Am I just complacent or is there very little, if anything, shocking or awesome about this information?
The head of Iraqi intelligence sent the head of the KGB a christmas card.
And...?
What am I missing?
I'm more worried about the list of assassins in the west and the sharing of conversations between Blair and others? Did you miss that part of the article?
I'm more worried about the list of assassins in the west and the sharing of conversations between Blair and others? Did you miss that part of the article?
Worried in what way? By the existance of the assassins in the first place, that Saddam now knows about them or the fact that Russia is sharing the info with Saddam? I don't get it.
As for passing on the info: The US asked the UK to help them spy on other UN security council members. And you're upset/surprised/worried because Russia does similar?
Do you think they collect this information for their own amusment? Who else are you going to trade info involving the UK's intentions towards Iraq with if it isn't Saddam?
The UK government colluded to sell Iraq a supergun powerful enough to fire missiles at Israel, the US sold them anthrax and nerve gases, the French helped them build a friggin' nuclear reactor etc.
Russia passes on a pathetic tidbit of info about Britain not wanting to invade while they have troops in Afghanistan and suddenly everyone's pants are in a bunch?
The laughable "evidence" that they have nuclear capabilities summed this article up for me. The "evidence" being Russia warning Iraq that non-cooperation with the UN on weapons of MD gives the US the mandate to do something about it. Which is true but in a "Tell us something we don't know" kind of way rather than proof of *anything*.
I'm failing to see what makes this worth publishing in the first place, much less a "Good God!"
It could just be my overwhelming cynicism but this seems much more "dog bites man" than "man bites dog" as far as startling news stories go.
edit: here's the last paragraph. Which bit of this wasn't common knowledge?
Quote:
Russia has been a key ally of Baghdad since the 1970s and was one of Saddam's main arms suppliers. The Iraqis are understood to owe Moscow more than £8 billion for arms shipments. Russian oil companies had longed to forge links with Saddam Hussein to help develop Iraq's vast oil reserves.
Well then I would say your argument wouldn´t hold up in the court.
Absence of comments is not the same as acceptance of action.
who was trying to make anything hold up in court? Just making an observation about the anti-US types making themselves available for comment against anything the US does, right, wrong or questionable. Whereas, Russia does something pretty outrageous, and whooooosh, the sound of air passing through a vacuum.
Russia does something pretty outrageous, and whooooosh, the sound of air passing through a vacuum.
Could you outline what you think is outrageous? It wasn't long ago that the KGB was feared, but now we're shocked that they are even doing their job?
Is this one of those American things were everyone to the left of the Republican party gets lumped under the heading of communist and so because you support socialized medicine you are asked to justify North Korean foreign policy?
This is totally off the top of my head and unchecked so I could be wrong but I have a feeling that if anyone has started a thread here complaining about the way Russia has been acting in Chechnia or whatever, it is more likely to be an "anti-US tree-hugger" than a "red, white and blue hawk".
As for passing on the info: The US asked the UK to help them spy on other UN security council members. And you're upset/surprised/worried because Russia does similar?
Did the US give nations listsl of assassins to kill rival leaders?
Quote:
Russia passes on a pathetic tidbit of info about Britain not wanting to invade while they have troops in Afghanistan and suddenly everyone's pants are in a bunch?
That's all?
Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries. The two countries also signed agreements to share intelligence, help each other to "obtain" visas for agents to go to other countries and to exchange information on the activities of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'eda leader.
Could you outline what you think is outrageous? It wasn't long ago that the KGB was feared, but now we're shocked that they are even doing their job?
umm...providing material assistance to a regime under strict UN sanction. Passing sensitive intel to Saddam, when the rest of the world was trying to force him to disarm, is pretty outrageous.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Is this one of those American things were everyone to the left of the Republican party gets lumped under the heading of communist and so because you support socialized medicine you are asked to justify North Korean foreign policy?
Umm, what? Ok, I'll bite, I support universal medical care and access...this deals with the topic how?
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
This is totally off the top of my head and unchecked so I could be wrong but I have a feeling that if anyone has started a thread here complaining about the way Russia has been acting in Chechnia or whatever, it is more likely to be an "anti-US tree-hugger" than a "red, white and blue hawk".
I'd don't think anyone has. And you are right, it probably would be a tree hugger that would start it, if one was started. That one hasn't is pretty telling. Haven't you clued in yet? It's only fun to bash, if it means bashing the US. Why start a thread on Chechnya, you can't irectly blame it on the US...or can you?......
Did the US give nations listsl of assassins to kill rival leaders?
...
That's all?
...
Keep acting like it's not there.
To your first question: not as far as I know, it just funded juntas and coups so that's alright then. (though I didn't notice the article specify who the assassins would kill).
