machievelli Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Way back in 1991, when the US was still only bombing Iraq, I wrote the following article, and handed it to the LA times for their editorial page. It was then about four pages shMisconceptions: A study of Buzzwords This article was written early in 1991, halfway through the bombing campaign of Desert Storm. I have updated it primarily to include the new buzzwords of this new war. Having watched the start of the attacks on Afghanistan, and the recent fighting in Israel, and especially with the build up for yet another war with Iraq, I am being buffeted now, as I was during the Gulf war, with all of the Buzzwords and catch phrases used by the opposing sides. I felt that most of us don’t know what they mean, or what the people that use them are saying when they do. I shall attempt here, to relieve these problems by explaining where a lot of the Buzzwords used are wrong. Another thing, I will not be polite when such buzzwords are lies. First, the Governments; WOMD The letters stand, as anyone that hasn't been hiding in a cave with their fingers in their ears knows is weapons of mass destruction. Actually the term is a catch-all phrase created during the Carter Administration when Carter ordered the dismantling and destruction of the American chemical and bio-weapons infrastructure. Of the three, only a nuclear weapon really qualifies, since even if aiming at a legitimate military target, you are definitely going to kill a hell of a lot of civilians in the process. CHEMICAL Chemical weapons are more on the order of an area denial system. If an enemy intends to march through an area, you dump a few tons of gas on it. This requires the enemy to; A: Slow down, by donning chemical warfare gear, then proceed through, then spend several hours cleaning the equipment and suits before going on. B: work in the area with the suits on (The primary tactical plan for using chemical weapons by the Russians and Warsaw Pact countries was to dump it on airbases and weapons storage areas). C: If moving through, find another area to go through to save time. D: Spend time treating the resultant civilian casualties. BIOLOGICAL Bio weapons are made primarily to overburden the medical capabilities of your enemy, and as morale and terror weapons. Bio weapons are a weapons system that disables an enemy, that is self replicating, and will continue working long after you stop using it. However in dealing with anything alive, you have more problems than solutions. First, remember what I said just above? 'self replicating, and will continue working long after you stop using it'. What are you supposed to do when the enemy moves out of that choice piece of real estate and you want to move in? you can't. Not without taking the same chance with being affected by your own weapon. As an example, look on a map of the South Pacific and find Johnston Island. Used by the US as a chemical and bioweapon test ground at the same time that the Hydrogen bomb tests were being done, the Island is now almost lifeless, only plants remain. In fact the US admitted in the 70s that the island is so dangerous because of the weapons used, that man can't stand on Johnston Island until the 24th century. If you really created that super-bug Stephen King used in The Stand, you'd be afraid to even consider using it. In fact both the Russians and US back when they were in the bioweapons game worried more about accidental release than anything else. Second, as my wife has consistently pointed out to me, the Anthrax attack on the US if done say in any low tech 3rd world country, would have caused a lot more casualties. This is because a full scale hospital there is the equivilant of the American Clinic. The difference in just treatment alone saves lives. Of the three, only one has been transported with any degree of assurance of safety. We have the accidental release of chemical weapons in Utah back in the later 60s, and some 'possible' deaths from bioweapons in research labs. IRAQ IS LINKED TO AL QAIDA As much as the US spouts this, I have yet to see any substantative proof. One possible meeting with a possible link does not make a case. If we end up going to war, we may find evidence in their own files. But not until then. The list of nations which could easily have links to Al Qaida is too large to enumerate here. According to the Potomac Study group in 1991, there are 55 nations which have links, or are considered operational areas. Among these are Russia (In the Chechen republic) and the United States (Which has about 2.5 million Arab-Americans). IRAQ WILL GIVE WOMD TO TERRORISTS Let's see, the Iraqis have had chemical weapons since the early 80s, a functioning bioweapons capability since the 80s, and with the collapse of the Berlin wall, access to men who can train them in nuclear weapons design since the early 90s. At the same time, Iraq has had links, camps for training briefly, safe houses for terrorists since the modern terrorist era began in 1968 until recently. Why hasn't one ounce of chemical weapons yet reached their hands from this source? The answer is the same as what is causing our present problems with Iraq, a man named Saddam Hussein. It should be noted that every use of chemical weapons by Hussein has been on targets that couldn't retaliate in kind, the Kurds, the Iranians, and his own Shiite minority. When faced with the idea that he might use them during the Gulf War, he held back, even though he fired 108 SCUDS at Israel. Why? Because if one death in Israel had been due to chemical attack, the Israelis, with their own nuclear capability would have leveled the cities of Iraq in one massive strike. If he had used it on the US troops in Saudi, the same would have occurred. As the old saying goes, 'I may be crazy, but I ain't stupid'. THE AXIS OF EVIL The term points at three nations in particular, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. All have emnity against the United States, in fact, blaming America for all their problems in the Arab and Asian world started when the late Ayatollah Khoumeini declared the US, the Great Satan in the late 1970s. Each has weapons programs we would rather they did not have. Iran and Iraq with chemical and bioweapons capabilities, and Korea with the full bag of possible WOMD. All have or had links to several terrorist organizations in the past, and the capability to supply such weapons to terror groups. They haven't yet except for one case, the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system. As for who supplied that, no one is sure yet. The list of possibles includes black market operators in Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, even black market sources in the US. There is also the fact that the gas they used, Sarin, is ubiquitous. It was developed originally in the 30s by the Germans. The entire process for making it is very simple in other words. An insecticide manufacturer made it, had a slight accident, and a dozen of their own were made ill by a brief exposure. It was later grabbed and declared secret by the Nazis. After all, the modern nerve gases have all been and are being used in over the counter insecticides. In other words, how do we know they didn't try to make it themselves? WE HAVE TO DISARM SADDAM NOW Actually, we don't. The reason the US is pushing, and especially pushing so hard is because the war on Terrorism is by it's very nature, secretive. Sure we take out a terrorist cell in this city, or capture some men before they carry out attacks in that city. But the American people are used to the 30 minute and 60 minute television show, where everything is resolved before the 44th minute of the show (Only 60 with commercials). The war against terror will not end that sweetly. WE’RE MAKING SURGICAL STRIKES Remember the film from World War II, entire neighborhoods being leveled to get the one factory in the center. That was precision bombing then. Surgical strikes are precision bombing now. The problem with this phrase, is you picture a bullet killing the one man in a crowd that you want to kill. Well to quote the devil in Porgy and Bess, it ain’t necessarily so. Look at it this way; The GBU (Guided Bomb Unit) 15 uses