Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

"Au contraire Mon Ami" Dio replied gleeffully... to which Michael Scott prepared to Google Dio's "expert".<br />
<br />
Dio, you gotta pick better people. You make this way to easy for me to rip them apart. <br />
<br />
The Eisenhower Fellowship doesn't have any record of Robert Bowman winning any of their medals... although George HW Bush did. Unless there is another federation handing out these medals. The only place I can find Bowman getting one is on his own bio page and pages that quote that page.<br />
<br />
He is also the Archbishop of the United Catholic Church.<br />
<a href="http://www.united-catholic-church.org/">http://www.united-catholic-church.org/</a><br />
The webmaster seems to be his brother or son. He is the only archbishob. Did he create his own church? Wonder if he created his own religion too. Oops, he did create his own church... Wikipedia is wonderful.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman</a><br />
<br />
Dr. Robert M. Bowman is President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies - , a company created by himself, which is an admirable thing. However, the title shouldn't be president... it should be founder, creator and sole employee.<br />
<br />
Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation - which can't be found on the internet except by googling Bowman's name and then it can only be found in reference to his bio. Does this company even exist outside of his own mind?<br />
<br />
Winner of the George F. Kennan Peace Prize. I can't find this peace prize anywhere except attached to Bowman's bio. Keenan himself won the Einstein Peace prize... but no mention of a prize in his name. Somehow I think Bowman made this up... but I could be wrong. If you can show me a link to the Peace Prize itself with Bowman winning it, then you'll change my mind.<br />
<br />
Presidents Medal of Veterans for Peace. OK, I've tried Presidential Medal of just about everything here. I can't even find this medal. Does it exist? If so, who gives it out? There is a Presidential Medal of Freedom and there are chapters of Veterans for Peace... but I can't get the two together. <br />
<br />
Here's the best one yet... "The Society of American Military Engineers' Gold Medal (twice)" - so I found the entire listing of winners since it's inception. He isn't on it. Since 1927, the award has been presented every year. Only three members have been awarded the medal a second time, Rear Adm. Braccia and Col. Markle in 1979, and Brig. Gen. Bachus in 1992. Ouch...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.same.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3583">http://www.same.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3583</a><br />
<br />
"The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter" - unfortunately, Regean was the originator of the concept and here is the original speech:<br />
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/starwars.speech/">http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/starwars.speech/</a><br />
<br />
I haven't tried to determine if he is a real USAF pilot or a real doctor yet... but his history is already making me skeptical. The guy seems to be a liar (at the very least about some of his awards). His credibility is zip, zero, none. <br />
<br />
Dio, I applaud your passion for this, but again, I am picking apart your experts in a few minutes. You really, really need to get someone credible. This guy just isn't it.

   

Just calling a spade a spade. You asked me to "count bodybags" as though there is an endless stream of coffins - as though they validated the lame remarks by Mr. Margolis. They simply do not. Sorry. Scare tactics ain't working. We’re averaging about 1 combat related fatality a year. I would prefer zero, obviously, but this is the line of work they have chosen.

I hate to sound callous, but it is what it is.

   

who is not entirely clear what you mean.

Centre for Strategic and International Studies?

Nope.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service?

Nope.

Commercial Sex Information Service?

Nope.

I’m just a guy, born and raised in Canada, who happens to disagree with you. Strongly.

Peace.

   

I'll defer to my comment above Sgt.

I don't want to buy into the official line. Really, I don't. I do think that the authorities were totally incompetent and negligent in their duties, however I don't think they planned this. Punishment has not been metted out as it should, since I totally hold President Bush accountable for 9/11. I also hold Clinton responsible to some degree.

The real problem I have is that I can't find any CREDIBLE source of dissenting opinion to indicate this was anything other than a collossal FUBAR. Every time an expert comes up, they are some lying nutbar like this Bowman flake. Show me someone who is a bloody expert. A real expert. Not some internet generated social pariah who creates societies and awards in his spare time in order to overcome some self-perceived inadequacies. And Charlie Sheen doesn't count either. His credibility is no better than mine since his only expertise that I'd take advantage of is shared with Neve Campbell.

   

Shoot the messenger, and shoot the messenger is what I'm hearing, with reference to 911. I keep asking, as do many others, as to how a large plane fly into the Pentagon making such a small hole? I haven't seen an answer yet on Vive. Could have misssed it, but usually the same supporters of the official version of 911 give that anomially a pass. Why is that. How could such a large plane fly so low to the ground and not even blemish the front lawn of the Pantagon at the area of impact. It is not solely about credibility of the messenger, it is about credibility of facts as well. Keep in mind that the Bush administration is the gatekeeper of both the official story and the claims of WMD in Iraq. If you are so into the credibility of the messenger, then why put stock in US intelligence, or the main stream media who authored and trumpeted the false claims about WMD? Is there any particular reason why you would favor one liar over another? Let's leave liars out of the equation and deal with facts and physics. How probable is it that a large commercial plane flew into the Pentagon leaving such a small area of damage?

