TAN/ "Shock and awe"?!?! Bush War
SMorri8652
I'm surprised I haven't seen anything about this in the Bush/War survey thread.
Did you hear about this on the CBS Evening News last night? I almost had a
stroke. On the first day of the Iraqi war, our government... No, let me say
Bushie boy's government, because I refuse to think that the US government I
used to believe in would agree to anything such as this. Georgie's government
plans to drop 300-400 cruise missiles on Iraq the first day of his war. It's
called the "shock and awe" approach. They actually used those words. Then
Georgie boy and his thugs plan to drop *another* 300-400 cruise missiles on
Iraq the second day!
Gee, I wonder how many recruits this tactic will bring to Al-Qaeda. Oh, we'll
win the war, but the cost of this will be horrific. This will bring the war
home to the US with every enemy of the US wanting to make us suffer as those
Iraqi people under that bombload will suffer. What retaliation will this bring
from the groups all over the world that hate the US? Think of all the poor
young men and women that will be the ground troops, going into the country
after Bush and his boys do that in his personal vendetta against Iraq. What
about the psychological toll on those that send these missiles in after they
see the damage and the bodies of those killed? I think Saddam's son will be
right, that 9/11 will be nothing compared to what's ahead. "TheRealMe" will
have lots of company in New York. That city and Washington, DC would be
prominent targets of revenge and retailiation.
This does remind me so much of Vietnam too. For the older women here, do you
remember a movie from the 60's called "The Group"? I feel like the one who's
waiting for the bomb to drop. And sadly enough there will be a lot of people
out there that will support such a thing and see that atrocity as a necessary
thing.
Vietnam was a terrible, terrible time. More military funerals for people to
attend. Have you ever been to a Marine funeral? I was 16 and so damn naive
when a family friend was killed in Vietnam. The guy was a 20 years old Marine.
"First to fight" and believing in doing the right thing for his country. I was
the only one home that night when his mother called to tell mine the news. That
changed me. I'm 51 and I still cry at Marine recruitment commercials. When the
first Gulf War started, I cried for the Marines that would die while the people
I worked with went out and celebrated the US going to war.
For those of you with friends and relatives in the military, my heart and
prayers go out to you. God knows Georgie's father scared me when he was
elected, and the bastard did exactly what I feared he would. But the son scares
me so much more. I fear what the year ahead will bring to us and our country if
George Bush isn't stopped.
Sue M.
Proud to be a Democratic Liberal Leftist
Seger256
No, I have been out of town for the weekend.
Am I the only one that is beginning to think that W is acting just a little
nuts? It is like someone has programmed him to say "war, war, war" and no one
can stop him.
sue kelso
no it's not just you.
sue k
WB
Wendy
"sue kelso" <suek...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3E347DBF...@mchsi.com...
Mary Pelis
WB wrote:
They're not too stoked about us there either.
Mary "We're running out of places to go" Pelis
ADan327830
>
>They're not too stoked about us there either.
>
>Mary "We're running out of places to go" Pelis
>
is there anywhere that's ok with US? I think maybe Australia....
I'm not getting on an airplane for a long time (unless it's someplace either
Southwest or Lufthansa goes)
Donna L. Bridges
<20030126202645...@mb-bd.aol.com>,
adan3...@aol.comnospam (ADan327830) wrote:
>is there anywhere that's ok with US? I think maybe Australia....
>
>I'm not getting on an airplane for a long time (unless it's someplace either
>Southwest or Lufthansa goes)
New Zealand
Amsterdam
--
DonnaB 8^>
"The lovely thing about being forty is that you can appreciate 25
year-old men more." - Collen McCullough
Dana M B
Nope not just you.
Dana
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tv-daysofourlives/
**Current Passions day started on Thursday, January 2, 2003
**Number of Harmony Days in 2003 (including “today”): 1
**Record length for a day in Harmony: 10 weeks (February 28-May 9, 2001)
WB
>
> > Movin' back to Canada while the gettin's good!:)
> > Wendy
>
> They're not too stoked about us there either.
>
> Mary "We're running out of places to go" Pelis
>
Especially after that wee "friendly fire" incident.
Wendy
Mary B
Donna L. Bridges <shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc on 27 Jan 2003 01:26:45 GMT in Msg.#
> <20030126202645...@mb-bd.aol.com>,
> adan3...@aol.comnospam (ADan327830) wrote:
>
> >is there anywhere that's ok with US? I think maybe Australia....
> >
> >I'm not getting on an airplane for a long time (unless it's someplace either
> >Southwest or Lufthansa goes)
>
> New Zealand
> Amsterdam
If I were that scared, I'd try Switzerland. No one's going
to bomb the shit out of the country where anyone and
everyone can hide their money.
