Topic awaiting preservation: Stop the war against Iraq II (Page 2 of 3)

Someone asked about more US anti-war movement information and this article:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,893120,00.html

points to sites which may be relevant like:
http://moveon.org

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I picked up these links elsewhere but they give a bit more background to the Heathrow moves:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030211/140/dszgq.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030211/4/dsy6s.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps, the American public is heavily in favor of the war. The protests here have been pretty minimal. In fact, a radio talk show host in Washington state went out with his crew to cover a scheduled protest in Seattle and I am not exagerrating that only four people showed up. Two of them were the organizers themselves. The support becomes overwhelming when UN backing is thrown into the brew.

WS
Finally, I will get back to your direct appeal to me a few posts up.

quote:

---

Stop and think. Now, I know just how difficult that is.

---

Hilarious! I feel like doing a Monty Python impression of Gumby exclaiming "my brain hurts!". Honestly, I have tried my best to keep my emotions out of this one. The other thread about France, et al, has me much more passionate, trust me on that!

I am very reluctant to argue on the basis of the most recent "evidences" that our government are coming out with precisely because there isn't much time to evaluate them and I was *already* convinced this had to be done. I don't need *any* emotional push in this direction because I have very practical and important reasons for taking the position I have.

quote:

---

1. Why are you so strongely supporting Mr. Bush, and his administration on this? 2. Why do you feel, that the points that I and Emps have brought to the subject, are not worthy of considering? 3. Why are you ignoring the advice, and views, of Decorated War Veterans on this?

---

1. Because he is going to do what I firmly believe needs to be done. I'm not marching behind him in lock step because of some blind allegiance but rather because he is very capable of toppling Saddam Hussein *and* giving the Iraqi people a better future than any other proposals I have yet come across. mobrul has predicted the people will just become slaves to the West. I do not agree with that characterization if he is referring to the rebuilding of the oil industry there which will allow the Iraqis to have a viable economy. We must follow up any regime change with massive support, I have always been insistent on that. I don't know if it will happen but I believe Bush plans to do it.

2. Don't think that I haven't considered your opinions. I most certainly have but quite frankly, all I'm hearing is that we should wait and indefinite amount of time to act in this matter. That concerns me greatly because we don't have all the time in the world. Iraqi children are starving right now because of our inaction and our sactions. Remember these were designed to be a peaceful alternative to war but they do not come without a price. I have yet to hear someone say that we should ignore Iraq so *something* must be done *sometime*. You've got to know that sometimes I feel as though you're not listening to me on this.

3. I have heard Hackworth's arguments and they are sound and probably could work but they would only put off the inevitable. He has argued for containment. Containment means more starving and oppressed Iraqis and I'm far too tempted to relieve them of that.

Schwarzkopf has recently backed off from his opposition so what can I say about that? From an article, Richmond unwelcomes Schwarzkopf

quote:

---

Previously, Schwarzkopf expressed criticism of the second Bush administration?s plans for war on Iraq. Richmond activists highlighted his opinion and pressured him to take a tougher position against the war by chanting, ?Yo Schwarzkopf, tell Bush to back off!? But his remarks Wednesday evening echoed the beating drum of the war machine as Schwarzkopf cheered support of war to the Richmonder audience.

---

If you really mean this:

quote:

---

I do feel (and strongely believe) that Saddam must go. I have recognized, that it will most probably have to be with force, as all peaceful means seem to be exhausted.

---

Then about what exactly are we disagreeing? Timing? Bush's motives? Fine, but we both agree it has to be done so that still leaves us in agreement on the most prescient point.

Ok, DPRK. This one is quite simple to answer. We must deal with BOTH simultaneously. I believe we have prepared and are capable of handling both problems. I started to talk about the DPRK specifics here but I want to reserve that for the other thread.

But let me tie in why the DPRK problem underscores why what we are doing in Iraq is correct. We simply cannot allow Hussein to get to the point where he can develop the kind of weapons that have us so threatened from the DPRK. You yourself said the action will be very short once started in Iraq and so why pull back now when we are ready to hit him if he continues to oppose 1441?

