quote:

This time I'm scared US propaganda fuelled the first Gulf war. It will fuel this one too - and the risks are even greater Maggie O'Kane Thursday December 5, 2002 The Guardian I have a picture from the last Gulf war. It was taken in the basement of the Al Rashid hotel, the night the war started. The look on my face is one you might expect of a 28-year-old reporter at the centre of one of the biggest stories of my lifetime: earnest, excited and thrilled to be in Baghdad. Eleven years later, I'm on maternity leave and the news of an impending second Gulf war follows me around the kitchen. This time, I feel only a sense of intense danger as the Middle East lurches towards a possible chemical and biological war. The chances of Saddam Hussein using chemical and biological weapons if attacked are, according to the testimony of the CIA to the US Senate intelligence committee on October 7, "pretty high" - a scenario that even one of greatest hawks in US history, Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to George Bush senior, says would lead to meltdown in the Middle East. As of December 7, when Iraq is expected to produce its definitive dossier, there should be no illusions: no matter what Baghdad discloses, America and almost certainly Britain are going to war. The "material breach", if it does not happen by itself, will be manufactured, so wringing consent for the second Gulf war just as consent was manufactured with breathtaking cynicism in 1991. There were two glaring examples of how the propaganda machine worked before the first Gulf war. First, in the final days before the war started on January 9, the Pentagon insisted that not only was Saddam Hussein not withdrawing from Kuwait - he was - but that he had 265,000 troops poised in the desert to pounce on Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon claimed to have satellite photographs to prove it. Thus, the waverers and anti-war protesters were silenced. We now know from declassified documents and satellite photographs taken by a Russian commercial satellite that there were no Iraqi troops poised to attack Saudi. At the time, no one bothered to ask for proof. No one except Jean Heller, a five-times nominated Pulitzer prize-winning journalist from the St Petersburg Times in Florida, who persuaded her bosses to buy two photos at $1,600 each from the Russian commercial satellite, the Soyuz Karta. Guess what? No massing troops. "You could see the planes sitting wing tip to wing tip in Riyadh airport," Ms Heller says, "but there wasn't was any sign of a quarter of a million Iraqi troops sitting in the middle of the desert." So what will the fake satellite pictures show this time: a massive chemical installation with Iraqi goblins cooking up anthrax? The US propaganda machine is already gearing up. In its sights already is Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector. He's too much of a softie for Saddam, the former CIA director James Wolsey told the Today programme last week. His work is of "limited value". He was Kofi Annan's "second choice". What next? Blix's granny is Iraqi? He has a drugs problem? Meanwhile, in Britain, Jack Straw's new human rights dossier on Iraq is timed to coincide with the build-up. Convenient, eh? The second tactic used to get consensus for war in 1991 was another propaganda classic: dead babies. Then, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington, Nijirah al-Sabah, tearfully described how, as a volunteer in the Al Adnan hospital in Kuwait City, she had watched Iraqi soldiers looting incubators to take back to Baghdad, pitching the Kuwaiti babies on to "the cold floor to die". Except it never happened. The Filipina nurses, Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, who worked in the maternity ward of the Al Adnan hospital, had never seen Ms al-Sabah in their lives. Amnesty admitted they had been duped. Middle East Watch confirmed the fabrication, but it was too late: a marginal US congress had been swung to vote for war. George Bush senior mentioned the "incubator babies" seven times in pre-war rallying speeches. It was months before the truth came out. By then, the war was over. This time, we have yet to see what propaganda will be used to rally consensus for the second Gulf war by proving a "material breach". It is highly likely that Saddam Hussein maintains at least some chemical and biological capacity. In a war in which his own survival is unlikely (and already rumoured to be ill with cancer) Saddam Hussein has nothing to lose. If he knows his fall is imminent, what terrible legacy might he choose to leave behind? What better present to his extremist Arab brothers than an attack on Israel? And how will the US, Britain or Israel respond if their troops or cities come under chemical or biological attack? I n 1995, the Washington-based Defense News reported on the outcome of the then highly classified Global 95 Wargame, a high-level military exercise enacted at the US Naval War college. Global 95 played out a simultaneous threat from North Korea and Iraq. The North Korean situation was diffused, but Iraq attacked US troops in the region with biological weapons. Washington replied with a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. The main observation during the Global 95 experiment was just how quickly the situation escalated. But the greatest irony, and most important issue, is that although the war on Iraq may indeed get George Bush re-elected, it will not win the war on terrorism. It will instead fuel it. In 1998, I spent an afternoon with Abu Ziad, an elderly accountant in Baghdad. He recounted how, at 2am on February 13, 1991, two bombs had hit the Amiryia bomb shelter near his home. The first pierced the roof, slicing into the central heating tank and sending gallons of boiling water pouring over the women and children below. The second bomb, 15 minutes later, exploded with such force that he never had the chance to identify the bodies of his wife and four of their five children: Zena,14, Fuad, 12, Lena, seven and Sadaad, six. He remembers standing outside the shelter in the early morning and noticing the ankles of dead women and children marked by the red hot mattress springs they had fought to climb over to get out of the shelter before the second bomb dropped. The Abu Ziads of the second Gulf war will be seen on al-Jazeera TV giving their heartbreaking testimony to a new generation of disaffected and dispossessed young Muslim men from Palestine, Indonesia, the Middle East and Africa. And we can all hear the death chant of a hundred suicide bombers: Allahu Akbar. It's a high price to pay for another four years in the White House. I am not some naive pacifist. I supported intervention in Bosnia, the war in Kosovo and military intervention in East Timor. Baghdad is a city where terror hangs in the air in every home. Iraqis literally dare not speak Saddam Hussein's name. But now he is cornered, dangerous and possibly dying. Provoking him is criminally irresponsible and provoking him in order to secure a second presidential term is unforgivable. Remember the words of JFK to his brother Bobby, spoken in the ante-room of the Oval Office the night before the Cuban missile crisis, now declassified. "I have to do it, Bobby," said John Kennedy, explaining why he was facing up to the Soviets. "I'll lose the presidency if I don't." Krushchev had a way out. He ordered the Soviet ships to turn around. What would have happened if he had nowhere to turn? · Maggie O'Kane is editorial director of GuardianFilms. She was named European Journalist of the Year this week for its first documentary, Looking for Karadzic. [email protected]

