On 15 Sep 2002 at 12:18, Archibald Scatflinger wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DJ" <djlee@WT.NET>
> To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 7:09 PM
> Subject: Is It Not True
>
>
> > 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union
> > at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could
> > retaliate?
> >
> > 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because
> > we know it cannot retaliate - which just confirms that there is no
> > real threat?
> >
The threat is real and growing; we must end it while we still can, and
before an Iraqi leader who would be, considering his past use of
WMD's, much less nuclearly responsible than those whom the Soviet
Union had, obtains and uses such fearful weapons.
>
> > 3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we
> > cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same
> > time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the
> > absence of inspections?
>
Of course; when you play hide-n-go-seek you may not find the hider,
but you will CERTAINLY not find the hider if you are not allowed to
seek. >
>
> > 4. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency
> > was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just
> > this year with Iraqi cooperation?
>
But they were only allowed to check certain sites which the Iraqis knew
in advance, to be sure that cetain stores of known and fissile-weapons-
unusable nuclear waste had not leaked into the environment. >
>
> > 5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to
> > develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the
> > attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15
> > of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from
> > Iraq?. . .
>
Iraq has been linked to an attempted assassination of a former US
president, pays the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000
per, until recently harbored the notorious international terrorist Abu
Nidal, and is reported by his former mistress to have met with Bin
Laden twice, and by Al Quaeda whom the Kurds have captured to be
cooperating with them.
>
> > 8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration
> > claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies,"
> > the Kurds?
>
Not completely. Kurdish control of the rather wild regions there is
tenuous at best. The Kurds capture such operatives when they can, but
others manage to hide with sympathetic fundamentalists and Iranian
sympathizers near the Iranian border.
>
> > 9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who
> > escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of
> > our so-called allies?
>
Or Iran. The Pakistanis are helping us capture the Al Quaeda who fled
there; they recently caught Binalshib in a shootout in Karachi; he was
one of the masterminds behind 9/11.
>
> > 10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into
> > total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily
> > occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda
> > "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again,
> > how, when, and where it chooses.". . .
>
There have been some assassinations and other attempts, but the vast
mjority of the people of the nation support the loya-jirga-elected
government of Hamid Karzai, even in Kandahar, the spiritual home of
the Taliban. The main assassination threat seems to be coming from
Gulbuddin Hekmatyr, and Iranian-backed fundy warlord who is on the
run there. Al Quaeda is not doing well at all, even though remnants are
still operational, they have lost their base, their financing, and many of
their leaders and rank-and-file - and are poised to lose more. Their
capacity to mount significant terrorist actions has been severely
damaged.
>
> > 13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air
> > force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which
> > even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
>
If he achieves nukes, that will change everything; remember that he
used chemical weapons to attack his adversaries; not even Hitler did
that. If we could not risk a Hitler with nukes, we could risk a Saddam
with them even less.
>
> > 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is
> > exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the
> > Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public
> > opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission
> > to go to war?. . .
> >
There will be a vote on a congressional resolution authorizing the use
of force should Iraq persevere in noncompliance with UN resolutions,
and of course the administration will make its best case for the passage
of same. And public opinion is SUPPOSED to influence the elected
leaders in a democracy, both congressional and presidential; it is
solidly behind pre-emptive regime change in Iraq.
>
> > 16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US
> > soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first
> > Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
> >
Far from that number; that would have to represent practically every US
serviceperson who went there, and the vast majority of them had no
problems with GWS. Notice the 'MAY have died"; actually of the
servicepeople who have died, very few deaths can be attributed to
GWS. But, if such was a result of the demolition of Iraqi chemical or
biological weapons stores, or both, and he is in the process of
rebuilding such stockpiles, as seems to be the case, all the more
reason to end Saddam's rule now, before it would cost us much more to
do so in the future. We should have done it 12 years ago.
>
> > 18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion
> > dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and
> > further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an
> > estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed
> > necessary to "build democracy" there?
> >
#) years is a fantasy fighre; it did not take nearly that long in germany or
japan. The war effort will cost much less than 100 billion; in contrast,
the single 9/11 terrorist attack wiped an estimated trillion in value from
the global economy. We cannot risk the much worse loss, in people
and value, which a nuclear terror attack would cause. And the Saudis
have promised to stabilize oil prices during the conflict.
