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 9)

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

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

Topic page views:

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-09-2002 06:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Support for Iraq action at new low of 32%

Alan Travis and Patrick Wintour
Tuesday October 8, 2002
The Guardian..

Support for military action against Iraq among British voters has fallen to 32%, the lowest level recorded during the five weeks that the Guardian/ICM weekly tracker survey has been running.



The slight fall will prove a disappointment to Tony Blair who made his appeal for support a key part of his conference speech a week ago.

It comes as a senior cabinet minister warned that a quarter of Labour party members will resign if Britain goes to war against Iraq alongside the United States without explicit support from the United Nations in a fresh resolution.

This week's ICM results of the regular tracker question on attitudes to war in Iraq show a further rise to 27% in the number of "don't knows".

This growth in scepticism among the electorate follows the negotiations over the past week over weapons inspection and the arguments over United States and British demands for a tougher UN resolution. It may indicate that a significant section of the electorate has been left confused by the arguments and now feels unsure about which view to take.

At the same time, opposition to military action has dipped over the past three weeks from 46% on the third weekend in September to 41% now. Most of the movement has been between those who disapprove of military action and the "don't knows".


The warning from a cabinet minister implies that as many as 70,000 party members could tear up their party card.

Labour conference organisers were able to prevent a public party split last week by ensuring the motion passed by the conference could be interpreted in different ways. The international development secretary Clare Short said the motion insisted a war could only go ahead with explicit UN support. The foreign secretary Jack Straw claimed it supported action as a last resort without a new UN resolution.

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults by telephone between October 4-6. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.

[Edited 5 times, lastly by Mech on 10-15-2002]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-09-2002 06:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
An Imperial U.S. Risks World Backlash

By JOHN FARMER

2002 Newhouse News Service


The debate under way in the Senate is only partly and least importantly about Iraq. What it's really about is the emergence of an imperial America and the rules that will govern its conduct and relations with other nations.

It's a debate long overdue. In the decade since the disappearance of the Soviet Union, America has achieved military, economic, political and cultural dominance never achieved by any nation in history. Not ancient Rome, the Mongols, Napoleonic France or the 19th century British Empire ever enjoyed such power and the ability to project it to every corner of the globe.

How we might use that power has always been a subject of unspoken unease even among our allies. Now their reservations are out in the open, and they'll be monitoring the arguments and exchanges in the Senate at least as avidly as Americans.

Until now, the idea of an American imperium, while not particularly welcome, has been seen by most of the world as something benevolent. Certainly, it was preferable as a liberal democratic alternative to domination by a tyrannical Soviet communism. Moreover, while Bill Clinton was president, much of the world felt American might would be kept in cold storage. Clinton didn't care much for foreign policy; it didn't get him elected and wasn't likely, he believed, to determine whether he retained the presidency or retired to Chappaqua.

With George W. Bush, that image of benevolence has been lost. He may have come to office pledging a more "humble" role for the American hegemony in world affairs, but that has not been his policy. Even before 9/11, Bush was unexpectedly aggressive in asserting Washington's right to go it alone, most notably on the environment and scrapping the 30-year-old anti-ballistic missile treaty with Moscow.

From the outset, he made Western Europe nervous. But not nearly so nervous as he has made it with his new national security policy, with its justification for pre-emptive attack on would-be or suspected assailants -- with or without the approval of allies and/or the United Nations.

It's scary as hell to our European allies. It's a recipe for a rogue state, one with unparalleled power, to bully its way around the globe, as they see it. Sure, Bush may not abuse the policy, but what about the bloke who comes after him? And they're not at all reassured by the presence around Bush of such hawkish defense intellectuals (if that isn't an oxymoron) as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, among others, who seem intoxicated with American power and all too ready to use it. It's the Dr. Strangelove syndrome.

Actually, the notion of pre-emptive strike is far from new. It's what Ronald Reagan employed in the invasion of Grenada. Israel struck pre-emptively in 1981 when it bombed the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak, an action the United Nations, with American concurrence, condemned.

What's new and unsettling about the Bush version of pre-emption is its formalization as prepared policy -- with, from all appearances, little room for input by our allies or the world community. It's the geopolitical version of "let the big dog eat."

From the European perspective, Iraq isn't even a fitting target to use as the trigger for such a departure from decades of American foreign policy. So far, there's been no incontrovertible evidence showing that Saddam Hussein had any hand in the 9/11 massacre or that he's guilty of aiding and abetting al-Qaida. He has chemical and biological weapons, it's true, but he has neither nukes nor the missile system to deliver them.

In short, he's in no position to threaten the United States, Europeans argue, and, if intelligence estimates are correct, he's not likely to be for some time, if ever. He's the molehill we've made into a mountain in order to justify the doctrine of pre-emptive attack.

It may be that Bush and the hawks around him will be proved right in the long run. But there's also the strong likelihood that they've over-reached themselves -- that such a go-it-alone, world-be-damned policy will prove unsustainable, as Georgetown University geopolitical specialist G. John Ikenberry argues in the latest Foreign Affairs quarterly.

"When the most powerful state in the world throws its weight around, unconstrained by rules or norms of legitimacy, it risks a backlash," he writes. "Other countries will bridle at an international order in which the United States plays by its own rules."

Bush's post-Cold War warriors believe it's possible to single-handedly use military force wherever they desire "without untoward consequences," Ikenberry declares. But history, he notes, argues otherwise -- that the superpowers of the past that overestimated their might have, in every case, triggered their own encirclement and ultimate decline.

A little humility, in other words, goes a long way, even in foreign policy.

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-10-2002 01:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
TWO STUDENT EXPOSE BUSH DIRTY DEALINGS WITH HARKEN OIL!!!!!!!!

More on Bush, Harken and Harvard
Two student activists shine a light on the connections between the president's former oil company and his alma mater.

By Anthony York

Oct. 10, 2002 | WASHINGTON --

President Bush's corporate past made a return to news headlines Wednesday thanks to two new stories that unearthed a previously unreported bailout of Harken Energy Corp. by Harvard University. The bailout came in the form of a little-noticed partnership created by Harvard and Harken that allowed Harken to shield much of its debt and thereby boost Harken's stock price, thanks to a loophole in accounting laws.

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


I LOVE IT!

Who Gets The Harken Story? A Bunch Of College Students!


The entire Washington press corps has reacted with its usual stupefaction, now that a group made up largely of college undergraduates has beaten it – scooped it, creamed it, cut it cold – over the blockbuster story revealing new details of the Bush-Harken affair and the subsequent White House cover-up.

LOL!

Up in Cambridge, Mass., the intrepid, tireless members of HarvardWatch, a little outfit run out of Dubya's second alma mater did what all smart investigative reporters have done since the days of Watergate – they followed the money.

And what they discovered and documented – that Bush family supporters manipulated a bail-out Dumbya's company in 1990, while the company deceived both investors and the SEC, all with Bush’s explicit approval – threatens to blow the lid off the entire affair!!!

This wil have large international repercussions.

And it took a bunch of kids who have not gotten nicknames from George W. Bush to break it -- doing the job the American press is supposed to do.

Where were the Media Whores? Well they have followed the Washington Post’s editorial lead, laid down when the story first broke, that Harken is really a non-story, that it is ancient history, that it has no legs, and deserves none.

(Well done, Mr. Hiatt!)

Just like the early-1970's, when the Post’s David S. Broder, busy defending the Nixon regime from the growing anti-war movement, refused to pick up the Watergate story, huffing and puffing that there was nothing to it politically. (Yes, the Dean huffed and puffed thirty years ago, too.)

Back then, of course, a couple of local crime reporters at the Post named Woodward and Bernstein refused to back down – and got one of the biggest political stories in all of American history, not to mention lasting glory which even Woodward’s sad decline cannot fully erase.

But those days – and that kind of probing journalism by the supposed pros – sadly are long gone.

The members Washington press corps are too busy primping to go on the cable news shows or clearing their throats to shoot the breeze with Imus, comparing their White House nicknames, covering what Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer and Fred Hiatt tell them to cover – instead of covering the news. So now America must rely on college kids, pursuing their own brand of citizen journalism!

BRAVO! Don't hate the media...BECOME the media!!

Hey Stretch!!

Yo, Panchito!!

How does it feel to be on your own, with no direction home, a complete unknown?

While a bunch of kids beats your collective rear on what coulda' been, shoulda' been YOUR story?

LOL!!

Mech

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-10-2002 01:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
MORE ON HARKEN AND BUSH..........

