To Americans and the rest of the world...

[Guardian]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Impossibility of surrender to air units: My advice to the soldiers...leave now and avoid the rush. Soldiers are legitimate targets. Obviously an air attack will not take out even the majority of them.

(*delicate cough*)

Obviously, that depends on what kind of air attack you're talking about.

Let's say you're an Iraqi soldier hiding in a foxhole with your unit somewhere out in the desert. Suddenly, a flight of B-52s appear out of nowhere and drop a couple of hundred tons of bombs all over your positions...

That's called an air attack...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Dissident
If the U.S. never entered the middle east during desert shield/desert storm, 3000 more people would be living in New York and Washington today.




yes a troll response to the original post. but I want people to think about that. I have been thinking about it a lot.

Does inaction lead to terrorist attacks or action? Was Bill Clinton's inaction the reason 9/11 happened? Or was it the action that Bush Sr. did in 1990/1991? Discuss

These are excellent questions. The answers depend upon how you view Saddam's vision of the Middle East. At one point he was calling for a unified Arab state (presumably under his control). My opinion is that if their had not been a response to the invasion of Kuwait, then Saudi would have been next. This would have given Saddam control of far to much of the worlds supply of oil. I have no doubt that he would have leveraged this to try and bring about a fundamental power shift. It is doubtful that the west would have allowed this and the same troops would have been fighting a more difficult war to achieve the same objective.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Guardian


(*delicate cough*)

Obviously, that depends on what kind of air attack you're talking about.

Let's say you're an Iraqi soldier hiding in a foxhole with your unit somewhere out in the desert. Suddenly, a flight of B-52s appear out of nowhere and drop a couple of hundred tons of bombs all over your positions...

That's called an air attack...

Guardian: Both North Vietnamese units and Iraqi units have survived this kind of air assualt before. No doubt there will be casualties. This is the sad reality of war.

If only he would go into exile...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Dissident
If the U.S. never entered the middle east during desert shield/desert storm, 3000 more people would be living in New York and Washington today.

This War is Treason (J. Raimondo)

FBI whistleblower: 'We can't stop terrorism unleashed by Iraq war.' So why are they going ahead with it?



Anyone who believes the attack on Iraq is about defending the U.S. against terrorism should listen to veteran FBI agent Coleen Rowley. Rowley, you'll recall, caused a sensation when her testimony in front of Congress fingered higher-ups in the Bureau who inexplicably obstructed and effectively derailed the anti-terrorist effort in the crucial days prior to 9/11: she wrote a letter to the FBI's top brass that exposed the near-criminal incompetence of her superiors and set off a firestorm of recriminations that has yet to abate. Now she has written another letter, pointing out that the problems she identified back then have gotten worse:

"In June, 2002, on the eve of my testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, you told me that you appreciate constructive criticism and that FBI agents should feel free to voice serious concerns they may have about senior-level FBI actions. Since then I have availed myself twice of your stated openness.

"At this critical point in our country's history I have decided to try once again, on an issue of even more consequence for the internal security posture of our country. That posture has been weakened by the diversion of attention from al-Qaeda to our government's plan to invade Iraq, a step that will, in all likelihood, bring an exponential increase in the terrorist threat to the U.S., both at home and abroad."

The capture (by Pakistan) of Bin Laden's reputed second in command has led some to argue that the U.S. government can walk and chew gum at the same time, but the sudden elevation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed from number 22 to number 2 in the terrorist hierarchy strikes many as suspicious. In any event, Rowley's accusations, this time around, are devastating, not only to the FBI high command but to the War Party. She writes:

"What is the FBI's evidence with respect to a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Polls show that Americans are completely confused about who was responsible for the suicidal attacks on 9-11 with many blaming Iraq. And it is clear that this impression has been fostered by many in the Administration."

The government's war propaganda is actively undermining the FBI's effort to identify and root out terrorism in this country. Rowley points to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's contention that the Saddam-Osama connection is certain, counterposing it to Brent Scowcroft's skepticism, and asks: which is it?

