posted 03-30-2003 09:12 AM            

link in context below:

Like all other US veterans, I was never released from my oath:

>"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD." <

According to the UCMJ one need only obey "all lawful orders"
(eg: orders to 'stand down' while airplanes are crashed into American targets are not lawful orders')
http://www.stayarmy.com/theoath.htm

>When taking your oath, you accept the challenge to exhibit candor -- honesty in what one says in addition to how one acts. The Profession of Arms leaves no room for half-truth. The accuracy of information exchanged by the Army team must be absolute.<
Those of you from other services may not value truth so highly, but I served in the field with US Marines & believe they respect the truth also.

My oath, like all others' was to the US Constitution, not to the temporary occupant of the white House (unless he also honors his oath)
Signing of the USA Patriot Act is a violation of the Presidential oath of office:
>US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 < http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
>Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
http://www.concentric.net/~Tycho4/Goldwatr.htm
>Insisted Goldwater, "Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects....<

excised from the internet by Bush's ministry of disinformation, but still available via cached copies. Archive, because it will be further suppressed.
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:CwzSLOEgz2 kC:www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Arnow111402/arnow111402.html+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>How close is America to outright dictatorship?

By Eric Arnow
Online Journal Contributing Writer

November 14, 2002—Most people think America is a democracy, but the evidence is readily available that shows fascist elements in the highest levels of corporate and government offices are determined to overthrow the Constitution and our precious democracy.
<

>The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is the basis for mass arrests, and secret detentions and trials, with the power of life and death wielded by former Texas Governor Bush, who was responsible for more executions during his term than in any governor in the state's history.

Bush Jr. has stated on three occasions that things would be easier if the USA were a dictatorship and he were the dictator. This time, the coup has happened yet who will stop the perpetrators? Please do some web research, see for yourself and spread the word.

We do still have the outward trappings of democracy and can have our country back, if we want it! It will take a massive outpouring of popular will to do it, however.
<

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/news/dissentarchive10-01.htm http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/24436 http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/totalita_characteristics.asp
totalitarianism:
> Despite the many differences among totalitarian states, they have several characteristics in common, of which the two most important are: the existence of an ideology that addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, and a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. The party is generally led by a dictator and, typically, participation in politics, especially voting, is compulsory. The party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military, communications, and economic and education systems. Dissent is systematically suppressed<
One party rule, whether the symbol is a hammer and sickle, swastika or elephant

worried about those donkeys?
In control ot the White House, Congress and the Senate, they couldn't even pass 'Nixon's Health Insurance for all Americans'.
Too busy selling out on an individual basis and arguing amongst themselves.
No lockstepping to the orders of party leadership:
Will Rogers was asked:
"Do you belong to any organized political party?"
"Hell no! I'm a Democrat." he responded.
http://www.csmngt.com/will_rogers.htm http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/q103742.html

>all the speculation fueled by official US government reports of a possible missile strike that might have killed Saddam. As Rumsfeld put it: “He [Saddam] is either dead or alive.” Yeah, no shit…
Meanwhile, we have no clue as to what is going on in Iraq. Thank God for the ex-Soviet GRU http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news072.htm
and a few dedicated Russian army experts who provide their intelligence reports http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news066.htm
on the Web. But as far as mainstream media goes in terms of accurate war reporting- you might as well be watching the Junk Yard Wars on the TLC.
Obviously, something is going on and, as usual, CNN’s got no clue and continues repeating Rumsfeld’s abracadabra. I understand when the government wants to brainwash the enemy, but bullshitting its own people is just sad.
Venik<

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news083.htm
>Welcome to the special Wartime Edition of the Aeronautics.Ru What you see is the lighter version of the usual main page. This is a temporary measure designed to improve the response time of this site. The server was overloaded by unexpected increase in traffic as well as by attempted denial of service attacks coming mainly from US-based domains.< http://www.aeronautics.ru/copyright.htm
GRU's take on things http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news066.htm
prep in the N http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news067.htm
prep in the S http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news068.htm
1st day of war http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news069.htm
2nd day of war http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news070.htm
how radio is intercepted: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news071.htm
what is GRU?: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news072.htm
movement around basra: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news073.htm
basra & al nasiriya http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news074.htm
news vacuum: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news075.htm
southern iraq: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news076.htm
an-nasiriya update: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news077.htm
fighting the people: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news078.htm
better coalition performance: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news079.htm
coalition needs more troops: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news080.htm
battle update http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news081.htm
a week of war http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news082.htm

posted 03-30-2003 03:24 PM            

You stated it well Shatoga...

"My oath, like all others' was to the US CONSTITUTION, not to the temporary occupant of the white House (unless he also honors his oath)"

"Signing of the USA PATRIOT ACT is a violation of the Presidential oath of office:"

>US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 < http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
>Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

GUILTY...OF TREASON

posted 03-30-2003 04:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
This is only ONE reason of MANY..of how BU$H has commited TREASON.

You stated it well Shatoga...

---

And each new country conquered, Constitution Article shred, and Geneva Convention Rule ignored, takes the american public's mind off of the last crime committed by BushLaden Productions.

posted 03-30-2003 04:21 PM            

Oh you mean that group the Bush family did business with? Same as Bin Laden, Noriega, and Hussein.

posted 03-30-2003 05:08 PM            

The recent rally cry "Support Our Troops" seems to me little more than a perverted, propaganda ploy to "Support the War." But we can support our troops, without supporting the war, by rectifying some of the following conditions.

The House of Representatives have recently voted on the 2004 budget which will cut funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion over the next ten years. It narrowly passed by a vote of 215 to 212, and came just a day after Congress passed a resolution to "Support Our Troops." How exactly does this vote support our troops? Does leaving our current and future veterans veterans without access to health care and compensation qualify as supporting them?