think they're doing it this time too

___________________

.

quote:

Originally posted by arj1o1 think they're doing it this time too

Oh give me a break. What a bunch of stupid bullshit.

It's people like you who are gradually turning me into a hawk.

who do you trust more, the american government or saddam hussien?

and btw the word propaganda does not mean a lie
www.dictionary.com

quote:

prop·a·gan·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd) n. 1: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2: Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause:

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Under the Bush administration, I’m hard pressed to decide.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy who do you trust more, the american government or saddam hussien? and btw the word propaganda does not mean a lie www.dictionary.com

i dont trust any government to be honest... and my stance is non-violent so i dont have issues! YAY!

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer i dont trust any government to be honest... and my stance is non-violent so i dont have issues! YAY!

i am not asking whether or not you trust a government, but whether you trust one more then another... there is a difference in the two, and if you dont then i would say you are from the school of neutrality, one which i do not agree with.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

While it is true to some extent that the US government is more trustworthy than Iraqi one, it doesn't mean it is sufficiently trustworthy for me to believe everything they say. The satelite photos mentioned earlier are just one reason why you shouldn't trust everything that the government tells you. There are always two sides to the story, and they should both be listened to before making a conclusion.

I think US is really rushing into things without thinking much of the consequences here. If the US attacks Saddam, and Saddam retaliates by launching chemical weapons on Israel and kills millions of people, whose fault is it? Sure, Saddam did launch it and it's his fault, but it's also the fault of the US for provoking him to do so. Also I think we can be pretty sure Saddam won't attack without being provoked, because that would basically be a suicide. But if he knows he will fall within a few days, he might just as well fire a few missiles so that history will remember him.

And if something like that happens, what would Israel do in such a situation? I'm sure retaliatory strike would be on the way, maybe even a nuke. This could easily burst into a total middle eastern war. Most of the arabs are totally pissed at the US, and are just waiting for an excuse to start a jihad.
Don't forget how WW1 started. It didn't start by Germany declaring war on France or Britain, it started by a prince being assassinated in Bosnia, and then by Austrian declaration of war on Serbia. That was supposed to be a relatively minor war also, and soon whole world got involved.

Besides, those weapons have still not been found. Sure the US said they exist, but that's not a solid evidence. It's like accusing someone for a murder where only evidence is a story from a single eye-witness. That's enough to raise a doubt but it's not enough to make a ruling. If that were the case, a huge presedan would be made. If an attack on a country is justified only by indications and rumors, regardless of whether they're right or wrong, and additionally if that attack is not supported by the UN but is still considered legitimate, then basically any country can attack any other country without hard evidence, with same amount of legitimacy. The whole idea about preventive wars and the "I'll attack you because otherwise I'm sure you'll attack me" way of thinking doesn't make sense.

