Question on Us vs Irak conflict

[Tzeentch]

The question is : Do you think this is a fake one or not?

[deimos]

if you mean wether this is meant serious then the answer is no.But these americans are so weird people, perhaps its meant serious.......

[pastradamus]

America needs another war,they have a massive arms industry that needs a war to ensure its funds go steady,from its biggest customer the US GOVT.

its now a nessicity

[deimos]

sorry, they can't be defeated.they can't fail when the kurdish peshmergas fight against sadam too

[Akula]

If USA attacks Iraq alone,it will be seen as agressor in the eyes of the normal civilised world.This time there is no backup from Germany or EU.
Russia is also(normaly) agains US actions in Iraq and also agaist sanctions.
But also,it's known that American continent is populated by prisioners and criminals before 200 years ago.How can normal nation be made from that scum.It's all in the genes.Thurst for BLOOD!I'm proud not to be American!

[vodun]

Quote: from Akula on 10:42 pm on Aug. 18, 2002
If USA attacks Iraq alone,it will be seen as agressor in the eyes of the normal civilised world.This time there is no backup from Germany or EU.
Russia is also(normaly) agains US actions in Iraq and also agaist sanctions.
But also,it's known that American continent is populated by prisioners and criminals before 200 years ago.How can normal nation be made from that scum.It's all in the genes.Thurst for BLOOD!I'm proud not to be American!

Where are you from, genius? Are all your posts this stupid? "It's all in the genes". That's fucking genius. Like Jews, maybe? Or blacks? Where are your genes from? Russia is against U.S. actions? Oh golly! They have such a stand-up record for being "civilized". Say some more dumb shit!

[vodun]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 9:22 am on Aug. 17, 2002
I am 100% sure that Uncle Sam will start this new war. I want the US to be defeated.

Yeah, well, mother russia won't have shit to say about it, will she? Shush momma - the men are at work!

[vodun]

Yup. Just like Desert Storm was going to be "another Vietnam". And the fearsome hills of Afghanistan. Every crisis is "another Vietnam". Except it isn't. You jokers keep hoping for another Vietnam. The only "second Vietnam" that's actually happened was when the Soviet Union stumbled into Afghanistan and got *****-slapped. Saying it won't make it happen, but keep saying it if you like.

[deimos]

they'll not be defeated!I'm neither a americanist noir a fool.The iraqui people are against saddam.Iraq is controlled by the el-takriti clan.THey are arabic sunnites.this group makes up only 20% of the population.(20% kurds,60%arabic shiites,20%arabic sunnites)The opposition is too strong.There are over 100000 peshmerga fighters.They'll defeat sadam with the americans.

[Drifter]

nobody seems to understand vietnam properly.

russia is owed billions by iraq and want to sign oil deals so they are not going to be happy if america goes in there and starts throwing its weight around.
i'd like to see the US get its arse kicked but i'd be very suprised if that happens.
if it doesn't get drawn out, war can be very good for the economy sometimes,

[Looking twice]

the reason why America wants and even has to do everything on it's own is bescause,first of all the neighbours of irak are not waiting for a new gulf war. so there not supporting the U.S. .that's why Amercia wait's another year to organize rekrute even more lost American souls who's hart are still full of vengenge now cuz sept. 11

second of all if America does everything on it's own
than they are stronger , not by manpower but by democratic discisions.nobody can interfere if they for example want the use a atom bomb.like Amercia they won't tell the people untill the bomb has hit the country
and will then eventually deal with the conceguences

[deimos]

they can attack from jordania.

[deimos]

why do you defend this saddam guy?He killed more than 1 million people!!!

[Son of Scargill]

deimos,whether anyone likes or hates the Iraqi leader really isn't the issue.The fact is that the present regime in the US does not have the legal right to arbitrarily invade another nation and impose a puppet government there.No american would stand for it happening to themselves.
No doubt Dick Cheney just wants to get a government in Iraq that isn't burdened with UN sanctions(that have been responsible for the death of 1.5million people in the last 10 years)so that his oil buddies can get at more of the 21% of the worlds oil.The small amount of oil that can be traded for medicine most likely doesn't make them nearly enough profit as they'd like,and let's not forget the ratings boost that a "good ol' war"usually nets a militarily successful government,even if it is against an emasculated opposition.
Election time is looming large in their eyes.


"What the New York Times left out"
Printed on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 @ 18:32:49 EDT
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=609

By William Blum
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – Page one of the New York Times Sunday, August 18,
picked up extensively by the international media, featured a story on
Iraq: "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,"
shouted the headline.

Senior military officers revealed that the Reagan administration had
provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance in waging
decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The assistance was
given at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraq had
already employed chemical weapons and would likely continue to do so.
This of course raises obvious questions about the current Bush
administration's near-frenzied demonization of Saddam Hussein,
particularly for his alleged chemical and biological weapons (CBW)
threat.

