POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

[max401]

Quote from msfe:

Iraq Shows Drone Powell Called Dangerous


Wednesday March 12, 2003 10:10 PM

AL-TAJI, Iraq (AP) - Iraq on Wednesday displayed a drone aircraft that resembled a large model plane, disputing U.S. claims that it represents a grave danger.

Part of Washington's rush is based on its fears that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, and U.S. officials have cited as proof what they called an undeclared drone that Iraq was developing to spread chemical and biological weapons.

But Iraq showed journalists Wednesday what it said was the drone. Made mostly of balsa wood and held together with screws and duct tape, it had two small propellers attached to what looked like the engines of a weed whacker.

The aircraft is guided by a controller on the ground, who has to be able to see the plane to direct it, Latif said. He said the controls have a range of five miles - a fraction of a U.N.-imposed limit of 93 miles.

Interesting, but where did Powell get his info? You conveniently left this out of your quote -- from the same article:

"Blix mentioned the drone in a 173-page written list of outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons programs last week. While small, Blix said, drones can be used to spray biological warfare agents such as anthrax. He said the drone hadn't been declared by Iraq to inspectors."

 

[Madison]

 

[msfe]

Madison, thanks for the picture

interesting to see how SH conveniently positioned two MF biological warfare agents in the optical axis to hide the huge undeclared Anthrax canisters that Blix didn´t mention in his 173-page list of outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons programs last week.

 

[max401]

Antiwar protesters trash 9/11 memorial American flags burned and slashed
By Debbie Pfeiffer Trunnell, Staff Writer

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~1234836,00.html

LA HABRA -- Antiwar protesters burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs at a Sept. 11 memorial that residents erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard days after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and have maintained ever since.

However, although officers witnessed the vandalism Saturday afternoon, police did not arrest three people seen damaging the display because they were "exercising the same freedom of speech that the people who put up the flags were,' La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said Monday.

"For this to be vandalism, there had to be an ill-will intent,' he said.

Rees said in order for police to take any action, the owner of the fence would have to file a complaint.

Jeff Collison, owner of The RV Center in La Habra, who has allowed residents to add patriotic symbols to the fence on his property, said he just might do that.

"Their free speech stops at destruction of private property. If they are allowed to come on my property and burn flags, does that mean I can go to City Hall or the police station and light their flags on fire because that is freedom of speech? To me, this is vandalism,' Collison said.

Some residents Monday hung signs criticizing those who destroyed the display.

Tracey Chandler, a Whittier mother of four who has maintained the spontaneous memorial since it was created by other area residents soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said she was shocked by the destruction.

"They trashed 87 flags, ripped 11 memorial tiles made by myself and my children out of the ground and glued the Bob Dylan song to a sign that said, 'America, land of the brave, home of the free,' ' she said.

 

[Babak]

These cheese eating surrender monkeys have set a new low.

They reject the new British compromise proposal before the Iraqis!

:eek:

 

[msfe]

The war dividend

Washington's apparent plans for remaking Iraq provide nagging doubts about what will come after the shooting stops, says Randeep Ramesh

Thursday March 13, 2003

The Bush administration has never shied away from flaunting its business credentials. But the news that Halliburton, which used to be run by Dick Cheney, is in line for a slice of a $900m (£560m) contract from the American government, now co-run by Dick Cheney, to start rebuilding Iraq raises questions that need to be answered.

That Mr Cheney left the top job at a multinational for a lessor role in a larger enterprise, America, is not the problem. The issue is whether the sensitive policy of war and peace has been bent to suit the interests of US business, especially those with close ties to the Bush administration.

If George Bush sees remaking Iraq as a possible profit-centre for American Inc, then his vice-president is ideally placed to advise him. Halliburton, under the stewardship of Mr Cheney, often dealt with governments regarded by US foreign policy and American public opinion as more foe than friend. It profited from dealings with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries and also held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $70m in oil production equipment to Iraq in the nineties.

The use of the chaos of war to impose order on Iraq is a decision that involves weighing difficult moral, ethical and legal issues that threaten to destabilise the fragile world order. It should not become just another business opportunity.

The 25 million people of Iraq deserve better, especially considering the scope of the humanitarian assistance that will be necessary, in the event of war, to feed, house, clothe and care for refugees, the wounded and ill in Iraq, as well as those who will inevitably flee to neighbouring states. It is clear that someone, should the bombing start, will need to reconstruct Iraq, a country eking out an existence on top of the second largest oil reserves in the world. But the largest nation-building effort since the second world war should not just be restricted to American firms.

