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 38)

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 04-18-2003 12:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Civilians face health risk after latest use of depleted uranium

April 18 2003

Hundreds of tonnes of depleted uranium used by Britain and the United States in Iraq should be removed to protect the civilian population, said the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution, contradicting Pentagon claims it is not necessary.

The society's statement fuels the row over the use of depleted uranium (DU), which is an effective tank destroyer and bunker buster but is believed by many scientists to cause cancers and other severe illnesses.

The society was incensed because the Pentagon had claimed it that had the backing of the society in saying DU was not dangerous.

In fact, the society said, soldiers and civilians were in short- and long-term danger. Children who were playing at contaminated sites were especially at risk.

DU is most commonly used as super-effective armour plate for tanks or as casing for rockets and bombs. It was adopted as a standard weapon in the first Gulf war despite its slight radioactive content and toxic effects. It was used again in the Balkans and Afghanistan by the US.

Many campaigners suspect DU of causing the unexplained cancers among Iraqi civilians, particularly children, that followed the previous Gulf war. Chemicals released in the atmosphere during bombing could equally be to blame.

Among those against the use of DU is Professor Doug Rokke, a one-time US army colonel who is also a former director of the Pentagon's DU project, and a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University, Alabama.

He has said a nation's military personnel cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to persons and the environment and then ignore the consequences of their actions. He has called on the US and Britain to "recognise the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough environmental remediation".

Up to 2000 tonnes of DU have been used in the Gulf, much of it in cities such as Baghdad, far more than in the Balkans.

Professor Brian Spratt, chairman of the Royal Society working group on DU, said a recent study by the society had found that most soldiers were unlikely to be exposed to dangerous levels of DU during and after its use on the battlefield.

"However, a small number of soldiers might suffer kidney damage and an increased risk of lung cancer if substantial amounts of depleted uranium are breathed in, for instance inside an armoured vehicle hit by a depleted uranium penetrator."

He said the study also concluded that the soil around the impact sites of depleted uranium penetrators may be heavily contaminated.

"In addition, large numbers of corroding depleted uranium penetrators embedded in the ground might pose a long-term threat if the uranium leaches into water supplies."

The Guardian

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-18-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-18-2003 12:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

US should be "embarrassed" over failure to find WMDs: ex-spies

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-18-2003 12:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Why Iraqis talk of occupation, not liberation

April 19 2003

Paul McGeough's extraordinary coverage of the war from Baghdad ends this weekend after 60 days. Tumultuous, frightening days lie ahead, he says.

I spoke to the silver-haired old man again today. Up and down, he's been my barometer on the mood in Baghdad. He was eager for the overthrow of the regime, but tearful when his daughter miscarried during the early US bombing and shattered when his nephew was killed by American fire as he drove an Iraqi military supply truck. His national pride kicked in during the early Iraqi military successes in the south, but he was jubilant as the Marines rolled into Baghdad.

What did he make of Thursday's move by long-term exile Ahmed Chalabi, the man the Pentagon wants as Iraq's new leader. With a US military escort, Mr Chalabi positioned himself for a lunge at power by taking over Baghdad's Hunting Club - once the domain of the Baath Party leadership and of Saddam's brutal first son Uday.

"Same, same," the old man told me. "There is no difference."

These are tumultuous, frightening days for Iraqis. A despised regime crumbled in the face of overwhelming force, but the invading army is yet to get a grip on the chaos it has created.

After orchestrating the symbolic toppling of statues of Saddam, the US is still grappling to secure control of the people, the nation and its politics in the early days of what many Iraqis still feel is an occupation, not a liberation.

Life for Iraq's 25 million people has become a struggle to find food and their feet after the Americans ripped away Saddam's regime and then stood back as the only form of life and government most of them knew was destroyed in a looting rampage that many believe was a part of the invasion plan - all functions of government are paralysed.

Americans might be offended by a comparison with September 11. But if that traumatised the US, how do we measure the impact of such a high-powered military invasion in Iraq. A tyrant is gone, but so too is the only form of order most Iraqis know.

They deal now with the outpouring of all that was wrong under Saddam - imprisonment, torture, executions. But for the likes of Western-educated Alam Al-Khedairy, a beacon for art and culture in Baghdad, they are also left to confront the vulgarity of war and the diminution of a life that was grim enough.

The people of Baghdad were subjected to constant bombing, often on the outskirts of the city, but also on selected regime targets in the downtown area. They sat through long nights trembling in fear without electricity as errant bombs wreaked death and destruction.

And as Iraqi forces countered with suicide attacks, any movement around the country was potentially lethal as US forces adopted a shoot-to-kill policy against a population that did not understand orders yelled in English, such as "stop" or "freeze".

Iraq's highways and Baghdad's streets were littered with the dead. In the city's hospitals, patients coped without drugs, while families lined up to collect the dead from over-crowded morgues.

After a four-week war that historians probably will judge a triumph, Washington's dream of imposing democracy in the Middle East has become a lottery of anarchy and explosive politics that could go any way.

Baghdad is free of the regime, but it is charred and scared. Torched government buildings still smoulder and the smell of death lingers as hard-core looters battle for the safes and vaults of the city's banks.

Daily protest marches - a democratic novelty in Baghdad - about law and order, jobs, and the shape of the next government point to a relationship between liberator and liberated - or occupier and occupied - based on fear and distrust.

In the northern city of Mosul this week, 17 Iraqis died and 39 were wounded after two days during which US troops said they fired on street crowds in self defence. But Iraqi witnesses insist that the gunfire that sparked the killings was US warning shots to disperse looters.

In the south, long-oppressed Shiites are marching in their thousands in support for the sort of Islamic state that Washington does not want. Marines on the ground there accused Mr Chalabi's US-kitted and funded Free Iraqi Forces of hooliganism as they seized weapons in a factional contest with local mullahs to impose their brand of law and order.

Baghdad's power supply is still not restored and health professionals fear an epidemic of disease because there is little safe drinking water. The Baghdad oil refinery holds only a few days' petrol supply for the city and no one can say when production will resume.

The nation's ancient treasures have been looted from the Iraq National Museum and the National Library and the people's personal items of value are gone from the banks.

Just as the US forces arrived in Baghdad without a plan to prevent robbery and violence, they came without a plan for the half of the population who depended on the centralised economy for their livelihood.

Their priorities seemed to be protection of oil wells in the south and the Oil Ministry in Baghdad. By doing nothing else, the invasion force gave implicit endorsement to looters rampaging under their noses.

The hospitals had already been looted when the US put guards on them, and museum collections were lost before tanks were stationed at the gates - the losses there a reminder that Mesopotamia, not America, was once our greatest civilisation.

