US Forging documents?
Senator Seeks FBI Probe of Iraq Documents http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyu=/ap/20030314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_forgery_2 -- http://truthout.org/docs_03/031603B.shtml Classified State Department Report: Bushs Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible'* http://www.patriotsforpeace.org/http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/http://www.truemajority.org/http://www.notinourname.net/http://www.endthewar.org/http://www.internationalanswer.org/http://www.peacepledge.org/http://www.citiesforpeace.org/**Ain't Karma A Bitch!
Suitcase Nukes in Chicago
Yesterday..on Steve Quayle show it was reported that a Pastor told his church group last Sunday at mass, info that was told to him thur a friend in the CIA, that part of a terrorist cell was caught in the Chicago area w/ 2 suitcase nukes...the bad part is that the rest of the cell got away .and w/ 7 other suitcase nukes..Steve is suspose to have the Local Police Lt. who emailed Steve the info about the incident who is part of the Pastor's group. more details to follow...if found
Finally, someone looking at the whole picture? We can only hope
Many Thousands" of US Troops Could Die in Iraq http://truthout.org/docs_03/031503E.shtml * http://www.patriotsforpeace.org/http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/http://www.truemajority.org/http://www.notinourname.net/http://www.endthewar.org/http://www.internationalanswer.org/http://www.peacepledge.org/http://www.citiesforpeace.org/**Ain't Karma A Bitch!
Mask, gun: check. Bullets: not so fast. Series: DISPATCH FROM THE 101ST AIRBORNE
Mask, gun: check. Bullets: not so fast. Series: DISPATCH FROM THE 101ST AIRBORNE St. Petersburg Times; St. Petersburg, Fla.; Mar 13, 2003; WES ALLISON; Abstract:In Afghanistan, medics with the 101st Airborne treated three soldiers who were inadvertently shot by their friends, including an engineer who lost the lower half of one leg, said Sgt. 1st Class Jesse Carabajal, 39, a senior medic who deployed to Afghanistan, and is now serving in Kuwait.One night as Carabajal and other medics lounged in their tent, a bullet whizzed through the canvas and struck a center support poll, then ricocheted through the roof. A soldier in the tent next door had fired his gun accidentally while cleaning it.This keeps the gun firing smoothly, and is especially important in the desert, where sand and dust infiltrate every moving part. After cleaning and reassembling the gun, the soldier then must pull the trigger, listening for the comforting "click" of the firing pin. Full Text: Copyright Times Publishing Co. Mar 13, 2003 This may surprise the folks back home, but the U.S. Army forces massing across the Iraqi border are largely unarmed. Even though all U.S. soldiers deployed to the six main Army camps in northern Kuwait must carry their rifles at all times - even to the latrine in the middle of the night - few are carrying any bullets. This is not an oversight, or a lame-brained cost-saving measure ordered by the Pentagon, or an indication that American military leaders believe they can take Iraq without firing a shot. Rather, it's an effort to stave off the sad inevitable: Once the Army starts issuing ammo en masse, soldiers will accidentally shoot themselves and each other. Those who served in Afghanistan, Desert Storm and other conflicts can attest to it. At Wednesday's morning briefing at Camp Udairi, American leaders were told that four soldiers in the British sector were injured when one of their rifles accidentally discharged. Last week, a U.S. Marine was shot in the neck by an officer who was cleaning his pistol in another tent. He survived but required major surgery, doctors said. Officers say the safety risk far outweighs the security risk. "We may be rolling the dice, but I can guarantee that you're not going to have any large forces rolling across the border and over- running our camp," said Maj. Spencer Smith, a logistics coordinator for the 101st Airborne Division. In the meantime, the soldiers patrolling the perimeter and the sentinels have all the rounds they could ever need. The Apache and Black Hawk helicopters patrolling the skies above the camps can quickly bring a hellstorm of cannon and missile fire on any approaching enemy, and Patriot missile batteries stand ready to shoot down any Iraqi Scud missiles. Smith and others couldn't recall a combat deployment where the bulk of troops remained without bullets for so long. Some got here in December, although most of the 101st Airborne arrived about 10 days ago. Many soldiers say they feel silly carrying empty guns. "If something kicks up, we're s--- out of luck," said Pfc. Jessica Ruth, 19, of Florence, S.C., supply clerk in the Division Supply Command of the 101st Airborne. At the same time, she said, "I don't feel comfortable with (ammo) because we got some careless people around here." On base, it's easy to tell which soldiers are ready for ammunition. Infantrymen - who have been given some bullets - and former infantrymen wield their weapons as deftly as a chef handles a knife and saute pan. The M-4 rifle is the tool of their trade, and they practice with it for hours a day. It is an extension of themselves. But even in the Airborne, the famously aggressive combat unit from Fort Campbell, Ky., and in the 3rd Infantry Division of Fort Stewart, Ga., many support personnel lack