Good read on Iraq War for skeptics

[Michael Knight]

This was passed on by an F-15 driver currently in harms way. It would be nice to educate the vocal minority that are spewing stupidity in protests around the world. I am ALL for freedom of speech and the right to demostrate but it would be nice if these people actually knew what was going on. Pass it on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been deployed to Turkey for about 3 months now and am told I will be here "indefinitely." We aren't flying much, and there isn't a whole lot else to do right now, so I get to keep up with the news pretty well on satellite TV. This weekend, I was shocked and frankly pretty annoyed to see millions of people around the world protesting potential war in Iraq. Don't get me wrong; I don't disagree with anyone's right to do that. In fact, I encourage it if that is what they truly believe. It is just clear to me, based on the ridiculous comments they made to reporters and the carnival atmosphere of the marches, that these people have no idea what the actual facts of the matter are. If they knew the facts, I believe many would feel differently. Since there are probably some of "those people" among you and they apparently weren't swayed in the face of Colin Powell's evidence, let me present my perspective to you.

Many people out there think that we should just give the inspectors more time, that war should be the last resort. I agree with you--war should be the last resort. Trust me; it's my pink body on the line, not yours. The problem with the "more time" argument is that people are only taking into account the last three months of inspections. Do you realize that there have been UN inspections for a total of 9 out of the last 12 years? That's right, there have NOT been three months of inspections. There have been NINE YEARS of inspections. Do you really think they are working? They haven't turned anything up, but do you really, honestly believe that the Iraqis are not hiding anything? Do you really, honestly believe that inspections will find what they are hiding? How many YEARS of inspections would it take to satisfy you? I think nine is more than enough.

Based on Powell's speech alone, even a skeptic can see that the Iraqis know ahead of time where the inspectors are going and clean those sites out before the inspectors get there. We know for sure, FOR SURE, that the Iraqis have chemical and biological weapons. No question. The Iraqis continue to claim they don't have them. The inspections have not found them. "Then how could we know that, and why won't the government 'prove' it to me?" you ask. Intelligence is the answer. The reason you can't know HOW we know is that the way we know that would then be given up. We need the WAY we know that to be secret because we need those sources to continue to provide information so we can DESTROY the chem/bio weapons.

In a purely theoretical example, if we bugged a conference room where the Iraqi generals discussed where they were moving their weapons, and we told the world of the conversations we overheard there, the Iraqis are not stupid enough to keep talking in that conference room! We would then no longer have that information coming in. We may not be able to use that info to go destroy the chem/bio weapons. Since that is the REAL GOAL, it is far more important to accomplish that than to convince you. Intelligence is a simple thing to counter if the bad guys know how you are getting your information. The trick is keeping them from knowing your sources and methods. Therefore, the "good stuff" can't exactly be broadcast on the evening news just to satisfy you.

Many out there believe that the Iraqis MAY have chem/bio weapons, but don't really care because "they are only for self-defense. The Iraqis wouldn't actually use them."

Let me tell you about the Iraqis and chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein took power in 1979. In 1980, Iraq invaded its eastern neighbor, Iran. The resulting Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years. Iraq started it. They invaded Iran and then used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Iranian troops. They used chemical weapons against Iranian villages and civilians. Oh yeah, the soldiers he captured in that war became medical guinea pigs for chem/bio experiments. They all died as well. (Let's see, who else in history has used humans as guinea pigs for chemical weapons experiments? You can figure that one out¡K I digress.) "Well, that was war," you say.

In 1988, Iraq ordered chemical weapons used against a Kurdish village (all civilians) in northern Iraq. FIVE THOUSAND people died, SEVEN THOUSAND were wounded. For reference, note that 3500 were killed in the WTC attacks.

In 1991, after the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein ordered Iraqi troops to use chemical weapons against another Kurdish village in northern Iraq. He killed everyone in that village--3000 people. The Kurds were all civilians. They were all IRAQI CITIZENS. Saddam killed them because of ETHNIC HATRED. Think of the Kurds kind of like the Gypsies in Italy. The Turks, Iraqis, and Iranians all hate the Kurds. But let me say that again, he KILLED them because of ETHNIC HATRED: Women, children, old people. (Once again, sound familiar in history?) He doesn't care.

