Get out the body bags, we are going to war again. A first for America, as the aggressor, while the president vacations and campaigns for repugs

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

Bush jr. is going to go boldly where a Bush sr. has gone before, Iraq, oil that is, Texas T, Halliburton, y'all come back now here

They've been doing large scale movements of troop supplies, etc. for the last 3 or 4 months. On the same scale as the first Desert Storm.

They're ready to go now, they only need a reason that will convince the public. Is the public sucker enough to fall for it?

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=188407&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020718-124132-5174r

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,757760,00.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0717/p02s01-usmi.html

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war12.html

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j071902.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20020719/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_16&printer=1

http://moose-and-squirrel.com

Pentagon hawks hasten Iraq attack

By Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 7/18/2002 1:21 PM

WASHINGTON, July 18 (UPI) -- When will the Bush administration launch U.S. armed forces against Iraq in a bid to topple President Saddam Hussein? Bet on this year rather than next and sooner rather than later.

The conventional wisdom in Washington in recent months has been that no such attack is likely until well into next year. Of course, that may well be the case. Several detailed articles have appeared in major U.S. newspapers citing senior, unnamed Department of Defense officials as saying that this is their understanding.

These reports may be accurate, or they may be the American version of masrilovka -- the old Soviet term for strategic disinformation to misdirect an enemy. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who championed the actual creation of an explicit information unit in the Pentagon that would spread misleading stories as well as accurate ones, is known to have a passion for such things.

What is remarkable is that, if they are the latter, it is one of the leading hawks pushing for a pre-emptive offensive war against Iraq who may have blown the whistle on it.

Speaking on a PBS network documentary about Iraq last week, Richard Perle, the former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration who is also immensely influential with civilian Pentagon hawks in the current administration one, confidently predicted that when President George W. Bush gives his State of the Union message next year he would have "good news" to give the American people about Iraq.

For almost all the American people, the best news they could be given about Iraq would be that they did not have to go to war against it. But that clearly was not what Perle was thinking at all. By "good news" about Iraq he mean the elimination of Saddam and his government by the U.S. armed forces.

There are quite a number of straws in the wind to suggest that Perle, who enjoys immense influence with and access to Feith and to Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, knows what he is talking about.

First, the British government, the only major European ally that is enthusiastically supporting the Bush administration in its determination to bring down Saddam by direct military means, is quietly acting as if a war will come this fall or winter rather than not until next year.

British security sources have confirmed that significant contingents of British troops are being quietly withdrawn from peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo. The only reason this could be happening simultaneously at this time, they said, was in preparation for the expected operations against Iraq.

Also, these sources confirmed, Britain's Royal Air Force is practicing low-level precision bombing strike missions that they expect to have to undertake against Iraq.

UPI veteran foreign correspondent and Middle East expert Claude Salhani, who covered the 1991 Gulf War from the front lines, also believes that the combination of seasonal physical conditions in the Middle East and political factors back in the United States point to a full-scale offensive against Iraq this fall, rather than later next year.

"If they go in, they will have a very short window of opportunity -- after the desert heat, before the rains in the mountains and before the U.S. elections," Salhani says.

The baking heat in the Arabian Desert and Fertile Crescent almost never eases before October, especially in these days of global warming. But if significant U.S. forces go in through Turkey and Kurdistan in the north of Iraq, as seems increasingly likely, the usual winter heavy rains could significantly deplete the effectiveness of U.S. air support and also turn mountain roads and tracks into mud, slowing down heavy, tracked vehicles.

As to the November midterm congressional elections, political leaders always react with outrage to the very idea that military operations are ever timed, or rushed, to conform to any such partisan and selfish domestic political considerations. But for an administration that has deliberately made its alleged effectiveness and resolution in the war on international terror its central appeal, the desire to have good news from Iraq, or at least progress on any anti-terror front, by November is obvious.

It is also striking that some of the U.S. media coverage making the case that the offensive will not be launched until next year, based key arguments on claims that Department of Defense civilian policymakers had been forced to slow down their hell-bent and ambitious timetable because senior Army military officers had said they needed more time in planning.

But this Pentagon civilian leadership led by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz has been deliberately more contemptuous and unheeding of the concerns of infantry and armor experts in the regular Army than any other since the dark days of Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War more than 35 years ago.

Well-placed armed forces officers serving in the Pentagon have told UPI that the leaders of the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Special Forces are enthusiastic about undertaking operations against Iraq. Special Forces commanders in particular believe they can rapidly replicate their lightning and virtually casualty free operations in Afghanistan, these officers said.

However, senior Army and Marine officers do not share these gung ho attitudes and believe that operations against Iraq will require at least 200,000 regular troops and possibly more, and will need to be planned and conducted very carefully, these sources said.

There is no question about which side of the debate Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and their colleagues come out on.

A recent article in the New Yorker magazine traced the way in which Rumsfeld had humiliated and isolated current Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, a regular Army infantry expert, and appointed as his vice chief of staff and future successor Lt. Gen. John Keane, a Special Forces enthusiast.