fluidity and comfort with guns. For some, the rifle is like a third arm, awkward and heavy and forever in the way. They drop it, or leave it behind, or use it as a tool. They lean it against a cot or a tent post, then knock it over, sending it clattering to the plywood tent floor. They forget about it when they turn around in the tent, bonking friendswith the barrel or butt. Early this week, a private was reprimanded for using her gun barrel as a pry bar while she was assembling the frame of a cot. "No, no, no," her sergeant barked. "What are you thinking?" In Afghanistan, medics with the 101st Airborne treated three soldiers who were inadvertently shot by their friends, including an engineer who lost the lower half of one leg, said Sgt. 1st Class Jesse Carabajal, 39, a senior medic who deployed to Afghanistan, and is now serving in Kuwait. One night as Carabajal and other medics lounged in their tent, a bullet whizzed through the canvas and struck a center support poll, then ricocheted through the roof. A soldier in the tent next door had fired his gun
Ticking Everyone Off. Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0314-04.htm Published on Friday, March 14, 2003 by the Boulder Daily Camera Ticking Everyone Off by Molly Ivins AUSTIN, Texas OK, sign me up for the Bush program. I'm aboard. Who else can we insult, offend, bribe, blackmail, threaten, intimidate, wiretap or otherwise infuriate? Getting the Canadians seriously mad at us took real work. Our latest ploy in that direction was to contemptuously reject their compromise that had a few more days' delay in it than the British-U.S. version. Then, when our version didn't fly, we decided on a few more days' delay ourselves without, of course, the contempt. Then, to add to the festivities of "Let's Tick Off the Next-Door Neighbors Week," we started leaning on Vicente Fox of Mexico. Our ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza, said: "Will American attitudes be placated by half-steps or three-quarter steps? I kind of doubt it." An unnamed American "diplomat" was quoted as saying it could "stir up feelings" here if Mexico voted against us, and does Mexico "want to stir the fires of jingoism during a war?" President Bush said, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government (what's significant?), but there might be a reaction like the interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French, a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people." For those who oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline." George W. Bush in chains and black leather. Why should we care that the overwhelming majority of the Mexican people are opposed to this war? To hell with democracy in Mexico we're for democracy in Iraq. That's us: If you don't give us everything we want, you're with the terrorists. Anyone who questions anything we do is supporting Saddam Hussein, and dissent is treason. I love it. Next up, Tony Blair, the first casualty of the war. How very smart to fall out with our closest ally. Nice going by Donald Rumsfeld, suggesting that we can't count on the Brits. They've already got 45,000 troops in the Middle East. We've already ticked off the Pope, and now a tiff with Israel outstanding. But we haven't done anything to Paraguay yet. How about doing something to annoy the Paraguayans? We could have Rumsfeld make one his statesmanlike remarks such as, "Nyah, nyah, Asuncion sucks." And why leave out Mali? Mali is a silly name for a country. This is fun. Let's go insult some goobers in the South Pacific, too say, Tonga. Don't leave out the Scots. Their guys wear skirts. Burkina Faso, now there's a dump. Only morons would name their capital Ouagadougou. Hee-hee. This is more fun than junior high school. A French journalist observed in horrified wonder Tuesday: "Mon Dieu, Bush has made Jacques Chirac into a hero. Jacques Chirac!" What a little miracle-man that George W. Bush is. He has that wonder-working power. One can hardly say enough about the courageous action of the U.S. House Administration Committee in renaming French fries "Freedom Fries" at the House cafeteria. In these critical times, it's good to know we can count on House Republicans. They'll teach those cheese-eating surrender monkeys a thing or two. (Guys, did you really have to just hand the French this one? That has to be the slowest pitch on record.) This was in addition to Republicans trading tasteless anti-French jokes publicly during a hearing with Colin Powell. Just for the record, there are 6,000 French troops currently serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan and the Balkans. As they keep watch in places they'd rather not be, I'm sure they all appreciate your gestures. Likewise, the Germans described by Rumsfeld as a "pariah state" have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans. Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence? Chickens coming home to roost all around. Turns out the reason some of the African nations are sticking with the French is because they get more in foreign aid from the French than they do from us. Thank you, Jesse Helms, for your many years of work destroying American aid programs. Of course, we don't need the United Nations. Why should we worry about peacekeeping, nation-building or international cooperation on global problems when we can buy our friends, bully our allies and bomb everybody else? What a glorious future.
