The UN, US and Iraq IV

But that must happen. We need to demand courage from our (elected) Congress, our audience-driven media. Pressure is everything. From us to the media and our reps. From them to the White House.

0 Replies

I think there is a sickening conspiracy between the mainstream US media and the political establishment. Its of course implied, never explicit. There are unspoken rules which the old hands understand. So some questions and lines of enquiry are deemed outside the rules of the game. You can search after truth but the truth lies only within certain perameters. Start asking the wrong sort of questions, and your journalistic career becomes difficult. Sad

0 Replies

parameters, sorry

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

So why doesn't anyone ask the admin, "Did Saddam do it? Answer yes or no."

"Did Saddam do it? Did Saddam produce, use and hide Weapons of Mass Destruction? We know he did. Our soldiers are now uncovering the mass graves of those who fell victim to his regime. Did Saddam sponsor terrorism? We know he did. Just as surely as we know that the United States of America were attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001. Terrorists who hate our country, hate our way of life, hate our democracy and prosperity. They struck, and they will try to strike again. We can not stand by passively in the face of this threat. We must be vigilant, and we will strike back. We have shown this by ridding Afghanistan of tyranny, and by ridding Iraq of tyranny. Millions of Iraqis are grateful for it, and that affords us now a unique opportunity to build democracy, to safeguard human rights, and to ensure a safer Middle East. A Middle East where Al-Qaeda-like terrorists can no longer hide behind the intrigues of tyrans. Tyrans like Saddam. As President (etc) of the United States of America, I had the duty to act decisively to protect the national security of this country. I believe the removal from power of the Taliban, the removal from power of Saddam Hussein, and the continued persecution of terrorist plotters like Osama bin-Laden has helped to secure the safety of the citizens of the USA. I believe they were necessary. I trust that the American people will share my conviction.

Next question - yes, Fox Television, what would you like to ask?"

<sigh>

Ya think it'll help, Tartarin?

0 Replies

Well, Nimh, let's put it this way: I'm taking away your press pass! You are a covert Foxie! And I'm not electing you to ANYTHING!

0 Replies

Quote:

Analysis: Insiders slam Bush's speech

By JOHN WALCOTT
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Even some officials in the president's administration worry that in his address to the nation Sunday night he glossed over his shifting rationales for war in Iraq, oversimplified the sources of anti-American rage there and overstated the benefits of victory, both to the war on terrorism and to American policy in the Middle East.
Making the war in Iraq a central part of the war on terrorism that Osama bin Laden started two years ago this week sidestepped Bush's earlier rationale for war in Iraq - Iraq's alleged chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear ambitions - and ignored the fact that it was the American-led invasion that made Iraq a magnet for international terrorists, these officials said.

Before the war, intelligence analysts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon acknowledged there was no evidence of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida and no evidence of an Iraqi hand in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. None has yet surfaced....
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/6723820.htm

0 Replies

Would Bush have got away with it if he said that by 2020 67% of America's oil requirements will be imported, and something like 95% of that will be from Muslim countries.

That the "easy oil" is running out. That it was vital to take control of Iraq to stop Iraq developing a stranglehold over oil and gas supplies, not just from the Gulf but the littoral Caspian states.

And it would have the advantage of removing a nasty dictatorship and if all goes well creating a democratic Iraq as a model for other states in the region.

It also takes out the single biggest threat to Israel. So the US could force a 2 state settlement on the Israelis.

"So I'm going to war now to safeguard oil, protect Israel and maybe prevent a nuclear war in future".

Would the American people have bought into this?

0 Replies

Well, the problem is, Steve (though I think your approach is sensible), at that time the mention of oil was a no-no politically. Too many people assuming oil greed was ascending to the White House with that gang...

0 Replies

Quote:

CIA expected post-war struggle

09/09/2003 12:22 - (SA)

Washington - The CIA and other US intelligence agencies warned the government before the Iraq war that the post-war period would pose more problems than the war itself, and that there would be significant resistance to a US-led occupation, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
The post-war scenarios presented by the Central Intelligence Agency and its counterpart agencies in the Pentagon and State Department were more pessimistic than senior Pentagon officials expressed before the war, but their views generally remained submerged, congressional and administration officials familiar with the reports told the newspaper.
"Intelligence reports told them at some length about possibilities for unpleasantness," said a senior administration official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity.
"The reports were written, but we don't know if they were read," he added....
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1413626,00.html

0 Replies

One must not overlook the Carlyle Group, this is where the Bush family has been enriched immensely. Must have the use (more so than buildup) of armaments - which, of course, occurred.

