Yuku free message boards

Please feel free to hit that highway, both you and the idiot Pinter (what the hell is "sniff only the pong of the dead"). Those of us who are left will do what has to be done. I won't bother to argue with either of you, might as well argue with bricks.

Both of you think you're in some great majority of peace-loving beings at the mercy of this insidious tryant (yet intellectual lightweight) GWB. It's OK for you to thihnk that way. Be the victim, be the put upon, it's quite all right. It's what we come to expect in this screwed up world. I know that the fact you might actually be wrong in some of your core ideas would not change that feeling...

The rest of us who do care will just have to muddle along as best we can.

Susan and the original poster are correct. Bush is wrong to stop Saddam...it's never been proven that he's killed his own people and they rally by the thousands in Baghdad screaming his name. He is an extremely popular leader, from what I can gather.
As for Milosivec, I have to agree with Susan on this one, too. The Americans got involved and made a mess of it. They stopped Milosivec from killing BAD PEOPLE. If they would have let him go on, he would have disposed of more people, but they weren't good people.
Like Susan and the original poster believe, I also believe...sometimes letting a bloody murdering dictator do his deeds in his own country is none of our business.

The trouble is, you are saying leave Iraq alone. Let the people continue to starve while the regime continues its weapons programmes. It is arguable that 'do nothing' means not only appeasement but perpetuation of oppression. Remember, Bin Laden attacked New York because of 1) Israel's treatment of Palestinians 2) the US army in Saudi 3) sanctions against Iraq. So, if we are worried about relations in the Middle east, forget it. Better to try and build a fair government in Iraq.

No one likes wars, but think 'what if'? The Iraqi govt has suffered isolation and pariah status so it can deliver its weaponry against its enemies at some time in the future. What else explains
its post 1991 strategy? It has forsaken $150 b in oil revenues for the sake of total power and secrecy. Cannot 2 and 2 be put together?

I dislike George Bush - not to the rabid, silly extent Mr Pinter does - but am glad the US is asking the
searching questions and drawing a firm line while Iraq continues to deceive.

Time to drop the anti-US mantra (Pinter was horribly wrong on Kosovo too) and choose the lesser evil of
reluctant but firm confrontation, over the greater one of a bigger war down the line and continued misery for 23 million Iraqis. There are no simple, guilt fre choices on this one.

Susan,

Actually, my earlier post was dripping with sarcasm, coated so thick even a bright woman like yourself couldn't recognize it.

Look, I certainly don't agree with a lot of what America has done, but they're not wrong about Iraq and they weren't wrong about Kosovo.

Today there are thousands of Iraqis dying---it's not the coldhearted West and the sanctions to blame as Mr. Pinter would have us believe, but the murderous thug named Saddam. This will all soon be over, Thank God. A new day is coming for Iraqis, I just hope they can hold on a few more weeks.

After his defeat in '91, Saddam basically cried out "let me stay in power and I'll get rid of my doomsday weapons!" He was allowed to stay in power. Oh dear, he forgot just one little thing---o get rid of his doomsday weapons. How unfortunate for him.

When democracy comes to Iraq, we in Europe will be right there to say "We told you so! We told you to disarm him!"
And I wouldn't blame America for laughing in our faces.

This article from Sunday's LA Times is interesting:

Published on Sunday, January 26, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
The Nuclear Option in Iraq
The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate weapon

by William M. Arkin

WASHINGTON -- One year after President Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil," the United States is thinking about the unthinkable: It is preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.

At the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) in Omaha and inside planning cells of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, target lists are being scrutinized, options are being pondered and procedures are being tested to give nuclear armaments a role in the new U.S. doctrine of "preemption."

According to multiple sources close to the process, the current planning focuses on two possible roles for nuclear weapons:

attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives;

thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction.

Nuclear weapons have, since they were first created, been part of the arsenal discussed by war planners. But the Bush administration's decision to actively plan for possible preemptive use of such weapons, especially as so-called bunker busters, against Iraq represents a significant lowering of the nuclear threshold. It rewrites the ground rules of nuclear combat in the name of fighting terrorism.

It also moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options -- from psychological warfare, covert operations and Special Forces to air power in all its other forms.

For the United States to lower the nuclear threshold and break down the firewall separating nuclear weapons from everything else is unsettling for at least three reasons.