As for "That's all?" and "Keep acting like it's not there": (from my post)
Quote:
The Iraqis are understood to owe Moscow more than £8 billion for arms shipments
That's about $12 billion dollars and that's just for the ones they haven't paid for yet.
And you're upset because they *told* Iraq about arms deals with other countries?
i'm guessing that if true this is going to put a crimp on Russia's plans to get thier contracts they had with Iraq/Saddam honored now that Saddam is gone.
umm...providing material assistance to a regime under strict UN sanction. Passing sensitive intel to Saddam, when the rest of the world was trying to force him to disarm, is pretty outrageous.
Hmm. Now I´m confused. Didn´t you just say "Like I said, to me, it's just part of international relations"?
Hmm. Now I´m confused. Didn´t you just say "Like I said, to me, it's just part of international relations"?
I was waiting for someone to nitpick that.
I will restate my position again. I have no problem with the US or Russia gathering and using intelligence. It is part of international affairs. If they get caught doing it, they will suffer the consequences.
When I say what Russia seems to have done is outrageous, I mean that gathering and using intelligence is fine, providing that information to a state under strict UN sanction is outrageous.
To make it a little more simple for you. The US and Russia both make and sell arms, as do many, many countries. People will question whether that is right or wrong. However, there is no question that selling those arms to a sactioned country, like Iraq, is wrong. get it now? The US does something within the norms of international behavior and the howling starts. Russia crosses the bounds and no comment..other than Stupider defending it.
of course, the US intelligence folks were saying they thought there were info. leaks, and that was a reason they gave for not forking over a lot of the information they had. maybe it wasn't just an excuse.
'.. Tony Blair is referred to in a report dated March 5, 2002 and marked: "Subject - SECRET." In the letter, an Iraqi intelligence official explains that a Russian colleague had passed him details of a private conversation between Mr Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, at a meeting in Rome. The two had met for an annual summit on February 15, 2002, in Rome.
The document says that Mr Blair "referred to the negative things decided by the United States over Baghdad". It adds that Mr Blair refused to engage in any military action in Iraq at that time because British forces were still in Afghanistan and that nothing could be done until after the new Kabul government had been set up..'
Well, I'm not surprise. President Bush made stand in front of the American audience, stared flatly with his insignificant eyes into camera, and lie to the world that he was sorry about going alone to disarm Saddam for safety of the world . . . when that was never the truth, it was his agenda all a long, weapons or no weapons, the bombs would fall. Thousands will die. Many will be maim.
Bloated companies will then line up as Bush administration slice and dice Iraqi resources for a handful of U.S. giants -- Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp, and Halliburton Co; a Houston-based energy services company that Vice President Dick Cheney spent five years as chief executive and still receives as much a hundred thousand a year.
The Pentagon went on to announced that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root is developing a plan under an existing contract to fight Iraqi oil well fires -- a initial construction contract could be as large as $900 million, U.S. officials have said.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is seeking other companies -- US companies -- to handle such other projects as renovating the country?s airports, resuscitating electrical grids, and printing textbooks. It's bloody fingers reaching out over shadowing the lives of the Iraqi people.
It is no surprise we learned that our nation could secure the oil fields, but not water for the thirsty young; we could carve-up families with large caliber weapons at check-points, but waive looters through who display a American flags. It's easy for American to pilferage the pain and misery Iraqis past for a global solution to our needs today, then equally exploit the Kurds relief and happiness and yet forget the years of abandonment. Let's not mention that in 1992 the Turkish government again mounted a concerted attack on its Kurdish minority in there country which remain unchallenged by the nation of the 'Land of the free, home of the Brave', killing more than 20,000 and creating about two million refugees.
We will never campaign for their freedom, will we?
Truly the only WMD that has been found to date is when two lone soldiers, don their biological suites, then remove two dead soldiers from a friendly-fire accident. It was hit by a DU-arsenal (Deplete Uranium). When the shells hit they erupt into shower of dust or known as aerosol. DU-Ammo aerosols are thought to be the cause of the permanently debilitating "Gulf War Syndrome." Professor Doug Rokke, the US Army physicist responsible for cleaning up Kuwait, has stated that the use of these weapons amounts to "a war crime" -- and he wasn't even referring to their use inside a city like Baghdad. Let alone all the birth defect from Iraqi mothers from the use of the first Gulf War; breast cancer hitting Iraqi girls as young as twelve.
What happens when it's all over? What happens once we divvy up Iraq resources for American companies. Set up elections. What makes you think the Iraqis ever elected will come inline with US policy-makers. Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to Bush I, just repeated the obvious: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely NOT going to let them take over."
Of course not. It wouldn't be the American way.