Re: Ticking Everyone Off. Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence?
I used to be PROUD to be an AMERICAN.I'm not so sure now. - Original Message - From: jeani To: The Power Hour List Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 2:13 PM Subject: Ticking Everyone Off. Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence? http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0314-04.htm Published on Friday, March 14, 2003 by the Boulder Daily Camera Ticking Everyone Off by Molly Ivins AUSTIN, Texas OK, sign me up for the Bush program. I'm aboard. Who else can we insult, offend, bribe, blackmail, threaten, intimidate, wiretap or otherwise infuriate? Getting the Canadians seriously mad at us took real work. Our latest ploy in that direction was to contemptuously reject their compromise that had a few more days' delay in it than the British-U.S. version. Then, when our version didn't fly, we decided on a few more days' delay ourselves without, of course, the contempt. Then, to add to the festivities of "Let's Tick Off the Next-Door Neighbors Week," we started leaning on Vicente Fox of Mexico. Our ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza, said: "Will American attitudes be placated by half-steps or three-quarter steps? I kind of doubt it." An unnamed American "diplomat" was quoted as saying it could "stir up feelings" here if Mexico voted against us, and does Mexico "want to stir the fires of jingoism during a war?" President Bush said, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government (what's significant?), but there might be a reaction like the interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French, a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people." For those who oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline." George W. Bush in chains and black leather. Why should we care that the overwhelming majority of the Mexican people are opposed to this war? To hell with democracy in Mexico we're for democracy in Iraq. That's us: If you don't give us everything we want, you're with the terrorists. Anyone who questions anything we do is supporting Saddam Hussein, and dissent is treason. I love it. Next up, Tony Blair, the first casualty of the war. How very smart to fall out with our closest ally. Nice going by Donald Rumsfeld, suggesting that we can't count on the Brits. They've already got 45,000 troops in the Middle East. We've already ticked off the Pope, and now a tiff with Israel outstanding. But we haven't done anything to Paraguay yet. How about doing something to annoy the Paraguayans? We could have Rumsfeld make one his statesmanlike remarks such as, "Nyah, nyah, Asuncion sucks." And why leave out Mali? Mali is a silly name for a country. This is fun. Let's go insult some goobers in the South Pacific, too say, Tonga. Don't leave out the Scots. Their guys wear skirts. Burkina Faso, now there's a dump. Only morons would name their capital Ouagadougou. Hee-hee. This is more fun than junior high school. A French journalist observed in horrified wonder Tuesday: "Mon Dieu, Bush has made Jacques Chirac into a hero. Jacques Chirac!" What a little miracle-man that George W. Bush is. He has that wonder-working power. One can hardly say enough about the courageous action of the U.S. House Administration Committee in renaming French fries "Freedom Fries" at the House cafeteria. In these critical times, it's good to know we can count on House Republicans. They'll teach those cheese-eating surrender monkeys a thing or two. (Guys, did you really have to just hand the French this one? That has to be the slowest pitch on record.) This was in addition to Republicans trading tasteless anti-French jokes publicly during a hearing with Colin Powell. Just for the record, there are 6,000 French troops currently serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan and the Balkans. As they keep watch in places they'd rather not be, I'm sure they all appreciate your gestures. Likewise, the Germans described by Rumsfeld as a "pariah state" have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans. Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence? Chickens coming home to roost all around. Turns out the reason some of the African
U.S. Military Exercises Anger North Korea
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1047737155024_84///?hub=World U.S. military exercises anger North Korea Associated Press Updated: Sat. Mar. 15 2003 9:06 AM ET ABOARD THE USS CARL VINSON North Korea warned that the massing of U.S forces in the region increases the danger of nuclear war as a U.S. aircraft carrier anchored off South Korea on Saturday. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun told his military to prepare for the possibility that North Korea might attempt minor provocations during U.S.