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

  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  Gulf War II (Page 41)

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

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

Topic page views:

shatoga
Agent Provocateur


588 posts, Nov 2002

posted 04-24-2003 04:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shatoga     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pat Buchannon, like Barry Goldwater,
has the same problem.

Standing up for real values and real principles,, in a party that treasures pragmatisim.....


Pragmatism means giving up everything else just to win...
"Winning is the only thing."


Barry never compromised, nor lied, and he lost an honest election.
Pat called "King George the first" on his lies and he lost.
Both were booted out of the party that Reverend Sun Young Moon owns and controls.

Both put America first and politics second, or last.

Politics first last and always,
is the mantra of the PRopagandists hired to advocate on the internet for Bush.
(regardless of right or wrong)

How can any decent person like Barry Goldwater or Pat Buchannon compete with souless demagogues like the Bush supporters?

I find myself still a Goldwater Republican who is defined as a moderate Democrat by the fascist labels applied by;
a wholly RW owned and controlled news media.

Should I sell out like Clinton?

NO!
Hopefully they will kill me to shut me up
and make my every word credible and quoteable...
This war is Public Relations campaign

just like wag the gulf one was.

America would be far better served by telling Israel's right wing demagogues to pull their heads out of their arses and make peace with their neighbors.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 04-24-2003]

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


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

posted 04-24-2003 05:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
have eyes but will not see...



[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 04-24-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-24-2003 10:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL......

by Michael T. Klare
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030512&s=klare

O n the second day of the invasion of Iraq, US commandos seized two Iraqi offshore oil terminals in the Persian Gulf, capturing their defenders without a fight. "Swooping silently out of the Persian Gulf night," exulted James Dao of the New York Times, Navy SEALs claimed "a bloodless victory in the battle for Iraq's vast oil empire."

Dao's dramatic turn of phrase revealed more about the Administration's plans for Iraq than almost every other report from the battlefield. While American forces turned a blind eye to the looting of Iraq's archeological treasures, they moved quickly to gain control over oilfields, refineries and pipelines. Even before Iraqi resistance had been squelched, top US officials were boasting that Iraq's oil infrastructure was safely in American hands.

Oil had nothing to do with Washington's motives for the invasion, we were told. "The only interest the United States has in the region is furthering the cause of peace and stability, not in [Iraq's] ability to generate oil," said press secretary Ari Fleischer in late 2002. But at a January briefing an unnamed "senior Defense official" revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks and his staff "have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to preserve those prior to destruction, as opposed to having to go in and clean them up after."

When pressed, the "senior Defense official" (presumably Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) claimed that these fields would be protected so as to benefit the Iraqi people "at some point in the future." Other officials spoke of holding the fields "in trust" for the Iraqis. Nonetheless, the White House has talked with US energy companies about assuming a major role in the postconflict development of Iraq's mammoth reserves.

For now, the Administration's main concern appears to be to put existing oilfields back into operation as rapidly as possible so as to help subsidize the costs of occupying and reconstructing Iraq. To insure that this process will move quickly, the Defense Department awarded a noncompetitive, multimillion-dollar contract to Halliburton, the Houston-based oil-services firm once headed by Dick Cheney to fight fires and repair damage in the oilfields and begin the task of rehabilitation. In coming months other US oil-services firms, including Fluor and Bechtel (both with close ties to the Administration), will be invited to bid for even more lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. Ultimately, about $5 billion will be needed to restore Iraqi oil production to the levels achieved before the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and the 1991 Gulf War.

Managing this complex enterprise will be an "interim authority" made up of Iraqis selected or approved by the US government, presumably including expatriates like Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), who enjoys close ties with the CIA and Defense. It can be safely assumed, however, that US occupation officials will retain ultimate authority over the oilfields during this period. Washington will seek United Nations Security Council resolutions lifting the economic sanctions in order to allow sales of Iraqi oil. But Administration officials vow to exclude the UN from decision-making on the disposition of Iraqi oil assets.

Once the fields are back in operation, the next item on the Administration's agenda will be to determine the fate of the Iraqi National Oil Company, the state-owned firm that has managed Iraq's oil assets since their nationalization in the 1970s. Most of INOC's current managers wish to keep the company under state ownership, but some of the exile leaders being courted by the Bush team, including Chalabi, favor privatizing the firm and parceling it out in large pieces to major American and British oil companies. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi declared in September 2002. This approach was given further support by a meeting of expatriate Iraqi oil officials convened by the State Department in early March. The officials, members of the oil and energy panel of State's Future of Iraq Project, declared that any post-Saddam Iraqi government should "develop the right economic environment to allow investment in and utilization of its oil and gas resources."

American oil firms have admitted to meeting with representatives of the INC and other exile groups to discuss postwar access to Iraqi oil. While exploitation of Iraq's existing fields, with total reserves estimated at 112 billion barrels (second only to Saudi Arabia's holdings of 261 billion barrels) is appealing enough, what US firms really want is to be able to tap into Iraq's "virgin" (undeveloped) fields in remote parts of the country.

According to the Energy Department, these undeveloped fields may hold as much as 200 billion barrels of oil, making this the largest pool of unexploited petroleum in the world. Saddam had awarded contracts to firms in Russia, China and France to develop some of these fields, but any government installed by the United States--certainly one headed by Chalabi--would declare those contracts void. With most big fields in the United States and other mature producing areas in decline, access to these reserves could prove essential to the survival and future prosperity of some of the major American energy firms. It is this fact, more than any other, that belies the Administration's claim that oil had nothing to do with the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.




[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-24-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-24-2003 10:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
WHERE ARE THE WMD'S?

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-24-2003 10:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
HERE COMES THE BIG LIE ADMISSION......


Bush: Iraq's WMD May Have Been Destroyed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2602091,00.html


Friday April 25, 2003 1:49 AM

LIMA, Ohio (AP) - President Bush raised the possibility Thursday that any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before or during the U.S.-led war, suggesting for the first time that coalition troops may come up empty in their search.