In the ashes of the Ministry for Religious Affairs, where 1000-year-old Korans were incinerated, the ministry's general manager, Abdel Karim Anwar Obeid, drew this comparison: "When Baghdad fell to the Mongols in 1258, these books survived. This time they didn't."

Amid this heartbreak, when CNN asked marine Edward Langello about the looting, he said: "You Iraqis need to get up and take care of your own nation. That's what the American people did a long time ago and look where we are."

In the power vacuum, that is just what they are doing. And rather than the free, secular power that Washington wants, the mullahs' authority is being asserted most forcefully.

Vigilantes roam suburban streets and the mosques are organising club-brandishing crowds to set up road blocks at which they confiscate the looters' booty.

When the US talks about representative government in the new Iraq, it is code for what it doesn't want - a conservative or fundamentalist regime that the 60-per-cent majority Shiites could conceivably install in a pure democratic vote.

So this is a dangerous environment for the US and its ill-disguised agents to embark on creating a democracy to their liking.

Instead of thanks, the US is confronted with calls for a quick retreat, and by fighting, as Shiite factions jockey for power. When the US organised its first so-called "town meeting" on Tuesday for Iraqis to discuss their future, key Shiites boycotted, rallying a few kilometres away for government by ayatollahs.

Left to their own devices, strongly nationalist Iraqis might well arrive at an unaligned, democratic society that Washington could live with. But the risk in its artless efforts to manipulate an Iraqi outcome is that Shiites, in particular, could look to the east for guidance - to Iran and the ayatollahs.

The US State Department is contemptuous of Mr Chalabi, as are many Iraqis. But he has the backing of the Pentagon and while the US military remains on the ground it seems that he will receive the money he needs to foist himself on the people.

The day before the US flew Mr Chalabi and his entourage into Baghdad, associate Mohammed Mohsen Zubaidi declared himself to have been "unanimously elected" the equivalent of mayor of the city - displaying a startling understanding of the democratic process.

Iraqis did not like Saddam. But they appreciate strong leadership and they see a need now for a firm hand. One of them told me: "We need thousands of Ghandis in the governates, but we need one Saddam at the top of each and another in Baghdad to make this country work."

And as Mr Chalabi and Mr Zubaidi seek legitimacy, so too does the US.

After months of ridiculing the UN-supervised search for Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and intimations that it had the intelligence to find them, they have come up with nothing.

Washington has resorted to offering a $US200,000 reward for information but is opposed to any return by the UN inspection teams that withdrew on the eve of the war.

And after all the urgency of the need to go to war because of the terrorist threat posed by Iraq's weapons, the US this week set about lowering expectations that the much-vaunted "smoking gun" that would justify its invasion would be found soon.

Urging patience, US Brigadier-General Vincent Brooks said: "It is very much putting together pieces of a puzzle, one piece at a time. And when you see the shape of the one piece, you see how it may relate to the other pieces that are out there.

"It is deliberate work and we remain confident in our approach."

My last job before leaving Baghdad was a visit to the Mother of All Battles mosque, a bizarre monument by Saddam to what he insisted was his "victory" in the 1991 Gulf War.

I wanted to see the Saddam Koran - a paranoid indulgence displayed in a pavilion on the mosque lake, in which 600 gilt-edged frames each holds a page of the holy book, written by one of the best calligraphers in the land using the blood of Saddam as "ink".

Across the road, in the shade of a tree, some men gave me a glass of cool water and assured me that dealing with this grotesque indulgence should be an early task for the new government.

But one of them said: "It is forbidden to write the Koran in blood, but it cannot be destroyed - it is the holy book from God."

What might have been a simple task suddenly was filled with all the contradiction and challenge of rebuilding Iraq.

Iraqis revere the book, but they loathe the man celebrated in this very limited edition. His oppressive shadow is gone, but they hate how the daylight came and they remember order where for now there is chaos.

And in a corner of their hearts, many of them feel they are being robbed.

Paul McGeough leaves Baghdad today. Correspondent Mark Baker will report from Iraq in the coming weeks.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-18-2003 01:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
End of the Iraqi War

By Kirt R. Poovey

The war in Iraq appears to be essentially over. Baghdad has almost totally fallen to the American forces and there is celebration in the streets as the Iraqis realize that the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein is over or soon will be. We can be thankful that the war has been short and the loss of life has not been as bad as it could have been.

It is apparent that the United States and Britain have in three short weeks almost totally dispatched Saddam Hussein and his military might along with all of his Weapons of Mass Destruction. Though there is still the possibility that the Iraqis might use some sort of WMD against our troops, the chances are greatly diminished.

Does that mean that the Iraqis never had any WMD’s, or did they instead choose not to use them for fear of a more severe retaliatory strike from the invading armies? We have not yet found any evidence of WMD’s.

Is Saddam Hussein dead or alive? The U.S. says “dead”, Britain says “alive”, and interestingly al Jazeera is saying that he may be holed up in the Russian Embassy in Baghdad. The Russians aren’t talking. If the Russians have him, what will the United States do – storm the embassy and kill him? Remember – Russia is one of our great allies in this war on terrorism – which this Iraqi War is supposed to be about.

The talk now is that the lack of a satisfactory consensus on how to deal with Iraq shows that the UN is not able to lead the New World Order or a One World Government. Conservatives are hailing this as a great success in showing this inadequacy of the UN. However, that is exactly what the One Worlders are leading up to. The UN is too big and too wieldy to properly be managed. That is why they (those truly in charge) are working to a simpler, more workable solution. Look for the UN to fall out of favor in the next ten to twenty years and to be replaced by a leaner, more easily managed governmental system that will use many of the organizations and agencies already created and put in place by the UN.

The UN is simply a means to the end. It is not going to be the One World Government. I know that this is a shock to many who think that the UN is the long-feared OWG. As with the League of Nations, the United Nations will soon be deemed to be an unusable and ineffective relic. In its place will be the new seed of the OWG. It will be much leaner than the UN and without the bloated bureaucracy.

The purpose of the UN has been to get the nations of the world to accept and support a unified One World Government with all the trimmings of a World Court, a World Monetary Banking system, a World Trade organization, and a World Army and Police organization. The precursors to these are already well established and in place with the exception of the World Army and World Police.

The new OWG will incorporate these necessary functions along with a World Tax to fund all of the above. We have established with this war that no nation is sovereign if other nations deem them a threat and decide to preemptively remove that “threat”.

How long will it be before the U.S. is deemed to be a “threat” and must be preemptively disarmed? Remember, this war started out to “disarm” Iraq and soon became “regime change”.