And I know I sound like a broken record here but isn't it clear that it is only because of our military build up that Iraq has agreed to anything asked of it by the UN? Perhaps our build up is working in concert with the inspections and it just might convince Hussein to choose exile? And this makes me all the more disappointed in the Franco-Russo-Germanic (can I do that?) position. If *all* the countries involved would be unified and insist on disarmament and promise military action if isn't done immediately, Hussein would be far more motivated to step down *without* getting any of his people killed. It could happen because it is more about his survival than anything else but he knows he can work the nations reluctant to back up the UN resolution with force.

Your turn.

My turn??

No. I already served my country, as has past generations of my family. We have a very proud record of serving, having been in every war fought by America. In the coming war (should it take place), no-one from my family will be participating. We are against it. The reactions of our many of our fellow Americans, Mr. Bush and his administration, and other information that we have managed to exchange (stuff you will not hear about), have led us to the conclusion, that it would be wrong.

I did my best, to reach you. I'm sure, that you have done yours, to reach me. I occupy a ground, that in many ways, you cannot climb to. You have things, beliefs, opinions, that differ from mine. My family fought, members died, so that this is possible. I believe in the principles of America, very deeply. So does my entire family. We have always been active in those beliefs. Where others talk, voice their opinons, we have acted. So too, have we acted this time. With a resounding no.

That said, I will abandom my attempts to reach you. I feel that it has no chance of changing anything. This is one of the hardest decisions that I have had to make, lately. It saddens me greatly. It is one thing, to debate, and to express opinons and beliefs. It is quite another, to actually impliment them. Though I respect you, I feel that somehow, we have gone astray. What is left, are bitter crumbs...everything that my family has fought for, is being negated in a swift change of the winds...I would be lying, if I said that I was happy about it. I guess, the only thing to do now, is to wait, and see what happens. If this thing does go down the tubes, though, and the future brings worse things to come, because of what is now happening, I would hope, that you will accept part of the blame for it. I know that I will.

Though in principle we both agree on the removal of Saddam, I guess it is on the how as to where we differ. And what happens after. Well, we will see.

I would hope, that afterwards, we will have the opportunity to talk again...

Agreeing to disagree? How very sporting

Anyway for everyone else:

The latest poll on the war (ICM for the BBC) doesn't look too good for Tony Blair:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2751471.stm

90% are against a war without a second UN resolution and even then 45% of people in the UK would against any war even then.
[edit] - just correcting your percent number - WebShaman [/edit]

Around half the country support the Franco-German plan.

George Bush may have an easy ride at home but Tony Blair is going to have to do something special to not come out of this with his reputation in tatters (some of the biggest anti-war voices are coming from inside his party and he doesn't have the backing of most of the Cabinet).

[edit: And this discusses the risk Blair is taking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2750983.stm ]

It doesn't seem to have got to the BBC website yet but the BBC report that the Chancellor has allotted £750 million (on top of £1billion) to the army for improving their security provisions - this is separate from the estimated £4 billion cost of a war in the Gulf (it seems to be ring fenced money they can call on if things get nasty here at home). That strikes me as an awful lot of money that could be used to combat poverty and inequality and actually address root causes of anti-western resentment.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hardly sporting I'm afraid and I think I understand all to well what he means.

Sign the Peace Petition. I already have.

And Bugs - nothing to worry about...my respect for you is still there. I just feel that everything that can be said, has been said...you have your view, I have mine. Despite all the attempts, on both sides, to convice the other, it has had little effect, other than to push us apart...I find that scary, and do not wish to continue it.

Because of the seriousness of the situation, I believe that debating it is fruitless. And as America thinks about trade sanctions against France, and pulling troops out of Germany, the Bush administration is starting to move from words, to deeds...I shudder to think, of what is next. It is time to stand up and do something about it, instead of debating.

On a side note, my personal situation here in Germany is not getting better...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-13-2003).]

WS, we don't have to agree to be close. I never for a second felt you moving away until that last post that really scared the crap out of me. If we cannot have open and frank discussions about this topic then I am greatly saddened HOWEVER if that is what is required to maintain our friendship, then that is what I desire more than any debate.

I am going to bow out of this particular discussion for now and the foreseeable future.

I concur. I look forward to discussing things with you again...after the situation at hand is over. I'm awefully sorry, that I posted some things that probably shouldn't have been. Please, do not take it too personally. I guess my emotions somewhat clouded my judgement, and that's one of the main factors in my decision, not to continue. Please accept this humble apology.