Americans never want to know what the Red Cross reported about number of casualties in Iraq was so high that the medical staff had stopped counting. The hospitals were simply overwhelmed. They would prefer not to be disturbed by the screams of the wounded and the grief stricken sobbing of the orphaned children and smashed families. They would rather not hear the story of Ali Ismaeel Abbas, 12, who was fast asleep when a missile demolished his home and obliterated most of his family, leaving him orphaned, badly burned and without arms.
He told a Reuters correspondent at Baghdad's Khindi hospital on Sunday:
It was midnight when the missile fell on us. My father, my mother and my brother died. My mother was five months pregnant. Our neighbors pulled me out and brought me here. I was unconscious.
In addition to the tragedy of losing his parents, he faces the horror of living handicapped. Thinking about his uncertain future he timidly asked whether he could get artificial arms. "Can you help get my arms back? Do you think the doctors can get me another pair of hands?" Abbas asked. "If I don't get a pair of hands I will commit suicide," he said with tears spilling down his cheeks.
I wonder about the human achievement and what lies before us. While many here trumpets American's victories, I myself, for them, along with many Iraqis feel great uncertainty knotted up in our bellies . . . and I wonder what Ali Ismaeel Abbas would do with his new found freedom. Don't get wrong. I'm glad Saddam is gone. But no matter how much freedom it will never replace the lost of human touch on the cheek or rustle of hair from a parents hand.
How lucky am I. My biggest worry -- like many Americans -- is what I'm going to eat for dinner.
Mike
-------
Quote Gene Roddenberry:
"The strength of a civilization is not measured
by its ability to fight wars but rather by its ability to prevent them."
He was an author of science fiction, he create and directed for many years the Star Trek serie.
There are two reasons why I chose to post a quote from Gene Roddenberry. You remember that commercial where you arrive at the future and you ask "Where's all the flying cars we were promise?" In 60's that what's we were promise. The twenty-first century we were supposes to be able fly everywhere without care in glass dome car somewhat like the Jettison. It was also noted recently by a an Apollo astronaut, if we had sustained space exploration as we did in the 60's we would have achieve a Mars landing by the 80's, but that never happen. American resources had been drain away from space exploration and humanitarian-aids and given to the industrial war complex. So instead of reaching for the stars in Gene Roddenberry world of Start Trek we are living out endless war by another wonderful science-fiction writer, George Orwell, the Novel 1984.
The second reason
If you take look at the original series it contains many philosophical pitfalls and human endeavors. In the episode, "A Taste of Armageddon" the Enterprise visits a planet where it wages war with powerful computers which generates statistical deaths. When a "hit" is scored by one of the planets, the people declared dead willingly, blindly, walk into antimatter chambers and are vaporized.
By doing so, they avoid all the devastation and horrors of war. Such a clean war it last a 500 years killing 3 million a year.
When Kirk was informed that his shipped was hit and that everyone needs to report to his or her death chambers, he end the method at the conclusion of the episode.
"You realize what you have done?"
Kirk: "Yes, I do. I've given you back the horrors of war. The Vendikans now assume that you've broken your agreement and you're preparing to wage real war with real weapons. They'll do the same; only the next attack they launch will do more than count up numbers in a computer. They'll destroy cities; devastate your planet. You'll want to retaliate. If I were you, I'd start making bombs. Yes, Councilman, you have a real war on your hands. You can either wage it with real weapons, or you might consider an alternative -- Put an end to it. Make peace."
"There can be no peace. Don't you see? We've admitted it to ourselves.
We're a killer species. It's instinctive. It's the same with you. Your general order 24."
"All right. It's instinctive. The instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we won't kill today. That's all it takes -- knowing that we won't kill today. Contact Vendikar. I think you'll find that they're just as terrified, appalled, horrified as you are, that they'll do anything to avoid the alternative ? peace or utter destruction. It's up to you."
Yes, Gentle reader, I think it's up to us.
As reported in another thread, Nicholas De Genova made inflammatory remark: 'American soldiers should suffer "a million Mogadishu's" in Iraq. As a Columbia University professor, he said this to thousands of students and faculty members at an anti-war forum.
Truly words that step over the bonds of decency, but were they that bad? Isn't there a deeper significance? Forget about the a million soldiers dieing for a moment. In this Gulf War ii, we lived through eyes of seven prisoners and a woman prisoner. We lived as rescuers; we lived in the living rooms of families' waiting for news of their love ones; we live through eyes of prisoners them selves. We even lived through woman's eyes that lost her husband on battlefield as she read his last letter. Thanks to CNN (alias Cartoon News Network) they are all long-lost heroes for all Americans emulate. Toy GI Joes with chisel-chins (except for the GI Jane's with shapely legs). We had done away with thousands of POW's as it were in past wars. Lucky us.
