Lindaland
  Global Unity
  "War-of-Choice Distraction" (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   "War-of-Choice Distraction"
proxieme
unregistered
posted January 12, 2004 05:44 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From today's news summary:

The LAT and WP stuff a report from the Army's War College concluding that the "war on terror as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly its parameters should be readjusted." The report calls the invasion of Iraq a "war-of-choice distraction," and says focusing on terrorism writ-large risks setting the U.S. "on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States." The report, written by a professor, isn't officially endorsed by the college, which the Post calls "the Army's premier academic institution." But the director of the in-college institute that published it didn't shy away from it: "The article really, really needs to be considered."

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 12, 2004 06:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Since the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein, Iran, a terrorist state has agreed to formal and independent inspections of it's nuclear facilities. Libya has confessed to having chemical and biological facilities and nuclear research facilities pointed at developing nuclear weapons. North Korea is increasingly anxious to cut a deal to shut down their weapons grade uranium enrichment program and permit unfettered inspection.

The US is exactly where it needs to be to combat terrorism, in the middle of the Middle East with sufficient military forces. The US is also doing the right things to combat terrorism by going after terrorist regimes and that lesson isn't lost on Iran, Libya and North Korea. They get it, loud and clear unlike some here who second guess every move the US makes to identify terrorists, their training camps, funding, supporters and sanctuaries.

Just leave them alone they say and they won't be a problem for the US. That's exactly what Clinton did for 8 years and the result was 9/11. During Clinton's 8 years in office, The World Trade Center was bombed, 2 American embassies were bombed in Africa and the USS Cole was bombed, all by terrorists. The "leave them alone" strategy obviously doesn't work.

There are those who want to turn the war on terrorism into a political issue. It isn't, it's a security issue for the US and the President is charged with protecting the US and US citizens.

jwhop

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted January 12, 2004 07:13 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jwhop - Did you catch 60 Minutes this Sunday?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 13, 2004 11:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nothing really new or exciting in what O'Neill said on 60 minutes. He got a courteous hearing from the President where the President took the time and listened to all his ideas regarding the economy without interruption.

Those in any administration cannot be in basic opposition to the economic or foreign policy of the administration and stay in their posts. The moral and ethical thing to do is resign when one is opposed the basic policy put forth by the President. O'Neill chose to stay on board and snipe at the policy.

The President's policy of across the board tax cuts proved to be the engine which is now fueling the biggest expansion of the American economy in more than 2 decades and O'Neill was proven wrong.

Regarding the "Administration Policy to Remove Saddam Hussein," that has been the policy of the United States since 1998. Nothing new there either. The difference is that Clinton gave lip service to the policy, as usual, and President Bush acted on it in the wake of 9/11.

Another revelation that isn't a revelation at all is the best that can be said about the "60 Minutes" piece.

Tuesday Jan. 13, 2004; 9:34 a.m. EST

Clinton, Congress Ratified 'Secret Bush Plan' to Depose Saddam


It turns out that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's so-called bombshell revelation that the Bush administration had a "secret plan" to depose Saddam Hussein before 9/11 wasn't such a secret after all.

In fact, not only did plans for "regime change" in Iraq NOT originate with the Bush White House, the "sinister plot" was actually ratified by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton a full three years before President Bush came to Washington.

According to Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, "The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was passed by an unanimous Senate and a near-unanimous House," after which Mr. Clinton certified it as the law of the land with his signature.

What the Journal didn't note was how bold Clinton officials were about their plans to topple Saddam.According to a report in Newsweek just three months ago, after Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, "the U.S. government convened a conference with the [Iraqi National Congress] and other opposition groups in London to discuss 'regime change.'"

In Jan. 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even appointed a special representative for transition in Iraq, Frank Ricciardone, who reportedly had "a mandate to coordinate opposition to Saddam." Said Albright at the time: "He will be assisted by a team that will include both a military and a political adviser with extensive on-the-ground experience in the region . . . With the aid of Frank Ricciardone and his team, we will persist in helping the Iraqi people re-integrate themselves into the world community by freeing themselves from a leader they do not want, do not deserve and never chose."

Two months later, the Clinton administration's plans for a post Saddam Iraq were already well underway, with State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin explaining to reporters: "What we're trying to do . . . is strengthen an Iraqi opposition movement that can lay out solid plans for the post-Saddam recovery in all sectors of national life."