Mary "nuclear fall-out could be trouble though"
Seger256
>Especially after that wee "friendly fire" incident.
Has anyone heard THIS story? OUR military drugs our pilots up on "speed" so
they will "be more alert". The pilot that dropped this friendly fire was so
hyped up that you can hear it in his voice. He drops this bomb on our
neighbors (allies). We turn on him and put him on trial. Maybe we need
examine what kind of drugs were pumped into him by our military.
Natasha
<snipped>
Interesting. I found something yesterday that also is very interesting. It's
a post I came across on political discussion group, referring to an article
in the LA Times (a mainstream, non-political press), which appeared this
weekend, according to the post. The writers of the article went over the
entire list of so-called intelligence the Bush admin./ Pentagon has claims
to have gathered from satellite surveillance and other
intelligence-gathering sources, which has been presented to the public as
credible proof of the Iraquis building or possessing weapons of mass
destruction. The writers went over every single piece of "credible evidence"
provided and found not one single bit of it bears out. Eveything was proved
unsubstantiated or impossible to be true.
The post contains a link to the article, but I had trouble accessing it
because it was too long for my browser and cut and paste got too
frustrating. So I'm posting the entire post, which excerpts the main points
of the LA Times article, going over each claim, point by point, and
clarifying why they don't hold up. The end of the article quotes Paul
Wolfowitz (deputy secretary of defense) acknowledging some of their
intelligence may be inaccurate.
Here's the post, excerpting the LA Times article:
Those of you who have seen the movie 'Barbershop' will remember the scene
where a man getting a shave dashes out into the street to confront a woman
who is demolishing his car. "Ain't this Malcolm Brown's car?" she says, in
perplexity. "You SURE this ain't Malcolm Brown's car?"
"NO! It's MY car!!"
"Oh. My bad," she says, decamping.
"Your bad??? YOUR BAD??!!!"
Yes, it is frustrating to have your car destroyed by a person who is
misinformed. I suppose it is even worse to have your house, your life, your
children, your neighborhood, your country destroyed by a government which is
misinformed, or by a country whose people have been misinformed by their
government. This frustration is in store for Iraq, as this story from the
L.A. Times makes clear.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-inspect26jan26,0,1235181
.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines
They are very diplomatic in their language, these writers, but the truth
does come out: in EVERY case where the U.S. government has made a concrete,
testable claim about Iraqi weapons programs, this claim has turned out to be
false. EVERY CASE.
- President Bush said in Cincinnati on Oct. 7 that aerial photos of the
former Tuwaitha nuclear weapons complex "reveal that Iraq is rebuilding
facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."
The inspectors have visited Tuwaitha 12 times since December. The claim was
false.
- The US had claimed that there was new construction at the Al Qaim
phosphates plant, where uranium ore was refined in the 1980's. The plant
was destroyed in 1991.
The inspectors have spent two days there and inspected it by air. The claim
was false.
- A centerpiece of the US charges was the case of the aluminum tubes that
Iraq tried to import from China. Bush told the U.N. General Assembly on
September 24 that these tubes "are used to enrich uranium for nuclear
weapons".
This claim has proved to be false. The tubes were found to be intended to
replace short-range conventional rockets which Iraq is "permitted" to have
even under the post-Gulf War strictures.
- Last fall, the CIA warned that Baghdad was producing precursors for
chemical weapons. "The best examples" were the chlorine and phenol
production plants at Fallujah II, 40 miles from Baghdad. Note: the BEST
examples.
Of course, chlorine has civilian uses, notably the purification of water.
Iraq's water supplies were largely damaged in the Gulf War, deliberately, by
US bombing. Iraq's inability to obtain or use chlorine to purify its water
has cost hundreds of thousands since that time. If Iraq actually WERE
producing chlorine at Fallujah II, it would be completely defensible as a
public health measure.
Nevertheless, the inspectors have been there too, and THE CLAIM IS FALSE.
The plant is still inoperative.
- The CIA also warned last fall that Iraq had begun rebuilding several sites
which were used in the 1980's to produce biological agents, "including the
Al Dawrah Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility, the Amiriyah Serum and
Vaccine Institute, and the Fallujah III Castor Oil Production Plant."
The inspectors have visited these sites as well, and the claim is false.
"Some of the buildings were abandoned shells, while others had limited
operations. No evidence was found that Iraq is using the facilities to
produce microbes for banned weapons."
- The U.S. has said that "overwhelming evidence" proves that Iraq is
building long-range missiles. Last September, in a background paper for
Bush's UN speech, the White House claimed that a testing stand at Al-Rafah
North was "clearly intended for testing prohibited longer-range missile
engines." The CIA wrote in October that construction at the Al-Mutasim Solid
Rocket Motor and Test Facility was evidence of plans for long-range missile
systems. The CIA also said that the "only logical explanation" for
construction at Al-Mamoun was that production of long-range missiles was
projected.
