Listening to the voices of veterans that fought the 1991 Iraq war. 3. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory vaccines given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to the product label insert made by BioPort in Michigan, the sole producer, the experimental anthrax vaccine has caused several deaths. The National Academy of Sciences this year concluded there are some risks to the hotly debated vaccine. 4. The Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic. Scientific research funded by the military and released two years ago links exposure to depleted uranium (DU) ammunition with cancer in rats. Solid depleted uranium bullets, ranging in size from 25mm to 120mm, are used by U.S. tanks, helicopters and planes to attack enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers.... 6... former President George H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi opposition, mainly civilians, to rise up against the Iraqi dictatorship in March 1991. However, former President Bush left the rebels twisting in the wind to be ruthlessly killed by the Iraqi army's Republican Guard flying helicopters allowed by the cease-fire arranged by U.S. military and political leaders. U.S. troops in southern Iraq in March 1991 were ordered not to interfere... 7. Many post-cease-fire military actions of the first Gulf War were deplorable. In March 1991, the Iraqi army was in a full route inside Iraq. Against orders, former General Barry McCaffrey slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after the cease-fire (documented in the article, "Overwhelming Force," by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, 2000)... 8. No one has been held accountable for arming Iraq with chemical and biological weapons from 1980 to 1990. A recent news article reported that top aides for former presidents Reagan and Bush armed Iraq with these weapons during Iraq's war against Iran between 1980 and 1988... 10...According to VA, of the nearly 700,000 veterans who served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, more than 300,000 have sought VA healthcare, and more than 200,000 have filed VA disability claims. Two weeks ago, President Bush slashed $275 million from the healthcare budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0913-01.htm I just hope cool heads prevail. Josh
http://www.mothersalert.org/du3.html But months of bombing of Iraq by US and British planes and cruise missiles has left behind an even more deadly and insidious legacy: tons of shell casings, bullets and bomb fragments laced with depleted uranium. In all, the US hit Iraqi targets with more than 970 radioactive bombs and missiles. This is part of a larger horror inflicted on Iraq that sees as many as 180 children dying every day, according to mortality figures compiled by UNICEF, from a catalogue of diseases from the 19th century: cholera, dysentery, tuberculosis, e. coli, mumps, measles, influenza. Depleted uranium has a half-life of more than 4 billion years, approximately the age of the Earth. Thousand of acres of land in the Balkans, Kuwait and southern Iraq have been contaminated forever. If George Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Bill Clinton are still casting about for a legacy, there's a grim one that will stay around for an eternity.
http://www.counterpunch.org/riad0907.html In the West Bank thousands of Palestinians attended candlelight vigils to express their grief and solidarity with the victims of the attacks, and Palestinian school children observed five minutes of silence. In Tehran, Iran (one third of the President's proclaimed "axis of evil"), the main soccer stadium observed one minute of silence in sympathy with the victims of the attacks. Despite the unanimous and vocal condemnations by American Muslim and Arab-American group and leaders nationwide, some in our country were not satisfied. In subsequent weeks and months, numerous unsubstantiated references appeared in newspaper opinion columns and on television talk shows about American Muslims' alleged "silence" after the terrorist attacks. Such claims were clearly not based on facts, but rather were the products of either outright ignorance-which is inexcusable-or deliberate defamation by some with thinly-veiled Islamophobic agendas-which is utterly deplorable.
I found it... this is exactly your words and you know who says them General Moshe Ya'alon... are you the famoius general???? These are the main teachings of Ya'alon: The Palestinian danger is a cancer. This is an existential threat. We are David, they are Goliath. They have the backing of a quarter of a billion Arabs. We have no intention of annihilating them, while they are not ready to recognize our right to exist here as a Jewish state. The State of Israel has put on the table (at Camp David) a proposal that would have solved the problem, but they rejected everything. It is not a question of occupation. The aim of the Palestinian people is to bring down the State of Israel. The Oslo agreement was a Trojan horse. The aim of Arafat is to eliminate the State of Israel by stages, using terror and demography. We learn several things from these teachings. First: Ya'alon is quite devoid of any new, original or creative thought. Any schoolchild in Israel could say exactly the same things. Second: speaking politely, the validity of each of these arguments, which seems to him self-evident, is doubtful. Speaking bluntly, they are a heap of rubbish.
