314/ap_on_re_m... <from Yahoo story> http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm "Inspections are time consuming but, if successful, can ensure disarmament through peaceful means. It is worth recalling that, in our past experience in Iraq, the elimination of its nuclear weapons programme was mostly accomplished through intrusive inspections." I would just point out here that inspections are only accomplished when Hussein feels threatened; remove the threat of force, and the inspections go away.
http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n005.shtml "The IAEA has continued to interview key Iraqi personnel. We have recently been able to conduct four interviews in private - that is, without the presence of an Iraqi observer. The interviewees, however, have tape recorded their interviews." Basically, then, the IAEA has wanted to interview scientists known to work on the nuclear program, but were unable to do so in private.
There was always someone from Hussein's regime there. Now they're doing so, but must tape record what they say. I'll offer an excerpt from this URL again, regarding the lack of privacy, and bearing in mind that it was coauthored in 1998 by one of those same scientists, who had defected: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/act1298.html "Iraq is known to have kept its nuclear weapon teams together following the Gulf War. These teams are kept together by force and intimidation. They appear not to be significantly reduced in size or number from before the Gulf War." This next one is from PBS, regarding the revelations in 1995 of Saddam's son in law: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/experts/defector... Here's the transcript of that interview in 1995, which I can't cut and paste from.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf Now, here's one from 1998. Compare what is said by the IAEA here with what the IAEA is saying now. It seems, at least to me, that it's influenced more now by a desire to present the case that war is a bad idea -- but I can't see what has changed, except for the purpose.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nukesusp.htm "The International Atomic Energy Agency, in a report Monday to the United Nations Security Council, said that it has found no evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. But the agency said that Iraq's failure to account for key nuclear equipment and technical blueprints leaves open the possibility that it has hidden the necessary expertise and material for future use. (1998)" Now, this is from your Yahoo story again: I would point out here that inspectors just after the Gulf War *also* failed to find a substantial amount of evidence, until it was revealed to them by defectors; that the scientists are still being effectively muzzled; and that while the focus *then* was reasonably on trying to prevent his acquisition of a nuclear bomb, the focus *now seems to be on trying very hard to minimize any and all evidence of non-compliance. There are things prohibited by UN resolutions, which everyone admits Hussein's acquired since 1991, but which suddenly everyone now wants to accept his explanation that they were for something else -- despite the fact that they were clearly and explicitely prohibited for very good reasons.
There's this, which is worth reading in its entirety, but I've excerpted some of it: http://www.nci.org/02NCI/09/iraq-fs-925-draft.htm "Disturbing reports from Iraqi defectors suggest that over the last few years Saddam has reconstituted his team of nuclear scientists, reportedly recalling some of them from other ***ignments. In public speeches over the last year, Hussein has commended his nuclear team for their key role in defeating Iraq??™s enemies." Finally, there's this, from Iraqi Barham Sadih: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144868575.html "No one wants a war in Iraq less than the Iraqi people. But we don't have the luxury of being anti-war. For the past 35 years, the Baathist regime has been waging war against Iraqis. We know there can be no peace without the military liberation of Iraq. The brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime leaves Iraqis and the civilised world with no other option. And so, not for the first time, a persecuted people is asking for help in dislodging a dictatorship." See, DW, there are lots of different experts saying lots of different things. I'm trying to hear what's being said by the people in Iraq, because everyone else wants to put their own spin on it. And I keep coming back to this obvious obstacle: Sanctions hurt the Iraqi people. I hate them. They should never have been put in place, but they were -- and I even understand why.
But sanctions also work, insofar as they limit the ability of Hussein to acquire the things he needs to make weapons that will hurt other people, people outside the borders of his country.
And pretending that he won't pursue those things is as willfully blind as those who pretended that sanctions themselves had a prayer of working.
To lift the sanctions would send a green light to him, and would also let the world know that UN resolutions don't mean spit -- that if you ignore them long enough, the UN will forget about it, because they don't have the will to back them up, even when it's important. But to leave the sanctions in place guarantees continued privation in that country. The only way to lift those sanctions is to get rid of Hussein, or pretend that he won't do what he's constantly demonstrated that he will. It's really just that simple. And if I agree that war is always bad and wrong, and that there's no need for anyone to go in, and that Hussein should just be left alone, what I have agreed to is that it's none of my business that this country has lived in constant poverty and fear since 1991, and that at this point, due to sanctions, it's partly my responsibility.
