War wih Iraq?

[Toughy]

I live in California............I have a supply of food water and batteries and a radio and all that bullshit...........this is earthquake country and I am far more afraid of an earthquake than I am some stupid ass CBR attack..............

And Mia...........do you have any idea how long dispersal of a CBR attack takes..........how long before the 'all clear' can be sounded and it would be safe to 'unseal' your little safe room.........and do you know how long it takes for CO2 & CO3 to replace what little oxygen would be available in such sealed room..............AND do you REALLY believe that plastic sheeting will keep you safe darlin.............ohhhh and covering your mouth with a cloth and washing your hands.........LMAO......pablam for the masses and designed to create more fear and hysteria..........

I encourage everyone to participate in the Peace Rallys across the country and the world...........they are on Saturday everywhere but here in SF........we are doing ours on Sunday because Saturday is Chinese New Years.....The SF Rally is being organised by 4 umbrella groups.........of which only one has links to the SCARY WWP ......the commies will not get you here in SF....the churches, labor organisations (ohhh wait they are commies too right MIA??), and many other groups are part of the organisers.........

[homeboi]

I have thoroughly apreciated reading thru this thread. It's good to discuss our differing opinions and heartfelt leanings. You know, I may not be as articulate as some of you in explaining the whys and whynots..I can't cite history and political events. What I know is that war is no good for anyone.
It kills.
It maims.
It devestates land.
It destroys flora and fauna...
It interrupts the cycle of life for more than just human life...
It's wrong. just wrong. I feel that the u.s. government and (government controlled) media have built such a hype to get folks riled up. I am not unpatriotic. I, too, love this country..and what [we say] we stand for. But I will not support a government that wants to usher in Armageddon. That's what he's trying to do, you know. Bush wants to be a hero....wants to be the guy with his finger on the button....thing is..he's all thumbs...
just my slant...
peace~

[homeboi]

***********************
There is a grassroots campaign underway to protest war
in Iraq in a simple, but potentially powerful way.

Place 1/2 cup uncooked rice in a small plastic
bag (a snack-size
bag or sandwich bag work fine). Squeeze out excess air
and seal the bag. Wrap it in a piece of paper on which
you have written, "If your enemies
are hungry, feed them. Please send this rice to the
people of Iraq; do not attack them."

Place the paper and bag of rice in an envelope
(either a letter-sized or padded mailing
envelope--both are the same cost to mail) and
address them to:

President George Bush White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Attach $1.06 in postage. (Three 37-cent stamps
equal $1.11.)

Drop this in the mail. It is important to act
NOW so that President Bush gets the letters ASAP.
In order for this protest to be effective,

there must be hundreds of thousands of such rice
deliveries to the White House. We can do
this if you each forward this message to your friends
and family.


There is a positive history of this protest! In
the 1950s, Fellowship of Reconciliation began a
similar protest, which is credited with influencing
President Eisenhower against attacking China. Read
on:

"In the mid-1950s, the pacifist Fellowship of
Reconciliation, learning of famine in the Chinese
mainland, launched a 'Feed Thine Enemy' campaign.
Members and friends mailed thousands of little
bags of rice to the White House with a tag quoting
the Bible, "If thine enemy hunger,
feed him."
As far as anyone knew for more than ten years,
the campaign was an abject failure. The President did
not acknowledge receipt of the bags publicly;
certainly, no rice was ever sent to China.

"What nonviolent activists only learned a
decade later was that the campaign played a
significant, perhaps even determining role in
preventing nuclear war. Twice while the campaign was
on, President Eisenhower met with the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to consider U.S. options in the conflict with
China over two islands, Quemoy and Matsu. The generals
twice recommended the use of nuclear weapons.
President Eisenhower turned to his aide and asked how
many little bags of rice had come in. When told they
numbered in the tens of thousands, Eisenhower told
the generals that as long as so many Americans were
expressing active interest in having the U.S. feed the
Chinese, he certainly wasn't going to consider using
nuclear weapons against them."
--

[Toughy]

WW2 Bombs Remembered Amid Anti-War Protests
14/02/2003 11:53 AM Reuters

Church bells have sounded across Dresden to mark the anniversary of the night British and American warplanes fire-bombed the city and killed 40,000 people near the end of World War Two.

Accompanied by anti-war demonstrations, Dresdeners placed flowers on graves, watched wreath-laying ceremonies and stood by silently as church bells rang out to mark the February 13, 1945, bombing that ranks as one the most deadly attacks ever.

"The emotions are just too much," Lothar Weber, 58, told MDR television. He was a day-old infant who survived in a hospital bomb shelter even though his mother and father perished in the flames along all but 15 of the 74 infants at the hospital.

