'Operation Iraqi Freedom? I Don't Think So'

[sassa]

'Operation Iraqi Freedom? I Don't Think So,' Says Indian Activist

Arundhati Roy

Third World Network

Fri., Apr. 11, 2003

On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scrawl colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from the Fat Boy Posse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a boy. A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother’s marbles.

On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an “embedded†CNN correspondent interviewed an American soldier. “I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty,†Private AJ said. “I wanna take revenge for 9/11.â€

To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was “embedded†he did sort of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teenage tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. “Yeah, well that stuff’s way over my head,†he said.

According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America’s armed forces believe these fabrications is anybody’s guess.

It is unlikely that British and American troops fighting in Iraq are aware that their governments supported Saddam Hussein both politically and financially through his worst excesses.

But why should poor AJ and his fellow soldiers be burdened with these details? It does not matter any more, does it? Hundreds of thousands of men, tanks, ships, choppers, bombs, ammunition, gas masks, high-protein food, whole aircrafts ferrying toilet paper, insect repellent, vitamins and bottled mineral water, are on the move. The phenomenal logistics of Operation Iraqi Freedom make it a universe unto itself. It doesn’t need to justify its existence any more. It exists. It is.

President George W Bush, commander in chief of the US army, navy, airforce and marines has issued clear instructions: “Iraq. Will. Be. Liberated.â€

(Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people’s bodies are killed, their souls will be liberated.) American and British citizens owe it to the supreme commander to forsake thought and rally behind their troops. Their countries are at war. And what a war it is.

After using the “good offices†of UN diplomacy (economic sanctions and weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its knees, its people starved, half a million of its children killed, its infrastructure severely damaged, after making sure that most of its weapons have been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely be unrivalled in history, the “Alliesâ€/“Coalition of the Willing†(better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought)—sent in an invading army!

Operation Iraqi Freedom? I don’t think so. It’s more like Operation Let’s Run a Race, but First Let Me Break Your Knees.

So far the Iraqi army, with its hungry, ill-equipped soldiers, its old guns and ageing tanks, has somehow managed to temporarily confound and occasionally even outmanoeuvre the “Alliesâ€. Faced with the richest, best-equipped, most powerful armed forces the world has ever seen, Iraq has shown spectacular courage and has even managed to put up what actually amounts to a defence. A defence which the Bush/Blair Pair have immediately denounced as deceitful and cowardly. (But then deceit is an old tradition with us natives. When we are invaded/ colonised/occupied and stripped of all dignity, we turn to guile and opportunism.)

Even allowing for the fact that Iraq and the “Allies†are at war, the extent to which the “Allies†and their media cohorts are prepared to go is astounding to the point of being counterproductive to their own objectives.

When Saddam Hussein appeared on national TV to address the Iraqi people after the failure of the most elaborate assassination attempt in history—“Operation Decapitationâ€â€”we had Geoff Hoon, the British defence secretary, deriding him for not having the courage to stand up and be killed, calling him a coward who hides in trenches. We then had a flurry of Coalition speculation— Was it really Saddam, was it his double? Or was it Osama with a shave? Was it pre-recorded? Was it a speech? Was it black magic? Will it turn into a pumpkin if we really, really want it to?

After dropping not hundreds, but thousands of bombs on Baghdad, when a marketplace was mistakenly blown up and civilians killed—a US army spokesman implied that the Iraqis were blowing themselves up! “They’re using very old stock. Their missiles go up and come down.â€

If so, may we ask how this squares with the accusation that the Iraqi regime is a paid-up member of the Axis of Evil and a threat to world peace?

When the Arab TV station al-Jazeera shows civilian casualties it’s denounced as “emotive†Arab propaganda aimed at orchestrating hostility towards the “Alliesâ€, as though Iraqis are dying only in order to make the “Allies†look bad. Even French television has come in for some stick for similar reasons. But the awed, breathless footage of aircraft carriers, stealth bombers and cruise missiles arcing across the desert sky on American and British TV is described as the “terrible beauty†of war.