To be honest, I don't have a great deal of respect for the UN, anyhow.
Do you know that after years of debate regarding the Kosovo situation, with the bloodshed and m***acres and "rape houses" and all the other atrocities that were going on, it was finally NATO who decided that enough was enough -- and went in, hugely ***isted by the US, but "illegally" in terms of the UN? I think we all should have gone in much, much sooner -- too many people dead and crippled and wounded because of international bickering and endless discussion.
Thanks for the discussion, by the way, and I hope you don't mind if I continue to disagree with you. I think both of us are concerned to limit suffering, and do the right thing. I just think we disagree on the what that is. And to be honest, if I could see any other way --
including ******ination of Hussein -- that the ultimate goal of peace, no war, lifting sanctions, and ensuring that this man doesn't have nukes, could be accomplished other than war, I'd be all for it. Sunny
stillsunny stillsun...@yahoo.com
I'm sorry!
I forgot this one, which makes at least my own perspective better than I did: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/13/1047431148008.html Why containing Iraq is the wrong answer March 14 2003 Sanctions will not remove Saddam. Instead they kill hundreds of thousands.
Those who still oppose war in Iraq think containment is an alternative
- a middle way between all-out war and letting Saddam Hussein out of his box. They are wrong.
Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill.
In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.
The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1000 and 5000 were civilians.
Based on Iraqi Government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5000 Iraqi children under five every month, or 60,000 every year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate, containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -
and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under five.
Each year of containment is a new Gulf war. Saddam is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under five. Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and all together almost 1 million Iraqis.
Ever since United Nations-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to further US foreign policy goals. Wrong.
The sanctions exist only because Saddam has refused for 12 years to honour the terms of a ceasefire he himself signed. In any case, the UN and the US allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians.
Saddam diverts these resources. Saddam murders the babies. But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.
The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost.
Containment allows Saddam to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at US planes. He can mobilise his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilise his neighbours. The US must respond to these provocations. Worse, containment forces the US to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.
The existence of al-Qaeda, and the attacks of September 11, 2001, are part of the price the US has paid to contain Saddam. The link is clear and direct. Since 1991, the US has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbours) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his ceasefire agreement and disarmed, US forces would have left Saudi Arabia. But Iraqi defiance forced the US to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al-Qaeda because US forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.
This is the link between Saddam's defiance of international law and the events of September 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no September 11.
So that is America's cost. And what has America bought?
It has bought the right of a dictator to suppress his own people, disturb the peace of the region and make the world darker and more dangerous for Americans.
It has bought the continuing presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, causing a profound religious offence to a billion Muslims around the world, and accelerating the alarming drift of Saudi religious and political leaders towards ever more extreme forms of anti-Americanism.
What America can't buy is protection from Saddam's development of weapons of m*** destruction. Too many companies and too many states will sell him anything he wants, and Russia and France will continue to sabotage any inspections and sanctions regime.
Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq is one of the costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy.
Containment can be tweaked - made a little less murderous, a little less dangerous, a little less futile - but the basic equations don't change. Containing Saddam delivers civilians into the hands of a murderous psychopath, destabilises the whole Middle East and foments anti-American terror - with no end in sight.
This is disaster, not policy. It is time for a change.
"DW Suiter" dwsui...@toast.net
Hi Sunshine, I understand what you are saying. However, I have a different view as you know.
I believe it would be wise for all concerned to lift the sanctions and offer help to the people of Iraq.
This may be the right way to get the people to throw Saddam out of office.
The sanctions have not worked. To continue the sanction merely means more harm to the people.
There is nothing wrong with showing love and good will to the people of Iraq. It certainly would do more good than an invasion and a war.
It is for sure, a foolish thing to place trust in the "experts" or the "government" opinions and news releases. It is a well known fact Bush has contracted a firm for his disinformation campaign. The fact he used false information, which he knew was forged, says a lot for his lack of integrity and moral character. I personally do not trust him and cannot believe what he says. The same for Rumsfeld and many others. Mostly, I look at foreign news reports for information.
My question, and the question of many others has not been answered. Why the rush to war? Where is the necessity?
