SILENT MAJORITY MEMBERSHIP
Does this mean that I have to give up my (long-term) membership in the Great Silent Majority? I’m expecting the refusal notice in the mail, any day now. It’s going to say, “Shut up…….or get OUT!” I think the GET OUT box has been checked, “x” marks the box. Maybe I don’t even get a notice, maybe I’m just automatically OUT.
by Max
Saturday, September 06, 2003
THIS IS SALAM’S FAULT
Okay. I’ve been going to say this for so long. This is all Salam Pax’s fault. He convinced Gee to Blog, and Nawra, and Riverbend. Yes, and he convinced me. No, I’ve never discussed anything with him. I had comments to make, and I wanted to make them quietly. I’ve read those blogs since before the war. Then, I read back to the start of them. Just how many bloggers has this guy forced out of anonymity? Plenty!
So, I say . . . .This is all your fault, Salam Pax. Normal, average, ordinary people all over the world are following your lead and they are BLOGGING. It’s contagious. Salam has become a blogging computer virus. And, IT’S A GOOD COMPUTER VIRUS!!
Okay. I’ve been going to say this for so long. This is all Salam Pax’s fault. He convinced Gee to Blog, and Nawra, and Riverbend. Yes, and he convinced me. No, I’ve never discussed anything with him. I had comments to make, and I wanted to make them quietly. I’ve read those blogs since before the war. Then, I read back to the start of them. Just how many bloggers has this guy forced out of anonymity? Plenty!
So, I say . . . .This is all your fault, Salam Pax. Normal, average, ordinary people all over the world are following your lead and they are BLOGGING. It’s contagious. Salam has become a blogging computer virus. And, IT’S A GOOD COMPUTER VIRUS!!
THE BLOG HOUSE RAID
Salam’s Blogs are very good. He has a way with words and his descriptions could make you believe you can taste the food, feel the air, maybe understand the atmosphere.
The recent PAX HOUSE RAID was not a good experience, but then what raid would be? The soldier who stole the liquor should be made to apologize, and bring more than 2 bottles to replace what he took. Oh, I understand that he was probably young, but some 9 year-olds know better than to take that which does not belong to them. His commanding officer should be treated to a reprimand, which can dribble right down to the soldier, and the raid participants who looked the other way. It’s stealing. Theft. If he doesn’t know better, someone needs to tell him (and those like him) that you do not do this! When you look the other way, you are saying, “okay.” Correct the situation, because IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Salam’s Blogs are very good. He has a way with words and his descriptions could make you believe you can taste the food, feel the air, maybe understand the atmosphere.
The recent PAX HOUSE RAID was not a good experience, but then what raid would be? The soldier who stole the liquor should be made to apologize, and bring more than 2 bottles to replace what he took. Oh, I understand that he was probably young, but some 9 year-olds know better than to take that which does not belong to them. His commanding officer should be treated to a reprimand, which can dribble right down to the soldier, and the raid participants who looked the other way. It’s stealing. Theft. If he doesn’t know better, someone needs to tell him (and those like him) that you do not do this! When you look the other way, you are saying, “okay.” Correct the situation, because IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
NOTHING GOES RIGHT FOR LONG
I was reduced to dial-up. Well, for a while there was nothing, not even dial-up. My voice was cut off. (which is a laugh 'cause nobody's reading the quiet little blog.) Then the dial-up finally worked. Where was my high-speed cable? The company decided to make some changes close to the weekend. HO, guys! Murphy lives here, too; and he gets around. Don’t you know that trying any changes close to the weekend (a holiday weekend, at that!) can leave people stranded in an ether-less box.
Finally, after obtaining a new piece of equipment, I was up to speed again. Hurried to my favorite Iraqi site: Al Muajaha (the Iraqi Witness Netpaper/Newspaper out of Baghdad) and NOTHING. It wasn’t there. Sep. 5, it was back. Apparently, Murphy visited them, too. They called it the harddrive bang; they lost a number of articles (most of August’s entries) which is sad. But, they are working on it, and going to upgrade the site. Nice group there and they are working hard.
I was reduced to dial-up. Well, for a while there was nothing, not even dial-up. My voice was cut off. (which is a laugh 'cause nobody's reading the quiet little blog.) Then the dial-up finally worked. Where was my high-speed cable? The company decided to make some changes close to the weekend. HO, guys! Murphy lives here, too; and he gets around. Don’t you know that trying any changes close to the weekend (a holiday weekend, at that!) can leave people stranded in an ether-less box.
Finally, after obtaining a new piece of equipment, I was up to speed again. Hurried to my favorite Iraqi site: Al Muajaha (the Iraqi Witness Netpaper/Newspaper out of Baghdad) and NOTHING. It wasn’t there. Sep. 5, it was back. Apparently, Murphy visited them, too. They called it the harddrive bang; they lost a number of articles (most of August’s entries) which is sad. But, they are working on it, and going to upgrade the site. Nice group there and they are working hard.
RUMSFELD, BI-LINGUAL INSULTS, and DOVE DROPS
R., I’m sorry that you are angry. I do understand some of it; and without actually being on the ground and feeling all of it, I can only make my comments and express the hope that it will get steadily better for all. Even in anger, there is some humor. I can picture the “dove drops” and the “bi-lingual” yelling and waving at the monitor.