The Veteran's Administration, plagued by recent budget cuts, has had to resort to charging new veterans entering into its system a yearly fee of $250 in order for them to receive treatment. It is a sad irony that the very people being sent to fight the war are going to have to pay to treat the effects of it.

According to the Veteran's Administration, 28 million veterans are currently using VA benefits. Another 70 million Americans are potential candidates for such programs. This amounts to a quarter of the country's population. Veterans and their families will sadly begin finding that they have no place to turn for their medical treatment as V.A. hospitals across the country face closing their doors. With the budget shrinking, staff will be let go. This could mean the loss of over 19,000 nurses. Without these nurses, this leads to the loss of over 6.6 million outpatient visits. Approximately one out of every two veterans could lose their only source of medical care. That is, if they even realize help is available to them. The Bush Administration recently ordered V.A. medical centers to stop publicizing available benefits to veterans seeking assistance. This follows discontinued enrollments of some eligible veterans for healthcare benefits as of January, 2003.

Bush Administration funding cuts will also prevent veterans from receiving their disability pensions. My father was granted 100% disability six years ago for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with the Vietnam War. He deserves every cent of it. As do all soldiers who are willing to go to war. Under the Bush administration, being granted the ability to receive war related compensation has become a rare privilege, not a right as it should be. Nearly a third of Gulf War veterans, about 209,000 veterans, have submitted claims to to the VA for disability. The backlog of unprocessed claims has reached the astronomical count of 489,297, a number which is unfortunately increasing all of time. There are also currently 500,000 Compensation and Pension cases still pending.

Making matters worse, forty percent of Vietnam Veterans are homeless. They went from the jungles of the war to the jungles of the street. Before President Bush decided to declare war, maybe he ought to have considered correcting this situation first. How many current veterans will return home, only to find themselves in the same situation?

I have seen the effects of war written upon the face of a man who grew old at 17. I have seen it in the way he awakes from yet another night terror. I have seen it in the countless pills he has to take. They have only succeeded in erasing his memory, but the images of the war he fought are so graphic that they will never be able to stop playing themselves upon his mind.

Even I, his daughter, have not escaped unscathed. Exposure to the chemical Agent Orange has left me with several genetic problems, including growth problems and digestive ones. I fear that these current soldiers will be exposed to toxins that will not only affect them, but their future offspring as well.

And today we are told that we must "Support Our Troops." "Wear a yellow ribbon, wave your flag, support the Bush Administration's War on Terror and War on Iraq." Questioning the war is equated with deserting our troops or treason. And yet how are the warmongers supporting our troops? By eliminating their healthcare and slashing their pensions. Let us support the warrior without supporting the war.

posted 03-30-2003 05:09 PM            

Sanjay Suri
http://www.ips.org/

LONDON, Mar 29 (IPS) - Labour Party MP Tam Dalyell, revered as the 'father' of the British Parliament, sees catastrophic times ahead if the war on Iraq continues.

”God only knows how this will end,” Dalyell told IPS in an interview Saturday. ”But if it must be ended sensibly, ”I can only say that there should be a ceasefire forthwith that is mandated and administered by the UN. It is clear already that this talk of achieving a regime change is fanciful.”

Dalyell said: ”They have not just miscalculated, they have completely misunderstood the nature of Iraqi society and its institutions.”

Tam Dalyell, who is known as the Father of the House because he is the longest serving MP (he was elected first in 1962), carries considerable weight in Parliament and in the public. He has led a loud campaign since the build-up to the war that the government is deceiving the people.

Dalyell, who has been closely monitoring the situation in Iraq, said most people could see what the U.S. and British governments could not.

”When I was in Baghdad in 1994, a lot of people were very critical of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party,” he said. ”When I went back in 1998, there was far less criticism of Saddam Hussein. The effect of the bombing and the sanctions had begun to tell. I must add that I went on my own expense, and I was not beholden to anyone.”

The U.S.-British alliance lost their cause when the war began, he said. ”Within the first night, the bombing blitz on Baghdad would have united most Iraqis against the U.S. and Britain,” he said. ”So there is first a misunderstanding about the nature of Iraqi society, and then a total miscalculation about fighting the Iraqi people - and they are now fighting the Iraqis, not Saddam Hussein.”

The blunder has happened because ”people like U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheny and Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz have hijacked the U.S. government.”

They have been backed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair because ”he is a great believer in bombing,” Dalyell said. ”He likes the idea of being a great war leader.”

Among other consequences, ”British relations with France and Germany are at present sub-zero, and I do not know how they can be put right without at least a change of Prime Minister.” A demand for that change is beginning to grow within Labour, he said.

”There is also great consternation within the Labour Party,” Dalyell said. Of the 410 Labour MPs, 140 voted against the government move to back the war. At the same time, Labour MPs also feel the need to back British troops, he said.

Dalyell, who served in a tank regiment himself for two years, says ”my heart goes out to the soldiers.” He said leaders have no idea what it is like to wear a tank suit, no idea how hot Iraq can be even in the early summer. ”It was 80 degrees when I used to wear tank suits in the Rhine Valley in Germany,” he said. ”And that is nothing like Basra.”

Just the heat in Iraq can become a major problem, he said. ”Napoleon and Hitler perished in the snow before Moscow,” he said. ”I think the allied armies will be frizzled by the sun on the gates of Baghdad.”

The blunders have been covered by a litany of lies in the build-up to the war, Dalyell said. There is little that the British government is saying that can be believed, he said.

”In the dossier on Iraq released by the British government late last year, there is a long passage about the Iraqi football team having the soles of their feet beaten for losing a qualifying match in 1997 for the world cup football,” he said.

”I had checked with FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Association) at that time. They had said they sent the chairmen of the football associations of Malaysia and Qatar to Iraq for an inquiry, along with an experienced doctor. The members of the team showed no scars and dismissed the allegations. The football officials said there was no truth in those allegations. But why has the British government brought those allegations into a dossier in late 2002?”