As long as Hussein is complying with the inspectors why not give the inspectors the information Bush says he has as to where the supposed weapons are located? Doesn't this make sense? Wouldn't this "prove" the matter of whether or not the weapons exist?
Bush has now stated he may attack even before the military forces are in position. In addition, there is no well developed plan for feeding and taking care of the people of Iraq during and after this war. The last I heard is they have a budget amount for nine months. Then what?
Plus the big question is who will profits from the oil of Iraq? Undoubtedly, back room deals have already been put together with a facade of appearing legitimate.
I still say there is no need to rush into war. I find it unjustified.
...
stillsunny stillsun...@yahoo.com
I know. I believe reasonable people may disagree reasonably.
And I trust both of us are simply looking for a way to achieve the best thing for all the people, especially the innocent.
I wish I thought that would work.
I really do.
But I've read a lot about the man, and he's like Stalin.
Remember how people used to get puzzled about Stalin's purges, because sometimes it looked like the groups he was purging had some of the brightest minds, minds which could make his vision for the USSR a reality? He was careful -- and everything he did was designed to foster a constant state of fear of him and his police state. It effectively stifles any dissent, because the wrong word, the wrong gesture -- or even a plain lie -- could get you hauled in, tortured, and killed.
So he purged even innocent, smart, productive people -- all to keep his power intact. And it worked.
That, we agree on.
I agree with the article, that sanctions *are* war, and they're war which targets the elderly, the kids, the poor.
Those are the ones who die in *that* war.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, DW, and I will continue to look for information and ways to see the thing.
Historically, efforts to rebuild, or help, ***ist, aid, feed, all really fail in any ultimate goal of an all around better society for all people unless there's a clear victory first. The money in the "Oil for Food" programs (which were endorsed by Colin Powell, because I don't think he likes seeing people starve, either), was used for palaces and military buildup. I can read things written well prior to this administration. I know what Saddam was striving for before his invasion of Kuwait. I know what he'd accomplished, some of it. I know how he hid things from inspectors for nearly seven years (and really, from the IAEA before that). I can see what drives him -- power. I know what he wants --
big weapons, which help increase or cement that power. I do not think he will change now, after all these years, and his sons are worse.
It's not that I trust politicians from anywhere -- I don't. Not mine, not Hussein, not Germany's or France's or anyone else's. But I can see cause and effect. I can see that what looks like a drive to war is exactly what finally got inspectors back in that country. I can see that Hussein doesn't respond unless it's clear he's up against strong and stern opposition. And to be honest, I can also see that the protests shore him up, make him feel like he's "popular" -- and may well have made him reconsider abdicating office.
That would have been the best thing, if he'd left office. The Arab League has been suggesting it.
No war. Sanctions lifted. Help pouring in.
Which means that all this saber rattling may have had as its first hope pushing him to do exactly that, and it may also mean that all the well meaning peace protestors (most of whom can't discuss the issues as well as you have here, but who look for all the world like people just following the crowd) -- all those people shouting about war may have actually created the condition where war is inevitable.
I tend to go everywhere for news, too.
I don't know that he knew the information was forged, though he may have.
I know there's a question about it now.
But it was two pieces of a pile of evidence, most of which evidence had been verified and reverified -- stuff that was known even prior to the Gulf War.
The question is whether some materials were attempted to be shipped from Africa.
Might not have happened.
But the Iraqi scientist Hamza, in his 1999 report, mentions at least 200 offers which *he* knows of to sell Iraq various components of nuclear weapons.
As I said, I think this thing's been brewing since 1998, or before. I truly think Clinton would have loved to have done it -- he did toss some 450 missiles into Baghdad, after all. But he was on the last two years of his office, and his credibility was in tatters. If you read, Blair's been pushing for this -- to force Saddam to comply with the resolutions, or remove him -- for *years*, but England's not in the position to have done it alone. So I don't know that it's really a rush. It's just that it's not been on the radar screen of the general population, so it seems like it's out of the blue. (It did for me, which is why I initially rejected the idea).
I understand.
Yet the only way to ensure that he continues to comply with inspectors (to whatever extent he's actually complying, which doesn't include letting inspectors talk privately to the very scientists they need information from) is to maintain that invasion force.
DW, if the pressure is eased, he'll throw them out again.
We *know* that.