The U.S. ambassador to Germany, Daniel Coats, and the head of Britain's consulate in nearby Leipzig Fletcher Burton joined Saxony state premier Georg Milbradt in laying wreaths at a silent and sombre cemetery earlier on Thursday where many victims were buried.

This year's 58th anniversary has taken on significance because of a looming war in Iraq, which Germany firmly opposes.

It also comes as Germans are taking a new and controversial examination of the British-U.S. bombing of Germany during World War Two aimed at civilians to demoralise the war effort. Some 635,000 civilians were killed and 130 cities destroyed.

"The 'old Europe' has learned from history," read one banner held by an anti-war demonstrator, a rebuke of U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's recent jibe at Germany and France.

"Never again war," read a sign carried by a 77-year-old man whose parents and three sisters were killed. He was a soldier at the time and not in Dresden when the city burned.



>>>>>>>>>>>>continued

[Toughy]

"The bombs may be getting smarter but there is no question civilians will also suffer if bombs are dropped on Iraq," historian Joerg Friedrich told MDR. His recent book "The Fire" about the firestorms has become a runaway bestseller but sparked criticism for downplaying the fact that Germany started the war.

On February 13, 1945, three waves of British and American bombers dropped a total of 3.4 tonnes of explosives -- first high-explosive bombs to pound buildings into rubble and tinder and then incendiary bombs to set it all ablaze.

The first wave of 243 British Lancaster bombers struck shortly after 10 p.m. and a second wave of 529 more came three hours later. Shortly after noon on February 14, 311 American B-17 bombers flew a final raid over the incinerated city.

The firestorm stoked air temperatures to over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit (540 degrees centigrade), creating an updraft that sucked air towards the centre of the blaze so violently that the winds swept many people into a fiery death.

An estimated 40,000 people were burned or suffocated in the raid on the city known as the "Florence of the Elbe" which had hardly any military significance at all and came less than three months before Nazi Germany surrendered.

There were also several hundred British and U.S. prisoners of war in Dresden, including American author Kurt Vonnegut who recounted his experiences in the book "Slaughterhouse Five".


Copyright Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

Republication or dissemination of the material provided by Reuters is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters Limited.

[MsMissy]

I love the rice idea, and am sending it to everyone I know.

Thank you.

[EmmaD]

Thanks for passing along the rice idea Homeboi!

Toughy, I was at my mom's when I first heard on the news they were advising DUCT TAPE and PLASTIC. I laughed my ass off.

I'm on the mailing list for notinourname.net & received this email tonight. Thought I'd pass it along.


Dear Emma,

As everyone can see, the clock is at five minutes to midnight. The Bush
administration is hell-bent on war. It is a war that is wrong, and we
must stop it.

At this point everyone must act as though the future of the world
depends on it . . . because it does. Here are three important ways that you
can take action.

First, you can participate in antiwar actions throughout the country on
February 15-16. For detailed information go to
http://www.unitedforpeace.org and http://www.internationalanswer.org.

Second, you can stand with Arthur Miller, Sam Hammil and the major
poets of America who are speaking out against the war. In New York, there
will be a major program "Poems Not Fit for the White House" on February
17 at Avery Fisher Hall, the Lincoln Center. For details see
http://www.nion.us/poems_not_fit.htm.

Third, the Not In Our Name Project is calling on the entire peace
movement to join together in a national day before the war begins, a day
when everybody stops normal activity and participates in many different
forms of opposition to the war. Hopefully this can happen by the end of
the month. Watch for details at http://www.notinourname.net.

As you may have heard, both Stars and Stripes and the Military Times
publications have pulled the Not In Our Name statement from publication
after accepting our ad and payment. Even before the war, wartime
censorship has set in. To continue getting the statement published, please
send your contribution to Not In Our Name, 158 Church St, PMB9, New York,
NY 10007.

http://www.nion.us

***

There are peace rallies being held in virtually every major city in the nation this weekend. Look yours up and BE SEEN. Don't let this go down without making it known that the Bush administration does not speak for all of us.

Peace,
Em

[traveler]

"Politicians have had to sell the public on going to war since Colonial times, but they never had the arsenal of advertising and communications techniques the Bush administration is using to sell a possible war on Iraq. Bob Simon reports on those techniques and those employed by the elder Bush prior to the 1991 Gulf War.

Simon reminds viewers that a horrible story spread widely by the first Bush administration prior to the Gulf War about Kuwaiti babies pulled from incubators by invading Iraqis turned out not to be true. The current Bush administration may be also misinforming the public in its efforts to justify a possible second war with Saddam Hussein.

One example of misinformation, according to physicist and former weapons inspector David Albright, was the Bush administration’s leak to the media in September about Iraq’s attempt to import aluminum tubes which administration officials claimed were headed for Iraq’s nuclear program.