The blunder over the passages plagiarised from a Californian research student that found their way into the British dossier are well known, he said. Apart from the nature of the source, ”if someone in a university had done that, they would have been dismissed.”

The dossier had spoken of uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, Dalyell said. But International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammed ElBaradei had established that those allegations were nonsense, he said.

He quoted ElBaradei as saying: ”Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic.”

Dalyell said in Parliament: ”This is a matter of trust and deceit - Parliament has been deceived. The British people have been deceived ... on a matter which is the basis of peace and war.” Britain, he warned earlier, is on ”a motorway without exit to war”. He was ordered out of the chamber when he refused to sit down and give up.

posted 03-30-2003 05:18 PM            

Sanjay Suri
http://www.ips.org/

LONDON, Mar 27 (IPS) - The massive bombardment of Iraq is causing heavy casualties, but it is also beginning to have an impact on those who survive it, as feared.

”World Health organisation staff in the capital report that the continuing bombardment is beginning to have a serious impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of the population, particularly children and other vulnerable groups,” WHO said in a statement Thursday.

”The bombardment makes it extremely difficult for medical staff to get to those who may need medical assistance, including women in labour,” WHO said. ”It also means that people who need medical help are unable or unwilling to seek it because of the potential danger.”

The damage is being done by lack of sleep and by fear, officials at WHO say. ”Clearly, the longer this situation prevails, and the worse it gets, the greater the damage will be to the lives of the civilian population,” a WHO spokesman in Geneva told IPS.

An International Study Team (IST) based in Canada had warned in a report late January that war would mean a ”grave humanitarian disaster” for Iraq's 13 million children. The experts found that 500,000 Iraqi children are already malnourished.

Child psychologists interviewed more than 300 children to determine their mental health condition and found they have 'a great fear' of a new war. Children as young as four and five had clear concepts of the horrors of war.

The immediate concern is not, however, the long-term consequences for the children but their immediate need for food, and above all clean drinking water. WHO has established that for now, there are no disease outbreaks in Baghdad or the surrounding areas, and that hospitals in and around the capital have not so far reported any lack of medical supplies or staff. But WHO officials report also that the situation is precarious and could change rapidly.

UNICEF is providing relief through about 200 staff in Baghdad and other cities including Basra to ensure clean water supplies. As an agency that works primarily with children, UNICEF has developed considerable expertise in water supplies in Iraq. It has mobile units, which can provide clean water regularly to about 600,000 people.

Several aid organisations are rushing assistance to prevent a catastrophe. ”We sent a supply of medicines and first aid kits from Baghdad to Basra Thursday,” Fiona Callister from the London-based charity Cafod told IPS. The supply followed an appeal by Archbishop Gibrael Kassab of Basra, she said.

”We have also sent chlorine tablets that would be enough to clean 1.5 million litres of water,” she said. ”But that is enough only to meet the needs of 100,000 people for one day. We are sending another six million tablets from Amman to Baghdad for further distribution.”

Care International is operating through 30 Iraqi staff in Baghdad to stockpile water bladders, emergency fuel and lactose-free milk for sick children. It is also working along with other groups in setting up refugee camps with extensive medical facilities on the Iraq-Jordan border.

Several aid agencies are, however, severely curtailed in what they can do. Oxfam has no staff in Iraq ”because of the security situation,” a spokeswoman told IPS. ”We will try to go in as soon as we can.”

For now a WHO team in Iraq, working with largely local staff, is trying to help keep the health system functioning. The staff is working with the national authorities to distribute medicines and other medical supplies in northern Iraq.

WHO staff say the health of the population in Basra ”is under serious threat from the lack of access to safe, clean drinking water.”

But there are fears that such efforts are severely under-resourced at present. The water crisis could be followed very soon by a food crisis.

James T Morris, executive director of the World Food Programme, says the WFP is facing major difficulties in trying to ensure that the population of Iraq have enough food and water, and on time. The WFP says this crisis comes on top of the critical needs in Africa where it has been struggling to provide food to more than 35 million people who face a ”severe hunger crisis.”

posted 03-30-2003 05:24 PM            

And it's believed at least some of the missing soldiers were at the hospital

posted 03-30-2003 05:40 PM            

At least 100,000 people have marched through the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, in protest against the war on Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2899827.stm

"Bush, Iraq is not your killing field," one banner read amid the sea of people at Sunday's event.

The BBC's Jonathan Head says this was the biggest anti-war demonstration to take place so far in the world's most populous Muslim nation.

But he says that, despite the efforts of militants to use the conflict to mobilise the Muslim majority, it is not being seen as a war against Islam.

Islamic groups dominated the gathering, but Christians, Buddhists and people of other faiths could be seen among the demonstrators.

The peaceful family atmosphere was in stark contrast to the angry protests which greeted the United States operation in Afghanistan.

Chinese rally

China has held its first, officially sanctioned anti-war protest - although it may represent the smallest protest in any world capital to date.

Around 200 foreigners were permitted to shout anti-war slogans as they marched past the US embassy in Beijing on Sunday.
Anti-war protester flees from US base in Vicenza, Italy

But police ordered around 100 Chinese students to surrender their banners and blocked them from entering a park where local people had secured permission to demonstrate.

One Chinese man was hauled off for handing out anti-war leaflets, reported Reuters news agency.

Rallies have been taking place around the world since Friday, when mass demonstrations erupted in many Muslim states after traditional Friday Prayers.

Protesters' tactics have ranged from rallies under banners to a "die-in" in Genoa, where people lay down in busy streets to simulate Iraqis killed in air raids, to a naked march through the streets of Bogota.

In the US, the city of Boston held what observers said was the biggest march since the Vietnam War.

Protesters also turned out in Washington DC, while pro-army activists rallied in San Francisco and other cities.

The White House does not have total support at home.