"Well," you say, "Iraq has been oppressed by sanctions since the Gulf War. Its people are starving. It's only natural for them to try to break free from these oppressive resolutions." (Once again, sound familiar in history?) Let me tell you about that. The UN authorized the Oil for Food Program after the Gulf War. This would allow Iraq to sell oil to get money for food and medicine for its people while economic embargos remained in place to force Iraq to disarm. International aid organizations have been sending food and medicine for years. Much of it is taken and immediately sold on the black market for cash. That cash is used to buy items (mostly weapons) prohibited in the Gulf War cease- fire agreement. Most of the rest sits in warehouses in Baghdad, undistributed to the Iraqi people. The Iraqi government refuses to hand it out because they want to be able to blame the plight of their people on the US. If the Iraqi people were to see that the US is sending them food and medicine, that ruins the argument.

Much of the money Iraq was supposed to use to buy food was diverted directly to Saddam Hussein himself. Since the Gulf War, Saddam has built himself forty palaces. That's right, FORTY PALACES! These are not just big houses. The total landmass of Saddam's new palaces totals about NINE SQUARE MILES! The palaces are filled with marble and gold and plenty of portraits of Saddam. Meanwhile, his people starve, and he doesn't care.

"We should be focusing on Al Qaeda," you say. "They are the real threat to us."

Well, Al Qaeda has strong ties with the Iraqi government (You're going to have to trust me on that), and Iraq is a haven for Al Qaeda leaders. Al Qaeda SEEKS chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Iraq HAS chemical and biological weapons and IS DEVELOPING nuclear weapons. They are now friends.

It doesn't take an Einstein to do the math here. Everyone wants to see a smoking gun. If there is a smoking gun, however, it is too late. The gun has gone off. The smoke will be dead bodies. What do you want-- pictures of Saddam playing golf with Osama?

After September 11th, everyone asked why we couldn't piece it all together beforehand. Why couldn't the government see it coming? What do you think the "smoking gun" would have been back then? Some guys took flying lessons? Some guys got on airplanes with box cutters? Before the actual hijacking, there was not "proof" of anything! Would anyone have supported invading Afghanistan and rooting out Al Qaeda based on that? NO WAY. The smoking gun? Well, you know that by now.

"Exhaust diplomacy," you say. First of all, there have been TWELVE YEARS of diplomacy to try to make Iraq disarm.

Did you know that Iraq has not fully complied with a single UN resolution in the last twelve years? That's right-- not just this stuff about the inspectors. ALL SEVENTEEN resolutions have been ignored.

Do you honestly believe that anything we do diplomatically will convince Saddam to disarm?

He is only interested in staying in power and is playing the game well to keep himself there.
„X We have tried talking to him.
„X We have tried economic and trade sanctions.
„X We have tried military action.
„X We have tried no fly zones.
„X We have tried inspections.
What else do you suggest? Maybe if we just say "pretty please," he'll comply¡K

"Don't act unilaterally," you say.

Last time I checked, ¡§unilaterally¡¨ means "by ourselves." In case anyone hasn't noticed, France and Germany are the only allies NOT on board. The rest of NATO IS on board. The rest of Europe IS on board. Australia IS on board. Poland, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Bulgaria, Latvia, the Netherlands are ALL on board. Over FORTY COUNTRIES have offered military assistance of some sort. Even Jordan, an ally of Iraq, has offered assistance. I'm not quite sure how that translates into ¡§unilateralism.¡¨ Several countries have already deployed forces to take part in any potential military action.

continued....

 

[Michael Knight]

... continued

This is not the first time the French have balked at striking out at terrorism. In 1986, there were several terrorist attacks across the globe, including the bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. Several of the attacks had been in France, including a nightclub bombing that killed many American servicemen. US intelligence pinpointed the source of the terrorist attacks as Libya. In response, President Reagan ordered military air strikes on terrorist camps inside Libya. Some of the fighters were to launch out of bases in England. Reagan called then-French President Francois Mitterand just to ask permission for our fighters to over fly France on the way to Libya. To go around France meant a 16-hour round- trip flight for the pilots. Mitterand refused, despite several of the terrorist attacks having happened INSIDE FRANCE. He then had the gall to tell Reagan: "Don't let it be just a pinprick (the air strikes). Really let them have it."

The French, of all people, should know the consequences of inaction. Wishful thinking has cost them their country twice in the last eighty years. The problem with the antiwar activists is that THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

„X They don't know any of the FACTS about Iraq and what has happened there.
„X They have paid no attention to the last twelve years and cannot tell you the contents of a single UN resolution.
„X They cannot tell you the names of the military operations that support those resolutions.
„X They would be shocked to know that Americans get shot at virtually EVERY DAY enforcing those resolutions.
„X They have no idea about the sacrifice America has been willing to make for those resolutions to work.
„X They would know it if they ever decided to pay attention.
„X They would know it if they sought out the actual facts. It's in the newspaper every day. It's on the news every night. They seem to have no idea about the real situation in Iraq.
It seems that they just want to ¡K complain that the government couldn't keep them safe on Sept 11, and then complain when the government now leans forward to keep them safe in a post Sept 11th world. If we don't do something, there WILL be another Sept 11th and it will be ugly. There may be one regardless of what happens in Iraq, but that can't keep us from acting on this.