When invading American soldiers (from the army “that’s only here to helpâ€) are taken prisoner and shown on Iraqi TV, George Bush says it violates the Geneva convention and “exposes the evil at the heart of the regimeâ€. But it is entirely acceptable for US television stations to show the hundreds of prisoners being held by the US government in Guantanamo Bay, kneeling on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs, blinded with opaque goggles and with earphones clamped on their ears, to ensure complete visual and aural deprivation. When questioned about the treatment of these prisoners, US Government officials don’t deny that they’re being ill-treated. They deny that they’re “prisoners of warâ€! They call them “unlawful combatantsâ€, implying that their ill-treatment is legitimate! (So what’s the party line on the massacre of prisoners in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan? Forgive and forget? And what of the prisoner tortured to death by the special forces at the Bagram airforce base? Doctors have formally called it homicide.)

When the “Allies†bombed the Iraqi television station (also, incidentally, a contravention of the Geneva convention), there was vulgar jubilation in the American media. In fact Fox TV had been lobbying for the attack for a while. It was seen as a righteous blow against Arab propaganda. But mainstream American and British TV continue to advertise themselves as “balanced†when their propaganda has achieved hallucinatory levels.

Why should propaganda be the exclusive preserve of the western media? Just because they do it better? Western journalists “embedded†with troops are given the status of heroes reporting from the frontlines of war. Non-“embedded†journalists (such as the BBC’s Rageh Omaar, reporting from besieged and bombed Baghdad, witnessing, and clearly affected by the sight of bodies of burned children and wounded people) are undermined even before they begin their reportage: “We have to tell you that he is being monitored by the Iraqi authorities.â€

Increasingly, on British and American TV, Iraqi soldiers are being referred to as “militia†(ie: rabble). One BBC correspondent portentously referred to them as “quasi-terroristsâ€. Iraqi defence is “resistance†or worse still, “pockets of resistanceâ€, Iraqi military strategy is deceit. (The US government bugging the phone lines of UN security council delegates, reported by the Observer, is hard-headed pragmatism.) Clearly for the “Alliesâ€, the only morally acceptable strategy the Iraqi army can pursue is to march out into the desert and be bombed by B-52s or be mowed down by machine-gun fire. Anything short of that is cheating.

And now we have the siege of Basra. About a million and a half people, 40 per cent of them children. Without clean water, and with very little food. We’re still waiting for the legendary Shia “uprisingâ€, for the happy hordes to stream out of the city and rain roses and hosannahs on the “liberating†army. Where are the hordes? Don’t they know that television productions work to tight schedules? (It may well be that if Saddam’s regime falls there will be dancing on the streets of Basra. But then, if the Bush regime were to fall, there would be dancing on the streets the world over.)

After days of enforcing hunger and thirst on the citizens of Basra, the “Allies†have brought in a few trucks of food and water and positioned them tantalisingly on the outskirts of the city. Desperate people flock to the trucks and fight each other for food. (The water we hear, is being sold. To revitalise the dying economy, you understand.) On top of the trucks, desperate photographers fought each other to get pictures of desperate people fighting each other for food. Those pictures will go out through photo agencies to newspapers and glossy magazines that pay extremely well. Their message: The messiahs are at hand, distributing fishes and loaves.

As of July last year the delivery of $5.4bn worth of supplies to Iraq was blocked by the Bush/Blair Pair. It didn’t really make the news. But now under the loving caress of live TV, 450 tonnes of humanitarian aid—a minuscule fraction of what’s actually needed (call it a script prop)—arrived on a British ship, the “Sir Galahadâ€. Its arrival in the port of Umm Qasr merited a whole day of live TV broadcasts. Barf bag, anyone?

Nick Guttmann, head of emergencies for Christian Aid, writing for the Independent on Sunday said that it would take 32 Sir Galahads a day to match the amount of food Iraq was receiving before the bombing began.

We oughtn’t to be surprised though. It’s old tactics. They’ve been at it for years. Consider this moderate proposal by John McNaughton from the Pentagon Papers, published during the Vietnam war: “Strikes at population targets (per se) are likely not only to create a counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home, but greatly to increase the risk of enlarging the war with China or the Soviet Union. Destruction of locks and dams, however—if handled right—might ... offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after time to widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless food is provided—which we could offer to do ‘at the conference table’.â€

Times haven’t changed very much. The technique has evolved into a doctrine. It’s called “Winning Hearts and Mindsâ€.

So, here’s the moral maths as it stands: 200,000 Iraqis estimated to have been killed in the first Gulf war. Hundreds of thousands dead because of the economic sanctions. (At least that lot has been saved from Saddam Hussein.) More being killed every day. Tens of thousands of US soldiers who fought the 1991 war officially declared “disabled†by a disease called the Gulf war syndrome, believed in part to be caused by exposure to depleted uranium. It hasn’t stopped the “Allies†from continuing to use depleted uranium.