Bush, who is expected to mark the end of hostilities soon, defied much of the world to wage war against Saddam Hussein in a bid to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Iraqi leaders asserted the nation had none, and an intensive search by coalition forces has uncovered no proof so far of chemical or biological weapons or a nuclear weapons program.

``He tried to fool the United Nations and did for 12 years by hiding these weapons. And so it's going to take time to find them,'' the president said at the Lima Army Tank Plant. ``But we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth.''

In a television interview, meanwhile, Bush said there was ``some evidence'' suggesting Saddam Hussein is dead. ``The person who helped direct the (U.S. bombing) attacks believes that Saddam at the very minimum was severely wounded,'' Bush told NBC.

But he added, ``We would never make that declaration until we are more certain.''

He also said U.S. troops would remain in Iraq ``as long as necessary.'' In the interview aboard Air Force One, Bush was asked by NBC ``Nightly News'' anchor Tom Brokaw if that could take as long as two years. ``Could - or less,'' Bush said. ``Who knows?''

Bush said he expects neighboring Iran not to interfere with Iraq's becoming ``a stable and peaceful society.''

``We just expect them to cooperate and we will work with the world to encourage them to cooperate,'' Bush said.

Senior administration officials began this week to scale back expectations that weapons of mass destruction would be found. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said Wednesday that success of the search effort depends ``not on finding something by bumping into it'' but on information provided by Iraqis who might have been involved in such programs.

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush's remarks were based on information from at least one Iraqi scientist who has led coalition forces to materials used in the production of weapons of mass destruction and who has said some weapons were destroyed before the war, others perhaps afterward.

It is believed that some weapons may have been removed from Iraq, and some probably remain, the official said.

France, Russia and other allies opposed to the war want U.N. inspectors to verify any evidence of weapons uncovered by the United States. The Bush administration has refused, saying coalition forces are more efficient.

Bush did not say how likely it was that weapons had been destroyed, rather than hidden and perhaps soon to be uncovered.

``One thing's for certain, Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction,'' he said.

Troops on the ground have searched more than 80 sites that prewar U.S. intelligence judged the most likely hiding places for chemical and biological weapons as well as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. After a recent strategy shift, teams are now setting aside the search list and deciding where to go more on the basis of new information from Iraqis.

Bush's remarks came at the end of a politically charged three-city visit to Ohio, one of a dozen or so states that will be closely contested in the 2004 presidential election. Bush hopes to convert his wartime popularity into successes in Congress - particularly with his troubled $726 billion economic package.

Bush hoped to pressure Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, a Republican who derailed the White House tax package by refusing to back cuts of more than $350 billion.

Voinovich briefly greeted Bush at the airport in Dayton but he did not attend the president's speeches nor bow to White House demands.

``I think he knows where I'm at,'' the senator said of Bush.

The president made his disappointment clear.

``Some in Congress say the plan is too big. Well, it seems like to me they might have some explaining to do. If they agree that tax relief creates jobs, then why are they for a little bitty tax relief package?'' Bush said.

Democrats said Bush's plan favors the rich and offers low- and middle-income Americans a few hundred dollars in savings.

``For people who need prescription drugs or health insurance, that's a drop in the bucket,'' Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, said.

While aides said it was not yet time to declare victory in Iraq, the president nearly jumped the gun.

``We fought a war in Afghanistan, and now we have finished a war,'' Bush said in North Canton before catching himself and adding, ``in the process of finishing a war in Iraq.''

Several administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they expect commanding Gen. Tommy Franks to declare the hostilities over in a few days, paving the way for a presidential address as early as next week that would wrap up the war.

Separately, Bush plans to travel to Dearborn, Mich., on Monday to discuss the future of a newly liberated Iraq. The Detroit suburb is home to one of the nation's largest Arab communities.

While visiting the Lima plant, Bush put a positive spin on reports that some Iraqi factions do not welcome U.S. troops and that an Iranian-style theocracy may grow to power.

``In Iraq, there's discussion, debate, protest - all the hallmarks of liberty,'' Bush said. ``The path to freedom may not always be neat and orderly, but it is the right of every person and every nation.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003


YEP...IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL AND CONTRACTS AFTER ALL.

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-24-2003 10:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oil is going to be used to finance the re-building of Iraq (for Iraqis) Mech to ease some of the American taxpayer burden. This is why seizing Iraqi oil wells was important.....it's the greatest source of natural wealth for Iraqis that could go into immediate use in re-building it’s economic infrastructure after the war. It does not benefit America…except in the sense it eases American tax burden. It benefits Iraqis…and is the foremost strategic aid towards the quick transformation into a system based upon a representative democratic, capitalist republic.. (in other words…a free society). You are painfully oblivious to reality.

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


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

posted 04-24-2003 10:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
how's them tunes there mech

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-24-2003 10:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Did Bush Deceive Us in His Rush to War?

* The 'threats' that Hussein posed to the United States are nowhere to be seen.


Robert Scheer: LA TIMES
April 22, 2003

http://www.latimes.com/la-war-oescheer22apr22,0,1263293.column


Now that the war has been won, is it permissible to suggest that our emperor has no clothes? I'm not referring to his abysmal stewardship of the economy but rather the fig-leaf war he donned to cover up his glaring domestic failures.

President Bush went to war with Hitler's Germany and found another Afghanistan instead. After comparing the threat of Hussein to that of the Führer, it was odd to find upon our arrival a tottering regime squatting on a demoralized Third World populace.

Now the pressure is on for Bush to find or plant those alleged weapons of mass destruction fast or stand exposed as a bullying fraud.

Of course, our vaunted intelligence forces knew well from our overhead flights and the reports of U.N. inspectors freely surveying the country that Iraq had been reduced by two decades of wars, sanctions and arms inspections to a paper tiger, but that didn't keep the current administration from depicting Baghdad as a seat of evil so powerful it might soon block the very sun from shining.

And while Emperor Bush piled on the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric, his bespectacled vizier for defense presented a mad-hatter laundry list of Iraq's alleged weapons collection, as long and specific as it was phony and circumstantial.

Secretary of State Colin Powell's now infamous speech to the U.N. Security Council employed "intelligence" cribbed from a graduate student's thesis, documents later acknowledged as fakes, and a defector's affirmation of the existence of chemical weapons while excluding his admission that they had subsequently been destroyed.