   

That was something else. Well done.

   

You ought to reread 1984 and get your perspective back.

Now - getting shot in the back of the head by the "Ministry of Virtue Protection and Vice Prevention" for the crime of walking down the street without the appropraite escort?

*That* is an Orwellian nightmare.

   

...should that be the case one must assume his transparency (sic?) will soon be discovered as easily as was done by you<br />
<br />
<br />
Hmmm?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Robert+M.+Bowman&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8">http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Robert+M.+Bowman&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/to_bush.html">http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/to_bush.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/index.htm">http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/index.htm</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/index.htm">http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/index.htm</a><br />
<br />
Space & Security News Home Page<br />
<br />
Updated January 10, 2006<br />
<br />
Scroll Down for text of recent articles from Space & Security News<br />
<br />
Text of Speech to Veterans Appreciation Day Sep 25, 2005 veteransappreciation<br />
<br />
Text of speech to Sep 24, 2005 anti-war rally Support_Our_Troops<br />
<br />
2005 Speaking Tour Set<br />
16 May thru 31 July 2005; 28 States + DC<br />
Flyer with Speech Titles and Details ISpk0503.htm<br />
Detailed Itinerary with Dates, Locations, Contact Numbers (in work) 2005 Trip Itinerary<br />
<br />
Toward A Jesus Society (2005 article) Jesus Society <br />
<br />
Text of speech to Oct 25, 2003 rally: Speech text <br />
In April 2004, this speech was widely reprinted on the web and sent around the world under the title<br />
"Some Dare Call It Treason: Wake Up America!". It was also printed in the Nov 2003 S&SN<br />
and in April 2004 in the Baltimore Chronicle.<br />
<br />
Dr. Bowman is available for speaking engagements. email us at [email protected]<br />
For Speaking Schedule for May-Jun 2004, see ScheduleMayJun2004.htm <br />
<br />
We have had inquiries from all over the world asking for the original English version of a letter from Dr. Bowman to the President of the United States about Terrorism. There are actually TWO different pieces. The original was a letter from Dr. Bowman to President Clinton in 1998 after his cruise missile attack on Afghanistan. Here is the text: Terror2.htm Then, after the 9/11 attack, Dr. Bowman wrote a piece to President Bush about his reaction to that tragedy. Within it, he quotes from his letter to Clinton. That text is here: Terror3.htm These letters have been translated into at least 12 languages and have circled the globe. Internet activism works!<br />
<br />
Space & Security News (S&SN) has been published since 1983 by the Institute for Space and Security Studies (ISSS), a non-profit research and educational organization. Additional information on ISSS and its history can be found on its web site <a href="http://www.rmbowman.com/isss">www.rmbowman.com/isss</a>. ISSS is devoted to educating the public about space and other high-technology issues affecting national security. The original impetus for both ISSS and S&SN was to warn Congress and the American people about the danger of an arms race in space. Early issues of S&SN were devoted to exposing the dangers of Anti-Satellite (ASAT) weapons and "Star Wars" weapons in space. ISSS was founded by Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, Ph.D. (USAF, ret.), who had directed all the "Star Wars" programs under Presidents Ford and Carter, and who, with the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, became the leading opponent of Reagan's suicidal version. After Reagan left office, ISSS broadened its scope to include a variety of issues about which the government and the military-industrial complex had lied to the American people. Fiercely independent, S&SN has angered many liberals by defending the Cassini space probe with its plutonium heat source. It has alienated conservatives by its opposition to the B-2, nuclear testing, and weapons in space. S&SN came out against the Gulf War, the rape of Yugoslavia, and the "War on terrorism" and has been in the forefront of the fight to get medical treatment for veterans with Gulf War Syndrome. Over the years, we have managed to offend just about everybody at one time or another. There's no question we're radical. But radical what? We won't be put in an ideological box. We call 'em as we see 'em. If that interests you, read on. For a BIO of Dr. Bowman, click here: One Page Bio of Bob Bowman<br />
Recent News:<br />
<br />
Speaking Tour 2005: Bob & Maggie Bowman will be travelling the country in their motor home May 15 through Jul 31, 2005. Bob will be speaking to peace groups and churches in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Itinerary will be published here when available. To be added to the list, call (321) 752-5955.<br />
<br />
Ed Asner calls for involvement in National 9-11 Visibility Project. See Dr. Bowman's endorsement: Letter Re Ed Asner & 9-11<br />
<br />
Dr. Bowman is speaking out against the war with Iraq. Text of Oct 25, 2003 speech to "Wake Up, America!" rally: Speech Text Text of his Feb 15, 2003 speech to a "Peace Is Patriotic" Rally against the war is available here: Feb 15 Rally Text Text of his Mar 15, 2003 speech to another peace demonstration is available: March 15 Rally Text <br />
<br />
Dr. Bowman's 2003 State of the Union Address now available. For complete text click State Of Union 2003 Most will want the shorter version State Of the Union 2003 (short version) . This is the version that has circled the world on the internet. Excerpts from the address were published in the Feb 2003 S&SN. This sharply abbreviated version contains only a third of the text from the short version above.<br />
<br />
Shuttle Orbiter Columbia comes apart on reentry. Our condolences to the families of our brave astronauts. So far, there's no hint of the scandal that surrounded the Challenger disaster, but we will be watching our government, just to be sure.<br />
<br />
For camparison, you can read Dr. Bowman's first State of the Union Address: 1992 State of the Union Address <br />
(It's amazing how little things have changed except for the current Bush having one fewer initial.)<br />
<br />
Major article Sep 2002 on rush to new War on Iraq Why War With Iraq?<br />
<br />
Tongue-in-cheek conversation between a veteran and George W. Bush veterans4.htm (used by Col. Bowman as an introduction to his featured address to the Veterans For Peace national conference in Duluth, MN Aug 17, 2002)<br />
<br />
Major article Feb 2002 on Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty The ABM Treaty: Dead or Alive? <br />
<br />