And now this talk of bringing the UN back into the picture. But that old UN girl—it turns out that she just ain’t what she was cracked up to be. She’s been demoted (although she retains her high salary). Now she’s the world’s janitor. She’s the Philippino cleaning lady, the Indian jamadarni, the postal bride from Thailand, the Mexican household help, the Jamaican au pair. She’s employed to clean other peoples’ shit. She’s used and abused at will.

Despite Blair’s earnest submissions, and all his fawning, Bush has made it clear that the UN will play no independent part in the administration of postwar Iraq. The US will decide who gets those juicy “reconstruction†contracts. But Bush has appealed to the international community not to “politicise†the issue of humanitarian aid. On March 28, after Bush called for the immediate resumption of the UN’s oil for food programme, the UN security council voted unanimously for the resolution. This means that everybody agrees that Iraqi money (from the sale of Iraqi oil) should be used to feed Iraqi people who are starving because of US led sanctions and the illegal US-led war.

Contracts for the “reconstruction†of Iraq we’re told, in discussions on te business news, could jump-start the world economy. It’s funny how the interests of American corporations are so often, so successfully and so deliberately confused with the interests of the world economy. While the American people will end up paying for the war, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers, and corporations involved in “ reconstruction†work will make direct gains from the war. Many of them are old friends and former employers of the Bush/ Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice cabal. Bush has already

asked Congress for $75bn. Contracts for “re-construction†are already being negotiated. The news doesn’t hit the stands because much of the US corporate media is owned and managed by the same interests.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, Tony Blair assures us is about returning Iraqi oil to the Iraqi people. That is, returning Iraqi oil to the Iraqi people via corporate multinationals. Like Shell, like Chevron, like Halliburton. Or are we missing the plot here? Perhaps Halliburton is actually an Iraqi company? Perhaps US vice-president Dick Cheney (who is a former director of Halliburton) is a closet Iraqi?

As the rift between Europe and America deepens, there are signs that the world could be entering a new era of economic boycotts. CNN reported that Americans are emptying French wine into gutters, chanting, “We don’t want your stinking wine.†We’ve heard about the re-baptism of French fries. Freedom fries they’re called now. There’s news trickling in about Americans boycotting German goods. The thing is that if the fallout of the war takes this turn, it is the US who will suffer the most. Its homeland may be defended by border patrols and nuclear weapons, but its economy is strung out across the globe. Its economic outposts are exposed and vulnerable to attack in every direction. Already the internet is buzzing with elaborate lists of American and British government products and companies that should be boycotted. Apart from the usual targets, Coke, Pepsi and McDonald’s—government agencies such as USAID, the British department for international development, British and American banks, Arthur Anderson, Merrill Lynch, American Express, corporations such as Bechtel, General Electric, and companies such as Reebok, Nike and Gap—could find hemselves under siege. These lists are being honed and refined by activists across the world. They could become a practical guide that directs and channels the amorphous, but growing fury in the world. Suddenly, the “inevitability†of the project of corporate globalisation is beginning to seem more than a little evitable.

It’s become clear that the war against terror is not really about terror, and the war on Iraq not only about oil. It’s about a superpower’s self-destructive impulse towards supremacy, stranglehold, global hegemony.

The argument is being made that the people of Argentina and Iraq have both been decimated by the same process. Only the weapons used against them differ: In one case it’s an IMF chequebook. In the other, cruise missiles.

Finally, there’s the matter of Saddam’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. (Oops, nearly forgot about those!)

In the fog of war—one thing’s for sure—if Saddam’s regime indeed has weapons of mass destruction, it is showing an astonishing degree of responsibility and restraint in the teeth of extreme provocation. Under similar circumstances, (say if Iraqi troops were bombing New York and laying siege to Washington DC) could we expect the same of the Bush regime?

Would it keep its thousands of nuclear warheads in their wrapping paper? What about its chemical and biological weapons? Its stocks of anthrax, smallpox and nerve gas? Would it?

Excuse me while I laugh.

In the fog of war we’re forced to speculate: Either Saddam is an extremely responsible tyrant. Or—he simply does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Either way, regardless of what happens next, Iraq comes out of the argument smelling sweeter than the US government.