Harvard role in Harken called deeper

Group says partnership kept Bush firm afloat

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 10/9/2002

WASHINGTON - Harvard University's financial relationship with President Bush's former oil company was deeper than previously understood, with the university's management fund creating a separate ''off the books'' partnership with Harken Energy Corp. that helped keep afloat the financially troubled company, according to a report to be released today.


HarvardWatch, a student-alumni group that monitors the school's investments, plans to issue the report and say that it has analyzed documents showing that the Harvard fund, an independent entity that manages the university's endowment, formed a partnership in 1990 with Bush's oil firm called the Harken Anadarko Partnership. The partnership effectively removed $20 million of debt from Harken's books, relieving the Texas company's short-term financial problems.

About the same time, the Harvard fund invested about $30 million in Harken, which also helped keep the firm afloat. The partnership has not been mentioned in recent accounts of Bush's financial dealings in the oil business.

William K. Black, a former federal banking regulator, said in a telephone interview that he has examined the Harken Anadarko Partnership and concluded the arrangement was a significant expansion of the Harvard fund's involvement in the company beyond the $30 million investment.

''Harvard had a dramatically larger financial stake and a much more interesting financial stake'' than was previously understood, Black said. ''It all serves as a partnership device to move money from Harvard to Harken. This is beyond nuts from an institutional investor's standpoint.''

The creation of the partnership was approved in a motion made by Bush, who was on the Harken board of directors and its audit committee, said Black, an assistant professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas in Austin.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the idea of the partnership came from the Harvard fund.

''This is something that Harvard proposed, and Harvard set the terms of the partnership,'' McClellan said yesterday. ''Harvard proposed the partnership because Harvard decided it wanted to get more involved in the energy sector and be more directly involved in operational aspects.''

Representatives of Harvard Management and Houston-based Harken Energy did not return phone calls seeking comment on the partnership.

In May 1990, Black said, the Harvard fund and another unnamed shareholder loaned Harken a total of $46 million. But with Harken still having a debt load, the fund and Harken formed the Harken Anadarko Partnership in December 1990. The partnership was ''off the Harken books,'' Black said, which he said means that Harken's stake in the partnership was reported but the financial details did not need to be revealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


According to Black, the partnership was set up to help Harken avoid bankruptcy and included $64.5 million worth of unrelated energy properties owned by the Harvard fund and $26 million of drilling operations from Harken - along with $20 million worth of Harken's debt and liabilities. Harken held a 16 percent stake in the partnership while the Harvard fund owned 84 percent, according to HarvardWatch. Nonetheless, the operation was run by Harken, which was paid $1 million per year to operate the partnership's oil and gas ventures, the report said.

Harken ''transferred an enormous amount of liabilities to the partnership,'' Black said. ''You don't see the Harvards of the world doing things like this.''

With so much debt removed from Harken's own books, Harken's stock price rose and the Harvard fund sold 1.6 million shares during this temporary stock bubble, the report says.

The formation of the partnership, coupled with the fund's purchase of Harken stock, kept the firm afloat financially, according to Black. Black's review of the partnership may add weight to the findings of HarvardWatch.

Black, a registered Democrat, is a well-known specialist in reviewing financial transactions; he was the deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. during the Reagan and first Bush administrations and played a key role in investigating the ''Keating Five'' scandal that involved five senators. Black also played a role in the investigation that helped lead to the resignation of House Speaker Jim Wright, a Democrat. He said he has conducted financial reviews that make him unpopular among Democrats and said he did not examine the Harken partnership for political reasons.

It was 1986 when George W. Bush's struggling oil venture, Spectrum 7, was purchased by Harken. Harken gave Bush a seat on the board of directors and an annual paycheck of $120,000. At the time, Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, was vice president. It was around this same time that the Harvard fund began investing in Harken. The fund eventually poured $30 million into Harken and became the largest shareholder. A Harvard Management official, Michael Eisenson, was given a seat on the Harken board.

Boston Globe 2002

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-10-2002 01:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Harvard Was Unlikely Savior
Of Bush Energy Firm Harken
University's Endowment Arm Injected Cash
Into Off-Balance-Sheet Deals to Save Harken

By GLENN R. SIMPSON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

When the small company that helped make George W. Bush a multimillionaire verged on bankruptcy in 1990, newly unearthed documents show an unlikely financial archangel came to the rescue: Harvard University.

It long has been known that the school's endowment arm, Harvard Management Co., was a major investor in Harken Energy Corp. But the documents reveal two heretofore little-noticed deals, both endorsed by Mr. Bush, to allow the Texas firm to stave off creditors. One, critical to the company's survival, involved a partnership used to move troubled assets and large debts off the company's balance sheet -- much like the controversial investments that Enron Corp. set up before it filed for bankruptcy-court protection.

At the time, one of the Harvard endowment's most influential board members was a political supporter of then-President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father. One result of the deal: The current president avoided damaging his credibility as a businessman.

Unlike many of Enron's deals, Harken disclosed its transactions to investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission and complied with accounting rules. Mr. Bush didn't profit personally from the subsequent boost in Harken's stock because he already had sold most of his shares to fund a lucrative investment in the Texas Rangers baseball team.

IVY LEAGUE CONNECTIONS
Harvard University's endowment helped Harken Energy when the firm, of which George W. Bush was a director, needed it. Key events in Harken's relationship with Harvard and Bush, along with Harken's stock price.

[Harken's Stock Price Charted With Key Events]
1. Sept. 19, 1986: Harken agrees to acquire Spectrum 7 Energy Corp., where George W. Bush is chairman. Bush becomes a Harken board member and $100,00-a-year consultant.

2. Oct. 15, 1986: Harvard agrees to buy 1.35 million shares of Harken for $2 million and invest another $20 million in Harken projects.

3. June 15, 1989: Citing the "positive image" Bush helped create for Harken, chairman Mikel Faulker extends Bush's consulting agreement.

4. May 20, 1990: Harken officials warn board the company is about to runout of cash.

5. Aug. 17, 1990: First City agrees to refinance Harken's debts.

6. Aug. 20, 1990: Harken discloses loss of $23 million.

7. Nov. 30, 1990: Harken transfers $20 million in debts to Harvard partnership, eliminates another $16 million in debt by transferring assets to Harvard.

8. September 1991: Harvard begins selling Harken stock at more than $6 a share, receiving $7.4 million over the next 12 months.

Source: Thomson Datastream

The partnership deal is notable in the context of President Bush's drive to reform corporate standards in response to a string of accounting scandals. The Harken deal was designed to raise money without incurring new debt or selling stock. It did so by exploiting "a fundamental weakness in accounting rules" by moving the deal off its balance sheet, said Rice University accounting expert Dala Bharan, who reviewed the transactions for The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Bush was then a $100,000-a-year consultant to Harken and the board member who made the motion to approve a partnership that seemed to benefit Harken far more than Harvard. Harvard has said it made a small profit from the association.

White House spokesman Dan Bartlett says the partnership was Harvard's idea and the school "basically dictated the terms of the investment." He said Harvard began talks with Harken in April 1986, well before Mr. Bush joined Harken. "The original relationship had nothing to do with President Bush," he said. He referred questions about the matter to Harken and Harvard. Neither responded to letters and phone calls.

Mr. Bush ended up at Harken as a result of a series of sales of the oil company he founded after earning a master's degree from Harvard Business School. Just after Mr. Bush joined Harken's board, Harvard Management became one of its biggest backers, ultimately buying 30% of its stock, loaning it millions of dollars and transferring oil properties to it.

Harken's good fortune after Mr. Bush joined often has been questioned by political opponents. The firm bested bigger rivals to obtain drilling rights from the Bahrain government in early 1990. But the Bahrain deal did little to improve its short-term finances, which were in a perilous state. The board meeting minutes from that July said the company's primary objective was to "avoid default."

The company's response to the crisis is detailed in records recently gathered from the Securities and Exchange Commission and elsewhere by HarvardWatch, a student and alumni group, and the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity.

Harken was already technically in default at that point, according to other company records, because it had failed to abide by equity requirements in loan agreements with its two primary banks. One, Bank of Boston, was demanding immediate payment, but the other, First City Bancorp, agreed to take over Bank of Boston loans. At the time, First City was controlled by Robert Abboud, another supporter of the senior Mr. Bush who attended a White House event 10 days before that bailout's approval. In an interview, Mr. Abboud said Harvard's backing was a key factor in First City's decision to approve the Harken bailout and that it wasn't influenced by his relationship with the then-president.