Having taken over the country, we now know with a great deal of certainty that if chemical or biological weapons were extant there, they were not deployed within the Iraqi military in a manner that threatened the U.S. or anyone else.

Likewise, Bush's fear-mongering about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program has proven baseless. There was no reason to hurriedly yank the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq.

Even Bush's only real ally outside of Washington, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is worried that the fearsome weapons will not turn up — or that a skeptical world will believe they were planted as an afterthought. "Some sort of objective verification" of weapons finds would be a "good idea," he said last week.

However, the refusal of the U.S. to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and his team to continue their work is damning evidence of our fear that the weapons simply do not exist, at least in any usable quantity or form. It also raises the suspicion that Iraqi scientists now held incommunicado in U.S. captivity will be squeezed until they tell us what we want to hear. Whatever happened to the prewar demand that those same scientists be given the freedom to tell their story in a non-intimidating environment?

Bush may fear the truth because the still-AWOL weapons are a potential tar baby for this administration. Undoubtedly the U.S. will find mixed-used chemical precursors for weapons, as was claimed only this week, but that is a far cry from being an "imminent threat."

As Joseph Cirincione, a top weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment, put it, the purported existence of those weapons "was the core reason for going to war with Iraq and the reason we had to go now If we don't find fairly large stockpiles of these weapons, in quantities large enough to pose a strategic threat to the United States, the president's credibility will be seriously undermined and the legitimacy of the war repudiated."

That concern is largely absent in the U.S. media, where "liberation" is now a code word that smoothes over any irritating questions one may ask when a Christian superpower invades the heart of the Muslim world. Its partner phrase, "the building of democracy," is also all the rage, as if real democracy was something you could create with Legos or SimCity software.

At this point, though, we can only hope it will all turn out for the best, and that a retired U.S. general will figure out how to use the country's natural resources to end poverty, build excellent schools and provide crime-free streets and an electoral system where positions of power don't go to the highest bidder. Then he can come back and apply this genius at home, where we've got plenty of unwelcome violence, poverty and on-the-take politicians.

However, in the unlikely case this fantasy comes true, albeit at an untold price in money, lives and human suffering, it should be remembered that this was not the justification for war given to the American people.

And, in a more sober mood, one must still ask the embarrassing yet essential question: Did our president knowingly deceive us in his rush to war?

If he did, and we are truly concerned about our own democracy, we would have to acknowledge that such an egregious abuse of power rises to the status of an impeachable offense.

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-24-2003 10:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Once again Mech quotes one of the most liberal publications in America.

If this war is about oil....how are they profiting from it Mech? And who's "they"....

Answer the questions Mech.

Oh...and banned weapons have been found..and used. Facilities used for WMD production have been found. All that's left is to find the weapons...

They will be found, but even without them, the toppling of Saddam's regime is justified a thousand times over.

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-24-2003 11:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
JUSTIFIED FOR OIL AND $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-24-2003 11:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BLOOD FOR OIL

Mosul/Haifa_Pipeline

“[T]his is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally [Israel].” - - James Akins, a former US ambassador [Observer, 4/20/03]

“It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.” unnamed former senior CIA official [Observer, 4/20/03]

“All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests.” [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]


Summary:
It has been revealed that a top priority of the neoconservatives in Washington is to construct a pipeline from the politically unstable northern Iraqi city of Mosul to the neighboring country of Jordan where it would connect with an existing pipeline that leads to the Israeli port city of Haifa
Related Outlines:

Invasion of Iraq.
Arab and Iraqi Civilian response to U.S. war of 'liberation'
Problems encountered by U.S. troops during the beginning of the U.S. invasion
Plans for Post-Saddam Colonial Iraq

Preparing for War
Main
Hawks' legal pretext for war
US coercing support from Allies
Plans for War Against Iraq

'Reasons' to attack Iraq
Iraq's alleged ties to the al Qaeda terrorist group
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and nuclear
'Saddam Hussein is a War Criminal'
'Saddam Hussein is Evil'
Britain's Dossier of proof against Iraq
British government’s release of plagiarized dossier

Other
U.S./Israeli interests in Iraq
Iraqi Opposition Groups
Iraqi Response to U.S. Threats
Opposition to Invading Iraq [not current]
U.S. divided over Iraq.
Public opinion
Weapons Inspections
'Prewar' Military Operations in Iraq
Reasons not to go to war with Iraq
Turkey and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
Push For War on Iraq Timeline [not current]
U.S. support for during the 1980s
Pre-911 calls for war on Iraq
The Decision to 'Get Saddam'

Last Updated: 4/24/2003


1 Background.

a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’

i Summary.

(A) In 1975, Henry Kissinger signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” which obligated the U.S. to ensure the security of Israel's oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis. “The memorandum has been quietly renewed every five years” reported the London Observer, “with special legislation attached whereby the US stocks a strategic oil reserve for Israel even if it entailed domestic shortages - at a cost of $3 billion in 2002 to US taxpayers.” [Memorandum of Understanding, 9/1/1975; Observer, 4/20/03; Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03] In the event that commercial shippers refuse to ship oil to Israel, the U.S. is obligated to ship its ally oil using its own tankers. [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]

b Proposed Bechtel Iraq-Aqaba pipeline

i Summary.

(A) Donald Rumsfeld had met with Saddam Hussein in 1983 to discuss plans authored by Henry Kissinger [Observer, 4/20/03] for a pipeline to be built by Bechtel [profile] from Iraq to Aqaba in Jordan, opposite the Israeli port of Eilat. [Institute for Policy Studies, 3/24/03; Observer, 4/20/03] According to Hanan Bar-On, then the deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry, Israel had been involved in those discussions. [Ha’aretz, 3/31/02] Read more about this here. The video of the meeting can be viewed here.