So here’s Iraq—rogue state, grave threat to world peace, paid-up member of the Axis of Evil. Here’s Iraq, invaded, bombed, besieged, bullied, its sovereignty shat upon, its children killed by cancers, its people blown up on the streets. And here’s all of us watching. CNN-BBC, BBC-CNN late into the night. Here’s all of us, enduring the horror of the war, enduring the horror of the propaganda and enduring the slaughter of language as we know and understand it. Freedom now means mass murder (or, in the US, fried potatoes). When someone says “humanitarian aid†we automatically go looking for induced starvation. “Embedded†I have to admit, is a great find. It’s what it sounds like. And what about “arsenal of tactics?†Nice!

In most parts of the world, the invasion of Iraq is being seen as a racist war. The real danger of a racist war unleashed by racist regimes is that it engenders racism in everybody—perpetrators, victims, spectators. It sets the parameters for the debate, it lays out a grid for a particular way of thinking. There is a tidal wave of hatred for the US rising from the ancient heart of the world. In Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, Australia. I encounter it every day. Sometimes it comes from the most unlikely sources. Bankers, businessmen, yuppie students, and they bring to it all the crassness of their conservative, illiberal politics. That absurd inability to separate governments from people: America is a nation of morons, a nation of murderers, they say, (with the same carelessness with which they say, “All Muslims are terroristsâ€). Even in the grotesque universe of racist insult, the British make their entry as add-ons. Arse-lickers, they’re called.

Suddenly, I, who have been vilified for being “anti-American†and “anti-westâ€, find myself in the extraordinary position of defending the people of America. And Britain.

Those who descend so easily into the pit of racist abuse would do well to remember the hundreds of thousands of American and British citizens who protested against their country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons. And the thousands of American war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam. They should know that the most scholarly, scathing, hilarious critiques of the US government and the “American way of life†comes from American citizens. And that the funniest, most bitter condemnation of their prime minister comes from the British media. Finally they should remember that right now, hundreds of thousands of British and American citizens are on the streets protesting the war. The Coalition of the Bullied and Bought consists of governments, not people. More than one third of America’s citizens have survived the relentless propaganda they’ve been subjected to, and many thousands are actively fighting their own government. In the ultra-patriotic climate that prevails in the US, that’s as brave as any Iraqi fighting for his or her homeland.

While the “Allies†wait in the desert for an uprising of Shia Muslims on the streets of Basra, the real uprising is taking place in hundreds of cities across the world. It has been the most spectacular display of public morality ever seen.

Most courageous of all, are the hundreds of thousands of American people on the streets of America’s great cities—Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco. The fact is that the only institution in the world today that is more powerful than the American government, is American civil society.

American citizens have a huge responsibility riding on their shoulders. How can we not salute and support those who not only acknowledge but act upon that responsibility? They are our allies, our friends.

At the end of it all, it remains to be said that dictators like Saddam Hussein, and all the other despots in the Middle East, in the central Asian republics, in Africa and Latin America, many of them installed, supported and financed by the US government, are a menace to their own people. Other than strengthening the hand of civil society (instead of weakening it as has been done in the case of Iraq), there is no easy, pristine way of dealing with them. (It’s odd how those who dismiss the peace movement as utopian, don’t hesitate to proffer the most absurdly dreamy reasons for going to war: to stamp out terrorism, install democracy, eliminate fascism, and most entertainingly, to “rid the world of evil-doersâ€.)

Regardless of what the propaganda machine tells us, these tin-pot dictators are not the greatest threat to the world. The real and pressing danger, the greatest threat of all is the locomotive force that drives the political and economic engine of the US government, currently piloted by George Bush. Bush-bashing is fun, because he makes such an easy, sumptuous target. It’s true that he is a dangerous, almost suicidal pilot, but the machine he handles is far more dangerous than the man himself.

Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over us today, I’d like to file a cautious plea for hope: in times of war, one wants one’s weakest enemy at the helm of his forces. And President George W Bush is certainly that. Any other even averagely intelligent US president would have probably done the very same things, but would have managed to smoke-up the glass and confuse the opposition. Perhaps even carry the UN with him. Bush’s tactless imprudence and his brazen belief that he can run the world with his riot squad, has done the opposite. He has achieved what writers, activists and scholars have striven to achieve for decades. He has exposed the ducts. He has placed on full public view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of the American empire.

Now that the blueprint (The Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire) has been put into mass circulation, it could be disabled quicker than the pundits predicted.