First, if the United States lowers the nuclear threshold -- even as a possibility -- it raises the likelihood that other nations will lower their own thresholds and employ nuclear weapons in situations where they simply need a stronger military punch. Until now, the United States has reserved nuclear weapons for retaliation against nuclear attacks or immediate threats to national survival, a standard tacitly but widely accepted around the world. If the president believes that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses that kind of danger to the United States, he has failed to convince the world -- and many U.S. citizens.

Second, the move toward thinking of nuclear weapons as just one more option among many comes at a time when technology is offering a host of better choices. Increasingly, the U.S. military has the capability of disabling underground bases or destroying biological and chemical weapons without uncorking the nuclear bottle, through a combination of sophisticated airpower, special operations and such 21st century capabilities as high-powered microwave weapons and cyber warfare.

Third, there are dangers in concentrating the revision of nuclear policy within a single military command, STRATCOM, which until now has been focused strictly on strategic -- not policy -- issues of nuclear combat. Command staff members have unrivaled expertise in the usage and effects of nuclear weapons, but their expertise does not extend to the whys of weapons usage.

Entrusting major policy reviews to tightly controlled, secret organizations inside the Pentagon is a hallmark of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's tenure. Doing so streamlines decision-making and encourages new thinking, advocates say.

But it also bypasses dissenters, many of whom are those in the armed services with the most knowledge and the deepest experience with the issues. The Bush inner circle is known to be a tight bunch, prone to "group think" about Iraq and uninterested in having its assumptions challenged. But there are opinions they need to hear. While most military officers seem to consider the likelihood of our using nuclear weapons in Iraq to be low, they worry about the increased importance placed on them and about the contradictions inherent in contemplating the use of nuclear weapons for the purpose of eliminating weapons of mass destruction.

The administration's interest in nuclear contingency plans stems from its deeply held conviction that the United States must act against Iraq because of a new and more dangerous terrorist threat involving weapons of mass destruction.

"The gravest danger our nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology," Bush declared in the introduction to his national security strategy, issued last fall. It said enemies of the United States "have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction."

In May, Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive 17, officially confirming the doctrine of preemptively thwarting any potential use of weapons of mass destruction.

"U.S. military and appropriate civilian agencies must possess the full range of operational capabilities to counter the threat and use of WMD," the president reiterated last December in his National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The current nuclear planning, revealed in interviews with military officers and described in documents reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, is being carried out at STRATCOM's Omaha headquarters, among small teams in Washington and at Vice President Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location" in Pennsylvania.

The command, previously responsible for nuclear weapons alone, has seen its responsibilities mushroom. On Dec. 11, the Defense secretary sent Bush a memorandum asking for authority to place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., the STRATCOM commander, in charge of the full range of "strategic" warfare options to combat terrorist states and organizations.

The memo, obtained by The Times, recommended assigning all responsibilities for dealing with foreign weapons of mass destruction, including "global strike; integrated missile defense; [and] information operations" to STRATCOM. That innocuous-seeming description of responsibilities covers enormous ground, bringing everything from the use of nuclear weapons to nonnuclear strikes to covert and special operations to cyber warfare and "strategic deception" under the purview of nuclear warriors.

Earlier this month, Bush approved Rumsfeld's proposal. On the surface, these new assignments give the command a broader set of tools to avoid nuclear escalation. In reality, they open the door much wider to contemplating American use of nuclear weapons. The use of biological or chemical weapons against the U.S. military could be seen as worthy of the same response as a Russian nuclear attack. If Iraq were to use biological or chemical weapons during a war with the United States, it could have tragic consequences, but it would not alter the war's outcome. Our use of nuclear weapons to defeat Hussein, on the other hand, has the potential to create a political and global disaster, one that would forever pit the Arab and Islamic world against us.

How great a change these steps represent are revealed in the fact that STRATCOM owes its existence to previous post-Cold War policymakers who considered it vital to erect a great firewall between nuclear and conventional forces.

Now, with almost no discussion inside the Pentagon or in public, Rumsfeld and the Bush White House are tearing that firewall down. Instead of separating nuclear and conventional weapons, Rumsfeld is merging them in one command structure with a disturbingly simple mission: "If you can find that time-critical, key terrorist target or that weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpile, and you have minutes rather than hours or days to deal with it, how do you reach out and negate that threat to our nation half a world away?" Ellis asked in December.