I, too, will refrain from posting in this thread from now on...sorry to all sides.

Bugs and WS the same goes for me, my feelings are running high on this debate. And due to the fact both sides of the debate are so far apart and cannot meet i am going to drop out of further discussion also.

To Bugismus, I am sorry if some of my posts may have seemed personally aimed at you, as outlined before they were not meant as a personal attack, but more aimed at some of those people on your side of the argument with a more beligerent and groundless argument.

To WS. I hope that if it goes the way of the war then there are not too many casualties, and those that come home alive dont go through the same hell that we found ourselves in.

To everyone else: Please remember this, this is only a debate, you will not be the ones facing death and destruction in iraq, so please spare a thought and maybe a prayer for those people who are about to fight for your rights to be able to post here, and to protect you.

kennedy once said something that i fear will never happen, certainly not in my lifetime.

quote:

---

Mankind must put an end to war, before war puts an end to Mankind

---

The anti-war marches look like they have a big turn out. The London one is huge (police reckon there are over 500,000 people and the organiser reckon over 1 million - most of the marchers won't reach Hyde park until after dusk now, if at all) and there are at least 10 million people marching worldwide.

See:

UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

Worldwide: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2765215.stm

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

At least I do not feel alone ;-)

Silence is another speech. -Me

And one of the arguements for war (at least here) is that we will be preventing suffering amongst the Iraqi people (partly, we should remember, brought on by our sanctions and bombing) but what about the hardship for the people if we invade?

A secret UN paper is discussed here:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,896149,00.html

Highlights include:

quote:

---

Nearly 1.5 million refugees and asylum seekers are likely to try to flee from Iraq, and 30% of the country's children under five "would be at risk of death from malnutrition" in the case of war on Iraq, according to a secret United Nations planning document.

---

and:

quote:

---

the document says: "UN agencies and country teams have been engaged in a discreet planning and preparedness effort for several months."

Ominously, it reveals that in spite of requests to the United States, Britain, and other western governments for emergency aid in case of war "no funds have been made available to any agencies to date".

As a result, UN agencies have not yet reached "even minimum levels of preparedness", it says.

---

that is if we go in now (rather than provide time to build up an infrastructure to help the Iraqi people after the invasion) there will severe hardship and widespread death that would be preventable if we actually took our time.

Surely an arguement in favour of not being so hasty and allowing the inspectors more time - time in which we can provide evidence to satisfy our allies and prepare for the aftermath of any potential invasion.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I don't normally like to say 'I told you so', but in this case 'I told you so'

For those of you just joining us, I made it clear in some earlier version thread on this same topic that this talk of us 'liberating' Iraq was bunk and we would be keeping an 'iron-fisted' regime, a bully, a thug, a ruthless killer, in power in Baghdad. The people of Iraq will be no better off in the post-war tomorrow than they are in the pre-war today. Most likely, things will be worse for a lot of them.

It seems the media is catching up with me.

...but who am I to confuse foreign policy with missionary work?

It will be a huge mistake for us not to take advantage of this opportunity to "make Iraq a model democracy in the Middle East."

I watched this last night which seconds some of the concerns just expressed: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78959,00.html


IMO, it is time to stop going easy on our values when it comes to dealing with "our guys". The Saudis and the Turks should not be exempt.

[edit] I should highlight the worrying bit:

MCINERNEY: Yes, and that's part of it. And by the way, they're not perfect. There is no perfect group. But the fact is CIA and state basically do not like the INC. They really think, and the indications I get, that the INC would bring too much Democracy. Too of a change in the region...

HUME: Too much democracy?

MCINERNEY: Yes. The problems -- the Saudis and others in the region do not want to see too see much democracy and independent group come in there. The INC has put out a constitution. They've got a lot of literature that they've written. They're secular, they're Sunnis, they're Shiites, they're Kurds, they're Turkmen, they're Christians. They compromise the whole group there. And it is surprising that state CIA are opposing them. Are they going to -- their venture is, well, we'll go in and find somebody. I assure you, Brit, no one's left in Iraq that understands democracy.
[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-19-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-10-2003).]