There are people out there that want to attack us with weapons of mass destruction. There is no way to stop every terrorist attack. There just isn't. But we HAVE TO stop the terrorists from getting chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. We can't afford to look back one day and realize we could have cut them off at the source.

The problem really is wishful thinking. Everyone (including Bush, including me, including anyone else who would bleed in war) wishes there will be no war. We hope there is another way. I¡¦m afraid, though, that that is just wishful thinking. Sometimes there is no choice. Sometimes it has to get ugly for the greater good.

Look at history for a guide. I've alluded to it several times already. In case you haven't figured out my historical comparison to Hussein, it's Hitler.
„X In the mid-1930s, Hitler began to rearm Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
„X The League of Nations said "stop."
„X Hitler said "okay," but he kept on arming.
„X The League of Nations said "stop" again.
„X Hitler ignored them. Then he invaded Poland.
„X The world community said "Hey, don't do that."
„X Hitler said "If you give me this and this and that, I'll stop.
„X The world said "Okay, whatever you want. Anything is better than war. Just stop."

It was called "Appeasement." We know what happened next. It was the worst example of diplomacy in history. That mistake cost the world MILLIONS OF LIVES. World War II could have been stopped cold before it started simply by standing up to the bully. Everyone was so afraid of war that they let Hitler get away with whatever he wanted. They gave him an inch and he took a mile. No one stopped him, so he kept on going.

Sound familiar? I'm not suggesting that Saddam Hussein will start invading his neighbors again and take over the Middle East. Note the "again" part--he's already invaded two of his neighbors and had set himself up to invade a third before we stopped him in 1990. However, if he gets a nuclear weapon or if he gets long-range missiles to deliver chemical weapons, he will be the biggest menace the world has ever known. He will be able to wipe countries off the face of the earth with one button, and he will blackmail the world to get what he wants. Will everyone be so afraid of war then that they'll give him whatever he wants?

If the United Nations does not have the backbone to support its own resolutions and ensure compliance, then it will go the way of the League of Nations. Why would anyone ever comply with Security Council resolutions if there are no consequences for non-compliance? Do you want to live in that world?

"I just don't trust Bush," you say. Why is everyone so willing to trust the Iraqis and so unwilling to trust our own American leaders?
„X The Iraqis say they don't have anything.
„X They say the aluminum tubes are not for nuclear purposes, despite all the evidence.
„X They say they forgot exactly how they destroyed thousands of gallons of Vx nerve gas and anthrax, but "trust us; we destroyed them way back in 1991."

And so, many people say "Didn't you hear that? They said they didn't have any. Everyone pack up and go home now. We're safe. They SAID so."

Why does everyone want so badly to believe a man and a regime that has¡K
„X invaded and gassed its neighbors,
„X gassed its own people,
„X has ties to and harbors terrorist groups,
„X defies EVERY SINGLE UN RESOLUTION against it,
„X tortures political foes,
„X lets its own children starve ON PURPOSE,
„X and has a history of pathological lying on almost every matter?

Are you so cynical about the American government that you would trust the Iraqis before you would trust us? You may not like our leaders. Fine, vote them out if you feel that way. But how can you honestly stand there and believe that the IRAQIS are telling the TRUTH and OUR leaders are LYING to you?

Many people say this is about oil. Those people embarrass themselves. They seem to have no grasp of the facts. They have nothing to back up their opinions, so they blame the conflict on ¡§oil.¡¨ This has nothing to do with oil. Our leaders are not evil. This is not a conspiracy to boost their friends' bank accounts. We do not boost our economy by paying for war with American lives. Anyone who thinks that hasn't really thought this through as carefully as such an important matter requires.

I don't want a war. Trust me; I don't. I want Saddam Hussein to go into exile and live out his days in Argentina or Paraguay or wherever evil dictators go to live. I want that more than anything. But when he doesn't leave, I will be on the front edge of the charge across that country because I know the facts. I know the risks, and I will take them because I know the consequences to the world if I do not.