And keeping that force there, just hanging out, a huge presence in that region, isn't feasible for a whole lot of reasons.
I don't know.
I wish I did.
But I do know that it's a bad idea to have an obviously US managed rule there for any substantial period of time.
It must be Iraqi people.
And there has been some initial planning for that very thing.
It's clear that, lacking oil, that nation wouldn't be a priority.
It's also clear that there are, obviously, going to be interests.
But those interests also are those who bring expertise to the region.
If Bush has said he doesn't plan a long term occupation of Iraq, I doubt very much if he plans to have US control and profit from Iraqi oil fields. There would be no way to protect them. It's in everyone's best interest -- everyone's -- to have Iraqi control of their own fields, with profit doing what profit does, creating jobs and pouring in money and food and medicine and all that good stuff.
I know.
I disagree only in that it doesn't seem like anyone's actually rushing. There's been a whole lot of wait and talk.
In other words, again, I'm trying to look at what's happening, instead of what's being said.
Sunny who truly hates what she finds when she looks, but there it is
"Dore" spiritf...@frontiernet.net
You are right Don, it is unnecessary, but it is not about compliance with weapons of m*** destruction, for it is obvious that North Korea is more dangerous than Iraq, so that political propaganda is just blowing smoke for control of Oil, wealth and power and for revenge. Iraq is an easy target that Bush can easily crush, and he won't go against North Korea, because they have more military might and nuclear strength to cause a more difficult battle. Funny thing is that OIL is not necessary for fuel because the US has the technology to create power through the use of magnets and does so in many of their military uses. But because the use of magnetism for power is an endless resource that is self-sufficient, and does NOT provide wealth and capitalistic desires, it is hidden and denied to the world, for their is NO financial gain. However, crude oil on the other hand, has GOLD in it, as well as it's uses for fuel for attaining wealth, the US keeps it's need to a maximum for maximum profits, as well as the hidden riches it provides, unbeknownst to the world and especially the American people. Bush is an OIL man, and thus all of the lies and propaganda for security and defeat of weapons of m*** destruction is a false ruse for his own selfish gains, and the financial gain of the rich, wealthy and powerful oil owners, who all know it's value and their greedy selfish acquirements of it, to harvest the gold and sell the resources that it provides. It obviously doesn't matter that pollution and secretions of car exhausts are deadly, causing many weather changes and devastation, illnesses, green house affects, ozone depletion etc, for they are only concerned about their wealth, power and control of the people. The wise know that it is about oil, and even though many times in the past, support for war can be bought with a price tag, this time, the whole world is protesting and NOT giving into the promises of riches for this war against Iraq. Bush is so blinded by wealth, power, and vengeance that he cannot see the consequences of his actions and what it will cost in the long run. He thinks that after he has subdued and overcome Iraq, that the world will forgive him this horrific act and things will be as they were before and he will have what he wants now, and no worse the wear for it. And while he thinks that he is above all, all powerful and can defeat any enemy and all the world will cower at his feet, no matter what he does, he doesn't realize that while he is trampling on the almost defenseless with HIS weapons of m*** destruction, when Iraq does use the ONLY weapons available to him, biological and chemical for his own defense, Bush has clearly stated that he will use nuclear and weapons of m*** destruction against Iraq. Now as Bush expects Iraq to lay down without a fight, and it even amazes me that he and the government is surprised that Iraq is planning defenses, but while they are so full of themselves, what will happen is that while his focus is controlling the oil fields of Iraq, other nations, such as North Korea, and Muslim countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc, will ALL believe that this is a jihad and share their technology in nuclear strength against the US and build up their own weapons for the ultimate war against the US. And because the US is being so arrogant, powerlustful and contemptuous to the UN, it won't be a surprise if the whole world becomes an enemy of the US to fight against what they will perceive as US tyranny and control of the whole world and will NO longer consider the US an economical interest to befriend, but an enemy to be crushed. Now that Bush believes that HIS rule is the ONLY superpower left, this pride has gone directly to his head, and he thinks that the US is undefeatable. But you know the nature of a man, when someone is prideful, high and mighty looming over everyone, they want to bring those at the top down, and especially since this effort is no less Nazism, I see the whole earth coming against the US in the ultimate war of WWIII, and then the prophecies of world desolation and destruction will come to p***. What do you think?
