older contents:
| |
Armed struggle? Peoples army? Self-defense is common-sense!
more.
|
|
Raisethefist.com: Bush Warns Saddam of 'Day of Reckoning'
Bush Warns Saddam of 'Day of Reckoning'
by ap Thu Jan 2 19:42:03 PST 2003
|
| |
|
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) on Thursday his "day of reckoning is coming" and Western warplanes dumped leaflets over Iraq urging citizens to tune into U.S. military radio.
Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tareq Aziz, earlier accused Washington of "an imperialist design" to invade his country regardless of the verdict of U.N. weapons inspectors who are combing Iraq for alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Bush told reporters at his Crawford, Texas, ranch there was little evidence the Iraqi leader would disarm peacefully.
"For 11 long years the world has dealt with him, and now he's got to understand his day of reckoning is coming and therefore he must disarm voluntarily," Bush said. "Saddam Hussein, hopefully he realizes we're serious."
Bush spoke as more than 11,000 American troops prepared to head for the Gulf amid U.S. preparations for a possible invasion of Iraq to force an end to any programs Saddam has to make nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
Bush said he hoped for a peaceful resolution, but added, "It's his (Saddam's) choice to make."
"He is a man who likes to play games and charades, and ... the first indication isn't very positive that he will voluntarily disarm."
Baghdad denies it currently has weapons of mass destruction programs.
Aircraft taking part in U.S.-British patrols over southern Iraq on Thursday attacked Iraqi air defense communications facilities near Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, after Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery at coalition aircraft, the Florida-based U.S. Central Command said.
U.S.-British patrols dropped 480,000 leaflets over two cities in a "no-fly" zone of southern Iraq on Thursday, pressing Iraqi troops and citizens to listen to American special forces radio broadcasts to the area, the U.S. military said.
Leaflets providing frequencies of broadcasts slamming Saddam and providing information on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and U.N. arms inspections in Iraq were dropped over Nasiriyah and Basra, the U.S. Central Command said.
It was the 12th such mass drop of leaflets, including many warning the Iraqi military to stop targeting U.S. and British warplanes, in the past three months.
Bush says he has made no decision on whether to attack Iraq, which was ordered by the U.N. Security Council in November to disarm or face serious consequences.
AZIZ SAYS OIL DRIVES U.S.
Aziz said Washington was planning to invade his country as part of a plan to control the region's oil supplies.
"When they continue their preparations for the war of aggression, what does that mean? It doesn't mean that they are genuinely afraid of an imaginary Iraqi threat. It means that they have an imperialist design," he said in English to several groups of European activists in Baghdad to show their opposition to war on Iraq.
"That design is to invade Iraq, to occupy Iraq and use the national resources of Iraq for the purposes of ... the American capitalist regime," he said.
"When America becomes stronger economically, when America takes over the whole oil of the region and puts it in its hands, it is going to pressure politically and economically every country that needs oil," Aziz said.
A U.N. spokesman said teams from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency drove on Thursday to six sites in central and northwest Iraq.
U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would probably visit Baghdad between Jan. 18 and 20 before reporting on the inspections to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27, U.N. sources in New York said.
On the diplomatic front, an Iranian newspaper reported what it said was a U.S.-Russian plan to persuade Saddam to hand over power and go to Moscow. Washington said it was not aware of any attempt to promote such proposals, while the Russian Foreign Ministry declined to comment.
A group of writers and lawyers from several Arab countries said it was launching an appeal to the Arab world to exercise pressure for Saddam and close aides to step down. (Additional reporting by Nadim Ladki in Baghdad and Charles Aldinger in Washington)
|
true true
by Common Sense ( Thu Jan 2 19:48:19 PST 2003
by dilbag ( Thu Jan 2 21:03:48 PST 2003
)
the article quotes bush as saying that he doesn't expect iraq to disarm quickly and voluntarily, and i agree with him. do you think things will get better if everyone ignores iraq and lets saddam dictate without opposition? if not, do you think saddam will step down voluntarily, without a fight? bush is correct when he says that its time for a regime change in iraq, he's just not the one to do it. anarchists talk a lot about what _shouldn't_ be done about iraq (the general consensus is usually just "no military action"), but i havent heard shit about what _should_ be done about iraq. everybody knows what you dont want....so what do you want....?
