Chemtrail Central
Register
Login
Member's Area
Member List
Who's Linking
What's Popular
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Gallery
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Polls
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Top Websites
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote

  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  Gulf War II (Page 17)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 45 pages long:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17  18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
 41 42 43 44 45
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author
Topic:   Gulf War II

Topic page views:

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-14-2003 05:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BUSH/BLAIR LOSING THE "WEATHER WINDOW"

Restless Marines whipped up by a desert storm
From Chris Ayres at Camp Grizzly near the Kuwait-Iraq border
THEY call it Iraq’s El Niño. Every April, as atmospheric pressure above the Middle East forces hot air downwards, the Iraqis brace themselves for what is formally known as the “southern wind change”.

That name does little justice to the raging, screaming gale that is beginning to assault US Marines stationed at temporary bases on the Iraqi border. This year, Iraq’s El Niño has come early.

The gales do little to improve the conditions of the Marines stationed here at Camp Grizzly, named after the 5th Regiment’s radio codename. Dust and sand get everywhere, making it impossible to go outside without ski-goggles and “gators” — neck scarves that can be used to cover the mouth and nose.

Even with such protection, grains of sand still find their way into the Marines’ lungs; the men cough up the resulting brown-green gunk at any opportunity. Several have written to their wives, asking them to send painters’ facemasks.

Even veterans of the last Gulf War are relatively new to this: the 1991 conflict was fought before Iraq’s spring sandstorm season began. As the UN agonises over the Iraq emergency, the gales grow more ferocious. Conditions will not get better until June.

Even going to the lavatory is an ordeal: last night about ten Marines formed a human chain to make sure none of them was lost in the storm as they walked the 100 yards to the portable lavatory. When they returned, everything in the tent was covered with yellow-brown dust. As a result, the men have started wrapping all their personal posessions in thick plastic sheeting.

The Marines want nothing more than to abandon their rows of yellow-brown hooches — otherwise known as tents — and get to the line of departure from where the Iraqi invasion will begin. “I would rather go now and just do it,” says Lance Corporal Adam Tryson, a member of the 2nd Battalion 11th Marines Division artillery unit.

Like all the Marines here at Camp Grizzly, about 30 miles north of the Iraqi border, the lance corporal eats MREs (“meals, ready-to-eat”) out of a brown sealed envelope, uses a filthy chemical lavatory and showers only once every four days. The sandstorms only make life harder: when the men wake in their sleeping bags, they are caked in sand.

“You can ask any Marine whether they would like to go now and they would say yes,” says the lance corporal confidently, wiping his oily hands on his desert uniform. Last night’s sandstorm, he says, was one of the worst so far. “I was sleeping at one end of the hooch and I couldn’t see the other end of it,” he says.

Each hooch is about the size of two squash courts. They are modelled on the tents used by the Beduin nomads, who still roam the deserts of Iraq. The winds still sometimes get the better of them. Last night the gales managed to rip a hole in the side of the mess hooch. The result was no cooked breakfast: the Marines made do with muffins and fruit instead of eggs and potatoes.

The Marines’ meteorological experts are reluctant to discuss how the weather will affect military performance. They say that the weather does not affect communications but agree that the gales can have an impact on other operations. “It does affect artillery — if we’re in the southern part of Iraq and we’re firing north, it carries it farther,” Sergeant Jesse Scott says, adding that that can cause the rounds to miss targets. The guns can be reset to take strong winds into account. One advantage of the winds is that they make it much harder to use chemical or biological weapons.

“A round goes 5,000 metres (16,400ft) up into the sky, above the sand storm,” Sergeant Scott says. “But the ground force, it’ll definitely impact that.” As the forces move into Iraq the storms should become less intense, mainly because of the rockier terrain.

Lance Corporal Tryson agrees that setting up the artillery division’s mobile command operation centre can be more difficult in a sandstorm, but it can still be done “pretty quickly”. After all, the Marines train in California’s Mojave Desert, where conditions can be similar. Asked if the wind could stop the Marines in their tracks, he is adamant. “Oh no,” he says. “We don’t stop for anything, Sir.”

# The sandstorm left ten Royal Navy helicopter crew members stranded in the Kuwait desert overnight and grounded most of the force’s fleet for 12 hours.

Flying blind, the two-man crews at the controls of five Sea Kings from HMS Ocean had to land where they were, with one going down beside a motorway.

The stranded pilots from 845 Naval Air Squadron based at Yeovilton, Somerset, slept in hammocks in the back of their helicopters. They were on a night-flying exercise with night goggles.

The storm was so strong that it left a fine coat of sand over the decks of Royal Navy warships in the Gulf.

A Sea King pilot said: “The storm whipped up from nothing in three minutes and there was nothing they could do. I’ve never seen the flight deck in such a bad state.”

The crew of HMS Ocean took hours to clear their fleet of 22 helicopters of sand and return the 22,000-tonne helicopter carrier’s flightdeck to its normal grey colour.

A helicopter pilot from HMS Ark Royal made an emergency landing on a US warship during the storm because he couldn’t reach the ship.



[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 03-19-2003]

IP Logged

Thermit
Tech


Houston, TX
2621 posts, Jul 2000

posted 03-15-2003 05:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Thermit   Email Thermit   Visit Thermit's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Don't know if this has been mentioned already (sorry I didn't read all 17+ pages of the thread ), but the people over at The Onion must be prophets, cause they really pegged old Bush, not that it was that much of a stretch...
http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html

quote:

January 18, 1991

WASHINGTON, DC—Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"


IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member


United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 03-15-2003 10:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Try and name this country based on the following information:

709,000 regular ( active duty ) service personnel,

293,000 reserve troups, 8 standing Army divisions,

20 Air Force and Navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft and 232 strategic bombers,

13 strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles, 500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads,

Four aircraft carriers and 121 surface combat ships, submarines, plus all the support bases, shipyard, logistical assets needed to sustain such a military.

Is this country Russia?....................................No

Red China?..................................No

Great Britian?..................................No

Korea?....................................No

Iran or Iraq?.............................Wrong Again
United States?............................Hardly

Give Up?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Don't feel bad if you are unable to identify this global superpower. It no longer exists! These are the numbers of the American military forces and equipment that have disappeared since 1992.

Sleep well America, and remember this was brought to you by Slick Willy.


( sent to me by a very dear friend in the Navy )


I'm all for building up our military and using it against leaders like Saddam. It needs to be done now.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Proud Veteran on 03-15-2003]

IP Logged

Raelven
Elentári


Númenor
123 posts, Feb 2003

posted 03-15-2003 11:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Raelven   Email Raelven     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Don't go to sleep yet, there is another round of BRAC's (Base Relocation or Realignment and Closure) on the slate for 2004-5 (round 2, the 1st round started in '97 and took until '01 to complete).

BRAC's mean bases either completely close down, or consolidate with other bases, staying partially operational but not at full force.

And the DoD is cutting Civilian jobs (APF, NAF and GS*) left and right. I know, I just lost mine after 11 years at the same base, and despite being awarded the Civilian Medal for Meritorious Service, which is damn hard to come by).

Yes, you can be pro-military and anti-government. Amazing but true.

The Navy region I worked in (CNRSW part of CINCPACFLT) was mandated to cut 250 jobs by June 1, another 300 by FY04, from a region comprised of 6 bases. This is the 4th RIF (Reduction in Force) we've been thru since '98. My department alone (QoL programs) has lost 22 people. Our Public Works Department lost 33 on this last RIF alone, close to 70 total.

Just try getting a PWD work order filled, it takes weeks to get someone to come out and replace a broken window, let alone do a major repair.

This RIF (a by-product of BRAC) includes Quality of Life program employees, Public Works Departments, Personnel Support Detachments, Fleet & Family Service Centers... no one is immune.

We also just closed our base library, swimming pool and bowling center, and our enlisted club closed for lunch, while the officers' club is now all-hands.

So you can't say the buck stopped at Clinton, when in fact this administration is not even close to done cutting back on base locations and jobs.

Sad.
Wonder where they plan on putting this built up military Bush keeps drooling over... or maybe he is thinking with kick ass technology, people are just... dispensible...

Anyway I don't think you can say Clinton killed the military because I know from experience, it's not even close to over.

*Appropriated Fund, Non-appropriated Fund or Government Service aka Civil Service).

------------------
Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo!

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-16-2003 07:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What a bunch of Horse Hockey. Our Military has never been stronger. We still have enough nukes to blow up the world 20 times over.

This country would have no problem increasing its military size instantly if there was a REAL threat to our borders.

The real threat is leaders who put military personnel in harms way for CORPORATE PROFITS.