a 2000 lb bomb as it’s warhead. When it hits, it totally devastates everything in a 150 yard circle. To explain, if you dropped it directly in the center of the intersection of Hollywood and Vine, it would destroy the four city blocks adjacent to it, and trash everything between Hollywood boulevard and Sunset. If you dropped it directly in the center of a football field, it would kill everyone on the bleachers, and level the stadium with it’s blast alone, forget minor crap like shrapnel. While this is still a horrific weapon, the idea that a plane can fly over and drop one bomb to kill one target, be it a building, aircraft, or bunker, is what makes this a surgical strike. Instead of a stick of bombs weighing 9 tons, we drop just one ton. The newer form is the JDAM, which used GPS (Global Positioning Systems) to gurantee accuracy. However as good as they are, they aren't perfect. At least ten of the GBUs used in the Afghan war, and one of the JDAMs missed their targets and instead hit civilian areas. orter, but the liberal (Read: The war is wrong, and so is the government) claimed right of first refusal. For those of you who have never tried to sell story to a publisher, this means; Until we have stated to you that we will refuse this work. you cannot sell it. I have never gotten a reply beyond that from the Times. But legally as long as I am not trying to sell it (As in making money) I can say what I want, right? Misconceptions: A study of Buzzwords This article was originall written in 1991, halfway through the bombing campaign of Desert Storm. I have updated it primarily to include the new buzzwords of this new war. Having watched the start of the attacks on Afghanistan, and the recent fighting in Israel, and especially with the build up for yet another war with Iraq, I am being buffeted now, as I was during the Gulf war, with all of the Buzzwords and catch phrases used by the opposing sides. I felt that most of us don’t know what they mean, or what the people that use them are saying when they do. I shall attempt here, to relieve these problems by explaining where a lot of the Buzzwords used are wrong. Another thing, I will not be polite when such buzzwords are lies. First, the Governments; WOMD The letters stand, as anyone that hasn't been hiding in a cave with their fingers in their ears knows is weapons of mass destruction. Actually the term is a catch-all phrase created during the Carter Administration when Carter ordered the dismantling and destruction of the American chemical and bio-weapons infrastructure. Of the three, only a nuclear weapon really qualifies, since even if aiming at a legitimate military target, you are definitely going to kill a hell of a lot of civilians in the process. CHEMICAL Chemical weapons are more on the order of an area denial system. If an enemy intends to march through an area, you dump a few tons of gas on it. This requires the enemy to; A: Slow down, by donning chemical warfare gear, then proceed through, then spend several hours cleaning the equipment and suits before going on. B: work in the area with the suits on (The primary tactical plan for using chemical weapons by the Russians and Warsaw Pact countries was to dump it on airbases and weapons storage areas). C: If moving through, find another area to go through to save time. D: Spend time treating the resultant civilian casualties. BIOLOGICAL Bio weapons are made primarily to overburden the medical capabilities of your enemy, and as morale and terror weapons. Bio weapons are a weapons system that disables an enemy, that is self replicating, and will continue working long after you stop using it. However in dealing with anything alive, you have more problems than solutions. First, remember what I said just above? 'self replicating, and will continue working long after you stop using it'. What are you supposed to do when the enemy moves out of that choice piece of real estate and you want to move in? you can't. Not without taking the same chance with being affected by your own weapon. As an example, look on a map of the South Pacific and find Johnston Island. Used by the US as a chemical and bioweapon test ground at the same time that the Hydrogen bomb tests were being done, the Island is now almost lifeless, only plants remain. In fact the US admitted in the 70s that the island is so dangerous because of the weapons used, that man can't stand on Johnston Island until the 24th century. If you really created that super-bug Stephen King used in The Stand, you'd be afraid to even consider using it. In fact both the Russians and US back when they were in the bioweapons game worried more about accidental release than anything else. Second, as my wife has consistently pointed out to me, the Anthrax attack on the US if done say in any low tech 3rd world country, would have caused a lot more casualties. This is because a full scale hospital there is the equivilant of the American Clinic. The difference in just treatment alone saves lives. Of the three, only one has been transported with any degree of assurance of safety. We have the accidental release of chemical weapons in Utah back in the later 60s, and some 'possible' deaths from bioweapons in research labs. IRAQ IS LINKED TO AL QAIDA As much as the US spouts this, I have yet to see any substantative proof. One possible meeting with a possible link does not make a case. If we end up going to war, we may find evidence in their own files. But not until then. The list of nations which could easily have links to Al Qaida is too large to enumerate here. According to the Potomac Study group in 1991, there are 55 nations which have links, or are considered operational areas. Among these are Russia (In the Chechen republic) and the United States (Which has about 2.5 million Arab-Americans). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Misconceptions: A study of Buzzwords This article was originally written early in 1991, halfway through the bombing campaign of Desert Storm. I have updated it primarily to include the new buzzwords of this new war. Having watched the start of the attacks on Afghanistan, and the recent fighting in Israel, and especially with the build up for yet another war with Iraq, I am being buffeted now, as I was during the Gulf war, with all of the Buzzwords and catch phrases used by the opposing sides. I felt that most of us don’t know what they mean, or what the people that use them are saying when they do. I shall attempt here, to relieve these problems by explaining where a lot of the Buzzwords used are wrong. Another thing, I will not be polite when such buzzwords are lies. First, the Governments; WOMD The letters stand, as anyone that hasn't been hiding in a cave with their fingers in their ears knows is weapons of mass destruction. Actually the term is a catch-all phrase created during the Carter Administration when Carter ordered the dismantling and destruction of the American chemical and bio-weapons infrastructure. Of the three, only a nuclear weapon really qualifies, since even if aiming at a legitimate military target, you are definitely going to kill a hell of a lot of civilians in the process. CHEMICAL Chemical weapons are more on the order of an area denial system. If an enemy intends to march through an area, you dump a few tons of gas on it. This requires the enemy to; A: Slow down, by donning chemical warfare gear, then proceed through, then spend several hours cleaning the equipment and suits before going on. B: work in the area with the suits on (The primary tactical plan for using chemical weapons by the Russians and Warsaw Pact countries was to dump it on airbases and weapons storage areas). C: If moving through, find another area to go through to save time. D: Spend time treating the resultant civilian casualties. BIOLOGICAL Bio weapons are made primarily to overburden the medical capabilities of your enemy, and as morale and terror weapons. Bio weapons are a weapons system that disables an enemy, that is self replicating, and will continue working long after you stop using it. However in dealing with anything alive, you have more problems than solutions. First, remember what I said just above? 