Chemtrail Central
Member's Area
Member List
Who's Linking
What's Popular
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive
Top Websites

  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  Gulf War II (Page 32)

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
Topic:   Gulf War II

Topic page views:

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-09-2003 12:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


Gordon Thomas

If not tomorrow – then soon. The multi-weapon systems will kill no more. The last of the body bags will be zippered closed. The oil-well fires will be quenched by US vice-president Dick Cheney’s old company contracted to do. It will be a nice little earner.

Then what?

Saddam Hussein and his two sadistic sons may or may not be found buried beneath the rubble of the ruins of Baghdad or their birthplace, Tigrit. Or, like Osama bin Laden, if they have escaped, they will be forever hunted.

Then what?

Oliver North, the most gung-ho of all the US network reporters, will return to his Fundamentalist Christian lair in America’s Bible Belt to write a book about his war. Donald Rumsfeld will finally move off screen to give the Simpsons back their prime time. Have you noticed how Rummi sounds like Homer?

George Bush will go back to mangling the English language. In elocution terms, he has had a good war. Tony Blair will find his truce with the Labour Party will not last as long as the war he helped launch.

And in Iraq, a new war will have begun. One far more deadly and dangerous for the region, and perhaps ultimately, for the whole world.

A potent mix of religion, hatred, oil and greed will be ignited in a way that all the smart bombs so far have not managed.

In the south, the marsh-Arabs, the Shias, will seize the end of the war to state their claim for a powerful voice in the future of Iraq.

They have suffered much. They not only want revenge, but they want real power to ensure they will never have to endure again.

Their demands, uttered from the minarets of their mosques half-hidden by the reeds of their inhospitable earth, will be reinforced by the mullahs of Tehran. That could be the springboard for Iran to come into the sights of President Bush’s "axis of evil", which incorporates Iran. What will he do? The omens are not good. There are already mutterings that "Iran has to be dealt with" from Washington.

If not tomorrow, then certainly soon.

In the north of post-war Iraq, the Kurds will grab their moment for independence. That will bring them into almost certain conflict with Turkey. NATO’s member is on the rump of that now seriously divided organisation. For Turkey, an independent Kurdish nation is unacceptable and will be resisted with a show of arms. What will NATO do? At most expel Turkey. But likely – nothing. What will Bush do? Possibly place his battle-weary force between Kurds and Turks. But domestic public opinion may not let him.

In central Iraq, are the Assyrians and the Turkomans.

They too want their piece of the cake when it comes to who gets what in a new Iraq.

Then there is Saddam’s Ba’ath Party. Just as in post-war Germany, it turned out to be an impossible dream to eradicate the Nazi Party, so it will prove with the remnants of Ba’athism.

They are imbedded in the very structure of Iraq. Ramshackle it may have been, it was the Ba’ath members who keeps its nuts and bolts greased.

Beyond Iraq, waiting to move in is the Iraqi National Coalition. This is a mish-mash of politicians and generals who have defected from Iraq over the last few years. They have set up comfortable homes – partly paid for by Whitehall and Washington – and spent their time promoting their case around Westminster and on Capitol Hill.

Their biggest contribution so far has been to issue a wish-list for "social justice, civil rights, virtues of tolerance and peaceful co-existence".

They like to think it reflects the best of Magna Carta and the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.

The reality is that all their talk of political pluralism and "the separation of powers, military in particular, from the future political establishment", is wishful thinking.

That "future political establishment" will be run by America for the foreseeable future. Stripped of all the spin-doctoring from the White House and London, Iraq will be little more than another American protectorate.

The reason is simple. Washington – whatever it has said in these past weeks – has a deep and abiding interest in the Iraqi oil fields. They are only second to Saudi Arabia in what they will once more start pumping over the next few months.

Bush and Blair have issued a fine declaration that all the money from Iraqi oil will be held "in trust for the Iraqi people".

But any lawyer will tell you that a trust costs money to run: the bigger the trust, the larger the costs to administer it.

Have no doubt: America will expect those charges to be paid. And the easiest way to do so is to cream-off the appropriate number of barrels of oil.

George Bush is steeped in how that is done. He was born and raised an oilman. He is concerned that Saudi oil will not be there forever. Better to secure as much as is possible to extract from under the Iraqi sands.

But there is a problem. Both Russia and France already have huge vested interests in Iraq’s oil fields. They have financed and built refineries – some now burning – around Basra.

Have no doubt: when the time comes, they will argue they have legally-established rights to the oil. And neither country have agreed to that noble sounding ideal to put the oil in trust for the "Iraqi people".

And even if that did happen – and after America has taken its "administrative slice" – how will the money be divided up? How much will the Kurds get? The Shias? The other lesser tribes?

Knowing their own entrenched suspicion of each other – and their well-honed skills to haggle over the price of a camel’s hide – the potential millions to be shared out from the oil will lead to internal strife.

It is the way serious arguments have always been settled in that country.

And internal strife will be fuelled by the nations that now have a ringside seat at the conflict. Both Syria and Iran have made it clear that they will become involved in the setting up of a new Iraq. So will Turkey. Between them they could foment, through their surrogates, sufficient trouble to see Iraq descend into a lawlessness that would be even more frightening than that under Saddam.

America and Britain, already isolated in Europe, will find they will be under huge pressure at home to withdraw their troops from their role as "protectors".

It is enough to make Saddam turn in his grave – assuming he is there.

The war may indeed soon be over. But a new and in many ways more deadly one is about to begin.

Iraq may well become a leit-motif for an uncertain future. The billowing oil clouds over the region may turn out to be the precursor of an even more threatened future that will spread beyond the present conflict.


[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-09-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-09-2003 01:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote



Gulf War Syndrome, The Sequel
'People Are Sick Over There Already'

Steven Rosenfeld

Soldiers now fighting in Iraq are being exposed to battlefield hazards that have been associated with the Gulf War Syndrome that afflicts a quarter-million veterans of the 1991 war, said a former Central Command Army officer in Operation Desert Storm.

Part of the threat today includes greater exposure to battlefield byproducts of depleted uranium munitions used in combat, said the former officer and other Desert Storm veterans trained in battlefield health and safety.

Their concern comes as troops are engaged in the most intensive fighting of the Iraq War.

Complicating efforts to understand any potential health impacts is the Pentagon's failure, acknowleged in House hearings on March 25, to follow a 1997 law requiring baseline medical screening of troops before and after deployment.

"People are sick over there already," said Dr. Doug Rokke, former director of the Army's depleted uranium (DU)project. "It's not just uranium. You've got all the complex organics and inorganics [compounds] that are released in those fires and detonations. And they're sucking this in.... You've got the whole toxic wasteland."