what should be done with Iraq
by rtf ( Thu Jan 2 22:33:48 PST 2003
)
I keep voicing my opinion on what should be done with Iraq. First of all, americans should stay the fuck out of Iraq's political affairs, they've fucked it up enough as it is. The last thing Iraq needs are americans telling them what needs to be done to their own country. With that in mind, i'll simply voice my opinion on how I think the standard of living in Iraq could be better. The solution is simple. A revolution. Sadam was put into power by the CIA. The U.S Government did everything possible to prevent Iraq from having a revolution. When Iraq carried out a social revolution, US and BRITAIN lost control over 98% of oil they were controling in that region. The oil companies were nationalized and new rights were won for workings, women, etc. Over all the standard of living in Iraq became better. Following this of course was the installment of Sadam, who later down the line didn't exactly work out as the CIA planned. The Gulf War then followed, with 11 years of US/UN sanctions specificly designed to target the Iraqi people. So far these sanctions have killed 1.5 million Iraqi civilians, almost half, 500,000 which are children. The last thing the united states government wants are Iraqi civilians standing up and taking charge of their own country. Go back to the Gulf War era with daddy bush; encouraging Iraqi's to rise up against Sadam, only to leave them slaughtered and betrayed. It's a commmon tactic of divide and counqure. The U.S is trying to divide the Iraqi people by getting them to side with the united states, but 99% of Iraqi's rather elect a dictator into office then side with the US. What does that tell you? I say the Iraqi's should revolt against Sadam and the US. It's the only way they can rid themselves from US imperialism and determin the destiny of their own lives. It is a very basic human right to have food, clothes, shelter, and yet the US has deliberatly deprived Iraqi's of all these. The US isn't going to make Iraq, or any of the middle-east a more stable region. All we've seen the united states do is destablize and divide this region. It's a common trick; divide and conqure. Iraqi's are perfectly justified in defending themselves against US aggression. They are the ones being targeted, they are the ones dying, they are the ones being effected.
by danny ( Fri Jan 3 00:46:37 PST 2003
in the instance of a revolution
by dilbag ( Fri Jan 3 07:13:25 PST 2003
)
- the US, the UN and everyone else holding down fort in the region pulls out
and severs all ties to iraq (ie, no more military presence, no more aid
packages)
- the largest, strongest gang of thugs seizes office because, after all, there's
no stabilizing forces in the region, and this being a dictatorship, that's how
you come into power
that's how simple it is.
by rtf ( Fri Jan 3 08:59:55 PST 2003
)
"the largest, strongest gang of thugs seizes office because, after all, there's no stabilizing forces in the region, and this being a dictatorship, that's how you come into power"
That's already what happend.
by rtf ( Fri Jan 3 09:05:40 PST 2003
)
Saddam Hussein - A CIA Puppet?
Why did the CIA prop up this neo-dictator? Why do they continue to support him today despite the threat of war?
Source: The Tip, 2002-09-02 00:00:00.000
Candidate: Big Government
After becoming President in January 1989, Prescott Bushís son, George Herbert Walker Bush - father of our current President - authorized a series of programs that not only armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein but also provided him with technology that assisted in his development of chemical weapons like Sarin gas, and biological weapons, which he still possesses. Apologists for Bush (the elder) say that, after the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s left the region unstable, he was just trying to establish a new balance of power. Not so. Bush directives and policies, including relationships with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the Banca Nacional del Lavoro (BNL) were directly and deliberately responsible for creating the army the U.S. fought in 1991.
A story by Russ W. Baker, in the March/April issue the Colombia Journalism Review (CJR), provided the most compelling overview of Iraqgate that I have seen.
"ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop ëIt is becoming increasingly clear,í said a grave Ted Koppel, ëthat George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddamís Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroyÖ
"Why, then, have some of our top papers provided so little coverage?" Baker poignantly asks.