"The answer to this is of key importance in determining whether war against Iraq makes any sense from the FBI's internal security point of view. If the FBI does have independent data verifying such a connection, it would seem such information should be shared, at least internally within the FBI."

Could it be because such a connection doesn't exist?

Americans ought to be shocked by Rowley's revelation that the FBI has yet to interview Zacarias Moussaoui, the man she was prevented from investigating, who has since been shown to have a direct connection to the events of 9/11. The "shoe bomber" Richard Reid has also, somehow, escaped extensive interrogation. What's up with that? It's a matter of priorities, says Rowley: and apparently the chief priority of the U.S. government is not preventing future terrorist attacks on American soil, but prosecuting a diversionary war against the wrong enemy.

Rowley shows that the break with our longtime closest allies hurts the war on terrorism, since the great majority of Al Qaeda operatives are based in Europe, and makes the cogent point that it was the French, after all, who fingered Moussaoui. She also exposes the mass round-up and detention of thousands of Arabs as largely a political ploy:

"After 9/11, Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism."

Particularly striking is Rowley's analogy likening the attack on Iraq to the FBI's assault on the Branch Davidians at Waco. Like Saddam Hussein, David Koresh was demonized by government officials and the media in preparation for the strike: like Iraq, the Davidian "compound" was said to be the source of a weapons cache; like the Iraqi dictator, the Davidian guru was said to be abusing his own people (according to Janet Reno, he was sexually abusing the cult's children). Much of the case against Koresh and his followers was debunked after the siege incinerated those children, and the FBI, says Rowley, has learned its lesson from the Waco disaster – but the U.S. government has failed to apply this lesson to the foreign policy realm:

"We learned some lessons from this unfortunate episode and quickly explored better ways to deal with such challenges. As a direct result of that exploration, many subsequent criminal/terrorist 'standoffs' in which the FBI has been involved have been resolved peacefully and effectively. I would suggest that present circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider sharing with senior administration officials the important lessons learned by the FBI at Waco."

The Janet Reno school of foreign policy has potentially deadly consequences for the U.S. and the security of its citizens, and the real shocker of Rowley's letter is her contention that we are all made much less safe by the War Party's Iraqi adventure:

"Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your ability to discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is altogether likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a rash of 9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq. What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have made that clear to the president."

For months we have been told, again and again, that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil is "inevitable." Now a veteran of 22 years in the FBI has come forward to testify that we don't have the power to stop it – because our government is dragging its feet in the anti-terrorist investigation while going all out to prosecute a war abroad. The "flood of terrorism" that is about to engulf us is seemingly of little concern to U.S. government officials at the highest level. But how could that be?

"A rash of 9/11s?" Could a more horrific possibility be imagined? Yet our government is willing to risk it in order to "democratize" the Middle East and make the world safe for Israel.

That opponents of this war are being called "traitors" and denounced as the ideological equivalent of "enemy combatants" is surely one of the cruelest ironies ever witnessed by history. Yet patriots like Ms. Rowley are speaking out because they sense that a very real danger to our country is being ignored – and, I believe, tacitly encouraged.

This is either a case of the most incredible incompetence on the part of the FBI tops and other high officials, or else it is nothing less than treason. It won't matter much, in the end, since the consequences will be the same.

Think, for a moment, how this administration would react to "a rash of 9/11s." Attorney General John Ashcroft denies the administration has any plans for a Patriot Act II, but the reality is that Patriot Acts II, III, IV, and V would be rammed through a cowed Congress before the smoke cleared.

The rhetoric of the President, who invents an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection without evidence, and then conjures up a fearsome picture of another 9/11, is echoed and amplified by the War Party and its pet pundits, who, at times, seem to yearn for another devastating attack on the U.S. – if only to silence the growing antiwar chorus.

As terrible and irrational as it seems, it's almost as if they want to see another terrorist attack on this country. I get letters every day from war-maddened idiots who write:

"Just wait until a nuclear 'dirty bomb' goes off in this country. Then maybe people like you will wake up. I hope it explodes near you!"