In 1991, Desert Storm Commander Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf asked Rokke to oversee the environmental clean up and medical care of soldiers injured in friendly fire incidents involving DU weapons. Rokke later wrote the DU safety rules adopted by the Army, but was relieved of subsequent duties after he criticized commanders for not following those rules and not treating exposed troops from NATO's war in Yugoslavia.

Rokke said today's troops have been fighting on land polluted with chemical, biological and radioactive weapon residue from the first Gulf War and its aftermath. In this setting, troops have been exposed not only to sandstorms, which degrade the lungs, but to oil fires and waste created by the use of uranium projectiles in tanks, aircraft, machine guns and missiles.

"That's why people started getting sick right away, when they started going in months ago with respiratory, diarrhea and rashes -- horrible skin conditions," Rokke said. "That's coming back on and they have been treating them at various medical facilities. And one of the doctors at one of the major Army medical facilities -- he and I talk almost every day -- and he is madder than hell."

DU, or Uranium-238, is a byproduct of making nuclear reactor fuel. It is denser and more penetrating than lead, burns as it flies, and breaks up and vaporizes on impact -- which makes it very deadly. Each round fired by a tank shoots one 10-pound uranium dart that, in addition to destroying targets, scatters into burning fragments and creates a cloud of uranium particles as small as one micron. Particles that small can enter lung tissue and remain embedded.

Efforts to contact Pentagon officials for comment at the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses and officials at the Veterans Administration who deal with DU-related illness were not returned.

What Rokke and other outspoken Desert Storm veterans fear is today's troops are being exposed to many of the same battlefield conditions that they believe are responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. These illnesses have left 221,000 veterans on medical disability and another 51,000 seeking that status from the Veterans Administration as of May 2002.

"Yeah, I do fear that," said Denise Nichols, a retired Air Force Major and nurse, who served in Desert Storm and is now vice-chairman of the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition. "We're sitting here watching it happen again and wondering if the soldiers are going to be taken care of any better [than after the 1991 war]."

Nichols' lobbying sparked Congress to pass a 1997 law requiring the Pentagon to conduct a physical and take blood samples of all soldiers before and after deployment. In a House hearing on March 25 on that requirement, Public Law 105-85, Pentagon officials said the military had not conducted those baseline tests for Iraq War soldiers, saying they asked troops to fill out a questionnaire instead.

"Their actions not to fully implement PL 105-85 and go beyond the words of the law, show their lack of caring for the human beings that do the work and place their lives in jeopardy for this nation," Nichols said in testimony submitted to the Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) the Government Reform-National Security Subcommittee chairman, who held the hearing and told military officials they were "not meeting" the letter or spirit of the law.

"I hope that when the soldiers return that the standard tactic of blaming PTSD [Post-Traumatic-Stress Disorder] or stress will never be allowed to block soldiers from getting fast answers to what is happening to their health," Nichols testified.

"If you don't look, you don't find," Rokke said, commenting on the Pentagon's failure to assess soldiers' health. "If you don't find, there is no correlation. If there's no correlation, there's no liability."

Both Rokke and Nichols says health problems associated with DU exposure are likely to be more widespread in the current war than in 1991. That's because the military relies more heavily on DU munitions today and there's more fighting in this war.

When Rokke sees images of soldiers and civilians driving past burning Iraqi trucks that have been destroyed by tank fire, or soldiers or civilians inspecting buildings destroyed by missiles, and these people are not wearing respirators, he says they all risk radiation poisoning, which can have lifelong consequences.

"He's going to be sick," Rokke said. "He's supposed to have full respiratory protection on. That's required by his Common Task [training manual]. And when he comes by and he's downwind, he supposed to have a radio-bio-assay. That's urine, feces and nasal swabs within 24 hours."

When asked why those protocols -- part of the DU rules he wrote for the Army -- apparently aren't being followed, Rokke said the military doesn't want to lose the use of DU weapons. He said as early as 1991 the military issued memos saying DU ammo could become "politically unacceptable and thus be deleted" if health and environmental impacts were emphasized.

Outside the military, medical journals say the jury is still out on DU's potential health impacts. Although the government says it is safe, medical researchers say not enough is understood about DU's acute and long-term effects, wrote Brian Vastag in the April 2 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Veterans disagree, however, saying the military has known about low-level radiation poisoning since the development of atomic weapons in the 1940s. They say the military will not disclose its DU test results and that it's almost impossible to do medical research while combat rages.

Meanwhile, in political circles, the White House has dismissed DU issues. On March 18, it issued "Apparatus of Lies," a report which, among other things, attacked claims that DU fallout from Operation Desert Storm has caused higher disease rates among Iraqi citizens. Those claims were part of "Saddam's disinformation and propaganda" campaign, the White House said.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-09-2003 01:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-09-2003 01:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Smellz like an OILigarchy.....

IP Logged

One moon circles

Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-09-2003 03:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
troll ?

looks like your trying to sidetrack this thread yet once again with your looser extremist keep the people of the world oppressed hate the U.S views mech...well it don't really matter because the use of this thread will be over soon...

the tone of this article below applies to all the peaceniks...and exposes them for what they are...

Stomping on Saddam

Wednesday, April 09, 2003
By Neil Cavuto

I want to talk to the French right now and the Germans and the Russians. I want to talk to all those who opposed the liberation of Iraq. I want to show you all something. I want to show you the joyous scene in downtown Baghdad today.

People oppressed. Now people free. People once hopeless. Now hopeful. People you forgot. But we remembered.

If you had things your way, they'd still be under the thumb of a dictator. And you were fine with that. We were not. You had no problem telling them, "live with it." We had a big problem telling them, "get over it."

Look at their faces. See their smiles. And feel their joy, their freedom and their fervor. How do you feel now? Still sure going the extra mile for them wasn't worth it? I don't think they'd agree.

While you were debating, they were suffering. While you were kowtowing to a dictator you knew was an ogre, they were enduring under a dictator they knew was even worse. They lived in huts and tenements. He lived in castles. But that didn't bother you.

They scraped by to get morsels. You skulked by to get contracts. They couldn't realize a penny from the oil that made Saddam rich. You didn't seem to care, as long as it made you rich.

You opted for profit over principle and deals that made a dictator richer and his people poorer. You argued the world had no right to interfere in a sovereign nation. But you won't waste a nanosecond to worm your way into this new nation. Now you want in, when for so long the masses have been kept out.

You are as crass as you are cunning, as phony as you are pathetic.