But is it so lucky?
What about four thousand Iraqi prisoners the Americans have? You really believe they don't have families, do you? Young soldiers may have parents that don't know if there are alive or not . . . or maybe they have wives and sons and daughters like Americans do? Granted, through out history the USA has treated POW's far better than any other countries treated American POWs. However stated who will tell their stories? What social workers will help them adjust to their lives after the war? Who will come down and visited their families and sit there and hold there hands and assured them? How many wives and families ask the American soldiers about there husbands who are MIA but only been turned away?
Sure. Americans may be affronted by these people defending there country, misguided or not, under terrible regime in war they didn't want to fight or full nationalism, but you will never hear their stories or of there families on the cartoon network. One reason I brought this up is that the Bush administration is making way to export American news to the Iraqis with subtitles. As if we weren't bloated heads enough, love hearing about ourselves, we now want to give Iraqis' hours of our American tragedies and heroes at war while they live it.
What if war comes too easy?
If we had sixty some Americans who died and maybe five thousand Iraqi soldiers who died . . . unknown faces of the Iraqis, even one that laid by the side of road rotting away as American Hummers and large trucks drive on by down the road in the fading evening light, with many places to be. Some say after the next generation of fighter planes they'll all be like the "Predator" and the pilot and will fly from a safe undisclosed location. So we will have somewhat smart-planes, firing smartbombs (and maybe we won't hit other countries this time) and when an airman dies. Lets say he trip over cord breaking his neck while walking from his cockpit. Americans can gather around him celebrate this fallen hero. So in next war we lose ten soldiers, and next war even less. War may actually become an acceptable policy for those who wish to wage it.
Genuine tragedy of war, as Amy Goodman said, isn't a picture of Saddam with target on it. It's a little girl. Until Americans internalized much as that; if we could admit thousands Iraqi men, woman, and children died due to our bombing -- and NOT 'cross-fire,' -- as many reported in this unjust war; stop treating Iraqis like cardboard cutouts in an American made play. Until are news is willing to standup report what they see and not what Americans want; until war is no longer scrub clean to obliterate human outrage. War will come easier -- a cautionary thought for all us to consider.
Mike
"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."
Regarding Roddenberry. I only know Star Trek through TNG and it always struck me how not in tune with current US politics it seemed. Look at the first two episodes (rendevouz at far point?) where Q is introduced. He is describing the last couple thousand years of human nature with fights, wars and other conflicts and egoism. The captain is agreeing with him. Its part of human nature, but its something that is acknowledged and fought everyday (at the time it is supposed to take place) and since the 20th century we have come a long way in coorporation and going away from the basic instincts of human nature. And all that about no money, no seperate countries, world government etc.
Not this serie started in the 80s with cold war and "evil vs. good empire" and "greed is go(o)d". The morale of TNG seemed to contradict the US of the 80s.
But since then I have learned that this idealism is deeply rooted in US history as an opposition to Europes more realistic view on politics and International relations that, historically, have been more "dirty".
With the new administration the idealistic politics have had a renaissance, but with a twist. Its that idealistic idea that if only marked economy and a liberal democracy is forced through in one coutry in the middle east somehow everybody in the area will "see the light", abandom their fanatic faith and demand a western style democracy. Its an idea that will do more harm than good because it build on assumptions that simply isn´t right (that western style democracy deep down is THE nature/god given way of organizing a society and if only people are exposed to it they would realise that. The reverse domino theory).
This is just as dangerous an ideology as communism was because when reality doesn´t fit the theory you will always be tempted to make it do it.
So what has been a great aspect of US political ideology has now been perverted into something I feel is very dangerous, both for the population of various countries and through that the whole world.
I´m not sure this post is completly coherent and I think I skipped a few explanatory point. But I´m midly drunk right now and on my way to a great party so bear with me\
PS: Tristeza rocks (well perhaps rocks is the wrong word but you get the picture) Buy an album if you see it.
As much as I love to draw my moral views from the well of bad 1960s television...
Quote:
Genuine tragedy of war, as Amy Goodman said, isn't a picture of Saddam with target on it. It's a little girl. Until Americans internalized much as that; if we could admit thousands Iraqi men, woman, and children died due to our bombing -- and NOT 'cross-fire,' -- as many reported in this unjust war; stop treating Iraqis like cardboard cutouts in an American made play. Until are news is willing to standup report what they see and not what Americans want; until war is no longer scrub clean to obliterate human outrage. War will come easier -- a cautionary thought for all us to consider.