IP Logged

Raelven
Elentári


Númenor
123 posts, Feb 2003

posted 03-16-2003 10:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Raelven   Email Raelven     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The BRAC's RIF's and base QoL facility closures indicate that our troops won't be coming straight home, either.

QoL facilities aren't closed unless it's known that there won't be any customers (military personnel) to utilize them.

Although I sincerely hope that I am oh so very wrong about that first statement.

Time will tell, but...
Not soon enough.

------------------
Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo!

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member


United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 03-17-2003 12:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"What a bunch of Horse Hockey. Our Military has never been stronger."

You know something that we don't know Mech?

We are down a couple of divisions in case you haven't noticed. Oh that's right, you are up on all of the latest government statistics aren't you. I forgot you are all pro government. The almighty plane mechanic that can fix anything anywhere with a little cut and paste. RIGHT

IP Logged

the professor
exposing the mechanisms of evil


heartland USA
770 posts, Jan 2003

posted 03-17-2003 03:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for the professor   Visit the professor's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I read somewhere a month ago that they (military) were scrapping alot of the older
hardware such as the A10 warthog, then over
the weekend they had some news doing a story
of the crew loading them with munitions in
Iraq. I'm glad were still using them, I used
to watch them fly war manuveurs in alaska.

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member


United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 03-17-2003 08:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A-10s, beautiful in their own way.


IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-18-2003 07:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....



PV...Personal insults seem to be becoming a regular element of your postings. Are you running out of substance and REAL things to talk about? Just keep beating the war drum. If you had your childrens guts ripped out of them by high explosives...you MIGHT think differently.

NO WAR IN IRAQ



[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 03-18-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-18-2003 07:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Veterans tell Bush: 'Gulf war will be worse than Vietnam'


1000 US servicemen and women warn military action will wipe out cities and breed terrorism
By Neil Mackay, Home Affairs Editor
http://www.sundayherald.com/32159


MORE than 1000 US servicemen and women have told President George Bush that they oppose war against Iraq and warned him that any conflict with Saddam Hussein will become another Vietnam.

The American soldiers, sailors and aircrew have written a letter to the President, signed by two vice-admirals, a brigadier-general, 14 colonels and hundreds of other high-ranking officers, asking Bush to meet with the leaders of the anti-war 'Veterans for Common Sense' group.

The letter, signed by men and women who fought in the second world war, Korea, Vietnam and the first Gulf war, represents the biggest backlash yet delivered to the Bush administration from the US military. The letter says: 'We are patriotic citizens and veterans ... we feel duty-bound to share with you our serious concerns regarding issues of national security [and] the appropriate use of military strength.'

It goes on: 'We strongly question the need for a war at this time ... We are not convinced that coercive containment has failed or that war has become necessary. Our own intelligence agencies have consistently noted both the absence of an imminent threat from Iraq and reliable evidence of co-operation between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Again, we question whether this is the right time and the right war.'

The veterans fear that war in Iraq 'would likely involve protracted siege warfare, chaotic street-to-street fighting in Baghdad and Iraqi civil conflict. If that occurs, we fear our own nation and Iraq would both suffer casualties not witnessed since Vietnam. We fear the resulting carnage and humanitarian consequences would further devastate Iraqi society and inflame an already volatile Middle East and increase terrorism against US citizens'.

It adds: 'The scale of the crisis would be so large that the international community would be unable to prevent widespread suffering. For these reasons and more, it remains in our nation's best interest to avoid another war.'

One of the key signatories, vice-admiral Ralph Weymouth, said he feared that the Bush administration 'wants a military force which no other country or region could rival, and refuses to countenance any challenge to its pre-eminence'. Weymouth, a sailor for 35 years, was a navy pilot in the second world war and fought in Korea and Vietnam. He has one of the highest decorations in the US military, the Navy Cross.

'We can't interpret the actions of the government as anything other than an attempt to establish global hegemony,' he told the Sunday Herald. 'They appear to want to run the world. We are on the wrong path and it frightens me a lot. We are promoting a clash of civilisations.'

He says he knows that his views will be met with dismay in Washington DC, but he insists he is an American patriot . 'The debate about the war in the US is utterly stifled. We veterans are making our worries public in order to get the public to think, listen and understand,' he added.

'Too many people in America are automatically supporting their leaders, and the media is denigrating any form of protest and taking part in a form of self-censorship. I want to publicly oppose this US administration. '

He said he viewed the Bush administration's policy of pre-emptive action as 'terribly dangerous for the world', adding: ' We are a great country, but we are arrogant with the entire world.'

Weymouth said war with Iraq would cause 'inconceivable problems' in the Islamic world, could create chaos in Israel and Palestine and breed 'terrorism without limit'. He also said he felt 'business interests' were tampering with foreign policy.

Weymouth wants the American government to understand that modern warfare could mean 'whole cities being wiped out', adding: 'We have super-weapons today, but as our experience in Kosovo, where we bombed the Chinese embassy, shows we really don't know how to use these weapons. I certainly fear for large civilian casualties. We have to remember that in Vietnam the civilian to combatant ratio of casualties was 100 to one. This could well be worse.'

Referring to the US-UK special relationship, Weymouth said: 'It should be about co-operation. I don't understand why Tony Blair is following this route. '

He called on the US government to work with the UN, saying: 'The United Nations is the single institution which the world can look to at the moment. It may be imperfect, but it's all we've got. The current administration is trying to strangle it.'

Weymouth also said he 'doubted' that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Charles Sheehan-Miles, who was decorated in the Gulf war after saving four of his comrades from a burning tank and is co-founder of Veterans For Common Sense, said: 'No-one has been able to get through to the president. We hope he may listen to military veterans.

' I'm very concerned that we are about to start world war three, but this time we are the aggressors. '

One signatory to the letter is Kris Kristofferson, the actor and Grammy Award-winning singer/songwriter. He is a former 82 Airborne helicopter pilot.



[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 03-18-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-18-2003 07:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Top US military planner fears a 'likely' repeat of Somalia bloodbath
By Andrew Buncombe
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=387234

15 March 2003

A former military aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf has warned that a US-led war against Iraq could turn into a disaster that echoes the bloody debacle of Somalia rather than the relatively painless 1991 Gulf war.

Retired Colonel Mike Turner, who also served as military planner with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes the Bush administration is ignoring potential risks – some that could cost the US dearly.

"There's a saying in military circles: We always fight the last war. It means that too much focus on past enemy behaviour can easily lead to misjudging an enemy capability in the future," he said.

"So I asked myself today which war will this be: Desert Storm or Somalia? In 1991, we had four iron-clad prerequisites for war with Iraq: a clear political end state, overwhelming force to achieve a quick and decisive victory, a viable Arab coalition to avoid empowering Arab extremists, and absolutely no Israeli involvement to avoid a global holy war.

"In Somalia, we ignored the most critical of these lessons. Mission creep turned our original objective of humanitarian aid into simply 'Get Aidid,' the Somali factional leader we were battling. We committed US troops to a high-risk military operation in an urban area with extraordinarily dangerous variables in play on the battlefield, and with insufficient firepower."

Colonel Turner said the US had made the mistake of fixing its sights early on ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. This plan had met stiff opposition from the uniformed staff within the Pentagon, but the administration had chosen this focus regardlessly.

Colonel Turner outlined a worst-case scenario: "Within hours of our attack, Saddam launches Scuds on Israel. Israel's government launches a full-scale attack on Iraq, creating a holy war. Saddam, threatened with his own survival, uses chemical and biological weapons and human shields. He torches his own oil fields, thousands of his own people are killed. Photos of US soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US."

He then envisaged the US left to administer a post-Saddam Iraq with minimal international co-operation and open to terror attacks from al- Qa'ida. North Korea could take advantage and start exporting nuclear weapons.

"These are not remote possibilities, but in my view reasonable, possibly even likely outcomes," he concluded.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 03-18-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-18-2003 07:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP Logged

swamp gas
Bird Man of Hudson County


Jersey City, NJ
779 posts, May 2002

posted 03-18-2003 02:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for swamp gas     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeeeeeehahhhhhhhhh!


Better than ropin' goats. Killin' a half million Iraqis.


IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-18-2003 02:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Endgame

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/03/17.html

It's the endgame of a mad, politically calculated war. From the beginning, everyone's agreed that Saddam Hussein is a bad man, almost a prototype for a villain in a James Bond Film.

But that's where the agreement stopped. The Bush Cartel, for a variety of politically and financially calculated reasons, decided that a war that could cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars was of strategic importance to its world domination game plan -- and to a second term for George W. Bush.