I’m not always angry with Rummy, as the Democrats affectionately? call him. Sometimes, I can even admire his ability to accomplish a press conference by deflecting a sword point, skipping skillfully over a topic, and tackling a rumor head-on. I can appreciate the talent of his watching the skewer approach, and then Rumsfeld side-steps while the skewer falls harmlessly on the floor. In addition to some factual information, there is the sword-play.
There is a problem with additional troops. I do believe we need them; however, it would be better if they were not American troops. In time, as the Iraqi Army is reconstituted, as the Civil Defense becomes more active, as the approx. 75,000 to 90,000 Iraqi Police are on the streets, you may be able to do this without the help of nations who would request a cut of the pie. Iraq should be for the Iraqis and whichever nations the Iraqis decide could contribute to their wellbeing.
R., I’m sorry that you are angry. I do understand some of it; and without actually being on the ground and feeling all of it, I can only make my comments and express the hope that it will get steadily better for all. Even in anger, there is some humor. I can picture the “dove drops” and the “bi-lingual” yelling and waving at the monitor.
I’m not always angry with Rummy, as the Democrats affectionately? call him. Sometimes, I can even admire his ability to accomplish a press conference by deflecting a sword point, skipping skillfully over a topic, and tackling a rumor head-on. I can appreciate the talent of his watching the skewer approach, and then Rumsfeld side-steps while the skewer falls harmlessly on the floor. In addition to some factual information, there is the sword-play.
There is a problem with additional troops. I do believe we need them; however, it would be better if they were not American troops. In time, as the Iraqi Army is reconstituted, as the Civil Defense becomes more active, as the approx. 75,000 to 90,000 Iraqi Police are on the streets, you may be able to do this without the help of nations who would request a cut of the pie. Iraq should be for the Iraqis and whichever nations the Iraqis decide could contribute to their wellbeing.
Friday, September 05, 2003
THE SPECIAL GENERALS
“Today, Rumsfield is in country and he
needs to make the decision about the generals” (Chief Wiggles’ blog)
Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was in Iraq. Although Riverbend believes he is there to add insult to injury, I disagree. He’s there for troop and situation assessment. He is there to calculate which parts are working, which parts are not. He is there to make some decisions. He is in Iraq to show the troops that what they are doing is important. He is also very, very hot. No matter how air conditioned the travel, there will be times when the man is confronted with the intense heat and the on-the-ground condition.
Chief Wiggles (in his blog today) requested that prayers (and emails) be sent to encourage the release of some Iraqi Generals who have been POWs. Most of the Generals are in favor of working for a new Iraq, and would like to help in the process. There is one General, in particular, who has displayed honor, and caring, dignity, intelligence. The Chief has long indicated his admiration for this General. This General seems to be the type of man who would be a credit to the new Iraq. This man had the trust of his comrades, the beginning of a friendship with others, ideas and an understanding of what it may take to develop Iraq into a place of calm and prosperity. I hope he gets his chance to add what he is able to the future of Iraq. Set him free, Mr. Rumsfeld! Do not keep a good man where his voice cannot be heard!
“Today, Rumsfield is in country and he
needs to make the decision about the generals” (Chief Wiggles’ blog)
Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was in Iraq. Although Riverbend believes he is there to add insult to injury, I disagree. He’s there for troop and situation assessment. He is there to calculate which parts are working, which parts are not. He is there to make some decisions. He is in Iraq to show the troops that what they are doing is important. He is also very, very hot. No matter how air conditioned the travel, there will be times when the man is confronted with the intense heat and the on-the-ground condition.
Chief Wiggles (in his blog today) requested that prayers (and emails) be sent to encourage the release of some Iraqi Generals who have been POWs. Most of the Generals are in favor of working for a new Iraq, and would like to help in the process. There is one General, in particular, who has displayed honor, and caring, dignity, intelligence. The Chief has long indicated his admiration for this General. This General seems to be the type of man who would be a credit to the new Iraq. This man had the trust of his comrades, the beginning of a friendship with others, ideas and an understanding of what it may take to develop Iraq into a place of calm and prosperity. I hope he gets his chance to add what he is able to the future of Iraq. Set him free, Mr. Rumsfeld! Do not keep a good man where his voice cannot be heard!
WMD NOBODY *EVER* FOUND
"I remember 13 years of sanctions, backed firmly by the US and UK, in the name of WMD nobody ever found." (by Riverbend)
But, you see, Iraq did have WMD. The U.N. still had a list of unresolved items by 1998, when Iraq decided they would not cooperate further with the U.N. During the next years, no one outside Iraq knew what was still within Iraq. For approx. 5 years, the world did not know whether or not Iraq had resumed its WMD programs. We still don’t know what it is, where it is, or what happened. It’s one of the things we need to find out.
CHRONOLOGY IN UN (Iraq)
8 Aug 1995 General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programmes, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Hussein Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programmes. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its cooperation is withdrawn.
Nov 1995 The Government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. Iraq denies that it had sought to purchase these components, although it acknowledged that some of them were in Iraq. UNSCOM conducts an investigation, which confirms that Iraqi authorities and missile facilities have been involved in the acquisition of sophisticated guidance and control components for proscribed missiles. UNSCOM retrieves additional similar missile components from the Tigris river, which had been allegedly disposed of there by Iraqis involved in the covert acquisition.