The majority of Iraqis probably do not like Saddam Hussein, but they’re not really crazy about Americans either. Perhaps, in our establishment of the new Imperial American Iraqi state we can win some favor with them. Be forewarned that we must be constantly vigilant though for those “freedom fighter” terrorists who will undoubtedly attack our personnel in Iraq and elsewhere.

I am thankful for the relative ease with which we conquered Iraq because it means less loss of American and Iraqi lives, but I’m fearful that it may lead to a greater hunger of those in charge to do more “nation building”. We must continue to fight any and all unconstitutional actions on the part of our leaders.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-18-2003 01:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
U.S. faces repercussions if weapons are not found

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

Star-Ledger Staff

The list of banned Iraqi weapons cited as the central reason for war by President Bush was lengthy and specific: Anthrax. VX. Botulinum toxin. Nerve gas. R-400 aerial bombs.

Bush's assurances that U.S. troops will unearth these weapons of mass destruction, however, have not been borne out by searches at suspect sites in Iraq -- so far.

The dilemma for Washington, according to foreign policy analysts, is that with each passing day, the failure to produce evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons undercuts the success of the military campaign, as well as U.S. credibility overseas.

"This was the core reason for going to war with Iraq and the reason we had to go now," said Joseph Cirincione, author of "Deadly Arsenals," a study of unconventional weapons programs worldwide.

"If we don't find fairly large stockpiles of these weapons, in quantities large enough to pose a strategic threat to the United States, then the president's credibility will be seriously undermined, and the legitimacy of the war repudiated," Cirincione said.

The consequences would be especially troubling in the Middle East, where the Bush White House hopes to implement an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and to receive fresh cooperation from Arab states in combating terrorism.

"If these weapons are not found in Iraq, then the Arab world could come to the conclusion that the country was invaded under false pretenses and that it was not legal," said S. Azmat Hassan, a former Pakistani ambassador to Syria and Morocco.

Hassan, now a faculty associate at the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, said the ramifications of that "could have a broad effect on U.S. interests in the region."

In recent days, U.S. officials have suggested that some of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons may have been moved into Syria, and they have expressed concern that these substances might fall into the hands of terrorist groups.

Still, military leaders say they are confident that inspection teams will find the weapons they are seeking in Iraq.

"It will take time to uncover things that are deliberately hidden," U.S. Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said yesterday. But, he added, "We remain convinced that there are weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq and we remain unwavering about that."

Brooks said coalition forces are using special equipment to search the Iraqi desert for buried material. Entire fighter jets have been found buried for no apparent reason, he said.

So far, though, reports of chemical and biological weapons discoveries by U.S. field commanders have turned out to be false or premature.

One of the first such reports came on April 7, when media outlets quoted military officials as saying troops were looking for chemical weapons at four sites.

Reuters news agency reported that "initial investigations" at a military training camp in central Iraq "revealed levels of nerve agents sarin and tabun and the blister agent lewisite" in barrels stored there.

Later, Gen. Benjamin Freakly of the 101st Airborne said the barrels could contain "some kind of pesticides." Tests at the site, and at other sites noted in news reports, were pending, he said.

On Monday, CNN cited Freakly as the source of a report that 11 containers buried close to an artillery ammunition plant in Karbala were discovered by U.S. troops and could be dual-use chemical and biological laboratories.

Hours later, the Knight-Ridder news service reported that troops south of Kirkuk had found about a dozen 20-foot-long missiles, more than two dozen large green tanks full of an unknown substance and crates of protective chemical gear.

As of last night, the Pentagon had not confirmed the presence of chemical or biological agents at either of the locations cited in the reports.

As pressure to unearth weapons of mass destruction has mounted, U.S. officials have urged patience, saying they do not expect to make progress until they control the entire country and Iraqis no longer fear the consequences of speaking out.

In the meantime, officials have expressed hope that two prominent Iraqi scientists who surrendered in recent days will provide critical leads.

One of those scientists, Jaffar al-Jaffar, reportedly turned himself in to authorities outside Iraq Sunday and is being interviewed by U.S. intelligence agents. U.N. inspectors have called al-Jaffar the father of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Saddam's top science adviser, Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, surrendered to U.S. forces Saturday. He has denied publicly that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction, but American officials are hoping he will change his story.

Without so-called "human intelligence," experts on chemical and biological weapons say it will be difficult to track whatever material does exist.

"Saddam has had 10 or 12 years to play shell games with this stuff," said Eric R. Taylor, a former captain with the U.S. Army Chemical Corps who is a professor of chemistry at the University of Louisiana. "If it's buried out in the desert somewhere, that could be pretty tough."

Certain biological agents, such as anthrax, are especially easy to store "because these are pretty hardy things and you don't need a lot of them," said Taylor, author of the 1999 book "Lethal Mists: An Introduction to the Natural and Military Sciences of Chemical and Biological Warfare and Terrorism."

Cirincione likened the hunt to a police search for illegal drugs in the United States.

"Imagine how difficult it would be to find 10 kilos of cocaine in New York City," he said. "It would be much the same trying to find 10 canisters of anthrax in Baghdad."

The problem for the Bush administration, Cirincione said, is that U.S. officials have accused Saddam's regime of hoarding "several hundred tons" of illicit chemical and biological weapons -- not just 10 canisters.

"It's hard to believe that a convoy of trucks large enough to carry hundreds of tons of these agents across Iraq's highways could travel very far without being seen and targeted by American forces," Cirincione said. "A few trucks? Maybe. Hundreds? Not a chance."

In the end, Cirincione said, it will come as a surprise to a lot of people -- him included -- if U.S. troops do not find hidden weapons caches.

"We have all assumed, based on documented evidence of past activity, that these things existed," he said.

But if they don't turn up soon, he said, "a lot of people in Washington are going to start getting very nervous."

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-18-2003 01:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Analysts pressured to spin reports to support White House position, veterans say.

Scott Shane
Baltimore Sun

The Bush administration's unswerving position that Saddam Hussein's regime poses a direct threat to the United States and that its removal will lead to democratic change across the Mideast poses a dilemma for the nation's $30-billion-a-year intelligence agencies: What happens when their findings clash with the assumptions behind U.S. policy?

Some former intelligence officers and historians say they are seeing a worrisome pattern of Vietnam-style politicization of intelligence, with pressure to play up the threat from Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and to minimize the potential for Iraqi resistance and the threat the war poses to regional stability.

They note complaints from current CIA analysts as well as glimpses of deeply flawed evidence used by the administration to make the case for war, including documents purporting to show Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons. The documents turned out to be forgeries, as CIA analysts had warned before the alleged uranium quest was used by President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to illustrate the looming danger from Iraq.

More recently, as American and British troops were targeted by Iraqi irregulars, some news organizations were tipped to a secret CIA report prepared in February that detailed the threat from Hussein's fedayeen and paramilitary units. The leak was a sign that intelligence officers do not want to be blamed for underestimating the resistance U.S. troops could face.