The alienation of our allies, the wrecking of the American economy, the increased risk of another 9/11 – all this and more the Bu****es are willing to pay in order to carry out their monomaniacal Middle East policy. What's another 3,000, or 6,000, or 10,000 American lives – as long as we "liberate" Iraq? No price is too high. That is their attitude, and if it isn't treasonous, in the technical sense, it is pretty damned close.

Never mind the "liberation" of Baghdad: we won't be safe until and unless we liberate Washington, D.C. from officials who don't seem to realize that their one and only legitimate function is to protect Americans on American soil

[Arrian]

Why in the world did THIS thread survive?

-Arrian

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


Guardian: Both North Vietnamese units and Iraqi units have survived this kind of air assualt before. No doubt there will be casualties. This is the sad reality of war.

If only he would go into exile...

When you say survived, you aren't seriously talking about Desert Storm, are you?

The Iraqi's folded quicker than laundry.

[Sandman]

Infrastructure: Inevitably and regrettably infra structure suffers during war. This point is not about that short period of time. Over a fairly short time, as Iraqi oil money is put to use for the Iraqis, the infrastructure will be better than it is now.

Not if there's massive corruption. Which, since the US is leaving much of the administrative class in place, is quite likely.

Cruise missles: Are you really under the impression the US will fire them at civilians to create terror, or were you just trying to bolster your infrastructure argument? If the former, you have not been well informed on US military doctrine or the stated goals of this operation.

Jargon like 'shock and awe' and 'Hiroshima effect' suggests an extremely broad definition of military target.

Food: Yes, enough food for 22 million people. US already making plans to utilize the current UN food distribution system that would be helping feed these 22 million if Saddam wasn't stealing from it.

The UNHCR has admitted that it is unprepared for the humanitarian problems. Iraqis depend on government rations, and most of Iraq's food comes from the UN oil for food programme. Disrupting these is very likely to cause deaths. Furthermore, Iraqis are far less healthy than the last Gulf War, and can be expected to perish more quickly.

Casualty estimates: I have been all over the UN site looking for this estimate. I have heard nothing near this high for civilian casualties from any source. Maybe you could help me out here. Having a pretty good understanding of the supposed US war plan, I can't imagine that it would even be 10% of your low figure.

The reason it's not on the UN site is that the report has not been made public (because it would suggest that the UN thinks that war is inevitable). It has been widely leaked to news agencies, however.
Here is the document

Casus Belli: This is not supplied by the resolution, but rather by the total non-compliance with not only the international will but also cease fire violations, mass murder, financing of terrorism, attacking his neighbors, diverting Iraqi national income for personal purposes, summary executions, former use of weapons of mass destruction, etc...

"The international will" is nothing of the sort. Plenty of his crimes were done with the West's implicit or explicit backing, making us accessories. Other aspects of these crimes are protected by the principle of national sovereignty, do you reject this?

Juicy western contracts: Are you upset because they will be US contracts and no longer French contracts. Do you know who builds most of the infrastructure in the middle east? Most major projects are already "juicy western contracts". The point here is that their will be more of them than there is now and the Iraqi people will be better off for it as they will have a better infrastructure than they do now.

Well, there are plenty of major projects that are not western contracts, the Bin Laden family construction business comes to mind.
Furthermore, how can you guarantee that the construction contracts will not be beset by the usual problems of bribery, lack of competition, environmental damage, taxpayer subsidies and ignoring local opinion?

Oil revenue to pay war debts: Yep! If you were oppressed than this would probably be a small price for you to pay. In any event, the amount of oil revenue that is going to the benefit of the Iraqi people should increase as these 10's of billions that Saddam is syphoning off are now going to be in the mix.

The Iraqi people have not asked to be saddled with debt. Presumably they'll be made to pay for the cost of the occupation as well. And a little bit extra on the side no doubt.

Toxicity of depleted uranium: Lead is also toxic and never goes away. Depleted uranium is not radioactive. It is no more toxic than many other kinds of metals.

Would you advise scattering 500 tons of lead about about a country that's supposed to be recovering from war? Ever heard of soils polluted by heavy metals? That's what's going to happen to Iraq.

Saddam accused of playing games: Probably correct. Its just hard to get past that TWELVE YEAR TRACK RECORD and believe the little bugger has just turned into a really nice guy.