Readers can be forgiven if they think this is a revelation of some
sort. It isn't. The story may add a new detail or two about the
precise nature of U.S. tactical assistance to the Iraqis, but the
basic story has long been known. Strangely, the Times story leaves out
the most significant part - the furnishing of chemical and biological
materials by the United States to Iraq which markedly enhanced Iraq's
CBW capability. (There is one isolated line in the Times piece, almost
at the very end, hinting at something of the sort: "Former Secretary
of State Schultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of
chemical precursors to Iraq."

At the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own horn, I must point out
that I wrote a story on this very subject in 1998, which was published
in several "alternative" magazines, distributed widely on the Internet
to this day, and won a Project Censored award in 1999. As far as I
know, the American mainstream media has never covered this story, and
if the Times article is any guide, the censorship will continue.

Following is the crux of my article as published in 1998:

In his recent State of the Union address, President Clinton, in the
context of Iraq, spoke of how we must "confront the new hazards of
chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and
organized criminals seeking to acquire them."

He castigated Saddam Hussein for "developing nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons" and called for strengthening the Biological
Weapons Convention. Who among his listeners knew and who among the
media reported that the United States had been the supplier to Iraq of
much of the source biological materials Saddam's scientists would
require to create a biological warfare program?

According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994: From 1985, if not
earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological
materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant
to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. (1)
Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths,
were:

Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain,
spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic
illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and
bacterial DNA.

Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq
during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological
materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of
reproduction." (2)

"It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these
microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those
the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi
biological warfare program." (3)

These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact
that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and
possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since
the early 80s.

[William Blum left the U.S. State Department in 1967, abandoning his
aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer, because of his
opposition to what the United States was doing in Vietnam. He is the
author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since
World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower.
For a signed copy of either of these books, contact
[email protected].]

William Blum encourages your comments: [email protected]

Sources:

(1) "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to
Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the
Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994
and October 7, 1994.
Full copy of the May 25 report:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/Focu...report/report/r
eport_index.htm
Full copy of October 7 report:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/Focu...report/staff_re
port/staff_report_index.htm


(2) Ibid., May 25 report, pp. 36-47.

(3) Ibid., October 7 report, p. 3.

YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted,
or broadcast provided that any such reproduction must identify the
original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to
http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.




''Who speaks for Americans?''
Printed on Thursday, August 22, 2002 @ 22:35:43 EDT ( )

By Sara DeHart
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – On July 22, 2002, the New York Times ran Patrick Tyler's article, "Europeans Split with U.S. Over Need for Iraq Attack" in the International section. What will it take before the Times and other news sources speak beyond a whisper about Bush's impending attack on Iraq?

Mr. Tyler's premise, that it is "American talk of overthrowing Saddam Hussein by military force that is raising alarms in European governments," is only partially correct. It is true that European governments are alarmed, but let there be no mistake about who is talking about overthrowing Saddam Hussein - it is not the American people, it is George W. Bush and the hawkish members of his administration. These people, also known as Chicken Hawks because they managed to excuse themselves from active duty in the Vietnam War, do not speak for the American people.

Retired Army General Fred Woemer asks the question: "Are we involved in a preliminary psychological dimension of causing Iraq to do something to justify an attack?" And of course we know the answer. Mr. Bush and his band of Chicken Hawks are obsessed about Iraq and falling opinion polls. Mr. Bush wants war just as his father did when his poll numbers dropped.

And how did Bush the First seduce Saddam into an act that led to Desert Storm? George Herbert Walker Bush sent a special message to Saddam prior to his march into Kuwait. April Glaspie, then ambassador to Iraq, delivered a message from the President of the United States. According to the Iraqi transcript from the meeting, her exact words were "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The U.S. government questions the accuracy of the Iraqi transcript but it refuses to release Glaspie's own transcript of that meeting.

Within eight days Saddam crossed over the border into Kuwait only to have Bush the First say "This will not stand." And with those words Bush began amassing troops for Desert Storm.

Will the American people and the world be led into another war by the Bush family? According to French sources reported by Pat Buchanan (TownHall.com, 7/22/02) Saddam has decided to let the U.S. land the first blow. Since Bush the Second has authorized not only occupation of the country but also Saddam's assassination, Iraq may use all the weapons in Baghdad's arsenal.

During the 2000 election campaign, Al Gore warned the country about the dangers of "oil men setting national policy." We are learning what that prophetic statement means.

The Bush the Second administration is following policies established by the Third Reich. Every time things get a little too warm for them they take a page from Hermann Goering's book on mass manipulation. As Goering stated during his trial before the Nuremburg judges:

Why, of course the people don't want war...but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
The media are not raising the alarm. We are being told that another Iraq war is on the horizon, but the media remain quiescent. How many body bags will have to be filled before someone exposes these very dirty tricks? Remember, it will not be the sons and daughters of the Chicken Hawks who will fight this war. It will be, as it always is, the sons and daughters of middle and lower income families, those whom this administration and the media have denied a voice and a vote.

[Sara DeHart, a freelance writer and democracy activist, lives in the Seattle, Washington area of the United States.]




(Edited by Son of Scargill at 6:42 pm on Aug. 24, 2002)