Bring on the spanners.

[frenchbread]

the media in the states is not controlled by the gov't...no...

"come on frenchbread...you read too many conspiracy theories"...

do i?

then explain this:

Originally posted by sassa

According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

it's like they say: "if they blast it loud and long enough on tv, it'll make it so for the american public..."...

[sobeton]

damn !

[vicman]

the excuses to invade Iraq have been ever changing.

first it was 9/11

then because Iraq supported al-qaida

then it was WMD's

then to liberate Iraq

there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11

no connection between Iraq and al-qaida

still no concrete and absolute proof of WMD's

its utter bullshit.

anyone watch NBC this morning when they interviewed Rumshy?

what would happen if there are demoacratic elections in Iraq and fundamentalists end up in power?

he basically said as long as they dont pursue WMD's, the US doesnt care. same reason why the US doesnt do anything regarding Cuba. Cuba has no WMD's, they could care less about the Cuban govm'nt executing dissidents.

this administration is a joke. but now Bush has a high approval rate and reelection campaigning will begin shortly.

[cintron]

Originally posted by vicman

there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11

no connection between Iraq and al-qaida

still no concrete and absolute proof of WMD's

its utter bullshit.

and you're full of it.

at least have the decency to admit you're talking out of your ass.

Unless you're privvy to classified intelligence reports, you don't know a fucking thing, just like the rest of us.

as for their govt: hey, if it's a democracy, that always means there's a chance someone could get elected who sucks.

But it's THEIR govt. Not ours.

if you don't like Bush, then don't vote for him. It sounds like you wouldn't like anybody who gets involved in anything outside of US borders.

[vicman]

Originally posted by cintron

and you're full of it.

at least have the decency to admit you're talking out of your ass.

Unless you're privvy to classified intelligence reports, you don't know a fucking thing, just like the rest of us.

as for their govt: hey, if it's a democracy, that always means there's a chance someone could get elected who sucks.

But it's THEIR govt. Not ours.

if you don't like Bush, then don't vote for him. It sounds like you wouldn't like anybody who gets involved in anything outside of US borders.

cintron= :laugh:

[vicman]

admit it cintron, if there wouldve been that concrete proof of all of the above, the world perception on this war wouldve been totally different. that you just happen to like to take up the ass everything that your Bush says...well I cant help it.

nice talking to you, have a nice day. next!

[vicman]

i'm gonna go do my taxes now, so the $ can be used to buy another $500 pencil for the army.

[ghhhhhost]

Originally posted by cintron

and you're full of it.

at least have the decency to admit you're talking out of your ass.

Unless you're privvy to classified intelligence reports, you don't know a fucking thing, just like the rest of us.

as for their govt: hey, if it's a democracy, that always means there's a chance someone could get elected who sucks.

But it's THEIR govt. Not ours.

if you don't like Bush, then don't vote for him. It sounds like you wouldn't like anybody who gets involved in anything outside of US borders.

soo...what ur saying is...with ur classified priviliged US INTELLIGENCE status..uve been to Iraq and seen the chemical weapons...and have proof of osama and saddam bein in bed together??

dont shit on the kid because he doesnt believe the reasoning for the war.....and to be honest..if u read the article...if saddam really had WMD or Chemical Weapons (yes kids..the 2 r different) ...wouldnt he use them against the "ALLIES" ?

[sobeton]

Originally posted by cintron

and you're full of it.

at least have the decency to admit you're talking out of your ass.

Unless you're privvy to classified intelligence reports, you don't know a fucking thing, just like the rest of us.

as for their govt: hey, if it's a democracy, that always means there's a chance someone could get elected who sucks.

But it's THEIR govt. Not ours.

if you don't like Bush, then don't vote for him. It sounds like you wouldn't like anybody who gets involved in anything outside of US borders.

Ummm.. if there where intelligence reports linking Iraq with al-Qaeda, and the events of 9/11. we would have presented proof, of the same to support our invasion of Iraq. further we sure would not, have waited so long to invade Iraq. we have no credible evidence merely speculation.

there will never be a long term, democratically elected government in Iraq. study Iraq, and is it's neighboring countries histories and perhaps you will have a better understanding why.

we invaded a country without fully understanding the results of our actions; nor really caring for that matter.

"Every hour that goes by it's getting better and more peaceful and more orderly in that country. "The beginning of a return to a more normal situation is occurring “ -Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld now who’s talking out of there arse ??