2 Current proposals for a Mosul-Haifa pipeline.

a Summary.

i Neoconservatives in Washington want the new government in Baghdad to help pay for the reconstruction of the long abandoned Mosul-Haifa pipeline. The pipeline – the resurrection of which would inevitably stir discontent in the Arab world – passes through Jordan and Syria, and ends in the Israeli port city of Hiafa. While much of the pipeline is intact, the section that travels though Iraq lays in ruins. [Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03]

b Cost.

i The pipeline would cost about $1 billion dollars, according to the Cyprus oil journal Middle East Economic Survey (MEES). [Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03]

c Companies which would build the pipeline.

i U.S. Firms.

(A) U.S. firms would build the proposed pipeline, according to the Cyprus oil journal, Middle East Economic Survey (MEES). [Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03]


ii Turkish firms.

(A) The Turkish Daily Zaman reported that the Israeli government and Israeli firms had approached Turkish companies about possible contracts to reactivate the Mosul-Haifa pipeline. This was confirmed by Turkish Contractors Union Chairman Nihat Ozdemir. [Zaman, 4/17/03]

d Requirements.

i In order for this pipeline to be viable, the new Iraqi government would have to be on good terms with the U.S. and Israel. It was reported in the Observer of London that these plans had been discussed by the Pentagon with Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC is the Iraqi opposition group that the Pentagon hopes will run Iraq’s future government. [Observer, 4/20/03; Asia Times, 4/4/03] In fact, Janes Intelligence reported, “It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel with oil.” [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]

ii In order to recommence the flow of oil through this pipeline, Syria’s government would have to provide its consent. The Asia Times explained: “However, its full operation, including the required repair work, needs the consent of .. Syria. … [but] the existing Syrian regime will never grant its consent as long as” Israel continues its occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights. “Hence, unless the pipeline were redirected through Jordan, another country bordering Israel and Iraq with normalized relations with Israel, the pipeline project will require a different regime in Syria. In other words, regime change in both Iraq and Syria is the prerequisite for the project. As Paritzky did not mention a redirecting option, it is safe to suggest that the Israelis are also optimistic about a regime change in Syria in the near future.” [Emphasis added] [Asia Times, 4/4/03; see also Hindustan Times, 4/14/03]

iii Iraq would have to ensure the security of the pipeline, protecting it from any militant groups opposed to piping Iraq’s oil to Israel.

e Significances of the proposed pipeline.

i It would benefit the U.S.

(A) Summary.

(1) The proposed pipeline would provide the U.S. with cheap reliable access to Iraq’s cheap, high-quality oil. [Observer, 4/20/03; Ha’aretz, 3/31/02; Asia Times, 4/4/03; Hindustan Times, 4/14/03]

(B) Reports.

(1) In May 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy noted in its Israel Country Brief that a trans-Arabian pipeline bringing Gulf oil to Israel’s Hiafa port could “cost as much as 40% less than shipping by tanker through the Suez Canal.” [U.S. Department of Energy, May 2002]

ii It would benefit Israel.

(A) Summary.

(1) Israel imports nearly all of the oil it consumes. Much of it comes from Russia, whose oil is much more expensive to produce and ship then oil from Iraq. A pipeline coming directly from Iraq would greatly reduce Israel’s energy costs and thus be of help to its staggering economy.

(B) Statements.

(1) A source quoted by Reuters explained that the proposed pipeline would be an economic blessing for Israel, potentially cutting the country’s fuel costs by as much as 25 percent, and turning its port city, Haifa, into “the Rotterdam of the Middle East.” But it’s “too soon to estimate the chances of the pipeline restarting or its financial impact for Israel although it would obviously be substantial,” noted the source, who added, “It depends on what kind of government takes office in Iraq.” [Reuters, 4/9/03; see also BBC, 4/9/03; Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03; Hindustan Times, 4/14/03]


3 Events.

a Discussions between Israel and Jordan.

i Summary.

(A) In the March 31 edition of the Israeli Ha’aretz, Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Joseph Paritzky was quoted saying that Israeli and Jordanian officials had made plans to discuss a proposed pipeline that would transport oil from Northern Iraq to Israel’s Mediterranean port city of Haifa. [Ha’aretz, 3/31/02; Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03; BBC, 4/9/03; Observer, 4/20/03] And then a little more than a week later, an Israeli source told Reuters: “Jordan contacted the [Israeli] prime minister's office who asked the [National Infrastructure] minister [Paritzky] to meet with the Jordanian officials. We know the section of the pipeline here is in excellent condition but we want to know what the Jordanian part is like and whether it can be restarted easily.” [Reuters, 4/9/03] This was immediately denied by Jordan. [Reuters, 4/9/03b]

b Discussions among neoconservatives in Washington.

i Summary.

(A) According to the Observer of London, US intelligence sources had confirmed that the proposed pipeline project has been discussed. The paper quoted one former senior CIA official who explained: “It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.” [Observer, 4/20/03]


4 Observations.

a James Akins, a former US ambassador to the region and one of America's leading Arabists.

i “[T]his is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally [Israel].” [Observer, 4/20/03]

b Janes Intelligence.

i “All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests.” [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]

c Asia Times.

i “The Israeli oil pipeline plan, though, runs contrary to the stated US war objectives in Iraq. The two key members of the "coalition of the willing" - the United States and the United Kingdom - have rejected oil as a motivation for the war, a point not taken seriously by many all over the world. Nevertheless, the Israeli plan, the US-stated goal of securing Iraqi oilfields, including those of Mosul, and the declared US objective of a regime change in Iraq offer some evidence to the contrary.” [Asia Times, 4/4/03]

d Hindustan Times.

i “Syria might well be next on the US hit-list for a ‘regime change’ - the purpose being to restart the defunct Mosul-Haifa pipeline and solve Israel's oil needs. And the Iraq war, after all, might prove to be just the first chapter in this project. … [A]ll attempts [to restart the pipeline] have failed as the governments in both Iraq and Syria have remained antagonized to Israel owing to anti-Palestinian violence. The only way out was a regime change in both countries.” [Hindustan Times, 4/14/03]

2003 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org


IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-24-2003 11:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NEXT...THE PROPAGANDA WAR

Arab world now faces invasion by American TV

Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Thursday April 24, 2003
The Guardian
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,942357,00.html


Washington's battle to win public support in the Arab world has begun in earnest with the first broadcasts of what officials say will become a 24-hour satellite television network aimed at changing minds throughout the region by American-style morning chat-shows, sports, news and children's programmes.