But that deal still left Harken with crushing debt. At the July 1990 board meeting, Mr. Bush and the other directors decided to "establish a 'joint venture' " with Harvard Management's venture-capital arm, Aeneas Venture Corp., the minutes say. At the next month's meeting, Harken President Mikel Faulkner laid out a proposal to form a partnership with Aeneas that would take on much of Harken's debt, moving it off the balance sheet. The proposal also provided Harken with desperately needed cash, in the form of fees to manage the new entity. "After discussion, upon motion being made by Mr. Bush," the minutes say, the board unanimously agreed to open negotiations with Harvard.

A partnership deal was struck shortly thereafter. Harken contributed $20 million in debt and liabilities, plus a group of poorly performing oil-drilling assets valued at $26 million -- many of them in Oklahoma's Anadarko basin -- for a net of $6 million. Harvard's Aeneas contributed $64.5 million of its drilling assets, 91% of the investment, but agreed to accept just 84% of the so-called Harken Anadarko Partnership's earnings.

The deal immediately helped Harken's cash flow, bringing in $100,000 a month in management fees, and drilling and servicing fees of more than $3 million in the first year. Harken also retained cash from a $7.5 million bank loan that the partnership was required to repay.

"It seems to be a simple case of Aeneas bailing out Harken," said Mr. Dharan, an accounting professor at Rice University's Jones Graduate School of Management. Because Harken owned less than 20% of the partnership, it no longer was required under accounting rules to include the debts and assets on its balance sheet. Mr. Dharan argues that a true reflection of Harken's financial health would have included them. In effect, the partnership raised money without taking on new debt.

Still more help from Harvard came in an almost simultaneous deal to extinguish another $16.2 million that Harken owed its Aeneas arm from a previous venture. The company allowed Harken to pay off the note with assets valued at just $14.5 million.

The moves led to a gradual recovery in Harken's stock price, which was $1.25 a share at the end of 1990. In 1991, thanks to the prospect of a Bahrain strike and Harken's much-improved balance sheet, the price topped $8, prompting Harvard to begin selling its Harken shares. It sold 1.63 million shares valued at $7.47 million over the next year.

Current and former Harvard officials declined to comment publicly on the Harken transactions for this story or said they remember little about the matter.

Harken had several connections to Harvard, including business-school diplomas held by Mr. Bush and another Harken board member, Alan Quasha. The person with the most influence over the endowment for decades has been Robert Stone Jr., an oil man on Harvard Management's board whom former Harvard executives described as the driving force behind its energy investments.

It is unclear whether the Bush and Stone families were personally acquainted, but they were politically aligned. A sometime resident -- like the Bush family -- of Greenwich, Conn., and Houston, Mr. Stone was a financial supporter of the senior Mr. Bush when he ran for president in 1979, as was his father, siblings and executives at his oil and gas company. Mr. Stone and his wife, Marion, also contributed to the senior Mr. Bush's successful 1988 run. Over a two-month period, Mr. Stone didn't respond to numerous messages left with the receptionist in his New York office.

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-10-2002 01:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What Bush wants us to forget.


Robert Fisk--Independent UK Oct 10, 2002

Each day now, someone says something even more incredible – even more unimaginable – about President Bush's obsession with war. Yesterday, George Bush was himself telling an audience in Cincinnati about "nuclear holy warriors". Forget for a moment that we still can't prove Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons. Forget that the latest Bush speech was just a re-hash of all the "ifs" and "mays" and "coulds" in Tony Blair's flimsy 16 pages of allegations in his historically dishonest "dossier". Forget that if Osama bin Laden ever acquired a nuclear weapon, he'd probably use it first on Saddam. No. We've got to fight "nuclear holy warriors". That's what we have to do to justify the whole charade through which we are being taken now by the White House, by Downing Street, by all the decaying "experts" on terrorism and, alas, far too many journalists.

Forget the 14 Palestinians, including the 12-year-old child, killed by Israel a few hours before Mr Bush spoke, forget that when his aircraft killed nine Palestinian children in July, along with one militant, the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon – a "man of peace" in Mr Bush's words – described the slaughter as "a great success". Israel is on our side.

Remember to use the word "terror". Use it about Saddam Hussein, use it about Osama bin Laden, use it about Yasser Arafat, use it about anyone who opposes Israel or America. Bush used it in his speech yesterday, 30 times in half an hour – that's one "terrorism" a minute.

But now let's list exactly what we really must forget if we are to support this madness. Most important of all, we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It's essential to forget this for three reasons. Firstly, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians – which is one of the reasons we are now supposed to go to war with him.

Secondly, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US embassy – in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. Thirdly, because the envoy was – wait for it – Donald Rumsfeld. Now you might think it strange that Mr Rumsfeld, in the course of one of his folksy press conferences, hasn't chatted to us about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would have wished to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no.

Strangely, Mr Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz – which just happened to take place on the day in March, 1984, that the UN released its damning report on Saddam's use of poison gas against Iran. The American media are silent about this too, of course. Because we must forget.

We must forget, too, that in 1988, as Saddam destroyed the people of Halabja with gas, along with tens of thousands of other Kurds – when he "used gas against his own people" in the words of Messrs Bush/Cheney/Blair/Cook/Straw et al –President Bush senior provided him with $500m in US government subsidies to buy American farm products. We must forget that in the following year, after Saddam's genocide was complete, President Bush senior doubled this subsidy to $1bn, along with germ seed for anthrax, helicopters, and the notorious "dual-use" material that could be used for chemical and biological weapons.

And when President Bush junior promises the Iraqi people "an era of new hope" and democracy after the destruction of Saddam – as he did last night – we must forget how the Americans promised Pakistan and Afghanistan a new era of hope after the defeat of the Soviet army in 1980 – and did nothing.

We must forget how President Bush senior urged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and – when they obeyed – did nothing. We must forget how America promised a new era of hope to Somalia in 1993 and then, after "Black Hawk Down", abandoned the country.

We must forget how President Bush junior promised to "stand by" Afghanistan before he began his bombings last year – and has left it now an economic shambles of drug barons, warlords, anarchy and fear. He boasted yesterday that the people of Afghanistan have been "liberated" – this after he has failed to catch bin Laden, failed to catch Mullah Omar, and while his troops are coming under daily attack. We must forget, as we listen to the need to reinsert arms inspectors, that the CIA covertly used UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq.

And of course, we must forget about oil. Indeed, oil is the one commodity – and one of the few things which George Bush junior knows something about, along with his ex-oil cronies Cheney and Rice and countless others in the administration – which is never mentioned.

In all of Bush's 30 minutes of anti-Iraq war talk yesterday – pleasantly leavened with just two minutes of how "I hope this will not require military action" – there wasn't a single reference to the fact that Iraq may hold oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia, that American oil companies stand to gain billions of dollars in the event of a US invasion, that, once out of power, Bush and his friends could become multi-billionaires on the spoils of this war. We must ignore all this before we go to war. We must forget.

IP Logged

penumbra
quarky


North Carolina
667 posts, Apr 2001

posted 10-10-2002 07:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for penumbra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That last piece was excellent Mech.

IP Logged

emfx13
Senior Member


Hayward Ca.U.S.A.
668 posts, May 2002

posted 10-10-2002 11:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for emfx13   Email emfx13   Visit emfx13's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-10-2002 05:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Constitution?


WHAT Constitution?

IP Logged

theseeker
One moon circles


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

posted 10-10-2002 08:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
here's why the U.S and many other countries are going back to iraq...

a brief snippet :

Iraq has admitted producing the world's most dangerous biological and chemical weapons, but refuses to give proof that they destroyed them. Examples of Iraq's chemical weapons include VX, Sarin Gas and Mustard Gas.

VX, the most toxic of chemical weapons, is a sticky, colorless liquid that interferes with the body's nerve impulses, causing convulsions and paralysis of the lungs and blood vessels. Victims essentially chock to death. A dose of 10 milligrams on the skin is enough to kill.

UNSCR 687--APRIL 3, 1991--VIOLATED
UNSCR 688--APRIL 5, 1991--VIOLATED
UNSCR 707--AUGUST 15, 1991--VIOLATED
UNSCR 715--OCTOBER 11, 1991--VIOLATED
UNSCR 949--OCTOBER 15, 1994--VIOLATED
UNSCR 1051--MARCH 27 19961--VIOLATED
UNSCR 1060--JUNE 12, 1996--VIOLATED
UNSCR 1115--JUNE 21, 1997--VIOLATED
UNSCR 1134--OCTOBER 23, 1997--VIOLATED
UNSCR 1137--NOVEMBER 12, 1997--VIOLATED
UNSCR 1154--MARCH 2, 1998--VIOLATED
UNSCR 1194--SEPTEMBER 9, 1998--VIOLATED
UNSCR 1205--NOVEMBER 5, 1998--VIOLATED
UNSCR 1284--DECEMBER 17, 1998--VIOLATED

those are the U.N resolutions that saddam has broken...

this link below is truth unspoiled by emotion or inflammatory bias...


