Prev topicNext topicHelp

Topic 23 of 96: Gulf War 1.1?

Mon, Nov 16, 1998 (08:51) | Paul Terry Walhus (terry)


In case no one has noticed, Saddam Hussein isn't allowing any more UN
inspections, and the U.S. is preparing to bomb Iraq in retaliation.
Support from erstwhile "allies" is luke-warm, at best, although it is
notable that the French, at least, are not making objections, either.
Isreal, meanwhile, is breaking out the gas masks on the assumption
that Iraq will "get back" at the U.S. by throwing Scuds loaded with
who-knows-what at Israel.

Sanctions have killed over a million Iraqis since the end of the war.
Most Iraqis probably think that air strikes (Clinton is obviously
afraid to actually send in ground forces) won't kill or maim
more than are already dying from malnutrition and curable diseases.


29 responses total.

 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 1 of 29: Tim Guenther  (TIM) * Mon, Nov 16, 1998 (21:51) * 1 lines 
 
THere is only one way to end this and insure that it won't happen again anytime soon. NUKE THEM. Turn the whole country into a sea of glass, and any other nation will think twice about doing this to us. Do not send in ground troops. One American life is worth more than everything living in Iraq.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 2 of 29: Wolf  (wolf) * Tue, Nov 17, 1998 (09:59) * 3 lines 
 
wait, wait, wait! why punish the innocent people living under the rule of a tyrant?
they don't know he's a tyrant, but we do. and wouldn't nukeing them have ramifications?
i.e. fallout????


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 3 of 29: Tim Guenther  (TIM) * Tue, Nov 17, 1998 (13:17) * 2 lines 
 
fallout can be controlled. I am not talking punish. I am talking eradicate. You are 100% correct. Nuking them would have long lasting ramifications. No other third rate country would dare to defy the United States for quite some time. Terrorists using third world countries as bases would become unwelcome over night, All the harassment of Israel would stop overnight. If we had done this to Libya, when we did the air strike, this situation with Iraq would not be happening. As far as the other Mid-East coun
ries go, split Iraq's oil amongst them and none of them will say a word.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 4 of 29: Wolf  (wolf) * Tue, Nov 17, 1998 (20:52) * 3 lines 
 
so, how does one go about controlling a nuclear strike? we do have allies in that general area. (ok, i'm not versed in politics and all that, OBVIOUSLY) but
i don't understand why so many people think nukeing them is the answer. (for
any conflict)


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 5 of 29: Tim Guenther  (TIM) * Tue, Nov 17, 1998 (22:30) * 2 lines 
 
When you nuke someone, they never bother you again. Other people in similar situations, start re-thinking their position. To put the how in perspective: you can nuke the capitol building, and leave the white house relatively un harmed, and Arlington, VA would be unscathed. That tight enough for you? I hope so, because that is as good as it gets right now. Aren't "Enhanced Radiation Devices" wonderful? Fallout? Next to nonexistant, with half-lives of the elements measured in minutes. This is known as
a tactical nuke, as opposed to strategic nukes, which, by treaty, we've destroyed most of.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 6 of 29: Wolf  (wolf) * Wed, Nov 18, 1998 (10:28) * 2 lines 
 
ok, so you're a truck driver now that you've retired from covert ops, right? (you
do know that i'm teasing, right? *toothy wolf grin*)


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 7 of 29: Tim Guenther  (TIM) * Wed, Nov 18, 1998 (16:49) * 1 lines 
 
I was never covert. I was assigned to G-2, III Corps. Four years. Giving detailed briefings was a very small part of my job.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 8 of 29: Wolf  (wolf) * Wed, Nov 18, 1998 (20:04) * 1 lines 
 
that's it, 4 years? not 20? no retirement????