Latin America saw rallies in Santiago, Mexico City, Montevideo, Buenos Aires and Caracas after anti-war protests on Friday in Bogota and Lima.

* In the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo, artists and sculptors displayed anti-war works in city squares while dance troupes joined protestors in the streets

* Colombian students stripped naked in the rain to march through Bogota, bodies painted with anti-war messages

Human chain

Europe, a focus of anti-war feeling, saw demonstrations in many major cities and near US military facilities on Saturday.

* "The Yankees are gangsters," one speaker told a rally in Moscow, asking who would be the next US target after Iraq.

* In Rome, groups of demonstrators hung black sheets from the 16 bridges across the River Tiber as "mourning" for the war dead

* At least 40,000 protestors were involved in a human chain in Germany, between the northern cities of Munster and Osnabrueck, 55 kms (35 miles) apart

* About 23,000 took part in marches in Berlin, culminating in a rally in the Tiergarten park, and more Germans held protests in Stuttgart and Frankfurt, where 25 people were arrested as they tried to block the entrance to a US air base

* Several thousand demonstrators marched through Paris in the fifth mass protest there since the war began, and peace marches were also held in Moscow, Budapest, Warsaw and Dublin

posted 03-30-2003 06:21 PM            

Iraq didn't attack us.

This war isn't justified.

posted 03-30-2003 07:50 PM            

U.S.: Iraq not letting Red Cross visit POWs

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Iraq still has not let the International Committee of the Red Cross visit U.S. prisoners of war, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday.

"We would hope that the Iraqi regime would do the honorable and the right thing and allow the International Committee of the Red Cross in to visit these prisoners of war," Myers said on CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."

"That's their obligation. They said they were going to do it, and we just hope they follow through."

The United States has agreed to let the Red Cross visit more than 4,000 Iraqi POWs, Myers said. He said the Red Cross wanted to wait until conditions are more secure. He said he did not know whether the visits had taken place yet.

"I think they have probably been inside," he said.

Myers said it is unclear how many Americans are POWs in Iraq. At least five soldiers were captured after an ambush near Nasiriya. More troops are reported as missing in action, he said.

The International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad has been trying to negotiate a visit to check on the condition and treatment of POWs, the organization's Roland Huguenin-Benjamin told CNN.

He said his organization does not comment on POW visits until one has occurred. He said some technicalities need to be worked out, including taking the POWs to a safe place under the supervision of Iraqi officers.

"We are very hopeful that this will not be delayed," he said.

Before the war started, Iraq said the Red Cross would be allowed to visit any POWs, he said. He said the Red Cross has a long history of visiting POWs in Iraq.

In what is believed to be the first independent, on-the-scene report of Iraqi civilian casualties, Huguenin-Benjamin said an average of about 100 civilians are injured daily in Baghdad.

Iraqi officials said more than 4,000 civilians have been killed or wounded in Iraq since the coalition operation began 11 days ago.

Some injuries are superficial, but many have required surgery, Huguenin-Benjamin said.

He said he also is concerned about civilians in the cities between Basra and Baghdad, home to the most intense fighting in the war.

The International Committee of the Red Cross does not yet have staff in those cities, he said.

posted 03-31-2003 12:11 PM            

CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION http://www.cdi.org/index.cfm#headlines

Small Arms are Continuing Threat in Iraq
 
March 24, 2003

As bombs fall on Iraq, the threat of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack remains a real threat to U.S. and coalition forces. But, with the hope that there is no attack using weapons of mass destruction, the majority of U.S. casualties in this war will be from small arms and light weapons. Moreover, the real threat to the rebuilding of Iraq may be these weapons as well.

According to media reports, Iraq is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world. It is believed that there are enough guns in Iraq for at last every person in Iraq to possess one, a level similar to gun ownership in clans in Yemen and Somalia, as well as in the United States. With a population of approximately 24 million, that means there could be millions of small arms in the hands of civilians. The gun culture is pervasive in Iraq. There is even an Iraqi saying, "Give everything to your friend, except your car, your wife, and your gun."

Small arms and light weapons are widely available in Iraq, both on the legal and black markets. These weapons are not necessarily new, but they are still deadly. In some arms bazaars throughout Iraq, weapons leftover from the end of Ottoman Empire in 1918 and World War II are also still available. More modern weapons are also available, especially in the illicit arms markets, with weapons for sale from the United States, Turkey Iran, and other supporters of the Kurds. Beyond simply guns, Iraqis civilians also have access to other light weapons, such as rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, and bombs through the black market, arms bazaars, and from government sources.

The majority of military-style weapons in the hands of civilians in Iraq come from three sources, according to media reports. First, civilians possess weapons from government arsenals that were looted in 1991. Second, weapons have been provided from Iran, which has provided support for the main Shia rebel group. Third, the Iraqi government has provided AK-47s to leaders of Sunni and Shi'ite tribal leaders for dispersal.

Moreover, it is widely believed that Saddam's government has trained civilians, including units of children, in small arms usage and combat techniques and tactics. These trainees were given firearms, including military assault rifles to keep in their home in the event of an attack. Indeed, in February, 2003, Saddam's governments held a parade of thousands of small arms-bearing civilians to march down the streets of Mosul to demonstrate the capacity of ordinary Iraqis to wage war. This is not a new tactic. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi government provided AK-47s to decommission soldiers Ba'ath party members, and tribal leaders.