Yesterday, a dispute broke out over intelligence analysis of Hussein's recent television appearances to determine whether they prove he survived the missile strikes that began the war. A Defense Department official told reporters all the video appearances were recorded before the war - but the CIA immediately disputed that, saying it had reached no such conclusion, according to the Associated Press.

The problem of intelligence being distorted or ignored is an old one, but it is particularly acute during crises, says Loch K. Johnson, an intelligence expert at the University of Georgia. "The intelligence people can spin their reports to get along with the White House," says Johnson, who has served as a congressional intelligence staff member. "Or the White House can ignore the intelligence estimates. Either way, the danger is that the country can delude itself. When you start bending the facts, you can make very bad decisions."

After Sept. 11, 2001, the intelligence agencies came under fire for failing to put together the clues in time to thwart the terrorist attacks. Now some critics are saying the agencies have gathered relevant information about Iraq, but it has been overwhelmed by the strong convictions of the president and his top advisers.

Patrick G. Eddington, a former CIA analyst, said current agency officers have contacted him and other agency veterans in recent weeks with complaints of political influence.

"We've heard from multiple sources inside the agency about the pressure to conform," says Eddington, who resigned from the agency in 1996 after accusing superiors of covering up evidence of possible causes of gulf war syndrome. "They say they feel pressure to shape estimates to support the administration's positions - or at least not contradict the administration's positions."

Eddington is an organizer of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers formed in January that has posted articles on the Internet charging that the war has corrupted the process of information-gathering and analysis.

While the intelligence veterans group has received little attention from U.S. media, members have been interviewed by Dutch, French, German and Spanish television networks, says 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern, another of the group's leaders. A five-member steering group has signed its articles, but McGovern said about 25 former officers have joined the new group.

McGovern says the tussles over reporting on Iraq recall debates he witnessed in 1964 inside the CIA over the Tonkin Gulf incident, in which two reported North Vietnamese attacks on U.S. ships were used by President Lyndon Johnson to justify bombing North Vietnam. Historians doubt the second attack cited by Johnson ever occurred; Johnson later said, "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

"It's a problem whenever a U.S. administration sets its heart on a policy that cannot be supported by intelligence," says McGovern, who retired from the CIA in 1990.

Mark Mansfield, a CIA spokesman, said the critics are misinformed and the criticism is misplaced. Of the intelligence veterans' group, he said, "They left the agency years ago, and they're hardly in a position to comment knowledgeably on current analysis."

While it is true that CIA analysts face pressure, Mansfield said, that's not a sign that anything is amiss. "There's always going to be pressure when dealing with matters of great import," he said. "That pressure can come from various agencies, from congressmen, from pundits. The point is not to succumb to such pressure, and we haven't succumbed."

On occasion, aware of the dangers of spin, presidents have gone out of their way to be sure intelligence officers are indeed telling it like it is, says J. Ransom Clark, a retired CIA officer. "John Kennedy used to pick up the phone and call the desk officers in the CIA or state department," Clark says. "It drove the supervisors crazy, but Kennedy was trying to reduce the number of times the information he got went through a strainer."

But the debate that preceded the war in Iraq created unusual problems for intelligence agencies, because top administration officials strongly stated their belief that Iraq's weapons were an imminent threat to the United States, partly because of ties between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorists.

Rick Francona, a retired Air Force intelligence officer who served as Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf's Arabic-language interpreter in the first gulf war, says he thinks the administration stretched the intelligence.

"Why drag out this tenuous connection to al-Qaida? I just don't buy it," Francona says.

In addition, key officials predicted that overturning Hussein's regime would be relatively easy. "It will be quicker and easier than many people think," Richard Perle, then chairman of the Defense Policy Board, told the PBS television network in July. "He is far weaker than many people realize."

Francona says he fears such predictions may create undue pressure to enter Baghdad too quickly, before adequate troops are on hand. "The politics ended the gulf war in 1991" without the removal of Hussein, he says. "In this case, I think the politics could push the war too fast."

When he worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, Francona says, the director had a slogan on his wall meant to remind subordinates to resist the temptation to spin their findings: "It said, 'Tell 'm what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.'"

Reader Comments (add your comments) (All reader comments)

US Forces Terrorism Posted 4/8/2003 10:47:24 AM
Victor Connor
This paper supports the idea that the Bush Administration does not care for any facts that do not support their agenda.

And it appears to me that their agenda is to create as many anti-American terrorists they can. If anyone saw the first segment of "60 Minutes" this past Sunday, then they know that 90% of the people in the Arabic nations hate the US for this attack on Iraq. Why would our government do this?

I can only think of two reasons. First, we have a they largest war industry on the Earth. The US government spends almost TEN TIMES more on their military than the number two military spender, which is Russia, and Russia has a terrible economy. By creating more terrorists, our government can justify this obscene amount of spending. This is why they'll try to slander anyone who will speak out against this in the media.

The second reason is our consumption rate of resources. We Americans make up 4.5% of the world's population and yet we use 23% of its resources. Our nation is blessed with many resources, but we do not have a lot of oil and the middle East does. With Iraq and Afganistan in our pocket, Iran is in trouble from our powerful armies and we will be able to steal from them soon. Also, having taken Afghanistan we can complete that oil pipeline up to the Caspian Sea oil rich areas and will not have to pay higher prices to have that oil come thru Russia. You have to remember that we are Americans and we NEVER want for anything. Let the other 95.5% of the people on Earth be damned!

Korean Veteran Posted 4/8/2003 10:52:52 AM
James Yetzer
How refreshing to read the truth about the greatest propaganda machine in the world. Of course it is exasperated by this particular State Depart, Secretary of Defense and White House. Particular emphasis is on the arrogance of Donald Rumsfeld. What a shame !!!!

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-18-2003 01:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

In letter to Bush, war veterans "strongly question" Iraq invasion, and seek a meeting
Veterans for Common Sense
Posted 3/11/2003 9:23:38 PM

In a letter delivered yesterday to President Bush, U.S. war veterans questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq now and sought a meeting with the White House to discuss their concerns. Initiated by the Washington-based veterans’ group Veterans for Common Sense, the letter was e-mailed to veterans this weekend and quickly gathered nearly 1,000 signatories, including high-ranking officers and Kris Kristofferson.

Source: Veterans for Common Sense
Contact: Stephen Kent, Kent Communications
845-758-0097, cell 914-589-5988

In a letter delivered yesterday to President Bush, U.S. war veterans questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq now and sought a meeting with the White House to discuss their concerns. Initiated by the Washington-based veterans’ group Veterans for Common Sense, the letter was e-mailed to veterans this weekend and quickly gathered nearly 1,000 signatories, including high-ranking officers and Kris Kristofferson.

