War in October?
July 30, 2002 9:45 AM Subscribe
War in October? This wednesday and thursday the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be meeting to discuss war plans in Iraq. Hans von Sponeck was the coordinator of the United Nations' oil-for-food program for seventeen months and Scott Ritter was the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq. These guys have been shut out of much of the media. Listen to what they think.
I look forward to reading the entire war plan when it appears on the front page of Friday's New York Times.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 10:01 AM on July 30, 2002
posted by Shadowkeeper at 10:01 AM on July 30, 2002
This all lends more credibility to tamim's theory that Saddam is a CIA agent. Isn't it sort of unheard of to so publicly plan an invasion, or is Iraq such a pushover that we could give them the time, date, and location, and still waste them?
posted by insomnyuk at 10:02 AM on July 30, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 10:02 AM on July 30, 2002
Just in time for the elections!!
Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant
(my version of the right wing mighty wurlitzer media tools)
I trust the Duhbya regime chicken hawks will be on the front line defending Poppy's honor. Just wouldn't be prudent to have young kids from poor families doingCheney's Dr. Evil's dirty work. It's plain to see that the honorable thing to do is have Duhbya himself leads the troops to victory in downtown Baghdad the very first day of conflict!
posted by nofundy at 10:05 AM on July 30, 2002
Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant Wag the Elephant
(my version of the right wing mighty wurlitzer media tools)
I trust the Duhbya regime chicken hawks will be on the front line defending Poppy's honor. Just wouldn't be prudent to have young kids from poor families doing
posted by nofundy at 10:05 AM on July 30, 2002
If there are any republicans on this site, could you please tell me one good thing that the puppeteers pulling the strings of Duh-bya has accomplished since he was not elected?
posted by zekinskia at 10:09 AM on July 30, 2002
posted by zekinskia at 10:09 AM on July 30, 2002
Huh, strikethrough seems to be going to far... "Duh-bya" should not be stricken.
posted by zekinskia at 10:10 AM on July 30, 2002
posted by zekinskia at 10:10 AM on July 30, 2002
These guys have been shut out of much of the media.
I can't speak for von Sponeck, but I've seen that Scott Ritter guy on every newshow or channel at least twice. (But that really doesn't have to do with the main issue. Carry on).
posted by stifford at 10:12 AM on July 30, 2002
I can't speak for von Sponeck, but I've seen that Scott Ritter guy on every newshow or channel at least twice. (But that really doesn't have to do with the main issue. Carry on).
posted by stifford at 10:12 AM on July 30, 2002
Yeah you're totally right, I've seen him several times as well. I assumed he was being discredited these days, but sorry for the oversight. Never seen von Sponeck though.
posted by aLienated at 10:24 AM on July 30, 2002
posted by aLienated at 10:24 AM on July 30, 2002
JAR JAR: In response to the direct threat to the Republic from the Confederacy of Independent Systems, I propose that the Senate gives immediate emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor.
Who can deny these are exceptional times? Exceptional times demand exceptional measures! Exceptional measures demand exceptional men!
ORN FREE TAA: We won't support a dictator.
SHOUTS of agreement.
JAR JAR: That is the sentiment every one of us agrees with! And when the shadow of war has dispersed and the bright day of liberty has dawned once again, the power we now give to the Supreme Chancellor will be gladly, and swiftly returned. Out ancient liberties will be restored to us, burnished even more brightly than before!
posted by Perigee at 10:28 AM on July 30, 2002
Who can deny these are exceptional times? Exceptional times demand exceptional measures! Exceptional measures demand exceptional men!
ORN FREE TAA: We won't support a dictator.
SHOUTS of agreement.
