Personally I would not be so strong for the attack against Iraq, but anyway, G W has talked quite strongly for it. Anyway, time is running and he is losing time here. Either he attacks or not, but he´s losing his image every day nothing happens. That´s the problem with big words.Every day that Bush says nothing now the muslims will think of another day won..This may turn bad now.Bush is about to turn the card from the pack he doesn´t want to see? His personal career may depend upon attacking Iraq, right? Huh?? I don´t like this feeling at all...
It's interesting that, with all this talk of war coming from the White House, they have sod all military experience. It's also the case that the most cautious member of the administration is a former General, and that Tom Daschle is a Vietnam vet. Am I missing a trick here? Jumbo
No war--at least not with Iraq. Inspectors are going in and Bush is turning down the rhetoric. As planned. Illusion and misdirection, the key elements to magic tricks and international poitics. If GWB really wanted a war, he wouldn't have let the 90-day limit to the War Powers Act run out (forcing him now to appeal to Congress for approval.) Besides, there's no military support for such a move: As usual, the gvmnt's not telling us the truth: they're up to something, that's for sure, but wasting $300B to defeat a defeated country (and then re-organizing their government) is not one of them. Respectfully submitted, KT
Once more, common sense is coming from the military: not the politicians.--KT Israeli General Opposes War with Iraq: Waging war on Iraq is not justified Appeared in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, 9/24/02. By Aharon Levran Brigadier General (res.) Levran is the author of "Israeli Strategy after Desert Storm," published by Frank Cass .
For those of you who still doubt that hussein is a fragging lunitic: Rumsfeld finally admitted that the iraqis fired on US, British and other aircraft well over 2,000 times in two years. These are just the ones that were seen and reported. hussein wants peace--NOPE.
Carl, I saw those same reports, along with the footage of Iraqi missiles. Here's my problem- why are we only hearing about this now? It seems rather odd to me that each time the Bush administration runs into more opposition for war, they immediately have some "new" information that damns Iraq. The UN and Iraq agree on weapons inspectors- and it seemed literally no more than 6 hours later that we are suddenly hearing about how Iraq has been attacking our planes for years. Why did we not hear anything about this earlier? Just seems very convenient to me...
First of all, Rumsfeld is lying about Iraq violating UN sanctions: there are no UN resolutions setting up the no-fly zones. These were imposed intially by the US, UK and France. France has since backed out. Iraq has fired nearly 2,000 missiles at US/UK planes--without a single hit?? Makes you wonder just how deadly their weapons systems really are... The Chinese fiber-optic system sold to Iraq in order to enhance their AA missile system was originally sold to China by AT&T and Motorola: http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2002/09/11.html
Crazy--I dont have the foggiest idea why were only just now hearing about this. On the otherhand--if its supposed to be a national secret--then I dont see why they should say anything because the communist news network (cnn) will blab any and everything out to the world then it aint a secret anymore. Look at what the jerks did when we had the gulf war going on. I got a BIG laugh out of this cnn blunder. A news crew was on the frontlines at night and had their camera lights blaring when a Sergeant came up to them (live TV) and told them in usual Sergeants colorful language, to turn it off and get the hell out of the area--it was live an unedited. Sergeants, you gotta love em. Another incident where the cnn crew wound up eating their own shoes again. Somalia--these jerks were doing another live brodcasting on the very beaches our soldiers were to land on. They got there before the landings took place--then broadcasted the landings live. This time, an officer went up to them and told them they were lucky they were not shot. I laughed my backside off on both these incidents.
If the British and the French had stopped Hitler when he marched into the Ruhr...what if? I don't believe we are willing to wait until he releases chemical or Bioloical weapons so we can say, see I told you! With a huge number of losses sacrificed for proof for the tree huggers that he needs to be stopped now. Its not as if hes ignored every UN resolution anyway. There is no good reason that people should own automatic weapons! How about our rights! The second amendment says so. He who is willing to give up some of their rights for security do not deserve any rights. I believe Ben Franklin said that. The problem in LA wasn't that the robbers had automatic weapons it was the cops didn't! When they did procure some high volocity weapons the fight came to an end. The same result would have been had been the same had the weapons the robbers had been single shot. I like the ban on 30 round magazines. Not that they couldn't be bought but couldn't be manufactured.hmmm That will stop the determined from putting 30 rounds down range. This makes as much sense as matching the luggage to the passenger. If I'm going to fly the plane into a building what do I pack? The 9-11 guys didn't even have luggage!