--
Dore http://spirit_of_prophecy.tripod.com/ Rev 21:7 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(KJV) ...
"Dore" spiritf...@frontiernet.net
The ONLY reason the US should go to war on Iraq is if the nations surrounding Iraq, in that area of the world, are fearful because of an imminent threat from Iraq, and are screaming for help. Now, both Iraq and Al quaida have confessed that they have NOTHING to do with each other, and American intelligence has NO evidence that they are compliant with each other, so the ruse that Iraq is supporting terrorism is completely unfounded and an outright lie for an excuse by Bush to control oil fields and acquire more wealth and power. Those who will suffer great harm die in this war, are not terrorists, but poor civilians who are just trying to live day by day, like the rest of the working cl*** and people. And it is clearly OBVIOUS that the US has the technology to choose another means to seek out and disarm, disclose and bring to justice terrorists that will harm against the US. The need to destroy Iraq and it's people is unfounded. There is NO immediate threat, there is NO nations screaming in fear that Iraq is threatening them, and the ONLY time Iraq bombs Israel is when the US is bombing them, so if Iraq was a threat to Israel, Hussein would have already poured out his weapons on them, and not wait until he is backed into a corner by the mighty US. I don't even see the neighboring Kuwait begging for help against Iraq THIS TIME, so what is the rush to bring horror and war when it is NOT warranted?
Now what good would it be if, let's say Iraq had nuclear weapons? Would causing the oil fields of Kuwait be uninhabitable by nuclear contamination be a benefit to anyone? I really don't think that anyone is that stupid, especially when it is the OIL that they all crave. But answer me this. Is Iraq's evil desire for war and nuclear strength any different than America's? Why is America allowed to defend itself with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of m*** destruction and also allowed to infiltrate Iraq with the same things that it is screaming foul from Iraq? Let's see Iraq invaded Kuwait for OIL, America invades Iraq for OIL, what is the difference? I wonder if the only difference is that when Saddam invaded Kuwait, did he lie to his people with lies and propaganda pretending it was for some other reason and purpose like Bush is? And if you want to defend Bush's lies and propaganda for security and protection, the fact that North Korea is more dangerous, threatening and HAS weapons of m*** destruction and in their face, is increasing and threatening the US, blows that excuse out of the water. So let's look at this for what it is. Evil rules in Iraq, evil rules in America, evil rules in North Korea, evil rules in Britain, and every other nation on the earth, and there is NOT one righteous in any of this, but as evil is prideful, greedy, self-serving, powerlusting, liars, and unjust, then all evil can do is war against others who are evil for domain and control, and that is what we are witnessing here. This is the beginning of the end, and the fire of the prophecies regarding this escalation of destruction and desolation is being lit, and nothing can stop it. We can all protest, argue, agree and disagree, but all are powerless against it, for it was prophesied and it will come to p***. As God uses evil ones to bring evil to the evil doers, you are witnessing the wrath of God being made manifest, for surely evil will bring evil, and nothing can thwart it.
Ezek 7:5-27 5 Thus saith the Lord GOD; An evil, an only evil, behold, is come.
6 An end is come, the end is come: it watcheth for thee; behold, it is come.
7 The morning is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not the sounding again of the mountains.
8 Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee: and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine abominations.
9 And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the LORD that smiteth.
10 Behold the day, behold, it is come: the morning is gone forth; the rod hath blossomed, pride hath budded.
11 Violence is risen up into a rod of wickedness: none of them shall remain, nor of their multitude, nor of any of theirs: neither shall there be wailing for them.
12 The time is come, the day draweth near: let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn: for wrath is upon all the multitude thereof.
13 For the seller shall not return to that which is sold, although they were yet alive: for the vision is touching the whole multitude thereof, which shall not return; neither shall any strengthen himself in the iniquity of his life.
14 They have blown the trumpet, even to make all ready; but none goeth to the battle: for my wrath is upon all the multitude thereof.
15 The sword is without, and the pestilence and the famine within: he that is in the field shall die with the sword; and he that is in the city, famine and pestilence shall devour him.
16 But they that escape of them shall escape, and shall be on the mountains like doves of the valleys, all of them mourning, every one for his iniquity.
17 All hands shall be feeble, and all knees shall be weak as water.
18 They shall also gird themselves with sackcloth, and horror shall cover them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their heads.