And things move on a pace - it appears the Russians and Chinese are now on board with the Franco German plan which leaves the US/UK alliance with support from Spain and Bulgaria.
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902510,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902511,00.html

The US is still prepared to go it alone which is something that I can't see turning out good in the long run

Pos. Saddam's refusal to destroy his rockets might win more people over:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902545,00.html

but I doubt it.

What might influence Bush And Blair is the real swing against war - the Washington Post/ABC poll is mentioned in the first link above and it is here:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61856-2003Feb24.html

quote:

---

The survey found that 56 percent of the public is willing to wait in order to win U.N. endorsement of U.S.-led military strikes against Iraq. Another 39 percent said the United States should "move quickly," even without the Security Council's backing.

---

Granted it looks split down the middle on these things but this is before any kind of war has even started - when the body bags start coming home and the pictures of dead Iraqi children are beaed into their homes............

And people are taking any opportunity to register their disapproval - Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men' was a suprise winner of the British book of the year awards:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,902397,00.html

-----------
And on mobrul's point - an article from last week:
www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,898436,00.html

What I find interesting is that Rumsfeld is preparing his own plan not the Pentagon's and it is one which has the potential to turn very bloody.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This Article is unbelievable!

Well, that not only 'undermines' the 'righteous' part of striking Iraq first, it is also extremely dangerous...I cannot believe what I'm reading there. Ignore the advice of the Generals? That's insane.

I really hope that article is not true...because if it is, it's a huge mistake. What the hell are Bush and Rumsfeld thinking?

WS: I must admit I couldn't quite believe it myself and it may not be the whole story but.....

See also:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,899944,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,899030,00.html
www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896611,00.html
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0220-03.htm

----------
On a side note this article does some joining of the dots:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,902274,00.html

it doesn't really make any sense of why the current adminstration seems to be gearing itself up to destroying 50 years worth of treaties on just about anything that moves but it fits in with the same 'we know best' attitude which that article on ironhorse also suggests.

It also doesn't mention the environment but they have done similar things with the Kyoto Agreement and I see that Tony Blair is increasing the pressure on Bush over this issue:
www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,902497,00.html

-------------
This is getting increasingly off topic but before 911 it was thought that the US administration were going down an increasingly isolationalist path and pos. this 'going it alone' stance on everything (environment, politics, trade, etc.) is the same kind of thinking expressed on a world stage


___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

...while air force bombers attempted to burn away any stocks of chemical or biological weapons.

---

That´s just plain funny! If they know where these weapons are, they can tell the inspectors. If they don´t, how are they supposed to bomb them away???

And BTW, a question that came to me some time ago: If you say it is impossible for the inspectors to find the WMD without being told by the Iraqis where they are (as opposed to just searching the whole country), how are you going to find them after invading Iraq, assuming that the people who know where they are hidden (probably not too many) will be either dead or still not interested in telling you?

Coming from the Guardian, I think this article is surely right. And I am affraid of that.

quote:

---

This attack is intended to be a "head transplant". The transplant would kill Saddam or force him to flee.

---

Remember my friends, remember... Wasn't it what we were said before the attack on Afghanistan ? And look like how things are...

quote:

---

Instead he favours thousands of precision air strikes

---

Well... After Afghanistan and probably Iraq it seems that the USA have LARGE amounts of excendentary bombs.

And.. We were said that in order to make us think that it would be a "clean" war in Afghanistan. This is a lie. There is no "clean" war. Like said Salvador Dali : "Wars never hurted anyone, except those who die". Oh maybe that would be a clean war from the US side. Now imagine it from the other side.

You are a basic Iraqi. Everyday, you hear at radio that Americans want to attack you because they don't like your leader and his supposed weapons. Everyday you wonder WHAT (not who) are those guys who think they are able to kill thousands of people for silly reasons. Oh instead of launching BILLIONS of dollars of bombs, they should instead pay 200 $ to install an automatic pump in your village. It would have been more useful to you. You wouldn't have been obliged to fill 10 pots of water everyday. Now you have to go one more time to prepare enough water to make dinner. But you didn't see the small red point just next to you. And a millisecond later you are dead. All your innards are burnt in a millisecond, in a giant burst sterilizing all the place. The laser guided missile didn't prevented you. Bad missile. Neither did the launcher of the missile, 4000 kilometers away from there. You never knew who he was, and he will never know who you were.

