more deflection/backpedalling? doesn't this contradict the earlier policy?? "regime change" now means "disarmament," instead of "regime change" --------------- Powell: U.S. Not Trying to Oust Saddam By Barry Schweid AP Diplomatic Writer Monday, December 16, 2002; 4:44 PM WASHINGTON ââ Secretary of State Colin Powell is assuring the Arab world the Bush administration's demand for regime change in Iraq aims at disarmament, not ousting President Saddam Hussein. "If he cooperates, then the basis of changed-regime policy has shifted because his regime has, in fact, changed its policy to one of cooperation," Powell said in an interview with a London-based Arab newspaper released Monday by the State Department. Powell said the policy of regime change in Baghdad was inherited from the Clinton administration by the Bush administration. "We came into office in 2001 and kept that policy because Saddam Hussein had not changed," Powell told the newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi by telephone last Thursday. "We now believe it is appropriate for Saddam Hussein to be forced to change, either by the threat of war, and therefore that compels him to cooperate," Powell said. "So if he cooperates, then that is different than if he does not cooperate," Powell said. -cont- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62964-2002Dec16.html
Look at Afghanistan, oil interests and US directed puppet gov't: John Maresca, VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Talibans was gone and a more friendly government was established We now have a new government in Afghanistan. The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL (Hamid Karrzai). Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL" (LakhdarIbrahimi). Look at Iraq now and how the oil fields are already been assigned to the west.. ..The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.... http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,825105,00.html (LOL since when Iraq has a National Congress??? Of course it does and we will recognize it as long as we get the oil.) One would bet that this Ahmed Chalabi, will most likely be part if not the main person in the new puppet gov't in Iraq, if we oust saddam or attack Iraq. Josh
Oh no Candletrader, its about more than oil, but if you are saying that were the Middle East oil free, this would all be moot, I agree. No one would give a shit, or, not much. Saddam Hussein is a lot more dangerous with his oil wealth than if he were the dicatator of Chad, for example. The world needs energy, these guys have it and so they have the responsibility to sell their oil to the world and operate their countries in a manner respectful to thier neighbors and as cooperative members of the global community. And if they don't so it, then they ought to be made to do it. That should get quite a response from this thread! What I really think is that the US government (in conjunction with the European Community)should undertake a multi-billion R&D program to develop effective, reliable, reusable, clean energy technologies with myriad applications and move away from fossil fuels. Not only will it be a boon for our environment, it will greatly enhance our economic growth, render the Middle East and its Arab-Muslim lunatics less relevant on the world stage, and make the world safer for our kids. That's where Bush and his Republican gangbangers are as blind as bats. They don't give a shit except whats down the pike next year. And screw the French and the Russian, they will sell any military technology and Nuclear technology to Saddam that they can. They did it before and they will do it again knowing full well this guy will use it to develop nuclear weapons. If they are in bed with Saddam I am glad to see them get kicked out. What's you answer to dangerous actors (other than Bush) on the world stage Candle? Give them a backrub and send them on their way?
raise the the gas price artificially to European standards (4-6 times actual US price), build less gas consuming cars and you won´t need the Iraqi oil any more ... the exorbitant American waste of energy (incl. environmental consequences) can easily be brought down to acceptable levels. regards wild
Or better yet, the government can just take 100% of everyone's income and do what they want with it. No more cars!
The language of Imperialism, eh ? "If they don't obey us, we will kill em" is another way of saying what you just said... indeed, this is the gist of US foreign policy... Some good points there... The Russians and the French signed oil deals with Saddam... and as for supplying Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, I suggest that you don't need to look beyond the USA, which had supplied material to Iraq to kill the Iranians with, when the USA was in bed with Saddam...