-South Korean military exercises that will involve the USS Carl Vinson, South Korean news agency Yonhap said. Roh's office could not immediately confirm the report Saturday evening. North Korea's main state-run newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said Saturday, "the U.S. can attack the DPRK any moment," using the acronym for North Korea's official name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "The U.S. seeks to round off its preparations for a nuclear war against the DPRK at its final phase and mount a pre-emptive nuclear attack on it any time," it added. Tensions have risen since October, when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted having a uranium program. Washington and its allies suspended fuel shipments; the North retaliated by expelling U.N. monitors, withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarting a nuclear reactor that had been mothballed for years under U.N. seal. Capt. Richard B. Wren said the U.S. warship was here "as a show of solidarity" with South Korea and to provide a "deterrence." "Certainly our presence in the region is not in direct response on North Korea, but certainly our presence can also be an influence," he said. Navy Capt. Donald P. Quinn, commander of Carrier Air Wing Nine, said "there are greater tensions, which means we have to be better at what we do." The carrier has 70 aircraft, a fleet of supporting warships and more than 5,000 sailors and marines. It is in South Korea for the joint military exercises, named Foal Eagle, which began early this month. On Saturday, the carrier was moored just outside the breakwater of Pusan harbor on South Korea's southeast coast. The forces were joined by six U.S. F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters deployed to an air base in South Korea. The Pentagon also recently sent a dozen B-52 bombers and a dozen B-1 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam as a precautionary move. Pyongyang has objected to the war games, saying they are a rehearsal for invasion. Some time in the next few days, the Carl Vinson plans to steam up the coast to support a landing exercise by U.S. and South Korean marines near the port of Pohang, where U.S. troops landed for the 1950-53 Korean War. In recent weeks, North Korea has escalated tensions by test-firing two short-range missiles and intercepting a U.S. reconnaissance plane off the country's east coast. Meanwhile, in Berkeley, Calif., North Korea's U.N. ambassador met with officials from South Korea, the United States, China, Japan and the European Union for talks aimed at allaying tensions on the Korean Peninsula. However, no one was appearing as an official representative of a country. "We are having a very lively discussion," said Yoshinobu Yamamoto, a University of Tokyo professor and co-chair of the conference. The Japanese government, meanwhile, has said it is considering strengthening its missile defenses amid reports that North Korea is preparing to test a medium-range missile capable of reaching Japan. South Korea's military Saturday said it did not believe North Korea was preparing to test-fire its ballistic missiles. The Tokyo announcement came a day after Japan's Defense Agency said it had deployed an Aegis-equipped destroyer which carries top-of-the-line surveillance systems and ship-to-air missiles in the waters between Japan and North Korea. Japan's Kyodo news agency reported Friday that the government was considering sending two more Aegis-equipped destroyers to the waters in response to the possible threat. ©Copyright 2002 Bell Globemedia Inc.
No Two Ways About Veto
http://www.jordantimes.com/Fri/opinion/opinion2.htm No two ways about veto Daoud Kuttab IN THE pre-war rumblings going on in the United States, a strange argument is being made. War supporters are chiding permanent members of the UN Security Council for reflecting international (as well as some American) public opinion by contemplating the possibility of a veto to any resolution that will approve war. Countries like France, Russia and China are being accused of making the world body irrelevant and obstructing and paralysing the work of the UN. William Safire went as far as to call this anti-war position a further abdication of collective security. No better situation could justify the form the Security Council was shaped in than the present. When one country decides that it knows better than the rest of the world what is good for world peace and is ready to start a war for that purpose, the opinion of the rest of the world does count. Also troubling is the intellectual dishonesty of the same commentators when the US was using its veto power to stop any anti-Israel resolution. Unlike the present attempt of the United States, many of those resolutions were based on sound legal arguments and were meant to prevent real violation of international humanitarian law, unquestionably contradicting specific UN Security Council resolutions. The US vetoed many Security Council resolutions that the rest of the world, including America's best ally, the United Kingdom, voted in favour of. These pundits didn't fear then the irrelevance of the UN nor did they blame the US for abdicating its collective security responsibilities. Even in cases in which, by virtue of being signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention, countries are required by law to enforce its clauses in defence of people under occupation, the US refused to allow the world body to impose on Israel respect for these international conventions. When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990, the world body moved, sanctioning the use of force to reverse the occupation. That was followed by the longest period of sanctions imposed on a member country. Yet Israel, which came into being as a result of a UN resolution, has been allowed to get away with murder and occupation. It has occupied Palestinian territories since 1967, yet no resolution has been passed with the kind of teeth that the anti-Iraqi resolutions have. If there is any party responsible for making the UN an irrelevant body, it is the US. And if there is any cause where the international community has failed, it is the cause of Palestine. Instead of waging a war against Iraq, the US and the international community should be striving for a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Removing Saddam Hussein from power will not cause a dent on the root of the problems in the Middle East. Those who argue that having a politically moderate regime in Iraq will suddenly produce a different Palestinian position are wrong. The possible loss of Iraqi financial aid to Palestinians killed in the Intifada is unlikely to make Palestinians change their long-held demands for a free democratic and independent state in areas occupied since June 1967. Those who think France and others should join in beating the drums of war because the US is asking for it are wrong. The voice of conscience of the world, as represented presently by these countries, and not American unilateralism, should be heard. If simply to be consistent, those who are unhappy with permanent members using the veto power should apply the same stick to the US when it uses it to sanction Israel's acts of occupation and settlement in Palestinian territories. Friday-Saturday, March 14-15, 2003