It therefore appears unlikely that he and his civilian colleagues would actually heed such cautious advice from professional Army officers when it conflicts with what their more eager-beaver Special Forces enthusiasts are telling them.

This analysis is obviously not carved in stone. The attack on Iraq may not come until next year or it may not come at all. Or all the factors we have listed above may turn out to be more deliberate disinformation fed to the unsuspecting press. But don't rule it out either. When ambitious men with dreams of glory are in a hurry, subtlety often gets left behind as often as prudence or plain common sense.

Copyright 2002 United Press International

Bush is going to take 4 week vacation and campaign for repugs while the administration sets "American First Strike" against Iraq into motion.

Once again, Bush will not be in harms way when we are "attacked"

Didn't anyone tell Junior that being president is not the part time job being governer of Texas was?

This is really sick. Bad enough he leaves his office at 4:30 to go watch sports on TV, but to leave Washington DC for vacation no matter what is happening in the country or world is pathetic.

It is time we get someone in that office who is willing to put the job ahead of themself.

Watch for some lame excuse, such as Iraq aircraft flying into one of the "no fly zones" to hit the airwaves to justify starting another war (for his his oil cronies and to distract attention away from his and Cheney's business scandals).

This is the excuse his father used to start desert storm. American aircraft flew over Iraq, and when they were pursued, the first Bush administration used that as an excuse to start the war with Iraq.

Are they dumb enough to play the same game again?

No, this administration suddenly has "intelligence" telling them Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. Is this the same administration that ignored the "Intelligence" about the 911 suicide terrorists?

Hell, it's only war, billions of dollars out of your pocket, eventually to go into the pockets of big oil companies.

Starting a war with Iraq will alienate every last Muslim in the world, America will never be safe from the people we piss of.

Is there no one in this retread administration that has any brains or common sense?

Wasn't the attacks on 911 bad enough, do they have to purposely instigate even more extremests into become terrorists?

THE NEW YORK TIMES

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/20/politics/20PREX.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/18/international/middleeast/18IRAQ.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/international/middleeast/05IRAQ.html

July 20, 2002

Bush Renews Pledge to Strike First to Counter Terror Threats

By DAVID E. SANGER ORT DRUM, N.Y., July 19 President Bush today used a visit to the troops that battled Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan to renew his vow that the United States will strike pre-emptively against countries developing weapons of mass destruction, telling 2,000 cheering troops that "America must act against these terrible threats before they're fully formed." As Mr. Bush stood surrounded by the camouflage-clad troops of the 10th Mountain Division, among the first sent to Uzbekistan and Afghanistan last fall, one of the soldiers yelled, "Let's get Saddam!" Mr. Bush, dressed in shirt sleeves, just smiled for a moment as a roar of approval raced through the crowd. He did not mention Iraq but hardly stepped in to quell the cheers. Mr. Bush was visibly relieved today to be back in a welcoming military setting after two weeks of questions about his handling of the corporate scandals that have rocked Wall Street and dominated talk in Washington. The country's economic troubles have been Mr. Bush's first major distraction from his intense focus on the effort to curb terrorism. The cheers that followed him around this sprawling military base in upstate New York seemed more like the kind of reception he routinely received in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. He used the moment to rail against the newly created International Criminal Court, a tribunal intended to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes and major human rights violations. "The United States cooperates with many other nations to keep the peace, but we will not submit American troops to prosecutors and judges whose jurisdiction we do not accept," Mr. Bush said. European nations in particular have been highly critical of Mr. Bush's opinions regarding the court, saying he is trying to put Americans above international law. Until today, Mr. Bush had said relatively little about the strategy of pre-emptive action that he first described at a speech in June at West Point. At that time, he made it clear that he envisioned several types of pre-emptive action, from boosting foreign aid to acting covertly against potential enemies to sending in troops. Today, Mr. Bush suggested he would not hesitate to send troops into any country that poses an imminent threat to the United States. "Some parts of the world, there will be no substitute for direct action by the United States," he told the troops. "That is when we will send you, our military, to win the battles that only you can win."

The White House announced today that Mr. Bush planned to spend roughly four weeks this summer at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., beginning Aug. 6. But a rigorous travel schedule from Texas will take Mr. Bush to many of the states with the most hotly contested House and Senate races around the country.



-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), July 21, 2002

Answers

I predict that King Idiot will exploit the Pearl Harbor Effect and begin the attack on Iraq on the anniversary of Sept. 11th.

He is planning to make a big gung-ho anti-axis-of-evil pseudo-patriotic bullshit speech that day, so he will spew more lies about how the whole world is out to get us. After he's got the people feeling all scared and patriotic, he'll announce that we're starting to bomb Iraq because the big bad evil Saddam is planning to destroy us with weapons he doesn't have that could never reach our country even if did have them. None of that really matters because it's all about oil, but he figures that 70% of the people are dumb enough to believe him because he claims to be a Christian, even though in reality he is closer to the Antichrist.