I ask you to look at their faces. Then look at your own. See the triumph of the human spirit and the coalition soldiers who fought and died for it. Then see your own pathetic selves, who -- even now -- can't come close to appreciating it.

Watch Neil Cavuto's Common Sense weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on Your World with Cavuto.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 04-09-2003]

IP Logged

Chemspiracy Realist

East Central Florida
1388 posts, Apr 2001

posted 04-09-2003 05:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for FLKook     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Another interesting article from WND
Marines find underground nuke complex
Captain guarding facility: 'How did the world miss all of this?'

Posted: April 9, 2003
7:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2003

U.S. Marines have located an underground nuclear complex near Baghdad that apparently went unnoticed by U.N. weapons inspectors.

Hidden beneath the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission's Al-Tuwaitha facility, 18 miles south of the capital, is a vast array of warehouses and bombproof offices that could contain the "smoking gun" sought by intelligence agencies, reported the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

"I've never seen anything like it, ever," said Marine Capt. John Seegar. "How did the world miss all of this? Why couldn't they see what was happening here?"

Marine nuclear and intelligence experts say that at least 14 buildings at Al-Tuwaitha indicate high levels of radiation and some show lethal amounts of nuclear residue, according to the Pittsburgh daily. The site was examined numerous times by U.N. weapons inspectors, who found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

"They went through that site multiple times, but did they go underground? I never heard anything about that," said physicist David Albright, a former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector in Iraq from 1992 to 1997.

In a 1999 report, Albright said, "Iraq developed procedures to limit access to these buildings by IAEA inspectors who had a right to inspect the fuel fabrication facility."

"On days when the inspectors were scheduled to visit, only the fuel fabrication rooms were open to them," he said in the report, written with Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear engineer who defected in 1994. "Usually, employees were told to take their rooms so that the inspectors did not see an unusually large number of people."

Chief Warrant Officer Darrin Flick, the battalion's nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist, said radiation levels were particularly high at a place near the complex where local residents say the "missile water" is stored in mammoth caverns.

"It's amazing," Flick said. "I went to the off-site storage buildings, and the rad detector went off the charts. Then I opened the steel door, and there were all these drums, many, many drums, of highly radioactive material."

Iraq began to develop its nuclear program at Al-Tuwaitha in the 1970s, according to the Institute for Science and International Security. Israel destroyed a French-built reactor there in 1981 and a reactor built by the Russians was destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War.

Hamza testified before Congress last August that if left unchecked, Iraq could have had nuclear weapons by 2005.

Noting that the ground in the area is muddy and composed of clay, Hamza was surprised to learn of the Marines' discovery, the Tribune-Review said. He wondered if the Iraqis went to the colossal expense of pumping enough water to build the subterranean complex because no reasonable inspector would think anything might be built underground there.

"Nobody would expect it," Hamza said. "Nobody would think twice about going back there."

Michael Levi of the Federation of American Scientists said the Iraqis continued rebuilding the Al-Tuwaitha facility after weapons inspections ended in 1998.

"I do not believe the latest round of inspections included anything underground, so anything you find underground would be very suspicious," said Levi. "It sounds absolutely amazing."

The Pittsburgh paper said nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians, housed in a plush neighborhood near the campus, have fled, along with Baathist party loyalists.

"It's going to take some very smart people a very long time to sift through everything here," said Flick. "All this machinery. All this technology. They could do a lot of very bad things with all of this."

Marine Capt. Seegar said his unit will continue to hold the nuclear site until international authorities can take over. Last night, they monitored gun and artillery battles by U.S. Marines against Iraqi Republican Guards and Fedayeen terrorists.

The offices underground are replete with videos and pictures that indicate the complex was built largely over the last four years, the Tribune-Review said.

IP Logged

Senior Member

431 posts, Dec 2002

posted 04-09-2003 10:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for halva   Email halva   Visit halva's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
FL Kook what is your opinion of Scott Ritter and his actions in the last months?

IP Logged

Senior Member

174 posts, Oct 2001

posted 04-10-2003 12:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rainheart     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
this is my pick for quote of the day

"It's utterly despicable to launch such a meaningless war in the 21st century," she said. "It is even more unpalatable that the warmongers this time are not the traditional politically unstable rogue states in the Third World, but the United States and Britain - which were seen as bastions of modern democracy, the rule of law, justice and observance of international norms."

- Maria Ivanova, a 40-year-old sociology professor at a Moscow university

IP Logged

Senior Member

431 posts, Dec 2002

posted 04-10-2003 02:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for halva   Email halva   Visit halva's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Seeker, you are too idealistic and don't think enough about money, like what's going to happen to your American dollar.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-10-2003 03:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


by VOX

Reminiscent of the staged MOCK pro war rallies here in the United States, the CIA with their public relations giants staged a patently mock liberation rally. If it wasn’t so phony it would be laughable, but it’s disgusting - It’s a lie. The CIA organized this mornings take down of the Saddam Statue in Baghdad’s Liberation Square as another FAKE OUT.

In this city of over 5 million people about seventy of what appeared to be Iraqi dregs and delinquents and news paparazzi with Betacam crews descended on Liberation Square for another in a long line of lies, and PSY-OPS and disinformation, designed to fake us all out. CNN kept the camera angle close up because if they pulled too far out you noticed that there weren’t a whole lot of people out for this fake out, “liberation.”

About four hours before the statue was actually pulled down by a group of listless Iraqis, one of those plastic CNN news hairdos said that all the while, the images were of US tanks tearing the Saddam statues down and that it would be nice for the world to see some arabic looking people tearing down some statues so that CNN (CIA) (Bush Administration) could say, “I told you so”.
And so they brought in a column of tanks and moved in for the big publicity stunt.

Not even coming close to a real occupation of the city they took this little corner and pulled out the cameras. There were more news crews in Liberation Square then Iraqi people. But hey who would even notice, right? After all, aren’t American’s brains so numbed after being so systematically lied to year after year by lie after lie that in the LieWorld such publicity stunts really work, right?
Wrong. Smart people know better.
Yea, but what about all those Shiites happily on a looting rampage in East Baghdad, they appear to be having such joy as they tear up Saddam’s Posters? Doesn’t it feel like liberation?

First of all let’s be clear about one thing here. If Iraqi tanks rolled down Pennsylvania avenue in Washington and killed Bush, there would be nearly 100 million people in the streets of America celebrating - Let’s make that perfectly clear. Secondly those same people who are tearing up Saddam’s posters are the same people who are going to be taking pot shots, every chance they get at their new liberators. Because remember this there is only one person in this world more hated than Saddam Hussein and that is George W. Bush.

Do the math - Bush is the most despised man on earth, ever.