"I remember 13 years of sanctions, backed firmly by the US and UK, in the name of WMD nobody ever found." (by Riverbend)
But, you see, Iraq did have WMD. The U.N. still had a list of unresolved items by 1998, when Iraq decided they would not cooperate further with the U.N. During the next years, no one outside Iraq knew what was still within Iraq. For approx. 5 years, the world did not know whether or not Iraq had resumed its WMD programs. We still don’t know what it is, where it is, or what happened. It’s one of the things we need to find out.
CHRONOLOGY IN UN (Iraq)
8 Aug 1995 General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programmes, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Hussein Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programmes. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its cooperation is withdrawn.
Nov 1995 The Government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. Iraq denies that it had sought to purchase these components, although it acknowledged that some of them were in Iraq. UNSCOM conducts an investigation, which confirms that Iraqi authorities and missile facilities have been involved in the acquisition of sophisticated guidance and control components for proscribed missiles. UNSCOM retrieves additional similar missile components from the Tigris river, which had been allegedly disposed of there by Iraqis involved in the covert acquisition.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
YOU SAY: “DO YOU REMEMBER? I SAY: “DID YOU KNOW?
February 13, 1991, what did you know? What could you have reasonably surmised from the situation? Were you watching the news? Did you know world opinion? Did you follow the events from the perspective of a fully informed, mature individual with access to various opinions? It isn’t likely you would have been able to do that. How did you look for the truth? You could not have known much other than what the regime told you, and the regime would not tell you all, and the regime would not encourage you to think anything other than what they told you.
The situation in Iraq in 1991 was not one of freedom of the press; it was a situation of one view, one ruler, and you heard what they told you, and saw what they showed you, and understood what they wanted you to understand. There was not much information available to the people of Iraq, when you were 11.
(1991) Did you know about Kuwait? You probably heard that Iraq invaded Kuwait. We heard that Iraq claimed the U.S. told them it was okay. HA. Later, Tariq Aziz told the truth, that the U.S. did not give them the go-ahead. (CNN, interview around 1995/6) The regime was angry about the amount of oil pumped by Kuwait; the regime requested help from its Arab brothers (but received no help), the regime decided that Kuwait’s actions in selling too much oil was undermining Iraq’s economy; that Kuwait belonged to Iraq; and, therefore, they were going to absorb Kuwait as another province of Iraq. After all, Kuwait belonged to Iraq; it was only the Kuwaiti people who did not understand. Iraq invaded Kuwait, took the spoils home to Iraq, along with hundreds of Kuwaiti people. Approximately, 685 Kuwaitis were taken and never seen again. Kuwaiti property was taken and never returned, not throughout the decade, not by the beginning of the 2003 War. Some of the Kuwaitis were taken to Iraq, executed, they will never return to their families; and for more than a decade, those families did not know what had happened to their loved ones.
(1991) After a struggle in the U.N., a Resolution was finally passed; it directed Iraq to do this or else. The U.N. told Iraq to get out, gave them a deadline. They did not go, remained in Kuwait, the deadline passed. The 1991 Coalition (yes, led by the U.S.) began bombing in Baghdad. The theory was to force Saddam to leave Kuwait. The theory was to hit the center of the regime forcing Saddam to reconsider his invasion, by making him defend his territory rather than destroy Kuwait. The theory was to make Saddam realize that he could lose his power if he stayed in Kuwait.
(1991) The bombs were fairly accurate; certainly, more accurate than at any previous time on this earth. There were some strays. The shelter was not one of them. The shelter was intentionally bombed. That much is true; it’s fact. It has been a policy of the U.S. that if a site contains civilians, it is not bombed. Can you believe that? Time and time again, the U.S. has NOT bombed because there were civilians, or it was a civilian site. If you did not know that, Saddam did. He put civilians in places to protect military; and he placed military among civilian areas to protect military.
(2003) You can tell that this was known by the numbers of weapons stored near civilian sites, that the human shields were placed at strategic locations. There was ammunition at schools, hospitals; soldiers at mosques. There were tanks and rockets in residential neighborhoods. Do you believe that he did that because he was protecting the people, or was he protecting the equipment and arms? Do you believe that he cared who died, if he and his regime could survive? (He would have killed you and your whole family, if it suited his purposes.) Strategic buildings were marked with words that could be read by pilots in the air. Was that because they didn’t wish humans to be killed; or, were these military targets with human hostages, marked so they wouldn’t be destroyed (marked to preserve the military?)
(2003) While Saddam knew how we reacted, how did he act? He used human hostages to attain his goal. Women and children were used to attack checkpoints. Groups of ordinary human beings were marched to checkpoints: one instance was a group which approached a checkpoint, the guards noticed the rifles in the middle of the group, two vehicles rushed down either side of the crowd tossing rifles to the group. They were killed. All of them were killed. We suspected the group consisted of normal, average people who were forced to march to their deaths. It was not the only incident of this type of horror.
(2003) Throughout the major military combat, the U.S. bombed specific targets as carefully as possible. Did you notice this? Many in Baghdad were aware that military targets were hit and civilian locations were not, people came out after the bombings. People were on the street! Why? It was war, it was dangerous. Do you doubt that the U.S. hit their specific targets and seldom hit others, unless it was accidental?
Now, back to the events of Feb. 13, 1991; do you believe that a shelter would have ever been an intended target of U.S. bombing? If so, do you then believe that the U.S. knew this, and bombed them anyway? Can you believe that the U.S. (with the policy of not bombing civilians) would bomb with 2 heavy, bunker-busters when they did not believe there was a bunker? Why; for what purpose? Would it serve our purpose to kill hundreds of innocent people, to have thousands of Americans outraged, to have the world outraged? No, it isn’t likely.