This would really make sense if we weren't actually waging war as a world a hell of a lot less than we used to, our desire to make peace increasing right along with the military technology that would keep our casualties low.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Am I just complacent or is there very little, if anything, shocking or awesome about this information?
The head of Iraqi intelligence sent the head of the KGB a christmas card.
And...?
What am I missing?
I'm more worried about the list of assassins in the west and the sharing of conversations between Blair and others? Did you miss that part of the article?
The silence is deafening.
Originally posted by Scott
I'm more worried about the list of assassins in the west and the sharing of conversations between Blair and others? Did you miss that part of the article?
Worried in what way? By the existance of the assassins in the first place, that Saddam now knows about them or the fact that Russia is sharing the info with Saddam? I don't get it.
As for passing on the info: The US asked the UK to help them spy on other UN security council members. And you're upset/surprised/worried because Russia does similar?
Do you think they collect this information for their own amusment? Who else are you going to trade info involving the UK's intentions towards Iraq with if it isn't Saddam?
The UK government colluded to sell Iraq a supergun powerful enough to fire missiles at Israel, the US sold them anthrax and nerve gases, the French helped them build a friggin' nuclear reactor etc.
Russia passes on a pathetic tidbit of info about Britain not wanting to invade while they have troops in Afghanistan and suddenly everyone's pants are in a bunch?
The laughable "evidence" that they have nuclear capabilities summed this article up for me. The "evidence" being Russia warning Iraq that non-cooperation with the UN on weapons of MD gives the US the mandate to do something about it. Which is true but in a "Tell us something we don't know" kind of way rather than proof of *anything*.
I'm failing to see what makes this worth publishing in the first place, much less a "Good God!"
It could just be my overwhelming cynicism but this seems much more "dog bites man" than "man bites dog" as far as startling news stories go.
edit: here's the last paragraph. Which bit of this wasn't common knowledge?
Russia has been a key ally of Baghdad since the 1970s and was one of Saddam's main arms suppliers. The Iraqis are understood to owe Moscow more than £8 billion for arms shipments. Russian oil companies had longed to forge links with Saddam Hussein to help develop Iraq's vast oil reserves.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Well then I would say your argument wouldn´t hold up in the court.
Absence of comments is not the same as acceptance of action.
who was trying to make anything hold up in court? Just making an observation about the anti-US types making themselves available for comment against anything the US does, right, wrong or questionable. Whereas, Russia does something pretty outrageous, and whooooosh, the sound of air passing through a vacuum.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Russia does something pretty outrageous, and whooooosh, the sound of air passing through a vacuum.
Could you outline what you think is outrageous? It wasn't long ago that the KGB was feared, but now we're shocked that they are even doing their job?
Is this one of those American things were everyone to the left of the Republican party gets lumped under the heading of communist and so because you support socialized medicine you are asked to justify North Korean foreign policy?
This is totally off the top of my head and unchecked so I could be wrong but I have a feeling that if anyone has started a thread here complaining about the way Russia has been acting in Chechnia or whatever, it is more likely to be an "anti-US tree-hugger" than a "red, white and blue hawk".
As for passing on the info: The US asked the UK to help them spy on other UN security council members. And you're upset/surprised/worried because Russia does similar?
Did the US give nations listsl of assassins to kill rival leaders?
Russia passes on a pathetic tidbit of info about Britain not wanting to invade while they have troops in Afghanistan and suddenly everyone's pants are in a bunch?
That's all?
Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries. The two countries also signed agreements to share intelligence, help each other to "obtain" visas for agents to go to other countries and to exchange information on the activities of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'eda leader.
Keep acting like it's not there.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Could you outline what you think is outrageous? It wasn't long ago that the KGB was feared, but now we're shocked that they are even doing their job?
umm...providing material assistance to a regime under strict UN sanction. Passing sensitive intel to Saddam, when the rest of the world was trying to force him to disarm, is pretty outrageous.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Is this one of those American things were everyone to the left of the Republican party gets lumped under the heading of communist and so because you support socialized medicine you are asked to justify North Korean foreign policy?
Umm, what? Ok, I'll bite, I support universal medical care and access...this deals with the topic how?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
This is totally off the top of my head and unchecked so I could be wrong but I have a feeling that if anyone has started a thread here complaining about the way Russia has been acting in Chechnia or whatever, it is more likely to be an "anti-US tree-hugger" than a "red, white and blue hawk".
I'd don't think anyone has. And you are right, it probably would be a tree hugger that would start it, if one was started. That one hasn't is pretty telling. Haven't you clued in yet? It's only fun to bash, if it means bashing the US. Why start a thread on Chechnya, you can't irectly blame it on the US...or can you?......
Originally posted by groverat
Did the US give nations listsl of assassins to kill rival leaders?
...
That's all?
...