___________________
1+1=10

well i kind of trusted the British government, and then......
turns out a document they used as evidence linking Iraqi regime to terrorism was written by a university post-graduate as a little project, who still has his original copy, complete with several grammatical mistakes which are also present in the government document, matching his word for word evidence? a load of bollox.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 While it is true to some extent that the US government is more trustworthy than Iraqi one, it doesn't mean it is sufficiently trustworthy for me to believe everything they say. The satelite photos mentioned earlier are just one reason why you shouldn't trust everything that the government tells you. There are always two sides to the story, and they should both be listened to before making a conclusion.

true and after listening to both sides and look at the track records and evidence presented by both there is more validity to the american side, of course this is just my opinion

quote:

I think US is really rushing into things without thinking much of the consequences here. If the US attacks Saddam, and Saddam retaliates by launching chemical weapons on Israel and kills millions of people, whose fault is it? Sure, Saddam did launch it and it's his fault, but it's also the fault of the US for provoking him to do so. Also I think we can be pretty sure Saddam won't attack without being provoked, because that would basically be a suicide. But if he knows he will fall within a few days, he might just as well fire a few missiles so that history will remember him.

ok here is why I, as an israeli, am terrified by saddam. you said that saddam would not attack if not provoked, although that may be probably true it does not mean he is not a threat. since it is a given he can not be trusted and it is a fact that he has funded money to terrorist orginizations in israel then although he may not directly throw a chem tipped scud at israel he may do so indirectly through hamas or the islamic jihad, who without saddam could have never committed such an act. so in otherwords we've come to the original point where saddam is not to be trusted with the current WOMD programs he has or hasnt, and right now since saddam has proved he is not 100% willing to cooperate we must go in with force and make sure those programs are non-exsisting (and in the way liberate a whole country that in my heart i truely belive the majority of its populace would like to see saddam out of power and enjoy the freedoms and libirties we enjoy in the US)

quote:

And if something like that happens, what would Israel do in such a situation? I'm sure retaliatory strike would be on the way, maybe even a nuke. This could easily burst into a total middle eastern war. Most of the arabs are totally pissed at the US, and are just waiting for an excuse to start a jihad.

as i said this could happen even if america doesnt launch a war on iraq. so this is no excuse not too. also if, as you say, most the arabs are waiting to start a jihad excuse or no excuse, they shouldnt be in the first place (jihad = religious war as opposed to a political one)

quote:

Don't forget how WW1 started. It didn't start by Germany declaring war on France or Britain, it started by a prince being assassinated in Bosnia, and then by Austrian declaration of war on Serbia. That was supposed to be a relatively minor war also, and soon whole world got involved.

this is a good example of how something small can cause something major. it might not entail a US invasion of iraq to start a next world war, i could easly think of examples similar to that of WW1. heres one:
say for example arafat dies naturally all of a sudden. even if it was not an assasination, extremists would belive it was or maybe there would be a cover up to say it was. anyways the palestinians (ALL of the terrorist orginizations) would probably be pissed and launch a heavy armed assault on israel. in the ensuing chaos the hizbollah decides to attack israel from lebanon (with funding from iran). israel would then naturaly attack lebanon and occupy all of the palestinian areas. after attacking lebanon the entire arab world would be angry and join a coalition to stop israeli 'agression' saddam may be pissed enough to launch a scud or two seeing as israels demise is emint. of course the US would come to israels side and there you have it WW3...

so to sum it up using excuses such as, 'the whole arab world will send terrorists if the US attacks' or 'saddam would never launch an attack on anyone else' have no real bearing at the issues at hand.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

There's so many stuff that can be real, its not even funny. All this is coming to a point, that Im thinking of how corrupt this world is, and how it is building on interests. As predicted, there will be a time when countries will go to war with each other because of its needs. There will definetly be a war, the USA has to now to justify for all the military spends and actions. The USA wont back up just like that and loose all the money invested on all the military movement. There's so many points so true, yet scary. This is how I see it..


The US is giving time to UN so the US itself can buildup its troops in the middle east, so once they are ready, they will attack( within weeks is my guess ). Once that is done, all terrorists .. ( supposedly saddam fed Al Quaida ).. wont have any money , so the US and whoever is backing them up, will attack, and supposedly estabilize the region. Nice thing for Israel .. right ? ? .. so this is a must go to war for the Israeli people, since this is the view that I can see If I was one... but ... like this article posted said.. is all propaganda ? ? ... I dont doubt that the US hasent doen any. It has done it even with theyr own people. ( JFK case ) .. until today, no one knows what happened to JFK when he got into the emergency room. ...

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)