I suggest to you, that there is more to it than that. First reports indicated that we had hit a command and control center. Then we began to hear that there were civilians at that location. There was disbelief, horror, and anger. We could not have done that. But, as they filmed the bodies being removed, Americans began to understand that we did do that. Saddam would never have allowed the tightly controlled press to film the shelter if it did not have an advantage for him. It would not have been seen; but, this was seen world-wide.
I’m suggesting the possibility that there was not a military complex at that location, at that time. I’m suggesting that the shelter was in a bunker on purpose. I’m suggesting that if the U.S. bombed that location, it was advantageous to the regime, for propaganda purposes. If it had been a bunker, why would Saddam permit his people (by the hundreds) to shelter in a known command and control location. If the U.S. had thought it wasn’t a bunker, why would a bunker-buster bomb have been wasted?
If the shelter wasn’t a command and control center and had never been a bunker, why were radio signals coming from that location up until the last seconds before the bomb hit? Who would know that it was no longer a bunker, not a command and control center, but a shelter filled with individuals? Who would benefit from hundreds of innocents killed by a U.S. bomb? Who would have allowed any radio signals to come from a shelter full of people? Who benefited from this horror? Saddam.
It does not make sense that we would bomb an empty building, unless it was accidental. This was not accidental, it was on purpose; the location was a target. We would not purposely bomb a shelter. It would not be in our interest to kill hundreds of people, to waste a bomb on an empty building of no military value, or to incur the wrath of world opinion against us.
If it had been used as a bunker in the past; if it had been a command and control center; if Saddam had permitted hundreds of regular, good, individual Iraqis to enter a known site which had high probability of being bombed, the information was known by Saddam. The possibilities were known by Saddam. The benefits were collected by Saddam. The U.S. did not benefit, the hundreds of Iraqis did not benefit, Saddam did benefit. He used it; he may have allowed it to happen; Saddam may have welcomed it; Saddam may have engineered it purposely.
As additional proof of Saddam’s knowledge, where did he hide during 1991? It is said that he hid among the people. Why? Because he knew that it was fairly safe, that it was not the intention of the U.S. to bomb the people. He visited the people, he drove an average car, and he survived. He was correct; the U.S. tries not to kill the people. He used the people and survived; and I’d be willing to bet that he is still doing it.
February 13, 1991, what did you know? What could you have reasonably surmised from the situation? Were you watching the news? Did you know world opinion? Did you follow the events from the perspective of a fully informed, mature individual with access to various opinions? It isn’t likely you would have been able to do that. How did you look for the truth? You could not have known much other than what the regime told you, and the regime would not tell you all, and the regime would not encourage you to think anything other than what they told you.
The situation in Iraq in 1991 was not one of freedom of the press; it was a situation of one view, one ruler, and you heard what they told you, and saw what they showed you, and understood what they wanted you to understand. There was not much information available to the people of Iraq, when you were 11.
(1991) Did you know about Kuwait? You probably heard that Iraq invaded Kuwait. We heard that Iraq claimed the U.S. told them it was okay. HA. Later, Tariq Aziz told the truth, that the U.S. did not give them the go-ahead. (CNN, interview around 1995/6) The regime was angry about the amount of oil pumped by Kuwait; the regime requested help from its Arab brothers (but received no help), the regime decided that Kuwait’s actions in selling too much oil was undermining Iraq’s economy; that Kuwait belonged to Iraq; and, therefore, they were going to absorb Kuwait as another province of Iraq. After all, Kuwait belonged to Iraq; it was only the Kuwaiti people who did not understand. Iraq invaded Kuwait, took the spoils home to Iraq, along with hundreds of Kuwaiti people. Approximately, 685 Kuwaitis were taken and never seen again. Kuwaiti property was taken and never returned, not throughout the decade, not by the beginning of the 2003 War. Some of the Kuwaitis were taken to Iraq, executed, they will never return to their families; and for more than a decade, those families did not know what had happened to their loved ones.
(1991) After a struggle in the U.N., a Resolution was finally passed; it directed Iraq to do this or else. The U.N. told Iraq to get out, gave them a deadline. They did not go, remained in Kuwait, the deadline passed. The 1991 Coalition (yes, led by the U.S.) began bombing in Baghdad. The theory was to force Saddam to leave Kuwait. The theory was to hit the center of the regime forcing Saddam to reconsider his invasion, by making him defend his territory rather than destroy Kuwait. The theory was to make Saddam realize that he could lose his power if he stayed in Kuwait.
(1991) The bombs were fairly accurate; certainly, more accurate than at any previous time on this earth. There were some strays. The shelter was not one of them. The shelter was intentionally bombed. That much is true; it’s fact. It has been a policy of the U.S. that if a site contains civilians, it is not bombed. Can you believe that? Time and time again, the U.S. has NOT bombed because there were civilians, or it was a civilian site. If you did not know that, Saddam did. He put civilians in places to protect military; and he placed military among civilian areas to protect military.