The Bush criminal gang think they can fool the world with all these lies. The US government now is government by lies. Our foreign policy is a foreign policy of lies, payoffs, and coersion. Our domestic policy is about lies. Our social agenda is based on lies. The New World Order liars think they can conquer the world with lies and fake outs and mock rallys and staged fake rallies of Iraqis giving flowers to US troops. It's a f^^^ING lie from start to finish.

No doubt Saddam Hussein is a major scumbag, but he was our scumbag - we put him there and kept him there and sold him chemicals and Bushes father sold him weaponry and biological agents and gave him hundreds of millions of dollars of US taxpayer dollars to keep him alive and healthy. Saddam was OUR boy, through and through. Will there be jubilation when we kill our own agent? You better believe it, they hate this former CIA asset, but no where in the world would there be a bigger celebration and jubilation then if it were Bush on the recieving end of the Tomohawk cruise missile or smart bomb.

Bush sucks! I hate his f^^^ing guts. Don't ever forget that. And if you love your family and if you love freedom you better keep that feeling of this evil man at the forefront, because it is easy to be suckered by the slick 3D graphics and clever camera angles and dumb smiling newsreaders, and MOCK, STAGED events that fool the eye and boggle the mind. Trust me the Iraqis hate Bush as much as they hate Saddam Hussein no matter many impoverished Iraqis they throw in front of the camera with flowers. Like I said, if Bush were killed MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WOULD BE ECSTATIC. So fake rallies with Iraqis throwing flowers proves nothing. They will be throwing insults bombs and bullets at our troops the first chance they get.

Know your enemy
Don't believe the lies
Welcome to the New World Order


[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-10-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-10-2003 04:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Agency wages media battle
Team makes sure war message is unified, positive

By Bob Kemper
Washington Bureau

April 7, 2003§ion=/printstory

WASHINGTON -- The Office of Global Communications, a controversial agency created by President Bush in January, has blossomed into a huge production company, issuing daily scripts on the Iraq war to U.S. spokesmen around the world, auditioning generals to give media briefings and booking administration stars on foreign news shows.

The office--a sort of global public-relations firm for the Bush administration and the U.S. war effort--tightly coordinates the message of the Pentagon, the State Department and the military command in the Persian Gulf, ensuring that any war commentary by a U.S. official is approved in advance by the White House.

Critics are questioning the veracity of some of the stories being circulated by the office and deriding it as a propaganda arm of the White House. But administration officials insist the office does not deal in disinformation and they say it serves a crucial purpose.

"We must do everything we can to help communicate the ideals and the policies of our country," said White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett. "In some countries we haven't paid as much attention, or spent enough time, doing that."

The communications office helps devise and coordinate each day's talking points on the war. Civilian and military personnel, for example, are told to refer to the invasion of Iraq as a "war of liberation." Iraqi paramilitary forces are to be called "death squads."

The effects of that discipline are evident almost daily. When questions arose recently about whether the United States could find Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, U.S. spokesmen and spokeswomen--from the White House to the Pentagon to the Central Command in Qatar--simultaneously insisted that the war was "not about one man."

So controlled is the administration's message that officials from Bush on down often use identical anecdotes to make their points, for example about Hussein's brutality. But the White House sometimes has been unable to provide details or documentation to back up those stories, and some human-rights activists have expressed skepticism about them.

One oft-repeated anecdote, for example, concerned an Iraqi woman who ostensibly waved at a U.S. military unit. When the unit returned to the area, the story goes, it found the woman hanged from a lamppost.

Yet U.S. officials never specified where that happened or gave any further details, and they declined to say how they know about it beyond citing "intelligence reports."

A second story involved an Iraqi man who, having criticized Hussein's regime, was tied to a post in a Baghdad square after his tongue was cut out and bled to death. "That's how Saddam Hussein retains power," Bush said at Camp David on March 27.

The story was repeated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Pentagon briefers during the next several days. But administration officials have declined to say when the incident occurred or who saw it.

Although the chilling stories sound familiar to those who have documented Hussein's atrocities, the specific anecdotes could not be corroborated by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, journalists in the region or U.S. intelligence sources.

Amnesty International spokesman Alistair Hodgett said the severed-tongue story resembles an event that occurred two years ago, well before the war in Iraq began.

"What we've seen with the use of our information in this campaign, particularly by the U.S., is that they certainly will be eager to cite from fairly old documents, which obviously are accurate but which are loosely cited from to justify what's occurring at the moment," Hodgett said.

Sticking by its stories

The White House would say only that the stories match what is known about Hussein's cruelty.

"The brutality of the Iraqi regime has been well-known for years and documented by human-rights groups and others," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Bush's global communications strategy is the brainchild of one of his closest advisers, Karen Hughes. It is a strategy born of the Bush team's experience in political campaigns and honed during the war in Afghanistan, and its chief objective is to respond nearly instantly to criticism of the administration or the war anywhere in the Arab world throughout the 24-hour-a-day news cycle.

The office, expected to remain in place after the Iraq war ends, handles not only daily planning but also longer-term issues. That ability to chart a course far ahead of time, and adhere closely to it regardless of outside distractions, has been a Bush hallmark.

"That crowd that came out of Texas didn't succeed by worrying only about a day at a time or a week at a time," one senior administration official said.

The Pentagon put its own public-relations team in place shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, when it hired The Rendon Group on a $100,000-a-month contract. The State Department launched its campaign to sell American ideals overseas when it hired a former Madison Avenue advertising executive to run its Office of Public Diplomacy.

Target No. 1: Hussein

When Bush created the Office of Global Communications by executive order on Jan. 21, its aim was to coordinate public relations across the administration. The office's first report, issued almost immediately, was "Apparatus of Lies: Saddam's Disinformation and Propaganda 1990-2003."

The office is headed by Tucker Eskew, a soft-spoken but brass-knuckles political operative who ran Bush's South Carolina presidential primary campaign.

Every morning at 9:30 Washington time, a conference call with Global Communications offices in Qatar and London and other U.S. agencies sets the message of the day. The Washington office also issues the "Global Messenger," a daily e-mail to U.S. embassies and others outlining the administration's message.

On March 24, while the U.S. media were reporting that the invasion had fallen behind schedule, the Messenger reported that "news accounts today paint a vivid picture of joy and relief inside Iraq. American and coalition troops were being welcomed by smiling Iraqis."

The office has taken on myriad production duties too. At the forward headquarters of Central Command, Eskew's colleagues primed Gen. Tommy Franks, who is overseeing the war, for his first wartime news conference.

