Sunday, March 30, 2003

All the links from This Is Hell are of interest this week;

Daniel Ellsberg, the guy that released the Pentagon Papers.

and

Truthout.org, an organization dedicated to truth...that's kinda vague, but you get the idea, rather liberal, etc.

I've heard of Electronic Iraq and Eletronic Intifada, but have yet to check them out. I know a bit about Voices in the Wilderness. I can't even say that I agree with all these groups, but it's good to see what's out there, here what the opposition is saying and know the facts rather than take the information your fed by the American media at it's word.

Monday, March 24, 2003

Coalition forces discovered Monday a "huge" suspected chemical weapons factory near the Iraqi city of Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad, a senior Pentagon official confirmed to Fox News. This has now been proven false. More quality reporting from FOX News Channel.

Little Green Football post about False Fox News Story

Little Green Footballs post about Internation Law and Geneva Convention

From this Salon News Article;

And then there is the liberation of the Iraqi town of Safwan, memorably described by New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins. "As hundreds of coalition troops swept in here just after dawn, the heartache of a town that has felt the hardest edges of Saddam Hussein's rule seemed to burst forth, with villagers running into the streets to celebrate in a kind of grim ecstasy, laughing and weeping in long guttural cries," Filkins wrote. "'Oooooo peace be upon you peace be upon you peace you oooooo,' cried Zahra Khafi, a 68-year-old mother of five, to a group of American and British visitors who came to the town shortly after Mr. Hussein's army had appeared to melt away. 'I'm not afraid of Saddam anymore.'


Natsocratic blogspot has linked BMA!

Reach Em High Cowboy Blog has linked BMA!

What are they saying? blog.

Here's what I posted on this entry at "what are they saying" blog.

You're trying to hard to herd all liberals into one pen. There are a lot of people opposed to this war for a slew of reasons, even if they don't all agree.

Since I work at a college radio station I see first hand some of the sillier or more repulsive reasons. Hey, I don't agree with a lot of them on many issues but I am still firmly opposed to this war.

I know how badly so many conservatives want to find the person the person the furthest to the left (Chomsky maybe?)and use that individual to indite the entire liberal populace. Sad to say it's working to some extent.

You're still wrong.


The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons, Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes the Truth about Globalization, Corporate Cons, and High Finance Fraudsters

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

For some odd reason Blowtorch Monkey Armada is having a lot of trouble loading on my computer, although I guess someone must be looking at it, right? Here are some links;

A blog that linked BMA

Major Barbara blogspot

All The News That’s Fit to Print? - The New York Times and Israel by Tom Gross - March 14, 2003, 9:00 a.m.

The Sum of All Fears - What you should and shouldn't worry about as we go to war.
By Robert Wright Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 9:25 AM PT

The past few days have been more than a little un-nerving. The war feels like a done deal and there is little the anti war crowd can do about it.

Thursday, March 13, 2003

The NOPEC bill link

From this interview reprinted;

Retired Colonel Mike Turner was General Norman Schwarzkopf's personal briefing officer during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. As part of MORNING EDITION's ongoing series of commentaries on a possible war in Iraq, he outlines a worst-case scenario for a US-led invasion.

General MIKE TURNER:

There's a saying in military circles: We always fight the last war. It means that too much focus on past enemy behavior can easily lead to misjudging an enemy capability in the future. So I asked myself today which war will this be: Desert Storm or Somalia? In 1991, we had four ironclad prerequisites for war with Iraq: a clear political end state, overwhelming force to achieve a quick and decisive victory, a viable Arab coalition to avoid empowering Arab extremists, and absolutely no Israeli involvement to avoid a global holy war.

In Somalia, we ignored the most critical of these lessons. Mission creep turned our original objective of humanitarian aid into simply `Get Aidid,' the Somali factional leader we were battling. We committed US troops to a high-risk military operation in an urban area with extraordinarily dangerous variables in play on the battlefield, and with insufficient firepower thanks to then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin.

Now we've firmly committed ourselves to war with Iraq, and our political objective? To get Saddam. The uniformed Joint Staff in the Pentagon strongly opposed this plan early on. It requires an attack with a force half that of Desert Storm against an entrenched urban enemy renowned for its ruthlessness in defending its own survival. The uniformed Joint Staff was overridden, yet in so many horrifying ways this operation resembles Somalia, not Desert Storm, only with nerve gas and biological weapons. And without Turkey as a base to launch a northern assault, a dual-pronged attack will be all but impossible.

Perhaps we can pull this off, but here's a far worse scenario that's at least as likely. Within hours of our attack, Saddam launches Scuds on Israel. Israel's right-wing government launches a full-scale attack on Iraq, creating a holy war nightmare. Saddam, threatened with his own survival, uses chemical and biological weapons and human shields just as he has in the past. He torches his own oil fields, thousands of his own people are killed. Photos of American soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US. The US is condemned by NATO and the UN.

The war ends within a few weeks, but the crisis deepens. The US is left to administer a political vacuum in Iraq. Iran is emboldened to help the Shiites in the south. Disease breaks out, food and water are contaminated and the cost of the war skyrockets. The US economy is dealt a body blow, but the administration can find no credible way out. Britain's Prime Minister Blair is voted out of office.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda, seeing an opportunity due to a shift in US focus, attacks a major US target. North Korea, emboldened by the distraction, ignores diplomatic efforts to restrain its development of nuclear weapons and begins to export weapons-grade plutonium to terrorists.

These are not remote possibilities, but in my view reasonable, possibly even likely outcomes. Thousands of American sons and daughters are about to go to war with Iraq. They will do their duty. They are, without exception, the finest, bravest people I know. May God bless them. I hope their destination is Baghdad and not Mogadishu.

EDWARDS: The comments of Mike Turner, a retired colonel and former policy planner for the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Mideast and east Africa.

Tuesday, March 04, 2003

The President'sBlog

JC General

Monday, March 03, 2003

A fascinating article in Salon - you really should read it especially if you have Salon Premium;

The whole week I spent in Pakistan, I scribbled many more far-fetched assertions. A mullah claimed the Taliban were moderate toward women. Destitute farmers said Israel attacked the World Trade Center. Unemployed young men maintained that the U.S. kept Osama bin Laden in a safe house, because we wanted a pretext to bomb Muslims. At the party with the silk rug on the wall, a doctor whispered that a few more terrorist attacks would level America's economy. His eyes danced when he said it.


Also I came across this site, Norman Finklestein. Sounds a like a self hating Jew - but still worth reading. I don't know what to make of this guy.