January 2002 Letter by Dr. Bowman to the Denver Catholic Register in response to an article about "Just War" was sent on behalf of the United Catholic Church, where Dr. Bowman is presiding archbishop. Text of the letter can be found on the Church website <a href="http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic">http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic</a> under "Another Catholic View of War."<br />
<br />
Our snail-mail subscribers receive the complete Space and Security News as it is published. To request copies, to subscribe, or to get back issues, send us your snailmail address (preferably on a tax-deductible contribution check to ISSS). Mail to ISSS, 5017 Bellflower Ct, Melbourne, FL 32940.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK: What Do We Do Now ?? ARTICLE<br />
<br />
A short Sep 20, 2001 Op Ed piece you can send out: TERRORISM: The Long and Short of it (This article has been translated into at least twelve languages and has been reprinted in major magazines and newspapers around the world.)<br />
<br />
A Sep 27, 2001 Op Ed piece you can send out: Star Wars Weapons Jeapordize the War on Terrorism <br />
<br />
Methodist Bishops launch campaign against Bush's Star Wars II. Press Release<br />
<br />
Dr. Bowman addresses rally in Lafayette Park Jun 10, 2001 just three months before the 9/11 attacks. For text of his address, click June 2001 Rally Text<br />
Articles from S&SN available so far are as follows:<br />
<br />
Take Back America From Nov 2005 S&SN<br />
<br />
Religion and Politics From Apr 2005 S&SN<br />
<br />
DU and Birth Defects From Nov 2004 S&SN about Depleted Uranium and the results of its use in recent wars, especially on our own troops.<br />
<br />
Not Star Wars Article from Nov 2004 S&SN about Bush's newly deployed missile "defense" system in Alaska.<br />
<br />
The Task Ahead from Nov 2004 (just before the election) outlining tasks for the peace movement whoever wins.<br />
<br />
No More Elections? An article from the Nov 2003 S&SN about touch-screen voting and the lack of a paper trail.<br />
<br />
VeteransDay2003 A Veterans' Day message from Lt. Col. Bowman. Published in Nov 2003 S&SN.<br />
<br />
What Really Happened on 9/11; Why All the Secrecy? Nov 2003 article. Why isn't the 9/11 Commission asking these questions?<br />
<br />
Some Dare Call It Treason: Wake Up America! Nov 2003 article with text from speech to rally Oct 25, 2003.<br />
<br />
A Conservative Republican Challenge to George W. Bush from Nov 2003 S&SN.<br />
<br />
Peace Is Patriotic Rally Against War Feb 15, 2003 Full Text of speech by Dr. Bowman excerpted in Feb 2003 S&SN.<br />
<br />
Why War With Iraq? September 2002 article debunking the excuses for preemptive war with Iraq and giving the REAL reasons why Bush, Cheney, et al want to send our sons and daughters to war.<br />
<br />
The ABM Treaty: Dead or Alive? Analysis of President Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty -- its constitutionality, its legality, its necessity, its wisdom, and its effect. In this Feb 2002 article, Dr. Bowman presents ways to save the treaty or at least minimize the effect of withdrawal.<br />
<br />
US At War (lead article from Sep 2001 issue of S&SN). Dr. Bowman's early analysis of the events of 9/11 and what should be done to provide security to the American people.<br />
<br />
Star Wars II George II Resurrects Star Wars II. From March 2001 issue, Dr. Bowman's expose of George W. Bush's plan to resurrect a Reagan-style Star Wars system with weapons in space. Explains how it differs from the Clinton system.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Truth About Terrorism A 1998 article about dealing with the very real threat of nuclear terrorism. It is excerpted from a sermon by Bishop Bowman entitled "A Call To Prophecy: Tell the Truth About Terrorism." Portions of this article were printed in National Catholic Reporter.<br />
<br />
What About Global Warming? An article about Global Warming published just as the Dec 97 Kyoto conference was ending. It addresses such questions as the reality and cause of Global Warming, possible solutions, long-range objectives, short-term actions, obstacles, and things we the people can do now. Makes the concept understandable. Debunks myths.<br />
<br />
How Can We Make A Difference? An address to the World Federalists and the National Campaign for UN Reform (May 17, 1997). Deals with the realities of the New World Order and the need to restore democracy at home. Points out dangerous flaws in the UN.<br />
<br />
Mars 96 Failure Fuels Cassini Protest Many parts of the peace movement have opposed the Cassini launch with its plutonium radioactive thermoelectric generators (RTGs). This article is the result of an in-depth analysis of the benefits and potential dangers of the mission. There is also an assessment of the benefits and potential dangers of the peace movement engaging in vocal opposition to such missions. The differences between RTGs and reactors, between civilian and military missions, and between systems in earth orbit and on missions to the outer planets is discussed. Colonel Bowman (who twice cancelled the Air Force's reactor in space program and who is uniquely responsible for keeping weapons out of space) gives his conclusions and recommendations.<br />
<br />
Nuclear Terrorism: Dealing With the Threat The reflections of a cold warrior (as imagined by the author). A tongue-in-cheek view of a very serious subject.<br />
<br />
1975 Tongue In Cheek Article Reprinted A humorous proposal to stabilize the weapons industry even in the absence of a threat. Reprinted exactly as written in 1975 (while Col. Bowman was still on active duty), it shows that, even then, some insiders knew the Soviet threat was bogus.<br />
<br />
From Fighter Pilot to Peacenik Bishop A short account of Dr. Bowman's transition from a fighter pilot with 101 combat missions in Vietnam to the presiding bishop of a denomination which preaches nonviolence.<br />
<br />
Tax Reform and Class Warfare An analysis of "Flat Tax" proposals in 1996 and their effect on various segments of American society. An alternative proposal which will eliminate poverty and narrow the gap between rich and poor.<br />
<br />
A People's State of the Union, Feb 1992 Dr. Bowman's alternative to George I's 1992 State of the Union Address.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To get more information about ISSS and S&SN, to subscribe, or to make a tax-deductible contribution, contact<br />
Institute for Space and Security Studies<br />
5017 Bellflower Ct, Melbourne, FL 32940<br />
(321)752-5955<br />
(Please ignore our old addresses in Melbourne Beach and Viera. Thanks!)<br />
<br />
[email protected]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Return to #Top of Home Page<br />
<br />
Return to Hosting Page <a href="http://www.rmbowman.com">www.rmbowman.com</a><br />
<br />
To comment on this Web Site, e-mail [email protected]<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding. <br />
Ezra Pound