The corporate media -- for reasons of financial interest combined with sheer ineptitude -- enabled and facilitated a rush to war that was transparently self-serving for the Chickenhawks in the White House. The Democrats, as usual, allowed the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) to define the issue in such a way that it marginalized any dissent. This despite the fact that the Bush Cartel brazenly used lies and shifting justifications to mask the real reasons for the war.

In the end, Bush is going to war for two reasons. First of all, the Iraq war offers him and his Vietnam service evading administration many political positives from their perspective, including (but not limited to):

1. The permanent war public relations strategy is, in large part, aimed at keeping any of the numerous Bush domestic disasters off of the political table. War supersedes even an economy down the tubes.

2. Keeping the threat of terror simmering on the burner through ginned up and meaningless terror alerts scares Americans into supporting Bush, because they seemingly have no option, since they believe they are under a constant terrorist threat. This leads to a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome" for the nation as a whole. Most Americans look to their psychological tormentor for protection from an outside threat perceived as the more serious of two evils.

3. A war in Iraq offers almost bottomless billion-dollar profiteering opportunities for Bush Cartel campaign contributors and Bush administration officials. Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, etc. are all set to reap big financial benefits from the destruction of the Iraq infrastructure. Blow the country up with bombs paid for by taxpayers -- and then use taxpayer dollars to pay campaign contributors and companies with connections to administration officials to rebuild it. A nice scam if you got a railroad car on the gravy train.

4. By using a brutal, thuggish "diplomacy" -- including threats, bribes and intimidation -- the Bush Cartel has alienated the populations of almost every nation in the world. It has managed to lure a few "leaders" into the alliance of the unwilling with a combination of inducements worthy of a crime family, but created a hostile reaction in almost every country. Why does the seemingly disastrous result actually benefit the Bush Cartel? Because they want to see the United Nations sink into the East River. They don't want anybody but the Bush Cartel Chickenhawks calling the international shots. Sayonara, U.N., and good riddance. That's what the Bush administration fanatics want -- and they are on the verge of achieving their goal.

5. Through the financial "inducements" the Bush administration has offered some nations to support the war, they have found an ingenious way to pay back campaign contributors. Take Poland, for instance. The Bush administration gives Poland six billion dollars in taxpayer money (which would be okay if it were for improving the lot of Polish citizens). What will Poland use the money for, according to a New York Times article? Why, to buy six billion dollars worth of fighter jets from Lockheed-Martin.

6. The assertion of raw, brute, power -- in the form of sophisticated killing war technology -- is meant to intimidate all of the nations of the world, not just our enemies. It is also meant to bully dissenters at home into submission. Since Democratic leaders usually cower when the Bush Cartel barks, it is, additionally, meant to scare them into "dazed and confused" passivity.

7. The conquest of Iraq will shore up a Middle East alliance with the Sharon government, with whom the Bush Cartel shares a common worldview. (The Sharon right wing government is, in this case, to be viewed as a distinct political entity. It is clear that Bush would not have cared a hoot about Israel if the Labor government were in power. Remember that the right wing in Israel killed Yitzhak Rabin, a man of peace. Sharon and Bush are two peas in a pod for whom war is peace.)

8. An attack on Iraq will almost surely be the catalyst for renewed terrorist attacks. After the next terrorist attack, the Bush Cartel will further dismantle the Constitution and move toward a Stalinist "KGB police powers" state of emergency with the likely passage of "Patriot II". It is the Bush Cartel's goal to incrementally seize power until it one day, unnoticed, crosses the line into a dictatorship rather than a democracy. (If you think this is some fringe conspiracy theory, think about the theft of election 2000, think about the 6 year attempt to find a way to impeach Bill Clinton. This is a clique that thinks God has chosen it to run America.)

9. A permanent war will pave the way for even larger Republican majorities in Congress. This will further consolidate a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. It will also mean an accelerated dismantling of government services and the removal of any separation between church and state.

10. The media will be even more in the pocket of the Bush Cartel, because war has become a form of media news entertainment. War increases print readership and television news viewership. War is "exciting." War is profitable for the news media.

11. The war will increase oil prices and give the second largest oil reserves to American and British oil companies, who financially support the Republican Party.

12. A permanent war will ensure that no one digs up the truth about the Bush administration's catastrophic failure to prevent 9/11, including an August 2001 briefing that warned Bush about terrorist hijackings. Bush did nothing in response to that briefing.

13. The religious right and Neo-Confederacy warrior culture will be energized to contribute more to the 2004 Bush election effort, as well as turn out at the polls.

14. There is nothing like a war to try out the latest mega-bombs and hi tech weapons. It's hard to find a place to target practice nowadays, let alone a whole country with real live people in it -- alive for the moment, anyway. And, of course, when bombs are blown up, more bombs are needed. They just happen to be manufactured by companies that contribute to the Bush Cartel election fund. And when more taxpayer money goes toward bombs and new military equipment, there is even less money for government services. Ah, yes, the perfect war for the extremist right wingers running our nation.

But what is the number one reason that the Bush Cartel will send our sons and daughters into War?

The number one reason is that it has no Plan "B."

As BuzzFlash noted in an earlier editorial entitled "Muscle Beach Party":

In the end the Bush Cartel is banking on making the kind of impression on the world that a thug makes with a baseball bat on a car.

It's all about image and firepower. It's how the playground bully establishes himself. Pick the weakest guy in the school -- the one nobody likes much anyway -- and beat the living daylights out of him. Keep all the kids nervous and on edge. Let them think that you are a little bit mad and might just beat up on them for the fun of it. Tell them that you will protect them from the gang that lives in the next neighborhood in return for their loyalty. Make an example of anyone who challenges your leadership by denouncing them and bloodying them up. Establish a system of stool pigeons. Rummage through lockers, at your will, for any signs of betrayal. Issue warnings from time-to-time about how you have information that the other gang has plans to rape your mothers and sisters, and lay waste to your homes -- and that is why you need to trust in the playground bully from your school, because he will protect your mothers and sisters from the gang that few have ever actually encountered.

It's governance by brazen muscle power, by unfailing commitment to picking a target to destroy as an example of your ruthlessness, and your will to use any means necessary to establish and preserve your leadership. And if your attack is successful, you will enjoy the spoils of war -- the second largest oil reserves in the world. This is all the better, because you double up your goal of displaying raw, harsh military power, by combining it with additional natural resources that reinforce your dominance. You will be sitting on top of the world, masters of the universe, controlling almost everything on the Monopoly board.

And to accomplish this goal, you never blink, you never apologize, you never let facts get in the way of your mission. You remain steadfast and focused. Getting distracted by truth and ethics is a sign of weakness. And weakness is something you can smell and feel in a man.

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-18-2003 07:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
U.S. TO USE DU (Depleted Uranium)WEAPONS ROUNDS IN GULF WAR #2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2860759.stm

A United States defence official has said moves to ban depleted uranium ammunition are just an attempt by America's enemies to blunt its military might.

Colonel James Naughton of US Army Materiel Command said Iraqi complaints about depleted uranium (DU) shells had no medical basis.

"They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out of them," he told a Pentagon briefing.

If war starts, tonnes of depleted uranium (DU) weapons are likely to be used by British and American tanks and by ground attack aircraft.

Some believe people are still suffering ill health from ammunition used in the Gulf War 12 years ago, and other conflicts.

In the House of Commons in London on Monday, Labour MP Joan Ruddock said a test of the UK Government's pledge to keep civilian casualties to a minimum in an attack on Iraq would include not using depleted uranium weapons.

Military uses

Apparently anticipating complaints, the US defence department briefed journalists about DU - making it plain it would continue to be used.

Depleted uranium, a by-product of uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors, has valuable military properties.

Southern Iraq: A four-year-old boy suffering from a tumour in his eye
The Iraqi authorities claim that DU is responsible for a marked increase in cancers
It is very dense, about 1.7 times heavier than lead, and not only very hard but unlike other materials is self-sharpening when it penetrates armour.

Used defensively as armour, it tends to make ordinary munitions bounce off.

These properties contributed to the relative success of American tanks against Iraq's in 1991.

For the M1 Abrams tank there is no other option: it uses only DU-tipped shells and has DU armour.

'Who says?'

"In the last war, Iraqi tanks at fairly close ranges - not nose to nose - fired at our tanks and the shot bounced off the heavy armour... and our shot did not bounce off their armour," Col Naughton told the briefing.

"So the result was Iraqi tanks destroyed - US tanks with scrape marks."

He questioned the motives of those who challenged US use of depleted uranium.