Oh yes, it is clean. Thanks Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld, all those missiles are well guided by the latest technology, they never fail, and no lives will be lost. From the American side.

Silence is another speech. -Me

You mentioning Dali reminded me of something:
http://www.artdaily.com/noticiaframe.asp?not=11&fnot=2/2/2003

And further on the 'after the war' and 'joining the dots' business this article, and esp. its discussion of the Project for the New American Century, makes more sense of things:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,903043,00.html

although when you are joining the dots and none of them are numbered some of the dots are missing and some of the dots that are there don't belong in the picture what actually becomes clear may not have much

Links:

The Project for the New American Century
www.onlinejournal.com/Media/Prestage111402/prestage111402.html
www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.h tml
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759
www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
www.sundayherald.com/27735
www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/1031neocon_body.html
www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/1014foretold_body.html
www.fpif.org/papers/02right/
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/project.html - a Pinky and the Brain quote!!

which feeds back to WS' discussion of a Pax Americana in another thread.

[edit: Where he threw in a few of the above links and quoted from a number of the most important pieces but the debate got back on to a more strict 'War on Iraq' basis and I suspect unless we can address the underlying engine for this then we can't really understand some of the odd inconsitencies that keep coming up:

1. The ignoring of the Pentagon (and of the opinion of US generals).

2. The breakneck pace for war.

etc.

Because if even a small part of this is true then this is only the first moves in a much wider game (anyone else get a chill from 'Next stop Beijing'?). Seen in this light the Franco-German attempts to derail or slowdown developments starts to seem like a shrewder move (albeit with selfish motives too).]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This quote

quote:

---

“This is garbage from think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks,” Dalyell said, “men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war.

---

Just about sums it up for me. And yes, Emps, it does scare the hell out of me...thanks for posting those links.

WS: Yes I thought of you when I read that

As a bit of background Tam Dalyell is a respected Labour MP of longstanding and is one of the few indedependent-minded Labour MPs who doesn't toe the (New Labour) party line. That said Tony Blair did have 121 Labour MPs vote for an amendment yesterday which said the case for war hadn't been proved (so he isn't the only one with concerns):
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,903759,00.html

quote:

---

thanks for posting those links

---

No worries - you posted some of them first so thank you (I didn't have a chance to check exactly which ones you had posted while I was copying and pasting but left them in as the duplicates are the key articles).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Read and weep, Emps Full Article.

It's not just scary, it's real - Pax Americana.

These 'neo-conservative think tanks' have decided the foreign policy...and many of them have been recruited into the Bush administration. That's not only scary, it's insane. Foriegn policy should not be based on a minorities interests or ideas, IMHO.

I can only hope, that Mr. Bush loses the next election...and this stuff disappears forever...

WS: Thanks for that - the American Enterprise Institute:
www.aei.org

helps explain other things like the failure to rein Israel in and try for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

quote:

---

Senior AEI staff include ..... Lynne Cheney, .....

---

from:
www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/aei.htm

and this is an interesting article from last year:
www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,785394,00.html

Richard Perle's name comes up all the time from authroing the 'Clean Break' paper for Israeli think tanks to use right-wing think tanks and now he is the Pentagon. If they are his views no wonder various Arab countries in the Middle East are concerned - the general plan seems to be to use Iraq as a catalyst to bring down large numbers of states in the region so they can be rebuilt along the lines they want.

And more on him and think tanks:
www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html

And from this article:
www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4612317,00.html

quote:

---

In a meeting with American congressmen last week, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, nominated three countries to be tackled after Iraq: Iran, Libya and Syria.

---

and:

quote:

---

Mr Sharon also met John Bolton, the US under secretary of state, who reportedly told him that it will be "necessary" to deal with Syria, Iran and North Korea after an attack on Iraq. That puts Syria and Iran into the lead with two votes each, followed by Libya and North Korea, with only one.

---

he also says:

quote:

---

The two key phrases are "creative destruction" and "total war".

---

The NRO articles mentioned in the above article are here (I could quote liberally [excuse the pun] from both - esp. the second but its best to read it in context):

Creative Destruction

Total War

Note: Michael A. Ledeen (author of the first NRO article) is a resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at AEI.