   

Why War With Iraq?
(It's Really About Saudi Arabia)
by Most Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt Col, USAF, ret

The United States is preparing to go to war against Iraq in order to bring about a "regime change" through the forced removal of Saddam Hussein. The question is, "Why?"

Several answers have been given by the Bush Administration:

(1) Saddam is an evil man who used poison gas on his own people, has killed political rivals, and violates the human rights of his people, especially the Kurds. The Iraqi people deserve to be liberated from him. (2) Saddam has ignored and violated resolutions of the United Nations Security Council relative to inspections and disarmament and must be removed to protect the credibility and integrity of the United Nations. (3) Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological weapons) in violation of UN demands. These weapons pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors and to U.S. interests in the region. (4) Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and therefore bears some responsibility for 9/11 and must be removed as part of the War on Terrorism. (5) Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda and his possession of chemical and biological agents which he could transfer to them pose a threat to the U.S. homeland and to our people. (6) Saddam has been trying to buy aluminum tubes useful in a uranium separation plant. Such a plant could produce the highly-enriched U-235 required for making an atomic bomb. If Saddam succeeded in building such a bomb, he could transfer it to Al Qaeda who could use it in the U.S. If we wait for a smoking gun, it could be a mushroom cloud. (7) UN weapons inspectors won't do any good. They failed to disarm Saddam before, and would fail again. Iraq only agrees to inspections as a stalling tactic.

Let's take a look at each of these reasons for going to war.
"Saddam is an evil man who used poison gas on his own people, has killed political rivals, and violates the human rights of his people, especially the Kurds. The Iraqi people deserve to be liberated from him."