KFOR soldiers measure radiation levels near a Yugoslav tank destroyed during the Nato bombing campaign in Kosovo
DU has been blamed for a number of leukaemia cases among former Balkans peacekeepers
"Who's asking the question? The Iraqis tell us 'terrible things happened to our people because you used it last time'.

"Why do they want it to go away? They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out of them, OK?

"I mean, there's no doubt that DU gave us a huge advantage over their tanks. They lost a lot of tanks.

"Their soldiers can't be really amused at the idea of going out in basically the same tanks with some slight improvements and taking on Abrams again."

'Marked increase in cancers'

Cancer surgeons in the southern Iraqi port of Basra report a marked increase in cancers which they suspect were caused by DU contamination from tank battles on the farmland to the west of the city.

But the director of the Pentagon's deployment health support directorate, Dr Michael Kilpatrick, said: "To the question, could depleted uranium be playing a role, the medical answer is no."

Depleted uranium is mildly radioactive but the main health concern is that it is a heavy metal, potentially poisonous.

The likelihood of absorbing it is increased significantly if a weapon has struck a target and exploded because the DU vaporises into a fine dust and can be inhaled.

Dr Kilpatrick said a study that had followed 90 US Gulf War veterans exposed to the dust and to shrapnel from DU rounds in "friendly fire" incidents had found no DU-related medical problems.

Uncertainty

Some Gulf War veterans believe DU might have contributed to health problems they have suffered. And it has been blamed for a number of leukaemia cases among former Balkans peacekeepers.

BBC News Online environment correspondent Alex Kirby says scientists disagree about the ability of DU to cause the horrific problems that have been reported.

The World Health Organisation recommends cleaning areas with high concentrations of radioactive particles.

"There is real controversy, and real uncertainty," he said.

There have also been various health warnings. A 1995 report from the US Army Environmental Policy Institute, for example, said: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences."

Alex Kirby says the Pentagon claim that criticisms of DU come only from Iraq and "other countries that are not friendly to the US" is demonstrably untrue.

"To sum up, I guess the Iraqis have got much worse things than DU to worry about in the immediate future, and any risk to environment and health over the longer term remains unproven and perhaps circumstantial.

"But that does not mean the risk is proven not to exist."

-----------------

UNPROVEN MY A$$!!! WHEN YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS GET SICK AND GET CANCER YOU CAN TELL EM UNCLE BU$h LOVES YOU.

REMEMBER...URANIUM DUST IS GOOD FOR YOU!
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du.htm



[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 03-18-2003]

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member


United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 03-19-2003 12:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I take it personal when people like you Mech insult our men and women in uniform, so yes I guess a personal insult or two is in order. Even though it's a bit childish, I guess at the ripe old age of 45 I'll never grow up now will I.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-19-2003 07:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Uhhhhh....EXCUSE ME?

Show me WHERE I intentionally insulted people serving in the military?

Don't even TRY to say that I don't support them.

I don't support Bu$h

I don't support Saddam

That is an insult?

Bull$#!+

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 03-19-2003]

IP Logged

swamp gas
Bird Man of Hudson County


Jersey City, NJ
779 posts, May 2002

posted 03-19-2003 08:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for swamp gas     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Chew on this, Proud Veteran

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000561.html


SUPPORT THE TROOPS WHEN THEY ARE PROTECTING THE PEOPLE, NOT EXXONMOBIL AND LOCKHEED.

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member


United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 03-19-2003 09:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Swamp, I belong to the American Legion, and yes I think it's wrong for the government to cut benefits to Veterans. Veterans have served their country proudly and have followed orders, some without question. To be injured in the service of your country and then have them tell you that they don't need you anymore, here's a kudos bar and a pat on the back, go have a nice life isn't right in my eyes.

I have also seen some scumbags who have used the system for all it's worth and drained the resources all the while being healthy. There needs to be some serious work done at the VA to get the Veterans who truley need help the help they deserve, and to get the scum who are sucking it dry, off the " I've been hurt now pay me " payroll. I have personally turned in three who were claiming injury and had nothing wrong with them.

" Oh my how could you turn in a fellow Veteran? " It's easy when you see someone getting a fat government check for a disability that isn't there and knowing that they are capable of working but just to lazy to. And to show you that other Veterans are watching too, I had the help of a good friend of mine who is President of the Vietnam Veterans chapter in my area.

Mech, I don't have time to go through all of your 1900+ posts in here, but I know I've read you bashing a veteran or active duty person. In your own little smoke filled head you can't even remember things. As posted in one of my earlier posts you have no credibility in my eyes.

IP Logged

swamp gas
Bird Man of Hudson County


Jersey City, NJ
779 posts, May 2002

posted 03-19-2003 10:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for swamp gas     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
PV,
I know a guy who in 1972, joined the Air Force. He was in for 1 week, and attacked an officer. They deemed him "insane", and to this day, he is receiving substantial VA benefits, and still laughs about it. He is perfectly healthy. On the other hand, I know a Vietnam vet who is getting screwed by the VA hospital from a leg injury he got in 1964.


Welfare for healthy individuals and corporations has always bothered me (my conservative side). I don't mind giving money to people who are injured and can't work.


What Mech, myself, and others are saying is this....The current conflict in Iraq is fighting for oil and defense companies, and they are not worth dying for.


SUPPORT THE TROOPS....BRING THEM HOME!

[Edited 1 times, lastly by swamp gas on 03-19-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-19-2003 10:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Can't prove it?...You sir...are a LIAR.

You can't back up your allegations.

I see through your BS and PHONY patriotism.

You want to make excuses for these tyrannical elitists...be my guest.

You are the biggest government pimp i've seen here in a while.

The only people I bash are those who support the New World order.

In fact....I challenge ANYONE reading this to show me where I allegedly "bashed servicemen"

[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 03-19-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 03-19-2003 12:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

This war is brought to you by ...
By Pepe Escobar


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt - They've won. They got their war against Afghanistan (planned before September 11). They're getting their war against Iraq (planned slightly after September 11). After Iraq, they plan to get their wars against Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Last Sunday, one of them, Vice President Dick Cheney, said that President George W Bush would have to make "a very difficult decision" on Iraq. Not really. The decision had already been taken for him in the autumn of 2001.

As far as their "showdown Iraq" is concerned, it's not about weapons of mass destruction, nor United Nations inspections, nor non-compliance, nor a virtual connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, nor the liberation of the Iraqi people, nor a Middle East living in "democracy and liberty".

The American corporate media are not inclined to spell it out, and the absolute majority of American public opinion is anesthetized non-stop by a barrage of technical, bureaucratic and totally peripheral aspects of the war against Iraq. For all the president's (sales)men, the whole game is about global preeminence, if not unilateral world domination - military, economic, political and cultural. This may be an early 21st century replay of the "white man's burden". Or this may be just megalomania. Either way, enshrined in a goal of the Bush administration, it cannot but frighten practically the whole world, from Asia to Africa, from "old Europe" to the conservative establishment within the US itself.

During the Clinton years, they were an obscure bunch - almost a sect. Then they were all elevated to power - again: most had worked for Ronald Reagan and Bush senior. Now they have pushed America - and the world - to war because they want it. Period. An Asia Times Online investigation reveals this is no conspiracy theory: it's all about the implementation of a project.

The lexicon of the Bush doctrine of unilateral world domination is laid out in detail by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), founded in Washington in 1997. The ideological, political, economic and military fundamentals of American foreign policy - and uncontested world hegemony - for the 21st century are there for all to see.

PNAC's credo is officially to muster "the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests". PNAC states that the US must be sure of "deterring any potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" - without ever mentioning these competitors, the European Union, Russia or China, by name. The UN is predictably dismissed as "a forum for leftists, anti-Zionists and anti-imperialists". The UN is only as good as it supports American policy.

The PNAC mixes a peculiar brand of messianic internationalism with realpolitik founded over a stark analysis of American oil interests. Its key document, dated June 1997, reads like a manifesto. Horrified by the "debased" Bill Clinton, PNAC exponents lavishly praise "the essential elements of the Reagan administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities". These exponents include Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon made up of leading figures in national security and defense, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Reagan-era White House adviser Elliott Abrahms.

Already in 1997, the PNAC wanted to "increase defense spending significantly" to "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" and "to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles". The deceptively bland language admitted "such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next".

The signatories of this 1997 document read like a who's who of Washington power today: among them, in addition to those mentioned above, Eliot Cohen, Steve Forbes, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, William Bennett, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz and Dan Quayle.

The PNAC, now actively exercising power, is about to fulfill its dream of invading Iraq. In the PNAC's vision of Iraq, the only vector that matters is US strategic interest. Nobody really cares about Saddam Hussein's "brutal dictatorship", nor his extensive catalogue of human rights violations, nor "the suffering of the Iraqi people", nor his US-supplied weapons of mass destruction, nor his alleged connection to terrorism.