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 9 of 29: Tim Guenther  (TIM) * Wed, Nov 18, 1998 (21:55) * 2 lines 
 
I was in for 6 years. Two years were spent on other assignments. When you work where I was, you get a real close look at the quality of leadership at the top.
The thought of going to war with these people leading was enough to scare the hell out of me. Most of our senior leadership was extremely inept.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 10 of 29: Ray Lopez (ratthing) * Thu, Nov 19, 1998 (08:35) * 6 lines 
 

a friend of mine is an O4 in the navy doing medical research. he
says the same thing. his view is that the only reason the US is
such a global superpower is that the military leaders in other
nations are just more fucked up than the ones we have!



 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 11 of 29: Tim Guenther  (TIM) * Thu, Nov 19, 1998 (13:19) * 1 lines 
 
He is right about that. But the situation is volitile, it could change overnight.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 12 of 29: Autumn Moore  (autumn) * Thu, Nov 19, 1998 (22:03) * 1 lines 
 
And fortunately it has.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 13 of 29: Tim Guenther  (TIM) * Fri, Nov 20, 1998 (04:03) * 1 lines 
 
I assume by fortunately, we got better, not they got better.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 14 of 29: Autumn Moore  (autumn) * Sun, Nov 22, 1998 (22:31) * 1 lines 
 
I meant that the pressure is off because Iraq consented to the UN inspections.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 15 of 29: Tim Guenther  (TIM) * Sun, Nov 22, 1998 (22:51) * 1 lines 
 
Temporarily anyway.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 16 of 29: Autumn Moore  (autumn) * Sun, Nov 22, 1998 (22:56) * 1 lines 
 
As you (or Ray) said, the situation can change overnight.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 17 of 29: Tim Guenther  (TIM) * Sun, Nov 22, 1998 (23:23) * 1 lines 
 
Unfortunately, that is very true.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 18 of 29: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Mon, Nov 23, 1998 (07:07) * 3 lines 
 
60 Minutes showed a few of Saddams 40 or more palaces. The sanctions are
making the power elite much richer because they control all the smuggling
now. Sanctions are making the rich richer and killing off the poor.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 19 of 29: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Fri, Dec 18, 1998 (18:14) * 11 lines 
 

Cyber-terrorism: Threat or Menace?

Yes, right now all Saddam can do is sit in his bunker and spew
over-heated rhetoric. But soon it may be possible to trash the U.S.'s information
technology systems in a way that'll make the Y2K bug look like a crashed
floppy disk.

For more info:
http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9812/18/terrorism.idg/index.html



 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 20 of 29: What's happenin' in the news? (sprin5) * Fri, Oct 13, 2000 (07:54) * 1 lines 
 
Saddam has troops on the move, opportunizing on the US Navy ship blowup and the Middle East events yesterday. Meanwhile, oil prices skyrocket and the Northeast is hit with a heating oil crisis. Not to mention the plummeting stock market.


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 21 of 29: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Tue, Jun 19, 2001 (08:48) * 20 lines 
 
Saddam Rattles His Saber
By News Analysis by John K. Cooley ABCNEWS.com

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his two powerful
sons have been rattling sabers at the United States as Baghdad ramps
up the rhetoric.

As the United Nations (news - web sites) debates an overhaul of
sanctions against his embattled country, Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein's saber rattling against the United States appears to have
reached a fever pitch.


While successfully dodging the U.N.-imposed sanctions against Iraqi
oil exports, Saddam and his two sons and heirs, Qusay and Uday, have
been talking and acting as though Baghdad was actually preparing for a
new armed confrontation with the West.





 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 22 of 29: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sun, Oct 14, 2001 (08:42) * 176 lines 
 
The 9/11 - Iraq connection is still very much alive.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=99399

We may yet have to deal with this.

14 October 2001
The intelligence agents watching thought nothing of the friendly greeting
exchanged between two Middle Eastern men at Prague's Ruzyne airport in
June 2000. Of the pair, one was under constant surveillance as a suspected
organiser of terrorist operations. A diplomat in the Iraqi embassy, he had
been the subject of a tip-off. They watched each time he left the embassy,
heading to the headquarters of Radio Free Europe, the US government
broadcaster. His interest in the building did not make sense, they
reasoned unless he was going to bomb it.