'self replicating, and will continue working long after you stop using it'. What are you supposed to do when the enemy moves out of that choice piece of real estate and you want to move in? you can't. Not without taking the same chance with being affected by your own weapon. As an example, look on a map of the South Pacific and find Johnston Island. Used by the US as a chemical and bioweapon test ground at the same time that the Hydrogen bomb tests were being done, the Island is now almost lifeless, only plants remain. In fact the US admitted in the 70s that the island is so dangerous because of the weapons used, that man can't stand on Johnston Island until the 24th century. If you really created that super-bug Stephen King used in The Stand, you'd be afraid to even consider using it. In fact both the Russians and US back when they were in the bioweapons game worried more about accidental release than anything else. Second, as my wife has consistently pointed out to me, the Anthrax attack on the US if done say in any low tech 3rd world country, would have caused a lot more casualties. This is because a full scale hospital there is the equivilant of the American Clinic. The difference in just treatment alone saves lives. Of the three, only one has been transported with any degree of assurance of safety. We have the accidental release of chemical weapons in Utah back in the later 60s, and some 'possible' deaths from bioweapons in research labs. IRAQ IS LINKED TO AL QAIDA As much as the US spouts this, I have yet to see any substantative proof. One possible meeting with a possible link does not make a case. If we end up going to war, we may find evidence in their own files. But not until then. The list of nations which could easily have links to Al Qaida is too large to enumerate here. According to the Potomac Study group in 1991, there are 55 nations which have links, or are considered operational areas. Among these are Russia (In the Chechen republic) and the United States (Which has about 2.5 million Arab-Americans). IRAQ WILL GIVE WOMD TO TERRORISTS Let's see, the Iraqis have had chemical weapons since the early 80s, a functioning bioweapons capability since the 80s, and with the collapse of the Berlin wall, access to men who can train them in nuclear weapons design since the early 90s. At the same time, Iraq has had links, camps for training briefly, safe houses for terrorists since the modern terrorist era began in 1968 until recently. Why hasn't one ounce of chemical weapons yet reached their hands from this source? The answer is the same as what is causing our present problems with Iraq, a man named Saddam Hussein. It should be noted that every use of chemical weapons by Hussein has been on targets that couldn't retaliate in kind, the Kurds, the Iranians, and his own Shiite minority. When faced with the idea that he might use them during the Gulf War, he held back, even though he fired 108 SCUDS at Israel. Why? Because if one death in Israel had been due to chemical attack, the Israelis, with their own nuclear capability would have leveled the cities of Iraq in one massive strike. If he had used it on the US troops in Saudi, the same would have occurred. As the old saying goes, 'I may be crazy, but I ain't stupid'. THE AXIS OF EVIL The term points at three nations in particular, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. All have emnity against the United States, in fact, blaming America for all their problems in the Arab and Asian world started when the late Ayatollah Khoumeini declared the US, the Great Satan in the late 1970s. Each has weapons programs we would rather they did not have. Iran and Iraq with chemical and bioweapons capabilities, and Korea with the full bag of possible WOMD. All have or had links to several terrorist organizations in the past, and the capability to supply such weapons to terror groups. They haven't yet except for one case, the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system. As for who supplied that, no one is sure yet. The list of possibles includes black market operators in Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, even black market sources in the US. There is also the fact that the gas they used, Sarin, is ubiquitous. It was developed originally in the 30s by the Germans. The entire process for making it is very simple in other words. An insecticide manufacturer made it, had a slight accident, and a dozen of their own were made ill by a brief exposure. It was later grabbed and declared secret by the Nazis. After all, the modern nerve gases have all been and are being used in over the counter insecticides. In other words, how do we know they didn't try to make it themselves? WE HAVE TO DISARM SADDAM NOW Actually, we don't. The reason the US is pushing, and especially pushing so hard is because the war on Terrorism is by it's very nature, secretive. Sure we take out a terrorist cell in this city, or capture some men before they carry out attacks in that city. But the American people are used to the 30 minute and 60 minute television show, where everything is resolved before the 44th minute of the show (Only 60 with commercials). The war against terror will not end that sweetly. WE’RE MAKING SURGICAL STRIKES Remember the film from World War II, entire neighborhoods being leveled to get the one factory in the center. That was precision bombing then. Surgical strikes are precision bombing now. The problem with this phrase, is you picture a bullet killing the one man in a crowd that you want to kill. Well to quote the devil in Porgy and Bess, it ain’t necessarily so. Look at it this way; The GBU (Guided Bomb Unit) 15 uses a 2000 lb bomb as it’s warhead. When it hits, it totally devastates everything in a 150 yard circle. To explain, if you dropped it directly in the center of the intersection of Hollywood and Vine, it would destroy the four city blocks adjacent to it, and trash everything between Hollywood boulevard and Sunset. If you dropped it directly in the center of a football field, it would kill everyone on the bleachers, and level the stadium with it’s blast alone, forget minor crap like shrapnel. While this is still a horrific weapon, the idea that a plane can fly over and drop one bomb to kill one target, be it a building, aircraft, or bunker, is what makes this a surgical strike. Instead of a stick of bombs weighing 9 tons, we drop just one ton. The newer form is the JDAM, which used GPS (Global Positioning Systems) to gurantee accuracy. However as good as they are, they aren't perfect. At least ten of the GBUs used in the Afghan war, and one of the JDAMs missed their targets and instead hit civilian areas. (Next added on 24 Feb. 2007) THE MEN HELD IN GUANTANAMO ARE ILLEGAL WARRIORS The problem here is most people don’t even know that the term means. Everyone seems to think that the rebels must run around in uniform, which is not the case. Under the Geneva conventions as of 1977, an Illegal warrior is anyone belonging to an organization that has renounced the Geneva conventions and claims the right to target people that the convention covers. The addendum was passed after the treatment of American POWs in Vietnam was discovered. The North Vietnamese were not signatories, and refused to accept that the rules applied to them. The date is interesting because you will note that this includes every modern act of terrorism since Maalot. As a soldier for an army, as a freedom fighter, you do not have right to shoot every civilian who passes your way. You do not have the right to attack them instead of legitimate targets. You can kill civilians if your operations are against a target that happens to be where they are, but you are supposed to restrain yourself. I estimated four months after the insurgency in Iraq that there were three organizations attacking not one. I used only the pattern of attacks to work this out. One was attacking American troops in the field and barracks, another was targeting Iraqi government officials or American business interests, the last were setting off bombs near mosques and shooting clerics. Of the three only the last group is by definition committing illegal acts. The Conventions accept that a guerilla may attack any instrument of the new regime. That