It is not the Palestinian danger that is a cancer, but the occupation that breeds terrorism. There is no existential danger. We are Goliath, very big, very well-armored, very unwise. Almost all of the quarter of a billion Arabs are ruled by regimes dependent on the USA, which don't give a damn for the Palestinians. A large groups of ministers in the Israeli government indeed aim to destroy the Palestinian national entity by driving the Palestinians out of their country ("transfer"). At Oslo, the Palestinians recognized the existence of the State of Israel, and that is all that is demanded of them. The character of our state ("Jewish" or otherwise) is not their business. At Camp David, Ehud Barak put forward proposals that were very far from "solving the problem". If it were Arafat's aim to destroy Israel "by stages", he would have accepted Barak's proposals and moved to the next stage. If Rabin's successors - Prime Ministers and Chiefs-of-Staff - had not sabotaged the Oslo agreement, it would by now have brought peace and security. Demography is not within the purview of Ya'alon (three children) or Arafat (one daughter). Anyone worried by this aspect of the conflict should move out of the Palestinian territories at once. There is a psychological condition called paranoia vera, whose victims take a fallacious assumption ("the earth is a cube") and build a whole logical structure on it. The more complete the structure, the more serious the condition. Ya'alon builds his conclusions on his fallacious assumptions: the present war (the one he, accidentally, is commanding) is the most important in the annals of Israel since 1948. No withdrawal from any place is permissible, because it would encourage the Palestinians. Therefore, not even one single settlement can be dismantled, isolated as it may be. The building of the "security fence" (between Israel proper and the occupied territories) is a mistake ("I would invest the money somewhere else".) Concessions under fire will cause an existential danger. This is an endless war. Generations will pass before certain elements in the region will resign themselves to the existence of Israel. (Ya'alon quotes a 1969 speech by Moshe Dayan, in which he prophesied a war of many generations.) There is no alternative. But the most severe danger, according to Yaalon, is the internal one. Israeli peace-lovers and human rights activists are undermining the existence of the state and the army and preventing victory. Victory means that "the Palestinian side internalize very deeply that by terrorism and violence they will not vanquish us." Therefore, absolutely no concession is allowed. The withdrawal from the South of Lebanon was a mistake, and so was the withdrawal from Josef's tomb (an isolated site in the middle of Nablus). This means: there is no place for any offer of compromise and idea of a settlement. What is needed is a more and more repressive occupation. For example: Israel must decree that no one would be allowed to be a candidate in the Palestinian elections if he is "touched by terrorism", much as the American military government in occupied Germany did not allow ex-members of the Nazi party to be candidates in German elections. Ergo: only candidates appointed by Israel will be allowed to be elected and lead the Palestinian people. (Under such a rule, Ben-Gurion, Begin and Shamir would not have been elected in Israel.) And who is the man who built this beautiful structure? Ya'alon modestly introduced himself: "Personally, I see myself as a Jew, Israeli, humanist, liberal, democrat, peace and security lover." No more, no less. He forgot to add another attribute: brazenness. An phenomenal Chutzpah is needed for a general on active duty to dismiss with contempt the decisions of the elected governments, past and present, from the Oslo agreement to the security fence. All this, of course, given as "professional expertise". The question is, what, exactly, is Ya'alon's profession? Talleyrand said that "War is much too serious a matter to be left to military men." He knew what he was talking about, since his boss (Napoleon) was a professional soldier, who put his generals in charge of much of Europe. A military officer has an important profession. He learns to move forces, use weapon systems, command troops, plan battles. But nothing - nothing at all! - in his professional career prepares him for analyzing intricate political moves, understand international relations or delve into the depths of history. From these points of view, his "professional expertise" is as valid as that of a plumber, an engineer of an ear, nose and throat specialist. It certainly is less than that of a historian, an Arabist or a professor of international relations. Not to mention that it would be unthinkable for an American, British, French or German Chief-of-Staff to make a fraction of such a statement while still wearing a uniform. In Israel, in the 36th year of the occupation, it sounds quite natural. The dinosaurs are back.
TF2000, I would like to know what you (and others who are against a war with Iraq to remove Saddam) suggest the world do with Saddam? a] leave him and the sanctions as they are b] remove the sanctions and leave him there c] put in inspectors from UN d] other Please let us know your thoughts on this. I am sincerely interested to know what your opinion is regarding what we should do with Iraq since we all know what you believe we shouldn't do with Iraq. Thank you.
