Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000821.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000821.php on line 91
September 12, 2003
Why are we at war?

First, in case you're wondering about the actual source of the Administration's confidence about Iraq's possession of WMD, check out this pdf: US Arms Sales and Military Interventions

The US made $1,652,000 in direct commercial arms sales to Iraq in 1990. From 1985-1990 more than $500 million in dual-use technology was sold to Iraq. These dual-use items were licensed to export for the Iraqi Air Force and the Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency, among others.

Anyhow. Now, on to today's topic. Why are we at war?

Government defends Iraq war, despite intelligence warning of more terrorism

The British government is again defending its decision to go to war in Iraq, even though there was an intelligence warning that it could boost the threat of terrorism.

Australia was told: war will fuel terror

Intelligence given to Australia before the Iraq War warned that the terrorist threat would increase if military action was launched against Saddam Hussein, contradicting repeated assertions by the Prime Minister.

Afghan officials fear bin Laden tape may lift followers

Afghan officials warned that the latest videotape of Osama bin Laden could rally his followers and trigger more terror attacks, and they urged Pakistan yesterday to do more to track down the Al Qaeda leader.

The War on Terror: Two Years Hence

By September 11, 2002, on the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks, much had been achieved in the war on terror. Al Qaeda forces had been defeated in Afghanistan and the Taliban rulers had been ousted. The United States was leading a broad international anti-terror effort. Funding sources for Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups were being tracked down and blocked. There was hope that Afghanistan could limp back to normalcy and thwart the efforts of terrorists to use it again as a launching pad for operations.

[....]

But it is hardly time to celebrate yet. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai's dictates apply only within Kabul. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have been resurrected in Pakistan, and are staging increasingly bold attacks on U.S.-led military forces, Karzai's army, and foreign aid workers. Threats from the region still reverberate all the way to U.S. shores, and Al Qaeda has carried out attacks in Saudi Arabia and Southeast Asia against American targets. A primary reason for the turn of events in Afghanistan is the change in focus to Iraq in the past year. With military and intelligence assets diverted to overthrowing Saddam, and then pacifying Iraq, the Taliban and their Al Qaeda friends got a reprieve, allowing them to regroup.

India Mulls 'Pre-Emptive' Pakistan Strike, Cites U.S. Iraq War Precedent

Defence Minister George Fernandes reiterated Indian warnings that Pakistan was a prime case for pre-emptive strikes.

"There are enough reasons to launch such strikes against Pakistan, but I cannot make public statements on whatever action that may be taken," Fernandes told a meeting of ex-soldiers in this northern Indian desert city on Friday.

The renewed warning came just hours after US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington would strive to cool tensions between nuclear enemies Pakistan and India, who have fought three wars since 1947.

Fernandes said he endorsed Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha's recent comments that India had "a much better case to go for pre-emptive action against Pakistan than the United States has in Iraq." (4/11/03)

Israel Says Removing Arafat Is Like US Deposing Saddam

Removing Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat from the Israeli-Palestinian equation is not much different than the U.S. removing deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power, a senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said on Friday.

All the fun of the fair

The more an economy is dependent upon the sale of arms, the less that country will be inclined to see that peace prevails around the world.

In 2000, from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the Regional distribution of arms production

Country - USA
Sales in billions - 94.6
% of Market - 60

Well? Any questions?

Posted by AnneZook at 09:10 AM


Comments

First, in case you're wondering about the actual source of the Administration's confidence about Iraq's possession of WMD, check out this pdf: US Arms Sales and Military Interventions

At the beginning of the year I heard a rather ironic joke:

Reporter: Mr. Rumsfeld, how can you know so accurately who many weapons Iraq has?

Rumsfeld: We kept the receipts.

Posted by: P6 at September 12, 2003 10:28 AM

yep. The single biggest area that we can affect world peace is by simply stopping the supply of weapons from this country. We sell the arms to these idiots and then we have to spend even more money to clean up after the predictable outcome.

Posted by: JohnC at September 12, 2003 10:50 AM

NOTE: I replied first to the wrong article. My apologies.

Since you cited the Stockholm International Peace Institute..... who now, armed Iraq???

http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/saddamgraph.gif

Posted by: Jason at September 14, 2003 01:38 AM


Oh, I forgot to answer your question.

Dear Anne, you ask 'Why are we at war?'

The answer is terrorism.

This begs the question, is the war on terror working? Well I think so, but then again who cares what I think. Let's ask a skeptical audience. An audience that is about as anti-American as one could possibly imagine.

That would be the audience of Al-Jazeera. They ran a poll asking 'Is the world safer since the War on Terror was launched?'

There were 23,022 votes.

73% said Yes.
10% said No.
18% said Unsure.

Look quick because Al-Jazeera did not like those results and have started running a 'new' one as of 1:00am PST - 9/14/2003 with wording of the question slightly changed:

http://english.aljazeera.net/Services/Polling/PollDisplayer.htm

I read Al-Jazeera regularly and they do this from time to time.

Speaking of Al-Jazeera, it's kind of funny how the Left here in the U.S. are so in sync with outfits like Al-Jazeera. I guess what they say is true, that lefties are indeed traitors to their own land.

Posted by: Jason at September 14, 2003 02:09 AM


As of 2:37am PST - 9/14/2003, the turkeys at Al-Jazeera deleted the original poll.

Knowing that Al-Jazeera pulls stunts like this, I took liberty of taking a web snapshot of it with IE, in MHT format:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jkl007/aj_poll.mht

(The above is only viewable in IE. NS or Opera won't display it)


Since no one knows me and, hence, may not trust downloading a file, I also made a screenshot of the poll page, too:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jkl007/aj_poll.png

The original poll is the 2nd poll graph that closed with 23,022 votes.


Posted by: Jason at September 14, 2003 03:42 AM