includes recruiting centers, the police, the Oil ministry and pipelines. These are all legal targets. Oh BTW. The US did not admit that there were three groups publicly until late in 2006, four years after I made that statement first online. Now for the Peacenicks. WE ARE BOMBING INNOCENT CIVILIANS When the British were bombing Gestapo headquarters in Antwerp, they accidentally hit a hospital. But no officer in England said ‘oh yes, bomb that hospital while you’re at it’. Civilians will die in this war, in America, in Afghanistan, and now in Palestine to start. We can’t avoid it. The fighting in Palestine has been in built up areas, meaning civilian housing, and, unfortunately, military (Yes, I do define the Palestinian resistance as military) which in the Middle East tends to use the innocents around them as cover. As long as military bases use civilian labor, innocent people will die. Even an American military base uses about 2% of their total manpower in civilians who run the ancillary operations. Whether it be secretaries, janitors, or trash men moving garbage. The only thing we can hope was that the Taliban doesn’t follow Hussein’s method of surrounding military installations with civilians, or start parking aircraft and other military targets in civilian suburbs, forcing us to kill civilians to destroy viable military targets. Which, if you paid attention, is exactly what Saddam did in 1998. We already have Palestinian militiamen hiding in apartment complexes, behind houses of innocent people, and even hiding in holy shrines such as the church of the Nativity in the hope that Israelis will blast their way in and add the Christians to their enemies. Since Hussein used civilian areas in the first war, I doubt he will fail to do it again. It's kind of hard to show that the artillery battery set up in the hospital parking lot is a danger to the uninformed, even as it is killing your men and any civilians that happen to be nearby. If he moves back into the cities, as I expect, we can expect hundreds of thousands of civlians caught in the crossfire. (Update: Saddam did not use this tactic. The people that are still alive can thank him for that) WE ARE VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW BY ATTACKING Wrong. Once this was labeled a war, any attack up to and including a nuclear strike on Kabul would have been perfectly legal. This is not to say it would have been acceptable. Using a tactical nuclear warhead on a Tomahawk missile would be killing cockroaches by burning down the house with everyone inside. How many civilians would we have killed to guarantee killing the fifty or sixty members and main supporters of the Taliban who might happen to be in the city? WE'VE THREATENED TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PREEMPTIVELY This was aimed not at Iraq, but at North Korea, which has already threatened to sell nukes to the highest bidder. The fact that we have not used nukes doesn’t mean they are not an option, just not that we feel it is necessary. Nothing has changed here with a new Gulf War. Unless we have sufficient proof that he intends shipping chemicals and biologicals into the field, a nuclear weapon is unnecessary. Actually, if we were to catch a trainload of chemicals or germs in this way, a tactical nuke is actually a cleaner option than the gas or bug itself. The thermal pulse will destroy the chemical bonds, or the germs, leaving only the radiation to deal with. WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE IN THE AREA According to whom? Ever since the jet age, the Earth has shrunk until Americans live in Afghanistan’s pocket distance wise. Too much of the Earth’s resources comes from third world Nations and as long as we need things they supply, we have as much right to protect our interests as they do. By the same token their attacks on us are based on the idea that since we supply a few nations that are their opponents, we are automatically their enemy. By this definition, Israel should attack the United States for buying Arab oil, the Russians for supplying weapons and training to the PLO, the French for supplying equipment to Iraq, the British for daring to force them originally into their mold. (Next added on 24 Feb. 2007) WE ARE TORTURING THE PEOPLE IN GUANTANAMO. THEY HAVE RIGHTS!!! This is actually two different questions I will address separately. An illegal warrior under international law is not a criminal arrested under the American legal justice system. He has no rights as the legal definition implies beyond one; the right Under American law at least to a trial. In most countries Mercenaries (Who are also defined as illegal warriors by that same decision) usually get a choice of which ear they will put the bullet it. If we merely shot every one of them after a brief trial, it would be completely legal. After Abu Ghraib we had the claim of torture, and while the treatment of those men was degrading in the extreme IT WAS NOT WHAT IS LEGALLY DEFINED AS TORTURE. It is mistreating a prisoner, which is a much lesser charge. The problem here is we in the US have had the police accused of torturing prisoners to get confessions. The last major incident is linked to the Miranda decision of 1962 when they rewrote the rules. You see, you already had all of those rights, but now the police had to explain this to you. But the Military uses different rules dealing with enemy combatants, whether legal or not. They are allowed methods that if used in a criminal case would automatically gain an acquittal. Yet if you go by the usually acceptable definition of torture they do not fall within it. The methods acceptable to the US government are sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and chemical interrogation, I.E. truth serums. If you want to equate sleep deprivation with torture, you should ban the emergency last minute cram sessions that go on in every college around the country during finals because that is what is being done. All you need is a day or so of uninterrupted sleep, and you are as good as new. Sensory deprivation uses everything from blindfolds, lights being on all the time, meals served at irregular intervals even saline solution tanks to put the person into a more receptive state. If you have a chance, there is both a simple and excellent tank version of this in the book ‘Cardinal of the Kremlin’. In each case, all that is required to return them to normal is just stop doing this to them, and they are back to normal. Chemical interrogation has been around since WWII, and was originally invented by the Nazis to force people to talk. The drugs do not ‘make’ you tell the truth. They make you more voluble and willing to talk. They short-circuit the basic instincts to conceal something. A person expecting to be interrogated in this manner can direct the conversation away from what they do not want to talk about it by concentrating. Again, allowing the drugs to work out of their system will return the person to normal fairly rapidly. But it is not torture. WE’RE ATTACKING ISLAM Note that it is not the whole of Islam, but a small fraction of their numbers that make the claims above. Them and the apologists every modern society creates for them. THIS IS A RACIALLY (OR RELIGIOUSLY) MOTIVATED WAR Really? If Islam as a religion is at war with us, why is bulk of the Islamic world condemning the actions of Bin Laden and the Taliban? If we are doing it for religious reasons, why did we wait until they killed 2800 of our people before we started? If it is racially motivated, why is America, a nation predominantly white, attacking Afghanistan, and Iraq, both nations also predominantly white? Why aren’t we attacking Indonesia or China, or an African nation instead? Wars always have reasons, but blaming a racial or religious issue for it is denial of the facts. When Iraq invaded Kuwait it wasn’t because Kuwait belonged to Iraq as the Iraqi government claimed, it was because Hussein was deep in debt, (Over 12 billion dollars was owed by Hussein to Kuwait, and they refused to loan him any more) he needed to use Kuwaiti oil to pay for it, to get out from under the debts he owed to half the Arab world. Also because he felt the world would have stood back and let