Like all meetings involving Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani, his warm
welcome to the smart, clean-cut Middle Eastern man at first aroused
suspicion.

But Mohamed Atta appeared on no wanted list and besides, he could not be
the bomber of Radio Free Europe since he was only stopping off in Prague
for 24 hours. Atta was booked on a flight to Newark. The Czech security
agents could relax: this was not their man.

He was a friend, perhaps, of Mr Al-Ani's from the old days, taking the
opportunity of a stopover to catch up. And besides, as they now point out,
Mr Al-Ani saw lots of people that was his job and there were other
Middle Easterners in Prague giving them more concern than Mr Atta. But
more and more, investigators now believe, the Prague connection was a key
link in the chain behind the attacks in New York on 11 September.

They suspect the meeting with Mr Al-Ani established Iraqi help for Atta,
the hijackers' leader, to plan his attacks. They believe he was provided
with a passport, courtesy of Iraq, while in Prague. As for other later
meetings between Atta and Mr Al-Ani, and another hijacker and the Iraqi
diplomat, all observed by Czech intelligence but not thought worth
following up, the investigators are left speechless.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course. If they knew then what they
know now, 11 September could have been avoided. But it was not like
that. Mr Al-Ani's subsequent expulsion from Prague for "activities
incompatible with his status as a diplomat" in April this year did not
trigger alarm. Iraqi diplomats were being turfed out of lots of countries
round the world and his target was thought to be the offices of Radio Free
Europe, not the towers of the World Trade Centre.

In all, Czech intelligence has admitted, Atta and Mr Al-Ani met three or
four times in the Czech Republic. In addition, officials in London and
Washington suspect Mr Al-Ani met one of the other hijackers, again in the
Czech Republic. The hijackers' liaison with Mr Al-Ani has split the
alliance in two, between officials who would like to see Baghdad pay the
same price as Kabul and those who would prefer it to be kept out of the
picture, for fear of widening opposition in the Arab world. In the US, the
debate is more or less polarised between the Pentagon and State
Department, with the former taking a hawkish stance.

The dispute has reached petty, bizarre levels, with reports circulating in
Washington that Pentagon officials have asked a former CIA chief to
prepare a report indicting Iraq. James Woolsey, President Clinton's CIA
director from 1993-94, is understood to be compiling evidence to present
to the officials, and ultimately to President Bush. Mr Woolsey has not
confirmed the role, saying he is on record as believing "the US government
should look into the issue of Iraqi involvement in terrorism". If Mr
Woolsey does find evidence of Iraqi complicity, the Bush administration
will be torn. So far, its strategy has been to warn Iraq of dire
consequences if it tries to help the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's
al-Qa'ida organisation. Last week, John Negroponte, the US ambassador to
the United Nations, gave the message personally to Mohammed Douri, his
Iraqi opposite number. "There will be a military strike against you and
you will be defeated," Mr Negroponte is understood to have told Mr
Douri. The warning also reflects concern that Iraq may try to flex its
military muscle in the Middle East during a period when US eyes are on
Afghanistan.

Mr Douri was left under no illusion that any attempt to aid anti-American
forces in Afghanistan, to use weapons of mass destruction or to launch
military operations against the Kurdish minority in Iraq or against its
neighbours would result in an instant US armed response.

After contacting Baghdad, Mr Douri had a second meeting with Mr Negroponte
in which he denied any Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida or the Taliban. "We have
had no relation, in the past or now, with Osama bin Laden or the
Taliban," Mr Douri said.

Mr Negroponte has also written to the UN Security Council, putting the
members on notice that the US may retaliate against other state sponsors
of terrorism. This is taken as a clear reference to Iraq.