0 Replies

I believe the "war on terrorism" is nothing but a smoke screen to enable Bush to pursue Americas geopolitical imperatives. That might sound like "conspiracy theory" stuff or else total cynicism. But its a fact that the oil question is real and pressing and won't go away. It will only get worse. [Unless of course America embarks on a programme of drastically reducing hydrocarbon consumption, paying x5 the price for gasoline and signing up for Kyoto etc...it would be nice but I cant see it happening under Bush].

The think tankers of the Project for a New American century acknowledged that without some "catalytic" event, the American people would be slow to give their blessing to such policy re-alignments.

0 Replies

I think like you think, Steve! I think the current economic and social mess in America is also part of the agenda. But I now think people are catching on... Let's hope...

0 Replies

This "war on terrorism" smoke is working fine: most Americans and our congress are following like sheep to slaughter.

0 Replies

We always hope, and in all things it is better to hope than to despair (Goethe, Torquato Tasso)

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, I read A2K members pooh-poohing the flypaper scenario-- and last week, I found an article <trying to relocate it> that backed up the assertion that al-Quaida is indeed pouring into Iraq and Afghanistan, and are increasingly being killed in larger groups. I'm glad they're out in the open, and not hidden in an apt in Queens or Wisconsin, or London... Sure, there are probably sleeper cells around--but if the US hates to have their service personnel spread thin, is al-Quaida any different?

To me, its clearly better to have a gathering of the enemy in a location with our service personnel that anywhere else.

Here's more poo on the flypaper.

This is the thing: this absolutely delusional idea that terrorism is a zero sum game, that there are a static number of terrorists which can be kept busy, and therefore away from us. (Leaving aside, for the moment, the sheer depravity of that very concept that our troops are best utilized as bait, to keep the bad guys occupied.)

And do not pretend that ongoing attacks in Iraq will dissuade the proponents of "flypaper." The concept has no grounding in reality to begin with, so it's certainly not going to be disproven by, you know, reality. For that matter, don't pretend that another attack on US soil would change their minds. If that happens, they'll just blame "libruls", for criticizing the President, encouraging the terrorists with our disloyalty.

And round and round and round it goes.

And one last thing: anyone capable of referring casually to these peopleas "flypaper" is a walking moral abyss.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Well, Nimh, let's put it this way: I'm not electing you to ANYTHING!

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I believe the "war on terrorism" is nothing but a smoke screen to enable Bush to pursue Americas geopolitical imperatives [..] its a fact that the oil question is real and pressing and won't go away.

Then again - and I'm not just morphing into my Bush alter ego again ;-) - the attacks on New York and Washington DC were also pretty real and pressing.

I'll grant you that the "war on terrorism" has been (mis)used to pursue geopolitical interests - thats blatant enough. Whole war in Iraq fits in that category.

But I dont buy the implication that somehow, we could have done without a war on terrorism. period - too many dead people in the WTC for that.

0 Replies

Well, by gum, I disagree with you again, Nimh. As some "expert" was heard to say today (didn't catch the name), we're dealing with an octopus. I think it's hellishly stupid to use up most of your ground troups fighting what you believe to be the nasty little end of one single tentacle (even if it's true). If I were president? Well, first I'd cry and ask for a protein shake, and then I'd say, let's fight this war where they are: everywhere, and underground. Let's spend whatever resources we can afford on the best damn systems of 1) defense and 2) intelligence. Obviously, I mean OBVIOUSLY, both were in parlous shape. The military were in better shape and at least one might be forgiven for believing they'd do an effective job of toppling a dictator (who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, so why now?). But we're not talking about an administration which looks at the situation and says, Let's see what we can do about this. No. They look at the situation and say, Let's see what we can get out of this politically, even though we're aiming at the wrong target(s).

And hey, not one victim of the WTC has been brought back to life NOR EVEN HONORED IN DEATH by the Bush administration's blind flailings.

0 Replies

What's worse, they do lip service to our service men and women, but stab them in the back by taking away their medical benefits. His christian values just shoots at my heart with pride.

0 Replies

Mr. Tartarin:

I read the objectives you would have as president and find that they are focused and well honed.

Please let me know if you are interested in running since( if you do not abandon the ideas you listed) I may contribute to your campaign.

I want you to know that I have already contributed to the campaign of Howard Dean since I feel that his candidacy is one of the finest things that have ever happened to our country. I sincerely hope that he wins the nomination.

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know