Faced with allegations that the channel will be a propaganda arm of the US government the broadcasting magnate setting it up, Norman Pattiz, vowed that it would remain independent.

Iraq and the World, the prototype channel being beamed into the country from a US air force plane, began showing American evening news bulletins this week.

A full-service version should be broadcasting 24 hours a day to 22 countries in the Middle East by the end of the year, Mr Pattiz, chairman of Westwood One, said.

Faces familiar to US audiences, including Dan Rather of CBS and Tom Brokaw of ABC, are appearing with their words translated into Arabic.

The aim is "to counter the negative images being broadcast right now, the incitement to violence, the hate radio, the journalistic self-censorship", Mr Pattiz told the Guardian.

The broadcasts are on separate channels to those being used by the Pentagon and the state department, and are run by a the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, a body of citizens appointed by the president, of which Mr Pattiz is one.

"We don't do propaganda," he insisted.

"We'll do anything that any legitimate news organisation in the world might do," he said - including al-Jazeera.

The working title for the channel is the Middle Eastern Television Network, and while information programmes will occupy most of the schedule, softer formats will play a crucial role in the broader cultural campaign, Mr Pattiz said.

Jerry Springer can abandon any hope of a new market, though. "We won't have the same kind of inflammatory talk television you see on al-Jazeera," Mr Pattiz said.

"It likes to present itself as the CNN of the Middle East, but I think of them more as CNN meets Jerry Springer. Except people in the US find Jerry Springer amusing, and in the Middle East ... people can lose their lives over that kind of rhetoric."

Mr Pattiz's sureness of touch helped his company earn $551m last year supplying programmes to radio and TV stations.

But his confidence that the approach can be easily exported to the world of public diplomacy is far from shared, and is derided by some as naive or counter-productive.

"It's part of this enormous faith, this unquestioned faith, that when the people in the Middle East are introduced to American values and style, and look and feel, they will fall for it," said Michael Wolff, a media columnist for New York magazine. "And it's virtually unchallenged. It's almost missionary-like."

The network's planners were obsessed with al-Jazeera and the idea that it was indoctrinating a generation of viewers, said Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

"Think about the assumptions involved in that - that the Arabs just sit in front of TV sets and al-Jazeera just pumps this information into them?"

The operation betrayed the widespread belief that "the primary problem to the hackneyed question, 'why do people hate us?' is that they don't understand us".

"A small amount of that is true, but the primary problem is policy... US policy towards Israel, towards Iraq, support for authoritarianism."

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-25-2003 02:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I didn't read much of your cut and paste crap Mech (Hint....nobody does)...but a person can read the first few lines to get the gist of it;

quote:
“[T]his is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally [Israel].” - - James Akins, a former US ambassador [Observer, 4/20/03]

Uh...it's convenient to ignore the fact that Syria happens to be a terrorist breeding ground and home to many major terrorist groups. What an idiotic quote...everything GW has done has been consistent with his stated goal, to eliminate the terrorist threat....Yet these idiots still claim it is about oil. Why is wiping out the terrorist threat, ignored? You want the truth?...there's your answer. Bush has been stating what the goal is plain as day...and his every action from homeland security, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...and possibly Syria, are absolutely and precisely consistent with that goal...to seek out terrorism where it lives, and the nations who harbor terrorists, and take them out. Yet this fact is ignored as if terrorism wasn't a big threat...as if there wasn't motivation enough to remove that threat...Idiots!

quote:
“It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.” unnamed former senior CIA official [Observer, 4/20/03]

Well..no kidding...What the hell is wrong with safeguarding the world's oil supply (including the democratic country of Israel? Europe is MOST dependent on Iraqi oil than any other area of the world, BTW. Check out the reactions of France and Germany....and Russia...if you don't believe me. They definitely have an interest in safeguarding their Iraqi oil at all costs....including morality and basic human decency.

quote:
“All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests.” [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]

It lends weight only in the deluded mind of a complete moron who ignores the fact that terrorist groups exist and present a real threat to the world....And to draw such a dumbass conclusion that we are re-shaping the Middle East to serve Israel's interests is non-sensical beyond belief. America's interest is wiping out the terrorist threat and promoting free and democratic countries....because free and democratic countries do not start wars. They provide stability to the world and the world's economies. America's interest is in creating world stability so there can be peace and so that people can live in freedom....Why is this so difficult to understand, you morons? This is motivation enough.

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-25-2003 02:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Washington's battle to win public support in the Arab world has begun in earnest with the first broadcasts of what officials say will become a 24-hour satellite television network aimed at changing minds throughout the region by American-style morning chat-shows, sports, news and children's programmes.

Excellent idea. We need to counter the propaganda of Arab TV, with the truth....

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


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

posted 04-25-2003 02:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I really think the midi is wearing mech down...yep...

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-25-2003 05:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What threat Fastwalker? WHERE are the WMD's?

There are none. You beloved war was all about OIL and propping up a corrupt country called Israel.

IP Logged

Fastwalker
Senior Member


832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-25-2003 06:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
What threat Fastwalker? WHERE are the WMD's?

I've already answered this in a fairly detailed and logical way, but you ignored it...just like you ignored what I've written above, in order to make the following statement.

quote:
You beloved war was all about OIL and propping up a corrupt country called Israel.

To say a war is beloved...is just plain idiotic. Nobody wants war...especially me. I've already gone into great detail (which has YET to be refuted by you) as to why this war is not about oil. ....Heck, you can't even answer a few simple questions as to how companies profit from this oil, and who these companies are. Now to say that Israel is corrupt (when they are the victims of terrorism rather than the cause) is more ignorance of reality. I suppose, in your view, Iraq, Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Russia and red China are not corrupt...but if it is a capitalist democratic country like Israel, whose women and children and other innocent non-combatants are being murdered by Satanic, brainwashed, soulless Palestinian maniacs with bombs...then it is corrupt in your perverted view of the world. To say that we would spend 80 to 100 billion dollars, risking American lives and getting some killed to "prop up Israel" defies any form of reason. Do you make this idiocy up as you go along Mech?