This all would have the potential for seeming like a huge conspiracy theory but everyone invovled has been nice enough to publish their policies on this kind of thing quite publically. I presume they just think there is nothing we can do and as they are moving so quickly to tip over the first domino then perhaps they aren't risking leaving things long enough for another election to creep around.

While I have no great love for the governing bodies of the countries listed I think it is a hazardous strategy (a bit like setting fire to your house before redecorating it - it'll help clear off that old wallpaper and paint but could eaily get out of hand) and since when has US intervention ever really worked out well in the long run (since WWII)?

-----------------
On the post-Saddam front see:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/21/dreyfuss-r.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

You know, Emps, some of those articles really made me sick, while reading them...

I said it's insanity...and I meant it. 'Impose our wills forcefully' or 'Total destruction of a nation, or society'...sick.

That's the problem with right-wing neos...they all think they are in a position of right...irregardless of the consequences.

More on the The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies' "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" report:
www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm - seems to be the report itself (or an abridged version)
http://freelebanon.org/articles/a360.htm

Again the same names keep coming up:

quote:

---

In 1996, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies assembled a study group to produce recommendations for the incoming government of Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Among the participants were American analysts destined to become key voices in the Bush administration, including Douglas Feith, now undersecretary of defense for policy; David Wurmser, now a special assistant to State Department arms-control chief John R. Bolton; and Richard Perle, the immensely influential conservative defense strategist who how heads a civilian Pentagon advisory board.

---

from:
www.washtimes.com/world/20021007-8413366.htm

see also:
www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030214-98615336.htm

---------
There was an interesting discussion on MSNBC on the 23rd:
www.msnbc.com/news/876263.asp

of which the relevant bit is extracted here:
www.netlexfrance.com/weblogs/index.php?p=634&c=1

Daniel Perle says:

quote:

---

I don?t see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we?d live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars.

---

A noble aim rather let down by the fact that he is openly advocating 'aggresive wars'.

----------
An article with a broader reach looking at the pre-911 work putting the theoretical pieces in place:
www.cooperativeresearch.org/wotiraq/pre-911_calls_for_war_on_Iraq.htm

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Just keeping this 'jolly' little thread bobbing along.

More on the Pax Americana/PNAC business:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,911583,00.html

and more info on the 5 companies in the shortlist to rebuild Iraq (Halliburton - Dick Cheney's old company is in there now who would hav thought??).
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912187,00.html

I suppose the big development is that we appear to not even going to attempt a second resolution which is going to be disasterous (both for the world and also specifically for Tony Blair) - despite Rumsfeld saying the US might go it alone it appears the UK is in without a second resolution:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2845867.stm
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,913116,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,912551,00.html

and why the lack of a second resolution might leave an awful lot of people open to charges of international war crimes (and it isn't going to do UK troops morale any good if most people at home think they are conducting an unjust war):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,910882,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,911777,00.html

My MP will be getting a flea in her ear from me later today

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

and why the lack of a second resolution might leave an awful lot of people open to charges of international war crimes

---

What a coincidence the US (in best company with China and - i think - Syria) has not acknowledged the new international court.

BTW, fun facts about war:
A Soldier who knowingly shoots even one civilian (or an officer who orders him to do it) commits a war crime
- A pilot who knowingly bombs whole housing blocks full of civilians (or an officer who orders him to do so) does not.

And more:

On Halliburton (financial incentives to go to war?):

quote:

---

Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney.

The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of "deferred compensation" of up to $1m (£600,000) a year.

---

www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,912426,00.html

On the problems for the British government:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,913006,00.html

On Rumseld going it alone in the Pentagon:

quote:

---

The evidence we have is that, among the top echelon, Mr Rumsfeld was behind only his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and a shade ahead of vice-president Dick Cheney in pushing for a war on Iraq as soon as possible after September 11. But Iraq is not dead-centre of his mission at the Pentagon. For him, the job is not about one war. It is about ensuring all wars are fought his way, with complete civilian control, even on technicalities long assumed to be the prerogative of the generals.