Well, certainly Saddam is an evil man. He used poison gas against Iraqis collaborating with Iran in their decade-long war. And after he did it, the U.S. continued to support him, giving him intelligence information and military equipment. A principle emissary from the Reagan Administration to Saddam at that time was Donald Rumsfeld.
And yes, he has killed political rivals -- some of them for the CIA, who used Saddam to get rid of the previous ruler of Iraq (who wanted Kuwait returned to Iraq). And yes, Saddam has been guilty of human rights violations -- although not nearly to the extent of US allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, until 1990 Saddam was hailed by the United States as the most enlightened leader in the Middle East. Official US documents used to educate diplomats and military generals praised Saddam for how he had raised the educational and health care standards of his people, as well as their standard of living. Would the Iraqis be better off under someone else? Possibly, although they might very well be much worse off. If the Bush Administration is so concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, it could end the sanctions. It could rebuild the water supplies and electrical power systems his father's administration destroyed. With or without Saddam, those things would help a lot. But does anyone really think the Bush administration cares about the welfare of the Iraqi people? Of course not! If they were concerned about the plight of poor Arabs, they would be calling for regime change in Saudi Arabia.


"Saddam has ignored and violated resolutions of the United Nations Security Council relative to inspections and disarmament and must be removed to protect the credibility and integrity of the United Nations."

This one is a doozy! The fact is that Saddam has complied pretty well with those resolutions. Sometimes he had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the inspectors, but the job got done.
Is Saddam in technical violation of some of those resolutions? Probably. When all his missiles were destroyed, he kept plans and molds so that his arsenal could be rebuilt in the future. But does anyone really think that George W. Bush and his conservative supporters care one whit about the "credibility and integrity of the United Nations"?? You've got to be kidding. If we were the least bit interested in that, the US government would not have spent the last several decades protecting Israel from punishment for their flagrant and continuing violation of UN Resolution 242.


"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological weapons) in violation of UN demands. These weapons pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors and to U.S. interests in the region."

We really don't know if Saddam still (or again) has such weapons. That's what the inspectors need to find out. But even if he does, his neighbors don't seem worried. Not one of them supports us going to war against Iraq. Saddam has been deterred from using these weapons beyond his borders. This deterrence has worked very well.
Saddam may be a dictator, even a tyrant. So was Joe Stalin and Kruschev and Brezhnev. But they weren't suicidal, and neither is Saddam. Saddam didn't even use his chemical and biological weapons in the first Gulf War, and we know he had them then. He was deterred because "regime change" was not an objective of that war. There is only one circumstance in which Saddam would be likely to use such weapons, if he had them. That is if the US attacks him with the clear intention of taking him out. If our government is really concerned about the use of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, then we won't start a war there.


"Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and therefore bears some responsibility for 9/11 and must be removed as part of the War on Terrorism."

First, there has never been any evidence that Saddam has any ties to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist network. Saddam, as the head of a secular state, has always been extremely unpopular with fanatical Muslim fundamentalists. Iraq is one of the few Arab states where fundamentalists have no influence, and Saddam keeps it that way. Much as they would like to find some, the Bush administration has found no evidence tying Saddam to 9/11. The most likely explanation for this is that there is no connection.
Whatever else Saddam is guilty of, he is not responsible for 9/11. Even if he were, making war on his country would not be the way to handle it. In a similar way, of course, bombing Afghanistan into rubble was not the way to handle Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants. They should have been indicted and tried by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. That's what the Court is for. (Unfortunately, the Court doesn't have jurisdiction over crimes which occurred before July 2002. It should have come into existence years ago. But we could have used another ad hoc court or indicted them in our own courts.) In the case of Saddam, there's no cause for indictment relative to 9/11 (and even less cause for war).


"Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda and his possession of chemical and biological agents which he could transfer to them pose a threat to the U.S. homeland and to our people".

As noted above, Saddam has no ties with Al Qaeda. However, if he really does possess chemical and biological agents, the best way to end the deterrence which has kept them from being used on us until now is to threaten him with imminent warfare and either death or exile.


"Saddam has been trying to buy aluminum tubes useful in a uranium separation plant. Such a plant could produce the highly-enriched U-235 required for making an atomic bomb. If Saddam succeeded in building such a bomb, he could transfer it to Al Qaeda who could use it in the U.S. If we wait for a smoking gun, it could be a mushroom cloud".