As the Washington Times noted at the time, "President Clinton has said that getting rid of Saddam is a major U.S. objective."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/13/101255.shtml

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 13, 2004 11:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
By the way, Jeffrey Record is the author of the essay you brought up. His view is just that, his view and is not endorsed by the "War College." It was published as a courtesy in the spirit of academic freedom.

"His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the US government.
But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said. Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom."

Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."

Another example of the pundits being wrong as terrorist regime after terrorist regime are throwing in the towel, renouncing their WMD programs and accepting inspections of their facilities. The reasons are clear. There is a superb Coalition military force in the Middle East, which is the base of terrorist operations, and they got the message of Afghanistan and Iraq loud and clear. There can be no large scale terrorist operations without the support of governments to shelter, train and fund them. The days of government sponsored terrorism are numbered as are the regimes who continue the practice. That's the lesson of Afghanistan and Iraq.

jwhop

IP: Logged

Nackie
unregistered
posted January 18, 2004 02:33 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."

Oh, good to know that your top officials have open minds about very important issues, and are willing to look at different sides of a story. Good to know that people with differing views are not talking to a wall...

Nackie


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 18, 2004 11:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm just happy to see some common sense in an administration for a change; an administration that recognizes a threat when it exists and knows what to do about it.

The old shopworn notion that every idea, no matter how nutty, deserves a hearing and due consideration is thankfully, dead.

IP: Logged

Nackie
unregistered
posted January 19, 2004 05:37 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize Bush and Co. wrote that article...then the official is right, maybe he shouldn't read it!

Nackie

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 19, 2004 11:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hello Nackie

Your comment is a little obtuse. Jeffery Record is not part of the Bush Administration.

Beyond that, I don't care what his politics are, left, right, center or the extreme fringes. Anyone suggesting the war against the terrorists and the nations who support, equip, train, shelter and fund them should be scaled back has, in my opinion, their head in a place it doesn't belong.

Since the terrorists and the terrorist supporting nations have shown there is no way to peacefully coexist with them, the only viable alternative is to exist without them.

jwhop

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 19, 2004 01:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You GO guy!!!!

IP: Logged

Ra
Moderator

Posts: 80
From: Atlanta
Registered: May 2009

posted January 20, 2004 04:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hmmm ... you know, I am probably even more "conservative", politically and fiscally, than JW (if you can believe that! ), and my views concerning the war on terrorism would probably be a mirror image of his if not but for one thing, or perhaps two ... I suspect the "war" is not what it appears, and I do not believe that bin Laden or his organization were truly behind 9/11.

I bought the whole story up until I heard the report that authorities had found the passport of one of the highjackers resting right on top of the rubble. Yeah, right. Can anyone even calculate the odds on that happening? After that revelation, the holes in the official story became much more apparent, and their (government) actions began to speak even louder ... the Left and the Right.

Anyway, I think JW's arguments are perfect, given the basis of the official story - the Left cannot intellectually compete. I simply disagree with the validity of the basis, and that goes for the Democrats as well.

Have a nice day!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 21, 2004 12:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lots of theories about 9/11. Our government did it, (CIA), the Israelis did it to get the US involved in the Middle East, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see a website devoted to the theory space aliens did it.

bin Laden says he did. Planned, organized and sent the terrorists off to do it. I see no reason to call him a liar. Confession is perhaps good for the soul but in this case, it's likely to lead to a loss of life expectancy.

Let's look at this logically. It would take some really stupid and clumsy operatives in government to plan a deception where the passports of the supposed perpetrators are found at the scene of a horrific fiery crash. I don't believe the CIA, FBI or NSA are staffed with stupid clods who would put a plan like that into operation. They're a lot more devious than that.

Hey Pidaua

jwhop

IP: Logged

Ra
Moderator

Posts: 80
From: Atlanta
Registered: May 2009

posted January 21, 2004 04:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
But we, the public, have bought it - hook, line, and sinker - just like we are taught to do.

Seven of the original nineteen "suicide" terrorists are known to be walking the streets of Saudi Arabia.

The bin Laden family and the Bush family have had numerous business relations in the past. In fact, there were nine (I think) members of bin Laden's family in the US at the time of 9/11. They were taken aboard a private jet and flown out of the country days after the incident (by the government).

And Clinton is no less guilty.