" The result: readers who neither grasp nor care about the facts behind facile imagery like The Butcher of Baghdad and Operation Desert Storm. In particular, readers who do not follow the story of the Banca Nacional del Lavoro, which apparently served as a paymaster for Saddamís arms buildup, and thus became a player in the largest bank-fraud case in U.S. history.
"Complex, challenging, mind-boggling stories (from Iran-Contra to the S&L crisis to BCCI) increasingly define our times: yet we donít appear to be getting any better at telling themÖ
"Much of what Saddam received from the West was not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology -- ultra sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. Weíve learned that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
"And weíve learned that the obscure Atlanta Branch of Italyís largest bank, Banca Nacional del Lavoro, relying partly on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat. Federal Reserve and Agriculture department memos warned of suspected abuses by Iraq, which apparently took advantage of the loans to free up funds for munitions. U.S. taxpayers have been left holding the bag for what looks like $2 billion in defaulted loans to Iraq.
"Ö In fact, we now know that in February 1990, then Attorney General Dick Thornburgh [appointed by George H.W. Bush] blocked U.S. investigators from traveling to Rome and Istanbul to pursue the caseÖ
"Ö As New York Times columnist William Safire argued last December 7, ëIraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the Systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations [The U.S., Britain, and Italy] to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator."
While Democrat Henry Gonzales, Chairman of the House Banking Committee during the period, stood as the lone voice from the wilderness in raising alarms about Bushís obvious corruption, the rest of the Congress sheepishly ignored all the signs demanding immediate action. Gonzalesí voice reportedly fell silent after his empty car was machine-gunned in a Washington suburb in what passed for a drive-by shooting.
The CJR continues: "Meanwhile, The Village Voice published a major investigation by free-lancer Murray Waas in its December 18, 1990 issueÖ "That American troops could be killed or maimed because of a covert decision to arm Iraq,í Waas wrote, "is the most serious consequence of a U.S. foreign policy formulated and executed in secret, without the advice and consent of the American publicÖ"
The L.A. Times, on Feb 23, 1992, dug deep enough to find secret National Security Decision Directives by the Bush Administration in 1989 ordering closer ties with Baghdad and paving the way for $1 billion in new aid. The Timesí series, co-authored with Waas, emphasized that, "buried deep in a 1991 Washington Press piece - that Secretary of State James Baker, after meeting with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz in October 1989, intervened personally to support U.S. government loans guarantees to Iraq."
Bakerís CJR report also noted, "On October 3, the [Wall Street] Journal reported [BNL official Christopher] Drogoulís assertion that the director general of Iraqís Ministry of Industry and Military Production had told him, ëWe are all in this together. The intelligence service of the U.S. government works very closely with the intelligence service of the Iraqi government.í Three weeks later, the Journal reported that [Henry] Gonzales ëproduced a phone-book-sized packet of documentsí showing the involvement of U.S. exporting firmsÖ The documents mentioned oneÖ which designed parts for Iraqís howitzers and was financed through BNLÖ"
In the wake of highly suspicious anthrax outbreaks in Florida, just miles from where several of the WTC suicides pilots trained, we add one final note. In his 1998 book "Bringing the War Home" author William Thomas writes, " Under that same [weapons transfer] program, 19 containers of Anthrax bacteria were supplied to Iraq in 1988 by the American Type Culture Collection company, located near Fort Detrick, MD, the site of the US Army's high security germ warfare labs."
I agree with you RTF
by VivaGuevara ( Fri Jan 3 14:44:59 PST 2003
)
I agree with you completly RTF. More so on the topic on your opinion on what should be dont with iraq. The United States has been playing the role of the international police for too long; and it is something that they arent very good at.
When the Cabinet and dubya learn that they only way to solve something that doenst involve you is to stay away from the problem? Iraq is a big country and they have inteeligent people and leaders. They _should_ be able to handle themselves. A war with iraq would just create more problems for iraq and maybe even more for the united states; and cost more lives.