The UN inspectors have visited all these sites and have found NO EVIDENCE of
these claims.
That's the weapons claims. How about the 'terrorism' claims? It was
claimed in 2001 by former CIA head James Woolsey that the anthrax attacks
were certainly the work of Iraq. It was claimed that the 'smoking gun' was
the fact that the anthrax powder was made from the common clay,
montmorillonite [a.k.a. "Kitty Litter"], which is found in Iraq.
It was also claimed that the secular Ba'ath government in Iraq was
supporting the Islamicists of al-Qaeda, and that Mohammed Atta had met with
an Iraqi official in Prague.
These claims were false as well.
All of these claims have been brought to us by the same people who brought
us the well-documented 'incubator babies' hoax to support the war drive in
1990-1991, and whose infamous warning about the "5 Arab men" in December
turned out to be a hoax.
"Bush administration and intelligence officials insist that the failure to
find illegal weapons so far simply proves that Iraq has hidden its weapons
programs and arsenals in secret underground bunkers or in mobile
laboratories. They say Iraq has stashed sensitive documents and other
evidence in homes and farms, or under mosques and hospitals." Therefore,
when the homes and farms and mosques and hospitals are destroyed by cruise
missiles next month, it will be because they are military targets!
The Times article concludes:
'Administration officials have not backed down from their claims about Iraqi
weapons programs or from their insistence that Iraq is simply concealing
illegal weapons activities from the U.N. teams.
'But in response to a question, Wolfowitz -- one of the administration's
most prominent hawks on Iraq -- acknowledged Thursday that at least some of
the White House assertions should now be reevaluated.
'"Yeah, it's possible that we have been misinformed on some things," he
said.'
Natasha
<snipped>
As a ps to my LA Times posting, I came across this little ditty in The
Observer, a UK mainstream newspaper. A column by writer Terry Johnson,
applying the "Bush logic" for war on Iraq to personal disputes he has w/
some of his neighbors. Very amusing and frighteningly cohesive analogy.
Thought some of you might get a chuckle, as well as a different perspective
on "logic" that makes an argument for mass murder on the basis of suspicion
and/or dislike.
Here it is:
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,882526,00.html
I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush
Terry Jones
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's
running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a
couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health
food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is
planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover
what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but
he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good
sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the
street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by
one.
Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police?
But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of
a crime with which to charge my neighbours.
They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and
wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be
finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be
secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a
decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the
peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however,
George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of
patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is
the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one
certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US
or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and
children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in
peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that
Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction -
even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification
for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.
Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating
'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how
can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's
wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a
terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What
about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate,
since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already
eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future
terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every
Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert
to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr
Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the
iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and
who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe
until I've wiped them all out.
My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the
same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason
for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole
street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all
aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar
terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say
'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.
It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to
what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.
Suzanne D.
isn't actually Malcolm Brown's car, that's fine, because just as long as we
destroy some SOB cars, we can all band together in our Americanness.
I think USA is one of the best countries to live in. I am thankful that I
live here. I am thankful to be an American. But I am NOT proud to be an
American. I am a little ashamed.
--S.
"Natasha" <star...@attbiNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:%_dZ9.59015$4y2.2995@sccrnsc04...
Natasha
"Suzanne D." wrote:
> Scary. The sad part is that there are MANY people who don't care. If it
> isn't actually Malcolm Brown's car, that's fine, because just as long as
we
> destroy some SOB cars, we can all band together in our Americanness.
<sigh> What you say is very true, unfortunately. It's very disturbing to me
some of the rhetoric I'm hearing from private citizens who think all
"red-white-and-blue, let's get behind America!" and have bought the "Bush
line" that murdering thousands to possibly millions of innocent people,
including women, children and babies, and destroying entire villages,
including homes, hospitals and schools, is necessary and justified. To these
people, a war on Iraq will not be murder the way the destruction of four
passenger jets, a portion of the Pentagon and the two World Trade Center
Towers were on Sept. 11, 2001 because death and destruction at the hands of
our armed forces is "legitimate murder" in their eyes and because the lives
lost will not be "their own" people, but "somebody else".
When these people heard about the bands of citizens in some parts of the
world who celebrated and danced in the streets when they learned of the
horror of Sept. 11, 2001, were they not as shocked, horrified and appalled,
and did the sight of it not inflame the intensity of their fresh pain as it
did mine and so many others of us? What these people need to understand is,
that to the people who celebrated Sept. 11, they didn't see the acts of
barberous murder and destruction as a tragedy or anything they should grieve
over because it was something that happened to "somebody else", not "their
own". Don't the people who see a war against Iraq as justified and necessary
understand that every "somebody else" is somebody beloved to mothers and
daughters and fathers and sons and uncles and aunts and sisters and brothers
and friends just like us somewhere out there...just that we don't know them?