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-25-2003 11:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
THE PLANNED DESTABILIZATION BEGINS......

IRAQI SHI'ITES THREATEN JIHAD ON AMERICANS

Pilgrims threaten jihad against American forces
By Kim Sengupta in Karbala

24 April 2003

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=399804

The Shia pilgrimage to Karbala, one of the most potent and symbolic in recent Iraqi history, took on a strident political and martial note yesterday with demands for the establishment of an Islamic state and threats of a jihad against the "American occupiers".

The one million people commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Mohamed, were not only determined to take part in the rites banned by Saddam Hussein and his Baathist predecessors, but also to lay their claim for a Shia-led government.

Yesterday, the final prayers of the festival were different from the days that have gone before, with thousands of young men arriving from the cities of a de facto Shia confederacy, which is already taking shape.

The young men left their Kalashnikovs and grenade launchers in their vehicles out of respect, they said, for the holiness of Karbala.

But later, covered in blood from flagellation with chains and knife wounds they had ritually and frenziedly inflicted on themselves they roared their desire to avenge Ayatollah al-Sadr, murdered by the regime in 1999, and fight for a free, Islamic Iraq.

The show of strength was not aimed solely at the Americans or the Sunnis they accuse of oppressing them under the rule of the Baath party. Schisms have also began to appear among the Shias: the followers of the late Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr – who now follow his son Muqtadar – are lining up against Ayatollah al-Hakim, who now runs Karbala, and Ayatollah Ali Hamid al-Sistani, in Najaf.

Two Shia leaders, Abdul Majid al-Khoeli and Haidar al-Khalidar, have already been killed in the internecine strife at Najaf.

Ayatollah Hakim, who was supposed to address the pilgrims, failed to turn up. He was warned, said his followers, that he may be attacked.

The US military said they had foiled a plot by "a gang of five Baathists and a member of al-Qa'ida" to blow up two mosques in Karbala. Captain Jimmie Cummings said the plan was to carry out the attack during the pilgrimage.

The pilgrims included Shias from Iran. Bookstalls carried out a busy trade in tracts from Ayatollah Khomeini and hardline religious leaders in Iran who have called on Iraqis to expel the US military from their country.

In sermons, imam after imam called on Iraqis to take the destiny of the country into their own hands, and the Shia to take their "rightful place" in deciding how the country should be governed Some of the crowd carried banners saying "Bush equals Saddam", "Down USA" and "Yes, Yes, Islam".

Representatives of the Hawza, the Shia religious body based in Najaf, which is said to be co-ordinating the takeover of the administration of towns and cities by clerics, were present among the crowd.

One member, Abbas Nahidi, said: "Our job is to ensure that the people get the message of the Hawza. They should listen and act as our wise leaders advise. We are talking to all our people in our cities to plan the action.

"The Hawza believe there should be elections so people can decide who should govern us. We want an Islamic state. We do not want to be ruled by any foreign powers including the United States."

Abbas Mohammed and Ali Faraya Hamid, two teachers from Kut, said an Islamic administration has already been set up in their city. Mr Hamid said: "The Americans did nothing after the Baath fled, so the religious leaders have started to run things. We are following what the Koran has taught us. We do not need foreigners to tell us what to do."

Rashid Mutanar Rahim, a former soldier, rolled up the sleeve of his left arm to show a long scar. "I got that fighting in the first Bush war. I finished with the army because I hated Saddam. But I am prepared to take part in a jihad now against our American occupiers. I know dozens of people who feel the same way."

Yusef al-Hababi agreed."We are all prepared to take part in the jihad to throw out the Americans. Look at the way they conducted this war."

25 April 2003 13:10

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-25-2003 11:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ISRAEL TO STEAL IRAQI OIL. FEDS BACK CIA ASSET/CONVICED CRIMINAL AHMED CHALIBI FOR IRAQ DICTATOR.

Securing Iraqi oil for Israel: The plot thickens
Mosul-Haifa pipeline said to be high on US agenda
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/25_04_03/art24.asp


Analyst says link is gone: ‘There’s not a meter of it left, at least in Arab territory. It was cannibalized over the years’