George W. Queeg
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14KRUG.html March 14, 2003 George W. Queeg By PAUL KRUGMAN board the U.S.S. Caine, it was the business with the strawberries that finally convinced the doubters that something was amiss with the captain. Is foreign policy George W. Bush's quart of strawberries? Over the past few weeks there has been an epidemic of epiphanies. There's a long list of pundits who previously supported Bush's policy on Iraq but have publicly changed their minds. None of them quarrel with the goal; who wouldn't want to see Saddam Hussein overthrown? But they are finally realizing that Mr. Bush is the wrong man to do the job. And more people than you would think including a fair number of people in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the Pentagon don't just question the competence of Mr. Bush and his inner circle; they believe that America's leadership has lost touch with reality. If that sounds harsh, consider the debacle of recent diplomacy a debacle brought on by awesome arrogance and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance. Mr. Bush's inner circle seems amazed that the tactics that work so well on journalists and Democrats don't work on the rest of the world. They've made promises, oblivious to the fact that most countries don't trust their word. They've made threats. They've done the aura-of-inevitability thing how many times now have administration officials claimed to have lined up the necessary votes in the Security Council? They've warned other countries that if they oppose America's will they are objectively pro-terrorist. Yet still the world balks. Wasn't someone at the State Department allowed to point out that in matters nonmilitary, the U.S. isn't all that dominant that Russia and Turkey need the European market more than they need ours, that Europe gives more than twice as much foreign aid as we do and that in much of the world public opinion matters? Apparently not. And to what end has Mr. Bush alienated all our most valuable allies? (And I mean all: Tony Blair may be with us, but British public opinion is now virulently anti-Bush.) The original reasons given for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed. No evidence has ever surfaced of the supposed link with Al Qaeda, or of an active nuclear program. And the administration's eagerness to believe that an Iraqi nuclear program does exist has led to a series of embarrassing debacles, capped by the case of the forged Niger papers, which supposedly supported that claim. At this point it is clear that deposing Saddam has become an obsession, detached from any real rationale. What really has the insiders panicked, however, is the irresponsibility of Mr. Bush and his team, their almost childish unwillingness to face up to problems that they don't feel like dealing with right now. I've talked in this column about the administration's eerie passivity in the face of a stalling economy and an exploding budget deficit: reality isn't allowed to intrude on the obsession with long-run tax cuts. That same "don't bother me, I'm busy" attitude is driving foreign policy experts, inside and outside the government, to despair. Need I point out that North Korea, not Iraq, is the clear and present danger? Kim Jong Il's nuclear program isn't a rumor or a forgery; it's an incipient bomb assembly line. Yet the administration insists that it's a mere "regional" crisis, and refuses even to talk to Mr. Kim. The Nelson Report, an influential foreign policy newsletter, says: "It would be difficult to exaggerate the growing mixture of anger, despair, disgust and fear actuating the foreign policy community in Washington as the attack on Iraq moves closer, and the North Korea crisis festers with no coherent U.S. policy. . . . We are at the point now where foreign policy generally, and Korea policy specifically, may become George Bush's `Waco.' . . . This time, it's Kim Jong Il (and Saddam) playing David Koresh. . . . Sober minds wrestle with how to break into the mind of George Bush." We all hope that the war with Iraq is a swift victory, with a minimum of civilian casualties. But more and more people now realize that even if all goes well at first, it will have been the wrong war, fought for the wrong reasons and there will be a heavy price to pay. Alas, the epiphanies of the pundits have almost surely come too late. The odds are that by the time you read my next column, the war will already have started. Copyright 2003The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
Citizenship quiz
http://polls.aol.com/ifs/poll/election/quiz283.adp chainlink.gif
Fw: Standing on principal