When Bush gave his State of the Union address, the office arranged for Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz to watch it with about 20 reporters from Egypt, China, Russia and elsewhere. Afterward, Wolfowitz did individual interviews, providing White House spin to TV markets around the world.

The Global Communications Office was created about a year after the Pentagon met with disaster with a similar operation. The Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was accused of planning to spread disinformation. The Pentagon denied the accusations but shut it anyway.

Three days after the White House office opened, Eskew went to the Foreign Press Center in Washington to introduce himself to foreign reporters and to field questions. The first question, from a German reporter, was whether he was setting up the "Office of Disinformation" the Pentagon had tried to set up.

"Our executive order," Eskew told the reporters, "insists that we deal with the truth."

Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-10-2003 05:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-10-2003 06:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Israel eyes Iraqi oil
By Simon Wilson
in Jerusalem

An Israeli minister says he wants to reopen a pipeline which has been closed for more than fifty years to bring Iraqi oil through Jordan to Israel's Mediterranean coast.

A spokesman for the infrastructure minister, Joseph Paritzky, said the move would cut fuel costs in Israel and help regenerate the port city of Haifa.

There has been no official comment yet from Jordan, but any suggestion that Israel might benefit from the fall of Saddam Hussein is likely to enrage many people in Arab countries.

The pipeline was built after Britain took control of Iraq, Jordan and what was then British mandate Palestine after the First World War.

The section from Iraq to Jordan is still functioning, but the route from Jordan to the port of Haifa, which is now in Israel, was cut in 1948 when the British pulled out.


The Israeli infrastructure ministry says reopening the pipeline would give easy access to Iraqi oil, cut fuel costs in Israel and help regenerate Haifa which has suffered badly in Israel's economic recession.

At the moment this appears to be a personal initiative by the infrastructure minister who is from the secular Shinui Party, rather than any official policy of Ariel Sharon's coalition government.

In any case, Jordan may find it difficult to align itself publicly with a project which would cause outrage in much of the Arab world.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-10-2003 09:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


The men who tore down the statue were NOT LOCALS, but men who flew in with Ahmed Chalabi!

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-10-2003 04:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP Logged

One moon circles

Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-10-2003 05:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yeah...I guess they flew that little kid in know the one hitting saddam's head with a shoe...probably flew the rags he wore and the dirt on his face in too...

mech you punk you will believe anything but the truth...

A Statue Fell
By Michael Reagan | April 10, 2003

Like millions of my fellow Americans, I rejoiced as I watched United States Marines come to the aid of Iraqis trying to pull down a huge statue of Saddam Hussein. The Marines made short work of the statue to the delight of scores of Iraqis who vented their years of stored up anger at the Saddam dictatorship by beating on the fallen idol.

It was an historic moment reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Decades of tyranny had ended, and along with it the lies and distortions of anti-Bush liberals, Democrats who predicted that all kinds of disasters would befall America if we went to war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

That statue was Iraq’s Berlin Wall. And the naysayers, the Rangels and the Kerrys and the Conyers and the Pelosis and the Daschles and all of the American Baghdad Bobs who just a week ago were whining that we’re wrong – that the president was wrong and there was going to be body bag after body bag coming home – that this is an unjust and illegal war, were the ones who have been proved wrong.

Instead, what we are seeing today, just a week later, is the beginning of freedom for the first time since Saddam’s iron fist was clamped down on his people years ago.

Today Iraqis are jubilant - they’re excited because for the first time in their lives they’re able to do something they want to do without having to fear that somebody will shoot them, or torture them or rape their wives and mothers and kill their children.

Every day that’s gone by, President Bush and Tony Blair look far wiser and brilliant than those who have been speaking out against. Think about it, the war started a mere 21 days ago – today we’re in Baghdad, the Saddam regime has been destroyed and the people of Iraq are free.

As Baghdad Bob has been spewing forth his fantasyland disinformation to the Iraqis and the Arab world, so have the Democrats who for so long said the same things and spread the same types of lies and propaganda about the Republicans and about Ronald Reagan and President Bush and his father before him. As the statue of Saddam come crashing down hopefully America will look at Washington and understand the statue of corrupt liberalism has begun to fall too.

Our people should understand that these scoundrels have been telling lie after lie after lie for so long, whether it be about communism, or Nicaragua or Fidel Castro or Social Security.

People are beginning to hear the truth thanks to talk radio and Fox Broadcasting and internet news services such as and the Drudge Report and are telling their friends and neighbors, that there is truth out there to be had, and they no longer need listen to liberalism’s lies being trumpeted by the Democrats and their biased liberal media allies.

We have watched one of the most amazing and successful military campaigns in all history and it came about despite the liberal propaganda we were being fed by the media and the Democrats and some retired military soreheads. Propaganda that the strategy was flawed, that we had an insufficient number of troops on the ground, that we had to pause because of all of this, that we were facing a quagmire in Baghdad and guerilla warfare from an outraged Iraqi citizenry that was rallying around the Saddam regime.

They were all lies.

As I watched the overjoyed Iraqis dragging the statue’s head through the streets, I couldn’t help thinking how different things are under George Bush than they were under President Clinton. Under Clinton, it was the bodies of American soldiers being dragged though the streets of Mogadishu - an outrage Clinton allowed to go unpunished. His response was to cut and run. Today, thanks to George Bush’s steely determination, it was Saddam’s statue’s head, pulled down by United States Marines, that was being dragged through the streets.
Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network.

IP Logged

Senior Member

431 posts, Dec 2002

posted 04-10-2003 11:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for halva   Email halva   Visit halva's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In response to FLKook's posting above:

Experts say U.S. `discovery' of nuclear materials in Iraq was breach of U.N.-monitored site

By William J. Kole, Associated Press, 4/10/2003 19:43

VIENNA, Austria (AP) American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said Thursday. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material.

Leaders of a U.S. Marine Corps combat engineering unit claimed earlier this week to have found an underground network of laboratories, warehouses and bombproof offices beneath the closely monitored Tuwaitha nuclear research center just south of Baghdad.

The Marines said they discovered 14 buildings at the site which emitted unusually high levels of radiation, and that a search of one building revealed ''many, many drums'' containing highly radioactive material. If documented, such a discovery could bolster Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weaponry.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Owens, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, said officials there have not heard anything through military channels about a Marine inspection at Tuwaitha.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the Tuwaitha nuclear complex at least two dozen times and maintains a thick dossier on the site, had no immediate comment.

But an expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands.

''What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn't get diverted,'' the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Army Times, meanwhile, reported that troops with the 101st Airborne Division have unearthed 11 shipping containers, filled with sophisticated lab equipment, buried at a chemical plant in Karbala. It said the equipment's value and evidence that some of it may have been smuggled into Iraq raised suspicions that the facility had been used to manufacture chemical weapons.