Iraq counts only as the first strike in a high-tech replay of the domino theory: the next dominoes will be Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The idea is to carve up Syria; let Turkey invade northern Iraq; overthrow the Saudi royal family; restore the Hashemites to the Hijaz in Arabia. And dismember Iraq altogether and annex it to Jordan as a vassal kingdom to the US: after all, Jordan's King Abdullah is a cousin of former Iraqi King Faisal, deposed in 1958. This would be one solution for the nagging question of who would have any legitimacy to be in power in Baghdad after Saddam.

Rumsfeld loves NATO, but he abhors the European Union. All PNAC members and most Pentagon civilians - but not the State Department - do: after all, they control NATO, not the EU. These things usually are not admitted in public. But Rumsfeld, the blunt midwesterner, former fighter pilot and former servant of presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, prefers John Wayne to Bismarck: even Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, a staunch ally of Bush, complained out loud that diplomacy for Rumsfeld is an alien concept. Rumsfeld even has his own wacky axis of evil: Cuba, Libya and ... Germany. If Rumsfeld barely manages to disguise his aversion for dovish Secretary of State Colin Powell's views, one imagines to what circle of hell he dispatches the pacifist couple of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder.

Strange, no journalist has stood up and ask Rumsfeld, in one of those cosy Pentagon spinning sessions, how was his 90-minute session with Saddam in Baghdad in December 20, 1983. The fuzzy photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, observed by Iraqi vice premier Tarik Aziz, is now a collector's item. Rumsfeld was sent by Reagan to mend relations between the US and Iraq only one month after Reagan had adopted a secret directive - still partly classified - to help Saddam fight Iran's Islamic Revolution that had begun in 1979. This close cooperation led to nothing else than Washington selling loads of military equipment and also chemical precursors, insecticides, aluminum tubes, missile components and anthrax to Saddam, who in turn used the lot to gas Iranian soldiers and then civilian Kurds in Halabja, northern Iraq, in 1988. The selling of these chemical weapons was organized by Rumsfeld.

Washington was perfectly aware at the time that Saddam was using chemical weapons. After the Halabja massacre, the Pentagon engaged in a massive disinformation campaign, spinning that the massacre was caused by Iran. Cheney, as Pentagon chief from March 1989 onwards, continued to cooperate very closely with Saddam. The military aid - secretly organized by Rumsfeld - also enabled Saddam to invade Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Between 1991 and 1998, UN weapons inspectors conclusively established that the US - as well as British, German and French firms - had sold missile parts and chemical and bacteriological material to Iraq. So much for the moral high ground defended by America and Britain in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction controversy.

September 2002's National Security Strategy (NSS) document simply delighted the members of the PNAC. No wonder: it reproduced almost verbatim a September 2000 report by the PNAC, which in turn was based on the now famous 1992 draft Defense Policy Guidance (DPG), written under the supervision of Wolfowitz for then secretary of defense Cheney. Already in 1992, the three key DPG objectives were to prevent any "hostile power' from dominating regions whose resources would allow it to become a great power; to dissuade any industrialized country from any attempt to defy US leadership; and to prevent the future emergence of any global competitor. That's the thrust of the NSS document, which calls for a unipolar world in which Washington's military power is unrivalled.

In this context, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is just the first installment in an extended practical demonstration of what will happen to "rogue" states alleged to have or not have weapons of mass destruction, alleged to have or not have links to terrorism, and alleged connections to anyone or anything that might challenge US supremacy. The European Union, China and Russia beware: the Shock and Awe demonstration that is about to be unleashed on Iraq is pure theatrical militarism, a concept already analyzed by Asia Times Online.

It's no surprise that Bush, on February 26, chose to unveil his vision of a new Middle Eastern order at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-wing Washington think tank. The PNAC's office is nowhere else than on the 5th floor of the AEI building on 17th St, in downtown Washington. The AEI is the key node of a collection of neoconservative foreign policy experts and scholars, the most influential of whom are members of the PNAC.

The AEI is intimately connected to the Likud Party in Israel - which for all practical purposes has a deep impact on American foreign policy in the Middle East, thanks to the AEI's influence. In this mutually-beneficial environment, AEI stalwarts are known as Likudniks. It's no surprise, then, how unparalleled is the AEI's intellectual Islamophobia. Loathing and contempt for Islam as a religion and as a way of life leads to members of the AEI routinely bashing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They also oppose any negotiations with North Korea - another policy wholly adopted by the Bush administration. For the AEI, China is the ultimate enemy: not a peer competitor, but a monster strategic threat. The AEI is viscerally anti-State Department (read Colin Powell). Recently, it has also displayed its innate Francophobia. And to try to dispel the idea that it is just another bunch of grumpy dull men, the AEI has been deploying to the BBC and CNN talk shows its own female weapon of mass regurgitation, one Danielle Pletka. Lynn Cheney, vice president Dick's wife, a historian and essayist, is also an AEI senior fellow.

The AEI's former executive vice president is John Bolton, one of the Bush administration's key operatives as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. Largely thanks to Bolton, the US unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. Bolton has also opposed the establishment of the new International Criminal Court (ICC), recently inaugurated in The Hague. The AEI only treasures raw power as established under the terms of neoliberal globalization: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Its nemesis is everything really multilateral: the ABM treaty, the ICC, the Kyoto protocol, the treaty on anti-personal mines, the protocol on biological weapons, the treaty on the total ban of nuclear weapons, and most spectacularly, in these past few days, the UN Security Council.

The AEI's foreign policy agenda is presided over by none other than Richard Perle. As Perle is a longtime friend and advisor to Rumsfeld, he was rewarded with the post of chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board: its 30-odd very influential members include former national security advisers, secretaries of defense and heads of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Perle is also a very close friend of Pentagon number two Wolfowitz, since they were students at the University of Chicago in the late 1960s. Perle now reports to Wolfowitz.

On September 20, 2001, Perle went on overdrive, fully mobilizing the Defense Policy Board to forge a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The PNAC sent an open letter to Bush detailing how a war on terrorism should be conducted. The letter says that Saddam has to go "even if evidence does not link him to the attack". The letter lists other policies that later were implemented - like the gigantic increase of the defense budget and the total isolation of the Palestinian Authority (PA), as well as others that may soon follow, like striking Hezbollah in Lebanon and yet-to-be-formulated attacks against Iran and especially Syria if they do not stop support for Hezbollah.

The Bush administration strategy in the past few months of totally isolating the PA's Yasser Arafat and allowing Israeli premier Ariel Sharon to refuse as much as a handshake, was formulated by the PNAC. Another PNAC letter states that "Israel's fight is our fight ... for reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism". The PNAC detested the Camp David accords between Israel and the Palestinians. For the PNAC, a simmering, undeclared state of war against Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran is a matter of policy.

Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs under Reagan, is also a member of the board of the Jerusalem Post. He wrote a chapter - "Iraq: Saddam Unbound" - in Present Dangers, a PNAC book. He is very close to ultra-hawk Douglas Feith, who was his special counsel under Reagan and is now assistant secretary of defense for policy (one of the Pentagon's four most senior posts) and also a partner in a small Washington law firm that represents Israeli suppliers of munitions seeking deals with American weapons manufacturers. It was thanks to Perle - who personally defended his candidate to Rumsfeld - that Feith got his current job. He was one of the key people responsible for strategic planning in the war against the Taliban and is also heavily involved in planning the war against Iraq.

David Wurmser, former head of Middle Eastern projects at the AEI, is now special assistant to PNAC founder John Bolton, the undersecretary of State for arms control and a fierce enemy of multilateralism. Wurmser wrote Tyranny's Ally: America's failure to defeat Saddam Hussein, a book published by the AEI. The foreword is by none other than Perle. Meyrav Wurmser, David's wife, is a co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute.

In July 1996, Perle, Feith and the Wurmser couple wrote the notorious paper for an Israeli think tank charting a roadmap for Likud superhawk and then-incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. The paper is called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". Perle, Feith and the Wurmsers tell Bibi that Israel must shelve the Oslo Accords, the so-called peace process, the concept of "land for peace", go for it and permanently annex the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The paper also recommends that Israel must insist on the elimination of Saddam, and the restoration of the Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. This would be the first domino to fall, and then regime change would follow in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia. This 1996 blueprint is nothing else than Ariel Sharon's current agenda in action. In November last year, Sharon took the liberty to slightly modify the domino sequence by growling on the record that Iran should be next after Iraq.