19 They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.
20 As for the beauty of his ornament, he set it in majesty: but they made the images of their abominations and of their detestable things therein: therefore have I set it far from them.
21 And I will give it into the hands of the strangers for a prey, and to the wicked of the earth for a spoil; and they shall pollute it.
22 My face will I turn also from them, and they shall pollute my secret place: for the robbers shall enter into it, and defile it.
23 Make a chain: for the land is full of bloody crimes, and the city is full of violence.
24 Wherefore I will bring the worst of the heathen, and they shall possess their houses: I will also make the pomp of the strong to cease; and their holy places shall be defiled.
25 Destruction cometh; and they shall seek peace, and there shall be none.
26 Mischief shall come upon mischief, and rumour shall be upon rumour; then shall they seek a vision of the prophet; but the law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients.
27 The king shall mourn, and the prince shall be clothed with desolation, and the hands of the people of the land shall be troubled: I will do unto them after their way, and according to their deserts will I judge them; and they shall know that I am the LORD.
(KJV) Dore http://spirit_of_prophecy.tripod.com/ Rev 21:7 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(KJV) ...
...
"Dore" spiritf...@frontiernet.net
I have a question. What if the whole world lost trust in the US, discovered that they are actually Nazi influenced, and the whole world and UN decided that Russia will police the US and they will send inspectors to the US to seek all weapons of m*** destruction and destroy them , because they believed that the US wanted to control the whole world and would do so with military action with no holds barred. What if Russia decided to patrol the skies over New York and Washington, placed bases of their military in Florida, California and various places on US soil, demanded that Communism or their ways be instituted for regime change, what would be the position of the US people then? Would they not act in the same manner? Would the rednecks and militias do terrorist acts against Russia? Would America hide their weapons of m*** destruction and all of their military defenses, attempt to thwart the actions of the Russians? Why does America, with all of it's porno, fornication, greed, lawlessness, murder, rape, violence, thievery, adultery, idolatry, gun toting rights, arrogance, contempt, lies, oppression of the poor, unfortunate, and destitute, tolerance of Satanism and witchcraft, and all matters of evil, etc. calling it freedom, THINK for one minute that any other country DESIRES to live the same?
--
Dore http://spirit_of_prophecy.tripod.com/ Rev 21:7 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(KJV) ...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030314/ap_on_re_m... _iraq_forgery_2 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/experts/defector... ...
"DW Suiter" dwsui...@toast.net
...
Hello Sunshine, I believe the key word is "compliance." If Saddam complies with the UN resolution, all is well. The question is "How do you cause Saddam to comply?" It appears he is complying now which brings the question of why rush to war and the unnecessary carnage if he is complying?
The problem I have with Bush is his dictatorial attitude. If he had not ***umed this position, I'm sure the UN members would have eventually given Saddam an ultimatum under threat of invasion. However the other members see no need to rush into this drastic measure as long as compliance is being achieved.
The past is dead and gone and what is of concern now is getting Saddam to comply.
The inspectors are in Iraq in a hands on inspector status. They demand of Saddam what they want to inspect.
There is value in what Saddam says in wanting to observe the interviews with the inspectors. He does not trust Bush. The use of the forged documents used by Bush is enough to justify this stance.
The main issue though is if threat of war is justified. It is Bush threatening war, not Saddam. It is Bush who says he will use nuclear weapons in Iraq, not Saddam. It is Bush who instigated this issue by labeling thereby insulting Saddam and Iraq as an "axis of evil." In his madness and obsession, Bush has ignored the terrorist issue and blindly obsessed over war with Iraq. He has also ignored the economy of the USA causing the worst economic condition in decades. It appears his obsession is more important to him than the well being of the US citizens.
Indeed, as Dore points out, North Korea poses a much greater threat than Iraq. And again, Bush is instigating conflict with North Korea. This is why the USa has lost friends and partners in the world and brought hatred toward the USA. He is seen as a bully and a wannabe world dictator. Hitler followed the same agenda of wanting to rid the world of the "evil ones." The tactics are very similar using fear tactics to manipulate the minds of the people in order to garner support. Hence, the attempts to tie Iraq with terrorism which failed on the face of the facts.
