Michael Knight
helping the innocent
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 103
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....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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....