The letter (see below) “strongly question[s] the need for war at this time,” noting signatories are “not convinced that coercive containment has failed, or that war has become necessary.” It argues that unlike 1991’s desert campaign to liberate Kuwait, invading Iraq now would likely entail “protracted siege warfare, chaotic street-to-street fighting in Baghdad, and Iraqi civil conflict,” raising fears of “casualties not witnessed since Vietnam.”

Citing UN predictions of massive Iraqi casualties, including 1.26 million children under age five at particular risk, it states “excessive civilian casualties like those predicted by the UN pose a grave risk to our national security, making the U.S. more of a target of retaliatory attacks by terrorists.” Its signatories describe themselves as “patriotic citizens and veterans who respect the office of the President,” requesting a meeting at his “earliest possible convenience.”

The following signatories are available now for media interviews:

* Specialist Erik K. Gustafson, Gulf War Army veteran, co-founder, Veterans for Common Sense, an organization started by Gulf War veterans questioning the wisdom of invading Iraq.
* Captain Kris Kristofferson, former 82 Airborne helicopter pilot, celebrated actor, Grammy Award-winning singer/songwriter.
* Colonel David H. Hackworth, Army veteran of 30 years, and a veteran war correspondent who covered the Gulf War.
* Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, former commander of the U.S. Second Fleet, former director, Center for Defense Information.
* Specialist Charles Sheehan-Miles, Gulf War Army veteran and co-founder, Veterans for Common Sense
* Lt. Colonel Gretchen Vanek, a veteran of the Vietnam and Gulf Wars.
* Colonel Larry Williams, served 27 years in Marine Corps including in Vietnam and Beirut.
* Vice Admiral Ralph Weymouth, Veteran of WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

These and other veteran signatories are available for interviews starting March 11. They are based in major cities, including Washington DC. For more information or to request interviews, contact Stephen Kent, 845-758-0097.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-18-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-18-2003 04:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Iraqis Rally to Demand Swift U.S. Exit

2 hours, 17 minutes ago

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Less than 10 days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, thousands of Iraqis marched in downtown Baghdad on Friday to demand a rapid U.S. troop withdrawal and a prominent opposition leader said he expects Americans to relinquish most government functions within weeks.

The pressure surfaced in the streets as Australian officials disclosed the discovery of dozens of Iraqi fighter jets and other heavy military hardware at an air base and American troops took custody of a leader from the old regime for the second time in as many days.

The debate over Saddam's fate was rekindled with the appearance of a videotape said to show him and an audio tape said to contain his recorded message. At the same time, an Iraqi ambassador said he believes the man who ruled Iraq for nearly a quarter century is dead.

"I know his character," said Sami Sadoun, a longtime regime official who most recently has been envoy to Serbia-Montenegro. "He must have been killed, or everything would not have collapsed so quickly," he said in an interview with The Associated Press

The aftermath of war and the looting that followed were evident on Baghdad's streets.

Marines with machine guns guarded an estimated $1 billion in gold in the city's banking district, securing nine massive vaults that withstood rocket-propelled grenade hits by thieves.

In another part of the city, men lined the streets waiting a turn to use hand-held satellite telephones to contact relatives outside Iraq. The price was $8 in American money, payable in cash — but such telephones were banned under Saddam's rule.

"Everything is calming down. We haven't had enemy contact in four days," said a Marine spokesman in the capital, Staff Sgt. John Jamison. Yet the Ministry of Information Building was on fire at midday, apparently set ablaze by looters.

Thousands marched through the city's downtown, urged on by an imam at Holy Day prayers.

"No to America, no to Saddam," they shouted, and called for unity among Iraq's Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and Kurds. Some carried banners in Arabic and English. "Leave our country. We want peace," read one.

Inside the mosque, Sheik Ahmed al-Kubeisy addressed his remarks to Americans. "You are masters today. But I warn you against thinking of staying. Get out before we force you out," he said.

Opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi and followers of his Iraqi National Congress established makeshift headquarters in two social clubs in the city's affluent Mansour district. Armored U.S. vehicles and elements of the new Free Iraqi forces provided security.

After years of exile, Chalabi was flown into Iraq recently by American forces, and some in-country opposition figures have complained he was getting preferential treatment from the Pentagon.

In his first public appearance in Baghdad, Chalabi said anew that he is not a candidate to become Iraq's new leader, and did not indicate a preference for a successor to the old regime.

He said he expects an Iraqi interim authority to take over most government functions from the U.S. military in "a matter of weeks rather than months."

He said he envisions "first reconstruction of basic services" under the control of Jay Garner, the retired American lieutenant general poised to run a military administration. Once that is done, Chalabi said the U.S. military will search for weapons of mass destruction, dismantle the old regime's "apparatus of terror" and disarm its army.

Officials in Garner's office had no quarrel with Chalabi's remarks, but representatives of other groups jockeying for power in postwar Iraq were unimpressed. "Mahmoud Osman, a Kurdish leader living in London, said Chalabi looked like "an American propagandist."

Australian Lt. Col. Mark Elliott said special forces found 51 MiG warplanes at a large airfield west of Baghdad, as well as armored vehicles, anti-aircraft weapons systems and an anti-aircraft missile system. The site also included bunkers capable of withstanding nuclear, chemical or biological attack, he said, as well as instruction manuals and other materials relating to weapons of mass destruction.

The emergence of the new videotape and audiotape added to the mystery surrounding Saddam's fate. Abu Dhabi television said both were made on April 9, the day Baghdad fell and the regime collapsed countrywide. But there was no evidence of that. Nor was there proof that the Iraqi leader — who was known to use doubles as a security precaution — was involved in either production.

The videotape showed a man purported to be Saddam in the streets of Baghdad, greeted by a wildly cheering crowd. The audiotape carried a speech that appeared to acknowledge the American military triumph.

"Conquered people are the ones who eventually triumph over invaders. ...Your leadership is unshaken," it said.

American officials could not immediately say whether either tape was authentic.

April 9 was also two days after American bombs destroyed a building in Baghdad where Saddam and his two sons were believed to be meeting. "I did not get any instructions, not even a single fax" after the bombing, said Sadoun, the Iraqi ambassador.

Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told reporters at the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar that experts had made "initial surveys" of the bomb site but did not know whether Saddam or his sons had been killed.

Brooks also announced that forces had captured Samir Abd al-Aziz al-Najim, the Baath Party Regional Command Chairman for east Baghdad, the four of clubs on the Pentagon's deck of cards showing most-wanted Iraqis. He was handed over by Kurds near the northern city of Mosul overnight, Brooks said. On Thursday, U.S. forces captured one of Saddam's half brothers in Baghdad.