The rapid transformation of Ellis' command reveals his answer to that rhetorical question. Since 9/11, Ellis and his command have been bombarded with new demands and responsibilities. First, the Pentagon's nuclear posture review, signed by Rumsfeld in December 2001 and issued in final form in early 2002, directed the military to reinvigorate its nuclear capability. STRATCOM was to play a leading role in that reinvigoration.

Among other things, the still-classified posture review said, "nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bioweapon facilities)."

The review called upon the military to develop "deliberate pre-planned and practiced missions" to attack WMD facilities, even if an enemy did not use nuclear weapons first against the United States or its allies.

According to STRATCOM documents and briefings, its newly created Theater Planning Activity has now taken on all aspects of assessing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons facilities worldwide. Planners have focused intelligence gathering and analysis on seven priority target nations (the "axis of evil" nations along with Syria, Libya, China and Russia) and have completed a detailed analysis of intelligence data available on all suspect sites. According to U.S. Central Command sources, a "Theater Nuclear Planning Document" for Iraq has been prepared for the administration and Central Command.

What worries many senior officials in the armed forces is not that the United States has a vast array of weapons or contingency plans for using them. The danger is that nuclear weapons -- locked away in a Pandora's box for more than half a century -- are being taken out of that lockbox and put on the shelf with everything else. While Pentagon leaders insist that does not mean they take nuclear weapons lightly, critics fear that removing the firewall and adding nuclear weapons to the normal option ladder makes their use more likely -- especially under a policy of preemption that says Washington alone will decide when to strike.

To make such a doctrine encompass nuclear weapons is to embrace a view that, sooner or later, will spread beyond the moral capitals of Washington and London to New Delhi and Islamabad, to Pyongyang and Baghdad, Beijing, Tel Aviv and to every nuclear nation of the future.

If that happens, the world will have become infinitely more dangerous than it was two years ago, when George W. Bush took the presidential oath of office.

There was an interesting debate on the BBC last night... in which the idea of missing evidence was brought up...

The public of the democratic nations in whos hands the future of Iraq lies are fighting against the war at the moment... Many American generals have spoken out... 84% of the british public are against invasion with out UN backing... etc...

The question was raised "is it not time for the American and UK powers to show the evidence for invasion"...

This may well though put the lives of of the informants and "spies" at risk.... but shouldn't we be shown something of the evidence..?

From what I see there is no evidence to suggest that Sadam has the weapons we thought he had... We havn't found a whole hell of a lot infact.... But we're going to bomb him anyway... Interesting.

Yes, there are things missing which need to be accounted for, but WAR is the last resort... I really don't feel we are there yet... Not by a long chalk...

What evidence do the powers that be have to suggest that they can go ahead anyway..? Or have we seen the evidence already? Is this it?

Um, I would like to echo in my most strongest terms the ideas put forth by Susan. I subscribe to them fully. The greatest imaginable violation of human rights is warfare. As regards Iraq, I also want to see the evidence.

To conclude, the lyrics of a song. The author, one of the most popular in Britain at the moment, wrote one of the most influential UK albums of recent times himself. He is 'The Streets', the last song on his album is 'Stay Positive' and he wrote, performed and produced it all himself on a 486 computer. If you can't deal with strong language, or music that would be grouped with Eminem, stop reading now and don't start again. Otherwise my original message stands: without a change, there is no subject.

Completly aside, my sympathies to the families of the space explorers, both American and European by the way, which have experienced recent berievement. I've got a lot of respect for people who can take a stand.



www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/t...tive.html, typos unedited