I am not asking more or less... I cannot understand what is going on with Sharon today.. That guy endanger the whole region and the state that is the most armed of the region is not Irak but Israel you shoudl know it... Moreover, Pakistan is lead by a crazy dicatator and yet he is the friend of the US and yet he has the nuclear bomb... And we keep on focusing on a country that is dangerous only in our dreams.. Of course Saddam is a mad man but he knows he can't move. because if he does all the countries of this planet will bombard him and he will be dead... 1/ War is not the solution especially with the intent to colonise a country and keep on adding to the preceding crimes... 2/ ask the inspectors to go there and if Irak is completely disarmed then stop the bloody embargo with the obligation of staying unarmed and oblige a democratic election under the guidance of the UN.... What do you think it seems doable... If the US really wanted peace and the good of Iraki people I think they can force Irak to comply with that.. not impossible... But if the intents of the US is OIL, they will certainly attack Irak...
traderfut, How many times have I said that I do not think that Arabs are bad? How many times have I defended Islam and taken heat for it on this board? Don't paint me as someone I am not. My disagreement with you is purely on the issue of the Palestinians waging a war of terror against Israel. As far as the other Arab states that waged war against Israel in those past wars, you are just wrong about the motives. It had less than zero to do with the Palestinian issue. As a matter of fact, there were no "palestinians" in 1948. It was strictly arab against jew. But time has gone by, and like you said, peace was made between France and Germany. The US and Japan, etc. But when Egypt made peace with Israel, who murdered Sadat? Peace? Who wants peace? You think Sharon is a war criminal. I think Arafat is worse. Is Sharon a bad guy? Yes. But still, he is attempting to achieve peace. His methods are insane maybe, but in his admittedly twisted way of thinking, the ends justify the means. Arafat, however, does not want peace. This is the crucial difference between the two. Yeah, they are both bad. But Arafat too thinks the ends justify the means. Only the ends he has in mind are the the END of Israel. Not peace. This is so obvious as to not be worth discussing. You know it is true, I do, and the world does. So yes, the Israelis have resorted to atrocious behavior. Innocents have died at the hands of the Israelis. But tell me an instance that it was a result of planning? Bad planning maybe, but not intentional planning. The suicide bombers and the rest of the palestinian terrorists strive to cause as many civilian and children casualties as possible. The exact opposite of the objectives of the Israeli Defense Forces. The US, who you say in alternate posts is good, evil, good, evil, has tried it's very best to avoid collateral damage. Knowing this, those brave "freedom fighters" of the Hamas and Jihad scurry into residential areas like the cowards they are. And they hide behind the skirts of the good and decent Palestinians who want peace. And if one of these peace loving Palestinians is suspected of "collaborating with the enemy", they are stoned to death in public. In front of their children. What a pleasant system of justice. So yes, if you want to call me a racist, that is your right. Call me what you will. But labeling me will not make me that. I only think that the terrorist leaders that "brainwash" the suicide bombers are the worst of the worst examples of evil that exists in mankind. To encourage that kind of tactic is beneath contempt. And sure, Arafat denounces the attacks out of one side of his mouth and encourages them out of the other. This guy could hide behind a corkscrew. You think he is a benign old man. But he has been encouraging terror and hatred for over a half century. It is his only mission. That and keeping well groomed. You know, they say don't judge a book by it's cover. But let's for a moment think about heads of state that wear military garb. Well we had Hitler. There is Saddam. There is Castro, and of course, your macho friend Arafat. Oh, and one of the favorite great humanitarians, Khadafi Duck. They are all twisted psychos. Imagine Cherac or Blair or Putin or even the cowboy Bush addressing their people wearing a uniform and a sidearm. These are "leaders" that by example state with their armed appearance that "Peace Sucks". Wear a uniform. Carry a gun. Be prepared to kill your enemies. They are all a disgrace to those who serve the world as worthy leaders. Oh yeah, Pol Pot, he was another of the pistol packing pricks that had control. And Idi Amin. Do you see a trend here? So no, I don't have a thing against the palestinian people. Except they are misguided and will stay that way until they get a legitimate leader. You say the young woman that blew herself up was educated. Yes, she went to school. She was a student. But still, she was educated in hatred and violence and intolerance but had never learned about what decency is. Why is that? You say because these people live in despair. That is so true. Why do they live in despair though? Because of Israel? Sure, that must be the reason. The rogue state is responsible for all the misfortune of all the arabs in the middle east. You say that the palestinians are not syrians. Or Egyptians. etc. And that is why they were not assimilated into the societies of the countries they were refugees in. Well fine. I guess when the Irish came to the US during the potato