Keep acting like it's not there.
To your first question: not as far as I know, it just funded juntas and coups so that's alright then. (though I didn't notice the article specify who the assassins would kill).
As for "That's all?" and "Keep acting like it's not there": (from my post)
The Iraqis are understood to owe Moscow more than £8 billion for arms shipments
That's about $12 billion dollars and that's just for the ones they haven't paid for yet.
And you're upset because they *told* Iraq about arms deals with other countries?
Originally posted by Tulkas
umm...providing material assistance to a regime under strict UN sanction. Passing sensitive intel to Saddam, when the rest of the world was trying to force him to disarm, is pretty outrageous.
Hmm. Now I´m confused. Didn´t you just say "Like I said, to me, it's just part of international relations"?
Originally posted by Anders the White
Hmm. Now I´m confused. Didn´t you just say "Like I said, to me, it's just part of international relations"?
I was waiting for someone to nitpick that.
I will restate my position again. I have no problem with the US or Russia gathering and using intelligence. It is part of international affairs. If they get caught doing it, they will suffer the consequences.
When I say what Russia seems to have done is outrageous, I mean that gathering and using intelligence is fine, providing that information to a state under strict UN sanction is outrageous.
To make it a little more simple for you. The US and Russia both make and sell arms, as do many, many countries. People will question whether that is right or wrong. However, there is no question that selling those arms to a sactioned country, like Iraq, is wrong. get it now? The US does something within the norms of international behavior and the howling starts. Russia crosses the bounds and no comment..other than Stupider defending it.
'.. Tony Blair is referred to in a report dated March 5, 2002 and marked: "Subject - SECRET." In the letter, an Iraqi intelligence official explains that a Russian colleague had passed him details of a private conversation between Mr Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, at a meeting in Rome. The two had met for an annual summit on February 15, 2002, in Rome.
The document says that Mr Blair "referred to the negative things decided by the United States over Baghdad". It adds that Mr Blair refused to engage in any military action in Iraq at that time because British forces were still in Afghanistan and that nothing could be done until after the new Kabul government had been set up..'
Well, I'm not surprise. President Bush made stand in front of the American audience, stared flatly with his insignificant eyes into camera, and lie to the world that he was sorry about going alone to disarm Saddam for safety of the world . . . when that was never the truth, it was his agenda all a long, weapons or no weapons, the bombs would fall. Thousands will die. Many will be maim.
Bloated companies will then line up as Bush administration slice and dice Iraqi resources for a handful of U.S. giants -- Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp, and Halliburton Co; a Houston-based energy services company that Vice President Dick Cheney spent five years as chief executive and still receives as much a hundred thousand a year.
The Pentagon went on to announced that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root is developing a plan under an existing contract to fight Iraqi oil well fires -- a initial construction contract could be as large as $900 million, U.S. officials have said.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is seeking other companies -- US companies -- to handle such other projects as renovating the country?s airports, resuscitating electrical grids, and printing textbooks. It's bloody fingers reaching out over shadowing the lives of the Iraqi people.
It is no surprise we learned that our nation could secure the oil fields, but not water for the thirsty young; we could carve-up families with large caliber weapons at check-points, but waive looters through who display a American flags. It's easy for American to pilferage the pain and misery Iraqis past for a global solution to our needs today, then equally exploit the Kurds relief and happiness and yet forget the years of abandonment. Let's not mention that in 1992 the Turkish government again mounted a concerted attack on its Kurdish minority in there country which remain unchallenged by the nation of the 'Land of the free, home of the Brave', killing more than 20,000 and creating about two million refugees.
We will never campaign for their freedom, will we?
Truly the only WMD that has been found to date is when two lone soldiers, don their biological suites, then remove two dead soldiers from a friendly-fire accident. It was hit by a DU-arsenal (Deplete Uranium). When the shells hit they erupt into shower of dust or known as aerosol. DU-Ammo aerosols are thought to be the cause of the permanently debilitating "Gulf War Syndrome." Professor Doug Rokke, the US Army physicist responsible for cleaning up Kuwait, has stated that the use of these weapons amounts to "a war crime" -- and he wasn't even referring to their use inside a city like Baghdad. Let alone all the birth defect from Iraqi mothers from the use of the first Gulf War; breast cancer hitting Iraqi girls as young as twelve.
What happens when it's all over? What happens once we divvy up Iraq resources for American companies. Set up elections. What makes you think the Iraqis ever elected will come inline with US policy-makers. Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to Bush I, just repeated the obvious: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely NOT going to let them take over."
Of course not. It wouldn't be the American way.