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:24:./temp/~r107cmUkYS:e94188:

I sure someone will argue against war, but this man must be taken down...before he takes us all down...

word

------------------
T/S

[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 10-10-2002]

IP Logged

rainheart
Senior Member



174 posts, Oct 2001

posted 10-10-2002 10:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for rainheart     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
George W. Bush 18 December, 2000.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-11-2002 07:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt


Reason for thousands of Iraqi civilians and young armed services people dead? ? ?


OIL.......nothing more, nothing less.

Mech

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 10-11-2002]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-11-2002 07:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Commentary: "Chosen By God To Lead America"


Having received the green light from “above,” Christian George is about to unleash a holiness that just might Armageddon all of us.
By Rick Friedman & Stewart Nusbaumer


Gather ‘round us, brothers and sisters, saints and sinners. Rick and Stewart feel a heavy sermon comin’ on.

All of us know that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim religious fanatic hell-bent on implementing his demented version of Armageddon in the Middle East. What we’re not sure about, however, is whether or not George Bush is a Christian religious fanatic hell-bent on his demented version of Armageddon in the Middle East. It’s this scary thought planted in the air of public consciousness that our timid mainstream media has begun to explore, lightly explore, delicately dancing around the edges to avoid setting off the land mine of religion.

Two weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor, Francine Kiefer wrote that "Bush’s religious beliefs are emerging as a central influence to his policies and politics -- inextricably linked to everything from the war on terrorism to the November elections.” “For Bush,” Kiefer continued, “who reads his Bible every morning, faith extends beyond the national catharsis of the moment. By his own admission, his religious views shape much of who he is and, by extension, experts say, some of his most important decision-making."

Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy, who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred his poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists,” Duffy wrote. "In one horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered and conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was evil, and it wasn’t hard to tell the difference.” Then Duffy added: “Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."

So Bush is chosen by God, but not by the U.S. Congress and not by the United Nations, to lead an invasion of Iraq. During the Vietnam War, evidently Bush was chosen by God not to lead anyone into that war, least of all himself. Welcome to America’s Chicken Heart administration: chicken when they were asked to fight a war that they themselves believed in, and now all heart to send other young men off to a war that only they believe in.

And just a few days ago, The New York Times reported a new Bush doctrine whereby the chosen by God Bush can unilaterally declare war on any country he deems is run by evil-doers. Today Iraq, maybe next week Madagascar. Next month, possibly Philadelphia.

Let’s face it, our chosen by God leader is in a modern Christian crusade frame of mind. He’s probably riding his lead pony right now around the White House war room. A year ago, God’s choice used the word "crusade" to describe his War on Terrorism, which knocked the Arab world right off its camel. Although Bush drank his way through Yale and then slept through Harvard Business School, since Yale produced one long hangover, the Arab heathens haven’t had excessive consumption and innate laziness black out their history. Christian Crusades are still unpopular in the Middle East.

With 9/11 as Revelation, the President of the United States, personally chosen by God, is about to lead us, sisters and brothers, saints and sinners, into what he believes will be Armageddon. In the New Testament, Armageddon is described in Revelations “as the place where the kings of the Earth under demonic leadership will wage war on the forces of God at the end of World history. God’s heavenly armies will defeat the demonic forces of evil.”

Bush has singled out the "evil doer;" co-ideologue Pat Robertson can’t shut up about Armageddon, which will bring on the Second Coming and the conversion of all the Jews to Jesus. The direct mail campaign of "Jews for Jesus" is right in step; cowriter Rick Friedman is urged to "take Christ into your heart before Armageddon happens or you’re doomed!” Actually, if we don’t get this nut out of the White House we’re all doomed.

If the chosen by God George Bush invades demonic Iraq he may very well ignite a larger war in the Middle East that will pull in other Arab states and Israel, leading us to the conclusion of Armageddon with both God’s forces and Satan’s army all going down the toilet of defeat. And just think, all of this from a man who can’t spell “banana.” So sisters and brothers, saints and sinners, hang on because revelation is bringing a revolution and we just may end up back in the Stone Age.


[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 10-11-2002]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-11-2002 05:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A friend of mine sent me this about an hour ago... thought it was very, very interesting......


Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money
into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't
import their oil from the Saudis. Nothing is more frustrating than the
feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are
trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. I thought it might be
interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from.

Major companies that import Middle Eastern oil (for the period 9/1/00 -8/31/01).

Shell................ 205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco....... 144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil......... 130,082,000 barrels
Marathon............. 117,740,000 barrels
Amoco................ 62,231,000 barrels
If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION!

Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:

Citgo 0 barrels
Sunoco 0 barrels
Conoco 0 barrels
Sinclair 0 barrels
BP/Phillips 0 barrels
Hess 0 barrels
All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and can
be easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state
where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on
a monthly basis.

Keep this list in your car; share it with friends. Stop paying for terrorism.............

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers.

It's really simple to do!! Now, don't wimp out at this point...keep reading
and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!! .

I'm sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to
at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least
ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) .. and so on, by the time the message reaches
the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION
consumers!

If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each,
then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level
further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! .

Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people.

How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten
more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could
conceivably be con! tacted within the next 8 days!!!

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-12-2002 12:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Grandpa Don

What was Donald Rumsfeld doing in Iraq back in 1988?
Everyone's favorite "television grandfather" may be a demon in disguise... or is he?

by Jeff Koopersmith

Oct. 8, 2002 -- WASHINGTON (APJP) -- The other day I watched Secretary of Defense -- now Secretary of War -- Donald Rumsfeld cut a mighty appealing posture during a news conference.

He was, as usual, moaning about Saddam Hussein, amusing some reporters, and annoying others with his half-baked midwestern-style cracker pose as he explained the nuances of difference between weapons of mass destruction owned by Iraq, and WMDs owned by the United States military.

The man is disarming. He is always well-dressed, a ruggedly handsome guy -- the kind of fellow you want with you on a long sail in the Caribbean when a bad squall comes roaring in from the South. One can easily picture him in a yellow slicker, like the label on a tuna fish can, hauling the sheets and luffing the mainsail.

Rumsfeld, even facially, resembles a famous forerunner -- Bob McNamara. You may remember him: he was the Secretary of Defense who brought you the Vietnam "conflict".

There isn't an American alive who quite understands what we are up to in Iraq -- and that includes this writer.

I know of not a single American anywhere -- including within the CIA and the State Department -- that has one scintilla of proof that Saddam Hussein not only has these WMDs but the ability to deliver them.

I am also unaware of any evidence that Iraq has planned, is planning or supports terrorist activities aimed at the United States.

In fact, it seems fairly obviously that George W.'s Poppy went after Saddam in defense of Kuwait -- meaning merely to maintain Kuwait's stranglehold over Saddam's export of oil. Saddam paid a hefty tariff to ship his oil from the Iraqi border through Kuwaiti-American owned pipelines, and had some historic claim to at least a "runway" into the Persian Gulf and on to the Arabian Sea. The Emir of Kuwait refused to deal fairly on the issue, and Saddam decided to take what what he felt was his -- wrongly perhaps, but wrongly especially since he was "messin' with Texas" at the time.

It's clear that W.'s father, George Herbert Walker Bush, wasn't interested in eliminating Saddam and just wanted his Kuwaiti friends kept happy. And thankfully, few Americans were killed in Desert Storm -- but sadly, many of them died from from friendly fire. Saddam was pushed back, and the weapons inspectors emerged complete with a severe set of fiscal punishments from the US-UN cadre Bush had neatly sewn together before launching the first US missile.

Now, for some reason neither I nor most can fathom, George W. wants to "finish a job."

So be it.

We may never know the entire truth about this rush into the Middle East, but suffice it to say that this is one writer who has tired from hearing about it.

My suggestion might be to simply invade all the Arab states at once and crush them -- installing feminist women as president of each. That way we could have all the oil we want, not to mention great olives, some camels, and plenty of sand to replenish the eroding beaches of our eastern shores.

