strike on iraq

"what did they post???????"

Full versions of the wire report.

"btw, you are the one that posted the news "embargo" by these outlets not me!!!!"

Correct, from the paper editions.

"what is your point??? i pointed out that the story was bullsh*t to begin with....you linked a newsmax story that was incorrect and later rescinded by them this evening. believe me if there was 33 lbs the post and times would be all over it like oprah on a baked ham!!!!"

The point is that the liberal press, as well as yourself, seem to think that weapons grade uranium, of any quantity, hidden in a third world taxicab cruising the streets just 155 miles from a rogue dictator who seeks to make nuclear weapons, is not cause for concern.

 

No Sir, actually neither.

I was QUOTING an article from the Los Angeles Times:

NOTE: This article appeared in the LA Times prior to the 9-11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.

QUOTE:

Bush Supports Islamic Religious Extremists

Bush`s Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By ROBERT SCHEER
The Los Angeles Times

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously. That`s the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban`s estimation, are most human activities, but it`s the ban on drugs that catches this administration`s attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998. Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden. The war on drugs has become our own fanatics` obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They`ve not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter. The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department`s Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban`s special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms." Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn`t obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it`s understandable that the government`s "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That`s because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming. For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.

As the Drug Enforcement Administration`s Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it`s bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There`s little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power. The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.

UNQUOTE

 

Interesting. If you take just these two paragraphs. Substitute the appropriate royal family individuals for the references to the Taliban and Afghanistan. And change the word drugs/opium to oil, it sound as though this article could be referring to the Saudi Arabian government too. A regime which even has U.S. citizens (women and children) held hostage. Or I think the claim is, we are checking into these possible violations as quickly as possible. Wonder why American interests are not exercising our military potential power there? Last time I checked, we even have an airbase, very close by. Seems like an easy call to me.

So I hope we aren't too frustrated if their support, as well as many others in the Arab countries, for the upcoming attack is not too strong. The Arab dislike of America, its influences, and its ways is not just based upon our interests in oil alone you know.

And as for major Russian support, without some massive damning event, please don't hold your breath. They'll be foot dragging all the way through this mess. Every inch of gain will be followed with their resounding cry of, "Now that's enough!"

 

So, TigerO, you just aren't smart enough to know the difference between Opinion/Editorial and news. Or you just don't care.

 

"The only "epochal" aspect of this debate is the number – and sheer scale – of the monstrous lies being told by the War Party. A stream of falsehoods is being emitted on a daily – an hourly – basis to justify the invasion and military occupation of a country that has never attacked the U.S. And they aren't being too careful about the quality of the lies they tell. Just yesterday [September 27], Drudge was trumpeting a Reuters story proclaiming that the Turks caught a convoy containing 33 pounds (15 kg) of "weapons-grade" uranium, less than 200 miles from the Iraqi border: Aha! The Smoking Gun! But not quite….

Less than twenty-four hours later, Ha'aretz informs us that, uh, no, "Refined uranium found in Turkey weighs grams, not kilograms" – Drudge trumpeted this, too, but if you think this neutralizes the advantage gained by the War Party, then you don't understand the nature of war propaganda. A lie, no matter how many times it is debunked, is hard to kill. The all-important first impression – the nightmare vision of the "madman" Saddam waving a nuclear sword – is easy to create but almost impossible to erase. Besides that, the number of people who hear about this "clarification" will not come anywhere close to the millions who heard the "news" of this fortuitous interception.

Lies, lies, and more lies – that is the methodology of the War Party, and they just keeping flinging them at us, hoping that at least some of it will stick. They're in a very great hurry, you see, and can't afford to be too noble and "epochal" in their approach. The clock is ticking, people are beginning to wake up to their game, and the antiwar opposition mounting a surprisingly strong counteroffensive. Thousands of phone calls are flooding the offices of our congressional representatives, and it's overwhelmingly those expressing their opposition to this frightening and fateful rush to war."

 

DotSlashFuture, what ARE you talking about, haha.

All I'm doing is pointing out that we create most of the messes we're in ourselves.

And that the current Propaganda coming from DC is just that, Propaganda, that no other country in the world is dumb enough to fall for or pay for, apart from our puppy Blair, and, that quite apart from lot's of other good reasons, we simply do not have the financial means to afford idiotic unilateral military adventures.