Americans never want to know what the Red Cross reported about number of casualties in Iraq was so high that the medical staff had stopped counting. The hospitals were simply overwhelmed. They would prefer not to be disturbed by the screams of the wounded and the grief stricken sobbing of the orphaned children and smashed families. They would rather not hear the story of Ali Ismaeel Abbas, 12, who was fast asleep when a missile demolished his home and obliterated most of his family, leaving him orphaned, badly burned and without arms.
He told a Reuters correspondent at Baghdad's Khindi hospital on Sunday:
It was midnight when the missile fell on us. My father, my mother and my brother died. My mother was five months pregnant. Our neighbors pulled me out and brought me here. I was unconscious.
In addition to the tragedy of losing his parents, he faces the horror of living handicapped. Thinking about his uncertain future he timidly asked whether he could get artificial arms. "Can you help get my arms back? Do you think the doctors can get me another pair of hands?" Abbas asked. "If I don't get a pair of hands I will commit suicide," he said with tears spilling down his cheeks.
I wonder about the human achievement and what lies before us. While many here trumpets American's victories, I myself, for them, along with many Iraqis feel great uncertainty knotted up in our bellies . . . and I wonder what Ali Ismaeel Abbas would do with his new found freedom. Don't get wrong. I'm glad Saddam is gone. But no matter how much freedom it will never replace the lost of human touch on the cheek or rustle of hair from a parents hand.
How lucky am I. My biggest worry -- like many Americans -- is what I'm going to eat for dinner.
Mike
-------
Quote Gene Roddenberry:
"The strength of a civilization is not measured
by its ability to fight wars but rather by its ability to prevent them."
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Who is Gene Roddenberry?
He was an author of science fiction, he create and directed for many years the Star Trek serie.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
He was an author of science fiction, he create and directed for many years the Star Trek serie.
There are two reasons why I chose to post a quote from Gene Roddenberry. You remember that commercial where you arrive at the future and you ask "Where's all the flying cars we were promise?" In 60's that what's we were promise. The twenty-first century we were supposes to be able fly everywhere without care in glass dome car somewhat like the Jettison. It was also noted recently by a an Apollo astronaut, if we had sustained space exploration as we did in the 60's we would have achieve a Mars landing by the 80's, but that never happen. American resources had been drain away from space exploration and humanitarian-aids and given to the industrial war complex. So instead of reaching for the stars in Gene Roddenberry world of Start Trek we are living out endless war by another wonderful science-fiction writer, George Orwell, the Novel 1984.
The second reason
If you take look at the original series it contains many philosophical pitfalls and human endeavors. In the episode, "A Taste of Armageddon" the Enterprise visits a planet where it wages war with powerful computers which generates statistical deaths. When a "hit" is scored by one of the planets, the people declared dead willingly, blindly, walk into antimatter chambers and are vaporized.
By doing so, they avoid all the devastation and horrors of war. Such a clean war it last a 500 years killing 3 million a year.
When Kirk was informed that his shipped was hit and that everyone needs to report to his or her death chambers, he end the method at the conclusion of the episode.
"You realize what you have done?"
Kirk: "Yes, I do. I've given you back the horrors of war. The Vendikans now assume that you've broken your agreement and you're preparing to wage real war with real weapons. They'll do the same; only the next attack they launch will do more than count up numbers in a computer. They'll destroy cities; devastate your planet. You'll want to retaliate. If I were you, I'd start making bombs. Yes, Councilman, you have a real war on your hands. You can either wage it with real weapons, or you might consider an alternative -- Put an end to it. Make peace."
"There can be no peace. Don't you see? We've admitted it to ourselves.
We're a killer species. It's instinctive. It's the same with you. Your general order 24."
"All right. It's instinctive. The instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we won't kill today. That's all it takes -- knowing that we won't kill today. Contact Vendikar. I think you'll find that they're just as terrified, appalled, horrified as you are, that they'll do anything to avoid the alternative ? peace or utter destruction. It's up to you."
Yes, Gentle reader, I think it's up to us.
As reported in another thread, Nicholas De Genova made inflammatory remark: 'American soldiers should suffer "a million Mogadishu's" in Iraq. As a Columbia University professor, he said this to thousands of students and faculty members at an anti-war forum.
Truly words that step over the bonds of decency, but were they that bad? Isn't there a deeper significance? Forget about the a million soldiers dieing for a moment. In this Gulf War ii, we lived through eyes of seven prisoners and a woman prisoner. We lived as rescuers; we lived in the living rooms of families' waiting for news of their love ones; we live through eyes of prisoners them selves. We even lived through woman's eyes that lost her husband on battlefield as she read his last letter. Thanks to CNN (alias Cartoon News Network) they are all long-lost heroes for all Americans emulate. Toy GI Joes with chisel-chins (except for the GI Jane's with shapely legs). We had done away with thousands of POW's as it were in past wars. Lucky us.