Five years before Saddam ostensibly gassed the Kurds in 1988, Ronald Reagan sent a former secretary of defense to Baghdad, Iraq with a letter Reagan had written by hand to Saddam.

That man was Don Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld and Reagan told Hussein that the Administration was ready resume diplomatic relations.

After returning from Iraq, Rumsfeld, in an interview with the New York Times, said:

"It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems."

Just a few years earlier -- in 1984 -- other Persian Gulf statesmen were given a message: defeat of Iraq by Iran in a war already going for three years would be contrary to U.S. interests. The White House, the CIA and the Pentagon took steps to insure that Iraq would not be defeated -- and it wasn't.

That year Rumsfeld rushed back to Iraq for meetings with none other than Tariq Aziz, then the Iraqi foreign minister. While Rumsfeld was in Iraq, it was reported that Iraq's armed forces had used mustard gas laced with nerve gas on Iranian soldier sporadically during the war. While Rumsfeld was in Baghdad, the Iranians announced that 600 of their men had been gassed with chemical weapons from bombs, with mustard gas and Tabun, a nerve agent. Rumsfeld was surely aware of this at the time -- and sure enough, our American State Department issued a statement that Iraq was using lethal chemical weapons. The Ice Queen, former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, told The Times that this was a "very serious matter... and we've made that clear..."

That's it?

Now, Junior and Rumsfeld are practically hysterical over the potential that Saddam has the same weapons -- but never mentions that such "friends of the US" as North Korea, China, Libya, and most developed nations also have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, many of which we sold them!

Rumsfeld resigned from the Reagan Administration in the late spring of 1984 and planned to run for president in 1988. Rumsfeld touted that he was the man who help open US-Iraqi relations. What Rumsfeld failed to say then -- and fails to say now -- is that he did so with full and complete knowledge and therefore tacit support of Saddam's own chemical weapons program. What Ambassador Kirkpatrick had said from her perch at the UN was merely a smokescreen to cover our diplomatic behinds at the time.

Not only that, but Rumsfeld also was involved in a push by the State Department to sell 45 Bell Helicopters to Iraq for nearly $300 million dollars for "civilian use" -- and of course these were almost immediately put into use by Hussein's must trusted forces to gas the Kurds in 1988.

Imagine that: grampa Don, in Iraq while she was gassing Iranian soldiers, selling them military helicopters and then ignoring the fact that the "Hueys" were used to kill innocent women and children of Kurdish decent.

The US Senate, under Daddy Bush, placed massive and sweeping sanctions on Iraq including the end to selling Saddam US technology. The White House stopped it cold.

The long and short of it is that Rumsfeld knew all of this and never, ever said a word.

He isn't talking now about his role, nor is offering any evidence of his current position against Iraq. His mouth is loud today -- but without proof on any kind -- about Saddam, about Al Qaeda allegedly being in cahoots with Saddam, about practically anything.

One wonders if George W. -- my peer, and probably an all-around okay guy if you get him out of elected office -- even knows any of this, or frankly cares.

What's worse is that none of the media sources Americans generally rely on are telling the truth about Rumsfeld.

Have you heard Tim Russert ask Don Rumsfeld where he was when this mess started -- and about his role in starting it? Have you heard the same question from George "Little Brutus" Stephanopoulos at ABC's This Week? Have we seen old Roger Ailes direct his overpaid puppet Brit Hume to ask the tough questions on FOX News Channel?

No. And you won't.

These men in Washington, these practitioners of Hitler's Big Lie theory, have everyone spooked. Reporters are holding conferences about it. Editors with any decency are leaving in disgust.

Meantime, an ungodly alliance between the war machine and the media-advertisement-sales-infotainment machine has been created.

It's not what's good for General Motors any longer; it's what's good for Lockheed Martin.

And that is why you never, ever hear them utter word one about Grandpa Don schmoozing with Saddam's boys.

IP Logged

Hoople
Senior Member


Charleston, Ar
167 posts, Dec 2001

posted 10-13-2002 11:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Hoople   Email Hoople     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mech, a while back I mentioned the song, Universal Soldier by Donavan. I don't recall if I stated that it was written by Donavan or not but if I didn't state it I thought it was the case. I was wrong. Anyway, following are the lyrics to Universal Soldier.

UNIVERSAL SOLDIER
Buffy Sainte-Marie
© Caleb Music-ASCAP

I wrote "Universal Soldier" in the basement of The Purple Onion coffee house in Toronto in the early sixties. It's about individual responsibility for war and how the old feudal thinking kills us all. Donovan had a hit with it in 1965.


He's five feet two and he's six feet four
He fights with missiles and with spears
He's all of 31 and he's only 17
He's been a soldier for a thousand years

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an athiest, a Jain,
a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew
and he knows he shouldn't kill
and he knows he always will
kill you for me my friend and me for you

And he's fighting for Canada,
he's fighting for France,
he's fighting for the USA,
and he's fighting for the Russians
and he's fighting for Japan,
and he thinks we'll put an end to war this way

And he's fighting for Democracy
and fighting for the Reds
He says it's for the peace of all
He's the one who must decide
who's to live and who's to die
and he never sees the writing on the walls

But without him how would Hitler have
condemned him at Dachau
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He's the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can't go on

He's the universal soldier and he
really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you, and me
and brothers can't you see
this is not the way we put an end to war.

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-13-2002 06:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Im sorry hoople, I just can't blame United states soldiers for the mess we are in. They are merely just pawns in one big chess game. I've been there. I don't take lightly the fact that many of them I know will become sacrificial lambs for Bush's dark agenda.

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


REP. PETE STARK OPPOSES BUSH AGENDA


"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors"
Not every Democrat has caved to Bush's martial fervor. Rep. Pete Stark makes it stunningly clear why he voted against the Iraq war resolution.

Editor's note: Below is the fiery statement delivered on the floor of the House Wednesday by U.S. Veteran and California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark.

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

Oct. 10, 2002 | "Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution (authorizing military force against Iraq). I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy.

"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors.

"Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent for our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus.

"Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a president who has been so callous to proceed without reservation, as if war was of no real consequence.

"You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas politics, wrote: 'For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard. At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy.'

"'Somebody,' she said, 'should be worrying about how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some other Saddam Hussein.' How prophetic, Ms. Ivins.

"Let us not forget that our president -- our commander in chief -- has no experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn't notice 'any heavy stuff going on.'"

"So we have a president who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.

"What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?

"Is the president's need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American?

"I submit the answer to these questions is no.

"Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by who pays for his capricious adventure into world domination. The administration admits to a cost of around $200 billion!

"Now, wealthy individuals won't pay. They've got big tax cuts already. Corporations won't pay. They'll cook the books and move overseas and then send their contributions to the Republicans. Rich kids won't pay. Their daddies will get them deferments as Big George did for George W.

"Well then, who will pay?

"School kids will pay. There'll be no money to keep them from being left behind -- way behind. Seniors will pay. They'll pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable. And there won't be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it all on the war.Our young people will pay with an economy failing and the possibility of a grim future.

"Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights. Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water quality. And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women's rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the christian religious right.

"The questions before the members of this House and to all Americans are immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently confronted by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call for war is wrong.

"And what greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well-being of the world, but for the short-term political interest of our president.

"Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation ahead of the president's accountability to truth and reason by supporting this resolution. But, I conclude that the only answer is to vote no on the resolution before us."


Salon.com 2002

IP Logged

Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!


Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001

posted 10-13-2002 08:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Rockwell   Email Dan Rockwell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
October 12, 2002

Report: Pentagon Mulls Smallpox Plan

ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK- With the White House moving toward a military attack against Iraq, the Pentagon is expected to start vaccinating up to 500,000 troops against smallpox once the vaccine is licensed in mid-November, a published report said.

Leading military and civilian advisers to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have recommended making the vaccine available to the troops, The New York Times reported in its Saturday editions.

Although Rumsfeld has not yet approved the recommendation, he is expected to do so, the paper said, citing unnamed officials from the military and Bush Administration.

"If you're talking about potentially sending troops to areas where they could be exposed to smallpox ... aren't you negligent if you don't give them every possible protection?" a senior military official said.

Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz strongly favor inoculating soldiers. But some experts have opposed such vaccinations before an actual case of smallpox is found since there is no proof that Iraq has the deadly virus or would be willing to unleash it in an attack.

Under the Pentagon's plan 350,000 to 500,000 soldiers would be immunized.

The program would aim to vaccinate military units that might eventually be deployed to the Middle East, but others might also be inoculated.