If there is any argument that could panic the American people into supporting a pre-emptive war against Iraq, this is it. The thought of a major American city becoming another Hiroshima should strike fear into the hearts of any of us. It is a possibility I have been warning about for over a decade. The terrorist nuclear threat is a real one.
If Al Qaida ever gets a bomb, it will smuggle it into the country and use it. Deterrence doesn't work against religious fanatics who have been subjected to lives of misery and desperation by American foreign policy. That's why I have for so long pleaded with Congress to find ways to detect nuclear materials in aircraft, ships, cargo containers, and rental trucks instead of squandering the defense budget on "Star Wars" weapons supposedly designed against a non-existent ballistic missile threat. That's also why I have called for new enlightened policies which will make friends for us around the globe instead of enemies. It's also one reason why in my failed 2000 presidential campaign I promised to remove all U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia. (Their presence is the reason why 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. It's stupid to invite hatred.)

So yes, the terrorist nuclear threat is real. But Saddam Hussein is among the least likely sources for a terrorist bomb.

First, because he's unlikely to ever have an atomic bomb (especially if we let the inspectors go back in), and secondly because if he had one he would be very unlikely to give it to Al Qaeda. I'm sure he could think of better things to do with it.
President Bush has been claiming that a 1998 Atomic Energy Commission report said that Saddam was six months from building a nuclear weapon. What the report actually said was, "The IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." The UNSCOM weapons inspectors destroyed Saddam's facilities for manufacturing nuclear materials. If he in fact is trying to buy these aluminum tubes, that confirms that he as yet has not rebuilt those facilities and therefore has no refined U-235. If we get the inspectors back in, he probably never will.


"UN weapons inspectors won't do any good. They failed to disarm Saddam before, and would fail again. Iraq only agrees to inspections as a stalling tactic."

Dick Cheney has been blatantly lying about this. He has claimed that the U.S. got more information from defectors than from inspectors. He said that the ineffectiveness of UNSCOM inspectors was highlighted by evidence gathered at a "chicken farm" whose existence they learned about from Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal.

That's really interesting, because what Kamal actually told U.S. debriefers after his defection was, "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons -- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear -- were destroyed. There is not a single missile left. &#8230; they [Iraq] had kept blueprints and molds for production, but all the missiles were destroyed." This was independently verified by UNSCOM analysis of documentation found at the very "chicken farm" Cheney referred to. Kamal said weapons inspectors were "very effective." But, of course, searching for weapons of mass destruction wasn't all the inspectors were doing in the 1990s.

Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter spent 11 years in Iraq -- four as a US marine in and after Desert Storm, and seven as a member of the inspection team. He says that the inspection team he worked for spied on Iraq in violation of its charter. He says that Richard Butler (then head of the team) gave the UN inaccurate and misleading reports in order to justify the December 1998 bombing of Iraq.
Ritter says, "The vast majority of the more than 100 targets bombed by the US and Great Britain during Desert Fox had nothing to do with weapons production capability, but rather the leadership and security establishments of the government of Iraq, and the precision with which these targets were bombed was due in large part to the information gathered by weapons inspectors." No, the reason Bush doesn't want inspectors in Iraq is the same reason Clinton wanted them out in 1998: you can't bomb where there are UN inspectors.


So not a single one of Bush's excuses for going to war against Iraq is valid. The question remains, "Then why is he so set on this war?"

Some people point to the near-term political advantage it gives to Bush and to Republican Congressional candidates. It is, to these folks, mainly a "wag the dog" ploy to take people's minds off the struggling economy, the dreadful stock market, and all the corporate horrors coming out of the likes of Enron, Worldcom, Bush's old company Harken, and Cheney's Halliburton. It is true that such political considerations have affected the timing. Bush is demanding a Congressional vote on support for his war before the November elections. But there's more to it than that. Bush and his people have been planning this "regime change" war on Iraq since well before the 2000 elections. Why? Why Iraq?

The answer can be found in a September 2000 document ["Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For A New Century" authored by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), and Lewis Libby (Cheney's Chief of Staff) for Project for the New American Century (PNAC)].

This document, uncovered by the Sunday Herald (London), sets "regime change" in Iraq as a primary objective of US foreign policy should Bush be elected. It makes clear that the purpose of moving against Saddam is to set the stage for occupying the entire Middle East. The document says that "even should Saddam pass from the scene, bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently." The same document, by the way, also calls for regime change in China and for US Space Forces to dominate space. The general consensus of those in the know is that the primary purpose of the war on Iraq is to set the stage for permanent military occupation of Saudi Arabia.

U.S. multinational oil companies are getting by without Iraqi oil, but are unwilling to do without Saudi oil.

It is only the Saudi royal family (well compensated by the oil giants) that manipulates OPEC oil production to maintain a global market profitable for the oil companies (and, of course, for them). As years have gone by, the Saudi royal family has become more and more hated by ordinary Saudis and by Islamic fundamentalists in particular.

Bush and his global robber baron oil buddies have become increasingly concerned that the house of Saud could fall, leaving all that oil in hostile hands. George I in 1990 used Saddam's invasion of Kuwait as an excuse to get a military foothold in Saudi Arabia.