What do you think about this?
by , ( Fri Jan 3 18:22:11 PST 2003
)
I heard the majority of the people of Iraq support an invasion by America. What they want the most is for Sadam to be kicked out of power. Sadam is a mass murderer just like bush, and they want him out of there as soon as possible. Yes RTF, Revolution does seem like the best answer, but maybe these people are not revolutionaries. Maybe they want someone, anyone, even the U.S. to help them overthrow Sadam Husein.
by dilbag ( Fri Jan 3 20:58:29 PST 2003
)
on rtf's lame "that already happened" rhetoric: what proof do you have that it wont happen again if saddam is overthrown?
especially given that the region's populous has a history of simply replacing old dictators with new dictators...
"The United States has been playing the role of the international police for too long"
i'm sure they'd pass the role along if any other country was willing to assume it, but this is mostly because the USA is the only one willing to take the job.
"Iraq is a big country and they have inteeligent people and leaders"
intelligent leaders?
"They _should_ be able to handle themselves"
key word: "should". apparently they cant, and they've had decades to prove it.
"Maybe they want someone, anyone, even the U.S. to help them overthrow Sadam Husein"
who wouldnt?
by rtf ( Sat Jan 4 13:18:29 PST 2003
)
If you were a jew, and were facing the same persecution from a united states dictator that you were in Nazi Germany during WW2, would you turn to German Nazis to help you fight against the U.S dictator? If you were a black man or women, and were facing pesecution from the U.S government for being black, would you turn the KKK to help you out? ...
Let's look at an example of U.S intervention with the so-called "goal" of helping people out and "restoring democracy". Look at the Panamian Invasion. Killing thousands of innocant civilians, destroying entire villages (none of the rich areas, all the poor areas), then installing another puppet oligarchy. Look at Vietnam. Do we even need to go there? What proof do you have that U.S intervention has actually worked? Look at what the U.S did to Afghanisan. Look what they did to Vietnam. Look what they did with Palestine, Nigeria, Iran, El Salvador, Chili ..etc. Every US interventions leeds to more blood, then 10 years later, even more blood because they decide to oust the dictators they've put into power. Then even more blood because they put another dictator into power. Then even more after that because they decide to oust them as well. See the cycle?
omg...
by Jerry ( Sat Jan 4 18:10:24 PST 2003
)
What do you think about this?
by , ( Fri Jan 3 18:22:11 PST 2003 )
I heard the majority of the people of Iraq support an invasion by America. What they want the most is for Sadam to be kicked out of power. Sadam is a mass murderer just like bush,
To the no name moron, i stopped your quote there on purpose, oh yes i did...
"Mass Muurderer"?
Umm...there has been no war yet...who has G.W. killed lately? What is your proof?
*grow a damn brain if possible*
Spouting the party line impresses no one.
haha
by Kiko ( Sat Jan 4 23:59:39 PST 2003
)
How about 4,000-plus Afghan civilians and an oil pipeline. Try those on for size, Mr. "Who Has G.W. Killed Lately". Nevermind that it's never the figurehead that matters; the system he represents is the culprit, since it is based on a nevernding thirst for Profit. But even without that basic understanding, the blindness of dumb fall-in-liners amazes me to no end. You'd think that of all the different non-mainstream ways to interpret an issue, the general populace could settle with at least one, but nooo; there remain those who simply HAVE to follow the TV, news, and other propaganda by rote.Grow a brain? Hah! Man, you'd prolly bust ten dozen brain cells trying to squeeze in even one alternative thought between the bricks of that stonewall mind o' yours. I feel sorry for you, as I do for many of your kind whom I know personally (and thus feel even sorrier for). But I'm sorriest that you'll never be convinced because you'll be the ones paying the price in the end, like the Germans living downwind from the ovens who swore they didn't know. You will have been complicit in World War 3, and would be indirectly responsible for all our deaths-- except for one key factor: that I have confidence in a communist revolution to stop that whole kit-n-kaboodle in its tracks.
|
|
|