There are currently 1.4 million troops on active duty. President Bush is also expected to make a decision soon about whether civilians will be vaccinated. T

he president is said to be deliberating since it is possible some people would die from the side effects of the vaccine.

Although the vaccine was given to millions of people throughout the world prior to 1972, it has not been administered to civilians since the World Health Organization declared smallpox eradicated in 1980.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/thrive/2002/oct/12/101209118.html



[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 10-13-2002]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-13-2002 08:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

'A prisoner in his own body' -- After taking the anthrax vaccine, Tom Colosimo's health and spirit quickly started to deteriorate
By David Castellon


SUGAR GROVE, Pa.; Thomas J. Colosimo joined the Air Force nearly 11 years ago dreaming of seeing the world and building a strong future for himself. Now, he wonders if he has a future at all.

Still just 29 years old, his once-powerful physique is so withered and frail he must walk with a cane. His boyish looks are marred by bruises and scars, the result of the falls he takes when he unexpectedly passes out. It's gotten so bad he's resorted to wearing a hockey helmet around the house.

Life for Colosimo consists of sitting and eating. He sleeps poorly, lives in dread of moments when he slips into delirium, he stumbles over words, his body fails him daily. He has become, he says, a prisoner in his own body.

But unlike sufferers of the mysterious Gulf War illness, whose doctors can't pinpoint a specific cause for their maladies, Colosimo has medical problems linked to the anthrax vaccine, as publicly acknowledged by Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Randy West, senior adviser to the deputy secretary of defense for chemical and biological protection.

A ruined life

Colosimo was a senior airman at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, when he got his first shot in 1998. He would receive three more over the next 19 months.

"I went to the Middle East eight times," he said. "That's when I expected something bad to happen to me, not in a clinic in Utah."

Colosimo doesn't blame the Air Force for his plight, but he does blame the Defense Department policy makers who made the shots mandatory for all troops in the late 1990s.

Because of shortages of the vaccine, the list of members currently required to get the shots has been trimmed several times, so that today, only people involved in vaccine manufacturing, military research and congressionally mandated studies, and "special-mission" units that would respond to anthrax incidents have to get vaccinated.

But as soon as more vaccine is available, program officials say the mandatory-inoculation effort will resume. They say the vaccine is safe and effective, and insist that allergic reactions are no more common with this vaccine than with any other.

Good days, bad days, no work

That doesn't matter much to Colosimo. The fact that thousands of others have taken the shots with no ill effects doesn't help his situation. "I never thought I'd get social security at age 28. I never thought I'd never be able to work again."

Even on "good days," it's hard just to leave the house. Mildly hot weather can make him pass out. Once an amateur weightlifting competitor, Colosimo now gets winded pulling his wheelchair out of his pickup truck.

Today is a bad day. A fresh red scar extending above his right eye reminds him why.

The injury happened two nights ago, probably from a fall. Colosimo can't remember exactly what happened, a common occurrence these days. His wife, Tracy, said she woke up in the morning to find her husband's face caked with dry blood and his right eye swollen shut. A trip to the emergency room revealed he'd suffered a concussion, too.

Colosimo's good days have been few and far between since he received his fourth anthrax vaccination in September 1999, the same month he married Tracy. Three months later, he began suffering from fatigue, sores on his head, tunnel vision and his first blackouts. To date, he's blacked out more than 700 times.

His symptoms now include bouts of delirium, panic attacks, explosive and unexpected loss of bowel control, low blood pressure, depression, memory loss, cognitive difficulties and chronic fatigue.

Colosimo said he also suffers from sleep apnea, which causes him to stop breathing in his sleep up to 60 times an hour. So he must sleep with an electronic device over his nose that senses when he stops breathing and forces air into his lungs.

Then there are the side effects of the many medications Colosimo takes to control his primary medical problems. Tracy Colosimo said that a steroid her husband takes to elevate his blood pressure has rendered him impotent now, and eventually "he'll become sterile."

"I can't have sex now anyway," Tom Colosimo said, the hurt in his voice mirroring the wounds on his face. "I've been fighting this so long." Tightening the grip on his cane, he searched in vain for the right words.

"It's been so long dealing with anger now, I've accepted it. When I put my anger aside, I feel better," he said. His eyes welled with tears.

After that fourth shot, Colosimo's health deteriorated so rapidly that he soon was unable to do his job as a nondestructive aircraft inspection journeyman.

He spent most workdays behind a desk because his co-workers feared he'd pass out on the job and get seriously hurt.

By August 2000, Colosimo and his family had complained so much and so loudly that he was sent from Utah to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. He was admitted for "anthrax intoxication," according to hospital records.

Two months later, the Defense Department admitted that Colosimo's illness was a result of his inoculations. For the first time, the government had publicly acknowledged the shots had caused serous health problems for a service member.

Under questioning in October 2000 by members of Congress about reported health problems among people who received anthrax vaccinations, West said of Colosimo, "that of all the people that were here today, there was only one person that has a medical diagnosis that directly links it to the vaccine, and that was only a portion of his medical problems."

Defense Department statistics compiled through June 5 list only 14 people whose "serious adverse events" certainly were caused by the shots, while two other cases were listed as probably being caused by the vaccine. That's out of 1,578 people who reported mild to serious health problems to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The Anthrax Vaccine Expert Committee, which makes the determinations, lists cases as "serious" that involve death, hospitalization, life-threatening illness or permanent disability.

Of the 16 cases, all the people are listed as having returned to duty and none are listed as being medically retired due to their ailments. Colosimo is not on the list despite West's testimony.

"I think they're trying to make the vaccine seem safer than it really is," Colosimo said of the numbers. He estimated that he and his family alone have corresponded with at least 100 people suffering serious health problems they believe are due to the vaccine.

"Somebody has to be with Tom constantly"

Colosimo's emotions run the gamut. Sometimes he's sad; sometimes he's angry.

"Some days I feel like I'm getting better, and some days I feel like I'm getting worse," Colosimo said while sitting in his mother's home in northwest Pennsylvania July 9. "I've come close to suicide, but I lacked the guts to pull the trigger. I've stopped taking my medication hoping it will end."

Colosimo was granted medical retirement from the Air Force in January with 60 percent disability. That means he gets $812 a month, less than half his E-4 pay. Car payments, child support for a daughter not living with him and health-insurance co-payments gobble up more than half of each check.

"That's not enough for us to get a place of our own," Colosimo said.

Tracy Colosimo can't get a job because "somebody has to be with Tom constantly." So he and his wife divide their time between their parents' homes in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

"If not for our parents, we'd be out on the streets," she said.

Neighbors in the close-knit community here, along with others who have heard of Colosimo's plight, have raised $10,000 for him, and he solicits donations to help with his medical care on his personal Web site at http://www.tomcolosimo.com.

Colosimo said he desperately wants a job but, on most days, his condition allows him to leave the house only for short periods. And the smells of cleaners, colognes, paint and other items that he might encounter in public places can trigger his bouts of delirium.

Nights are particularly stressful for Tracy and her in-laws because Colosimo sleeps only one to four hours at night. When he gets up, he might pass out or slip into delirium and wander outside like a sleepwalker while the family sleeps on unknowingly.

Tracy said police search teams have found Tom bloody and covered with his own vomit and feces; another time he was found bruised, badly cut and unconscious on a country road.

"Thank God nobody ran over him," Tracy Colosimo said.

Tom grudgingly lives with the pain and scars of such incidents. But it's been harder to live with the indignity he feels afterward.

It's worse when he loses bowel control or passes out in a public place.

He sighs in frustration trying to explain how it all makes him feel, but then slumps his shoulders and he looks to his wife. She sums it up for him: "Do you know how embarrassing it is to wake up with 50 people around you?"

And even at home it's not much better.

"A lot of times, it feels like she's my caretaker, not my wife," Colosimo said of Tracy. "We don't even do things that couples do. The only excitement we have is when a new movie comes out [on video] or eating."

Oddly, cigarette smoke hasn't been a problem, so smoking is one of his few pleasures. And while it's unhealthy, Tracy Colosimo said doctors haven't tried to make Tom quit because it helps elevate his low blood pressure, the cause of his blackouts.

"A cigarette and a can of Coke can really get his pressure up."

Colosimo said working on his Web site on a neighbor's computer is one of the few things that makes him feel productive. On it, he details his health problems since taking the anthrax vaccine and shares information with other current and former military members concerned about the anthrax vaccine.

The site has had more than 2,600 visitors.

"There's someone out there like them that's sick. They're not alone or a freak," Colosimo said. "It's nice to know you're not the only one out there fighting this.