He lied to King Saud (and to the rest of the world) by showing doctored satellite photos which (he said) showed that Saddam had massed 250,000 troops and 1,500 tanks on the Saudi border.

Russian satellite photos taken at the same time, however, showed that there were no troops or tanks -- only empty desert.

Now his son, George II, is using a phantom Iraqi nuclear threat to justify starting a war which will only end with the U.S. occupying not only Iraq, but Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran as well! This is the master plan. Iraq is only a staging ground.

The pre-emptive war against Iraq is not only unconstitutional and in violation of international law, it is also as phony as a three-dollar bill. If our Congress won't put a stop to this homicidal madness, the American people must.

---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound

   

... there is always more to these stories and when we isolate only what we support we miss the larger picture.<br />
Kuwaiti soveriegnty came about by British intevention I Iragi affairs <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm">http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm</a><br />
BACKGROUND KUWAIT: Ottoman maps from the late 1800s showed Kuwait as part of the province of Basra in southern Iraq. Kuwait had been ruled since 1756 by the al-Sabah tribe. That year, several tribes belonging to the Bani Utub confederation proclaimed the autonomous sheikhdom of "Kuwait" and appointed the head of the al-Sabah tribe as their chief. These peoples had migrated out of the central Arabian peninsula a century earlier to escape famine, settling along the shore of the Gulf and forming an alliance known as the "Unayza Confederation." <br />
<br />
In 1899, Great Britain, seeking to protect her trade routes with India, signed a pact with Kuwait that established a British protectorate over the sheikhdom. In 1913, the border between Kuwait and Iraq was fixed in a treaty between the Ottoman Turks and the British, who, as "protectors" of Kuwait, signed the document on behalf of the al-Sabah sheikhs. <br />
<br />
After World War I, the British partitioned Kuwait (Treaty of Uqayr). Seven thousand square miles of the territory became Kuwait as it appears on the map today, and the remainder was divided between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. No one realized at the time that Kuwait was sitting on top of one of the richest oil fields in the world. When Iraq gained its independence from the British in 1932 it formally recognized its border with Kuwait.<p>---<br>Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding. <br />
Ezra Pound

   

"no surprise in your assement"

Well, of course. I like truth, and if the first paragraph sets off the alarm bells of inconsistency, I can't believe the rest of it.

"I hadn't notice the story was posted, where was it please?"

It was set to appear around 14:00 yesterday. It died from crib death.



---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

   

uhhu , yup ,whatever you say , ok, You betcha, umhum


---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound
The only good is knowledge...

   

The story I heard, was,

Up until 5 minutes before Iraq invaded Kuwait (figuratively speaking),

Iraq was a US ally, and was heavily supported in it's war against Iran (the US's MAIN HATE-ON ENEMY). The US provided Saddam with satellite intelligence, equipment, and, some have been said, weapons of mass destruction, assisting them in development of battlefield chemical weapons, which Saddam turned around and used against his own people. The US, of course, did nothing. Who cares about a bunch of Kurdish villagers? This guy hates IRAN!

So, then Kuwait, being very sneaky, build these slanted oil wells that drill at an angle down UNDER the Iraq border, sucking their oil out right under the carpet. Imagine if the US put in some oil fields along the Alberta border and did this to us? Well, ok, they are already sucking our lakes dry while we wine and moan in the background.

So, Iraq goes to the US ambassador, some lady I can't recall her name, I think she's in charge of the ice machine at the base in Antarctica now. He asks her, 'hey, I'm seriously thinking of taking the boots to Kuwait over this, are you guys gonna try to stop me?'

'No.' She said.

So he did. Then, a couple of days later, Maggie Thatcher finds out and, well, you know what SHE's like, she'll gladly sacrifice a thousand British sailors for some chunks of rock in the South Atlantic, so she's all hot and bothered and wants to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Jeez, I just WONDER if Britian has serious oil interests in Kuwait.... anyway, so, she goes over to the White House, and has a meeting with Bush Sr, and he's like, 'aww, Maggie, he's our ally! he HATES IRAN! Isn't that lovely? And Maggie sez, (actual)
'Oh George, now is not the time to be a wobbly-knee'. And grabs his knee.

Well, when any mad power-hungry British hottie grabs MY leg, I tell ya, it's OFF TO WAR! So that was it, the US and Britian decided that day that they were going to sever ties with Saddam and stab him in the back. Why has never been very clear. I think that OIL is pretty much right up there, though. They were probably getting tired of dealing with him too, because, let's face it, he's a NUTTER, and he's gassing his own people, ect, ect.