Yes, bin Laden says he did it. He takes complete credit for it. Terrorist organizations do that all of the time. And if you are Islamic, especially in the mid-east, it makes you look particularly good. And if you are perhaps "persuaded" somehow (money/power/protection/etc) by an associate, all the better.

Looking at this logically, if his "confession" is "likely to lead to a loss of life expectancy" then ... why did he say anything? Why not keep it hush-hush? If he was serious about his "holy war", would he not be far more effective by keeping it secret?

The list of curiosities goes on and on.

There are far too many things that simply do not add up against the official story - not even close.

And this is certainly a perfect time to create more "entitlements" in health care, and an amnesty program for illegals. Sounds like a Lefty! Pretty soon he might repeal all of his own tax cuts!

Anyway, that's my take. ... which is not without it's own holes!

IP: Logged

uriel203
unregistered
posted January 21, 2004 10:45 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
just out of curiosity, could someone direct me to a news release by Bin Laden where he takes responsibility for 911? all i can find are his official statements right after 911 when he denied any involvement in planning the attacks.
thanx in advance for any information

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 21, 2004 01:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
just out of curiosity, could someone direct me to a news release by Bin Laden where he takes responsibility for 911? all i can find are his official statements right after 911 when he denied any involvement in planning the attacks.
thanx in advance for any information

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/09/binladen.tape/

IP: Logged

Ra
Moderator

Posts: 80
From: Atlanta
Registered: May 2009

posted January 21, 2004 02:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh, yeah ... the tapes.

How much money does this guy have? Can he not afford a basic camcorder? He communicates with operatives and cells all over the world, and all we get from him are these low-grade tapes? If he really wanted to make an impression on the US and the Islamic world, would it not be much more effective to erase all doubt about his existance by releasing a message of decent quality, one that cannot be questioned?

Does not make sense.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 21, 2004 04:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah, and who would have thought that Saddam would have been hiding in a little dirty hole instead of hightailing out of there or going to an underground shelter?

Guess we really can't understand the motives behind some of their actions.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 21, 2004 11:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OK Ra, just for the sake of discussion, let's say bin Laden and Al Qaeda weren't involved in the 9/11 attacks. That seems to be the direction you're going.

So, who was?

jwhop

IP: Logged

Ra
Moderator

Posts: 80
From: Atlanta
Registered: May 2009

posted January 22, 2004 04:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, space aliens, who else!!

IP: Logged

uriel203
unregistered
posted January 22, 2004 11:23 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
thanx jwhop, but i was looking for something from Osama himself saying "I confess, I
did it, I planned, organized and sent the terrorists off to do it."
Osama has always praised the hijackers while consistently denying he funded,organized or had any foreknowledge of the attacks.(he probly learned "plausable deniability" from his mentor Bush Sr.) Did he run a "boot camp" for terrorists ? yes. many of the alleged hijackers were known to have gone there. but the "training" was more like basic training in the u.s. military (Osama learned well from us) and consisted mostly of how to fire and field strip a rifle, detonate a given explosive, how to run around an obstacle course and slither under barbed wire,Mixed with Osamas motivational speeches that he wrote in the 80's concerning jihad against the soviet invaders.(he only has to edit out "soviet" and replace with "u.s.")
My fear is that the funding and planning was done primarily by Saudi Arabian and
Pakistani intelligence figures deeply embedded in worldwide organized crime which is also entwined throughout both political parties in the u.s. and abroad.
IF(and i emphasize IF) Osama DIDNT fund or organize the attacks,does this take him
off the hook? No. he is a threat that we have no choice now but to eliminate, but it
just appears to me that he's an embarrassment and scapegoat in the same superficial sense that Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein (also both cia assets) were.
Meanwhile I wont be holding my breath waiting for Bush to put Saudi Arabia on the
list of states that support terrorism.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 22, 2004 01:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Perhaps you missed this when you were reading the article I linked.
"God praise everybody who trained and helped me, namely the "leader" Sheikh Osama bin Laden."

"We will get you. We will humiliate you. We will never stop following you," said Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which flew into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
"God praise everybody who trained and helped me, namely the leader Sheikh Osama bin Laden. May God bless him. May God accept our deeds."
An image of the gutted Pentagon was superimposed behind Alomari's shoulder as he spoke -- an indication al Qaeda had made the video after the attacks.