"Sometimes I read what these other people are going through, and I realize there are people a lot worse off than me" he said, noting one female Army helicopter pilot he met at Walter Reed who was so emaciated she was down to 70 pounds.

"She says that when she swallows crackers, it' like swallowing razor blades," Colosimo said.

He's also personally taken his message to lawmakers, having testified before the House Committee on Government Reform in October and in June to state legislators in Massachusetts, who are considering a bill that would protect Massachusetts National Guard members from having to get anthrax vaccinations.

Colosimo said he sees the effort in Massachusetts as the best shot to stop mandatory vaccinations because other states might follow suit.

"It's just a matter of time before they get [the vaccine production line] up and running, and there are 18 more biological-warfare vaccines and an AIDS vaccine in the works," he said. "I feel that if we make enough noise and get enough people together, we will win."

Later, after her husband goes to take a nap, Tracy Colosimo laments the change in her husband from a vibrant young man to one worn out and embittered by his ailments. "He was upbeat and very friendly, just the person everyone wanted to be around."

Once an active couple, usually spending evenings at the gym and weekends hiking or doing other outdoor activities, today they are homebodies.

"He's depressed most of the time," she said. "It just seems like he lives in a shell because he's afraid he'll be hurt or fall in public.

"It eats at him to not be the man he once was and be able to do the things he did. he's lost his sense of self."

Battling for care and support

Colosimo's mother, Gloria Graham, said she and Tom's stepfather are feeling the strain of having four people living in their small house.

"It's a miracle my husband and I are still married," she said. "He didn't plan on marrying me and my adult children."

Though her son is stoic in discussing his health problems and his treatment by the Defense Department, Graham isn't so quiet.

She picketed an Air Force recruiting office in August 2000, getting media attention that she believes prompted the Air Force to send Colosimo to Walter Reed.

But it's been a struggle ever since, Colosimo said.

Colosimo said he had to fight to get Walter Reed to provide him a cane and the helmet, and he couldn't get a military lawyer to represent him when it came time for the Air Force to decide on his disability.

Calls by Air Force Times to Walter Reed were not returned.

Colosimo had to hire a private lawyer to take his case. His mother mortgaged her house to cover the fee, but the lawyer declined payment.

Colosimo won only partial disability retirement pay because the service didn't factor all his problems into the decision. His chemical sensitivity, bowel problems and "adjustment disorder mixed with anxiety and depression" were not factored in, according to recommendations of the Air Force physical-evaluation board that considered his case.

Colosimo applied to receive disability compensation benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs which he believes would cover those conditions the Air Force doesn‰'t and grant him full disability pay in lieu of retirement pay.

Jim Moreino, veterans service center manager for a regional VA office, said July 24 that a decision on Colosimo's disability could be rendered within a week.

If Colosimo gets the full disability benefit, he'd receive about $2,200 a month and possibly $300 to $400 more for his wife, a stipend for being Tom's caregiver.

In addition, he'd get a lump-sum payment of the difference between his VA benefits and what he got from the Air Force since January.

"If that happened, we could get what we really want," Colosimo said.

His wife finished the sentence for him: "independence."

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-13-2002 09:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Military vaccines have long, thorny history

By Ray Rivera
Seattle Times staff reporter


Nancy Rugo holds photos of her sister, Sandra Larson, and her niece, whom she is now raising. Her sister died last year shortly after receiving the final inoculation in an 18-month series of anthrax vaccinations.

Army Spc. Sandra Larson never objected to the anthrax vaccinations she was ordered to get during her first overseas assignment in Korea.

But a month after receiving her sixth injection — the last in an 18-month regimen the military says is safe and necessary to protect against biological attacks — the 32-year-old Army cook began to hemorrhage.

Her body had stopped producing the blood cells and platelets needed to control bleeding and fight disease.

Three months later, she died.

"It was as if there was something in her that was killing her immune system," said her sister Nancy Rugo of Spokane. Rugo said her sister died last year at Madigan Army Hospital at Fort Lewis.

Rugo is convinced it killed her sister and has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Michigan Biologic Products, the Lansing, Mich., lab that makes it.

The case has become another rallying point in a long simmering revolt by current and former soldiers who fear the forced inoculations are ineffective and, worse, toxic — despite repeated assurances from the Pentagon of the vaccine's safety.

The continued criticism of the vaccine comes at a time when the military — already facing chronic shortages of the drug — is mobilizing its largest force since the first Gulf War.

The Department of Defense, which inoculated 150,000 service members during the Gulf War, announced in 1999 that all 2.4 million active and reserve military personnel would be vaccinated by 2003.

But since its inception, the ambitious vaccination program has been plagued by quality-control problems at the one lab where it is produced and by morale problems among troops ordered to take it.

Military personnel have for years heard horror stories, disseminated on the Internet, that the inoculations cause everything from degenerative arthritis to the mysterious Gulf War syndrome.

More than 100+ soldiers have been court-martialed for refusing the anthrax vaccine, according to the Defense Department. Hundreds more have resigned from the military rather than be inoculated, critics of the program say.

Six people, including Larson and a lab technician for BioPort Corp., the only U.S. company licensed to make the vaccine, have died shortly after receiving the shots.

Pentagon officials insist that while up to 35 percent of people may experience temporary rashes, fevers, chills and malaise in reaction to the vaccine, serious problems are rare.

They assure soldiers that the vaccine is critical to protect them against a bacterial agent that, once embedded in the lungs, is difficult to detect early enough to save the victims with antibiotics such as Cipro.

"Thousands of laboratory workers have received anthrax vaccine for 10-20 or more years in a row without adverse effect," states a Pentagon Web site, which refers soldiers to studies showing its safety.

Kim Brennan Root, a spokeswoman for BioPort compares the safety of its product to that of tetanus and diphtheria vaccinations given to children every day.

"There have been over 18 studies confirming the safety of this vaccine," Root said. "It has had 30 years of use, over a half million have been immunized — all those things contribute to the safety profile of this vaccine."

But few of those studies have been peer-reviewed by independent scientists. Both the(GAO) General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, and the Institute of Medicine (a branch of the National Academy of Sciences) concluded in 1999 reports that not enough studies had been done to say whether the drug is safe.

And questions persist about the vaccine's effectiveness against inhalation anthrax — the airborne form used in biological weapons — and the type that has killed two postal workers and a Florida photojournalist in the past month.

A long paper trail shows the federal government has had its own concerns about the vaccine.

In 1985, the Pentagon sought proposals for a new vaccine, stating: "There is no vaccine in current use which will safely and effectively protect military personnel against exposure to this hazardous bacterial agent."

That same year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that the anthrax vaccine's "efficacy against inhalation anthrax is not well documented."

The House Government Reform Committee last year issued a scathing report chiding Pentagon officials for misrepresenting the anthrax vaccine's safety and effectiveness. The committee recommended the Pentagon suspend the vaccination program.

IP Logged

Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!


Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001

posted 10-14-2002 08:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Rockwell   Email Dan Rockwell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bin Laden 'to appear on TV'

Osama bin Laden is alive and will appear on a videotape soon, a man claiming to be a senior al-Qaida member says.

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed told London-based magazine Al Majalla that bin Laden is in good health and has been putting on weight.

He also revealed that al-Qaida has set up a media department to "address the Muslim people".


Al-Rashed said: "Sheikh Osama is alive and in good health. He has gained more weight due to security precautions and his inability to move a lot as you will notice in his next appearance."

Earlier this month, TV station al-Jazeera aired an audio tape in which a voice attributed to bin Laden warned that the "youths of God" are planning more attacks against the US.

Al-Rashed says al-Qaida has set aside a budget to pay for its media department.
He said: "Sheikh Osama pays heed to the media... we have a specialised department for print, audio and video production and a team of Internet experts."

In the interview, al-Rashed also denied US claims that al-Qaida has relations with the Iraqi regime.

US President George W Bush has said al Qaida has had high-level contacts with Baghdad for a decade and sent operatives to Iraq to learn to make bombs and use poison weapons.

Mr Bush also said some al-Qaida leaders had fled to Iraq after their haven in Afghanistan was attacked by the US in retaliation for September 11.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/ns/story.jsp?floc=FF-PLS-PLS &id=405695965&dt=20021013185300&w=PA&coview=
__________________________________________________________

Officials See Signs of a Revived Al Qaeda

By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — American officials say they fear that terrorist attacks in the past week and taped messages from leaders of Al Qaeda signal the beginning of a new wave of terrorist activity and possibly a large-scale attack.