So, the US and Britain needed international support. Here was a country invading another. That hadn't happened in AT LEAST a year or so, so let's pull out this dusty thing in the closet called the UN Security Council, and use it for how it was intended at the end of world war II, even though we have COMPLETELY IGNORED it since the end of world war II, because the US was a big weenie and never supported it, and the Russians were on the other side of the fence not supporting it either, and bada-bing-bada-BOOM you got nuclear war if they both suddenly did.

So, ok, a few UN member countries came along to be part of the grand adventure in the desert. I think we sent all 20 of our fighter planes. Just enduring the jokes in the fighter pilot lounge from the British and American pilots was reason enough for our pilots to get that medal.

We kicked Saddam's butt right out of Kuwait, which I'm sure the oil companies with refineries and fields there were quite happy about.

So we have to ask ourselves, small dinky countries like Kuwait have been getting stomped all over, pretty much every year, since the end of World War II, and the UN Security council has done NOTHING. Why suddenly did they decide to move?

The reasons are simple.
The US was behind it,
and, there was a REALLY GOOD REASON to go.
Protecting Strategic Oil Supplies for the world.

That's it. That's the only reason. And it's big enough for ANY excuse. The world runs on oil. The world is actually even built on it, sucks it. Burns it. Oil drives all things in this world. And when it runs out, we all die. The House of Cards comes tumblin' down. So it's worth going to war for, at least to those who depend on it and have to fill up things like B-52 bombers with it, and are controlled by huge mega-corporations that get rich from it.

So, was it worth it? What did it accomplish? It sent a strong message about aggression around the oil in the Middle East. The US really wanted to keep going and take over Iraq then. It took them YEARS, and one HUGE excuse, to get that wish, but they did get it.

Hindsight is 20/20, but seeing the effect those crippling post-war sanctions had on the Iraqi civilian population, I'd say it was all one long descent into nightmare from here.

   

Your comment above? Ohh man, your not going to make me scroll through that post by Diogenes, are you

As for 'they', you really have to ask yourself who 'they' are.

We are talking about a small group of people. It's usually one powerful guy's vision. He talks to one or two people. Then a couple of other people are told only what they need to do and what they need to know. The information is compartmentalized. It happens EVERY DAY! It is WAY more feasible than the lone gunman theory, or that the terrorists got it all right on one day and won the Super Bowl.

With 9-11, you have a variety of scenarios, all equally or even more feasible, than the official version. Was George Bush involved? Are you kidding? He can't even figure out which way up to hold 'My Pet Goat'! You expect a guy like that to be put in CHARGE of anything? He's been fed his 'How to be a Wartime President' lines since he took office. Every time he tries to talk without a speech-writer within arms-reach and he causes International ROFL Incidents (I-ROFL-I).
Cheney has some hand in this, it appears. Perhaps Perle, perhaps Christole, maybe Rummie and Wolfie on the outside.
Somebody had to make sure Air Defense was on lunch break that day. Somebody had to make sure the pilots were capable of flying the mission. Somebody had to plant the demo charges to make it blewd up REEEL guuud. Perhaps Osama was really behind the operation, and one guy at the CIA just made sure the reports about guys learning to fly jumbos and not caring about the landing part were getting coffee spilled on them and ending up at the bottom of the pile.

But come on. The official story is pure science fiction.

That day had about as much in common with what we call a 'terrorist attack' as a Ford GT has with a farm wagon. Both have 4 wheels, but there, the similarity ends.

So you see, there never is any 'they', no CIA as a whole, no Saudi Government, no Project for a New American Century guys as an entire org with a mission to rule the world.

There's just a very few angry guys, in back rooms, who happen to have too much power, and too much anger, for their own good. The world isn't unfolding the way they were dreaming at the PNAC luncheon, so they are going to do something about it.

The only difference between a conspiracy theory and the 'official government version of events' is that the news anchor is told to smirk when she reads one, and look serious when she reads the other.

   

I have read the book twice and seen the movie 3 times. I have also read 'Brave New World' which brings today's arguments about cloning and fetal manipulation and genetic altering all the more chilling.

In 1984, the government invents a ficticious enemy, and puts the country into perpetual war. This gives them an excuse to work people to death, paying them crap, and spy on them night and day.

This is exactly the world Cheney dreams of, and has spoken of in public, and promised his people to be ready for.

This is exactly the kind of police state that the US has become, and the UK is turning into.

It is unnervingly similar to this book. So much so, I swear, Cheney got tired a couple of nights, pulled it out, and just copied whole sections into his Homeland Security manifesto. The use of torture. The use of jackbooted thugs on the streets to harass and intimidate people. The spying on your own people. The 'war without end' with impossible objectives, against an invisible enemy that does not exist as an organized whole, and therefore can never be engaged in battle and decisively destroyed. You just couldn't get any closer! When will the DoD be renamed the Ministry of International Security?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next