him do it. When Bin Laden struck at the World Trade Centers on 11 September, he had almost forty years of American failure to react as an example. He thought we would merely take it on the chin, and stop whatever we were doing that he didn’t like. He expected Tomahawks, not air strikes. And if we had gone to war, he expected us to put in two or three divisions like the Russians did. The insurgency we’re fighting now is pretty much the same as the Russian one of two decades ago. The difference is we didn’t put in masses of troops for them to attack, and the weapons had advanced a generation beyond those of the 1970s and 80s. We didn’t have to send a man to do a missile’s job. WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS TROUBLE IF WE DIDN’T SUPPORT ISRAEL Israel has been blamed especially by apologists for every act of terrorism that has happened since the 1960s. The thing to remember is that in 1965, before any of the Islamic terrorist organizations began, Nasser of Egypt supplied and trained the Palestinian Liberation Army. The idea was that groups of men would sneak across the border, and attack the Israeli military, as did the Underground units during the Second World War. The problem was that the Israelis proved a little too efficient at killing these ‘freedom fighters’. They also had little or no support from the Arabs living peacefully in Israel (18% of the population). Without real support from within, they were decimated. The PLA as an organized body died during the Arab Israeli war of 1967. The survivors became the PLO, and the organizations that spun off from it. Instead of fighting someone that could shoot back, they began shooting civilians and blowing up buses. The Islamic Fundamentalists hate Israel for the same reason they hate the United States or any other Western Nation. We do not believe their faith to be the only one, we allow our people more liberties than their fundamentalists allow, and we refuse to accept their ‘superiority’. THEY ARE FREEDOM FIGHTERS I am especially offended by this one. In fact, every man that fought behind the lines against the Japanese, against the Nazis, should also be appalled. A freedom fighter may not wear a uniform, may not stand in the open waving the flag as he fights, but the one thing he doesn’t do under any circumstances is kill innocent civilians intentionally. When Norwegian guerillas sank a ferry carrying three railroad tanker loads of Heavy water to stop the Germans from developing the Hydrogen bomb, they also killed fifty civilians. Those people were exonerated of ‘terrorist’ actions after the war because they were attacking a viable military target. Killing civilians accidentally in wartime is called collateral damage these days. Killing them instead of having the guts to attack an army base is not the act of a ‘freedom fighter’ it is murder, pure and simple. LET’S MAKE IT A POLICE ACTION! The problem with this idea is that in two wars in my memory, Korea, and Vietnam, the United States military was hamstrung by politicians unwilling to simply declare war and have done with it. In Korea, instead of declaring China an aggressor nation, we simply ignored the fact that most of the troops we faced were Chinese, not Korean. Instead of bombing bases that supplied men and material, we ordered our men and aircraft not to cross the Yalu River, leaving Korea a place to store everything they considered important. We repeated this mistake in Vietnam, and carried it to the ridiculous extreme of expecting troops in the field to carry .45 caliber pistols in the early 1960s instead of rifles on the grounds that a pistol is a ‘defensive weapon’ whereas a rifle was ‘offensive’. We allowed the enemy to build up troops and equipment on the other side of the DMZ, and ignored the fact that only we considered it sacrosanct. We ignored the fact that men and material moved through Laos and Cambodia when we could have interdicted it with bombs and troops. We refused to allow our aircraft to attack military targets because they were within certain ranges of their main cities. Telling our troops that they have to ‘wound’ Taliban or Al Qaida men is even more stupid. THEY MIGHT HIT US AGAIN IF WE ATTACK! The first hijacking of an aircraft was by someone going to Cuba in the 1960s. Instead of sending off a flight of fighters, and forcing the aircraft down and arresting the SOB, we instead allowed him to have what he wanted. Within the years that followed, almost one hundred aircraft were hijacked. Why? Because they knew they’d get away with it. Remember that if Europe hadn’t appeased Hitler, World War 2 would never have happened. The saddest part of September 11th was the fact that flight crews were expected to do what a hijacker told them because ‘hijackers almost never kill their hostages’. Tell that to the 300 civilians and aircrew that died on that day. Instead of going after these men in 1989 after the Marine barracks in Beirut, or when they attacked our embassies, we fired off cruise missiles at areas of sand, and called it retaliation. Since Bin Laden and company weren’t there when they hit, how many of them did we kill? Did we get any at all? Would the World Trade Centers still be standing if we had gone after Bin Laden in 1993 instead of laughing at the failure to bring enough explosives? Did he bring enough this time? WE SHOULD NEGOTIATE RATHER THAN FIGHT! VIOLENCE NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING We have over 2,000 dead, and almost a thousand more from 90 nations. Go to New York and tell their families that violence never solved anything. I dare you. Or to quote Robert Heinlien in his seminal book Starship Troopers when a student said this to a teacher, 'Is that so. Let's have a debate. We'll have the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany on one side, and the City Fathers of Carthage on the other with the Dodo as the moderator'. I used to teach a class on Crime and Punishment in 16th Century England. One student said this to me. In full costume, I usually carry a sword, and about four knives. I put them all down, then went over, and stood over her. Not threatening, but just standing. "Am I bigger than you?" "Yes." "If I were a mean man and wanted to take something from you, could you stop me?" "No." a little worry on her face here. "Then even the thought of violence has already won." I told her. "Unless someone who is mean knows that someone like me will stop him." THEY MIGHT USE BIOWEAPONS OR CHEMICAL WEAPONS Repeat the following phrase three times before you go on. ‘A nuke is a gas is a bug’. In the 1970s under first Nixon then Carter, the United States dismantled our chemical and bioweapons facilities. The reason we did is both are horribly inefficient. Look at the Anthrax attack on us; look at the Sarin Nerve gas attack in Tokyo. In total less than 30 people died in both incidents combined, and less than a hundred more were even affected. Even with the best of conditions, and everything happening right, neither weapon system will kill more than a few thousand. Or at worst a few tens of thousands. It is also impossible to control exactly how well or how long it will work. A weapon, no matter how horrific, must be efficient, or it is discarded. They have been called the ‘poor man’s nuke’ because both are relatively easy to make. That is why Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons are all labeled as ‘weapons of mass destruction’. However when we destroyed the weapons, we also put the world on notice. We told them that any attack with a chemical or biological weapon against the US or it’s allies would be defined by the United States as an attack with a ‘weapon of mass destruction’, and would be repaid in kind. Since we don’t have massive stocks of chemicals or bioweapons, that means we would use nuclear weapons. Very efficient weapons, and with weapons on hand that can destroy a city block, or a city depending on our mood. Some in our arsenal can reduce Baghdad to a smoking crater along with everyone who lives there. Why do you think the first thing the United States did was try to verify the source of the bacteria? When the foreign trails ended, they had to start looking for domestic terrorists. Who would