In the months preceding the war with Iraq, small arms in Iraq fluctuated in price. A shotgun was selling for $100, Iraqi-made "Tariq" 7.65 mm pistols for $200; AK-47 assault rifles were selling for between $120 and $250, Israeli Uzis and German MP5 submachine guns for $400, a 9mm Beretta for $850. Each bullet was selling for approximately 25 cents. In the months prior to the start of the war, arms bazaar leaders had bemoaned the slow business of selling arms. There were so many arms in circulation, that when the Iraqi government gave away weapons, citizens were selling them to buy food. Indeed, some merchants were buying the weapons in Iraq and then smuggling them into the Kurdish areas to make a small profit. In the Kurdish areas, AK-47s were being sold as low as $70. RPGs were going for as little as $30 to$40. Hand grenades were selling between $3 and $10. Higher prices were for those weapons made in the West versus those from Russia, China, Iran or Egypt. However, in the days immediately before the U.S. invasion, the small arms trade exploded, as civilians became fearful of their safety, not necessarily from invading U.S. forces, but from Kurdish groups and their well-armed neighbors. In fact, AK-47s went from $20 in some areas to $500 in others.

It is not just civilians that possess weapons in Iraq, however. U.S. and coalition forces will have to deal with armed opposition groups as well. According to some media reports, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) are also well armed. However, unlike the government forces, these groups have tried to remove the large number of small arms from circulation. For example, in 1997, the KDP opened an arms market and determined that only KDP soldiers or those with KDP-issued permits could purchase weapons from the market. They even recorded the buyers name and the serial numbers of each purchase. Although these groups may be concerned with civilian ownership of these military-style weapons, they themselves, in some cases are well armed. The KDP, for example is believed to have small arms, Iranian light artillery, rocket launchers and some surface-to-air missiles. The PUK is believed to have T-54 and T-55 tanks, as well as mortars, anti-aircraft guns, and surface-to-air missiles.

While Saddam had hoped that the Iraqi people would use their small arms to fight off advancing U.S. troops, the likelihood is that they will not. But, what is likely is that these millions of military style weapons in the hands of civilians will have a real impact on the aftermath of this war. There is a distinct possibility that in the lawlessness that results from the fall of the Iraqi government, small arms could be used to gain power, commit crime, cause insecurity, and be used for internal fighting.

Certainly, strategies that address the rebuilding of Iraq will have to take small arms into account. Demobilization and demilitarization of ex-combatants, as well as the civilian population, must be an integral part of creating a new, democratic, and secure Iraq. As part of the rebuilding, norms of civilian possession of military-style small arms must be created as well. After the civil war in El Salvador, the incidence of gun violence and crime actually increased, and more civilians were killed in the aftermath of the civil war than during the years of fighting. It will be up to those responsible for the rebuilding of Iraq to ensure that small arms are not used to cause more, even deadlier, problems for the Iraqi people.

 
Rachel Stohl
CDI Senior Analyst

BACK TO THE TOP    TERRORISM PROJECT HOME    LINKS    CDI HOME
 
CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036-2109
Ph: (202) 332-0600 · Fax: (202) 462-4559
info@cdi.org

posted 03-31-2003 03:59 PM            

DU AND IT'S DEADLY LEGACY IN GWII

Uranium Warheads May Leave Both Sides a Legacy of Death for Decades

by Susanna Hecht
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0330-02.htm

Although the potential human cost of the war with Iraq is obvious, not many people are aware of a hidden risk that may haunt us for years.

Of the 504,047 eligible veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, about 29% are now considered disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the highest rate of disability for any modern war. And most are not disabled because of wounds.

These guys were rough, tough, buff 20-year-olds a decade ago. The vast majority are ill because of a complex of debilities known as the Gulf War syndrome.

These vets were exposed to toxic material from both sides, including numerous chemicals, fumes and weird experimental vaccines. But the largest number of the more than half a million troops eligible for VA benefits -- 436,000 -- lived for months in areas of the Middle Eastern desert that had been contaminated with depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear power plants and various military activities.

The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: load it into warheads.

Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective "warhead penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified positions. When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that can be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and pollute ground water.

If the penetrators do not explode, their casings gradually oxidize, releasing DU into the environment.

DU warheads are essentially dirty bombs -- not very radioactive, but poisonous, and this is why there is an increasing global outcry against using DU in combat as tips for armor-piercing rounds as well as in artillery shells and Tomahawk missiles, among others.

Such warheads were used very successfully by the U.S. in the Gulf War, when more than 350 tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Iraq, and later in Kosovo when about 13 tons of DU were exploded in the conflict there.

The "Balkan syndrome" that emerged among the military and civilians after the U.S. bombing there bears a similarity to the Gulf War syndrome.

Though the findings are controversial, many scientists now see these afflictions as the result of heavy metal poisoning and possibly exposure to very low levels radiation.

DU is implicated in respiratory and kidney problems, rashes and, longer-term, bone cancer, as well as damaged reproductive and neurological systems.

Iraqi civilians -- many more than the 100,000 who died in the conflict or as a result of the war -- also suffer from a range of similar health problems.

Families of soldiers should be very worried.

A huge amount of ordnance has already been unleashed in Iraq, and there is no way of knowing how many thousands of tons of depleted uranium will find "permanent storage" in the rubble of Iraq, its soil and the bodies of its people and U.S. occupying forces.

It is certain, however, that the legacy of contamination will add billions to the cost of reconstruction -- and our lack of generosity in Afghanistan is instructive about the sincerity of our pledges in this area. The stingy benefit package the Gulf vets got, even during boom times, is yet another cautionary tale.

The rosy fantasies of a democratized Arab world might make for good sound bites. But the reality of widespread DU use brings to mind the epitaph for the Punic Wars: "They made a desolation and called it Peace."

Susanna Hecht is a professor in the School of Public Policy and Social Research at UCLA. She is head of the environmental analysis and policy program.

posted 03-31-2003 09:34 PM            

By Rob Ronning
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_ronning_032803_troops.html

Images of American and British troops in Iraq continuously flood the airways since the war of ‘liberation’ began last week. The television viewing public has also seen the photographs of prisoners of war and of those who are presumed missing in action. We have also had the opportunity to witness interviews with those families who have lost loved ones in this campaign as well as those with a relative in a POW or MIA status. If these images and interviews do not provide a necessary dose of truth concerning the reality of war, nothing will. Many people opposed to this war are accused of being anti-American or of not showing support for the troops.