- Original Message - From: J. R. Atnip [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ruth Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ronald Nancy Atnip [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robin O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jarrett R. Atnip [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Grady Atnip [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Doug O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Coy Newberry [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Copeland, Leda [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Betty Atnip [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Atnip [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:46 PM Subject: Standing on principal This is from World Net Daily... 3/14/2003 The right of the people to petition the government is being ignored. All this lady wants is for the government to answer some questions! IF YOU TRULY LOVE THIS COUNTRY, THEN PASS THIS ON. I'd like for the government to answer these questions also. These criminals (the government officials) are violating the law by not responding. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31517
Top US Military Planner Fears a 'Likely' Repeat of Somalia Bloodbath
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=387234 Top US military planner fears a 'likely' repeat of Somalia bloodbath By Andrew Buncombe 15 March 2003 A former military aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf has warned that a US-led war against Iraq could turn into a disaster that echoes the bloody debacle of Somalia rather than the relatively painless 1991 Gulf war. Retired Colonel Mike Turner, who also served as military planner with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes the Bush administration is ignoring potential risks some that could cost the US dearly. "There's a saying in military circles: We always fight the last war. It means that too much focus on past enemy behaviour can easily lead to misjudging an enemy capability in the future," he said. "So I asked myself today which war will this be: Desert Storm or Somalia? In 1991, we had four iron-clad prerequisites for war with Iraq: a clear political end state, overwhelming force to achieve a quick and decisive victory, a viable Arab coalition to avoid empowering Arab extremists, and absolutely no Israeli involvement to avoid a global holy war. "In Somalia, we ignored the most critical of these lessons. Mission creep turned our original objective of humanitarian aid into simply 'Get Aidid,' the Somali factional leader we were battling. We committed US troops to a high-risk military operation in an urban area with extraordinarily dangerous variables in play on the battlefield, and with insufficient firepower." Colonel Turner said the US had made the mistake of fixing its sights early on ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. This plan had met stiff opposition from the uniformed staff within the Pentagon, but the administration had chosen this focus regardlessly. Colonel Turner outlined a worst-case scenario: "Within hours of our attack, Saddam launches Scuds on Israel. Israel's government launches a full-scale attack on Iraq, creating a holy war. Saddam, threatened with his own survival, uses chemical and biological weapons and human shields. He torches his own oil fields, thousands of his own people are killed. Photos of US soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US." He then envisaged the US left to administer a post-Saddam Iraq with minimal international co-operation and open to terror attacks from al- Qa'ida. North Korea could take advantage and start exporting nuclear weapons. "These are not remote possibilities, but in my view reasonable, possibly even likely outcomes," he concluded.
Check out and sign the Cats For Peace petition
Calling all peace loving felines! Is your cat against the war? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 5:33 PM Subject: [WendysWords] Check out Sign the Kitty Petition Click here: Sign the Petition WEN image/jpeg
Suitcase surprise: Rebuke written on inspection notice
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134653764_tsasign15m.html Seth Goldberg says he found this notice and note in his luggage after it was inspected earlier this month at Sea-Tac Airport. Suitcase surprise: Rebuke written on inspection notice By Susan Gilmore Seattle Times staff reporter Seth Goldberg says that when he opened his suitcase in San Diego after a flight from Seattle this month, the two "No Iraq War" signs he'd picked up at the Pike Place Market were still nestled among his clothes. But there was a third sign, he said, that shocked him. Tucked in his luggage was a card from the Transportation Security Administration notifying him that his bags had been opened and inspected at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Handwritten on the side of the card was a note, "Don't appreciate your anti-American attitude!" "I found it chilling and a little Orwellian to have received this message," said Goldberg, 41, a New Jersey resident who was in Seattle visiting longtime friend Davis Oldham, a University of Washington instructor. Goldberg says that when he took his suitcase off the airplane in San Diego, the zipper pulls were sealed with nylon straps, which indicated TSA had inspected the luggage. It would be hard, he said, for anyone else to have gotten inside his bags. TSA officials say they are looking into the incident. "We do not condone our employees making any kind of political comments or personal comments to any travelers," TSA spokeswoman Heather Rosenker told Reuters. "That is not acceptable." Goldberg, who is restoring a historic home in New Jersey, said he picked up the "No Iraq War" signs because he hadn't seen them in New Jersey and wanted to put them up at his house. "In New Jersey