Bush's speech on February 26 at the AEI claimed that the real reason for a war against Iraq is "to bring democracy". Cheney has endlessly repeated that Iraqis - like Germany and Japan in 1945 - will welcome American soldiers with wine and roses. For Bush, Iraq is begging to be educated in the principles of democracy: "It's presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life." But this very presumption is seemingly central to the intellectual Islamophobia of both the AEI and PNAC.

The AEI and the PNAC shaped the now official Bush policy of introducing democracy - by bombing Iraq - and then "successfully transforming the lives of millions of people throughout the Middle East", in the words of AEI scholar Michael Ledeen. At his AEI speech, Bush did nothing else but parrot the idea. Many a voice couldn't resist to point out the splendid American record of encouraging native democracy around the world by supporting great freedom fighters such as the Shah of Iran, Sese Seko Mobutu in the Congo, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, the Somozas in Nicaragua, Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan and an array of 1960s and 1970s Latin American dictators. Among newfound American allies, Turkmenistan is nothing less than totalitarian and Uzbekistan is ultra-authoritarian, and among "old" allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

Chalmers Johnson is president of the Japan Policy Research Institute, based in California, and author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. A war veteran turned scholar, he could never be accused of anti-Americanism. His new book about American militarism, The Sorrows of Empire: How the Americans lost their Country, will be published in late 2003. Some of its insights are informative in confirming the role of the PNAC in setting American foreign policy.

Johnson is just one among many who suspect that "after being out of power with Clinton and back to power with Bush ... the neocons were waiting for a 'catastrophic and catalyzing' event - like a new Pearl Harbor" that would mobilize the public and allow them to put their theories and plans into practice. September 11 was, of course, precisely what they needed. National Security Advi Condoleezza Rice called together members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about how do you capitalize on these opportunities to fundamentally change American doctrine, and the shape of the world, in the wake of September 11th". She said, "I really think this period is analogous to 1945 to 1947 when fear and paranoia led the US into its Cold War with the USSR".

Johnson continues: "The Bush administration could not just go to war with Iraq without tying it in some way to the September 11 attacks. So it first launched an easy war against Afghanistan. There was at least a visible connection between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime, even though the United States contributed more to Osama's development as a terrorist than Afghanistan ever did. Meanwhile, the White House launched one of the most extraordinary propaganda campaigns of modern times to convince the American public that an attack on Saddam Hussein should be a part of America's 'war on terrorism'. This attempt to whip up war fever, in turn, elicited an outpouring of speculation around the world on what were the true motives that lay behind President Bush's obsession with Iraq."

The Iraq war is above all Paul Wolfowitz's war. It's his holy mission. His cue was September 11. Slightly after Rumsfeld, on September 15, 2001 at Camp David, Wolfowitz was already advocating an attack on Iraq. There are at least three versions of what happened that day. As a reporter, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward (remember Watergate) used to bring down presidents; now he's a mere presidential public relations officer. In his book Bush at War he writes that Bush told Wolfowitz to shut up and let the number 1 (Rumsfeld) talk. The second version, defended by the New York Times, says that Bush listened attentively to Wolfowitz. But a third version relayed by diplomats holds that in Bush's executive order on September 17 authorizing war on Afghanistan, there's already a paragraph giving free reign to the Pentagon to draw plans for a war against Iraq.

Former CIA director James Woolsey, a certified five-star hawk, is a great friend of Wolfowitz. Woolsey is also the author of what could be dubbed "the high noon" theory that defines nothing less than Bush's vision of the world. According to the theory, Bush is not a six-shooter: he is the leader of a posse.

That's how Bush described himself in a conversation last year with then Czech president Vaclav Havel. As film fans well remember, Gary Cooper in High Noon plays a village marshal who tries by all means to convince his friends to assemble a posse to face the Saddam of the times (a lean and mean Lee Marvin) who is supposed to arrive in the noon train. In the end, Cooper has to face "Saddam" Marvin all by himself.

It's fair to argue that the Bush administration today is enacting a larger-than-life replay of a high noon. The posse is the "coalition of the willing". The logic of the posse is crystal clear. The US first defines a strategic objective (for example, regime change in Iraq). They propagate their steely determination to achieve this objective (an awesome worldwide propaganda and disinformation campaign combined with a major military deployment). And finally they assemble a posse to help them: the coalition of the willing, or "coalition of the bribed and bludgeoned", as it was dubbed by democrats in Europe and the US itself. A devastating report by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington has detailed a "coalition of the coerced". Whatever its name, those who do not join the coalition (the absolute majority of UN member-states, as well as world public opinion) remain, as Bush says, "irrelevant".

With missionary fervor, Wolfowitz has been pursuing his Iraqi dream step by step. In late 2001, James Woolsey roamed all over Europe trying to find a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. He couldn't find anything. But then in January 2002, Iraq was formally inducted in the "axis of evil along with Iran and North Korea. Rumsfeld went on overdrive: he said that Saddam supported "terrorists" (in fact suicide martyrs in Palestine, who have nothing to do with al-Qaeda). He said that Saddam promised US$25,000 to each of their families. The neocons embarked on a media blitzkrieg, and Wolfowitz's mission finally hit center stage.

During the Cold War in the 1970s, Wolfowitz learned the ropes laboring on nuclear treaties, the endless talks with the Soviets on nuclear armament limitations. At the time he also started a career for one of his better students, Lewis Libby - who today is Cheney's chief of staff. For three decades Wolfowitz has been involved in strategic thinking, military organization and political and diplomatic moves. Even former Jimmy Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the author of The Grand Chessboard - or the roadmap for US domination over Eurasia - allegedly allows Wolfowitz to figure alongside Henry Kissinger, McGeorge Bundy or Zbig himself: that select elite of academics who managed to cross over to high office and radiate intellectual authority and almost unlimited power by osmosis because of close contact with an American president.

Wolfowitz routinely talks about "freedom and democracy" - with no contextualization. His renditions always sound like a romantic ideal. But there's nothing romantic about him. During the First Gulf War, Wolfowitz was an undersecretary at the Pentagon formulating policy. Cheney was the Pentagon chief. It was Wolfowitz who prepared Desert Storm - and also got the money. The bill was roughly $90 billion, 80 percent of it paid by the allies: a cool deal. It was Wolfowitz who convinced Israel not to enter the war even after the country was hit by Iraqi Scuds, so the key Arab partners of the 33-nation coalition would not run away.

But Saddam always remained his nemesis. When Bush senior lost his re-election, Wolfowitz became dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Later, he was fully convinced that Iraq was behind the first attack against the World Trade Center, in 1993.

Wolfowitz and Perle, though close, are not the same thing. Perle is virtually indistinguishable from the hardcore policies of the Likud in Israel. Perle thinks that the only possible way out for the US - not the West, because he despises Europe as a political player - is a multi-faceted, long-term, vicious confrontation against the Arab and Muslim world. Wolfowitz is more sophisticated: he has already served as American ambassador to Indonesia. He definitely does not subscribe to the fallacious Samuel Huntington theory of a clash of civilizations. Wolfowitz even believes in an independent Palestine - something that for Perle is beyond anathema.

Wolfowitz, born in 1943 in New York, is the son of a Polish mathematician whose whole family died in Nazi concentration camps. It was Allan Bloom, the brilliant author of The Closing of the American Mind and professor at the University of Chicago, deceased in 1992, who steered Wolfowitz towards political science. Wolfowitz had the honor of being cloned by Saul Bellow in the novel Ravelstein: the Wolfowitz character shows up under a fictional name in the same role he occupied in 1991 at the Pentagon. Messianic, and a big fan of Abraham Lincoln, Wolfowitz is a walking contradiction: his fierce unilateralism is based on his faith in the universality of American values.

Wolfowitz and his proteges's are hardcore "Straussians" - after Leo Strauss, a Jewish intellectual who managed to escape the Nazis, died in 1999 as a 100-year-old and was totally anti-modern: for him, modernity was responsible for Nazism and Stalinism. Strauss was a lover of the classics - most of all Plato and Aristotle. His most notorious disciples were Chicago's Allan Bloom and also Harvey Mansfield - who translated both Machiavelli and Tocqueville and was the father of all things politically correct in Harvard.

Strauss believed in natural right and in an immutable measure of what is just and what is unjust. Thus the Wolfowitz credo that a vague "democracy and freedom" is a one-size-fits-all panacea to be served everywhere, even by force. Plenty of neo-hawks followed Bloom's courses at the University of Chicago: Wolfowitz of course, but also Francis Fukuyama of "end of history" fame, and John Podhoretz, who reigns over the editorial pages of the ultra-reactionary Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid the New York Post. As to Mansfield, his most notorious student was probably William Kristol, the editor of the also Rupert Murdoch-financed magazine Weekly Standard. In Kristol's own formulation, all these Straussians are morally conservative, religiously inclined, anti-Utopian, anti-modern and skeptical towards the left but also towards the reactionary right.