While it is possible that some against the war harbor an allegiance to another entity (such as the United Nations), but for many others, that accusation could not be further from the truth.

In fact, many of the current war’s dissenters care deeply about their country and for the welfare of the troops. Many do not naively believe the government’s rationale behind this attack, nor do they appreciate the troops being misled concerning the difficulties and risks of this war. This group does not condone the way the veterans of the last Gulf War and other previous conflicts are currently being treated for various ailments caused by exposure to dangerous elements, while the government refuses to even acknowledge any responsibility. These individuals cannot fathom why a government proclaiming its intentions as noble and protective of the public would sell weapons of mass detruction to known tyrannical dictators, and then place their loved ones in grave danger by battling that same regime. They are appalled and outraged by the fact that the brave men and women under arms serve the global elitist cabal as fully disposable cannon fodder, while the spin doctors proclaim it is for the defense of freedom. Lastly, these patriots fail to understand the necessity of a perpetual war lasting for one hundred years against terrorist organizations the government established and how this places some of the finest men and women of this generation, and of those to come, in mortal danger.

The government’s rationale behind our troops risking their lives is the liberation of the Iraqi people. The government previously claimed that Iraq’s oppressed population would likely revolt against Hussein’s regime as soon as coalition troops entered the country. If you have been following the news lately, that former claim has not yet materialized, nor does it appear to be forthcoming. The Iraqi people are fighting what is increasingly perceived as an invading imperial force. The Iraqi’s are certainly familiar with one of the coalition’s aggressors. The British stationed themselves in this country during part of the last century as a colonial, occupying force. Even if these facts are unconvincing, the Project for the New American Century ideals cannot be ignored. The document for rebuilding America’s defenses basically advocates ensuring a worldwide American hegemony using the brute force of the military (read: our loved one’s lives). These proposals seem to have become the playbook for the U.S./U.K. version of the new world order. Our men and women in uniform have been hijacked by the imperial aspirations of the elite.

What about the veterans of previous wars? How well are they treated for their service? Many of our veterans were exposed to dangerous chemicals or depleted uranium and suffer the ill effects today, yet the government refuses to take responsibility for this detrimental exposure. Many Gulf War veterans complaining of health problems were given Prozac because the government refused to admit any harmful exposures caused by the war. This is the thanks received for their bravery and service? Other reports have recently surfaced detailing the absolutely disgusting conditions that ill and elderly veterans must endure under the care of a ‘grateful’ government in the Veteran’s Administration hospital system. After reviewing these facts, one is forced to reflect upon how well we support our troops.

As the troops move into the Baghdad area, our leaders have discussed at length the possibility of our troops being exposed to the chemical weapons the Iraqi regime supposedly still has. But what is hardly ever mentioned, if at all, is how our own government sold Saddam Hussein these materials. Of course, other regimes that are slated for removal from power (North Korea, Iran and etc.) were also the recipients of multiple weapons of mass destruction, or the material to manufacture them, courtesy of our government. Is a pattern emerging here? Why would a government that supports its troops arm the enemy with dangerous weapons? Does our government really care about our troops, or is the support for our troops merely one of many campaigns to distract the public from the real issues at hand?

Let’s not forget that the ‘War on Terror’ could likely last for one hundred years or more. That should allow our loving, grateful and supportive government plenty of time to show just how much they care for the troops. Unfortunately, their track record seems to lack evidence of true concern or support.

posted 04-01-2003 01:12 AM            

By Nadim Ladki
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030401/ts_nm/iraq_dc

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. Marines killed an unarmed Iraqi at a checkpoint south of Baghdad on Tuesday, just hours after seven women and children died in a similar shooting, providing new fuel for Arab fury over the war.

Marines said they opened fire on a pickup truck that sped toward them at a checkpoint outside the southern town of Shatra, killing the driver and wounding his passenger.

The truck was not loaded and neither of the men was armed, Marines told Reuters correspondent Sean Maguire at the scene.

"I thought it was a suicide bomb," said one of the Marines who opened fire. Troops have been on edge after a checkpoint suicide car bomb attack on Saturday killed four U.S. soldiers.

On Monday, U.S. troops opened fire on a car which failed to stop at a checkpoint in the desert near the city of Najaf, only to find it was full of Iraqi women and children.

U.S. Central Command in Qatar said seven of the 13 women and children in the car were killed and two wounded. A Washington Post correspondent near the scene said 10 people were killed.

Blasts shook the southern outskirts of Baghdad early on the 13th day of the U.S. and British war to topple President Saddam Hussein. Air raids have been pounding areas on the edges of the city where elite Republican Guard units are thought to be dug in ready to face U.S. troops advancing from the south.

Reuters correspondents with U.S. military units said U.S. troops fought Iraqi soldiers firing from buildings and foxholes on Monday around a bridge over the Euphrates river at Hindiya, just 50 miles from Baghdad -- the closest to the capital that ground fighting has been reported.

U.S. troops have also advanced to the outskirts of Hilla, about 60 miles south of Baghdad.

NASSIRIYA FIGHTING

Iraq reported fierce fighting in and around the city of Nassiriya, 235 miles southeast of Baghdad, and said invading troops suffered heavy casualties.

"The blood of the enemy is flowing profusely," a military spokesman said on Iraqi state television. "God bless your hands. Victory will be yours. God is by your side."

The seven women and children killed at the checkpoint near Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, were the first civilian deaths from U.S. gunfire confirmed by Central Command since the war began on March 20 -- although Iraq has said scores of civilians in and around Baghdad have died in missile attacks.

Marine Corps General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said the soldiers who shot at the car "absolutely did the right thing," because they thought their lives were threatened.