---

www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,913087,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

After Cheney joined Halliburton in 1995, the company's portfolio of military contracts and government-backed work grew rapidly and this second-tier oilfield services firm was transformed into the industry's top player. Cheney stepped down as CEO in 2000 with an early retirement package worth $34 million, selling his stake near the stock market's peak.

Just two months after Cheney cashed out, Halliburton announced that its subsidiary, Kellog Brown & Root Services Corporation (KBR), had been sued for allegedly overbilling the Army. KBR is the Army and Navy's exclusive provider of logistical services such as food preparation, construction, power generation and fuel transportation

---

quote:

---

While the case was still pending, last December the Army awarded KBR an uncommonly lengthy ten-year contract with no cost ceilings. The Navy also granted KBR a $300 million, five-year logistic support contract, including the construction of more permanent facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. By hiring an outside company to handle logistics, the Pentagon may end up spending as much as 20 percent more taxpayer dollars than if the military employed its own personnel.

---

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/budget/08-09-02halliburton.htm

It would seem it is time to start another thread entitled, "Cover the war against Iraq". I am sick of predicting dates but it can't be very much longer before we go in.

I say it starts tonight, about an hour after Georgy Boy gives his speech.

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

OK the discussion of the war continues here:
www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000768.html

although I'll leave this open if people want to discuss issues arising from posts here.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Peace has failed.

It is now (IMHO) time to support our boys and girls in uniform, for they will be directly put in harm's way. I would hope that the war goes quickly, for both our troops, and the Iraqi people. A minimizing of suffering, and loss of life.

It is now time, to start organizing how we wish to leave Iraq, when the conflict is done.

This is interesting - the US appear to have been bugging the UN
www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,910567,00.html

quote:

---

Last week The Observer published details of a memo sent by Frank Koza, Defence Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) at the US National Security Agency, which monitors international communications. The memo ordered an intelligence 'surge' directed against Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea with 'extra focus on Pakistan UN matters'. The 'dirty tricks' operation was designed to win votes in favour of intervention in Iraq.

---

www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,910350,00.html

WS: My main concern is that as this war may not be legal we are leaving our troops open to prosecution

I also don't see that being critical of our leaders conduct means we don't support our troops.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

It appears that the idea that we might put in place a democracy which would lead to the 'Domino Effect' in the Middle East has quietly been swept under the carpet as described in a leaked secret report "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes":
http://truthout.org/docs_03/031603B.shtml
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,914518,00.html
www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,915183,00.html

This is also interesting and comes from "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity":
www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm
www.counterpunch.org/vips02082003.html
www.counterpunch.org/vips03152003.html
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/111874.php

[edit: and WS this might be of interest to you - I think the extract in the weekends paper was a longer version though:
www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,913235,00.html

got a book in you?]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

I also don't see that being critical of our leaders conduct means we don't support our troops.


--Emps

---

Yup, I agree. However, now that the conflict is iminient, I believe that full support for the troops is called for, political ramifications and critique can wait until afterwards (IMHO)...and those in question will reap what they have sown.

Far more important (on a bigger scale) is what happens after the conflict. I sincerely hope that the world brings unrelenting pressure to finally ease the plight of the Iraqi citizens, and secures them hope, and daily bread, utilities, and shelter. After all their suffering (a lot at our hands), surely they deserve that.

As to the legal ramifications, well, we will see...but don't expect too much - there was no second resolution, after all. That means, there was no 'No' to a war with Iraq...of course, there was no 'Yes', either. But it is now (because there was no second resolution vote on War) largely in a grey area...and I suspect that America will 'wriggle' its way out of illegality. I highly suspect that any 'measures' will be refuted with the ambiguous wording of Resolution 1441...but again, we will see.

Oh yes, one more thing...this conflict is not actually a War. It's a conflict. A police action, if you will, much as Vietnam was. No war has been officially declared (at least, not yet). And I highly doubt that one will be. Again, the legal issue.

I suspect if anything does come of this legally, GW will handle it the same way his daddy did the last time an international body tried to tell us who we could and could not attack.

It's relatively easy to send a squad of commandos in to take a 3rd world leader. Easier still to put a bounty on his head. Do you know of anyway at all someone could take Bush to the Hague?
The best bet would be to wait a bit. C*****n was the last president to get lifetime Secret Service protection for him and his family.
On second thought, GW is probably covered under daddy's plan.