The only reason he would start it before he goes on vacation is if somehow somebody finds out the truth about his escapades at Harken energy, in which case he will have to play Wag the Dog and do something drastic.

-- (dumbya@psychotic.manchild), July 21, 2002.


Cherri = trollboy

-- (roland@hatemail.com), July 21, 2002.

Roland, Cherri is not "trollboy."

And I don't believe you are Oink, as you have been accused of being.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), July 21, 2002.


Peter, you are right, I am not Oink. I never thought that Cherri might be trollboy until this thread. The language of the subject line is very trollboyish. Maybe it is him using her name.

Isn't this fun?

-- (roland@hatemail.com), July 21, 2002.


This is the first time I've actually seen Cherri use the term "repug" so Roland may have a point here.

-- (what@i.think), July 21, 2002.


Wrong again dipwads. I am not Cherri, and Cherri is not me. I never use the same handle and she always uses Cherri. You might say we are soulmates though, in that we both share a keen awareness of what an unimaginably humongous scumbag your fearless leader Dumbya is.

There are several others around here who are aware of this as well, including Roloboy's schizoid alter-ego, who often posts anti-Dumbya and anti-pug sentiments. Roloboy had based his entire identity on the idea that conservatives were good and Dumbya was a heroic figure. When the truth began to filter into his psyche it was too much to handle, so he suffered a schizoid break and now has at least 2 identities constantly at battle with each other. What a pity.

And BTW Errorton, you're wrong again. Roloboy = Oink

-- BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! (dumbya troll @ for at least. 6 more years), July 21, 2002.


Wonderful. The USA is attacked by a group of (mostly) Saudi terrorists, so we attack... Iraq.

To make things even more disconnected, there is no evidence that Iraq is involved in any way in attacking the USA. We just decided we don't like their government, so we are justified to remove it. But... whose idea was this international law business, and the UN charter, and all that business about starting aggressive war is never acceptable? Who was it that used this same moral posture to justify the UN resolution to liberate Kuwait and condemn Iraq?

Why don't we just take all the goodwill and moral standing we have earned since WWII and just flush it down the crapper in one lump? When you have a military that's more than twice as big as anyone else's, keeping to moral standards is just soooo much more trouble than it's worth.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 21, 2002.


Nip, if ignorance is bliss, you must be one delirious little liberal.

And for the first time in memory, The Errorton is correct.

-- Oink (oink@welfare.hog), July 21, 2002.


Nippy is correct. We must not strike deadly enemies preemptively. We must wait until Iraq nukes or biochems the US before we attack them. My God, a pre-emptive attack!

What would have happened had the Allies removed Hitler in 1936? Neville Chamberlain lives!

-- (roland@hatemail.com), July 21, 2002.


Biden was asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether Iraq's president could face a similar fate if he were found in league with Osama bin Laden's terrorists. Speaking of Bush, Biden said: "If he can prove that, yes, he would have the authority in my view."

"The president has the authority right now if, in fact, he has reason to believe that we're under a threat of imminent attack. No one's has made that case yet," said Biden, D-Del.

bin Biden Discusses Force Against Saddam.

Saddam lovers, the above link shows why the US will do a "regime change" in Iraq. All that is necessary is to demonstrate that Saddam was/is complicit in international terror. This can be easily done or easily contrived by the hawks.

Saddam is a dead man walking.

-- (Abdul@Kurdish.Liberation Front), July 21, 2002.



"Saddam lovers, the above link shows why the US will do a "regime change" in Iraq. All that is necessary is to demonstrate that Saddam was/is complicit in international terror."

And what about the US? They are by far the biggest terrorists in the World. Iraq has a right to defend itself against aggressors like the US who think they have the right to invade countries and kill whoever they please to suit their agenda of global domination.

-- (you@ignorant.tyrant), July 21, 2002.


Hey, hey

USA

Manifest Destiny

All the way

Gooooooooooo TEAM!

-- (roland@hatemail.com), July 21, 2002.


"aggressors like the US who think they have the right to invade countries and kill whoever they please to suit their agenda of global domination."

"Aggressors like the US"? Gollies, I thought it was the NWO who had an agenda of "global domination". Better get your konspiracy theories straight, troll-twerp.

-- (roland@hatemail.com), July 21, 2002.


Speaking of Bush, Biden said: "If he can prove that, yes, he would have the authority in my view."

Well guess what???? It doesn't matter who's view it is that Bush can declair a war. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECLAIR WAR!!! Only Congress, by acording to the constitution, has the authority to declair war.

Trust me, any congresscritter that dares to vote for STARTING an unprovoced war will be out of office in the next election.

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), July 21, 2002.


""Aggressors like the US"? Gollies, I thought it was the NWO who had an agenda of "global domination". Better get your konspiracy theories straight, troll-twerp.

-- (roland@hatemail.com), July 21, 2002."

Bwaaahahahahaaahahaa!! Toooooo funny!

You need to get a brain niggah, the United States is the #1 tool of the NWO elite!

-- Mr. T (I pity @ dat fool. Rolo), July 22, 2002.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