And when those people are lost in the death, destruction and mayhem of
missile fire and bombed buildings, roads and bridges, the pain of those who
love them and their fellow countrymen will be as deep and as heartfelt as
was "ours" on Sept. 11, 2001.
> I think USA is one of the best countries to live in. I am thankful that I
> live here. I am thankful to be an American. But I am NOT proud to be an
> American. I am a little ashamed.
I know what you mean. All my life I've heard the "US is the greatest country
in the world". And it *is* a great country, *if* you live there...and, to a
large extent, *if* you're not poor, uneducated and/or minority...or some
other unfortunate member of a disenchanfrised community.
If you are among the seriously disenfranchised here, or are unfortunate to
live elsewhere in the world---particularly in an impoverished and/or
third-world nation, and especially if your nation possesses some valuable
resource desireable to the US---the US is not such a great place. It is a
powerful force w/ the ability to crush, obliterate and/or enslave in an
instant, w/ no chance of defense. This, to my mind, does not constitute
"greatness".
I too am ashamed of, and embarrassed by, my gov't. and the gullible sheep in
the US public falling for this line of BS, and into lockstep behind its cry
to war. But I am oh so proud of the majority of my countrymen who are smart
enough and indepent-thinking enough to ask questions and to say "no, not w/
my taxdollars you don't...not w/o solid proof and the backing of our
allies."
It restores my faith and my hope, in my country...and in humanity.
Natasha
TVSoapProd
against Israel. Israel retaliates. Other Arab countries attack Israel to
respond.
The entire region is thrown into a huge war.
Maybe even wiped off the face of the earth.
This leads to other nuts around the world to act. North Korea invades South
Korea, China invades Taiwan. Nuclear powers Pakistan and India go at it. The
unstable South American counties like Venezuela go into Civil War. Sounds like
WWIII if you ask me. Sure, any US invasion now might still cause all of this,
certainly if Saddam launches chemical weapons against Israel, which they
promised a response if attacked in such a manner! Although what if the US is
able to stop this? It would be far better and less risky to act now than to
wait for Saddam to have a nuclear weapon. Anyone who believes otherwise should
pack their bags and go to Antartica because thats probably the one place on
earth that won't be effected by a 3rd World War, that I am convinced Saddam
will start if he's left in power.
P.S. All of the horror visions of a WWIII I mentioned are obvious threats in
the world today. As we've learned from 9-11-01 we must also think of the
unthinkable. So in addition to the obvious threats, we must also consider the
likelihood threats none of us are able to conceive of will happen as well.
TVSoapProd
>allies."
Well, some of the same people demanding President Bush not act without a huge
coalition of allies blame the 1st Bush President for not killing Saddam in the
1st Gulf War. Why didn't Bush 1 kill Saddam? The coalition of allies would
have fell apart had Bush 1 not ended the Gulf War when he did. So to those who
blame Bush 1, it was the coalition that prevented him from finishing the job.
Remember that before you demand Bush 2 gets a huge coalition of allies before
acting.
And also, whats all of your definition of allies? And how many do we need
before you will give your blessing? I believe some of you are just completly
against the concept of war no matter what and so you are hiding behind such
issues of # of allies, solid proof ect... Are you afraid to stand up for what
you believe? I sure hope not.
I would have greater respect for someone who says they are against the concept
of war rather them trying to hide that fact in side issues.
Natasha
"TVSoapProd" wrote:
> I believe some of you are just completely
> against the concept of war no matter what and so you are hiding behind
such
> issues of # of allies, solid proof ect... Are you afraid to stand up for
what
> you believe? I sure hope not.
I have never *ever* been afraid to stand up for what I believe. I have the
scars to prove it.
I am not unilaterally opposed to the concept of war under any circumstances,
though I believe it's always tragic. I believe the American Revolution and
the Civil War was necessary, and I would not only have supported it, but
have been ready and willing to give my life to fight it in had I lived in
this period and was eligible to be a soldier.
I believe it was necessary to fight Hitler and Mussolini and, again, I
would've supported that war and fought in it, if asked to. There are
hundreds of struggles and revolutions throughout history and going on even
now that needed fighting and I would support.
But going to war against Iraq is not one of them, IMO. It's as wrong as
wrong can be.
> I would have greater respect for someone who says they are against the
concept
> of war rather them trying to hide that fact in side issues.
I wasn't hiding anything. I was completely open and honest about my
objections and why I'm so angry at what's going on, and about to go on. If
you see them as "side issues" it's probably because you don't want to hear
what I'm saying, which is certainly your perrogative.
Natasha