lose more if Iraq had launched a chemical weapon on the city of Haifa 800,000 (figure 5,000 casualties from one Sarin gas SCUD missile) or Baghdad 2 million plus (One 150 kiloton weapon, estimated casualties 1.5,million) and the fact that firing only one gas shell doesn’t mean we would stop with only one Nuclear weapon. The Germans didn’t use gas during world war 2 because the designer of the weapon told Hitler that the patent for the basic formula had been public since 1925 and it would not be that difficult for us to manufacture it by the kiloton within less than a year if they fired even one gas shell at us. Think of the losses during D-Day if they had used gas. Eisenhower did. Roosevelt did. They dealt with the problem by stating that we would reply in kind. Iraq didn’t fire gas during the gulf war for the same reason. But would a terrorist group care about an innocent city? Would Bin Laden have cried for the innocent Afghani we killed with a nuclear strike? Or the Iraqis and North Koreans that might still die? No, he’ll name them all Martyrs, and keep fighting. By the same token, if we knew they got the gas from Iraq, who would protest when we began to level Iraqi cities? We gave fair warning. Not just once, several times. Do you think Hussein is foolish enough to think we won’t? Can he take the chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 AMERICA SUPPLIED THE GASES USED BY IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's see, at the same time the US is destroying it's chemical and bioweapon arsenals, we're supposedly handing off weapon to someone who hasn't been on good terms with. That attacked an American ship with missiles because we were interfering when both sides in the Iran Iraq war; began targeting the civilian traffic in the Persian Gulf. In other words we had done for this man something we haven't even done with long term allies. Now let's see, who could have supplied such weapons? Russia (Still communist then) Syria, Libya (Both of whom got theirs from the Russians) China or North Korea (Who got their equipment to make it from Russia). The reasoning behind this argument is always the same, we were mad at Iran because of the hostage crap in 79-80. I look at it this way: With almost nothing used by the Iraq army that was made in the United States (Their army is 1st and 2nd generation Russian equipment throughout except for American made Hueys.) Nothing American used by their Air Force (All either French or Russian) Nothing American used by their navy (All either French, Russian or Italian) Why did WE supply the one thing that made every one mad? Because they used those helicopters for their gas attacks. That is why. But if you're going to mount crop dusting equipment (The same designs, oddly enough poineered by the Army for chemical weapons) you need one thing no Russian helicopter has; Skids to mount the sprayers on. It's what a pyschiatrist would call adverse suggestion. They attacked us, but we 'deserved' that attack. After all, if we hadn't 'given' them the weapons, they wouldn't have them to aim at us now. Also, all of those Kurds, Iranians and Shi-a murdered by Chemical Ali are also our fault. (Update 2007)The final nails in this coffin of lies in the fact that Iran called in an international organization named SIPRI or Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. A non-profit organization administered by the Swedish government, and therefore someone who has no reason to conceal the truth about something we might have done. They tested the Mustard gas used, and reported that the formula did not match any of the major suppliers who had deployed such weapons. That means Germany, Russia, America, England France and China. Their analysis of the Nerve agents used stated that the Tabun and Sarin used were closer chemically to the formula created by the Germans under Hitler, and that the VX (The most toxic man-made chemical known to man if you don;t count plutonium dust) was inconclusive. They then went on to enumerate who could have given them the technology to make their own. China was mentioned, England and Germany. America was lambasted, but not for supplying the gas, but for supplying precursors for that gas. Sort of like condemning a charcoal burner because his charcoal can be used to make gunpowder. But of all the nations accused by the Iranians after those attacks, the US was again, not on the list. Added February 20th 2007. The next two should be together; AMERICA GAVE ISRAEL THE ATOM BOMB and; (INSERT NAME OF NATION HERE) HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM (INSET ENEMY HERE) I heard this comment as recently as last week when someone said Iran wanted Nukes to ‘protect themselves from an American Nuclear attack’. There is an old saying ‘What a genius can create, a competent engineer can build’. There is another from a nuclear scientist right after the second bomb was dropped. When he was asked how long it would be before the Russians had the bomb he replied ‘Four years, if we are lucky’. The Russians set off their first Atomic bomb in December of 1947. The first bombs took a lot of crash research to develop, and that kind of research takes a lot of money being thrown at the problem. If we had started at the same time as we did historically, but had done it like a business doing research and development, it would have cost less than half what it did. But hurry means money, and 20 billion odd 1990 dollars later, they begin building the first bomb. It is crude, a lot larger than it has to be, and is hideously expensive per unit (try 5 billion dollars each) but they do the job. But once you know it can be done, you can figure out how it works. In fact a lot of the information about how to build one (Not the really technical stuff but the basics of how the bomb works) has been out there for over 40 years now. All you really need for a ‘Little Boy’ design bomb is 22 kilos of uranium in two separate chunks, a tube that holds them far enough apart that the proximity doesn’t cause the two masses to melt, and enough explosives placed to put these together very rapidly. Simple, right? In fact the only difference between what is called a vest-pocket bomb small enough to carry in your hands is the addition of things like fusion initiators which is explained much better than I could by Jack Higgens in the book ‘The Fourth Protocol’. Once the theory was out of the way, all you need is that one competent machinist. As Tom Clancy commented in ‘The Sum Of All Fears’ a competent optometrist with the normal tools used for grinding and polishing the glasses you might wear could easily do the basic forming of the material. The only major stumbling block at this point for this would be nuclear power is the material itself. But if they have a nuclear reactor (Which Iran got from us when the Shah was still in charge) they have material that can be made into a bomb on hand if you’re making a little boy. If it is one of the Russian style such as melted down at Chernobyl you have access to plutonium, which is what was used in Fat Man. So as you can see, the Israelis didn’t need us to tell them how to do it. However, access to the material is tightly controlled on the international level. When you need new rods for your reactor, you have to return the spent rods to whomever made them for you. The spent rods (Which are now only about 10 to 20 percent U238 are processed, removing the depleted uranium and using what is left to make new rods. That was why the US was so upset when Iran started to build their own processing center. Not that they would not spend the 3+ million it cost for say France to do the processing for them, but because we wouldn’t know how much of that was spent fuel, and how much was still usable as a bomb making material. Picture this; you have a three year old Honda car. But when it breaks down, you go to a machinist, and have him make the part to replace it. Does that make sense? It would if I had said Bugatti, Dusenberg De Lorean or Stutz, because the company no longer exists, and you can’t just walk down and order a new part. Being able to process your own fuel means you can get uranium and make more and there is no way to verify how much you have. As was