there's very little in the way of protest and when I got to Seattle I was amazed how many anti-war signs were up in front of houses," he said. "I'm not a political activist but was distressed by the way the country was rolling off to war." Goldberg said he checked two bags at Sea-Tac on March 2 and traveled to San Diego on Alaska Airlines. The TSA station was adjacent to the Alaska check-in counter. Nico Melendez, western regional spokesman for the TSA, said the note in Goldberg's luggage will be investigated, but he said there's no proof that a TSA employee wrote it. "It's a leap to say it was a TSA screener," Melendez said. But Goldberg said, "It seems a little far-fetched to think people are running around the airport writing messages on TSA literature and slipping them into people's bags." He says TSA should take responsibility and refocus its training "so TSA employees around the country are not trampling people's civil rights, not intimidating or harassing travelers. That's an important issue." Oldham, the UW instructor, said he was so upset by the incident he wrote members of Congress. U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., has asked TSA for a response. "The Senator certainly agrees with you that it is completely inappropriate for a public employee to write their opinion of your or your friend's political opinion," said Jay Pearson, aide to Cantwell, in a letter to Oldham. He said he expects it may take a month or more to hear back from the TSA. "I just thought it was outrageous," Oldham said. "It's one of many things happening recently where the government is outstepping its bounds in the midst of paranoia." Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Citizenship Quiz
I think I did pretty good considering I am not American Your score: 10 out of 12. You're a model citizen. Answers These are the two questions I got wrong on the first try: 8. The Supreme Court has nine justices 11. The Constitution was written in 1787.
Re: The citizen quiz brought back a memory....does the jury have the right to judge the law?
Not to mention Disgusting and Infuriating... ken - Original Message - From: William To: The Power Hour List Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 7:57 PM Subject: The citizen quiz brought back a memorydoes the jury have the right to judge the law? I called into a talk show6 or 7 years ago to a Supreme Court Judge from Minnesota and thought you guys would like to see what he had to say. Here is the transcript of the show. It speaks volumes. Host: My special guest in the studio today is Supreme Court Justice Edward C. Stringer, Minnesota Supreme Court, and Justice Stringer is here and graciously accepting phone calls, he is running for office, so ah if you in Minnesota are wondering about the candidate, here he is, answering questions, those he can about the law. William are you there? William(W): Yes, Good Morning to both of you. Justice Stringer(JS): Good Morning (W): Ah, Justice Stringer, does the jury have the right to judge the law? (JS): No, the jury applies the law as given to it by the judge and ah that is all the jury has to work with... (W): And when did that change? (JS): It never has been different. (W): Can I read a short quote? (JS): Sure (W): John Jay the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said "The Jury has a right to judge both the law as weel as the fact in controversy." Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, he said "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." (JS): Well, well uh... Host: Who determines this, Justice Stringer? (JS): The ah, ah, ah, historically, ah, to my knowledge ah, and I have been around for a long time and ah, I have never, ever heard a a ah a ah...that the jury determines the law, ah... (W): They can judge the law, the juries historically have, have overruled the law, for instance in Prohibition, the juries overruled the law ah, and then the legislature came by and repealed the Amendment. (JS): Well I cant talk about any specific case that you may have in hand. But I will tell you that in the legal system that we have in Minnesota every legal system that we have throughout the 50 Sates and the Federal System, no jury is charged with the responsibility for judging the law. They deal with the facts. (W) And they dont have the right to judge the law? (JS) No sir. Just the case. (W): And so what youre telling me is that John Jay is wrong and Samuel Chase, a signer of the declaration of Independence, was wrong when he said this. (JS): Maybe they, maybe they, ah thats the way they dealt with it back in the 1800s, but I can tell you that, that is not the way the system works. Host: Thanks a lot William (William gets cut off) I still have the audio tape of this somewhere around here and the written transcript doesn't do justice to his dancing and backflips, it's sad and funny at the same time. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
Asylum For Bush (and Guests)