Top 10 Reasons Not to "Do" Iraq

Although President Bush has not formally decided to invade Iraq, the emotional chest pounding in the press by anonymous high-level civilian hawks in his administration has reached a crescendo. And while the hawks have made it seem unpatriotic to raise questions about such an invasion since Sept. 11, a careful analysis suggests that such a high-testosterone response should be avoided for 10 reasons:


High casualties may result at home or abroad. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admits that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons. Faced with destruction of his regime (and possibly his own death), Hussein would have every incentive to use them against U.S. forces, Israel, oil fields, or even the U.S. homeland. If rag-tag al Qaeda terrorists can operate on U.S. soil undetected over a number of years, then more highly trained Iraqi intelligence agents might be able to smuggle in chemical or biological weapons (and may be already doing so). The U.S. military has been unenthusiastic about undertaking an invasion of Iraq because of fears of high casualties from urban fighting or from such Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.


Occupation of an Islamic country by the United States could be a recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists. We should remember the worldwide mobilization of Islamic radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. An invasion of Iraq would play right into al Qaeda's hands. Terrorists hope for an excessive, intrusive response by their adversary so that they can recruit more supporters.


Invading and occupying Iraq would distract the U.S. government from the vital task of destroying an enemy that has actually attacked the U.S. homeland--al Qaeda. U.S. intelligence agencies apparently have no hard evidence that links Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. How is an unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq, without international support, is relevant to the legitimate war against America's terrorist adversaries.


***The threat from Iraq is exaggerated. Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the 1980s). Moreover, Iraq's military has been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask why the United States -- half a world away -- is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq's neighbors. ***


The terrorists groups that Iraq supports do not focus their attacks on the United States. Such groups concentrate their attacks on targets in the Middle East.


Although unsatisfying, the U.S.-led containment policy has worked. If the United States could successfully contain a superpower (USSR) for more than 40 years until it fell from within, it can continue to contain the dictator of a small, poor nation until he dies or is overthrown.


A U.S. invasion of Iraq could destabilize or topple friendly governments in Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Enflamed Islamic populations could rise up against those regimes, which are closely aligned with the United States.


The United States might be isolated diplomatically or have to expend large amounts of diplomatic capital to gain support for the invasion. The aforementioned friendly Islamic nations -- many of whose territories would be needed to launch any invasion -- and the European allies are almost universally unenthusiastic about such a military operation. The United States had to offer Turkey about $5 billion in debt forgiveness and other financial inducements to obtain even reluctant Turkish support for a U.S. attack on Iraq.


At a time of economic sluggishness and of red ink for the U.S. government, an invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq could cost billions of dollars, bust the budget and throw the U.S. economy into a tailspin. The Gulf War Cost $80 billion (in 2002 dollars). Because the United States would probably be faced with a long occupation of Iraq to stabilize the country after the invasion, the cost is likely to be higher this time around. And unlike the Gulf War, no financial support from other nations can be expected to defray the costs.


The threat of war in the Middle East or a loss of production from actual combat could cause the world price of oil to skyrocket. Fighting in Iraq could reduce oil production there, as could any Iraqi attack on the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields using missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.

After sober analysis, one must conclude that the civilian political appointees in the administration should stop the tub-thumping for war and listen to counsels of restraint by those in the military who would have to fight and die in such a war. Hussein's survival in the 11 years after the Gulf War--combined with his demonization by three U.S. administrations--has led many to overstate the threat that despot presents and understate the costs of scrapping the containment policy that has contained him effectively.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-19-02.html

 

Your entire argument is specious. The first news of the larger amount of uranium emanated from the news services, who got it from the Turks, not the US government. Liberal and conservative news sources carried both the original and corrected stories.

With this smokescreen of alleged propaganda, you have avoided the main issue, that of weapons grade uranium possibly on the way to Iraq.

 

Same liberal crap as used prior to 1991 and current Afghan operation.

 

lol lol lol lol.......or the same liberal crap that those damn hippie's spewed about vietnam. i love those tape's of Johnson admitting that we didn't have a prayer. but he kept sending american boys over there to die. all the while lying to the public about "our chances". what a great american that scumbag was.... oh but wait he was a liberal/democrat!!!! war is not about conservative vs liberal....don't fall for the brainwashing...

 

So we are to base every potential armed conflict on Vietnam? Thankfully, then, it ocurred after WWI & II.