'I think it was very misleading,' says Albright, who directs the Institute for Science and International Security. Albright says the tubes could be possibly used for a nuclear program, but were more suited to conventional weapons production. Government experts thought that too, Albright tells Simon, but administration officials 'were selectively picking information to bolster a case that the Iraqi nuclear threat was more imminent than it is, and, in essence, scare people.'

Simon’s report examines the administration’s use of Madison Avenue to produce an ad campaign aimed at improving the image of America in the Muslim world. He also interviews a former CIA agent who investigated the oft-mentioned report that hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague several months before the deadly attacks on 9/11.

Despite a lack of evidence that the meeting took place, the item was cited by administration officials as high as Vice President Dick Cheney and ended up being reported so widely that two-thirds of Americans polled by the Council on Foreign Relations believe Iraq was behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11."

-- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in532107.shtml

[mia]

Toughy, I used to live in the bay area and never did get used to earthquakes. I always kept supplies with me at all times.

As far as wmd's, that depends entirely on the nature of the weapon. I've had a fair amount of training in issues of WMD & Hazmat. None of it's pretty. Interestingly, there are many, many alternatives to the typical wmd's.... a loaded flammable or chemical tanker, during rush hour traffic comes to mind. The possibilities are out there for the creative, demented mind.

This terrorism threat has been going on for years. Anyone who has worked with any of the federal & local disaster reponse organizations, has been aware of this. We *are not* capable of handling a massive WMD attack, regardless of what the officials are telling people. We can't handle the truth.

One further note, do you really think that the terrorists will leave us alone if we don't go to war with Iraq? That's wishful thinking if you do. This is not a result of Bush, or even Clinton for that matter. Though, I do fault Clinton for much of the unpreparedness of this country and the vulnerability that he put this country in. I came across the following comment this morning: "unless everyone is peaceful, there will be no peace."
Do you really think that you are going to change the minds of these islamic terrorists?


I think I've said my part on the communist / peace agenda. It's futile, but go for it. I can appreciate the concern and passion that most of you express.

I've just started studying the radical islamic religious beliefs. I'm curious why the far left is so against Israel. They are the only middle eastern country which has a democratic government, with a strong bill of rights (or whatever they call it over there.) In particular, Gays are free too. Can this be said of the other Middle Eastern countries? Many of those other countries are brutal when it comes to individual rights, in particular gay issues. As long as we are support Israel to be a free nation, we will be targeted by these groups.

[mudwrestler]

Originally posted by mia

One further note, do you really think that the terrorists will leave us alone if we don't go to war with Iraq? That's wishful thinking if you do.

So are you saying that there will be less terrorism if we go to war? That's wishful thinking if you do.

War is not the answer.

MW

[MsMissy]

I come from a family that became divded by a war. I have cousins that went to Vietnam, and a few that did not return. I have cousins that went to Canada and the South Pacific to escape the draft. I was raised to be a concientous objector. I truly believe that war is not the answer to anything. You can not end violence with more violence. Education, acceptance and tolerance are the only things that will save us.

[Kevlar]

It's very difficult to persuade european countries to participate or support a war against Iraq (except for UK). Or a war anywhere in the world. There's very few efforts though, to oppose a war against Iraq.
From a swedish point of view europe resign to the fact that there will be a war no matter what.
It's not about goodhearted Mr Bush trying to liberate the iraqi people from it's dictator. (Who would oppose to that?) No, it seems to me like it's something of an urge that Mr Bush have. At any price.

Now, no one knows if there is anything going on out there that Bush knows and we don't. But apparently not. If so, he handles it terrible wrong.

Europe stays quiet. I guess most of us is very happy to be europeans at the time. Our part of the world is relatively safe. Unfortunaltley the world is not. Though, loosing one persons life in a war is a loss for the whole world.

Kevlar

[Tobatia]

((Toughy))))
thanks for posting this article. It made me shiver. It made me wanna cry. I never expected to be however exposed to a war....don't we live in "civilized times"? I thought so. Guess I'm naive.

A remark about duct tape and plastic. I got the home front instructions from the israeli defence force (army), as everyone else here. Learning how to use the gas mask, what has to be in the "sealed room" and how to seal a room. Plastic, duct tape and nicely embroidered bomb curtains. And don't forget to wear long sleeved clothes and long pants. no free skin. cover your head with something.... have the atropin handy, in case the nervegas comes into your neat sealed room..and have flour or talcum powder, in case you get in touch with chemical spray agents.... and hope that the army is better organized than in Gulf war I and really manages to get to you after maximum 12 hours exposure to whatever chemical or biological warfare was used, cause after 13 hours the filter of your gas mask could start to be used up....