http://www.rabble.ca/antiwar/petition/verify.php?indID=255pw=oISk7S97 TO: The President of the United States FROM: 176 peace-loving people of Canada Your troops await your order to attack. "Special forces" have been preparing the way for weeks. Devastating sanctions have been weakening Iraq for years. But your plan to bring the world along on your "pre-emptive" attack has largely failed. The world knows it is not Saddam Hussein but the Iraqi people who will suffer and die in this war. Yet you've given your word that you'll follow through. Recognizing the corner you have backed yourself into, we the undersigned graciously offer you a way out. Just walk away and come to Canada. There is no more painless way to accomplish the regime change the world is pulling for. To that end, we offer not only you but your entire family and all of your closest advisors asylum in Canada. As your northern neighbour and famously loyal ally, we feel it our duty to assist you to the best of our ability in this matter. Of course, given your record, we cannot allow you to hold public office or seek employment in our oil industries or military during your exile. We hope you understand. But consider this: after meeting certain residency requirements, you and yours will be beneficiaries of our universal health care system and other aspects of our social safety net, should they be required. We realize you may need some time to make your decision. Our invitation will remain open until our patience runs out. Sincerely, To be sent by registered mail to George W. Bush at the White House upon collection of the first 2003 signatures and again with each subsequent set of 2000 signatures
Rebuffed President Recklessly Saddles Up for War
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=19664 Rebuffed President Recklessly Saddles Up for War by Linda McQuaig Is there nothing that can stop this man from recklessly using his weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not. George W. Bush made it clear in his televised appearance Thursday night that hes finished with diplomacy and is keen to get on with the bombing. No wonder hes had it with diplomacy. Countries just werent capitulating. Take Turkey. Washington offered $26 billion in grants and loans just for permission to use Turkeys soil briefly to deploy U.S. troops against Iraq. That probably works out to about a million dollars a square foot! But those ungrateful Turks turned him down. (When an impoverished nation turns down $26 billion, you get a sense of the depth of resistance to this U.S. war.) Then theres the annoying behaviour of those no-name countries with temporary seats on the U.N. Security Council. In a surprising show of gutsiness, poor nations like Mexico, Cameroon, Angola even dirt-poor Guinea have been unwilling to knuckle under to the demands of the U.S., despite the fact that Washington effectively controls the IMF and the World Bank, upon which they depend for survival. No surrender monkeys in that crowd. One shudders to think of what kind of punishment will be in store for the likes of little Guinea for its uppity behaviour against the big boss-man. Mexico, another heel-dragger, got a hint of how it may pay for its lack of capitulation. In an interview with Copley News Service last week, Bush said he didnt expect thered be any significant retribution from Washington if Mexico voted against war, but he drew attention to an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French ... a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people. The president went on to say that if Mexico or others vote against the U.S., there will be a certain sense of discipline. It is mind-boggling that an American president has become such a cartoon figure of swaggering, threatening gunmanship a kind of Cecil Rhodes and John Wayne rolled into one and it helps explain the outpouring of anger over this war around the world. But while Bushs cowboy bravado gives a whole new look to the exercise of U.S. power in the world, it would be misleading to see whats going on now as a complete break with past American foreign policy. Washington has a long history of intervening in the affairs of other countries, with the oil-rich Persian Gulf being a key focus of past interventions. So, yes, its not only about oil this time, its often been about oil. Even former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize and who opposes war with Iraq, declared in 1980 that Washington would not tolerate a hostile state getting into a position where it could threaten Americas access to the Gulf. (That Carter doctrine followed the popular overthrow of the Shah of Iran, who had been installed by a U.S.-engineered coup in the early 1950s.) And U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney made it clear that oil was front and centre in the U.S. decision to go to war against Iraq the first time. Cheney, who served as secretary of defence in that war, explained to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1991 that, after invading Kuwait, Iraq controlled twenty per cent of the worlds oil reserves. Cheney said that this and the possibility that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia put Saddam Hussein clearly in a position to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most other nations of the world as well. The stranglehold image is apt. Because of the acute importance of oil to the modern world, whoever controls the massive reserves of the Gulf effectively has a stranglehold on the global economy. But, as Michael Klare argued last month in the U.S. academic journal, Foreign Policy in Focus, it is Washington that maintains a stranglehold over the global economy through its dominant position in the Gulf. Washingtons dominance in the Gulf has long been made possible by its close ties to Saudi Arabia, which has about twenty-five per cent of the worlds oil reserves. But with the U.S.-Saudi relationship strained after growing evidence of Saudi connections to Osama bin Ladens terrorist network, the need to control Iraqs oil has taken on new significance. Iraq is the only country in the world with sufficient reserves to balance Saudi Arabia, notes Klare. So Bush wants the war to begin. While the U.N. continues its hapless search for elusive weapons, Bush is keen to get on with implementing a long-standing U.S. agenda, cowboy-style. Originally published by the The Toronto Star.