JAR JAR: That is the sentiment every one of us agrees with! And when the shadow of war has dispersed and the bright day of liberty has dawned once again, the power we now give to the Supreme Chancellor will be gladly, and swiftly returned. Out ancient liberties will be restored to us, burnished even more brightly than before!
posted by Perigee at 10:28 AM on July 30, 2002
Here´s another link to Ritter's stand on the upcoming "war".
posted by sic at 10:38 AM on July 30, 2002
posted by sic at 10:38 AM on July 30, 2002
Gee whiz. I sure hope the guys at the DoD are reading the Guardian, Britain's answer to the National Enquirer. The Guardian's legions of well-informed and non-biased military analysts could no doubt teach them a thing or two.
Okay, enough sarcasm.
Seriously, haven't any of you considered that the military is using goold old Psy-Ops? There are so many conflicting stories about whether or not we're going to attack Iraq that Saddam probably doesn't know whether to s**t or go blind -- and that' sjust what the military wants. If we do attack Iraq (and I'm against it, just for the record), you can be sure that the operation will be very different from what you're reading in the media.
Contrary to popular belief (especially on MeFi), most military people are not stupid bullet-heads with war on the brain. There are people working for the NSA and CIA who are probably some of the smartest people in the world. Whatever you think you know about either of these agencies, it's probably not even close to the full story.
For an interesting background on the NSA, check out The Puzzle Palace, and it's sequel Body of Secrets.
posted by mrmanley at 10:57 AM on July 30, 2002
Okay, enough sarcasm.
Seriously, haven't any of you considered that the military is using goold old Psy-Ops? There are so many conflicting stories about whether or not we're going to attack Iraq that Saddam probably doesn't know whether to s**t or go blind -- and that' sjust what the military wants. If we do attack Iraq (and I'm against it, just for the record), you can be sure that the operation will be very different from what you're reading in the media.
Contrary to popular belief (especially on MeFi), most military people are not stupid bullet-heads with war on the brain. There are people working for the NSA and CIA who are probably some of the smartest people in the world. Whatever you think you know about either of these agencies, it's probably not even close to the full story.
For an interesting background on the NSA, check out The Puzzle Palace, and it's sequel Body of Secrets.
posted by mrmanley at 10:57 AM on July 30, 2002
most military people are not stupid bullet-heads with war on the brain.
I agree: and that's why it's shaping up to be Powell-and-the-generals against the chickenhawk civilians running the Pentagon. Strange, that, no?
posted by riviera at 11:14 AM on July 30, 2002
I agree: and that's why it's shaping up to be Powell-and-the-generals against the chickenhawk civilians running the Pentagon. Strange, that, no?
posted by riviera at 11:14 AM on July 30, 2002
Chickenhawks? Oh, you mean the neocons running the show nowadays. I prefer to call them "the Dark Side."
posted by insomnyuk at 11:29 AM on July 30, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 11:29 AM on July 30, 2002
most military people are not stupid bullet-heads with war on the brain
Just because those angencies and our government - even this adminstration - is full of brilliant minds does not somehow equate to their decisions being in our best interest, and certainly does not equate to a humane or just foreign policy. I don't understand your point. If your point is that we have the military capability to destroy Saddam and his people, then it's not much of a point, nor do I understand how it relates to the links or comments in this thread. I'm not floored. If you are suggesting we should trust our leadership to serve anyone but defense contractors, the energy lobby, and the military, then you're a goddam fool. A lot of people will die and have died needlessly because of our imperialistic mid-east policies. Iraq is about oil and big business.
posted by aLienated at 11:36 AM on July 30, 2002
Just because those angencies and our government - even this adminstration - is full of brilliant minds does not somehow equate to their decisions being in our best interest, and certainly does not equate to a humane or just foreign policy. I don't understand your point. If your point is that we have the military capability to destroy Saddam and his people, then it's not much of a point, nor do I understand how it relates to the links or comments in this thread. I'm not floored. If you are suggesting we should trust our leadership to serve anyone but defense contractors, the energy lobby, and the military, then you're a goddam fool. A lot of people will die and have died needlessly because of our imperialistic mid-east policies. Iraq is about oil and big business.
posted by aLienated at 11:36 AM on July 30, 2002
Scott Ritter was the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq. These guys have been shut out of much of the media.