I am glad that Americans don't take war lightly. They shouldn't. But before marching and protesting and singing their songs, why don't they actually look at the facts?

Let me tell you, it was a big morale killer this weekend to see all those people running around with poster board signs and singing anti-war songs from the 60¡¦s. I don't want blind patriotism. That doesn't help anyone. What I do expect is that any American who feels strongly enough to try to influence foreign policy, which--let's face it--is the goal of demonstrations, would actually have a clue about the subject they are trying to protest.
Right now there are 150,000 of your fellow Americans in the Middle East and another 100,000 on the way. If we get the call, we will steamroll across that country like the world has never seen. Civilian casualties will be painstakingly avoided, but there will be no mercy on the Iraqi leaders or its military. It will be an overwhelmingly violent campaign. It has to be for the greater good.

The quicker the war, the fewer overall casualties occur. History has taught us that, too.

How will you feel when you hear the news that the war has begun? Will you be angry because you feel it is out-of-control American imperialism? Will you feel bad for the Iraqi people (who, by the way, are about to become free for the first time)? Or will you feel a mix of pride and sadness for the Americans--pride that Americans are risking their lives to protect you and sadness because some will not come back?

I frankly don't care how you feel. I'll do my job either way. But don't you owe it to yourself to know the truth about the world around you? You don't see American troops deserting and running to Canada do you? There are a lot of your fellow Americans that feel strongly enough about this to risk their lives for this cause. Maybe they are on to something.

T-BONE

 

[scubabri]

good post. It's good to see a fresh perspective on this. After a while, the media's sensationalism of the issues detract from what's really going on.


Brian

 

[DoinTime]

good post. It's good to see a fresh perspective on this. After a while, the media's sensationalism of the issues detract from what's really going on.

A fresh perspective? That's the same one-sided story that all pro-war advocates have been uttering since the start, and factually incorrect in many instances I might add. A fresh perspective would be the view of an Iraqi citizen that has been living in Iraq. I guess thats why we are bombing the shît out them though. If we eliminate all other perspectives ours will certainly be the right one.

 

[canadflyau]

Maybe you will run into an Iraqi like I did at the airport. He said he prayed to his god that we would lead the free nations to free the Iraqi people, which include the rest of his entire family that was still over there. When I asked him about the risk posed to his family by a war, he responded that he would trust the ability and strategics of our military before hoping that SH would stop massacring his own people. He even believed, from his experience during the last conflict, that the majority of the casualties would be caused be SH himself against his own to try to sway opinion and make it look like the US killed many innocent lives.

I guess that is why the people in the liberated cities thus far are dancing in the streets and helping the military pull down pics and effigies of SH.

 

[Slug]

facts

DoinTime,

Would you please back up your "factually incorrect" assertion.

 

[scubabri]

I'd like to see it too.. beings that I am on the fence about this.

Brian

 

[amaineiac]

A fresh perspective? That's the same one-sided story that all pro-war advocates have been uttering since the start, and factually incorrect in many instances I might add. A fresh perspective would be the view of an Iraqi citizen that has been living in Iraq.

Well here ya go.
I highlighted the part you might find interesting.


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r
Lucky Break for Jordan
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
UPI Editor at Large
From the International Desk
Published 3/21/2003 2:46 PM
View printer-friendly version


AMMAN, Jordan, March 21 (UPI) -- An unintended coalition of U.S. air power and Baghdad taxi drivers kept a potential flood of Iraqi refugees away from the Jordanian border Friday. The U.N. refugee agency and the Jordanian government were expecting a quarter of million people to stream across the border. Jordan is already home for 400,000 Iraqi refugees from the first Gulf War.

U.S. fighter bombers took out the only gas station between Baghdad and the border, a distance of 600 kilometers. The one-camel village of Ramadi was also the only phone booth on the desert road and a Jordanian was killed by the explosion of the gas station while making a call to his parents in Amman to let them know he was on his way home.

At the same time, the few taxi drivers in Baghdad willing to run the risk of making it to the Jordanian border are charging $1,500 per passenger. Very few Iraqis can afford the fare. As a result, only some 300 TCNs (Third Country Nationals) reached the border post since the bombing started. They were mostly Sudanese and Egyptians. There were no Iraqis among them. They had to hump their luggage 1.8 miles across no-man's-land on foot to Al Karama, the first Jordanian outpost. From there, they were bused to the tent city at the Ruwaished refugee camp, 36 miles inside Jordan.

The Sudanese and Egyptian governments agreed to pay for Jordanian Airlines charters to fly their nationals home.