Would I follow the instructions? Yes. Would I believe in their efficacy? I would try to, cause if not, I just could donne my smalles bikini and go out in the street when whatever is raining down.... at least it would be quick!

Tobatia

[mia]

Originally posted by mudwrestler
So are you saying that there will be less terrorism if we go to war? That's wishful thinking if you do.

On a deep personal level, I believe that it's wishful thinking to believe that we will eliminate terrorism and those who wish to inflict massive casulties on us. We are only holding back the inevitable in my opinion. I at least have the admiration for Bush to take this on himself. He is having to deal with the problems that Clinton never did.... I guess it wasn't on Bill's list of high priorties.

Read what history has to say about this. Even Clinton was trying to take Saddam out because of the grave threat he is. But I guess that was "ok", along with all of his other bombing techniques. It was the Clinton Administration.

It's all politics....

[mia]

Originally posted by MsMissy
I was raised to be a concientous objector. I truly believe that war is not the answer to anything. You can not end violence with more violence. Education, acceptance and tolerance are the only things that will save us.

So does education, acceptance and tolerance solve the crime and violence in America? It's unlikely that you will sway the opinion of terrorist extremists through tolerance and acceptance. I'm just thankful that you and those of your mindset are not in charge of defending this country.

We probably would no longer be America.

[MsMissy]

Originally posted by mia
So does education, acceptance and tolerance solve the crime and violence in America?

It would if that is what America's children were taught. Unfortunately they are not. The children of America are taught to hate and fear anything or anyone that they do not understand. Poverty, hate, fear and ignorance are what is responsible for the crime rate here in our country, as well as the terrorism around the world.

If the people of my "MINDSET" were not only running this country, but other countries as well, we would not be in this position.

lib·er·tar·i·an: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

[mia]

Originally posted by MsMissy
It would if that is what America's children were taught. Unfortunately they are not. The children of America are taught to hate and fear anything or anyone that they do not understand. Poverty, hate, fear and ignorance are what is responsible for the crime rate here in our country, as well as the terrorism around the world. [/COLOR]

Children in this country on the whole are *not* taught to hate and fear. Please site examples of this Missy. The public school systems is basically controlled by the local, state & federal government. The school agenda has been to teach diversity and tolerance for many years now. That's one of the few good things that has come out of the public schools.

I'd like to hear your libertarian opinions on our country's public school system.

[mia]

Originally posted by MsMissy
If the people of my "MINDSET" were not only running this country, but other countries as well, we would not be in this position.

Great comment!!! If the people of your mindset were running the other countries, we wouldn't have had 9/11 and we sure's hell wouldn't be sending our troops in harms way, half way across the world.

Until that time comes.... which it won't, America must stand strong.

[EmmaD]

Here are the GLOBAL statistics on terrorist-related deaths for the year 2001:

1/21 - India - 3
1/22 - India - 6
2/4 - India - 4
2/9 - India - 15
2/9 Tanzania - 1
2/18 Angola - 2
3/15 Algeria - 2
3/8 Sudan - 2
3/15 Turkey - 3 (hostages killed by authorities)
3/27 Somalia - 11
3/28 Isreal - 2
4/13 India - 1
4/15 Burundi - 10
4/19 Burundi - 18
4/22 India - 1
4/24 Burundi - 6
4/26 Dem. Rep. of Congo - 6
4/27 India - 2
4/30 India - 7
5/5 Afghanistan - 12
5/6 Angola - 100
5/7 Pakistan -1
5/9 India - 6
5/9 West Bank - 2
5/10 Gaza Strip - 2
5/21 Namibia - 1
5/26 Philippines - 1 (2 remain captive)
5/29 West Bank - 2
6/1 Israel - 18
6/2 Angola - 7
6/2 India - 2
6/8 India - 4
6/12 West Bank - 1
6/20 - Philippines - 2 (both killed by authorities)
6/22 - Burundi - 1
7/15 Somalia - 6
7/21 India - 6
7/22 India - 15
7/24 Sri Lanka - 6
8/4 India - 17
8/9 Israel - 15
8/10 India - 8
8/13 India - 4
8/14 India - 5
8/21 Philippines - 1
9/1 Uganda - 5
9/4 India - 3
9/8 India - 1
9/11 US - 3233 (incl. WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93)
10/1 India - 15
10/6 Saudi Arabia - 1
11/4 Israel 1
12/1 Israel 10
12/13 India 13

For a grand total of 3629 terrorist related deaths world-wide for the year 2001 according to US Dept. of State.
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/chrono2001.htm


Compare that with the 15,517 murders that occurred in the United States for the year 2000 (which is the last year I could find stats for). http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

and

8063 hate crimes (related to race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and disability) in the United States for the year 2000.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004885.html

Children in this country on the whole are *not* taught to hate and fear.

No? See above.