pointed out in the recent book ‘The Islamic Bomb’, the Iranians have some pitchblende inside their own borders. Not as much as they might have gotten buying it from some of the African countries such as Nigeria, but they have some. There are traces of U238 in all pitchblende and the same refining process to make fuel rods is easily transferable to weapons research. As for who might want a bomb, back in 1991 when this was originally written, I wrote a Star Trek Novel based on the Eugenics War. In the Episode ‘Space Seed’ Spock mentions that the genetically superior children seized control of forty nations. I used the nuclear weapon as the criteria for which nations might have been seized. I made three lists; Who has the bomb Who would want to get them because they feel threatened and; People who had the money to buy that technology for whatever reason. Iran, Iraq Israel and North Korea were in that second or third category. Both of the Arab nations not because they were threatened but because they had an enemy they would want to destroy, Israel. Israel was in the second category. When I was done I was appalled to discover that the entire Arab world was in that list. Forty nations that either have it, want it to either protect or attack, and 20 of them because they have the money and want to be in the nuclear club. I would not be as alarmed by the arrival of an Iranian or Korean bomb if those same nations were not ruled by people a few bricks shy of a full wall. The Iranian president has screamed ‘death to Israel since his election campaign, and Kim Jong Il has told his people since he took control that all of their woes are America’s fault. The Iranian president is a firm believer in the Mahdi; the final prophet before Armageddon, and Kim is a failed Hollywood style producer with delusions of competency on the global stage. Either could launch an attack. The problem is, as I have told others who were alarmed by the Koreans, it’s like a local gang banger with a brand new Saturday Night Special. He pops off six rounds of .22 .25 or 32 caliber at a passing patrol car, and gets a shotgun blast, 9mm rounds, and if he does it at an LA cop, fully automatic rifle fire in return. He can hurt the cops, but he is not only dead, but 50 rounds fired by two officers dead. That means Kim fires off a shot at say Seattle, and six months from now when the radiation is lower, we have what few North Koreans are left painting the line of what is now a glass parking lot. The problem with nuclear weapons is that only one nation has foresworn ever making them, and only one had ever had them and given them up willingly. Japan, the only nation to suffer a nuclear attack refuses to even allow them on their soil because of the visceral repugnance their people have to the very concept. The Whites who were in charge in South Afrika actually petitioned the IAEA to come in and remove every trace of their present nuclear capability. When people commented in 91 on how Saddam should have reacted to the UN, they used the way South Afrika went through, took the UN inspectors everywhere, and allowed them to destroy the entire ball of wax. AMERICA IS ONLY ATTACKING THE IRAQIS BECAUSE OF ISRAEL This claim is right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the idea of the mythical World Zionist Conspiracy. With all of the countries supposedly being controlled by this conspiracy (Russia, America, and England) the Jews suddenly have full control of 98% of the combat capability in every category except for infantry in the world. Why do the Israelis even need an army with that at their command? THE ISRAELIS WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN SURVIVED IF THE US HADN'T GIVEN THEM ALL THEIR WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! What weapons were given to Israel? Under American law, weapons must go through a convoluted process from construction and assembly, through the Senate and House for permission for foreign sale, and finally, are loaded onto a ship and sent over. During the 1950s we gave away a lot of weapons, but they weren't to Israel. They were given to the present NATO and SEATO nations. That was called the Marshall Plan. As a simple example, let's take the Israeli Air force. In the 1948 war, they had P51 Mustangs, C47s which were used as bombers, B-17s, T6 trainers (Used as tactical bombers) . Did they get them from the US? No. The B-17 were bought secretly from the Davis Monthan boneyard, and flown out before the FBI could catch them. The P51s were sold to Israel by Sweden and Italy. The others were bought from European sources as well. As an example the Czech Avia corporation sold 50 'Mezek' aircraft, based on the BF109 of Nazi Germany, does that mean the Israelis were also being supported by the Nazis? Between 1948 and the early 70s, every aircraft they flew (With the exception of C-97 Stratocruisers they bought from a defunct airline) were French and English. But in the late 60s, Arab pressure on those countries stopped them from supplying weapons. The Israelis turned to the US then, and everything they got from that point on was bought. All the American government did was let them buy them. All they had before 1980 was aircraft the US was sidelining as obsolete, the A4 and the F4 Phantom. These aircraft fought the frontline issue Migs and beat them. But with all these 'weapons' we've been giving them, they started their own weapons industry. They build their own tanks (The Merkaava) aircraft (The Kfir) and their own ships (The Saar 2 through 5) and their own missiles for every application. A nation only builds it's own equipment when it worries that it will get no supplies from outside. Not the reaction from a nation we have supposedly been coddling since 1971. The only weapons we 'gave' them were Patriot missile batteries. Because Saddam was firing at them during the Gulf War. WE COULD HAVE USED SANCTIONS OR BOYCOTTS Did sanctions stop the Russians from invading Afghanistan? Did freezing the assets of Iran get our people back in 1979? Did laying Sanctions and blockades against Iraq force Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction? Did freezing assets belonging to organizations around the world stop one attacK? WE CAN LET THE UNITED NATIONS DO IT INSTEAD First, Iraq sits on the United Nations. So does Iran and Afghanistan. Do you think that body will censure someone in it when too many people see the United States as the cause of all their problems? In 1976, 104 passengers were being held by terrorists of the Black September branch of the PLA in Entebbe Uganda. The Ugandan president Idi Amin was actively helping the terrorists, supplying security for them while at the same time claiming he would negotiate for them. The world could see no alternative. Israel had to submit. Israel sent a strike force over 2000 miles to rescue those people. They killed the terrorists. They also shot any Ugandan military personnel that stood between them and the hostages. About 19 of them. While the Western worlds praised them for their restraint, the UN tried to lay sanctions on Israel because Israel refused to negotiate. Yasser Arafat was asked by the UN to speak before them before the Palestinian state was declared, when he was still legally a terrorist wanted for mass murder. He got his chance protected by diplomatic immunity the UN gave him. Unless the third world is going to take responsibility for those that use their territory to attack other nations, they have no right to protest or control the outcome. WE COULD HAVE STOPPED AFTER BIN LADEN AND THE TALIBAN You would be right except for a few minor facts. Iraq was screaming that we violated International law by daring to attack someone who under international law has declared themselves allies of the terrorists. People who under the same International law were legally declared enemies by their actions. Not with terrorists from Bin Laden to the Indonesian Islamic militants saying they will attack our civilians for daring to fight back. If an Israeli had been accused of attacking say the Dome of the Rock in Mecca, and hid in the United States, the arrest and extradition hearing would have taken all of three days, not three weeks with ‘oh, we don’t even