The United States says it cannot confirm its weapons were responsible for blasts in civilian areas of Baghdad that have killed scores of people. Central Command is investigating but says errant Iraqi surface-to-air missiles may be to blame.

Pictures of injured and dead civilians -- broadcast across the Muslim world by Arabic satellite channels -- have fueled opposition to the war and sparked angry protests.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister called for an end to the war and urged Saddam to step down to spare Iraq more bloodshed.

"If his staying in power (is) the only thing that brings problems to his country, we expect that he would respond to a sacrifice for his country, as he requires any citizen there to ... sacrifice for his country," Prince Saud al-Faisal told ABC News in an interview.

"This war can only lead to strife, to bloodshed and to increased hatred."

STRIKES ON BAGHDAD

Overnight air strikes on Baghdad hit a sprawling compound on the banks of the River Tigris used by Saddam and his powerful son Qusay. Smoke could be seen billowing from the complex.

Another explosion came from the headquarters of the Iraqi Olympic Committee, headed by Saddam's eldest son Uday, causing a huge fire that sent flames rising into the night sky.

The raids followed attacks on Monday which hit the Information Ministry and at least two telephone exchanges.

Washington presents its invasion as a war to liberate the country, oust Saddam and rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq denies having such weapons.

President Bush had a message for Iraqis in a speech which he made in Philadelphia. "We are coming with a mighty force to end the rule of your oppressors ... We will not stop, we will not relent until your country is free," he said.

There are at least 100,000 U.S. and British troops in Iraq.

However, General Richard Myers, head of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there was no rush to storm Baghdad. "We'll be patient," he said in Washington.

The United States had hoped to avoid street fighting in Baghdad that could cause high military and civilian casualties, but may have no choice but to storm the city. One senior Central Command official said the military was ready for heavy casualties.

"We're prepared to pay a very high price because we are not going to do anything other than ensure that this regime goes away," the official said. "If that means there will be a lot of casualties, then there will be a lot of casualties."

The Pentagon said the United States had fired 700 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 8,000 precision-guided munitions at Iraqi targets since the war began, 3,000 in the past three days. It flew 1,000 air sorties in the past 24 hours alone.

Iraq has said nearly 600 Iraqi civilians have been killed and over 4,500 wounded. It has not listed military casualties.

posted 04-01-2003 08:27 PM            

Army Defends Soldiers Who Killed Civilians at Checkpoint
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON, April 1 — The Army today defended the American soldiers at an Iraqi checkpoint who opened fire on a fast-moving vehicle on Monday, killing at least seven civilians, including five children.

Army rules of engagement will not, for now, be changed, a spokesman said.

But it was precisely the sort of incident that the United States-led coalition desperately hoped to avoid in seeking to cultivate support among the Iraqi people, and in the broader Muslim world.

And it appeared certain to add to the already bitter condemnations coming from Arab countries, where photographs of Iraqi civilians killed or sometimes gruesomely wounded in the conflict have been featured daily in newspapers and on television. Reuters reporters said today that they had seen the bodies of at least 11 civilians at a hospital in Hilla that residents said had been hit by American bombs.

The Army, asked about the deaths at the checkpoint, said that it regretted the losses and was investigating the circumstances but that soldiers appeared to have reacted appropriately in a harrowing and fast-developing situation.

A similar incident was reported to have taken place today at a checkpoint near the south-central town of Shatra, in which an Iraqi man was killed.

The casualties on Monday were the first civilian shooting deaths by American troops that the Central Command has acknowledged, though correspondents have reported others. Iraq has blamed American and British forces for 645 civilian deaths, most of them from aerial attacks.

Details of Monday's incident, which occurred near Karbala, about 100 miles south of Baghdad, were contested and unclear. The Army said seven civilians died when the fast-moving vehicle in which they and six others were traveling ignored attempts by soldiers of the Army's Third Infantry Division to stop the van.

The Army spokesman said soldiers shouted, then opened fire on the van only after the driver ignored warning shots. Two passengers were treated for wounds, and four escaped injury, the Army said.

The Army's account conflicted, in part, with that of a reporter for The Washington Post accompanying the unit, who said 10 civilians, including 5 children, had died after high-explosive rounds hit their four-wheel-drive Toyota.

The reporter, William Branigin, quoted an Army captain, Ronny Johnson, as angrily berating a platoon leader because he had failed to fire a warning shot soon enough. The platoon leader asserted that two warning shots had been fired, and had gone unheeded by the driver. The Army said it was investigating.

Whatever the casualty numbers, they appeared to be seriously undermining the coalition's message that it was taking extraordinary efforts to minimize civilian casualties, and a blow to efforts to gain Iraqis' trust.

Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks, a spokesman for the Army's Central Command, laid the confusion between the two accounts to the fog of war and said that pending an investigation, he would not try "to square the two."

"While we regret the loss of any civilian lives," he said, "at this point they remain unavoidable, as they have been throughout history."

While there is no change in the rules of engagement — the guidelines for when force may be used, and at what level — there is "increased vigilance," General Brooks said in a briefing at the Command's forward headquarters, at Doha, Qatar. Troops are trying to keep greater distances between themselves and the vehicles or pedestrians they stop, he said.

General Brooks suggested that other checkpoints had been rushed by several Iraqi vehicles at a time; sometimes a car carrying civilians would precede others full of armed combatants. He would not say whether that had been the case on Monday.

American troops in the area have been particularly on edge since an incident on Saturday near Najaf in which a driver detonated explosives at a checkpoint, killing himself and four soldiers from the Third Infantry Division.

The coalition has also reported incidents of Iraqi fighters disguising themselves as noncombatants to approach coalition troops and to fire on them.

Humanitarian groups deplored the recent incidents and called on combatants on both sides to show greater restraint.

In Paris, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross said, "Civilians must be spared as far as is possible" but added, "Equally, soldiers have the right to assure their own security."