>
> > 19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason
> > to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN
> > Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
>
Not ones nearly as serious as developng WMD's.
>
> > 20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as
> > the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a
> > new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into
> > Baghdad?
> >
It was, in hindsight, a mistake not to depose Saddam then; this time, we
will enforce the UN weapons inspections demands Saddam is spurning
by accompanying those inspectors to Baghdad with an army.
>
> > 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly
> > zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific
> > approval from the United Nations?
> >
When Saddam began massacring Kurds and Shites, the UN appealed
to him to stop; these pleas were ignored (sound familiar?). Then the
UN turned to the coalition, and asked them to do what they could to
stop the slaughter; the no-fly zones are what they could do, short of an
invasion.
>
> > 25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting
> > and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize
> > Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively
> > supported?. . .
> >
All the more reason that the burden lies squarely upon us now to act to
rectify our past mistakes, by deposing Saddam and restoring freedom to
the Iraqi people. And our main invasion criticism of Saddam was
Kuwait.
>
> > 30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for
> > any reason other than self-defense?
> >
This action IS for self-defence; the only effective defence against the
terroristic use of WMD's is a pre-emptive one. It's not the same world it
was 220+ years ago.
>
> > 31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of
> > the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that
> > countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime
> > change?. . .
> >
Once again, that was long before countries could secretly develop and
deploy such horrific weapons, and Saddam has historically
demonstrated a chilling propensity to do just that.
>
> > 33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared
> > war and - not coincidentally - we have not since then had a
> > clear-cut victory?. . .
> >
The Gulf War was clear-cut - we expelled Saddam from Kuwait. Our
mistake was in not ousting him from power then and saving the world all
this trouble. Afghanistan has been about as clear-cut as a change from
Talibanic to Karzai rule.
>
> > 35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war
> > resolution to the floor of Congress?
> >
This resolution will be one that allows the US to engage in the use of
force to enforce UN resolutions; we are doing as people have
requested, and working within the auspices of the international
community. It makes no sense to criticize the US for doing what the
critics demanded of her.
>
> > Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
> > Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am
> > concerned there are some questions that won't be asked - and maybe
> > will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I
> > would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > ...Approximately 5,000 children under five have been dying each
> > month as a direct consequence of our embargo. In one of the rare
> > media references to this, Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes in May 1996,
> > asked Madeleine Albright, "We have heard that a half-million
> > children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean
> > that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know --
> > is the price worth it?"
> >
> > Madeleine Albright's stunning reply was: "I think this is a very
> > hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." This
> > was the same woman who lectured us on the evils of Slobodan
> > Milosevic."
> >
The blood of those children is on Saddam's hands; he had the money to
take care of them (via UN-sanctioned Iraqi oil sales), and instead
funded his castle-building, army-rebuilding, and WMD programs.
>
> > ...There were nearly two million killed during the Vietnam war, most
> > by air attacks that dropped twice as many bombs as we did in all of
> > World War II -- nearly one 500-pound bomb per person. One million
> > civilians were killed by our strategic bombing in Japan even before
> > we got to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More than two million civilians
> > were killed in our bombing runs over North Korea. And one million
> > Iraqi have died as a result of our sanctions... ...By the count of
> > author Bill Blum, since 1945 we have bombed China, Korea, Guatemala,
> > Indonesia, Cuba, Congo, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada,
> > Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and
> > Yugoslavia...-Sam Smith
> >
Some justified, some not. Most of the actions on the past 20 years were
indeed justified, and were in fact undertaken to preserve and protect
civilian populations being slaughtered by hostile armies or to depose
oppressine and criminal dictators - and most were undertaken at the
request of the international community or of a militarily beleaguered
nation.
>
> > ...contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government
> > intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's
> > water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost
> > that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead
> > anyway. The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment
> > Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how
> > sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its
> > citizens. ...In cold language, the document spells out what is in
> > store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water
> > because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination
> > membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will
> > become probable unless the population were careful to boil water."
> > The document gives a timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water
> > supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a
> > slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt," -THOMAS J. NAGY,
> > PROGRESSIVE
> >
And the Hussein government did NOT instruct its people to boil their
water because it WANTED the deaths as a propaganda tool to wield
against the sanctions.
>
> > Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never
> > will. - Frederick Douglass
>
Saddam is proving that in spades.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:24 MDT