Ed Blanche
Special to The Daily Star

BEIRUT: Israel, like the Bush administration, is backing Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi in the scramble for power in Baghdad because he is understood to be sympathetic to opening some kind of relationship with the Jewish state and to resurrecting the Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline that would transform the region’s energy map.
Behind the scenes, the Americans are seriously pushing both proposals with the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the umbrella for a wide range of anti-Saddam groups, most of which operated in exile until the Iraqi dictator’s regime collapsed earlier this month. But Washington’s game plan is running into stiff opposition from Iraq’s Shiite majority, which seeks to dominate the post-Saddam government and which is increasingly hostile to the US and its Iraqi surrogates like the INC, including Chalabi ­ even though he is a Shiite.
Tehran’s reported efforts to encourage leading Shiite clerics to demand an Islamic republic are likely, if they are as widespread as the Americans claim they are, to further spoil US efforts to promote Israel’s interests in the post-Saddam era. Indeed, the Bush administration’s support for Iraq to enter into what eventually would have to be recognition of the Jewish state by a country that has been one of its most implacable enemies helps reinforce the widely held belief that the war in Iraq was launched to strengthen Israel.
US sources said that securing an Iraqi peace treaty with Israel would be high on the administration’s agenda. Chalabi, who last week returned to Iraq after four decades in exile, is understood to have discussed recognition of Israel if he and the INC secure power in Baghdad.
Chalabi has forged strong ties with the White House and Pentagon in recent years. But there are many in the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, which has worked closely with the INC since the 1991 Gulf War, who do not believe his largely exile organization has enough popular support in Iraq. Chalabi has also built a strong following in the American Jewish community, whose influence on US policy in the Middle East is considerable.
“There’s no track record of anyone else in Iraqi leadership having a relationship with the Jewish community,” the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA) quoted Tom Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, as saying in Washington this month.
Both sides saw benefits from this relationship. The INC saw a way to tap Jewish influence in America and Israel and to drum up increased support for its cause. The Jewish organizations saw an opportunity to pave the way for better relations between Israel and Iraq if and when Chalabi’s group attains power.
“Because Saddam was so anti-Israel, the hope is that all of Saddam’s policies will be revisited, including his relationship with Israel and the United States,” Neumann said. “There’s no reason for the Iraqi people to have a problem with Israel.”
The INC’s relationship with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) is of particular significance. It has been developing for a decade. JINSA has close ties with the Pentagon and US defense companies and counts among its board such prominent figures as Vice-President Dick Cheney, his chief of staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and the eminence grise of the pro-Israel neoconservatives, Richard Perle, recently forced to step down as chairman of the Pentagon’s influential Defense Policy Board because of his business interests. Retired US General Jay Garner, who has been tasked with overseeing the reconstruction of Iraq, has traveled with JINSA groups to Israel and supported the organization’s agenda.
According to the JTA, some observers worry that a public relationship could work against the interests of Jewish groups and the Iraqi opposition. Michael Amitay, executive director of the Washington Kurdish Institute, said that Jewish groups might run into problems by working only with Chalabi and Entifadh Qanbar, director of the INC’s Washington office, because the group does not have strong support in Iraq.
Jewish support for Chalabi could “drive a wedge between Chalabi and other forces in the Iraqi opposition,” said Amitay, whose father, Morris, is vice-chairman of JINSA’s board of directors. It would be “much more helpful if Jewish groups reached out to other groups, such as the Kurds,” as well, he said, since pressure to garner support from inside Iraq and the rest of the Arab world could force the INC to abandon its pro-Israel stance.
Qanbar has said that the INC reached out to the Jewish community because it was the best way to get to the Israeli government. Israel, he believes, should reciprocate by reaching out to the group and getting more involved in creating political change in Iraq. He believes good relations with Israel are possible under a new regime because Saddam was hostile toward Israel, not the Iraqi people. That sounds a lot like wishful thinking, considering that Iraqi troops fought Israel in 1948-49 and that the Iraqi people have been subjected to decades of anti-Israel propaganda since then.
The Mosul-Haifa oil project came to light on March 31, when Israel’s Haaretz daily reported that National Infrastructure Minister Joseph Paritzky was seriously considering the possibility of reopening the pipeline, which has been closed since 1948.
According to Walid Khadduri, editor in chief of the respected Middle East Economic Survey (MEES) based in Cyprus, the old pipeline no longer exists.
“There’s not a meter of it left, at least in Arab territory,” he told The Daily Star. “It was cannibalized over the years and there are even built-up areas now where the pipeline used to run. So any pipeline would have to be built from scratch.”
It would also have to run through Jordan. Israeli officials said that talks have been held with Amman on this and they are “optimistic.” The Jordanians say there have been no discussions, but given the anti-US hostility sweeping the Arab world that’s something they would have difficulty admitting to.
However, Amman, which depended on Iraq for heavily discounted oil with UN agreement, had been negotiating with Baghdad before the war to build a pipeline from the Kirkuk oil fields to the kingdom rather than trucking the fuel, so presumably any deal involving the Israelis as well could simply mean extending that project to Haifa.
Paritzky has said the Americans support the idea, which would also mean that the US could tap into Iraqi oil pumped to the Mediterranean where it could be loaded onto tankers for westward shipment. That would lessen American dependence on Saudi oil, something the Bush administration has been striving to achieve, particularly since Sept. 11. It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has insisted that it would not support the lifting of United Nations sanctions on Iraq unless Baghdad agreed to supply Israel with oil.
James Akins, a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and one of the leading US Arabists, has been quoted as saying: “There would be a fee for transit rights through Jordan, just as there would be fees for Israel from those using what would be the Haifa terminal. After all, this is a new world order now. This is what things look like, particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that this is all about oil, for the United States and its ally.”
The weekly Observer in London quoted a US intelligence official as saying the Mosul-Haifa pipeline “has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel’s energy supplies as well as that of the US. The Haifa pipeline was something that existed, was resurrected as a dream and is now a viable project of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel’s energy supplies as well as those of the US. The Haifa pipeline was something that existed, was resurrected as a dream and is now a viable project ­ albeit one with a lot of building to do.”

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


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

posted 04-25-2003 11:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
and propping up a corrupt country called Israel

ahhh...mech hates jews !

this is making more sense now....

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-25-2003 11:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Criticizing Israel and the stealing of Iraqi Oil equates to hating Jewish people?

Bull$#!+. Your are 100% FULL OF IT.

Keep your libelous remarks to yourself.

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


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

posted 04-25-2003 11:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
>>>corrupt country israel<<<

that's libelous...unless you have some facts to back it up...

sure seems like mech hates jews...

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-25-2003 11:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
One word: Ariel sharo`n...the Israeli Saddam Hussein.

The intent of stealing Iraq's oil...(a country who's citizens are the enemies of Israel) is corrupt. Not libelous.


Having MOSSAD come into the United states to kill US Citizens (critics) for Israel(which Israel has called for is also corrupt.

Letting Israeli Military Bulldozers mow down and kill U.S. College students (SEE RACHEL CORRIE) is corrupt.

Ad Nauseaum..

Ad Nauseum...


[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 04-25-2003]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-25-2003 12:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Reports of weapons 'greatly exaggerated'
By Bronwen Maddox


April 25, 2003

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-658453,00.html

WHY have American and British Forces not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The most plausible answer is that there are none, in the true sense of the word, even though forces are likely eventually to come across some very unpleasant weapons created by Saddam Hussein.

But Tony Blair and President Bush cannot give this answer, as they asserted unambiguously that these weapons existed in justifying the war. So members of Blair’s Cabinet and Bush’s Administration have felt obliged to offer less plausible accounts of where the elusive weapons might be.

The most ambitious so far were put forward yesterday by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, in a fabulously implausible narrative which contradicated earlier statements by his Prime Minister, his colleagues and himself.

It is an understatement to say that the failure to find such weapons is an embarrassment for the British and American governments. Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, was always very careful to say that he was looking for weapons which were “unaccounted for”, discrepancies between what Iraq could have produced and what it had declared.