U.N. arms inspectors visited a facility in the immediate vicinity of the chemical plant Feb. 23, but did not find the buried equipment. Officials at the U.S. Central Command suggested that no conclusions should be drawn.

Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq's principle nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment.

Tuwaitha contains 1.8 tons of low-grade enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium.

The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal at least until early this week, when the Marines seized control of the site.

The U.N. nuclear agency's inspectors have visited Tuwaitha about two dozen times, including a dozen checks carried out since December, most recently on Feb. 6. It was among the first sites that IAEA inspectors sought out after the resumption of inspections on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year break.

On at least one occasion, inspectors with special mountaineering training went underground there to have a look around, according to IAEA documents.

David Kay, a former IAEA chief nuclear inspector, said Thursday that the teams he oversaw after the 1991 Gulf War never found an underground site at Tuwaitha despite persistent rumors.

''But underground facilities by definition are very hard to detect,'' he said. ''When you inspect a place so often, you get overconfident about what you know. It would have been very easy for the inspectors to explain away any excessive radiation at Tuwaitha. The Iraqis could have hidden something clandestine in plain sight.''

American intelligence analysts said before the U.S.-led campaign began that new structures photographed at Tuwaitha might indicate a revival of weapons work. IAEA inspectors checked but found nothing.

The Tuwaitha complex, run by the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission on a bend in the Tigris River about 18 miles south of Baghdad, was the heart of Saddam's former nuclear program and was involved in the final design of a nuclear bomb before Iraq's nuclear program was destroyed by U.N. teams after the 1991 Gulf War.

The IAEA, charged with the hunt for evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq, told the Security Council just before the war that it had uncovered no firm evidence that Saddam was renewing efforts to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal.

IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, clearly wary of any coalition claims, said this week that any alleged discoveries of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would have to be verified by U.N. inspectors ''to generate the required credibility.''

ElBaradei said the inspectors should return as soon as possible, subject to Security Council guidance, to resume their search for banned arms.

IP Logged

One moon circles

Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-11-2003 01:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
man that smacks of "world european snobbery"...speakin' of which...hey halva...what did the un do about rewanda ? the U.S and british military has uncovered more shit in 3 weeks than the un did in twelve feakin' years !

what was has blix doing in iraq anyway...he certainly never freed those 150 children in prison...and kinda missed out on those underground torture chambers...

I suspect the un will manage the oil for food program and that's about it for them...

when khadafi was chairing the human rights council, that about did in any credibility the un may have had...

wake up and smell the baklava...

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-11-2003 05:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All the doomsayers should feel embarrassed as hell right now....yet isn't it funny how they just keep if reality wasn't happening. Oil prices are falling. The US economy is rebounding. The "axis of evil" is quaking in their boots wondering if they might be next. Financial support (from Saddam) for suicide/homicide bombers no longer exists for Palestine.

Nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran and N. Korea are careful to be on their best behavior. Russia just got a wake-up call when they saw that we've achieved in Afghanistan what they could not in ten years...and now Iraq in 3 weeks what Iran could not achieve in 10 years. Kinda changed Putin’s tune, didn’t it? Russia knows we are not going to mess around with them, and they know that we know who's been arming Iraq now. Ditto for France, Germany, Syria and China....Oh, and notice the deafening silence from China as of late...And what happened to that Kim Jong Il guy? Do ya think China might be telling him to cool his jets for now. Don’t want to piss off the American giant, who seems to be wide awake now do we? I think somebody just gave them a shot of caffeine and a strong wake-up call themselves....Cowboy Bush is in a serious mood to kick some hinee and take names. Notice now how obedient these countries become. Notice now how they keep a reign on their own terrorists they harbor....Let's see, two twin towers taken down and two countries fall, terrorists every where are on the run…100,000 evil SOBs fighting for evil men are now taking a dirt nap and those terrorist networks are quickly being dismantled everywhere one by one...Do the math…

Not such a hot move, eh Ossama? Care to be next Syria, What about you Iran and Saudi Arabia? Want to turn the whole damn Middle East into a US colony , then just send over some more of your terrorist morons. We've got a trigger happy cowboy as president saying "go ahead, make my daaaay"...and I love the guy for it. If you don't think these countries are thinking twice about financing any more terrorist activity, think again. Talk about a deterrent. If backwards thinkers like Mech don't understand this deterrence, then NOTHING is going to get through...but I'll guarantee you who DOES understand, and that is America's enemies. They got the message even if CNN and Mech still don't have a clue...

Oh and speaking of CNN, I was watching last night when some armchair intellectual guy with a phony elitist accent was bemoaning Rumsfeld's failure in the north of Iraq....Not enough armor vehicles in the North he was saying, that‘s why these cities are going to take so long to fall. I couldn't believe what I was how completely oblivious to reality this person was. This morning, not even a day after those comments were uttered, several major cities in the north are now under coalition control without so much as one American casualty. So much for the CNN intellectuals. And what about that armor? Last I heard, it was on it's way to Saddam's home town where they are predicting the toughest fight. I’d say Rumsfeld and Franks know what the hell they are doing…

Welcome in the real weapons inspectors...

So much for Mr. Blix…or as I refer to him as Inspector Cluso, who can‘t find his ass with two hands not to mention two teams of Sherpa guides, a GPS tracker, a seeing eye dog. Maybe Euro Disney can give him a job parking cars or something.

Next stop...I say we "inspect" Paris.....

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-11-2003 05:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Fairly Easy Iraq War Proves Antiwar Arguments


In the aftermath of the seemingly simple toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad, many hawks have suggested that their view was vindicated and the antiwar movement was rendered impotent. Yet, one of the primary tenets of the antiwar movement throughout was that this war was not necessary; Iraq did not and could not pose an imminent threat to the US that would legitimize a preemptive invasion. The crumbling of Saddam’s power base proves this thesis.

In the months preceding the war, the Bush administration tried to cast Saddam as an ominous threat to the Middle East and to the US directly. The Iraqi President was the supreme embodiment of evil and was a powerful enough threat to be internationally destabilizing.

In July 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, warned that Saddam “presents a danger we cannot live with indefinitely”.

While the hawks were squawking their war chants, the antiwar movement was drawing its queues from the voices of moderation. General Wesley Clark offered a sentiment that has been prominent in much of the antiwar community. Clark said that privately even the "hawks" in the US government acknowledged that Iraq was no threat to America. And he warned that war might not be the most effective way of dealing with President Saddam.