So I take it you aren't aware of the fact that Scott Ritter has been employed by Fox News as an analyst?
posted by ljromanoff at 12:35 PM on July 30, 2002
So I take it you aren't aware of the fact that Scott Ritter has been employed by Fox News as an analyst?
posted by ljromanoff at 12:35 PM on July 30, 2002
The Guardian article is quoting largely from a recent washingtonpost article. Here is another scenario mentioned in the article which I find particularly disturbing:
"A major goal of U.S. policy in a post-Hussein Iraq would be to prevent the creation of an independent state in the heavily Shiite south, or an independent Kurdish state in the north. To fulfill U.S. promises to Turkey and Arab states that Iraq would remain whole, a defense official said, "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a campaign against the Kurds and Shiites." That would represent a striking reversal of administration policy of supporting the Kurds against Baghdad."
A campaign against the Kurds and Shiites?! That would be a total betrayal of our own allies!
posted by homunculus at 12:46 PM on July 30, 2002
"A major goal of U.S. policy in a post-Hussein Iraq would be to prevent the creation of an independent state in the heavily Shiite south, or an independent Kurdish state in the north. To fulfill U.S. promises to Turkey and Arab states that Iraq would remain whole, a defense official said, "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a campaign against the Kurds and Shiites." That would represent a striking reversal of administration policy of supporting the Kurds against Baghdad."
A campaign against the Kurds and Shiites?! That would be a total betrayal of our own allies!
posted by homunculus at 12:46 PM on July 30, 2002
homunculus: our country has a long history of opposing the disunification of nations, betrayal or no. It's that Yankee attitude, we can't let those silly third worlders have freedom, after all.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:56 PM on July 30, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 12:56 PM on July 30, 2002
aLienated:
So I have to ask: what's your alternative? The U.N.? Don't make me laugh. A box of chocolates and a Hallmark card delivered to Baghdad with a sincere request that Saddam please stop developing nukes and biological weapons?
I think a war in Iraq is the wrong thing to do, but I think the military also recognizes this: hence the disinformation campaign now being waged in the press. The obviously want Saddam to think we're about to attack -- it serves our purposes to keep him nervous and looking over his shoulder.
Let me put the president's hat on you, aLienated: how would you deal with Saddam?
posted by mrmanley at 1:27 PM on July 30, 2002
So I have to ask: what's your alternative? The U.N.? Don't make me laugh. A box of chocolates and a Hallmark card delivered to Baghdad with a sincere request that Saddam please stop developing nukes and biological weapons?
I think a war in Iraq is the wrong thing to do, but I think the military also recognizes this: hence the disinformation campaign now being waged in the press. The obviously want Saddam to think we're about to attack -- it serves our purposes to keep him nervous and looking over his shoulder.
Let me put the president's hat on you, aLienated: how would you deal with Saddam?
posted by mrmanley at 1:27 PM on July 30, 2002
A box of chocolates and a Hallmark card delivered to Baghdad with a sincere request that Saddam please stop developing nukes and biological weapons?
I think a war in Iraq is the wrong thing to do...
Well, I guess love gifts are out...our friends in the U.N being such incredible pansies, like they were in Korea and Desert Storm...can't really see John Wayne or Bruce Willis wearing a U.N. beret...that's for sure.
And our friend here doesn't like war in Iraq...hmmmm...what to do...what to do...
Has anyone considered starving the entire country and/or refusing to sell them medical supplies so that they'll just get all weepy and concerned about their dying children? Just checking... Sure there are humanitarian concerns, but hell, why worry about humanitarian concerns when it's our interests at stake, right?
It's been tried, you say? Wow...how humane of us...er, how effective has it been?
Maybe, just maybe, the U.$. shouldn't have armed Saddam to begin with. Duh. Oh yeah, I know. I know. It was in our interests to have done so then. Now it's in our interests to have Yet Another War Front.
Maybe Saddam really is "evil".