At the same time, the Pentagon reported the release of 887 Iraqi prisoners taken earlier in the war. They were determined to be noncombatants, said Maj. Ted Wadsworth, a Pentagon spokesman.

American and British forces continue to hold 6,850 prisoners, he said.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-18-2003]

IP Logged

One moon circles

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

posted 04-18-2003 07:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
really good article....

Serving Uncle Sam

A little gratitude.

April 17, 2003, 10:20 a.m.

By Doug Bandow

My brother-in-law, Birkley Wical, just celebrated his 39th birthday. What makes it significant is not that he is rapidly approaching the big 4-0, though that certainly gives those of us in the family who've already hit that milestone some satisfaction. More significant is the fact that it coincides with 20 years in the Air Force.

He's now eligible to retire with a pension, though not a generous one — NCOs don't get rich in the service. But he's been hoping to make master sergeant, in which case he might stay in. It hasn't been an easy life, and I applaud him, as well as my sister, nephew, and niece, for enduring it.

Americans have grown used to nearly costless wars. The New York Times headlined one story during the war in Iraq: "Invading Forces Capture Key Bridge — More American Deaths." It left readers to ponder which was the more interesting nugget of news — that a bridge was taken, or that U.S. soldiers died doing so.

That Americans had died in battle was not considered to be news in the Korean or Vietnam Wars, World Wars I and II, and certainly not in the Civil War, America's costliest conflict. In all of those wars the casualty lists were long. The price of serving was inevitable and evident to all.

Despite complaints about the American public's low tolerance for causalities, it obviously has accepted huge losses when it believed the goal to be worthwhile. And it almost certainly would accept even more if perceived America's survival to be at stake. In contrast, tracking down one of many warlords didn't seem worth the 19 dead Rangers in Mogadishu.

The Clinton administration thought Americans would react the same way in Kosovo when it decided to impose an outside settlement in one of the smaller of a score of civil wars around the world. Thus the bombing from 15,000 feet and refusal to mount a ground invasion.

We were lucky and the American public's willingness to accept losses wasn't seriously tested in the current war. Even some unexpected Iraqi resistance was not enough to generate the kind of carnage seen in past wars, when Uncle Sam's qualitative and technological dominance was not so great.

Yet while the casualties were mercifully low, every one left a family in anguish. And other families breathing a sad sigh of temporary relief.

Moreover, every potential casualty — that is, every serviceman or woman in harm's way — left a family worried, nervous, and on edge. With units on the move, people, including some friends of mine, could only catch TV and scan the newspapers for an indication as to the whereabouts of their son or daughter. And for evidence that their loved one was not likely the one killed, wounded, or captured.

It's an experience that I've largely avoided. I grew up a military brat, with great respect for the profession of arms but not desiring to enter it myself. It takes special commitment to be willing to turn over control of one's life to a boss as fickle as Uncle Sam.

My father was career Air Force, but he forecast weather for combat pilots rather than flew combat sorties. We were stationed stateside during the Vietnam War, so my classmates' parents also were at little risk.

Two decades ago Birkley, my brother-in-law, enlisted in the Air Force. However, he has been tasked to keep supplies moving, not drop bombs. In practice, he's been at greater risk from our erstwhile allies — he spent time in Saudi Arabia — than our adversaries. Thus, my family has been spared having to worry about his safety during the half-dozen small-scale invasions and wars since his enlistment.

Yet the risks of military service have never seemed too far away. I'm glad my friend of more than a quarter century is now in the Air Force reserves rather than on active duty, since he would have been in the thick of any action.

My racquetball player and Navy reservist friend has been called up, but to do intelligence work for the Defense Intelligence Agency. My across-the-street neighbor and Navy commander was nearly hit by the 9/11 attack while working at the Pentagon, but at least he's far from Iraqi bullets.

Not so lucky, though, is my assistant pastor, an active-duty-turned-reserve Marine Corps infantry officer, called up for occupation duty in Afghanistan. At least he wasn't racing into Baghdad, though several more months in Afghanistan might not be much better.

Three other members of my church, another Marine Corps reservist, also currently on active duty, a sailor offshore, and an Army infantryman, are in the Gulf. I don't know them too well, but I thought of them when I saw casualty reports. And their families' anxiety has been evident.

The sacrifices that servicemen and women and their families make during war is obvious. "Only" 147 Americans died in Gulf War I, but I met the mother-in-law of one, still grieving a year after his death. The casualty count is about the same in Gulf War II, and the effects of death will similarly linger long after the occupation of Baghdad has ended.

Less dramatic, but more persistent, are sacrifices made in peacetime. In my family we counted ourselves lucky for lasting seven years at one posting while I was in elementary and middle school. My sister's family has not been as fortunate.

The service offers enormous responsibility: Men and women not yet able to drink, legally, at least, prepare weapons for battle, guide airplanes onto carriers, maneuver in combat, and share responsibility for countless lives around them. Such duty brings satisfaction, to be sure, but little money and little more public recognition.

Life is often boring, filled with lines, meaningless rules, and long hours. Families no less than soldiers must adapt to the vagaries of service life. Especially in the post-Cold War era, with frequent deployments, occupations, and wars, spouses and children must endure long absences and suffer through sometimes-difficult reunions.

Most incredible, perhaps, is the fact that so many men and women choose to join and remain. Like my brother-in-law, they love their country, long to serve, yearn for responsibility, enjoy the comradeship, and want to be soldiers. Those of us who have chosen other career paths owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. They deserve our thanks, support, and prayers — especially during wartime.

— Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-18-2003 07:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes the VETERANS deserve our support...NOT the BU$h administration.

After all...the BU$h administration is waving the flag while SLASHING Veterans benefits.

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member

United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 04-18-2003 11:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
shitoga, call me a troll if you want to, doesn't hurt me one bit

Someone calling me a name hasn't bothered me since I was a kid. I can tell it bothers you though. I still think you are a fake veteran, along with Mech. I have yet to come into contact with ANY veteran who has proudly served this country, and does not back the troops 100%.

I have yet to hear ANY veteran say they think that this administration was responsible for 9/11.

I have yet to hear ANY veteran say that this war is all about oil.

I have contact with quite a few active duty personnel and have yet to hear any one of them say ANTYTHING bitter about this administration or about this war.

The only ones I hear complaining, are the people who alledge that they are former veterans, disgruntled veterans who take great pleasure in trashing the country in which they live, but are there to take the handouts that are "owed" them, and of course, disabled veteran whose benefits are being cut. I totally disagree with the slashing of veterans benefits for those who deserve it.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-19-2003 12:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
2 Words..