The European Commission called the incident "horrible and tragic," but said it was not isolated. It added, "Too many civilians have already lost their lives in this war."

Iraqi officials also said today that coalition warplanes had attacked two buses carrying foreign volunteers from Amman, Jordan, toward Baghdad to serve as "human shields." A United States spokesmen said American officials knew of no such incident, and travelers in the region told reporters that they had seen no sign of such an attack.

Many in the Arab world were already infuriated by explosions in Baghdad marketplaces that have appeared to kill scores of civilians, as well as other incidents in which civilians have died.

News coverage in the Arab media has been graphic and sometimes harrowing. "Every day, the newspapers are publishing pictures of little Iraqi children wounded or dead," Reuters quoted a Cairo bookseller, Sameh Nabil, as saying.

Those earlier civilian deaths brought a rare comment from the British government that Iraqi civilians might, for now, see the coalition forces as villains and not, as the British had hoped, as liberators.

"We know that for the moment we will be seen as the villains," Home Secretary David Blunkett told BBC.

posted 04-01-2003 10:26 PM            

\\\\

one liberal gets it right !

Nat Hentoff
Why I Didn't March This Time

Their Tongues Were Cut Out for Slandering Hussein
March 28th, 2003 3:30 PM

Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein. —John F. Burns, "How Many People Has Hussein Killed?" The New York Times, January 26, 2003

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

I participated in many demonstrations against the Vietnam War, including some civil disobedience—though I was careful not to catch the eyes of the cops, sometimes a way of not getting arrested. But I could not participate in the demonstrations against the war on Iraq. As I told The New York Sun in its March 14-16 roundup of New Yorkers for and against the war:

"There was the disclosure . . . when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information. . . . So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?"

I did not cite "weapons of mass destruction." Nor do I believe Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to this country, any more than the creators of the mass graves in the Balkans were, or the Taliban. And as has been evident for a long time, I am no admirer of George W. Bush.

The United Nations? Did the inspectors go into the prisons and the torture chambers? Would they have, if given more time? Did they interview the Mukhabarat, Saddam's dreaded secret police?

An Iraqi in Detroit wanted to send a message to the anti-war protesters: "If you want to protest that it's not OK to send your kids to fight, that's OK. But please don't claim to speak for the Iraqis."

In The Guardian, a British paper that can hardly be characterized as conservative, there was a dispatch from Safwan, Iraq, liberated in the first days of the war: "Ajami Saadoun Khilis, whose son and brother were executed under the Saddam regime, sobbed like a child on the shoulder of The Guardian's Egyptian translator. He mopped the tears but they kept coming. 'You just arrived,' he said. 'You're late. What took you so long?' "

The United Nations? In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started.

Bill Clinton refused to act as well, instructing the State Department not to use the word genocide because then the United States would be expected to do something. And President Clinton instructed Madeleine Albright, then our representative to the UN, to block any possible attempts to intervene despite Kofi Annan. Some 800,000 lives could have been saved.

The United Nations? Where Libya, Syria, and Sudan are on the Human Rights Commission? The UN is crucial for feeding people and trying to deal with such plagues as AIDS; but if you had been in a Hussein torture chamber, would you, even in a state of delirium, hope for rescue from the UN Security Council?

From Amnesty International, for whom human rights are not just a slogan, on Iraq: "Common methods of physical torture included electric shocks or cigarette burns to various parts of the body, pulling out fingernails, rape. . . . Two men, Zaher al-Zuhairi and Fares Kadhem Akia, reportedly had their tongues cut out for slandering the president by members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994. The amputations took place in a public square in Diwaniya City, south of Baghdad."

As John Burns of The New York Times wrote in January: "History may judge that the stronger case [for an American-led invasion] . . . was the one that needed no [forbidden arms] inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."

When it appeared that Tony Blair's political career was near extinction, he gave a speech in the House of the Commons, as quoted in the March 18 issue of The Guardian:

"We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means—let us be clear—that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.

"And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means—what then?

"What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that?. . . Who will celebrate and who will weep?"

The letters section of The New York Times is sometimes more penetrating than the editorials. A March 23 letter from Lawrence Borok: "As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one. Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives. But even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, have they all forgotten about the Iraqi people?"

And, in the March 23 New York Times Magazine, Michael Ignatieff, a longtime human rights investigator, wrote of "14,000 'writers, academics, and other intellectuals'—many of them my friends—[who] published a petition against the war . . . condemning the Iraqi regime for its human rights violations and supporting 'efforts by the Iraqi opposition to create a democratic, multi-ethnic, and multireligious Iraq.' " But they say, he adds, that waging war at this time is "morally unacceptable."

posted 04-01-2003 10:47 PM            

quote:

---

if saddam's henchman would abide by the proper engagement of war that incident never would have happened...suicide bombers caused those fatalities...as much as you'd love to blame it on the U.S david....

---

Proper engagement of war? You mean like bushs proper engagement? His pre-emtive strike was/is not legal, proper, called for or wanted.
Saddam did not fire on those people fool, our fighting forces did, and they killed innocent children, you heartless ass.

How would you feel seeker if, during a condition RED here in this country, a soldier fired on and killed your children then explained that he thought they were suicide bombers. 'Aw shucks, it was a mistake'. Would you still have the same sick and twisted attitude that it is A-OK to have killed them. Think about it, it could happen, how would you feel. You are a most heartless and guttless excuse for a human being.
You seem to like the thoughts of killing, so why don't you join up and go fight, you guttless coward.

posted 04-01-2003 10:53 PM            

do you wake in paranoid panic induced cold sweats every night or just some of them because of the current administration ?

do you think it is healthy to waste your life away on an issue you can never do anything about ?

what did the 60's pinheads get done ?

the above is the intellectual way to rip someone's ass...

shame you don't have the mental capacity to try it...

Nat Hentoff rocks !!!!