In the Middle East, Israeli officials have constantly talked up Iraq's
involvement, while Jordan has played it down. There is a worry, though,
among members of the Blair government opposed to moving against Iraq that
Mr Bush is intent on finishing the job his father started. They see any
evidence of Iraq being behind 11 September as giving Mr Bush the
justification he needs to stick to the Negroponte letter and to remove the
blot from his father's legacy.

Unfortunately for them, and alarmingly for all of us, there is mounting
evidence of an Iraqi role in the suicide attacks. Senator Orrin Hatch, a
senior Republican on both the Senate intelligence and judiciary
committees, and a recipient of high-level briefings since 11 September,
said he is "very confident" that Iraq played a role in 11 September. He
refused to elaborate but added: "Iraq has been harbouring these terrorists
for a long time ... I believe that Iraq is ultimately going to be proven
to have been a part of this."

Investigators are convinced Mr bin Laden did not have the financial and
logistical capacity to organise 11 September. There is some truth, they
acknowledge, in the Taliban assertion that he was holed up in the Afghan
mountains, unable to draw upon the resources necessary to mount such an
onslaught. Everything they are coming across points to the participation
of intelligence machinery from a state, probably Iraq. The amount of false
documentation the hijackers carried suggests they must have been sponsored
by a state: one individual on his own, no matter how powerful, could not
have arranged all those bogus IDs and passports.

There has been one relatively recent reported sighting of Mr bin Laden in
Baghdad, in 1998. Giovanni Di Stefano, the lawyer to the late Serbian
warlord Arkan, has been quoted saying that he met Mr bin Laden in the
lobby of the Al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad while he was negotiating a
contract to represent Iraqi Airlines in Yugoslavia and Italy.

At the time, Mr bin Laden did not enjoy anything like the profile he does
now. According to the Di Stefano account he met a stranger in the lobby
who introduced himself as Osama bin Laden. They made polite conversation
and went their separate ways. It was only later that the lawyer realised
whom he had met. Experts pour scorn, however, on the notion that Saddam
and Mr bin Laden would team up. The Iraqi dictator has been savage in his
treatment of fundamentalist Muslims in Iraq and he does not share Mr bin
Laden's devout views. On the other hand, their shared hatred of America
may have made them forget their differences.

Vince Cannistraro, the CIA's former counter-terrorism chief, said Baghdad
made an overture to Mr bin Laden in December 1998. Saddam was apparently
so impressed by the bombings that year of the two US embassies in East
Africa that he sent Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, to
Afghanistan to meet Mr bin Laden. The CIA believed Mr Hijazi offered Mr
bin Laden and al-Qa'ida, then being pursued by the Americans, a permanent
refuge in Iraq but the offer was refused.

Iraq has consistently denied any involvement in 11 September, accusing the
US and Britain of using the atrocities to settle old scores. "The US and
Britain know very well that Iraq has no relation whatsoever to what
happened in the United States and no relation whatsoever to the parties
accused of doing it," said Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri.

Nevertheless there are other links between Iraq and previous terror
attacks. One of the men on President's Bush 22 "most wanted" list of
suspected terrorists was questioned in the wake of the first attack on the
World Trade Centre in 1993. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a second-generation Iraqi
immigrant from Indiana, was questioned at length after the bombing, which
caused extensive damage to one of the towers and killed six people.

The FBI asked him about his flatmates in Jersey City, many of whom were
later indicted for involvement in the bombing, about his contact with
explosive chemicals and about his relationship with Ramzi Yousef, later
identified and convicted as the operation's mastermind.

Nevertheless he was released and allowed to leave the country because the
FBI thought it had no case against him. He is now in Iraq.

In the face of this evidence the real dilemma for the Bush-Blair axis will
come once the Taliban are defeated and Mr bin Laden and his al-Qa'ida
members in Afghanistan are captured, dead or alive. If the allies' promise
to pursue international terrorism is maintained, argue hard-liners in
Washington and London, then Saddam Hussein, who has already displayed a
desire to construct weapons of mass destruction, must be next.