[sassa]

Originally posted by cintron

and you're full of it.

at least have the decency to admit you're talking out of your ass.

Unless you're privvy to classified intelligence reports, you don't know a fucking thing, just like the rest of us.

as for their govt: hey, if it's a democracy, that always means there's a chance someone could get elected who sucks.

But it's THEIR govt. Not ours.

if you don't like Bush, then don't vote for him. It sounds like you wouldn't like anybody who gets involved in anything outside of US borders.

even if no one votes for him or not, all he has is daddy bush and his brother being the state of florida to have him as our president...our votes in the end, according to our system, don't matter anyways because the electoral college, made up of similar men like bush (old, white, rich, and powerful men) will vote for him, especially if he pays them off nicely enough...whether through money, support, or personal favors...

how can you support such a man, let alone what he's doing to people around the world..he has no heart, no mind, and no leadership skills whatsoever..everything about him is programmed...

[cintron]

hmph. jump down my throat, people.

Serge, i'm not saying i have access to classified intelligence documents, but i'm saying that you don't either; nor does anyone else on this board.

So how can we draw a conclusion about something when we don't have access to any concrete information.

All we can do is SPECULATE... unless of course vicman thinks he's psychic.

I highly doubt that the united states would have made EVERYTHING public when they presented their "proof" of WMD.

We're not stupid enough to tip our hand that far in one news briefing. I would have thought all your collective sarcasm on military secrecy would have helped you figure that out.

Give it a chance. Being a naysayer is one thing, but god it's not even been a week yet.

Your parents must've gone nuts with you as children.

"Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"

[sobeton]

we have no smoking gun, just a lot of hot air right now. we don’t have proof of WMD as of today. when Iraq is COMPLETELY under coalition control, then let the UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq to search for the WMD. letting the US search for WMD is asking for trouble, because their will always be that lingering question: " did or will the US plant WMD to legitimize their invasion "

[sassa]

Originally posted by cintron

hmph. jump down my throat, people.

Serge, i'm not saying i have access to classified intelligence documents, but i'm saying that you don't either; nor does anyone else on this board.

So how can we draw a conclusion about something when we don't have access to any concrete information.

All we can do is SPECULATE... unless of course vicman thinks he's psychic.

I highly doubt that the united states would have made EVERYTHING public when they presented their "proof" of WMD.

We're not stupid enough to tip our hand that far in one news briefing. I would have thought all your collective sarcasm on military secrecy would have helped you figure that out.

Give it a chance. Being a naysayer is one thing, but god it's not even been a week yet.

Your parents must've gone nuts with you as children.

"Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"

going along with your logic, i guess it would be safe to say then that you might not be right about anything, nor anyone else?

[cintron]

Originally posted by sassa

going along with your logic, i guess it would be safe to say then that you might not be right about anything, nor anyone else?

if it involves issues that i don't have all the details to, then obviously that's a risk i'd run.

but i try to speak about things that don't involve security clearances.

[starvingartist]

Originally posted by frenchbread

the media in the states is not controlled by the gov't...no...

"come on frenchbread...you read too many conspiracy theories"...

do i?

then explain this:

it's like they say: "if they blast it loud and long enough on tv, it'll make it so for the american public..."...

And I'm sure you also heard how this war is about oil through media. Not every article, news brief etc that I have seen or read has been blasting one side. Both sides are out there, if this were not the case the many debates in this forum would not exist.

[Drunk]

Originally posted by ghhhhhost

if saddam really had WMD or Chemical Weapons (yes kids..the 2 r different) ...wouldnt he use them against the "ALLIES" ?

Not necessarily. He had the opportunity to use them against the Allies in the first Gulf War but didn't. No one doubts he had WMD then.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by vicman

the excuses to invade Iraq have been ever changing.

first it was 9/11

then because Iraq supported al-qaida

then it was WMD's

then to liberate Iraq

there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11

no connection between Iraq and al-qaida

still no concrete and absolute proof of WMD's

its utter bullshit.

this administration is a joke. but now Bush has a high approval rate and reelection campaigning will begin shortly.

:laugh:

My dillusional little liberal why are you so confused...

Must be all that conspiracy thinking that has rotten your brain.. Get your head out of the rain forest and actually listen to the plan that was outlined in the Nov 2002 when Bush spoke to the U.N about their relevence...