You seem to be demanding proof beyond what would be necessary to convict in an American criminal court which is proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You're making allegations against US political parties, presumably individual politicians too, along with politicians in other nations that they are connected to a world wide organized crime ring. I'd like to see any "proof" you may have on the subject.

You are alleging a criminal conspiracy so broad that every member of Congress, the President and Cabinet, every federal judge, the Attorney General and every federal prosecutor, the FBI, CIA, NSA, the military, the American press, mayors and police chiefs of major cities and Governors of every state, judges of every state and state Attorney's Generals would have to be directly involved or willing to look the other way. Such a conspiracy could not exist undetected and unprosecuted without the cooperation of these people.

IP: Logged

uriel203
unregistered
posted January 22, 2004 02:10 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yes this alleged hijacker says Osama "helped" train him.
but i thought you said.....
"BIN LADEN says he did. Planned, organized and sent the terrorists off to do it."

it would have been a simple thing for Osama (whose voice was in this computer edited montage) to speak those words himself at any time, but he never has.

I've heard this same line of interpretation from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but they would never discuss something like this on their show.....
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

IP: Logged

Ra
Moderator

Posts: 80
From: Atlanta
Registered: May 2009

posted January 22, 2004 02:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It does not take the direct knowledge and cooperation of all of those people/agencies/positions. In fact, it would be better if they did not know. All that is needed is to control the very top players, everyone else just falls in line.

If someone in the media wants to run a story, it must go through a very particular screening process, the policies of which are dictated by the owner/s, and they have their own agenda. Free press in the major media simply does not exist, and it is not the fault of the thousands of journalists, but the one or two on top.

And it certainly does not take EVERY "member of Congress, the President and Cabinet, every federal judge, the Attorney General and every federal prosecutor, the FBI, CIA, NSA, the military, the American press, mayors and police chiefs of major cities and Governors of every state, judges of every state and state Attorney's Generals".

Only a few persons in key positions are required. Most of the people listed above depend upon the law, they must work within the law, and they do not question the law. If they fail to work as such, they have no more job, and no more power.

Proof? One needs only to look a little closer, to investigate just beneath the surface. The "proof" is abundant. Find a loose string and follow it, the results are always amazing.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 22, 2004 03:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Why are you bringing up The Bank of Credit and Commerce International, BCCI, as an example of an ongoing criminal enterprise? BCCI was indicted under the RICO statutes, prosecuted, their assets seized in the US and around the world and shut down. Not exactly my idea of the US government engaging with or shielding a criminal enterprise. If you want to allege that Clark Clifford and other prominent types along with business men, depositors etc were aware BCCI was a criminal enterprise engaged in the laundering of drug money around the world, go ahead but don't attempt to implicate the US government in that enterprise because they are the one's who went after BCCI along with a NY Prosecutor and brought them down.

That terrorist did more than say bin Laded helped train him. He called bin Laden the Leader.

The tape was purported to be from Al Qaeda, showing the terrorists involved in 9/11. Bin Laden identified at least 4 of them by name.

How about this? Let's cut to the chase. If bin Laden wasn't responsible, who was? I suspect no amount of proof would satisfy you because you have a favorite conspiracy theory involving others---perhaps the Bush administration? Why not just spit it all out, make your allegations and be done with it?

I dislike insinuation, if you've got the goods, let's see it!

jwhop

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 22, 2004 03:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ra, the President, Vice President and any Cabinet member could, in any televised press conference drop the bomb and it would be out. Every member of Congress can go to the floor and make speeches which are televised in their entirety on C-SPAN. Every member of Congress has franking privileges and could send letters to every one of their constituents, which is every household in America, denouncing the conspirators. Mayors hold local televised press conferences as do Governors. The press has the option of exposing conspiracies by writing books or setting up websites on the Internet if blocked by their networks or newspapers.

Judges have jurisdiction over criminal matters and can issue arrest warrants upon compliant or showing of probable cause.

You may have the opinion there isn't one honest, loyal American in government in a high position but I don't share your view. Neither do I share your view they are all corrupt and would go along just to keep their jobs.

I stand by what I said. Any one of the entities I named could blow the whistle on the criminal conspiracy and it would take their cooperation to keep it under wraps. There is no way a broad conspiracy like that could be kept secret, no way at all and no way a few people at the top could control the flow of information.

jwhop

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a