The matter is yet more complicated because five of the 22 "most
wanted" are thought to live in Iran. They are headed by Imad Mughniyah,
head of special operations for the Lebanese group Hizbollah, who already
had a $2m reward on his head in the US. He is wanted in connection with a
series of incidents, including the kidnap, torture and murder alleged to
have been at his own hands of the Beirut CIA chief William Buckley and
the abduction and seven-year confinement of the American Terry Anderson.



 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 23 of 29: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Fri, Sep 20, 2002 (06:34) * 32 lines 
 
Ex - U.N. Inspector: Iraqi Arms Letter 'Very Snakey'
Reuters
September 18, 2002
Filed at 8:18 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former chief U.N. arms inspector Richard Butler
Wednesday dismissed Iraq's offer to resume inspections as ``very
snakey,'' saying it failed to guarantee unfettered access.

``This letter has a big black hole in it with respect to the
conditions under which inspections will be conducted,'' Butler, who
headed the U.N. Special Commission to disarm Iraq from 1997 to 1999,
said in an interview with CNN.

Butler's tenure at UNSCOM was marked by repeated disputes with the
Iraqi authorities over access to suspected arms sites. His inspectors
left in 1998, just before a U.S.-British bombing campaign aimed at
punishing Iraq for its perceived stonewalling on inspections.

``'Come back to the country without conditions' sounds good,'' Butler
said, referring to a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan
delivered by Iraq Monday.

``But what we really needed to hear is that you can inspect without
conditions, that is you can go anywhere, anytime. It did not say that,
that is a black hole. That is a significant omission,'' Butler said.
``It is a very snakey letter.''


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-butler.html




 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 24 of 29: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Fri, Sep 20, 2002 (07:22) * 8 lines 
 
Remember, "it's the economy stupid?"

Friday, September 20, 2002; Page A28


THE SHOWDOWN with Iraq is prompting understandable worries about its effects on the economy. The possibility of disruption to oil shipments from the Persian Gulf has pushed energy prices up, with Saddam Hussein's promise to allow in weapons inspectors undoing only part of the "fear premium." Lawrence Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, has suggested that a war might cost between $100 billion and $200 billion -- this at a time when the federal budget is already overloaded. To people who oppose the war, it is tempting to cite these economic strains as additional reasons to avoid it. But this would be to miss a larger point. The real economic questions raised by the administration's foreign policy concern the longer term, not the one-time shock to oil prices or the budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42089-2002Sep19.html


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 25 of 29: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Thu, Oct 10, 2002 (20:55) * 7 lines 
 
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20021010_2118.html

"The House overwhelmingly approved on Thursday a compromise $355.4 billion
defense bill brimming with money for new destroyers, helicopters and
missiles and granting President Bush most of the Pentagon buildup he
requested following last year's terrorist attacks."



 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 26 of 29: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Wed, Oct 16, 2002 (22:00) * 1 lines 
 
With 100% of the vote in and 100% for Saddam, I'd have to say this election was "too close to call", wouldn't you?


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 27 of 29: anon  (visitor) * Mon, Nov  4, 2002 (10:15) * 3 lines 
 
For anyone not interested in a war on Iraq, you may want to participate here...

http://www.shinybluegrasshopper.com/nowar/


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 28 of 29: Stacey   (stacey) * Wed, Nov  6, 2002 (13:43) * 1 lines 
 
With last night's election results in... looks like those of us not on the war bandwagon will be sorely disappointed...


 Topic 23 of 96 [news]: Gulf War 1.1?
 Response 29 of 29: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Thu, Nov  7, 2002 (07:19) * 1 lines 
 
Can you spell "inevitable"? 9/11 has changed the whole tone of American politics and Americans are still smarting from this incident. Thus, the results we saw a couple of nights ago.

Prev topicNext topicHelp

news conference Main Menu