Do you guys live in a box let me refresh your memory

The original plan talked about the threat to our country either by terrorist's or regimes that sponsor terrorism.. The U.S also spoke about the humanitarian situation in Iraq how Sadam has turtured their civilians fore 25 years..

Vicman..

No WMD right?? Tell me why they were finding chemical suits all over the country or atropiene injections to repell nerve gas?? How about the diffrent missiles that were found in the bunkers under the country which also explains the detail this regime put into concealing it WMD. You saying Iraq has no weapons is like the Ministry of information saying we weren't knocking on the front door of bahgdad a week ago...

You guys kill me I sware..

-First it was the war paln that was flawed because of resistance WRONG!! resistance for the most part have been destroyed..

-Then it was a humanitarian disaster WRONG.. Humanitarian aid is being distributed in the south with a route from Um Qasar to naziriah and in due time through out the whole country..

- We didn't plan enough for the looting.. wrong again... The looting has stopped and the Iraqi's are policing their own neighborhoods unlikie critics claim that we would occupy the land ..

I will say it again the mission has many goals that would feed of each other..here is an example We liberate the people DON'T police for the most part and earn the trust of the people..They turn around and lead us to WMD and leadership hideouts.. The people are the best source of intel..

I can't beleive this is so hard to comprehend.. Even if we land some contracts for our oil co's big deal We won't see any Iraq's complain why should Americans..

[cintron]

Originally posted by mr mahs

:laugh:

My dillusional little liberal why are you so confused...

Must be all that conspiracy thinking that has rotten your brain.. Get your head out of the rain forest and actually listen to the plan that was outlined in the Nov 2002 when Bush spoke to the U.N about their relevence...

Do you guys live in a box let me refresh your memory

The original plan talked about the threat to our country either by terrorist's or regimes that sponsor terrorism.. The U.S also spoke about the humanitarian situation in Iraq how Sadam has turtured their civilians fore 25 years..

Vicman..

No WMD right?? Tell me why they were finding chemical suits all over the country or atropiene injections to repell nerve gas?? How about the diffrent missiles that were found in the bunkers under the country which also explains the detail this regime put into concealing it WMD. You saying Iraq has no weapons is like the Ministry of information saying we weren't knocking on the front door of bahgdad a week ago...

You guys kill me I sware..

-First it was the war paln that was flawed because of resistance WRONG!! resistance for the most part have been destroyed..

-Then it was a humanitarian disaster WRONG.. Humanitarian aid is being distributed in the south with a route from Um Qasar to naziriah and in due time through out the whole country..

- We didn't plan enough for the looting.. wrong again... The looting has stopped and the Iraqi's are policing their own neighborhoods unlikie critics claim that we would occupy the land ..

I will say it again the mission has many goals that would feed of each other..here is an example We liberate the people DON'T police for the most part and earn the trust of the people..They turn around and lead us to WMD and leadership hideouts.. The people are the best source of intel..

I can't beleive this is so hard to comprehend.. Even if we land some contracts for our oil co's big deal We won't see any Iraq's complain why should Americans..

EXAAAAAACTLY.

Everyone goes "yo its all about oil all about greedy corporations, all about the dollar bill."

Well fucking right it is. The Iraqis had an oil for food program running since the mid 90's. The iraqi PEOPLE actually saw very little of the cash from that program. Most of it went to Saddam's need to build bigger and better palaces, and beef up his air defense and such.

Al Samoud 2 Missiles? Chinese Silkworm missiles? They weren't firing them during the gulf war. I wonder where they came from and how they were bought, b/c in case you didn't notice, MISSILES ARE EXPENSIVE.

the point is you're DAMN RIGHT we're there to secure the oil fields and we're going to PAY the Iraqis for them too. We're not going to steal them, we're going to BUY oil. We're going to give them CASH that they can use to rebuild their country and reduce their national debt. What's the harm in that? What's so bad about helping open up their oil market and use their country's natural resources to help their economy? Shit, everyone does that. If you've got a product the world wants, you sell it and make money. That's what they're going to do and that's what we're helping them do.

If helping them stabilize their economy and get things off the ground means that we're allowed a better deal on oil supply, then good for us and good for them. That means we pay cheaper home heating prices, cheaper gas pump prices, and that money would be going towards helping rebuild Iraq.

so what's all this shit about the US is doing it all for OIL.

everybody's gotta pay bills, you know. Even governments.