So does education, acceptance and tolerance solve the crime and violence in America? It's unlikely that you will sway the opinion of terrorist extremists through tolerance and acceptance. I'm just thankful that you and those of your mindset are not in charge of defending this country. We probably would no longer be America.

Sorta looks to me like the ones who need the lessons in tolerance and acceptance are the Americans.

I at least have the admiration for Bush to take this on himself.

Which he's doing hoping you won't notice that 15,000 people in your own damn country are being slaughtered every year. It'd be nice if he'd use a few of our tax dollors for cleaning up our own back yard for a change.

Respectfully,
Emma

[Toughy]

as sure as the sun rises and sets every day, there will be another act of stateless terrorism on the United States IF the US bombs the fuck out of Iraq WITHOUT the support of the United Nations Security Council and that act will occur within days (probably hours) of the commencement of unilateral US action against Iraq........


{{{{{Tobatia}}}}} stay safe darlin.......

[mia]

Originally posted by Toughy
as sure as the sun rises and sets every day, there will be another act of stateless terrorism on the United States IF the US bombs the fuck out of Iraq WITHOUT the support of the United Nations Security Council and that act will occur within days (probably hours) of the commencement of unilateral US action against Iraq........


{{{{{Tobatia}}}}} stay safe darlin.......

so what did we do to deserve when they took out both the WTC towers, part of the pentagon and the alledged white house? I suppose we deserved that too, along with all the other terrorist acts against America.

It's funny how I never hear any of this mentioned when we start fearing retribution. Like I've stated before, they *will not* stop.

[mia]

Originally posted by mia
so what did we do to deserve when they took out both the WTC towers, part of the pentagon and the alledged attempt on the white house? I suppose we deserved that too, along with all the other terrorist acts against America.

It's funny how I never hear any of this mentioned when we start fearing retribution. Like I've stated before, they *will not* stop.

[Toughy]

to understand why some people in the world believe the US deserved what happened and have the attitude of 'you reap what you sow' would require you to step outside yourself and view the US from a perspective other than your own.....to view history from a non-US perspective...to view US policies from a non-US perspective........ which I have grave doubts of your ability to do so......you have not shown its something you are capable of, up to this point.....

[MsMissy]

Originally posted by mia
Children in this country on the whole are *not* taught to hate and fear. Please site examples of this Missy. The public school systems is basically controlled by the local, state & federal government. The school agenda has been to teach diversity and tolerance for many years now. That's one of the few good things that has come out of the public schools.

I'd like to hear your libertarian opinions on our country's public school system.

Where in my post did I say that hate and intolerance were taught in the public school system? Where did I imply that this was taught in the public school system?

Do you know where hate and intolerance are taught? In the home. Do you know where hate and intolerance are allowed to proliferate? In almost every aspect of society, from the schools both public and private to the workplace. I have lived all over this country. I have attended both private and public schools. My children have attended private and public schools. We have lived in large cities and small towns. Hate and intolerance flourish EVERYWHERE.

[Toughy]

what in the world ever happened to getting the mastermind of those terrrible events of 9/11??????

can anyone (particularlity you mia) tell me how removing Hussein from power gets us closer to Osama bin Laden and his terror network??????????

How often, since 9/11, has the name of Osama bin Laden passed the lips of our pResident vs how many times the name of Hussein has passed his lips......

Exactly where is the focus of this administration???????????????

[mia]

February 11, 2003

USA Review

Chirac's Saddam Connection
By Thomas W. Murphy

French President Jacques Chirac's special relationship with Saddam Hussein goes back almost 30 years. As the French Foreign Minister in 1974, Chirac was instrumental in boosting France's diplomatic and economic ties with oil-rich Iraq. Chirac called Saddam Hussein "a personal friend" after Chirac and Hussein finalized the agreement for the construction of a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad; the reactor that was later bombed by Israel.

Chirac's long-standing relationship with Saddam Hussein and France's vast financial interests with the current Iraqi Government goes a long way in explaining France's seemingly inexplicable passion to keep Saddam Hussein in power.

France has historically been Iraq's best friend in the West. The French-Iraqi connection started shortly after France pulled out of NATO in 1966.

Prior to the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, France was the chief supplier of military equipment to Israel. In fact, France helped Israel build its nuclear reactor at Dimona, supplied Israel with enriched uranium, and actively helped Israel develop nuclear weapons.

In the days leading up to the Arab-Israeli War, France abandoned Israel and threw its hat in with the Arabs nations. De Gaulle doubted the Israeli's could defeat the combined Arab nations and saw the coming war as an opportunity to extend French influence and cultivate relationships with the oil-rich Arab nations.