(2003) You can tell that this was known by the numbers of weapons stored near civilian sites, that the human shields were placed at strategic locations. There was ammunition at schools, hospitals; soldiers at mosques. There were tanks and rockets in residential neighborhoods. Do you believe that he did that because he was protecting the people, or was he protecting the equipment and arms? Do you believe that he cared who died, if he and his regime could survive? (He would have killed you and your whole family, if it suited his purposes.) Strategic buildings were marked with words that could be read by pilots in the air. Was that because they didn’t wish humans to be killed; or, were these military targets with human hostages, marked so they wouldn’t be destroyed (marked to preserve the military?)
(2003) While Saddam knew how we reacted, how did he act? He used human hostages to attain his goal. Women and children were used to attack checkpoints. Groups of ordinary human beings were marched to checkpoints: one instance was a group which approached a checkpoint, the guards noticed the rifles in the middle of the group, two vehicles rushed down either side of the crowd tossing rifles to the group. They were killed. All of them were killed. We suspected the group consisted of normal, average people who were forced to march to their deaths. It was not the only incident of this type of horror.
(2003) Throughout the major military combat, the U.S. bombed specific targets as carefully as possible. Did you notice this? Many in Baghdad were aware that military targets were hit and civilian locations were not, people came out after the bombings. People were on the street! Why? It was war, it was dangerous. Do you doubt that the U.S. hit their specific targets and seldom hit others, unless it was accidental?
Now, back to the events of Feb. 13, 1991; do you believe that a shelter would have ever been an intended target of U.S. bombing? If so, do you then believe that the U.S. knew this, and bombed them anyway? Can you believe that the U.S. (with the policy of not bombing civilians) would bomb with 2 heavy, bunker-busters when they did not believe there was a bunker? Why; for what purpose? Would it serve our purpose to kill hundreds of innocent people, to have thousands of Americans outraged, to have the world outraged? No, it isn’t likely.
I suggest to you, that there is more to it than that. First reports indicated that we had hit a command and control center. Then we began to hear that there were civilians at that location. There was disbelief, horror, and anger. We could not have done that. But, as they filmed the bodies being removed, Americans began to understand that we did do that. Saddam would never have allowed the tightly controlled press to film the shelter if it did not have an advantage for him. It would not have been seen; but, this was seen world-wide.
I’m suggesting the possibility that there was not a military complex at that location, at that time. I’m suggesting that the shelter was in a bunker on purpose. I’m suggesting that if the U.S. bombed that location, it was advantageous to the regime, for propaganda purposes. If it had been a bunker, why would Saddam permit his people (by the hundreds) to shelter in a known command and control location. If the U.S. had thought it wasn’t a bunker, why would a bunker-buster bomb have been wasted?
If the shelter wasn’t a command and control center and had never been a bunker, why were radio signals coming from that location up until the last seconds before the bomb hit? Who would know that it was no longer a bunker, not a command and control center, but a shelter filled with individuals? Who would benefit from hundreds of innocents killed by a U.S. bomb? Who would have allowed any radio signals to come from a shelter full of people? Who benefited from this horror? Saddam.
It does not make sense that we would bomb an empty building, unless it was accidental. This was not accidental, it was on purpose; the location was a target. We would not purposely bomb a shelter. It would not be in our interest to kill hundreds of people, to waste a bomb on an empty building of no military value, or to incur the wrath of world opinion against us.
If it had been used as a bunker in the past; if it had been a command and control center; if Saddam had permitted hundreds of regular, good, individual Iraqis to enter a known site which had high probability of being bombed, the information was known by Saddam. The possibilities were known by Saddam. The benefits were collected by Saddam. The U.S. did not benefit, the hundreds of Iraqis did not benefit, Saddam did benefit. He used it; he may have allowed it to happen; Saddam may have welcomed it; Saddam may have engineered it purposely.
As additional proof of Saddam’s knowledge, where did he hide during 1991? It is said that he hid among the people. Why? Because he knew that it was fairly safe, that it was not the intention of the U.S. to bomb the people. He visited the people, he drove an average car, and he survived. He was correct; the U.S. tries not to kill the people. He used the people and survived; and I’d be willing to bet that he is still doing it.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
COLIN POWELL and the UNITED NATIONS
A few minutes ago, Colin Powell (U.S. Secretary of State) held a news conference to announce that the U.S. will seek another resolution at the U.N.S.C. The new Resolution will contain several points.
One point is the request for an International Peacekeeping Force, under a unified command with the U.S. leading but reporting progress to the U.N. Another point is requesting that the Iraqis increase their activity toward government, taking over the responsibilities, by creating a timeline for the progress of Iraq. This timeline would include elections, constitution, and various other items of progression toward self-government and sovereignty. The timeline would be compiled and presented to the U.N. It would seem to be in the nature of a document, possibly a quasi-contract, describing advances. The U.S. is in the process of discussing the resolution with many other nations, encouraging passage, and participation.
Some are already describing this as a U.S. defeat. I’m not always a fan of the U.N. and am waiting to see the outcome. As for a defeat, the Iraqi people need more troops and they need many nations to become involved. We could put more troops into Iraq, but they need non-American faces to cut into the anger. More American faces might increase the anger. At this point, I’m for whatever helps the Iraqi people. We can tough it out, if we have to; but it wouldn’t be helpful to Iraq. We were, and are, there to make it better; if this is what is necessary and will improve the situation, I’m for it.
A few minutes ago, Colin Powell (U.S. Secretary of State) held a news conference to announce that the U.S. will seek another resolution at the U.N.S.C. The new Resolution will contain several points.