Nation-building would be better co-ordinated through the United Nations, not designed by the American government and then handed over to US firms. Democratic senator Joseph Biden pointed out this week that reconstruction would need "billions of dollars" and "tens of thousands of personnel over several years".

Victory, he told senators, would be "won away from the battlefield" and that the UN was necessary to win over hearts and minds. In an appeal to the administration, the senator hoped that "we will provide the UN with the funds necessary to do their part".

The problem is that Mr Cheney is the pointman for the president on postwar Iraq. The vice-president has been sketching out a road map for the political and economic reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq. In the long term, the thinking is that there will be an Iraqi-led government. In the short term, an American military commander will run the country, with the help of a civilian administrator.

There is little said about multilateral actions to reconstruct the country or of a big role for the United Nations. Worse it is Mr Cheney's hardline thinking on North Korea, Yasser Arafat and a remade, democratic Middle East which recur in Mr Bush's speeches. This should concern America's friends, who must be wondering where the $30bn required to rebuild Iraq will come from before the US strikes elsewhere.

The obvious answer is from the country's vast oil reserves. This mineral wealth was certainly a consideration in the first Gulf war. A measure of the truth of this can be found in Queen Noor of Jordan's recently published autobiography. In it she describes how George Bush Snr dismissed the efforts of her late husband, King Hussein, to resolve that crisis peacefully. "I will not allow this little dictator to control 25% of the civilised world's oil," he told the Jordanian monarch.

Mr Cheney was a hawkish defence secretary in the first Bush administration. More a nationalist than an imperialist, he cannot be accused of dragging America into Iraq this time for oil. There is plenty of evidence to suggest weapons of mass destruction are his primary concern. However, Mr Cheney's America First policy may well ensure US companies will exploit Iraqi oil for the "benefit" of its liberated people.

This could just about be squared with statements by Colin Powell, who has said the country's hydrocarbon wealth will be held in "trust for the Iraqi people". But the effect would see US multinationals profiting at the expense of their Russian, French and Chinese rivals.

This is an appealing thought to many in the White House, largely run by oil people from an oil state. There has been much effort by Tony Blair, sensing a political minefield, to dispel any thoughts that Iraqi oil is anybody's but Iraq's. A pity then that British companies think the scenario so plausible that they have asked 10 Downing St to ensure they are well placed to make money from a possible black gold rush.

American policy is creating a new world and it is determined that its economic and military supremacy will remain unchallenged. This may force the pace of European integration - to produce a postnational entity with enough clout to tackle America. It may also see nascent industrial powers covertly try to acquire the kinds of weapons that will deter acts of US aggression.

Pax Americana will then become less about global fraternity and more about the projection of US power to protect and strengthen investment and export opportunities for its industries abroad.

 

[max401]

Quote from msfe:

The war dividend

It is clear that someone, should the bombing start, will need to reconstruct Iraq, a country eking out an existence on top of the second largest oil reserves in the world. But the largest nation-building effort since the second world war should not just be restricted to American firms.

Well, guess what? French, German and Russian firms need not apply.

 

[msfe]

US turns to Swiss firms amid bioterror fears

The United States is turning to Swiss biotech companies as it prepares to defend itself against a possible attack involving biological weapons.

http://www.nzz.ch/2003/03/13/english/page-synd1691955.html

 

[max401]

Quote from msfe:

US turns to Swiss firms amid bioterror fears

The United States is turning to Swiss biotech companies as it prepares to defend itself against a possible attack involving biological weapons.

http://www.nzz.ch/2003/03/13/english/page-synd1691955.html

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on those pharmas.

 

[Madison]

Quote from Babak:

These cheese eating surrender monkeys have set a new low.

They reject the new British compromise proposal before the Iraqis!

:eek:

well, thank God we have the valiant Congress to step in and take action. no better way to hit the French where it hurts than to disinter American soldiers.

good to see that they are taking time off from planning war and wasting money to improve the lives of their constituency and focus on the really important stuff...

--------------

Bill Targets U.S. Troops Buried in France
JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - In another swipe at the French, a Florida congresswoman has proposed that the government pay for families who might want to bring home from France the remains of Americans who fought and died in the world wars.

"I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today," Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite said in introducing legislation providing financial help for the reburial of veterans from the two world wars.

Earlier this week, the chairman of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, ordered that House restaurants change their menus to read "freedom fries" instead of French fries. French toast would also become freedom toast.