So Carl- I'm guessing you don't like CNN too much! Minor point- on the landings in Somalia- Do we blame CNN for getting there first, or do we blame the army for not only telling CNN the details of the landing, but then being late as well? I would say that the somalia incident made the army look worse than CNN... And on the secrecy surrounding the anti-aircraft fire... I would wonder why? If Iraq was attacking us, I would think Bush would want that information to get out- more justification for attacking Iraq. I can't figure out why attacks on our planes would be kept secret. Ron, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the gun issue. I don't think the writers of the constitution could have imagined the firepower available today. You point out precisely one of the problems- the standard issue weapons out police use simply cannot compare to some of the weapons ordinary civilians can buy. And I have met some people who owned weapons that, let's just say, there is NO WAY they should have owned. I can see both sides of the gun issue, but unfortunatley I think it's one of those things like abortion- people feel very strongly one way or the other, and the grey areas make these issue very hard to debate. [ 03 October 2002, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]
Don't forget, that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, they asked our permission before doing so. Rather polite for an insane dictator bent on conquering the Middle east. As far as all these secrecy "leaks," many of them can be traced back to the White House. It's all BS. The administration has been floating all sorts of recently discovered information, such as there are 3 groups of Al-Quaida in Iraq right now. Did we just find that out?
This story just broke: that Iraq has been implicated in the OKC bombing of '95. Recent analysis of videotape puts "Itaqi terrorist" Al Hussaini in the Ryder truck with McVeigh shortly before the explosion. This should be in all the papers tomorrow.
Hey Crazy...lol that wasn't my comment about the constitution and guns...that was greg. He has my Avatar Hmmm in regards to the Oklahoma story thing...i'll believe it when i see it...but if it does come out that would be fishy...but again i would be flabergasted if that is an actual story. In regards to the missles being fired, it isn't a secret...i've heard about attacks like that all through the 90's. I just think we can thank the news agencies for simply not reporting every incident. You can't know news that isn't reported. Iraq is a top story now so thus every attack every morsal of info will be reported as "breaking news" Just like when the war in Afganistan broke out they reported at the time the first casualty being a soldier killed in an accident by heavy material...of course having a military community of over a million i think many more tragic accidents have happened before that and probably since...but it wasn't "big" news anymore.
Haha... ooops, guess I missed that!! Well then, Greg and I will have to agree to disagree! Yeah, that Oklahoma one sounds like a real long-shot. Someone is just noticing now that there was an Iraqi in the truck with McVeigh?!?! So that info was missed all throughout that huge trial? Yeah, that sounds credible! Good point on the news coverage of the anti-aircraft stuff. That does make sense. Funny thing is though, I do remember hearing at various times over the last few years that our planes attacked Iraqi targets in the no-fly zone. Guess we only heard about our attacks against them, but not their retaliation.