And maybe, just like Saddam, it is our interests that are immoral. Maybe our interests are really the unquenchable desires of a spoiled people and a slothful, bloated way of life. More development, more growth, more capital, more oil....more, more, more.
Maybe we are "evil" too.
Sure makes the idea of going to war to secure our interests on a par with that little incursion into Poland in 1939...or the creation of the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, 1941...
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:29 PM on July 30, 2002
I think a war in Iraq is the wrong thing to do...
Well, I guess love gifts are out...our friends in the U.N being such incredible pansies, like they were in Korea and Desert Storm...can't really see John Wayne or Bruce Willis wearing a U.N. beret...that's for sure.
And our friend here doesn't like war in Iraq...hmmmm...what to do...what to do...
Has anyone considered starving the entire country and/or refusing to sell them medical supplies so that they'll just get all weepy and concerned about their dying children? Just checking... Sure there are humanitarian concerns, but hell, why worry about humanitarian concerns when it's our interests at stake, right?
It's been tried, you say? Wow...how humane of us...er, how effective has it been?
Maybe, just maybe, the U.$. shouldn't have armed Saddam to begin with. Duh. Oh yeah, I know. I know. It was in our interests to have done so then. Now it's in our interests to have Yet Another War Front.
Maybe Saddam really is "evil".
And maybe, just like Saddam, it is our interests that are immoral. Maybe our interests are really the unquenchable desires of a spoiled people and a slothful, bloated way of life. More development, more growth, more capital, more oil....more, more, more.
Maybe we are "evil" too.
Sure makes the idea of going to war to secure our interests on a par with that little incursion into Poland in 1939...or the creation of the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, 1941...
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:29 PM on July 30, 2002
Yeah, I'm sure we're just exactly as bad as the Nazis. Dude, how in the hell do you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously after watching you drop trou and lay a steamer like that in the punchbowl?
posted by kindall at 4:15 PM on July 30, 2002
posted by kindall at 4:15 PM on July 30, 2002
ljromanoff: I don't watch Fox news and I already apologized for the oversight.
mrmanley:
"nukes and biological weapons" ???
please elaborate. a link would be great. anything to substantiate that claim whatsoever would be wonderful, seeing as it has been refuted thoroughly by Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector who is the main subject of the post.
posted by aLienated at 5:58 PM on July 30, 2002
mrmanley:
"nukes and biological weapons" ???
please elaborate. a link would be great. anything to substantiate that claim whatsoever would be wonderful, seeing as it has been refuted thoroughly by Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector who is the main subject of the post.
posted by aLienated at 5:58 PM on July 30, 2002
"...There are people working for the NSA and CIA who are probably some of the smartest people in the world...."
&
"....it serves our purposes to keep him nervous and looking over his shoulder...." - mrmanley.
O shit, I'm proper worried now. Keep the man with his finger on the button (of whichever WMD you care to name) anxious, insomniac, and intimidated.
Those same smartest people in the world have a wonderful track record in installing warrior kings all around the world in the last 50 years at least. Including, IIRC, Saddam himself, and the previous freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Phillipines, Chile...
A wonderful list, if incomplete. Mind that tiger don't bite you on the ass, eh....
Remember what Marx said about Military Intelligence...
posted by dash_slot- at 8:20 PM on July 30, 2002
&
"....it serves our purposes to keep him nervous and looking over his shoulder...." - mrmanley.
O shit, I'm proper worried now. Keep the man with his finger on the button (of whichever WMD you care to name) anxious, insomniac, and intimidated.
Those same smartest people in the world have a wonderful track record in installing warrior kings all around the world in the last 50 years at least. Including, IIRC, Saddam himself, and the previous freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Phillipines, Chile...
A wonderful list, if incomplete. Mind that tiger don't bite you on the ass, eh....
Remember what Marx said about Military Intelligence...
posted by dash_slot- at 8:20 PM on July 30, 2002
« Older Under-Ease: | D-O-S attack disables RIAA site. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by aLienated at 9:55 AM on July 30, 2002