By the end of the 1970s France was second only to the Soviet Union as a supplier of both military and civilian equipment to the Iraqis. The trend continued throughout the 1980s. France strongly backed Iraq during its war with Iran. Unlike other western governments who gave minimal help to Iraq hoping to stave off an Iraqi defeat and maintain the status quo; France supplied Iraq with Mirage Fighters, Super Etendard aircraft with Exocet missiles, and sophisticated munitions.

The Gulf War of 1991 provided little more than a hiccup in French-Iraqi relations. By 1994, France was calling for a loosening of UN sanctions and along with Russia attempting to short-circuit UNSCOM at every step. France pushed to allow Iraq to sell more oil. When the U.S. and Britain demanded tough controls to ensure the increased oil revenues would not be used to buy arms, the French objected saying such controls would undermine Iraqi sovereignty. From 1997 on, France fought to get the UN sanctions lifted entirely.

Last May, under intense pressure from France and Russia, the UN loosened restrictions on high-tech equipment, enabling Iraq to obtain a broad range of equipment with potential military applications; ranging from agricultural sprayers that can be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons to neutron generators that can be used as crude nuclear triggers and are compatible with a known Iraqi design for a gun-implosion type nuclear device.

Hundreds of French firms do business with Iraq. France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq last year under the oil-for-food program; the most of any nation. French giants Alcatel and Renault do a booming business in Iraq, and French oil firms hold contracts with Saddam Hussein's government estimated at over $60 billion for oil exploration and development; oil contracts that cannot be worked until UN sanctions are lifted.

In light of France's financial interests and longstanding ties to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, its hardly surprising that France opposes military action to depose Saddam Hussein. A new Iraqi government might not be inclined to honor oil contracts with Saddam's old buddies.

And then again, as one U.S. intelligence expert somewhat facetiously put it, "France will jump on board with the U.S. the minute their agents in Baghdad get done shredding all evidence of their illicit arms sales to Iraq."

[mia]

January 21, 2003

Security Council Sells Out
By Thomas W. Murphy

While public opinion polls in the United States indicate that Americans overwhelmingly favor military action to disarm Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, a growing number of Americans favor military action only if it is endorsed by the United Nations.

Many Americans hold an idealistic view of the world community that leads them to conclude that any military action against Iraq should be approved by the U.N. Security Council, while others stung by criticism the U.S. is arrogant and unilateralist, favor military action under the umbrella of United Nations approval simply to pacify world opinion.

This idealistic view that the U.N. will do the "right thing" about Iraq, fails to recognize the realities of international politics and the impact that national self-interest has on the decision making process in the U.N.

For example, both Russia and France have significant financial interests at stake, including oil exploration and development contracts worth billions of dollars. For years, both Russia and France have been more interested in getting U.N. sanctions lifted for their own economic gain, then in ensuring that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.

Since 1996, Russia has ranked first among nations doing business with Iraq under the oil-for-food program with sales exceeding $4 billion, and Russia still hopes to collect the $12 billion in cold-war-era debt owed by Iraq.

In 1997, a consortium led by Russian giant Lukoil signed a contract worth an estimated $4 billion to develop the massive West Qurna oil field in southern Iraq. A contract Lukoil cannot start work on until the U.N. sanctions are lifted.

Last year under the oil-for-food program, France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq, the most of any nation. Major French companies like communications giant Alcatel and automakers Peugeot and Renault have landed lucrative deals in Iraq.

France's Total Fina Elf has exclusive rights to develop the Majnoon and Bin Umar oil fields which are believed to be the largest in the world and estimated to hold 35 billion barrels of oil; more than three times Total Fina Elf's current reserves.

Neither Russia or France initially supported a tough, new U.N. resolution that would require Iraq to comply with previous resolutions to disarm and cooperate with U.N. inspections. In fact, they did not see the need for a new resolution, and actually favored relaxing U.N. sanctions so that Russian and French firms could start working the oil fields.

Much to the ire of Baghdad, Russia and France finally succumbed to pressure from the U.S. and Great Britain and supported resolution 1441 which requires Iraqi disarmament and cooperation with U.N. weapons inspections.

On December 8, 2002, Iraq sent both Russia and France a message when it cancelled the $4 billion contract with Russia's Lukoil to develop the West Qurna oil field. French oil firms, fearing they were next, began pressuring the French government to force the U.N. to resolve the Iraq crisis peacefully and Total Fina Elf demanded assurances its oil contacts in Iraq will be protected in the face of a possible U.S. attack.

Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix says Iraqi cooperation is lacking and they failed to meet their obligations under resolution 1441 to provide a full and accurate declaration of their weapons of mass destruction. This is a direct violation of resolution 1441 which states "false statements in the declaration" submitted by Iraq, "shall constitute a further breech of Iraq's obligations."