One point is the request for an International Peacekeeping Force, under a unified command with the U.S. leading but reporting progress to the U.N. Another point is requesting that the Iraqis increase their activity toward government, taking over the responsibilities, by creating a timeline for the progress of Iraq. This timeline would include elections, constitution, and various other items of progression toward self-government and sovereignty. The timeline would be compiled and presented to the U.N. It would seem to be in the nature of a document, possibly a quasi-contract, describing advances. The U.S. is in the process of discussing the resolution with many other nations, encouraging passage, and participation.
Some are already describing this as a U.S. defeat. I’m not always a fan of the U.N. and am waiting to see the outcome. As for a defeat, the Iraqi people need more troops and they need many nations to become involved. We could put more troops into Iraq, but they need non-American faces to cut into the anger. More American faces might increase the anger. At this point, I’m for whatever helps the Iraqi people. We can tough it out, if we have to; but it wouldn’t be helpful to Iraq. We were, and are, there to make it better; if this is what is necessary and will improve the situation, I’m for it.
SADDAM
In a recent tape, Saddam Hussein claimed he did not bomb the mosque in Najaf. Whether or not his claim in true, we don’t know. It seems more likely to have been Terrorists, but could have been a coordination of Terrorists with Loyalist forces.
U.N. RESOLUTION
We can hope that the U.N. will realize the benefit of a new U.N.S.C. Resolution, which would promote the contribution of international forces to the conflict in Iraq. If the United Nations is considering the people of Iraq, they will decide in favor of a Resolution.
If the participating countries are more determined to penalize the U.S. by disregarding Iraq’s need at this time, there is little which can be done. The U.N.S.C. would not have a new Resolution, and the U.S. would continue on in the reconstruction efforts and the attempts to calm the situation. If there is no new Resolution, the U.N. will drop another notch.
The U.N. is committed to peace, or world calm. In the efforts to seek this condition, the U.N.S.C. attempts to restrict nations from harmful activities. When the U.N.S.C. constructs Resolutions to reduce danger, they must enforce their Resolutions or they will continue to be a paper organization, with no will to carry through their own edicts. There will be a difficult decision.
Now is the time to stand up and decide a direction and show a will. In the past, the U.N. has displayed a willingness to criticize the U.S., while ignoring severe problems in the world. They do this because they know they can. We will not attack them, we will not treat them with unfairness; but, they may feel free to condemn the U.S. and treat us unfairly. Will the differing views come together and acknowledge that the U.N. must participate in the Iraqi situation. When the U.N. refused to take the reigns, to determine the direction (after 17 edicts toward Iraqi disarmament,) they reduced their relevance. Now, the decision is back in the U.N. The ball is in their court. Will they once again decide to toss the ball, shun the responsibility for assisting peace? Although they could not bring themselves to go to war, will they refuse to go to peace?
Once again, it is time for the United Nations to show their worth. The decision is not war. The decision is peace. Will their interest be in penalizing or will their interest be in promoting peace. We wait.
In a recent tape, Saddam Hussein claimed he did not bomb the mosque in Najaf. Whether or not his claim in true, we don’t know. It seems more likely to have been Terrorists, but could have been a coordination of Terrorists with Loyalist forces.
U.N. RESOLUTION
We can hope that the U.N. will realize the benefit of a new U.N.S.C. Resolution, which would promote the contribution of international forces to the conflict in Iraq. If the United Nations is considering the people of Iraq, they will decide in favor of a Resolution.
If the participating countries are more determined to penalize the U.S. by disregarding Iraq’s need at this time, there is little which can be done. The U.N.S.C. would not have a new Resolution, and the U.S. would continue on in the reconstruction efforts and the attempts to calm the situation. If there is no new Resolution, the U.N. will drop another notch.
The U.N. is committed to peace, or world calm. In the efforts to seek this condition, the U.N.S.C. attempts to restrict nations from harmful activities. When the U.N.S.C. constructs Resolutions to reduce danger, they must enforce their Resolutions or they will continue to be a paper organization, with no will to carry through their own edicts. There will be a difficult decision.
Now is the time to stand up and decide a direction and show a will. In the past, the U.N. has displayed a willingness to criticize the U.S., while ignoring severe problems in the world. They do this because they know they can. We will not attack them, we will not treat them with unfairness; but, they may feel free to condemn the U.S. and treat us unfairly. Will the differing views come together and acknowledge that the U.N. must participate in the Iraqi situation. When the U.N. refused to take the reigns, to determine the direction (after 17 edicts toward Iraqi disarmament,) they reduced their relevance. Now, the decision is back in the U.N. The ball is in their court. Will they once again decide to toss the ball, shun the responsibility for assisting peace? Although they could not bring themselves to go to war, will they refuse to go to peace?
Once again, it is time for the United Nations to show their worth. The decision is not war. The decision is peace. Will their interest be in penalizing or will their interest be in promoting peace. We wait.
Sunday, August 31, 2003
“YOU’RE EITHER WITH US, OR AGAINST US!”
River, you seem to think that this was meant for Iraq. It is a statement about the War On Terror. Since, it does appear that Al Quida has slithered into Iraq, it may apply now. But, it did not apply to Iraq originally—if AQ had not infiltrated into Iraq previously.