Senior government officials also say that an attack that crippled a French oil tanker near Yemen and another that killed a United States marine in Kuwait showed that the terror network had reconstituted itself, with smaller groups prompted to begin new attacks by inflammatory new messages from Qaeda leaders.

Kuwait's interior minister said today that a statement from the gunmen's leader suggested a link to Al Qaeda and that the group had planned other attacks. [Page 17.] But other officials said it was not known whether the attackers were operating under direct orders from Al Qaeda's senior leaders.

The group's latest round of attacks may be a response to the Bush administration's Iraq policy, the officials said. An audiotape of Osama bin Laden's closest lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, threatened continued attacks on "America and its allies," and denounced American plans to attack Iraq.

"The campaign against Iraq has an objective that is far beyond Iraq to reach the Arab and Islamic world," Mr. Zawahiri said on the tape. United States officials said his message appeared to be an attempt to justify and incite renewed violence against American targets.

Another audiotape, which officials say is of Mr. bin Laden, repeated Al Qaeda's threats against the United States.

Both tapes were broadcast in the past week by Al Jazeera, the satellite channel based in Qatar, and one American official said the two messages might have been intended to be a green light for Al Qaeda to initiate large-scale attacks.

Officials said that in the past week intelligence analysts had received reports of a spike in reported threats against the United States and American interests abroad.

"I'm afraid you'll see a lot more of this," said Senator Richard C. Shelby, an Alabama Republican. "We always warned that there would be more attacks because we have not finished off the Al Qaeda group. We've disrupted it. We've had them on the run, but they are still around."

The government's latest intelligence analysis is based in part on the tanker explosion off Yemen a week ago, and on the shooting of two American marines on an island off Kuwait on Tuesday, an attack that killed one and wounded the other.

"The marines in Kuwait and the ship off Yemen — those could be precursors of more to come," one senior administration official said. "We believe this is a serious development."

So far, the government's response to the two attacks has remained deliberately low key. On Wednesday, the Bush administration discussed whether to raise the color-coded threat alert warning level from yellow to orange. But after a White House meeting, officials decided the threat was not yet specific enough.

Instead, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of Homeland Security issued a threat alert to the country's 14,000 state and local police agencies, saying the recent messages showed that "Al Qaeda continues to plan major attacks against U.S. interests."
"The statements suggest that an attack may have been approved," the alert said, "while the specific timing is left to operatives in the field."

The threat warning said Al Qaeda had issued similar messages before the bombing of two American embassies in East Africa in August 1998.

"The content of the statements and the context surrounding these threats reinforces our view that they may signal an attack," the message said. "One senior detainee maintains that Al Qaeda would only release such a statement after approving a specific plan for an attack."

Officials are also concerned that another large-scale attack, perhaps in the United States, could be imminent because it usually takes at least one year for Al Qaeda to organize an ambitious attack.

Nearly a year separated the attack on the American destroyer Cole in a port in Yemen in October 2000 and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/13/internati onal/middleeast/13TERR.html?ex=1035172800&en=11fcc90f996c0dd6&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1



[Edited 2 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 10-14-2002]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-14-2002 01:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
LOL!!!!
http://www.georgewbuy.com/

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-15-2002 06:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
U.S. Bases Attacked in Afghanistan


Monday October 14, 2002 1:00 PM

BAGRAM, Afghanistan (AP) - Three U.S. bases were attacked with gunfire and rockets in eastern Afghanistan over the weekend, the U.S. military said Monday. There were no reports of casualties.

Helicopter pilots spotted tracer fire at an outpost near Lawara, 110 miles southwest of Kabul, while they were landing and taking off on Saturday night, said Air Force Maj. Steve Clutter, deputy spokesman for the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

A patrol later discovered a rocket launcher aimed at the base, Clutter said. A demolition team destroyed the rocket.

Also Saturday night, two 107mm rockets exploded 500 yards and 800 yards from a U.S. base near Khost. A platoon sent to find the launch site found an 82mm mortar and confiscated it.

Three rockets were launched Saturday at a base near Gardez but landed far from their target, Clutter said. A helicopter also reported seeing tracer fire.

Attackers typically use timers or remote control to launch rockets at U.S. bases in Afghanistan, and troops rarely find the people responsible.

``Unfortunately, we haven't been able to engage the enemy directly,'' Clutter said. ``The enemy has been pretty stealthy; they don't come out and show themselves.''

Some timers are as simple as a punctured can filled with water. As the water runs out, it completes an electrical circuit and launches the rocket.

Clutter he did not believe the three attacks heralded a resurgence of the Taliban or al-Qaida.

``This happens quite a bit. We're always concerned when there's bad guys out there shooting at our soldiers, but it is a sign that they know we're there and they known we're being effective,'' he said.

Also Monday, U.S military officials denied a claim by Afghan officials that a U.S. helicopter crashed while trying to land in the eastern province of Kunar. The area is one of several being combed by U.S. forces for fugitive Al-Qaida and Taliban men.

Sayed Ahmed Safi, a government spokesman in Kunar, said a U.S. helicopter clipped some tree branches and crashed, but U.S. military officials said there was no truth to the report.

On Friday, troops found two warehouses in Khost filled with weapons, and a U.S. military spokesman said they were believed to belong to Bacha Khan Zardran, a warlord who was driven out of the area last month. On Monday, Clutter said the second warehouse belonged to a local commander allied with U.S. forces.

Clutter said usable weapons from the first warehouse would be given to Afghan fighters working with the U.S. troops.

The Guardian UK 2002

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-15-2002 07:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A LETTER FROM A MARINE......................

Statement on Injustice

By Corporal Anonymous (Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA)

I came into the military not because I had a need for money or a need to prove my "manliness", but because I thought that I was protecting my family and my land (which I love). But I soon found out that the military was not about protecting this country or the people. It was about proving one's "macho-ness", or (as a small part) making a living through being "tough" and mindlessly following orders. To protect only a handful of elite intrests.

If the military was for defense of the land (country) and people, it wouldn't need $300 billion a year for Stealth aircraft and aircraft carriers. Also, a trillion dollars a year corporate budget for military goods would not be needed.

I said before that I love this land. It is in reference to the people and the beautiful lakes, trees, and mountains that make up America as a country. It does not mean that I have an unfounded love for the crooked leaders and politicians who run our pseudo-Fascist government.

The war in Iraq is not to defend our country-- it cannot even be conceived as such. it is nothing but an excuse for one man to avenge the mistakes of his father; one of the biggest mistakes in known history. It can only be perceived by other countries as a fascist and imperialist war for the benefit of U.S. and other First World corporations. They don't even have anything to back-up our "reasoning" for going to Iraq.

Why should I feel the need to kill innocent people under a totalitarian regime who have been starving and without medicine for years (under U.S. sanctions), just so one man can feel better about himself and his dad?

If the U.S. is really a "democracy", should one man decide whether we should murder innocent people in a country that has done nothing to harm us at all? Should I be part of an organization that kills for the whims of one man?

I don't want to die for something I don't believe in or anyone-- if they knew what it was for-- would die for; Oil, intimidation, and petty family grudge. [end]

IP Logged

Mech
Resisting the NWO


Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 10-15-2002 04:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

No new tidal wave of recruits
to fight Saddam

By JOSE MARTINEZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

The commander-in-chief may be banging the drums of war against Iraq, but that is not stirring up a flood of new recruits looking to join the fight.

At military recruiting posts throughout the New York area, the prospect of war with Iraq isn't swelling interest in enlisting - at least not yet, according to recruiters.

"Right after Sept. 11, we got a lot of patriotic people walking in more often because they knew we were going to war on terrorism," said Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Ramzan Monroe, a recruiter in downtown Brooklyn. "But right now, it's business as usual."

At posts across the five boroughs, people trickle into the recruiting offices, which often go hours without a visitor. But recruiters stay busy combing the schools and setting up booths on sidewalks and near subways in search of young men and women to enlist.

After last year's terrorist attacks, the military experienced a short-lived surge in interest, though it didn't deliver much in terms of actual recruits, because many of the would-be soldiers and sailors were too old.

No boost in interest

With conflict in Iraq looming, there hasn't been a spike in interest, even though the Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force surpassed their recruiting goals for the 2002 federal budget year, which ended last month.

The new recruits are often like 18-year-old John Cruz. A 2002 graduate of Satellite Academy in Manhattan, Cruz signed up at a Queens recruiting office last week with hopes of a military career in the Marine Corps.

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