Hussein has not rebuilt a military machine since the Gulf war and has no military might. The accusation of possessing WMD is merely speculation, not a proven fact, and this is what the inspectors are accomplishing, revealing the facts.
Again, Iraq has not threatened anyone for many years and is in no position to be a threat, considering world opinion against him.
The biggest threat to the citizens of the USA is Bush. In regards to his instigation of conflict with other nations; his alienation of our friends in the world and the UN and his apparent intentional destruction of our economy. The debt load he has incurred coupled with the reserves he has squandered, indicates a fourth grade student could have done a better job handling the economy.
Above all is the attitude of Bush and his gang of thugs. It is not in compliance nor agreement with the principles of God and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. It is aligned with the murderous minds of the religionists such as those of Judaism who rejects Christ and the way of Christ.
In other words, Bush is not presenting the image the people of the USA want their leader to present. He is not in the will of the people except for the religionists who do not know nor understand the will of God.
The people of the USA want to be seen as people with morality and as God loving people. All the good done by many people from the USA is being destroyed by Bush.
Along with the might and superiority of the USA comes the responsibility to act responsibly and morally in regards to other countries. The USA is in the position to lead but instead of leading with wisdom, it is being led with juvenile brashness, setting a very bad example of how to lead the world into a better day.
The military might of the USA can be unleashed at any time. It is prudence and wisdom that demands it not be unleashed unless fully warranted and fully justified as a last resort.
It is sad and sickening to see Bush take the attitude and approach of Sharon. It is a murderous mind that does not seek ways to solve an issue but relies on murder and carnage to force submission to obsessions.
There is good reason for millions of people to actively demonstrate against Bush. There are many millions more who hold the same opinion but do not demonstrate. In light of such a huge uprising against the Bush policies, Bush has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the legitimate complaints of these people, brushing them aside as a tyrannical leader often does. People do not want the USA to declare war on and invade Iraq. It is senseless.
Again, it is against the will of God and the principles of God. People are aware of this, and their innate wisdom has brought this to their attention, not some leader. Besides this, the way of God is to wage war against the mind and spirit, not the physical body. Bush cannot effectively address these issues because of his own mind and spirit that demands war and carnage, not wisdom and obedience to the ways of God.
I believe Bush enjoys the attention he is getting for this feeds his ego. He gives the impression of a gang leader wanting to "get them." I think the whole world would stand up and applaud if Bush was impeached and removed from office and if possible, replaced by Jimmy Carter or another person of this caliber with wisdom and experience in diplomatic relations who can get the job done in a peaceful manner.
The repercussions of this desired war of Bush is immeasurable.With such opposition against Bush's antics, it is very possible people could sympathize enough to support a m***ive retaliation. The Moslems and the other Arabic nations. It would also be an opportune time for North Korea and Iran to dispose of this threat of Bush made toward them. In other words Bush has brought us into an extremely dangerous situation. And I must say, needlessly. There is more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes but the ego and temperament of Bush has blindly followed the way of many other wanna be world leaders who wanted to dictate, invade and control.
Aid to the people of Iraq can be accomplished with out diversion to the governments hands. In addition to the UN inspectors, there are millions of people who would volunteer to go into Iraq and help the people. There are many more who would contribute to the needs of the people. If this happened, the whole world of good and decent people would support it. It would bring unity in the love and brotherhood Christ taught; giving for the needs of others. Take away all the war weapons in the world and all the warmongers, and the people would get along just fine.
I'm sorry, I do not agree with what Bush is doing nor what his gang of thugs are doing. They are the instigators of this looming war of m*** destruction of human life, not Hussein. As terrible as Hussein has been, he is not the cause of what is about to happen. He is the cause of concern which is being dealt with by the UN inspectors. As long as the inspectors are obtaining positive results, their work should not be interfered with. With each positive step, the goal is being reached. There is no need of this war Bush wants. Not at this time. If Bush backs off and lets the inspectors do their job, it is merely a matter of continuation and is Hussein prevents them from doing their job, then it is time to speak of armed intervention but by a united group of world leaders, not by a couple of brash leaders who have no wisdom nor experience in these matters.
I believe what was once said is true; "Love conquers all." War and physical carnage never does. Look at the history of man and the saying is proved.