But is it so lucky?
What about four thousand Iraqi prisoners the Americans have? You really believe they don't have families, do you? Young soldiers may have parents that don't know if there are alive or not . . . or maybe they have wives and sons and daughters like Americans do? Granted, through out history the USA has treated POW's far better than any other countries treated American POWs. However stated who will tell their stories? What social workers will help them adjust to their lives after the war? Who will come down and visited their families and sit there and hold there hands and assured them? How many wives and families ask the American soldiers about there husbands who are MIA but only been turned away?
Sure. Americans may be affronted by these people defending there country, misguided or not, under terrible regime in war they didn't want to fight or full nationalism, but you will never hear their stories or of there families on the cartoon network. One reason I brought this up is that the Bush administration is making way to export American news to the Iraqis with subtitles. As if we weren't bloated heads enough, love hearing about ourselves, we now want to give Iraqis' hours of our American tragedies and heroes at war while they live it.
What if war comes too easy?
If we had sixty some Americans who died and maybe five thousand Iraqi soldiers who died . . . unknown faces of the Iraqis, even one that laid by the side of road rotting away as American Hummers and large trucks drive on by down the road in the fading evening light, with many places to be. Some say after the next generation of fighter planes they'll all be like the "Predator" and the pilot and will fly from a safe undisclosed location. So we will have somewhat smart-planes, firing smartbombs (and maybe we won't hit other countries this time) and when an airman dies. Lets say he trip over cord breaking his neck while walking from his cockpit. Americans can gather around him celebrate this fallen hero. So in next war we lose ten soldiers, and next war even less. War may actually become an acceptable policy for those who wish to wage it.
Genuine tragedy of war, as Amy Goodman said, isn't a picture of Saddam with target on it. It's a little girl. Until Americans internalized much as that; if we could admit thousands Iraqi men, woman, and children died due to our bombing -- and NOT 'cross-fire,' -- as many reported in this unjust war; stop treating Iraqis like cardboard cutouts in an American made play. Until are news is willing to standup report what they see and not what Americans want; until war is no longer scrub clean to obliterate human outrage. War will come easier -- a cautionary thought for all us to consider.
Mike
"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."
- Longfellow
Regarding Roddenberry. I only know Star Trek through TNG and it always struck me how not in tune with current US politics it seemed. Look at the first two episodes (rendevouz at far point?) where Q is introduced. He is describing the last couple thousand years of human nature with fights, wars and other conflicts and egoism. The captain is agreeing with him. Its part of human nature, but its something that is acknowledged and fought everyday (at the time it is supposed to take place) and since the 20th century we have come a long way in coorporation and going away from the basic instincts of human nature. And all that about no money, no seperate countries, world government etc.
Not this serie started in the 80s with cold war and "evil vs. good empire" and "greed is go(o)d". The morale of TNG seemed to contradict the US of the 80s.
But since then I have learned that this idealism is deeply rooted in US history as an opposition to Europes more realistic view on politics and International relations that, historically, have been more "dirty".
With the new administration the idealistic politics have had a renaissance, but with a twist. Its that idealistic idea that if only marked economy and a liberal democracy is forced through in one coutry in the middle east somehow everybody in the area will "see the light", abandom their fanatic faith and demand a western style democracy. Its an idea that will do more harm than good because it build on assumptions that simply isn´t right (that western style democracy deep down is THE nature/god given way of organizing a society and if only people are exposed to it they would realise that. The reverse domino theory).
This is just as dangerous an ideology as communism was because when reality doesn´t fit the theory you will always be tempted to make it do it.
So what has been a great aspect of US political ideology has now been perverted into something I feel is very dangerous, both for the population of various countries and through that the whole world.
I´m not sure this post is completly coherent and I think I skipped a few explanatory point. But I´m midly drunk right now and on my way to a great party so bear with me
PS: Tristeza rocks (well perhaps rocks is the wrong word but you get the picture) Buy an album if you see it.
Genuine tragedy of war, as Amy Goodman said, isn't a picture of Saddam with target on it. It's a little girl. Until Americans internalized much as that; if we could admit thousands Iraqi men, woman, and children died due to our bombing -- and NOT 'cross-fire,' -- as many reported in this unjust war; stop treating Iraqis like cardboard cutouts in an American made play. Until are news is willing to standup report what they see and not what Americans want; until war is no longer scrub clean to obliterate human outrage. War will come easier -- a cautionary thought for all us to consider.
This would really make sense if we weren't actually waging war as a world a hell of a lot less than we used to, our desire to make peace increasing right along with the military technology that would keep our casualties low.
Star Trek is a bad TV show, that's it.