The US, UN & Iraq II

Well, in addition to ul's response: since more than an hour, Spiegel-online is reporting about a new resolution by the "middle six" - which now seems to be confirmed by some other media.

I'm quite certain we will go to war, but if the military won't take care of their own, how often will soldiers be willing to risk their lives.

This man saw his best friends die and he has extrememly severe symptoms without being able to go to a VA hospital.

Where will the nest genration come from if the babies born of soldiers in Iraq are malformed or maturally aborted because of the amount of uranium in the semen of the soldiers. Female soldiers show even heavier amounts in their systems.

What will happen to the cildren born whose parents are chronically sick and without help from the military?

My only hope is this man will be successful in his attempt to educate as many people as possible and to start a protest among the soldiers themselves.

If any of you know someone in the military, please pass along the article.

Why I am going to the Gulf with a heavy heart
By a serving officer
(Filed: 03/09/2003)

"....The question I and my colleagues want to ask Mr Blair is: "Why attack Iraq now?" We had a successful policy of containment. Why risk unravelling all that for a regime change? What threat does the Iraqi regime really pose to Britain? I, like many of my colleagues, believe that those questions have still not been answered adequately.

The current course of action carries its own imponderable risk. There is outrage throughout the Arab world at Britain and America has taken over Iraq at a time when the divide between Islam and the West is the most dangerous element in world affairs. The deepening of this divide plays into the hands of the real threat, al-Qaeda. Support for al-Qaeda on the "Arab Street" could lead to the violent overthrow in the Al-Saud ruling family in Saudi Arabia, a pro-Western government. The Shah of Iran, another ally in the region, was supposedly invulnerable but he fell very quickly and was succeeeded by a regime deeply hostile to the West.

The stability of the West's economy relies to a significant extent on the Saudi oil fields. One only has to think of the panic that overtook the country in 2001 when fuel distribution was interrupted by protesters to imagine what could happen if oil failed to flow from the Gulf. Why risk all of this to change a maverick regime? For the American people it is quite simple: Saddam is a public enemy continuously demonised by the newspapers and politicians. More worryingly, many within the US administration have no grasp of the realities of the Middle East. There is a strong urge for revenge for September 11 and Iraq represents a suitable soft target. The US and our Armed Forces are immeasurably superior to the Iraqi army, which is badly equipped and poorly motivated.

On this side of the Atlantic, the clamour to stop the war seems to be getting louder. While the public are content to let our Armed Forces risk their lives containing a threat, they are less willing to support an offensive that makes no sense. The fall-out from incompetent diplomacy may well see the demise of Mr Blair. But politicians come and go. What is more worrying for me and my colleagues is the prospect of public opinion turning against the Armed Forces as the tool of the Government's incompetence....."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2007.htm

Just checking in to put the new thread in my "Topics Posted In". I may not have opportunity to revisit this thread as frequently as has been my custom for a while, so I'm gonna toss out a few thoughts just to keep things stirred up 'til I get back

I do want to mention that I note there are reports of "credible evidence" that select Iraqi Special Republican Guards units are tasked with the deployment of "Unspecified Toxins" as part of a "Last Ditch Defense" projected to center on Baghdad and/or Tikrit. "Reliable Sources" also indicate that Iraq has "begun rigging the Kirkuk Oil Field with demolition charges". There also are very recent, unconfirmed and somewhat confused rumors of small-arms fire exchanges which may have occured between the Kurdish PUK forces and Turkish Troops. Currently, both parties are denying it.

There seems also to have been a bit more troubling "evidence" in Dr. Blix's The Unclassified Report. The Drone is not alone; there appear to be munitions designed for the dispersion of aerosols, and some indication of yet another missile of prohibited capability.

Tommy Franks is doing a whirlwind tour of Centcom Capitols and Installations. When he's done shaking hands and patting backs, a day or two should suffice, he'll likely settle into his office, ready to immediately execute the attack order.

The pot is boiling vigorously.


Oh, on The Haliburton "Issue" ... on the whole planet, there is not another firm with the resources, expertise, and experience of Haliburton in its field. If indeed the oilfields are sabotaged, the prospect of Haliburton dealing with the disaster is comforting. They are the best in the world at what they do, IMHO.


timber

There are at least four well written articles about the coming war in Iraq in the New York Review of Books that just came out. The best are by Norman Mailer: "Only in America"... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16166

...and Tony Judt: The way We Live Now...a review of Lawrence F. Kaplan and William Krystols book, "The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16151

I highly recommend them both.

Haven't heard from you in a long time Vietnamnurse. Your posts are always welcome, but I don't think I could handle a whole book of Billy Krystols!

Of course, Timber, if it's true that it was the American military, not the Iraqis, who set fire to the oilfields during "Desert Storm," then the resources, expertise and experience of Halliburton will once again be the profiteers of a "military decision." This is a theory which I've heard from some shaky sources, and some more sources that I tend to believe. Does anyone know what the odds are that the American military were indeed responsible?

The officer quoted above is asking all the right questions. Thanks, Ul.

I think it would be a good idea for Blair to begin pulling out the British troops from the Iraq campaign. It might give Bush the second thought he needs before engaging in this unilateral war. c.i.

In British Parliament, today the Foreign Secretary was updating MPs on Friday's meeting of the UN security council. Mr Straw defended the March 17 deadline for Iraqi disarmament as "eminently reasonable".



So they got it just for the purpose to destroy it?

Hmmmmmmmmmm, to destroy. Rumpsfelt kinda thinking, me do believe!

Stinger, in another thread, gave a useful link to the Journal of the Federation of American Scientists. I reread some older papers in the Journal and recommend one in particular -- as a kind of review. Here's a sample:

...There is a substantial strand of opinion that believes the international order to be fundamentally anarchic and concludes that freedom and other core interests can be protected only by the exercise of military power. That has long been a minority view, but it is an intense minority with disproportionate influence that adheres to it. In the wake of last year's terrorist attacks that view has acquired ascendancy in American policy. Most of the implications are yet to unfold, but the possibilities are quite apparent. The traditional balance between military preparation and international legal restraint has already been sharply shifted by repudiating a number of treaties that the United States itself originally sponsored.... http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n5/war.htm

Ul, thank you for the good article about Bush Sr. And good job, Bill, for doing a hyperlink of it. GWB must feel very alone right now.

Tartarin, even in the back of some beyonds, there is DSL. Any hope for you that way?

BillW:

Read Tony Judt....its him I want you to read! He really writes a good review.

vietnamnurse, I pulled up your links. They are excellent. As you just pointed out, the commentary on the book is balanced.

Tartar

If you believe we set fire to the oil fields in Kuwait then I have a couple of bridges I want to sell you.

Kara -- They say once we get electric power we'll be well on our way to having DSL...

Perception -- I don't want your old teeth.

Tartar

Then how about a beach in Arizona??

perception, They do have a man-made beach in Arizona - with big waves and all! LOL c.i.

Thanks Vietnamnurse-noted the following:

c.i. They also have London Bridge!