know where he is’. If we had held this mythical Israeli as long as the Taliban had dithered, we would be accused of harboring a terrorist, and we would be guilty. We were within our legal rights under the UN charter to remove the Taliban. If Bin Ladon hides anywhere else and we have to go after him, we’ll be justified there too. Killing one terrorist organization is like chopping off the heads of the Hydra. Each grows back, and has to be cauterized. Hercules was alone, but thanks to the coalition, we’re not. BUT IT WILL BE A LONG WAR Americans hate long wars. Mainly because we think of what we could have done to make it shorter. If this were just one group in one country, or one nation standing by itself, the war would be over next month. Look at how long the Gulf War took. Five weeks of bombing, four days of ground action, and it was over. But if we leave even one man still standing who harbors the hatred to start the terror networks again, we will end up fighting not one long war, but several short ones. ISRAEL IS USING EXCESSIVE FORCE!!!! This is one of only two Buzzwords I accept only because Israel had no right to move civilians onto Palestinian property. As long as they are sitting on Palestinian soil, they are going to be attacked. They will defend themselves, and more people; those that attack them and those that are merely in the way will die. The terrorists have used Mao’s teaching of ‘the rebel is the fish swimming in the ocean of the people’ to good effect. ISRAEL IS OCCUPYING PALESTINIAN LANDS Again, I agree. When the Oslo accords were signed, I had hoped that this war would end. But Rabin was assassinated (By an Israeli Jewish Hardliner) and the new government began snatching up the land on the Palestinian side of the agreed border with the idea that when the accords were finalized, they would control all of this land because 'we already have people living on it'. But by the same token, the Palestinians have allowed terrorists to operate from their territory with virtual impunity. If you think of Hamas or Al Aqsa as a political party (Don't laugh, Menachim Begin started his political career as the head of the Irgun, the Israeli group which assisted in slaughtering the village of Dier Yassin) then they are known to the Palestinian government. Not all of them, but perhaps 70% of them, enough to take a serious bite out of the organization. Yet the Palestinians have arrested less than 50. By my estimate, less than a quarter of the command structure of the various organizations. The others have too much support to be taken easily, or are actively being supported by government officials. IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL Since 1991, the dependence on foreign oil dropped from about 20% to less than 10% of which 3% comes from Iraq under the 'Oil for food program'. That oil was worth less than 3 billion dollars a year. At the modern price [set in 2002 figures]of 26 dollar a barrel(assuming the Iraqis actually sold us 3 billion worth), that is 115,384,615 barrels. While it sounds like a lot, that is less than 15 supertankers. Assuming every American had a car (Including the children), and every ounce of that were capable of becoming gasoline (Which it isn't) that comes to about one tank of fuel for every vehicle. My question if this were true is as follows; If we're going to take an entire country over just because of that 3%, what about our other needs? South Africa holds 80% of the platinum in the world. Along with that, they have the largest holdings in the world of Silver, Gold, diamonds, chromium, and ten other strategic minerals considered vital to American needs. Why didn't we invade and take over that country 30 years ago rather than merely help impose sanctions? Every car made these days has one ounce of platinum in the catalytic converter. When gold was 300 dollars an ounce, Platinum was almost a thousand! Chromium, tin, lead, zinc, Manganese, all in massive quantities are used by American industry, yet we left the greatest reserves of each in the world sitting because of the government policy. More importantly, the screaming during the Gulf War said the same thing. 12% of the world's oil reserves lays under Iraq, about the same is Kuwait. Yet with Kuwait as an ally, we have received not one additional barrel from them free. How is occupying Iraq to control their oil going to make it easier? The Russians discovered this in Afghanistan. WE'RE LOSING THE PROPOGANDA WAR! Of course we are. When the bombing started in 1991, the Iraqis threw the media out of Iraq except for Peter Arnette of CNN. He was our only source of news inside Iraq for almost three weeks. A week into the bombing the Iraqis sent a man to tell him, 'Oh, it's horrible, an American bomber just blew up an entire civilian neighborhood!' Arnette's answer, 'Let us get our equipment, and we'll be right there!' 'No! You can't do that! The citizens will kill you in their grief! Just report it.' Arnette's reply, 'If I don't see it and film it, I will not report it.' Considering Arnette is the man that made up the statement ‘we destroyed the village to save it’ so famous from Vietnam, I was astonished. The next day, Iraq was begging foreign reporters to come back. This is the same country that issued shirts in english to the men working at the so called 'baby milk' factory, reading BABY MILK FACTORY, IRAQ. The ones that put up, after the fact, a 200 foot tall pylon marked in Farsi, Arabic, International signage, and English which read SHELTER. As an example of how odd this is; if we started marking American road signs in Afrikaaners (Less than 2 million speakers world wide) it would make as much sense. The ones that used English language broadcasts to tell our soldiers that their wifes and girlfriends were home making love to Robert Redford and Bart Simpson. When reporters clamored to get in and film the supposed air raid shelter, the Iraqis made them wait a week, as Schwartzkopf said, 'Give me two days, and I'll walk you through NORAD, and all you'll see is a boy's summer camp'. Well Saddam learned one thing from the Gulf War, a lot of it will be won in the press, not on the battlefield. Thanks to Al Jazeera, the Iraqis now have someone willing to parrot what they say, as they write it. As an example; US News, A Suicide bomber today set of his device outside a crowded nightclub. Fifteen people were killed and sixty injured, most of them between 15 and 18 years old, BBC (Translating Al Jazeera) A freedom fighter struck this evening in Jerusalem, killing fifteen, and wounding 60'. It's all a matter of semantics. The same people who say this are the ones willing to spout whatever the Arabs release to the papers. They say genocide, and our apologists repeat it. They say 'we're starving, and it's all your fault' when Iraq says it but that 3 billion above was supposed to be spent on food and medicines. Enough to feed every person in Iraq along with their own production, a 1500 calorie diet. Who is short stopping that food? It sure as hell isn't the US. (Added 2007)The worst of it is that a nation’s willingness to fight is best gauged by the way the people react to the news from that war. Being told constantly that victory was only weeks or months away, over 30 percent of the German people marched willingly into hell. Being told the same, almost the same percentage of the Russian people in the same war also died. Yet after less than 3,000 casualties, an average of less than 3 men per day of the entire conflict, America is already talking about getting out before we lose any more. WE HAVEN'T PROVEN OUR CASE! If it's about links to Al Qaida, you're right. If it's Saddam didn't disarm, your wrong. (addenda 2007: There has been nothing but minute traces of any chemical weapons found since the invasion. But everyone ignores the fact that Has Blix wondered where 200,000+ liters (Try over 300 Tons of possible agent) of precursors went. Reports by Mossad that tanker trucks had come across the border into the only other Ba’athist state (Syria) and were sent to the Bekaa Valley have been ignored by the press. IN CONCLUSION Too much of this is being bandied about by people who aren't informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.