"You can get a strategically decisive result without having to use strategically decisive and destructive military power if you bring in the elements of the international law and the full diplomatic weight of the international community," he said.

"If we were able to do that in Iraq we would have a much better result of not just in taking down Saddam Hussein's regime but in controlling proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in preventing the inflammation of the Arab world and in dealing with the aftermath in Iraq," Clark told the BBC.

But the hawks kept beating their drums of inevitability and distorted the threat posed to the US by a faltering regime. George W Bush told an audience in Cincinnati in October 2002 “there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone”.

While the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) suggested that Hussein posed little more than a potential threat. Joseph Cirincione, Senior Associate and Project Director for CEIP, wrote in response to Colin Powell’s February 2003 presentation to the UN security council, “While the secretary focused on Iraqi deception, most nations remained fixed on the threat. They did not hear any new evidence that the danger from Iraq was urgent or severe enough to justify the extreme step of authorizing an invasion and occupation of an Arab state.”

The antiwar community was largely stating what has proven obvious. The Bush administration was fixated on toppling the Saddam regime not because it posed and immanent threat and not because it allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction but for posterity, ideology and, yes, oil.

The facts of the invasion have proved these beliefs beyond doubt. Iraq’s military proved tenacious but weak and poorly equipped. Its weaponry was dated and inaccurate and its weapons of mass destruction, at a minimum, remained sheathed.

The vainglorious hawks will however attempt to spin this war, like the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as an unqualified success; this despite each conflict leading to death and hardship for the citizens of the nation and each failing to meet the stated objective of the conflict.

Remember the invasion of Afghanistan was originally to bring Osama bin Laden and his minions to justice and this Iraq war was to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

It becomes increasingly easier to reach ones target when it is so wonderfully mobile.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-11-2003 05:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

US Alternative To Saddam Has Criminal Record

In 1992, a Jordanian court sentenced Chalabi in absentia to 22 years in prison with hard labour, [ 31 charges of embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds etc. etc. ] after the collapse of the businessman's Jordanian bank. Chalabi's financials were questioned again in January last year when the US State Department suggested the INC had misspent $2.2 million of US funding.

[Tom says: Sounds like the kind of man we can do business with. I guess Ken Lay was unavailable for the post. See: "Chalabi was one of the most notorious crooks in the history of the Middle East."]

By Austin English

Dublin, Ireland, 16 February, 2003

Washington has picked its candidate for the future leader of Iraq, should Saddam Hussein be toppled from power, amid criticism from United States senators and senior figures in the State Department.

George W Bush's choice for an interim leader of Iraq is Dr Ahmad Chalabi, head of the anti-Saddam, London-based Iraqi National Congress (INC). It is a choice that has raised a number of objections within the Bush administration that the 57-year-old former businessman is too controversial to make a success of the US-designed `regime change'.

Born in 1945 to a wealthy Iraqi family, Chalabi's grandfather was a minister in the Iraqi parliament during the 1920s. His father, a grain importer, is reported to have been an MP and senator. According to Chalabi, his father was head of the Iraqi senate in 1958 when King Faisal II was killed in a Republican coup d'état. Chalabi's family then fled to the West.

There, he learned perfect English in a Sussex boarding school before heading to the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology and gaining a PhD in mathematics from Chicago University.

But, in 1992, a Jordanian court sentenced Chalabi in absentia to 22 years in prison with hard labour, after the collapse of the businessman's Jordanian bank. Petra Bank, which he established in 1977, grew to become the second largest in Jordan. Chalabi claims the bank became too successful for Jordan's powerful business sector, and soldiers were ordered to take it over by military decree.

Chalabi's financials were questioned again in January last year when the US State Department suggested the INC had misspent $2.2 million of US funding, given to the INC as an anti-Saddam group looking to establish democracy in Iraq. Despite INC financial records proving otherwise, US funding has ceased.

Chalabi turned to politics after the Petra Bank debacle, gaining enough support from anti-Saddam Iraqis in the West to return to Iraq and attempt to overthrow the dictator. The US promised to aid the attempt and by 1995, after spending three years in the north with Iraqi Kurds, Chalabi had amassed a small army. But US support never materialised and Saddam rooted out the INC, executing 130 of its members. Chalabi still blames the US for their deaths and for Saddam's continued reign.

Senior officials in the US State Department reckon the Iraqi people would reject Chalabi as an outsider. If they did welcome him, critics suggest Chalabi's vision of Iraq -- as a haven of democracy with a federal structure representing all ethnic groups -- would alienate the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt. The neighbouring countries are fearful that their own peoples would rise up and demand the same.

Saudi Arabia especially would not welcome Chalabi's imposition after Saddam's departure. Saudi Arabia is the self-proclaimed protector of the Sunni, or `orthodox', branch of Islam, of which Saddam is also a member, whereas Chalabi is a Shi'ite.

Only 10 per cent of the world's one billion Muslims are Shi'ites, but at least 60 per cent of Iraq's 23 million people belong to the sect. Treated as an inferior minority, Iraq's Shi'ite Muslims have been excluded from Iraqi parliament and politics for over 70 years, a practice Chalabi wants to change. However, a strong Shi'ite presence in Iraq would be a cause for concern in neighbouring Saudi Arabia.

Chalabi's nomination has not yet been cast in stone. But if he is installed by Bush in Baghdad, his harshest critics will be his own people.

Source: Sunday Business Post

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-11-2003]

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-11-2003 08:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Once again, Mech shows he is incapable of engaging in intellectually honest debate, and instead of linking to BS articles that nobody reads, he cuts and pastes BS articles that nobody reads…

Well two can play that game Mech, only my articles are based on a little thing you’ve abandoned…called truth;

Friday, April 11, 2003
CNN Exec Admits Covering Up 'Maniac' Saddam's Atrocities

Here's another fascinating item we'll dedicate to Jacques Chirac, Nancy Pelosi and the other humiliated appeasement activists: A CNN big is admitting his network covered up the atrocities of Saddam Hussein.

Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN, writes in today's New York Times:

"Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. ...

"The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. ...

"I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. ...

"Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

"I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely."

The important thing, of course, is that by covering up for the "maniac" Saddam, CNN's lobbyist succeeded in keeping the "news" bureau in Baghdad open, even if it failed to report the news.

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-11-2003 08:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Anti-Americans
Edward I. Koch
Friday, April 11, 2003

It is “a puzzlement,” using the words of Yul Brynner’s character in “The King and I,” that protesters against the Iraq war are not distressed about the atrocities inflicted against the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein and his sons. The Village Voice’s independent columnist, Nat Hentoff, is distressed. Hentoff, a perpetual protester, is not participating in the demonstrations this time.