Look at the impact of one man, Jesus of Nazareth, who taught and followed the way of peace and love; the way of God. Look at others such as Martin Luther King Jr. who brought about such a great social change in a peaceful manner. Look at Gandhi. Yes, these were murdered by the warmongers and religious misfits, but their contribution to the well being of the people will never be forgotten, nor will their efforts and success be forgotten.
In the eyes and mind of God, it is Bush who is a war criminal along with Hussein and others. Bush is committing crimes against God. He, along with all the other religious nuts, subscribe to the erroneous ways and interpretations of the Jews who rejected Christ and the true Word of God.
They believe the Word of God is what their leaders tell them, saying physical carnage is what God wants, which is a lie. The scriptures are not the word of God and the religious interpretations certainly are not.
Religionists are not in the will of God, not knowing the will of God for they do not know God, nor have they followed the way taught by Jesus of Nazareth in and by which God is known, as the will of God is known. The darkness over the land is the darkness of the mind of mankind in which there is no Light from God; no knowledge nor understanding of the ways of God. It is a simple matter to compare the man Jesus of Nazareth with Bush and see where each stands. Bush does not stand with God. He stands with the enemy of God who promotes and teaches principles not of God, but are against God; against the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
In the final analysis, each will receive their just reward for what they have done in this life.
stillsunny stillsun...@yahoo.com
Hi, DW.
Looks like all this talking doesn't mean much, does it. Here we go.
I dunno.
It looks like that the push is what's forcing compliance.
I understand what you're saying about Bush's attitude.
I'm not sure if it's a quality he already had, or if being forced suddenly into a position by 9/11 has made him that way. Like I said, I neither love nor hate Bush. It's possible he's naturally an arrogant turkey, or it's possible that the pressure caused by the attack on the trade towers put him in a place where he felt like he could show no hesitation, no weakness, no anything but a leader resolute in his leadership of this country. I simply don't know. I do know that the US needed to see a strong leader after that shock --
and it may be that that need to appear strong, intractable, and resolute has carried into areas that it really shouldn't.
This is a good article, I think, and as balanced as anything I've read so far. The nice thing is, the author doesn't appear to have an agenda or an ax to grind.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0cv=KA01#BODY Anyhow, for me, the issue has always been the sanctions. I've hated them for years, since they were put in place, but I understood why they were there. I just also knew they would hurt the people.
Saddam's a bad man, DW. I've been reading about him for years. His sons are as bad or worse -- Uday is a notorious rapist, killing husbands if he sees a woman he wants. He beat a servant to death once, for doing as Saddam asked and arranging a liason between Saddam and some Shi-ite foreign minister's wife. And he's in charge of torturing the Iraqi Olympic athletes if they don't perform to expectations -- beatings and shaving heads and peeing on them. One athlete, since defected, and body broken, talked about witnessing a drunken Uday throw two athletes in a cell with his attack dogs. And Qusay is awful, too. On just one occasion, he "cleaned" the prisons by arbitrarily taking 1,600 prisoners out -- some convicts, some awaiting trial, and some just there because they were unlucky and got caught up in the politics of the regime -- and sent them to a medical facility to have chemical agents tested on them. The witness talked about him watching as the test subjects convulsed on the tables, blood bubbling from their lips, as they died. That's just a few stories.
There are thousands. I've read a lot of them, starting long before this war talk started. This is interesting, I think. While all the rest of the world protests against Bush, the people in Iraq are protesting against Saddam.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z357462D3 It's not that I trust the president so much. I think any human is subject to the seductions of power. But I trust our system. I trust the fact that we have an open press, and a legal system which already dismantled some portions of the Patriot Act, and which has gone against the administration and said that Padilla must have access to counsel, no matter what he's accused of doing. Bush might be a jerk, and it's clear the world thinks he's arrogant (and has reason for doing so), but Saddam's nearly inhuman. I won't be sad to see him gone. I know he hasn't really rebuilt his military -- he hasn't had the money. But I don't know that I'd trust him not to, if he had it.
Anyhow, like I said, I think both of us want the best possible. You see war as bringing suffering. I know it does. But I also see war as an end to a stalemate which has itself caused more suffering than the first war did -- and I'll be glad to see that gone.
And in the meantime, I'll mourn those who suffer this, just as I mourned the lives lost when Clinton fired 450 missiles into Baghdad.
It's a crazy world, DW.
Sunny ...
| To Top |