IP Logged

One moon circles

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

posted 04-19-2003 12:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

mech blinded by evil

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-19-2003 03:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mech...mouth piece of evil...

With FLKook's permission, I'd like to copy my questions to Mech, because he hasn't answered them yet. Instead, he buries us in more leftist, anti-American propaganda. Can you see that, Kook?

Just answer the damn questions Mech, and try to follow the conversation here. Nobody but the severely deluded now is buying your crap. It's obvious you avoid honest discussion, and, when pinned down in your stupidity, when you are pressed to go deeper than brain dead bumper sticker slogans, you change the subject with more propaganda, and try to bury the reader in bullshit (assuming there are any readers left). For this reason, I think a special waiver should be granted to allow me to cut and paste my questions and comments that you keep trying to bury, until you face them. It really is a pain in the ass to keep asking them (I know that’s what you are depending on…that I’ll just tire and not ask them any more if you can evade long enough).

When truth is your greatest enemy, when you find yourself running and evading direct confrontation with truth and fact because you fear honest conversation, because you prefer your delusions to reality, you've got to realize something is deeply wrong with you. Can’t you see that, Mech? Deception is your modus operandi Mech. That’s not a biased statement…that’s not a conservative or liberal statement. That is a simple, honest observation that any objective reader can obviously see and determine. Deception is the only thing you are interested in. You are a mouthpiece for deception and evil. If it were up to you, children would still be in Iraqi prisons being tortured but you are not honest enough to realize that fact..The fact that you rationalize these realities away, is a tale tell sign you are under the influence of something very evil.

Mech…Definitely the sign of a sick mind.

IP Logged

Chemspiracy Realist

East Central Florida
1388 posts, Apr 2001

posted 04-19-2003 08:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for FLKook     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
He doesn't need my permission. Leftist, anti-American propaganda is still allowed by our rights given to us by our creator and confirmed by the constitution.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by FLKook on 04-19-2003]

IP Logged

Chemspiracy Realist

East Central Florida
1388 posts, Apr 2001

posted 04-19-2003 08:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for FLKook     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And another thing... Since I'm so insignificant to you F/W why bring me in to this?

[Edited 1 times, lastly by FLKook on 04-19-2003]

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-19-2003 10:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
He doesn't need my permission. Leftist, anti-American propaganda is still allowed by our rights given to us by our creator and confirmed by the constitution.

I don't think you understood what I'm saying, Kook. I'm not saying Mech needs your permission. I'm saying, I need to copy what I've written because one of the techniques Mech uses when he is wrong is to change the subject and bury the reader in mountains of steaming crap. If I were to copy anything, you’d delete my profile, and we’d have nothing to counter the leftist propaganda from Mech, because every one else is intelligent enough to reason that Mech is not worth it and can‘t be reasoned with. I realize this fact as well, but still, it is nice to have someone pointing out Mech’s idiocy.

But Mech’s technique when confronted with irrefutable truth, such as the fact that this war is not about oil, is sorta like an animal when it's cornered, or a criminal when spotted by truth cops....Mech throws up a diversion (a stink bomb or something), says "look over there!" then runs the opposite direction....As I said, it's a pain in the ass to keep re-typing points already made.

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-19-2003 10:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This was just sent to me by a great American. Maybe Mech has to be reasoned with like a child before he understands;


The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war.

My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were
in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend
our country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good

My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in
our front living room window. He told him:

"Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbors houses," he replied.

"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United
States of America and you are President Bush."

Our son giggled and said "OK."

"Now son, I want you to look out the
window and pretend that every house
and yard on this block is a different
country," my husband said.

"OK Dad, I'm pretending."

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man
come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is
hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he
throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their
children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are
watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their
father. You see all of this son....what do you do?"


"What do you do son?!"

"I call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your
call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you
do then son?!"

"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or
your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you
to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're
pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."

"Daddy...he kills them?"

"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"

"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door
neighbor to help me stop him," our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get
involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my
husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"


Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for
help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and
puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"

"What Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her
door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and
then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in the window
and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?!!!"



Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds,

My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"

"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs
it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to
HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop
him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself...Daddy.....I can't look out my
window and just watch him do all these terrible things'm just going to close the I can't see what
he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."

I start to cry.

My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking
pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells

"Yes, Daddy."

"Open the blinds because that man....he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up
this tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation

I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest
and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too
strong and he's already at YOUR front door should have stopped
him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you
have to do it alone,'s too late," my husband whispers.

THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men
stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is
doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is
a war of humanity. WE must remove this evil man from power so that we can
continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our
window and see crimes on humanity. So that my nine year old son won't grow
up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the
atrocities in the world won't affect him.

Today the second day of "WAR on IRAQ" I felt compelled to write this and
pass it along. Hopefully, you will understand the lesson my husband tried
to teach our son.


IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-19-2003 11:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote



Bechtel contract sends 'deplorable message': NY Times

WASHINGTON (AFP) Apr 19, 2003

Awarding the first major contract for Iraq's reconstruction to politically-connected Bechtel sent "a deplorable message to a skeptical world," the New York Times said in an editorial Saturday.

The move "can only add to the impression that the United States seeks to profit from the war it waged," the Times charged.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 04-19-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-19-2003 11:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

GE Capital and Bechtel Enterprises Form New Global Pipeline Development Company

$2.4 Billion Project Already in the Works


IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-19-2003 12:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just curious...Why is it that Mech can keep repeating the same lies....reposting that same stupid propaganda pic with Saddam and the man who just blew him to tiny pieces of DNA, and yet it is not considered "spam" by moderator, Kook? And yes that's right, Mech is trying to imply that the man who just bombed the snot out of Saddam and all his doubles, is somehow friends with him...(Mech is what we would call a primo idiot).

But anyway, back to this curious irony… Mech seems to be able to spam freely without so much as a comment from Kook, yet when I appropriately repeat my questions and comments (due to Mech's dodging them the first time..), questions that seek to get at real truth and force Mech to follow a logical line of reasoning, Kook sees spam and threatens my deletion?

Anyway, just pointing out bias…I don’t expect a response, Kook.

But even though you won’t show me the courtesy of responding directly to my comments, Mech…I’ll respond to yours. As I pointed out before Rush did, Bechtel and Halliburton are two of the only preeminently qualified companies on Earth that can re-build Iraq's infrastructure. The only other company that even comes close is ironically, in France. Do we really want to give France these contracts? I don't think so. As I also pointed out, but Mech ignored, these companies are being paid by US taxpayer dollars...They hold no interest or legal claim to the profit Iraqis gain from pumping oil and selling it on the open market. They are only helping Iraq to be able to do this...but they are being paid by American taxpayer money. It's like helping your kid get started in business....The dad might pay for and set up the business, but the son provides the skill and hard work, and receives the profits from running that business.