So you accept my point then?

[South killer]

I totally agree with comrade tribune. Americans are really confused of who were the responsibles of 09/11. They see the whole arab world as terrorist and the responsible is the us government's propaganda. Bush is just using 9/11 as an excuse to attack more countries.
I don't support Saddam but i wan't to highlight the fact that saddam, as many other dictators on the arab world and everywhere else were placed in power by the USA. Why they don't talk about the other dictators?
because they are puppet governments controled by the usa. Saddam WAS a puppet government but now he's working for his country (selling oil at fair price and not giving it to the usa) and not for USA, so the usa attacks irak with the excuse of defending democracy.

[Master Zen]

If you have any idea the effort that countries in the security council are working to avoid a war, offering any alternative possible, and then listen to Bush's aggressive statements, there is no doubt, the US IS THE BAD GUY HERE AND THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE THREAT TO WORLD PEACE.

Nothing Iraq does, whether destroying its Al-Hussein missles, acceding to the inspectors demands is seen as good by the U.S. They are always "decieving" and "lying" to the world and they don't even give them a chance to prove otherwise.

If this is allowed to continue, we will surely enter a new diplomatic dark age in which the aggressor is none other that the country which supposedly (and hypocritically) stands for freedom and democracy.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
in response to the person who asked whether nuking japan made the us the bad guys?

no, it didn't. japan was the bad guy during that entire war, during the 40 years preceeding the war, and nothing can erase that.

I liked your post, but then I looked at your flag and it ruined it all.....Sigh.....

[Q Classic]

I liked your post, but then I looked at your flag and it ruined it all.....Sigh.....

so i have strong feelings about it since i have a korean heritage. sue me.

still an ami at heart.

[LoneWolf]

Originally posted by South killer
I totally agree with comrade tribune. Americans are really confused of who were the responsibles of 09/11. They see the whole arab world as terrorist and the responsible is the us government's propaganda. Bush is just using 9/11 as an excuse to attack more countries.
I don't support Saddam but i wan't to highlight the fact that saddam, as many other dictators on the arab world and everywhere else were placed in power by the USA. Why they don't talk about the other dictators?
because they are puppet governments controled by the usa. Saddam WAS a puppet government but now he's working for his country (selling oil at fair price and not giving it to the usa) and not for USA, so the usa attacks irak with the excuse of defending democracy.

'Well, unfortunately, the nasty truth is that is IS, in fact, a war between the Arab (Muslim) world and the US. Would that it were not so.

[Dis]

agreed.

It just isn't PC to say that most muslims hate americans. If they had the courage, they'd be terrorists as well. But they just don't have what it takes to do terrorist acts. So they silently root on from the sidelines. And yes it does take courage to be a terrorist. 9/11 is probably one of the bravest attacks I have seen since ww2. But also one of the stupidest.

In any case there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of muslims that would like to see every single Israeli and American dead. Not just the terrorists.

[RGBVideo]

It just isn't PC to say that most muslims hate americans. If they had the courage, they'd be terrorists as well. But they just don't have what it takes to do terrorist acts. So they silently root on from the sidelines. And yes it does take courage to be a terrorist. 9/11 is probably one of the bravest attacks I have seen since ww2. But also one of the stupidest.

Lol.
Rotflmao.
"Evil muslims do hate US like, because they're barbarians they want just blood
and rape and pillage and burn, they just don't have the BALLS!
Fortunately, SOME of US, great REPUBLICANS have the BALLS to attack IRAQ!!!

UNLIKE euro-****-WUSSIES!"

Yes, that's over the top.
But is that what you mean? Really, is it? It definetily seems to be so,
so I could use some elaborating.

[RGBVideo]

'Well, unfortunately, the nasty truth is that is IS, in fact, a war between the Arab (Muslim) world and the US. Would that it were not so.

Saddam Hussein is the most atheist leader in the arab world.
He's been lately trying to get some support from other countries by rhetoric
mutter about the all-seeing god. He has been strongly opposed to Taleban.
In fact, it seems that almost the whole world, except of US, has been opposing Taleban
before the year 2001.