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

Iran informed the UN refugee agency Friday that it now has 3,000 Iraqi refugees. Syria said its numbers were "insignificant." The picture could change for the worse as the United States steps up the bombing of Baghdad with a "shock and awe" campaign designed to stun and collapse what's left of the regime. Acute food shortages are expected before U.S. troops liberate Baghdad. U.N. officials in the Iraqi capital radioed today that some 500 disadvantaged children were suffering from malnutrition and they were rounding whatever supplies they could find.

Prior to the war, some 700 tanker trucks shuttled daily between both countries. Jordan consumes 12,000 tons of oil a day. All of it comes from Iraq at discounted prices under the U.N. oil-for-food program. Some 2,600 and 1,500 Iraqi tankers have been involved in the overland oil traffic. Movement was down to 140 tankers the day before the bombing started. It stopped abruptly two days ago.

Jordan had made plans for a quick switch to tankers anchored off Aqaba. Qatar had pledged to replace whatever shortfall Jordan experienced.

Jordanians see a good omen in the daily arrival of almost 1,000 white storks. They alight near the Safeway on one of Amman's seven hills, a pit stop on their way from Africa to their east European breeding grounds. About 100,000 storks are expected at the Safeway for the next month, numbers not seen in 10 years, and a sign of ample rain and a good harvest.

The official and private views of some ranking Jordanian officials appear to be diametrically opposed. Officially, they condemn the war and say they are "deeply troubled" about the repercussions of the war on the region, and describe the situation as "critical."

Privately, and not for attribution, they say the United States is developing a new opportunity for the Middle East. Said one former prime minister, "If the U.S. can get a new Iraq to recognize Israel as a quid pro quo for a final Palestinian settlement, others will fall into place -- Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states. Iran would then have to pull back its military support for Hezbollah."

Another prominent Jordanian voice said that while Iraq has created a rift between America and its allies, and in Europe itself, the Palestine question -- provided President Bush is serious about a settlement roadmap, without either side allowed to nickel and dime it to oblivion -- could be a reconciling factor. Which all sides now need." The official consensus is that the United States can win wars on its own. But it cannot win the peace. A former foreign minister said, "I can only hope that the $10 billion the U.S. now plans to provide Israel will have a geopolitical price tag."



Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

 

[datafox]

I'm anti-war, and also anti Saddam.

While Saddam is a awful, dictator, so are the Saudi's...and we support the Saudi government very much. In fact, the Saudi government in many cases is considerably worse than the Iraq government. They kill their own, treat women horribly, and all that other good stuff dictators do.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has supported many dictatorial governments in recent history, and we still support many of these governments today. Look at Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and many countries in Africa just to name a few. Believe it or not, Saddam Hussein attained power with covert help of the United States government. At the time, he was seen as a person who would be hostile to the Iranians (and he was).

We are not fightning this war because we want to liberate the Iraqi people. Quite honestly, our government doesn't care enough about it's own people, let alone a bunch of Arab's in some far away desert. Bush is currently pushing through a tax plan that would cut current Veteran's Benefits. The plan is going through the Senate right now. On one side he is saying how proud he is of his servicemen, but when they come back from war they won't have the same benefits to come back to.

I find it very questionable that educated Christians support this war. Every Christian church (with the exception of the Southern Baptist Convention) is opposed to this war.

Time will tell if Bush was correct in his analysis of Iraqi threat or not. So far the Iraqi's have put up little resistance. The few Scud's they have fired have not had any ordinance on them of any kind.

I suggest you look up a speech President Bush gave in St. Louis in the year 2000. Then he was talking about what a threat Iraq was, before 9/11, before fundamentalist terrorism hit our shores. Re-reading the speech tells me that regardless of the current situation Bush would be pushing this war.

Just like his father, his presidency has failed. He has done little to improve the economy of this nation. He is probably one of the most anti labor presidents in the history of the country. There is nothing like a good war to raise support (his Dad had a 90% approval rating during The Gulf War), but just like his dad hopefully we will send him back to Texas in a couple years.

 

[Michael Knight]

DoinTime & DataFox,

The Iraq people want sadam out. This is about Iraq, not the other Arab countries.

You certainly have the right to speak your mind. Many men and women that have served in the past and continue to serve in our Armed Forces have ensured this right. I don't plan on doing any arguing with y'all as my momma taught me not to argue with idiots.

It is a shame that you don't get it but there are many others out there like you... fortunately you are still in the minority. I thank God that our country, and the other countries with us, are strong enough to do what is right and currently not filled with idiots like yourselves.

Mike