This is all Halliburton and Bechtel are doing. They are creating the infrastructure, and providing the means by which Iraq can profit and benefit from it's natural assets. Bechtel is turning the water and lights back on in Iraq and building an efficient infrastructure for the continued health of that country. They are already set up to do it. They are the most qualified and well equipped companies on Earth to do it. They just happen to be American (and that‘s no accident). I probably don't speak for Mech, but I'd rather pay American companies than French or German companies to rebuild Iraq.

In any case, these companies do not profit from the sale of Iraqi oil.....This blows Mech's argument that this war is about oil completely out of the water….and I think Mech knows it. He’s just to dishonest to admit the truth.

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-19-2003 01:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh and BTW, when you look into the history of Bechtel, you'll find that it is really an amazing companany, whose projects included the Hoover Dam and the "Chunnel"....

These are the people qualified to rebuild a nation...

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-19-2003 01:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Not when they influence PUBLIC POLICY and the federal Governments to go to war.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-19-2003 02:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Eye Witness Report:
The Toppling of the Statue of Saddam was a Staged Media Event

interview with Neville Watson

SBS Australia, 17 April 2003. 18 April 2003

The URL of this article is:

Video interview with Neville Watson, SBS TV Australia (click here)
Neville Watson Interview transcript

After three months in Baghdad as a peace activist, Perth clergyman Neville Watson returned to Australia yesterday convinced that Iraq is on the brink of civil war. His experiences have left him deeply concerned about Australia's role in the war, and critical of the media's coverage of it. Alan Sunderland spoke to him in Perth earlier today.

ALAN SUNDERLAND: Reverend Watson, welcome to Insight. You were in Baghdad right through the bombing, the arrival of the coalition troops. So tell me, what are we to make of the scenes of Iraqi jubilation on the streets that we've been seeing here?

NEVILLE WATSON, PEACE ACTIVIST: Well, there certainly was some jubilation, but I certainly wouldn't go along with that presented by television. The one that I've seen a lot of since I've been back is the toppling of the statue of Saddam and I can hardly believe it was the same one that I saw, because it happened at only about 300m from where I was and it was a very small crowd. The rest of the square was almost empty, and when we inquired as to where the crowd came from, it was from Saddam City. In other words, it was a rent-a-crowd. Now, that piece of television has been played over and over again, but I've seen nothing of the pieces of television, for example, what happened in Mosul the other day, where the Americans opened fire on a crowd killing 10 and injuring 100 when it became anti-American. So I think the scenes of jubilation have to be balanced against the other side of the picture.

ALAN SUNDERLAND: Well, overall, you've talked on your return about your fears for the future. You've talked about the possibility of civil war. What do you base that on?

NEVILLE WATSON: Well, the reign of Saddam Hussein was a brutal one. It was one in which the community was polarised into those against Saddam and for Saddam. Now that has been removed, it's obvious as to what's going to happen. Those who were subjected to great cruelty are going to take revenge on those who did the subjecting. And I fear for Iraqi society in the next 5 or 10 years, because you remember that the Six Day War ended in 1967 but that war is still going on in Israel and Palestine today, and I fear that we have not seen the end of the war in Iraq, we've seen just the beginning of it.

ALAN SUNDERLAND: Can you see anything good coming from the current state of affairs in Iraq? I mean, after all, the Hussein regime has been deposed and we may see an end to Western sanctions soon.

NEVILLE WATSON: Without a doubt. I mean, the end of the Saddam Hussein rule is one for jubilation but the way it has been ended is one of great sorrow, because the bombing, the so-called ‘shock and awe’, was one of the most horrific things that I have ever seen. It was designed, as all terrorism is, to create fear by the use of violence and it amazes me that the description of ‘shock and awe’ was not one dreamed up by the opponents of America, it was dreamed up by themselves, and I'd go as far to say that what we saw in the bombing of Iraq was terrorist activity. It was designed to create fear by the use of violence. And that bombing will go down in history as one of the most unjustified and most horrific that we have seen of late.

ALAN SUNDERLAND: Now we've heard our own Prime Minister John Howard being confronted today with the humanitarian impact of this war. He's acknowledged that but he says it has to be measured against the awful, terrible atrocities that happened under Saddam Hussein. Does he have a point?

NEVILLE WATSON: I have the awful feeling that neither the Americans nor the Australian authorities have any idea of the humanitarian crisis which is about to occur and I have the feeling that when it does occur, they will be running for cover. Even today, you've got Peter Cosgrove saying that we are not responsible for the anarchy. Even at this point, the Pontius Pilates are queuing up at the washbasin to wash their hands and I fear for the future and I fear that nobody is going to take responsibility for it.

ALAN SUNDERLAND: Well, on that point, John Howard today has played down a suggestion that Australia will have a major role in peacekeeping forces. Should we have a greater role?

NEVILLE WATSON: I think that's the tragedy. Australia has had a minor role in the whole thing. I mean, it wasn't included in the Azores conference because, obviously, George Bush speaks for Australia. The contribution was 2,000 compared with hundreds of thousands of the others, and the question that I was asked again and again is why is Australia involving itself with America at this point?

ALAN SUNDERLAND: So that was - it was an issue on the streets of Baghdad while you were there? People noticed that Australia was involved?

NEVILLE WATSON: Oh, very much so. I had one person, for example - once I spoke, he picked me up as an Australian straight away - and he said "Oh, Australian - people good, government bad." And then there was one chap who said to me, he said "Australian Government fall" - and I didn't know what he meant but he said "Australian Government topple over" and when I looked up the Internet, sure enough it was the motion of no confidence in the Senate. These people know precisely what's going on and I was absolutely amazed at their understanding of Australia and its position far more than any Australian would ever know of what's going on in Iraq today - and that's one of the reasons why I went there, because where you stand really does determine what you see.

ALAN SUNDERLAND: Reverend Watson, let me ask you one final question about Australia's involvement from here on, if you like. A number of Australian companies have expressed a desire to get involved in winning some of the contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq. Would you like to see us involved in that work?

NEVILLE WATSON: I shuddered when I heard that because you will remember that this war started off with about weapons of mass destruction and when weapons of mass destruction were not used or found to this point, then it became liberation, and when liberation starts to collapse around us, we start talking about the spoils of war, and I hope that Australia will not contaminate itself by being involved in that search for the spoils of war.

ALAN SUNDERLAND: Thanks very much for your time.

Copyright SNS Australia 2003. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-19-2003 03:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How do you live with yourself, Mech? You lie to yourself...

Still didn't address my comments. How is this war about oil, again, Mech?

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