In the WOT, those nations who feel they can escape the blows which AQ sends, may be tricking themselves into feeling a false sense of security. The nation which paid AQ not to persecute them, has now found out that paying them may delay the attacks for a while, but that nation cannot bow to the will of AQ forever, without becoming a slave. If the nation refuses to become a slave, no payment will suffice, they will feel the rath. The nation will feel the result of AQ’s intention of “with us or against us.” And, the decision, of with us or against us, will have to be made. So, if you are not Wahabi, they are against you, which means it is better that you are with us. You decide.
France does not feel they would escape, and are fighting terror. Now Saudi Arabia has seen, with its own 9/11, that placating, only postpones the inevitable attack. If we all stand together, we have a better chance to show AQ that they will not win.
The “With Us” statement is an indication of the future. Eventually, almost everyone will have to decide which side they are on. The Wahabis want you. If it was difficult to live as a Shi’a in Iraq under Saddam Hussein; if it would be difficult to live as a Sunni under a Shi’ite power, think how difficult it would be for both of you to live under Wahabi rule.
AQ has judged Americans, and determined that they are weak, with no will. They have mis-judged. They may have mis-judged the world, and the world-will to stamp out the heinous disease called “Al Quida.” Did they mis-judge you, too? Can you see where they would use you, then they will own you, after which they will kill you (person by person) because they do not agree with you and never will; and, according to them, you are faithless in their Wahabi World. You decide.
River, you seem to think that this was meant for Iraq. It is a statement about the War On Terror. Since, it does appear that Al Quida has slithered into Iraq, it may apply now. But, it did not apply to Iraq originally—if AQ had not infiltrated into Iraq previously.
In the WOT, those nations who feel they can escape the blows which AQ sends, may be tricking themselves into feeling a false sense of security. The nation which paid AQ not to persecute them, has now found out that paying them may delay the attacks for a while, but that nation cannot bow to the will of AQ forever, without becoming a slave. If the nation refuses to become a slave, no payment will suffice, they will feel the rath. The nation will feel the result of AQ’s intention of “with us or against us.” And, the decision, of with us or against us, will have to be made. So, if you are not Wahabi, they are against you, which means it is better that you are with us. You decide.
France does not feel they would escape, and are fighting terror. Now Saudi Arabia has seen, with its own 9/11, that placating, only postpones the inevitable attack. If we all stand together, we have a better chance to show AQ that they will not win.
The “With Us” statement is an indication of the future. Eventually, almost everyone will have to decide which side they are on. The Wahabis want you. If it was difficult to live as a Shi’a in Iraq under Saddam Hussein; if it would be difficult to live as a Sunni under a Shi’ite power, think how difficult it would be for both of you to live under Wahabi rule.
AQ has judged Americans, and determined that they are weak, with no will. They have mis-judged. They may have mis-judged the world, and the world-will to stamp out the heinous disease called “Al Quida.” Did they mis-judge you, too? Can you see where they would use you, then they will own you, after which they will kill you (person by person) because they do not agree with you and never will; and, according to them, you are faithless in their Wahabi World. You decide.
REUTERS ARTICLE: 69% of Americans (Poll) say STICK IT OUT.
An ABC News poll published on Aug. 25 asked 1,024 adults nationwide whether America should keep troops in Iraq until civil order is restored "even if that means continued U.S. military casualties" or whether the troops should be withdrawn "in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties" even if order is not restored.
Sixty-nine percent said the troops should stay and 27 percent favored withdrawal.
REUTERS
An ABC News poll published on Aug. 25 asked 1,024 adults nationwide whether America should keep troops in Iraq until civil order is restored "even if that means continued U.S. military casualties" or whether the troops should be withdrawn "in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties" even if order is not restored.
Sixty-nine percent said the troops should stay and 27 percent favored withdrawal.
REUTERS
August 30, 2003
AL HAKIM KILLED, MOSQUE BOMBED
Whoever did this perceived a benefit. It would not be the U.S., would not be Israel, it would not be the moderate Iraqi. Young Shi’ite muslims are suspected, but this does not seem reasonable because of the damage to the mosque, which is revered by Shi’ites young and old. That leaves Saddam, Sunni radicals, and Terrorists as the possible murderers.
Which of the three? We don’t know, but many favor the Terrorists as the suspects. The Ayatollah might have been able to pull the muslims together. His last speech called for unity. If the Sunnis were also starting to call for unity, it may not be as likely that the Sunnis were the ones. Saddam? This seems well coordinated, and very successful. Saddam loyalists were making progress in coordination, but there was a noticeable change in destruction with the Jordanian Embassy bombing, then the U.N. Headquarters bombing, and now the Najaf bombing. Saddam and the Terrorists? A good possibility.
Could the U.S. have done this? Not in a million years! The bombing was very damaging to the Coalition efforts. It may prove to the U.N. that they should not remain in Iraq, that it is too dangerous. As the bombings increase, fewer foreign troops will be willing to help. The U.S. would like calm, and progress; this is neither calm, nor progress. But, you might be able to see why blaming the U.S. would serve the purpose of Saddam. Saddam’s loyalists may not have done the bombing, but would use it to their benefit.
August 29, 2003
NAJAF MOSQUE BOMBED
The death, damage and devastation was horrific. More than 100 may have been killed, and there are reports of at least 140 wounded—some severely.
Early reports are that the Ayatollah had just finished making a speech requesting unity, and had entered his car, turned the key in the ignition, then the car blew up.
The death toll is listed at 85, and may rise. Apparently, some of the names were listed twice.