famine, the US should have kept them in concentration camps like the Syrians did with the "palestinians". As did Lebanon, and Egypt and Jordan (which was supposed to be their home if I am not mistaken. Your explanation holds no water. The truth is these friendly folks just are so intolerant, they can't stand one another. They are consumed with hatred, resentment and intolerance. Oh, and you said Sharon is looking for a "larger Israel"? What are you talking about? What would they like as an annex may I ask? The Sinai? No, that can't be it. They came, they saw, they conquered. And then they gave it back. They have even been trying to return the Golan Heights to Syria, but of course, your friend Mr. "yes sir your a fart" had to gum up that deal too. So the peace that was virtually assured to have been settled 2 years ago was scuttled because that wonderful example of good grooming and personal hygiene had to cry that he wanted 100% of his demands. Not 99%. Maybe someone should have explained to this enlightened Pulitzer Price winner what the word "negotiation" means. You were too young to remember the incident in Munich? Well you are fortunate not to have to have seen it unfold as I did. For those other of you too young to remember, or to even know what happened, in 1972 at the Olympic games in Munich, Palestinian terrorists broke into the athletes compound with machine guns and took Israeli athletes (their whole wrestling team) hostage. Well not all of them. First they murdered a few. Then they negotiated for helicoptor transport out of there. They murdered all the rest of the hostages right on the tarmac. Some were killed. Four of the terrorists were captured. They were put on a plane to transport them to jail and trial. But low and behold, the plane they were on was hijacked and the terrorists were flown to Libya and greeted there as heroes and held a press conference and boasted about how they killed innocent athletes in the name of palestine. And how did the plane get hijacked? The German government arranged it. Why? So that they could feel safe since they cooperated with the terrorists. and the terrorists would appreciate that and stay out of Germany. Well that worked quite well. They only bombed a few discos in Munich, and in Berlin after this travesty of judgement. So Israel holds a hard line on terrorists. Ok. what would you do? Negotiate with terrorists? No, and neither does the US. And neither does France or England or any civilized country. But when Israel retaliates, they are evil. Well then I guess the US is evil too. We did not show restraint with those who attacked NY. And in Israel, they seek out those responsible for unprovoked violence. So those palestinian "heroes" who murdered the Israeli athletes were boasting on tv about their exploits, while the Israelis were tracking them down. And assassinated them. So here is one of your violations of law committed by Israel. They hunted down murderers that boasted about their atrocities. And you know what? The sophisticated terrorist know better than to screw with certain potential targets. What is the safest airline to fly?...El Al. And why is that? Cause they are afraid to. And because that stance has worked for Israel to deter (sophisticated) terrorists, is it hard to believe that this would convince the electorate that a tough hand is needed to keep the enemies at the gates? Sharon is a bad guy, but he is not a fool. He is perhaps so bad that he is good in that his presence assures that nobody but the pathetic suicide bombers and the pathetic kids with sticks and stones would dare to confront the defenses he has at his command. Fear and power are the only things that deter these maniacs. Now we need to develop a security system as effective for our airlines, and our homeland. We could take a lesson from Sharon and company in this regard. Peace, rs7
TF2000, Thank you for your concise response. May I pose a question regarding the inspectors? When Iraq called Annan and informed him that inspectors would be welcome and 'unconditional' the whole world breathed a sigh of relief. Then we learned that he had imposed conditions. Among them only military compounds, as well as a brief schedule of inspection. Whatever that means. Could you please comment on how the world should respond to such restrictions on inspectors and how those conditions might effect inspections? I would like to hear how you would ensure that Saddam would adhere to such a contract (stay unarmed and hold democratic elections)? Also do you believe that Saddam Hussein would stand by and accept the disarmament of his military and democratic elections? I for one have a hard time believing this based on his record but if you have a different opinion of him and believe that he would do this then please say so, so that we can understand where you're coming from. Another reason why I do not believe that Saddam would relinquish power is because at that instant he (and his family) would be killed by Iraqis. His son Uday barely survived the machine gun attack of an Iraqi who was avenging the rape of his sister. I don't think there is any lost love between the Iraqis and Saddam's family. I'm sorry but what you're proposing (and assuming about the benevolence present in Saddam's character) is simply laughable. No disrespect but the facts of the matter are clear. I just can't believe you would propose this! However I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time! ) So please explain to me in detail how what you are proposing would work and how the world would ensure that it would be enforced and implemented. Thanks.