Ronald Reagan, because of his "moral clarity" and his "virtue", is their supreme icon - not the devious realpolitik couple of Richard Nixon and Kissinger. This conceptual choice is absolutely essential to understand where the neocons are coming from. Take the crucial expression "regime change": there's nothing casual about it. Strauss used to say that "classic political philosophy was guided by the question of the best regime". Here Strauss was talking specifically about Aristotle and his notion of politeia. The "regime" - or politeia - designates not only government, but also institutions, education, morals, and "the spirit of law". In the mind of these Straussians, to topple Saddam is a mere footnote. "Regime change" in Iraq means to implant a Western Utopia in the heart of the Middle East: a Western-built politeia. Many would argue this is no more than a replay of Rudyard Kipling's "white man's burden".

Perle, also a New Yorker, is much, much rougher than Wolfowitz. No Aristotle for him. A dull man with a psychopath gaze, he recently accused New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh of being "a terrorist" - because Hersh, in a splendid piece, unveiled how Perle set up a company that will profit immensely from war in the Middle East. Perle has repeatedly declared on the record that the US is prepared to attack Syria, Lebanon and Iran - all "enemies of Israel". One of his most notorious recent stunts was when he invited an obscure French scholar to the Defense Policy Board to bash the Saudi royal family. He casually noted that if the invasion of Iraq brings down another couple of "friendly" Arab regimes, it's no big deal. At a recent seminar organized by a New York-based public relations firm and attended by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials, Perle proclaimed that France was no longer an ally of the US; and that NATO "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance". This hawk, though, is no fool, and loves la vie en rose: Richard Perle spends his holidays in his own house in the south of France.

If you are a Pentagon senior civilian adviser, saying all those things out loud, they pack a tremendous punch in Washington: it's practically official. As official as Perle musing out loud whether the US should "subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests" by seeking the endorsement of the UN Security Council on a major issue of policy (that's exactly what happened on Monday). Perle has been saying all along that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the UN or any other institution". And Bush repeated these words almost verbatim. As for the tremendous unpopularity of the US, "it's a real problem and it undoubtedly diminishes our ability to do the things that we think are important. I think that's bad for the world because if the United States, as the leader it has always been, has its authority and standing diminished, that can't be good for the Swiss or the Italians or the Germans. But I don't know how you deal with that problem ..."

Perle and Wolfowitz may shape policy, but that would not enhance their mundane status among the political chattering classes if they didn't have a bulldog to disseminate their clout in the media. That's where William Kristol, the chairman of the Project for a New American Century and the director of the magazine Weekly Standard comes in. Kristol's co-chairman at the PNAC is Robert Kagan, former deputy for policy in the State Department in the bureau for Inter-American affairs. Kagan is the author of Of Paradise and Power: America vs Europe in the New World Order - where, according to a fallacious formula, Europeans living in a kind of peaceful, Utopian paradise will be forced to stomach unbridled American power. Robert is the son of Donald Kagan, ultra-conservative Yale professor and eminent historian. Kagan junior is a major apostle of nation building, as in "the reconstruction of the Japanese politics and society to America's image". He cheerleads the fact that 60 years later there are still American troops in Japan. The same, according to him, should happen in Iraq. Any strategist would remind Kagan that in Japan in 1945 the emperor himself ordered the population to obey the Americans and in Germany the war devastation was so complete that the Germans had no other alternative.

William is the son of Irving Kristol and Gertrud Himmelfarb, classic New York Jewish intellectuals and ironically former Trotskyite who then made a sharp turn to the extreme right. Former Trotskyites have a tendency to believe that history will vindicate them in the end. Irving, at 82 a former neo-Marxist, neo-Trotskyite, neo-socialist and neo-liberal, today is officially a neoconservative and one of the AEI's stalwarts.

Kristol junior reportedly likes philosophy, opera, thrillers and is fond of - who else - Aristotle and Machiavelli, who not by accident were eminences behind the prince. Instead of rebelling against his parents, he sulked in his bedroom rebelling against his own generation - the anti-war, peace-and-love, Bob Dylan-addicted 1960s baby boomers. Although admitting that Vietnam was a big mistake, William did not volunteer to go to war, a fact that qualifies him as the archetypal "chicken hawk" - armchair warmongers who know nothing about the horrors of war. William wants to erect conservatism to the level of an ideology of government. His great heroes include Reagan - for, what else, his "candor" and "moral clarity". A naked imperialist? No, he's not as crass as Rumsfeld: he prefers to be characterized as a partisan of "liberal imperialism".

As media hawk-in-chief, William is just following up daddy's work: Irving Kristol was the ultimate portable think tank of Reaganism. Today, Kristol junior is convinced that the Middle East is an irredeemable source of anti-Americanism, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and an assorted basket of evils. Kristol of course is a very good friend of Wolfowitz, Kagan and former ex-CIA chief James Woolsey, who not by accident heaps lavish praise on The War over Iraq: Saddam's tyranny and America's mission, a book by Lawrence Kaplan and ... William Kristol. Woolsey loves how the book goes against the "narrow realists" around Bush senior and the "wishful liberals" around Bill Clinton.

Under Bush senior, William Kristol was Dan Quayle's chief of staff. Under Clinton, he was in the wilderness until he finally managed to launch the Weekly Standard. Who financed it? None other than Rupert Murdoch, whose tabloidish Fox News is widely known as Bush TV. The Weekly Standard loses money in direct proportion to the expansion of its influence. It remains invaluable as the voice of "Hawk Central".

Hawks, or at least some neoconservatives, seem to understand the importance of a lighter touch as a key public relations strategy. That's where David Brooks comes in. Brooks, former University of Chicago, former Wall Street Journal and now a big fish at the Weekly Standard, was the one who came up with the concept of "bobos" - bourgeois bohemians, or "caviar left" as they are known in Latin countries. "Bobos", accuse the neocons, do absolutely nothing to change a social order that they seem to fight but from which they profit. Bobo-bashing is one of the neocon's ideological strategies to dismiss their critics out of hand.

In his conference at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in January, Noam Chomsky demistified the mechanism through which these people, "most of them recycled from the Reagan administration", are implementing their agenda: "They are replaying a familiar script: drive the country into deficit so as to be able to undermine social programs, declare a 'war on terror' (as they did in 1981) and conjure up one devil after another to frighten the population into obedience. In the 1980s it was Libyan hit men prowling the streets of Washington to assassinate our leader, then the Nicaraguan army only two days march from Texas, a threat to survival so severe that Reagan had to declare a national emergency. Or an airfield in Grenada that the Russians were going to use to bomb us (if they could find it on a map); Arab terrorists seeking to kill Americans everywhere while Gaddafi plans to 'expel America from the world', so Reagan wailed. Or Hispanic narco-traffickers seeking to destroy our youth; and on, and on."

For both the AEI and the PNAC, the Middle East is a land without people, and oil without land - and this is something anyone will confirm in the streets or power corridors in Cairo, Amman, Beirut, Ramallah, Damascus or Baghdad. The image fits the AEI and PNAC's acute and indiscriminate loathing and contempt for Arabs. The implementation of the AEI's and the PNAC's policies has led to the transformation of Ariel Sharon into a "man of peace" - Bush's own words at the White House - and the semi-fascist Likud Party becoming the undisputed number one ally of American civilization. The occupied Palestinian territories - see never-complied, forever-spurned UN resolution 242 plus dozens of others - became "the so-called occupied territories" (in Rumsfeld's own words). Jewish moderates, inside and outside Israel, are extremely alarmed.

One of the key excuses for the Iraq war sold by Washington was the elimination of the roots of terrorism by striking terrorists and the "axis of evil" that supports them. This is a total flaw. The excuse is undermined by the US themselves. Not even Washington believes war is the way to fight terrorism, otherwise the Bush administration would not have adopted the AEI and PNAC agenda of promoting "democracy and liberty" in the Arab world. But neither the Arabs nor anyone else is convinced that the US is committed to real democracy or to the "territorial integrity of Iraq" when key members of the administration, like Perle, signed "Clean Break" in 1996 advising Benjamin Netanyahu that Iraq and any other country which tried to defy Israel should be smashed. The message by the PNAC people to Netanyahu in 1996 and to Bush since 2001 has been the same: international law is against our interests; we fix our own objectives; we go for it and the rest will follow - or not. Even Zbig Brzezinski has recognized the American corporate press - unlike the European press - has not uttered a single word about the total similarity of the agendas. But concerned Americans have already realized the superpower has no attention span, no patience, no tact - and many would say no historical credibility - to engage in nation-building in the Middle East.