AL HAKIM KILLED, MOSQUE BOMBED
Whoever did this perceived a benefit. It would not be the U.S., would not be Israel, it would not be the moderate Iraqi. Young Shi’ite muslims are suspected, but this does not seem reasonable because of the damage to the mosque, which is revered by Shi’ites young and old. That leaves Saddam, Sunni radicals, and Terrorists as the possible murderers.
Which of the three? We don’t know, but many favor the Terrorists as the suspects. The Ayatollah might have been able to pull the muslims together. His last speech called for unity. If the Sunnis were also starting to call for unity, it may not be as likely that the Sunnis were the ones. Saddam? This seems well coordinated, and very successful. Saddam loyalists were making progress in coordination, but there was a noticeable change in destruction with the Jordanian Embassy bombing, then the U.N. Headquarters bombing, and now the Najaf bombing. Saddam and the Terrorists? A good possibility.
Could the U.S. have done this? Not in a million years! The bombing was very damaging to the Coalition efforts. It may prove to the U.N. that they should not remain in Iraq, that it is too dangerous. As the bombings increase, fewer foreign troops will be willing to help. The U.S. would like calm, and progress; this is neither calm, nor progress. But, you might be able to see why blaming the U.S. would serve the purpose of Saddam. Saddam’s loyalists may not have done the bombing, but would use it to their benefit.
August 29, 2003
NAJAF MOSQUE BOMBED
The death, damage and devastation was horrific. More than 100 may have been killed, and there are reports of at least 140 wounded—some severely.
Early reports are that the Ayatollah had just finished making a speech requesting unity, and had entered his car, turned the key in the ignition, then the car blew up.
The death toll is listed at 85, and may rise. Apparently, some of the names were listed twice.
THE WATCH LIST ----- persons of notice
Mohamed El Baradei
Hans Blix
Scott Ritter
George Galloway
Claire Short
Dr. David Kelly
Jacques Chirac
David Albright
Robin Cook?
Cure: Watch the activities around them, read about them, try to figure them out.
Dr. David Kelly was a very interesting person. He was (supposedly) a friend of Hans Blix. He was one of the people who stated the Mobile Weapons Labs were not that. He made the effort to discuss Iraq (and Iraqi topics) with the press when it was not approved that he did so, or was not approved that he should discuss the particular topic.
The Hutton Inquiry may clear up some questions. Will it clear up the question of why Dr. Kelly would attempt to influence government activities through the press? If Dr. Kelly had been mild-mannered, and so severely impacted by the notice of the press, why would he start the ball rolling by telling the press something he should not have discussed. Or, was the problem strictly the press taking the ball and running?
THE IGNORE LIST----persons of note
(promote discord in the world, as authority figures; they have undermined America)
Former President, Jimmy Carter
Former General, Ramsey Clark
Cure: revoke the passports while they are out of the country.
THE NON-SUPPORT LIST
(for sucking up money from the people, enjoying fame/popularity, using the popularity for politics. They cry “Not in my name”, I say “Yup, and you don’t get to use my name, by using my support money, either. Cause I’m not supporting you, any more.” If I give you money, and you don’t use it wisely, I’m not giving you any money.)
Sean Penn
Susan Sarandon
Tim Robbins
Martin Sheen
Dixie Chicks
Barbra Streisand
Cure: no more support. I didn’t contribute to your political coffers. I thought you might have talent. Now, I can’t see the talent, I only see the politics.
DELETE BUTTON LIST—automatically deletes any statements (past, present, future)
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Moore
Cure: Instantly deaf, I can’t hear you, anymore.
Mohamed El Baradei
Hans Blix
Scott Ritter
George Galloway
Claire Short
Dr. David Kelly
Jacques Chirac
David Albright
Robin Cook?
Cure: Watch the activities around them, read about them, try to figure them out.
Dr. David Kelly was a very interesting person. He was (supposedly) a friend of Hans Blix. He was one of the people who stated the Mobile Weapons Labs were not that. He made the effort to discuss Iraq (and Iraqi topics) with the press when it was not approved that he did so, or was not approved that he should discuss the particular topic.
The Hutton Inquiry may clear up some questions. Will it clear up the question of why Dr. Kelly would attempt to influence government activities through the press? If Dr. Kelly had been mild-mannered, and so severely impacted by the notice of the press, why would he start the ball rolling by telling the press something he should not have discussed. Or, was the problem strictly the press taking the ball and running?
THE IGNORE LIST----persons of note
(promote discord in the world, as authority figures; they have undermined America)
Former President, Jimmy Carter
Former General, Ramsey Clark
Cure: revoke the passports while they are out of the country.
THE NON-SUPPORT LIST
(for sucking up money from the people, enjoying fame/popularity, using the popularity for politics. They cry “Not in my name”, I say “Yup, and you don’t get to use my name, by using my support money, either. Cause I’m not supporting you, any more.” If I give you money, and you don’t use it wisely, I’m not giving you any money.)
Sean Penn
Susan Sarandon
Tim Robbins
Martin Sheen
Dixie Chicks
Barbra Streisand
Cure: no more support. I didn’t contribute to your political coffers. I thought you might have talent. Now, I can’t see the talent, I only see the politics.
DELETE BUTTON LIST—automatically deletes any statements (past, present, future)
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Moore
Cure: Instantly deaf, I can’t hear you, anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)