On January 16, in direct contradiction of Blix's statements, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister met with the Iraqi government and praised "the positive spirit of cooperation from Iraq" on the weapons inspections.

On January 17, the Russian oil company Lukoil "miraculously" announced that it had "persuaded" Baghdad to reverse the decision made on December 8th to cancel the contract with Lukoil to develop the giant West Qurna oil field.

Later that day, it was announced that Iraq and Russia had signed three new oil accords to explore and develop oil fields in southern and western Iraq.

The first of the three new accords was to develop the Al-Rafidain oil field in southern Iraq by Russia's Sayunefte company. The second covers exploration and development of a concession in Iraq's western desert by Russia's Stroyangaz. The third provides for future plans and projects to be implemented by Russian companies in Iraq. One oil industry source described the deal as; Iraq holding out a what could turn into a $40 billion carrot for Russian oil exploration in Iraq's western desert.

What an amazing coincidence; Russia starts praising Iraqi compliance and criticizing any potential U.S. military action and the next day Iraq reverses its cancellation of the Lukoil contract and awards Russian firms additional contracts that could be worth up to $40 billion.

Critics of possible U.S. military action against Iraq say its all about oil. They are partially right; they just got the "U.S. part" wrong. Its about Moscow and Paris wanting to protect their oil interests in Iraq. Its about billions of dollars for Russia and France as long as they look the other way while Saddam Hussein develops weapons of mass destruction, supports terrorism, and continues to be a destabilizing force in the Middle East.

This past week, French President Jacques Chirac delivered a blunt warning against any unilateral action against Iraq. Chirac listed the reasons for not attacking Iraq as, the human cost, economic consequences, and the actual price tag to wage a military operation. Its hard not to notice that two of the three reasons on Chirac's list involve money.

Americans waiting for the United Nations to do the "right thing" might be waiting for a long time. Lets just hope we don't have to wait until the U.N. finds the "smoking gun" in the form of a mushroom cloud over Manhattan.

[mia]

Originally posted by MsMissy
Where in my post did I say that hate and intolerance were taught in the public school system? Where did I imply that this was taught in the public school system?

Do you know where hate and intolerance are taught? In the home. Do you know where hate and intolerance are allowed to proliferate? In almost every aspect of society, from the schools both public and private to the workplace. I have lived all over this country. I have attended both private and public schools. My children have attended private and public schools. We have lived in large cities and small towns. Hate and intolerance flourish EVERYWHERE.

Your original post spoke of solving this problem by starting with the children. I assumed that the educational system is what you were referring to. Children spend most of their time & learning at school as opposed to with their parents at home. It's a crisis with our children, which should be well understood by now.

Tolerance & anti-hate begin with each one of us and not just with our children. Starting with our own political ideology and hatred is a good place to begin.

[mia]

January 16, 2003



Stuttering Around the U.N.
By Thomas W. Murphy

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck. Except of course at the United Nations.

Resolution 1441, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002 provided Iraq with one final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations as required by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent relevant resolutions by the Council.

But listening to statements from Council members like France and Germany, leaves one wondering if they actually read resolution 1441.

Resolution 1441 states in part: Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles pose to international peace and security,

The above statement refers to Iraq's non-compliance with 16 Security Council Resolutions and clearly states that in the Council's view; Iraq does possess weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. UNSCOM document S/1999/94 and the Amorim Report (S/1999/356) detail numerous issues related to chemical and biological weapons that were left unresolved when UNSCOM inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998.

Resolution 1441 goes on to state: The Security Council, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breech of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

While Paragraph 1 (above) notes that Iraq remains in material breech of its obligations under the U.N. resolutions; Paragraph 2, states that resolution 1441 provides Iraq with a "final opportunity" to comply with its disarmament obligations.

Ok, lets move on:

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting to required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Paragraph 3 (above) clearly states that not only must Iraq provide an accurate list of its weapons of mass destruction, related components, materials, and production facilities, but, also provide the "location" of such weapons, components, materials, and production facilities.

Forget about inspectors finding the proverbial "smoking gun." It's not their job to "find" the weapons. The burden rests on Iraq to make an accurate declaration. Instead, Iraq decided to recycle previously submitted information that did not address any of the unresolved issues detailed in UNSCOM document S/1999/94, and the Amorim Report (S/1999/356).

Now lets get to the part that many in the U.N. seem to ignore:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further breech of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

Now I realize that Paragraph 4 (above) is a tricky one for Diplomats to interpret; so I underlined the key phrases. To boil it down a bit; "false statements or omissions in the declaration = material breech of resolution 1441." Get it?

Obviously the White House gets it. They called the Iraqi declaration a "material breech" several weeks ago. And the British almost get it. But apparently the rest of the Security Council suffers from a reading comprehension disability; as they don't seem to get it.