There's not much democracy on the cards either. Iraqis and the whole Arab nation view as an unredeemable insult and injury the official American plan to enforce a de facto military occupation. Iraq is already carved up on paper into three sections (just like the British did in the 1920s). Two retired generals - including Arabic-speaking, Lebanese-origin John Abizaid - and a former ambassador to Yemen - will control the three interim "civil" administrations. Abizaid studied the history of the Middle East at Harvard - and this is as far as his democratic credentials go. Everything in Iraq will be under overseer supremo Jay Garner, a retired general very close to Ariel Sharon and until a few months ago the CEO of a weapons firm specialized in missile guidance systems. Iraqis, Palestinians and Arabs as a whole are stunned: not only has the US flaunted international legitimacy in its push to war, it will also install an Israeli proxy as governor of Iraq and will keep pretending to finally be committed to respect the never-complied dozens of UN resolutions concerning Palestine.

As much as Israel is widely regarded by most 1.3 billion Muslims as the de facto 51st American state, many responsible Americans denounce the Iraq war as Sharon's war. Washington's Likudniks - the AEI and PNAC people - allied with evangelical Christians - are running US foreign policy in the Middle East. Since Autumn 2002, they have managed to convince Bush to increase the tempo - with no consultation to Congress or to American public opinion - betting on a point-of-no-return scenario in Iraq. Meanwhile, Sharon, in a relentless campaign, managed to convince Bush that war on Palestine was equal to war against terrorism. But he went one step beyond: he convinced Bush that the Palestinian Intifada, al-Qaeda and Saddam are all cats in the same bag, plotting a concerted three-pronged offensive to destroy Judeo-Christian civilization. Thus the subsequent, overwhelming Bush administration campaign to try to convince public opinion that Saddam is an ally of bin Laden. Few fell into the trap. But European strategists got the drift: they are already working with the hypothesis that the geopolitical axis in the Middle East is about to switch from Cairo-Riyadh-Tehran to Tel Aviv-Ankara-Baghdad (post-Saddam).

In a recent hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, undersecretary of state for political affairs Mark Grossman and undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith talked for four hours and through 86 pages, apparently detailing how the US will rebuild Iraq after liberation through massive bombing. Feith has been on record saying that this war of course "is not about oil", while stating a few sentences later that "the US will be the new OPEC". A source confirms that it was clear at the Senate hearing both Feith and Grossman had absolutely no idea what the Arab world is all about. Senators asked how much the war would cost (Yale economist William Nordhaus said the occupation may cost between $17 billion and $45 billion a year): nobody had an answer. Feith and Grossman said it was "unknowable". Rumsfeld is also a major exponent of the "not knowable" school. The cost of war for American taxpayers - some estimates go as high as $200 billion - is "not knowable". The size of the occupation force - some estimates range as high as 400,000 troops - is "not knowable". The duration of the occupation - former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark has mentioned no less than eight years - is "not knowable".

Arabs, Asians, Europeans - and a few Americans - warn of blowback: the whole Middle East may explode in a violent, vicious anti-imperialist struggle. As this correspondent has been hearing for months from Pakistan to Egypt and from Indonesia to the Gulf, "dozens of bin Ladens" are bound to emerge. The strategy advocated by the evangelic apostles of armed democratization - overwhelming military force, unilateral preemption, overthrow of governments, seizure of oil fields, recolonization, protectorates - is being roundly condemned by the same educated Arab elites which would be the natural leaders of a push for democratization. Many question not Washington's objective, but the method: they simply cannot stomach the "imperial liberalism" version marketed by the hawks. The current absolute mess in Afghanistan is further demonstration that "democratization" via an American proconsul is doomed to failure. Moreover, 16 eminent British academic lawyers have certified the Bush doctrine of preemptive self-defense is illegal under international law.

Even a tragically surreal, zombie regime like North Korea's has retained one essential lesson from this whole crisis : if you don't want regime change, you'd better maximize your silence, speed and cunning to build your own arsenal of WMDs. Muslims for their part have understood that the unlikely Franco-German-Russian axis of peace was and still is trying to prevent what both al-Qaeda and American fundamentalists want: a war of civilizations and a war of religion. And the world public opinion's insight is that Washington may win the war without the UN - but it will lose peace by shooting the UN down. As a diplomat in Brussels put it, "The world has voted in unison: it does not want to be reordered by a posse in Washington."

The men in the AEI and the PNAC galaxy may be accused of intolerance, arrogance of power, undisguised fascist tendencies, ignorance of history and cultural parochialism - in various degrees. This is all open to debate. They may be "chicken hawks" like Kristol junior or attack dogs like Rumsfeld. But most of all what baffles educated publics across the world - especially the overwhelming majority of public opinion in Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain - is the current non-separation of Church and State in the US.

George W Bush is not ideologically a neoconservative. But he is certainly a man with a notorious lack of intellectual curiosity. Backed by his core American constituency of 60 to 70 million Bible-believing Christians, born-again Bush is setting out to do God's will on a crusade to Babylon to "fight evil" - personified by Saddam. Martin Amis, Britain's top contemporary novelist, argues that Bush, being intellectually null, had no other option than to adopt God as his foreign policy mentor. Amis wrote in the Observer that "Bush is more religious than Saddam: of the two presidents, he is, in this respect, the more psychologically primitive. We hear about the successful 'Texanization' of the Republican party. And doesn't Texas seem to resemble a country like Saudi Arabia, with its great heat, its oil wealth, its brimming houses of worship, and its weekly executions." For former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Bush is "a fundamentalist who does not respect international law. The United States is becoming a crusader state." For the absolute majority of 1.3 billion Muslims, a sinister crusader it is.

The endgame will reveal itself to be a cheap family farce: the Bush family delivers an ultimatum to the Hussein family. What Gore Vidal describes as "the Bush-Cheney junta" has won: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, the AEI and PNAC stalwarts. Paul Wolfowitz, above all, has won his own personal crusade. Colin Powell has lost it all. It does not matter that the State Department's classified report, "Iraq, the Middle East and change: no dominoes" was unveiled by the Los Angeles Times. Wolfowitz and Perle will play with their dominoes. By predictable mechanisms of power as old as mankind itself (and incidentally very common in the former USSR) it was Powell - the adversary of the new doctrine of preemption - who was charged to defend it in the face of the world. Sources in New York confirm he was told to get in line: his discourse, his body language, his whole demeanor changed. Seasoned American diplomats are appalled by the devastating political and diplomatic failure of the Bush administration. They know that by deciding to go to war unilaterally - and leaving the international system in shambles - the US has squandered its biggest capital: its international legitimacy. And to make matters worse there was absolutely no debate - in the Senate, or in the public opinion arena - about it.

Americans still have to wake up to the fact of how startlingly isolated they are in the world. The world, for its part, will keep deploying its weapons of mass democracy. There can be no "international community" as long as the popular perception lingers in so many parts of the world of a clash between the West and Islam. Always ready to recognize and love the best America has to offer, hundreds of millions of people would rather try to save it from the fatal unilateralism distilled by the American fundamentalists of the PNAC and the AEI. Everyone in Baghdad, the former great capital of Islam at its apex, is fond of saying how it has survived the Mongols, the barbarians at the gate. The evangelic apostles of armed democratization cannot even imagine the fury a new breed of barbarians may unleash at the gate of the new American century.

IP Logged

Molliani
Senior Member

Illinois
346 posts, Mar 2001

posted 03-19-2003 04:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Molliani     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I hope this isn't considered OT -
Supposedly our ground forces are using "improved" M16 's while the opposition
uses AK47's a weapon favored by China
and Russia.

Is there an advantage of one over the other?
What country is supplying the AK47's to
Iraq?

IP Logged

FLKook
Chemspiracy Realist


East Central Florida
1388 posts, Apr 2001

posted 03-19-2003 06:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for FLKook     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I dunno Molliani, my guess would be Russia or a post soviet state from that region. Just a deduction the model AK47 is from there.

quote:
George W Bush is not ideologically a neoconservative. But he is certainly a man with a notorious lack of intellectual curiosity. Backed by his core American constituency of 60 to 70 million Bible-believing Christians, born-again Bush is setting out to do God's will on a crusade to Babylon to "fight evil" - personified by Saddam.

Skull and Bones, illuminati fake Christian.

IP Logged


This topic is 45 pages long:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17  18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
 41 42 43 44 45

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:








Contact Us | Chemtrail Central


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c