FYI guys, Standard Operating Procedure for patrolling the No Fly Zone over Iraq...regular patrol aircraft and aircraft sent to investigate suspicious activity (helicopters travelling low etc) either carry HARM anti radar missiles or are accompanied by aircraft flying top cover carrying HARM missiles. Also, in order for ELINT aircraft to monitor Iraqi radar and radio frequencies sometimes a "passive" patrol is sent out just to make the Iraqi's "light up". Naturally as soon as any AA missile radars are detected....Bang, no more radar. This sort of thing has been going on for quite a while. Yes, the Iraqi's have been attempting to shoot down Allied aircraft since the end of the Gulf War. As with most military intelligence, such episodes usually remain minor news stories until some politician wants to make some noise, then all of a sudden it's like a great revelation. A friend of mine in the Australian SAS trained with some British SAS here in Australia who were on secondment, these British guys had operated in Iraq for quite a while AFTER the Gulf War and there are probably still SAS "In Country" there, right now. I believe early on, the RAF may have lost a couple of Tornados on low level recon, with the crews being recovered by SAS troops stationed nearby. There are always special recovery troops on standby just for such an emergency. And yes, the UN has received agreement from Iraq that weapons inspectors can go in, although only under the original terms of the last inspectors. And that's good. And I can see the US's point that stronger terms are needed. Saddam's palaces were off limits last time and these places are HUGE, with plenty of outlying buildings in which to hide stuff. So yeah ok, stronger terms are needed so that nothing gets missed this time. But, what worries me is Bush's insistence on military action. The fact that he's intent on trying to bully the UN into doing something they (the rest of the world) don't want to do, and the fact that he's quite prepared to commit the US by itself into a war with Iraq. Is there something he is not telling us ????? Okay, they told us about the chemical weapons, the biological weapons, the nuclear weapons, the links with El Quaida. But this is stuff that's been known about (at least in the military community) for years. Either George has committed himself politically (isn't there some sort of election thingy coming up?) OR there is something that the US Government knows about but doesn't want to tell anyone because..... As said before. War with Iraq will not solve anything. It won't stop terrorists from obtaining chemical, biological, nuclear materials, because they will just go to Libya, or Chechnya, or Azerbaijan, or Pakistan, any place were life is cheap, and money can buy you ANYTHING. War with Iraq WILL cost the lives of innocent civilians, the lives of US and allied servicemen, de-stabilise an already shaky region, probably help spread terrorism and, will definintely, help spread hatred of the US throughout the world. George W must know this, so what aren't we being told?? Scary stuff guys, very scary. " I think that people want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get out of the way and let them have it" Dwight D. Eisenhower, August 1959
Yup, that McVeigh story is all over the news. Wow. Sniper, nice post. On the whole "What is he not telling us" line, my guess is the political aspect. Look at the economy- all Bush has done for that is to say stupid crap. "Our economy is strong, and we will pull through this..." What this says to me is that Bush really has no idea what to do about the economy (Admittedly, there may not be much anyone CAN do about the economy, but it seems to need addressing. At least an attempt). And the 9/11 attacks gave Bush this whole "War on Terror" mandate. Problem is, what did he accomplish? Bin Laden and most of Al Quaeda- still at large. Even the regime change in Afghanistan is really weak- the only reason Karzai is still alive, let alone in power, is the US SPecial Forces. So I think Bush needs this whole War on Terror to maintain his only claim to "doing a good job" as president. And now he's backed himself into a corner- it looks like Saddam is doing a very good job at his old tricks- stalling and delaying the UN, etc. So he can't accomplish anything against Saddam with the rest of the world, because they basically see right through the whole Terror connection. But going it alone, a US-only war, also makes Bush look very bad both at home and especially abroad. I guess the short version here is that historically, wartime presidents have enjoyed high popularity. Look at Bush Sr.- great during Desert Storm, flopped once he was forced to address domestic and economic issues. I think Bush is afraid he will get stuck in the same situation. If Bush is forced to address domestic issues, he'll lose any of the popularity he has gained. (Hope that made sense! )
This is no longer a world or nation states, but of corporations, banks, and cartels. Clinging to these old cultural/political distinctions only obscures the real forces behind the scenes. While we might be unsure of the specifics, in general, we are witnessing a massive consolidation of financial power. It's the New World Order--or, whatever you want to call it. I did some looking into the MacVeigh-Iraq connection. It seems that this theory has been floating around since the spring, although not much seriousness has been attached to it. Now, the gvmnt suddenly acquired this videotape implicating the Iraqi terrorist.
Ergo, it seems likely that in the spring they started making the video and editing in the Iraqi. Talk about it spread as a rumour, and obviously nobody attached any importance to it. Some time between a few weeks and a few months ago the tape was finished and released by the government. It is a plot nearly identical to the fake videos and photographs released before and during Desert Storm. The old tricks are still the best tricks, eh what?
I agree with the agree to disagree. The gun debate I believe will always raise raise an argument from both sides and believe it or not see both sides (I don't necessarily agree). Ron I hide under the cloak of someone elses avitar. Just kidding.