THE STREETS LYRICS
"Stay Positive"
Cos this world swallows souls
And when the blues unfold
It gets cold silence burns holes
You're going mad
Perhaps you always were
But when things was good you just didn't care
This is called irony
When you most need to get up you got no energy
Time and time @#%$'ll happen
The dark @#%$'s unwrapping
But no-one's listening your mates are laughing
Your brethren's @#%$ and then you start hating
Your stomach starts churning and you mind starts turning.
So smoke another draw
It won't matter no more but the next day still feels sore
Rain taps on your window
Always did tho but you didn't hear it when things were so-so
You're on your own now
Your little zone you were born alone and believe me you'll die alone
Weed becomes a chore
You want the buzz back so you follow the others onto smack
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Feels nice and still
Good thing about brown is it always will
It's easy, no-one blames you
It's that world out there that's @#%$ you
You know less of a person and if God exists
He still loves you
Just remember that - the more you sink the further back from that brink
Maybe you've lifetime scars and you think tattoos might be more fitting
But who's picking?
Searching for yourself you find demons
Try and be a freeman and grasp that talisman
Cos your the same as I am
We all need our fellow man
We all need our samaritan.
Maybe I'm better looking than you tho
Maybe I've got more dough - but am I happier... no.
Get the love of a good girl and your world will be much richer than my world
And your happyness will uncurl
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Stop dreaming
People who say that are blaspheming
They're doing nine to five and moaning
And they don't want you succeeding when theyve blown it
And you idols - who are they?
They too dreamt about their day
Positive steps will see your goals.
Whether it's dollars or control, feel the gold.
I aint helping you climb the ladder
I'm busy climbing mine.
That's how it's been since the dawn of time
If you reach a cul-de-sac
The world turns it's back
This is you zone, it's like blackjack
He might get the ace or the top one
So organise your two's and three's into a run then you'll have @#%$ him son
And for that you'll be the better one
One last thing before you go though
When you feel better tommorow you'll be a hero
But never forget today. you could be back here
Things can stray
What if you see me in that window?
You won't help me I know.
That's cool, just keep walking where you go.
Carry on through the estate, stare at the geezers so they know you aint lightweight
And go see your mates
And when they don't look happy
Play them this tape
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
I hope you understand me
Just trying to stay positive
I aint no preaching @#%$ and I aint no do-goody-goody either
This is about when @#%$ goes pear-shaped
And if you aren't or ever have been at rock bottom then good luck to you in the big wide world
But remember that one day @#%$ might just start crumbling
Your bird might @#%$ off or you might loose your job
It's when that happens that what I'm talking about will feel much more important to you
So if you aint feeling it, just be thankfull that everythings cool in your world
Respect to BC
Positivity
Positivity
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive
Just trying to stay positive

Yes, the Americans are coming, again.
It took the American Regime longer than usual to get the country 'mobilized.'
Hundreds of thousands of you will be dead, soon, again.
A backlash among terrorists will bring more violence stateside, feeding the ceaseless iterations of this pointless feedback loop.
And if you try to hold on to your sovereignty, Iraqi people, even more will die than before.
Actually, that's a given.
Because Colin Powell showed us spy-plane photos of buildings and trucks.
Of course, the US has the technology to take a photo of my license plate from high altitudes and send me that photo with a traffic ticket, but to go to war all we get as proof are these poor quality photos of these buildings that could be anything.
And these trucks that could have anything inside them.
If we can have a camera inside the Iraqi Generals Lounge, showing their reaction as they watch Powell; if Tom Brokaw can drive all over Iraq, why can't we get better pictures than the ones our government produced in its indictment of Iraq?
Oh, yes, he also produced a vial that could have Anthrax in it were someone evil to put it in there.
We already bombed the Iraqi's several times for their 'non-compliance.' Could they possibly not be lying? I mean, when we bombed the last two times, weren't we aiming at 'targets known to be the sites of chemical weapons production'? Could it be that we really did destroy them already?
It really doesn't matter. When we overrun Iraq, if we don't find anything we'll make sure there's something there.
Perhaps we know what Iraq 'has' because, back when we were using them to destroy Iran and to launch our offensives against the Soviets in Afghanistan, we gave them to them? That's really got to be the only way we'd know, because these photos and these conversations really don't prove anything but America's hard-on for war.

Actually, under the President's 'Patriot Act' I can be jailed for my political beliefs. Thousands have already been imprisoned unjustly. Strange thing, conspiracy theorists will tell you, is that 'They' have been trying to get the Patriot Act passed for a long time. Remember the 1st WTC bombing? And the Oklahoma City bombing? The same legislation was on the table at that time and was denounced as anti-American. Now, after 9-11, it's suddenly passed and people are being imprisoned just because 'we' think they might be terrorists. There are a great many things a terrorist can be, and under such auspices 'agents of freedom' could very well manufacture just about any proof they need to imprison anyone they want. The America you believe exists is not quite what you think it is.