Blix never said they definitely existed. But Blair, Bush and their henchmen stepped repeatedly over that line, particularly in the frenetic and ultimately unsuccessful attempts to secure the backing of a second UN resolution.

In particular, Blair presented Parliament with a “dossier” on September 24 last year, headlined Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction — The Assessment of the British Government. It said that “Intelligence has established beyond doubt . . . that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons”.

The most dramatic claim of the dossier, much publicised, was that Saddam’s “military planning allows for some of the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them”.

You do not have to be a fan of BBC Radio’s Today programme, or its breathlessly shrill style of interrogation, to concede that there is such a thing as a bad performance. Hoon delivered one yesterday in response to a shrewd series of questions, also the ones which any ordinary, interested person would ask first.

Top of that list is why the Saddam regime, facing annihilation, did not use weapons of mass destruction if it had them. According to Hoon, this is because the weapons were “scattered across Iraq (and) were well hidden” while UN inspectors were in the country.

But then they weren’t ready to use in 45 minutes, surely? Hoon appeared unaware of this claim. “I do not recall ever saying that. I specifically did not put a time on it,” he said.

No, he didn’t say it, but his Government did, and the claim is central to Britain’s justification for pressing ahead with the war. Hoon himself, just before the outbreak of war, made a speech that gave warning of the “very real threat today . . . of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”.

Hoon then alleges that the sudden onslaught of war disrupted command structures and prevented the weapons being reassembled. It didn’t seem that sudden at the time. Several days passed between the departure of the UN inspectors and the start of the bombing. There was also a solid two weeks after the bombing started in which Iraqi command structures looked anything but shattered, to the point where Washington was grimly bracing itself for a long war.

Why, on Hoon’s “well hidden” account, has nothing of significance been found, even though American forces have been in the country for more than a month? There is a limit to the number of possible hiding places. US Intelligence had identified about 150 sites worth investigation, and are already believed to have visited about half, according to analysts. Not one of these has yet yielded a “smoking gun”.

On Hoon’s account, the regime was organised and skilful enough to dismantle, transport and hide all these weapons beyond the detective skills of US forces, and yet so disorganised that it could not retrieve and deploy even one.

What about the chance that weapons have been smuggled out, to Syria, or sold to terrorists? This possibility has been gaining currency; it has been raised by David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, and Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister, although citing reports he said he could not verify.

But that, too, is implausible. Smuggled out to Syria? Not likely. Damascus is certainly capable of making serious misjudgements, but knowingly allowing Iraq’s banned weapons across its border would be only slightly short of accepting Saddam himself, a risk which no sane regime, looking at the American force camped in the region, would contemplate.

Could they have been sold to terrorist groups? It is unlikely that they would want them, or pay much for them. The kind of chemical or biological weapons Saddam is accused of making are needed in large quantities, say a tonne, to be of any use. They need complex, expensive and conspicuous delivery systems, such as aircraft equipped with sprays or missiles. Terrorists targeting subway trains or water supplies can make do with something far simpler, such as ricin.

The exception is weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. That is scarce, small in volume and easily hidden, and could be sold for a lot of money. But the nuclear part of the weapons programme is widely thought to have been the least developed; Saddam is not believed to have overcome the difficulty of buying or making weapons-grade material.

Gary Samore, director of studies at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and an expert on Iraq’s weapons programme, also questions the motivation. “If I were an Iraqi fleeing for my life, I’d take cash before bottles of liquid anthrax,” he says. True, documents can be easily destroyed or transported, he says, but missiles are particularly hard to transport or conceal.

The most plausible account so far is the one given by Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, in his resignation speech. This is that Iraq certainly made highly unpleasant weapons but not in large enough quantities or at a level of readiness to warrant the term “mass destruction”.

“Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term — namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target,” he said.

“It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munititions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.”

There is no question that Saddam’s regime produced, and used, terrible weapons. The odds are that forces will uncover evidence of them. But this is a long way from the claims made in the run-up to war, or the accounts now offered about why the weapons remain so hard to find.

What they said about weapons of mass destruction:

“If we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him?” “It (Iraq regime) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons . . . we know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX gas”
George Bush, October 7, 2002

“We are dealing with a very real threat today, that of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”
Geoff Hoon, March 10, 2003

“His (Saddam Hussein’s) regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weaponsand he has an active programme to acquire and develop nuclear weapons”
Donald Rumsfeld, January 20, 2003

“Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

“In fact, they (Iraqi regime) can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. “Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions, and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry, 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war. . . Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical-weapons agent. Even the low end of 100 tonnes of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan”
Colin Powell, address to the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003

“It is right (going to war) because weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, are a real threat to the security of the world and this country”
Tony Blair, House of Commons, January 15, 2003

“What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.

His (Saddam Hussein’s) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.”
Tony Blair, Foreword to Iraq “dossier”

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-25-2003 12:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Quit Iraq, Arab states tell U.S. Renewed Israeli Boycott

Apr. 25, 2003. 01:00 AM
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/
Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=
1051125555828&call_pageid=1045739058633&col=1045739057805


DAMASCUS—Arab officials yesterday called for U.S. and British troops to leave Iraqi immediately.

In a statement issued after talks on reviving an economic boycott of Israel, representatives of 15 Arab states urged "an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the invading forces from Iraqi territories" and said Iraq should be governed by Iraqis.

The statement, issued after four days of meetings in the Syrian capital, also condemned the Bush administration's accusations that Syria sheltered fugitive members of Saddam Hussein's ousted government and possessed chemical weapons.

The criticism amounted to "a dangerous precedent in international relations that threatens world peace and stability," the statement said.

Syria said last week it had closed its border to Iraqi fugitives and the U.S. said Damascus was co-operating.

The meeting also renewed a call for Arab states to revive their economic boycott of Israel to retaliate for its actions against the Palestinians.

The boycott, which the Arab League began in 1951, has waned substantially with Egypt and Jordan making peace with Israel and the Palestinian peace process. The meeting was attended by officials from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Algeria, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, Qatar, Palestine, Oman and Somalia.

Associated Press



[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 04-25-2003]

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