Moving on:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

While Hans Blix, the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, and Mohamed El Baradei, the Director-General of the IAEA, briefed the Security Council on omissions in the Iraqi Declaration on January 9, 2003, it is unclear if the briefing was meant to fulfill the reporting requirements of Paragraphs 4 and 11. If not, then they are not doing their job; as Paragraph 4 clearly states that omissions in the Iraqi Declaration constitute a "breech."

Paragraph 12 pertains to the Security Council:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with Paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

It's also not clear if the meeting between Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei with the Security Council on January 9, 2003 fulfilled the requirements of Paragraph 12 that direct the Security Council to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with Paragraphs 4 or 11.

And finally:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Of course the Security Council really does understand Resolution 1441. They are just playing dumb at the moment. The French put their forces on alert; the largest British Armada since the Falklands War just set sail for the Gulf; and the U.S. just ordered 65,000 more troops to the region. Its all about timing.

"Smoking Gun" or not. When the Military build-up is ready, the Security Council will most likely invoke Paragraph 12 based on the omissions in the Iraqi Declaration, and then move on to Paragraph 13, and War.

[mia]

Originally posted by Toughy
Exactly where is the focus of this administration???????????????

Toughy, the administration's focus has been clear. It's terrorism.

[MsMissy]

Well hell, let's attack France too.

[Toughy]

why is it we must vilify those who disagree with us.......

The US has a history with Hussein..........as does France.........the US has a history with many of it's friends who are now enemies.......and many of its enemies who are now friends........

And all of this boils down to simply a difference in perspective.......Europe, particularly France and Germany, possess an understanding of the real consequences of a war....a perspective that NO ONE in the US understands........the last war fought on our homeland was the Civil War......no one is alive to recount the horror......Europe, on the other hand, has many many folks alive who remember WWII.......so does Japan.......so does Russia.....so do most of the countries who seek diplomacy rather than war...........

We, in the US, are on the brink of possibly creating the third world war.........a war perpetrated on and in the third world........is this really the 'right thing' to do?

[MsMissy]

Originally posted by Toughy

We, in the US, are on the brink of possibly creating the third world war.........a war perpetrated on and in the third world........is this really the 'right thing' to do?

Thank you. This third world war would be the last world war. Considering there are enough weapons out there to destroy this entire planet.

[Toughy]

and did you all know that the Republicans and the rPresidents administration are proposing creating and testing, for use as a pre-emptive weapon, a 'tactical nuclear weapon'? A nuclear weapon with battlefield potential...a nuclear weapon that would have a 'limited' contamination area........supposedly this new nuclear weapon would be capable of burrowing into the ground and destroying buried chemical or biological materials.........

How on this earth will that stop the proliferation of countries trying to obtain nuclear weapons............

the conservative republicans and the current administration are hell-bent on destroying the peace and doing unbelievable damage to the planet the Mother entrusted us to protect and care for......

DO NO HARM, DO AS YOU WILL

[Toughy]

the above should have been posted in the 'american politics' or the 'goerge bush' thread..............

[mia]

Originally posted by Toughy
why is it we must vilify those who disagree with us.......

A great deal of the content in these political threads are nothing but vilifying those we disagree with.

[Toughy]

I see you still beg the question or not respond to it and refuse to look at another's perspective..........it's a damn shame....

[mia]

Originally posted by Toughy
I see you still beg the question or not respond to it and refuse to look at another's perspective..........it's a damn shame....

no toughy, i'm just tired of the double standard around here. I try my best to post relevant and newsworthy articles with credibility. whether you like it or not, the news was valid and well informed... vilified or not. sift through it and take what you want out of it.

as far as your perspective? we will never come to an agreement on this issue.

[Toughy]

it's not MY perspective I am asking you to look at.........it is the perspective of those who disagree with you........it is the idea that perhaps you could possibly change your mind.....that just perhaps you could be wrong.......I know I have been and I know that in my life I have changed my mind many times.......

you asked why would someone want to attack us........I suggested you might understand it IF you could look at the situation from a different perspective...

I remember being in the Army during the Vietnam Conflict......I believed at the time it was a just and righteous war and that I (and the rest of us in the military) was doing the 'right thing'...I gotta tell you........I was WRONG.......very wrong....and I see that now.....and I live with that every fucking day of my life.......I live with seeing and being part of the destruction, dismemberment, and death for what the government was saying was just and necessary, when in the end the government was wrong..........and all the presidents men could not make history show that it was right......in fact.......all the presidents men say we should not have gone.......

that is MY perspective.......

[mia]

This morning I heard on the news that these anti-war rice packages have caused concern with the white house security. Many of the rice packages had white powder residue.

The U.S. government has already made up prepackaged food preparations (mre's) for the Iraqi people.