HELPING SADDAM MORLEY SAFER, co-host: Exactly what weapons Saddam is hiding and where he's hiding them remains a mystery. Where he got them and how he developed them is not. He got a lot of help from the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians and from us. Back in the late '80s when Saddam was considered by some as our friend or at least the enemy of our enemy Iran, we provided Iraq with two of the deadliest substances known to man, bacteria that produces botulism and anthrax . Among those who thought that what we were doing was all wrong was a former deputy undersecretary of defense named Dr. Steven Bryen. Dr. STEVEN BRYEN (Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense): Well, it was very complicated before the Gulf War because the administration was trying very hard to be friends with Saddam Hussein, largely because of the great concern about Iran and the fear of Iran. And Iraq was seen as a--a balancer and as a moderate force, whereas Iran was an Islamic force. So there was a lot of pressure to release technology to Iraq ; technology that shouldn't go there, in my opinion. SAFER: Were people out saying, `Look, this guy is not a very stable ally'? Dr. BRYEN: People were not saying, `This guy is not a very stable ally.' That was the problem. Official Washington turned a blind eye to that sort of thing because it really wanted very badly to establish a positive relationship with Saddam. (Footage of Steven Bryen; Department of State building; Saddam Hussein; vintage footage of Kurdish village after nerve gas attack) SAFER: (Voiceover) Dr. Bryen was the Pentagon's top cop, the man whose job it was to ensure that sensitive technology would be kept from enemies, potential enemies and questionable allies. But he was up against a formidable adversary: the US State Department, who wanted to satisfy Saddam's appetite despite the clear and present danger. Dr. BRYEN: (Voiceover) Even as late as 1988 when the Kurdish village in- -in Iraq was attacked by helicopters carrying nerve gas, the Washington reaction was still hands off. SAFER: He realized `Look, I could bomb Kurdish villages with nerve gas, I could use chemical agents against the Iranians.' Dr. BRYEN: `And the Americans won't say anything about it.' There was no official condemnation by the United States of these attacks. At that point, Saddam had to think we were a heck of a good ally because here we are letting him get away with these things. (Footage of American Type Culture Collection building; ATCC sign; vials of cultures; storage containers; infectious substance label; photograph of document with close-up of text: 881215 Iraq Atomic Energy Commission) SAFER: (Voiceover) Getting away with it was easy. The bacteria was simply ordered from this facility, The American Type Culture Collection of Rockville, Maryland, a non-profit supplier of microbes to the world. They're generally used for public health research. The Iraqi orders, including 34 batches of the deadliest bacteria, did not pass through Pentagon watchdogs. They were simply approved by the Commerce Department. Dr. BRYEN: I was shocked to see that biological samples would be going to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission because in--it was absolutely clear that--that--that the at--Is--Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission was involved in their nuclear weapons programs and God knows what other weapons programs. SAFER: I--in very precise terms, what was the--the policy about shipping bacterial cultures like anthrax and botulism to Iraq ? Dr. BRYEN: I don't think there was a policy in--in--in the administration at the time. I think there was a--a general understanding that a shipment of these kinds of materials was sensitive, required a license. SAFER: And yet the Commerce Department signed off on them? Dr. BRYEN: The Commerce Department approved all these licenses. There were a number of licenses. We're not talking about one got through and the others got stopped; we're talking about they all got through, un-- untouched, unstopped. (Footage of person at computer; ATCC order form coming out of printer; anthrax ) SAFER: (Voiceover) And to find out how to order up some anthrax , just dial up ATCC 's Web site, as we did today, and with the flip of a printer, your order form. Visa and MasterCard accepted. By the way, the effect of inhaled anthrax : one day of flu symptoms, followed by a few days of pneumonia symptoms, followed by death. Dr. BRYEN: The one experience we have with anthrax in Sverdlovsk in Russia where some of this leaked into the air is that it killed people and animals for over 40 miles from where--where the damage occurred. SAFER: We do know it was a relatively small amount. Dr. BRYEN: A relatively small amount and it wasn't because the place was bombed; it was because something leaked and it escaped into the a-- air. So when you hit it with a bomb, you potentially could release everything. So it's worrisome to me that we might set loose some of this kind of material. SAFER: When you were in that job as--as the--the Pentagon's cop to oversee what was going where, did you get into any confrontations? Dr. BRYEN: Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. I had a big confrontation over the shipment of atropine injectors to Iraq . I blocked it. And atropine is an antidote for nerve gas. And so far as I knew, the only nerve gas in the region was Iraqi nerve gas, so it was clear that they wanted one-- they wanted this for offensive purposes, not for defense. SAFER: To protect their own troops? Dr. BRYEN: To protect their own troops, and--and to allow them to use it in fairly close-in situations against--against other forces, Iranians or Americans or whoever. SAFER: You got into confrontations with whom? Dr. BRYEN: Well, the--the--the fight was mostly with the State Department. It was a million and a half injectors they were talking about, 1.5 million injectors, and these were militarized injectors; the same ones are used by the US Army. And I will--I just said no. It took me three months of--of quarreling, and--and--and finally, I threatened to have a press conference if they wouldn't stop. But in the intervening period, the news of the Kurdish attacks came out, and I think that discouraged the enthusiasm in the State Department for promoting this transaction. (Footage of Bryen with Safer) SAFER: (Voiceover) But the export of biochemical technology was not the only source of conflict with the State Department. Dr. BRYEN: Well, there were a number of licenses that we had blocked for the Iraqi missile programs. Some of them were computers that were used for testing this--the missile track and trajectory. Some of them were equipment to build missile cases and things like that. And--and we blocked them. The State Department didn't like that very much. more at http://www.skeptictank.org/gen1/gen00547.htm
I agree with you... probably by the end of the 1st Quarter of 2003 (there is consensus that the US will attack in January/February), Saddam will be history... but more significantly, thousands of innocent Iraqis will also be history... America will get its oil control, which is all it ever wanted... but America will also have galvanized an unprecedented thirst for revenge amongst the Muslim world... given their lack of a conventional military capable of taking on the USA, there will inevitably be more blood on the streets of New York, Washington etc, caused by guerilla tactics such as those employed on September 11... some may argue that the devastating repercussions were simply an eye for an eye; and many will agree with those some... and amongst the many that agreed with those some will be the Europeans, the Africans and the Asians...