Hentoff recently cited atrocities reported by New York Times reporter John Burns to explain his absence from the demonstrations. In a Jan. 26 Times article Burns wrote:

“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 [who was active in Basra terrifying the Shiite Muslims]. These men, masked and clad in black, made the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then beheaded them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein.”

A reporter with Coalition troops in Southern Iraq reported an incident where an Iraqi woman who waved to American troops was later found hanged from a lamppost.

Aren’t these sufficient reasons for the protesters to move their ‘die-ins’ to the Iraqi Mission on East 79th Street? No, they prefer to attack the United States.

* * *
At a campus teach-in against the Iraq war, Columbia University Professor of Anthropology Dr. Nicholas De Genova said, “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military.” He also called for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, hoping, he said, for “a million Mogadishus,” a reference to the l993 ambush and killing of 18 American soldiers in the Somalian capital.

Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger denounced De Genova for his remarks, saying that he “had simply crossed the line,” but has taken no other action against De Genova.

Some academics would be horrified by the thought of De Genova’s being fired. However, they ignore the fact that the First Amendment is intended to protect only against government sanctions for exercising free speech rights, not private actions. Even if De Genova has tenure, which in all probability he does not, it would not protect him from being fired for disgracing the university and displaying an enormous lack of judgment.

If at that sit-in De Genova had libeled blacks, women or gays, does anyone doubt he would have been subject to termination proceedings? Is there any doubt that scores of Columbia students would have marched every day until Bollinger fired him? Why haven’t they rallied for American troops?

* * *
A major lobbying effort is under way around the country in favor of paying reparations to the descendents of slaves.

In l978, when I was mayor and first met the Rev. Al Sharpton, he demanded that I sign a petition requiring $50 billion in reparations to American descendents of slaves. I refused. He and three colleagues sat in my City Hall office blocking ingress and egress to the public.

When he refused to leave and declined my suggestion that he picket me on the steps of City Hall, I had him arrested. By the way, picketing on the steps of City Hall was legal until Rudy Giuliani took office.

Al Sharpton is currently running for the presidency of the United States and continues to urge slavery reparations. I still oppose them.

The arguments advanced by reparation supporters, that they are demanding nothing more than what World War II Japanese internees received, are bogus. Similarly without merit are the comparisons to reparation payments received by Holocaust concentration camp and slave labor survivors.

In both instances, the payments were made only to actual survivors, not to their descendants. There are no survivors of slavery, that abhorrent condition having ended with the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

There are two situations, in my opinion, where reparation payments to African Americans are in order. One relates to the black community of the Greenwood section of Tulsa, Okla. The homes and other property of that community were burned to the ground in 1921 by whites when a false charge of rape was made against a black man.

The second involves the black community of Rosewood, Fla. That town was totally destroyed in 1923 when a white woman claimed that she had been attacked by a black man in her home.

Black survivors of both criminal activities are still alive and should be compensated by the state and federal governments. I also believe all of America should and would contribute money to the construction of a national museum on the Mall in Washington, D.C., devoted to the black experience in America to date, depicting the horror and tragedy of slavery. The federal government should provide whatever funds are not raised through a public appeal to see this important project to completion

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-11-2003 08:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Kirkuk Falls, Drags Down Crude With It
NewsMax Wires
Friday, April 11, 2003

LOS ANGELES -- Oil prices fell more than $1 Thursday on the New York Mercantile Exchange following reports that Kurdish fighters and American Special Forces troops had entered the northern Iraqi oil city of Kirkuk.
The city is the starting point for the pipeline that carries crude to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, one of two loading points for tankers hauling crude under the United Nations oil-for-food program.

At 40 inches in diameter, the Kirkuk-Ceyhan line is Iraq's largest crude pipeline and has the capacity to transport some 900,000 barrels of oil per day. There have been no reports of any damage to the pipeline; however, exports from Ceyhan have been halted by the war and the lack of anyone being in operational control of Iraq's oil industry.

U.S. officials Thursday cautioned reporters that it would take more than a flip of a switch to resume the flow of oil from Iraq to the market where it will fetch the kind of hard currency that will be needed to finance the enormous job of rebuilding the nation after two decades of war, economic sanctions and questionable management.

"The important point here is that the damage that we're talking about is damage that's been done over the course of 23 years, by the way the country was governed," said Assistant Secretary of State Alan Larson. "So there will need to be a fairly comprehensive assessment of what needs to be done to help the Iraqi people recover what they've lost over those 23 years."

The news from Iraq pushed May NYMEX crude down $1.39 to a settlement price of $27.46 per barrel. May heating oil fell 2.68 cents to 73.20 cents per gallon while gasoline dropped a hefty 4.11 cents to 83.46 cents per barrel.

The declining crude prices should ease the retail price of gasoline in the United States, although the International Energy Agency said Thursday that relatively low inventories of gasoline and increasing pre-summer refinery demand would provide a floor for prices.

"Oil prices have declined since the beginning of the war in Iraq, but are still not showing the steep drop-offs that occurred after the 1991 Gulf War, because today's situation is quite different from that period," said Standard & Poor's energy analyst Tina Vital. "Today's prices reflect more than war worries; they also reflect tight supplies."

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-11-2003 08:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Friday, April 11, 2003
Appeaser Pelosi: 'We' Could've Done Better in Toppling Saddam

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi still insists she was right in opposing Operation Iraqi Freedom. But she credits the anti-defense Bill Clinton, of all people, for its success.

"I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war." The same questions still remain, she told reporters Thursday: "The cost in human lives. The cost to our budget, probably $100 billion.

"We could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we're toward the end of it, is what is the cost to the war on terrorism?"

The San Francisco Democrat and appeasement activist failed to say exactly how she would've disarmed genocidal maniac Saddam Hussein. Perhaps by plugging all his weapons with flowers?

Even Pelosi's own chief underling, lefty House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., disagrees with her. Whereas Pelosi said she was "not convinced the war in Iraq has made Americans safer," the Washington Times reported today, Hoyer said the military campaign was "strengthening the security of our nation, as well as the nations of the Middle East and the nations of the world."

Pelosi's funniest comment ever: claiming that the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom was due "in large measure" to Clinton, who in fact decimated America's military.

"This best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force for peace in the history of the world was not invented in the last two years. This had a strong influence and strong support during the Clinton years," the La-La Land revisionist claimed.

Please keep talking, Democrats. Please keep revealing your true selves to America. The more the likes of Nancy Pelosi, John "Regime Change" Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Marcy Kaptur and Patty "Osama Mama" Murray keep talking, the more moderates they'll alienate.

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