Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. battle plan: Slip in and grab oil fields
New York Daily News ^ | 1/25/03 | RICHARD SISK

Posted on 01/25/2003 2:11:57 AM PST by kattracks

WASHINGTON - U.S. troops would try to seize Iraqi oil fields before Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards could blow them up in the event of war, a senior U.S. Central Command official said yesterday.

"It's fair to say land component commanders have crafted strategies that would allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible," said the official, who spoke on grounds of anonymity.

"Saddam has plans to sabotage the Iraqi oil industry" and blame the destruction on U.S. bombing, said the official, a top adviser to Army Gen. Tommy Franks, head of Central Command.

"We've seen military movement into the southern and northern oil fields," the official said, "and we've seen a number of indications from reliable intelligence sources that sabotage has been planned."

The official would not give details but did not rule out action by U.S. paratroopers and helicopter-borne air assault troops to protect the oil wells.

Hard to predict

Blowing up the 1,000 Iraqi oil wells in the south and 500 in the north would double the destruction caused by fleeing Iraqi troops on Kuwait's oil fields in 1991, the official said. He estimated repair costs at $30 billion to $50 billion.

The official would not estimate the impact on oil prices and supplies, and John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, said predictions were difficult.

Iraq produces less than 1.5 million barrels daily, about 3% of the world supply, and if the country goes off-line, "there's excess capacity" in other oil-producing states, Felmy said.

But losing Iraq in combination with continuing strife in Venezuela "really would strain excess capacity," he said.



TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 last
To: sneakypete
The point being that the blind supporters of this war started out claiming it was justified because Hussein was directly related to the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC on 9-11. After a couple of months of not being able to find any evidence of this, ... Some evidence: http://www.washingtondispatch.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/1/32/printer

Opinion
Iraq’s State Sponsorship of Osama bin-Laden and the al-Qaeda Terror Network
Essay by Chris Farrell



Jun 30, 2002

[Editor's Note: This article was originally published on November 30, 2001]

Osama bin-Laden represents and articulates a thoroughly developed Islamist theology and philosophy with a broader appeal that goes beyond a simple hatred of Israel. He expounds and defends a religious obligation of Muslims to attack U.S. military and civilian targets; demands the immediate expulsion of U.S. Forces from Saudi Arabia; calls for the creation of a “Muslim” nuclear weapon; criticizes harshly “moderate” Muslim states such as Egypt and Jordan for not instituting “truly” Islamic law; and he also calls for the end of all sanctions against Iraq. Osama bin-Laden sees an opportunity for holy war, literally, across half of the globe.1

The Middle Eastern terror groups of the 1970's and 1980's relied on the patronage of a number of states – principally the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites – for financial backing, intelligence, weapons, explosives, training and logistics. Often these resources made their way to the terror groups through states acting as regional surrogates for the Communists. The infamous terrorist organization that captured headline throughout the 1970s and 80s, the “Abu Nidal Organization” was established in Baghdad by a Palestinian named Sabri al-Banna, whose nom de guerre was Abu Nidal. Iraqi intelligence, who at the time were trained by the Soviets, trained members of the organization. 2

Osama bin-Laden and the al-Qaeda terror network are a twenty first century variant on the model of the last sixty years. Bin-Laden’s personal fortune finances much of the organization terrorism. Bin-Laden wields influence, power and notoriety unlike other terror group leader, but there are still circumstances and occasions when his interests and those of the al-Qaeda network are best served through a sovereign state, or through the official apparatus of a state. Two prime examples are the advantages of official diplomatic status and a national intelligence organization. While recent news coverage has highlighted bin-Laden’s hijacking of the Taliban’s medieval administration of Afghanistan, that country provided bin-Laden simply with a haven, but not a political venue. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq has been bin-Laden’s active political, military and intelligence sponsor for just over three years.


Osama bin Laden had dealings with Iraqi Intelligence as early as 1993 in Somalia. During that period, various militant Islamic groups, to include bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence and military operatives, were in Somalia to organize, train and mobilize radical factions within the Somali populace. 3 In June 1994, bin Laden met with Faruq al-Hijazi, then the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Department, while in Khartoum. Iraqi concern over bin Laden’s militant Islamist zeal restrained their dealings with bin Laden and limited their willingness to provide practical support and cooperation. 4

Within approximately three years, Iraqi hesitance and concerns regarding bin-Laden evaporated. Pragmatic considerations, driven by the deepening political and social crises in Iraq resulting from UN sanctions as well as growing Shiite revivalism in southern Iraq and Kurdish nationalism in northern Iraq, led Saddam Hussein to reassess cooperation with bin-Laden. Bin-Laden’s charities and Islamist social services programs eased the shortfalls in food, medicine and basic necessities resulting from the UN sanctions. Arab “Afghans,” Muslim Brotherhood groups and other like-minded fundamentalist Islamists who came to Iraq in support of these new initiatives provided an ideology and structure that met Hussein’s domestic political needs and either diffused or suppressed nationalist or splinter movements. Saddam Hussein could claim credit for averting the suffering of the Iraqi people and insuring political instability at the “cost” of allowing bin-Laden a foothold in Iraq through social and religious means. 5

On February 22, 1998 bin-Laden announced the formation of the “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and the Crusaders,” merging Egypt’s Jihad Group, the Islamic Group the Ansar Movement of Pakistani and the Bangladeshi Jihad Movement under one umbrella. 6

Bin-Laden reportedly visited Baghdad for consultations in March 1998. Giovanni De Stefano, an international lawyer visiting Baghdad on business, had a chance encounter with bin-Laden in the lobby of the five star Al-Rashid Hotel during which the two men introduced themselves and engaged in polite conversation. De Stefano did not, at the time, recognize bin-Laden’s name. Five months after the chance encounter, bin-Laden’s suicide bombers attacked the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam. 7

Between April 25 and May 1, 1998, two of bin-Laden’s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdallah Qassim visited Baghdad for discussions with Saddam Hussein’s son – Qusay Hussein – the “czar” of all Iraqi intelligence matters. 8 Qusay Hussein’s participation in the meetings highlights the importance of the talks in both symbolic and practical terms. Iraqi commitments for training, intelligence, clandestine Saudi border crossings, as well as weapons and explosives support to al-Qaeda were a direct result of the meetings. 9

An outcome of the April meetings was Iraq’s commitment to train a network of bin-Laden’s operatives within Saudi Arabia. By mid-June, 1998, bin-Laden’s operatives were at the al-Nasiriyah training camp, receiving a four week course of instruction from the Iraqi intelligence and military on reconnaissance and targeting American facilities and installations for terrorist attacks. Another group was organized and trained for smuggling weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia – and used their return to the kingdom as the first (successful) operation. A third group of bin-Laden’s Saudi operatives received a month of sophisticated guerrilla operations training later in the Summer of 1998. 10

Bin-Laden quickly sought to strengthen and reinforce Iraqi support. In mid-July 1998, bin-Laden sent Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian co-founder of al-Qaeda to Iraq to meet with senior Iraqi officials, including Iraqi vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan, to discuss and plan a joint strategy for an anti-US jihad. Baghdad pledged their full support and cooperation, on the condition that bin-Laden not incite the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood against Saddam Hussein’s reign. Zawahiri was taken to tour a potential site for bin-Laden’s new headquarters near al-Fallujah, and to observe training at terrorist camps run by Iraqi intelligence, to include the training conducted at al-Nasiriyah to bin-Laden’s Saudi operatives. Zawahiri assumed responsibility for the al-Nasiriyah training camp in the name of Osama bin-Laden, as part of Iraq’s recognition of bin-Laden as the “local authority” in the jihad against the United States. 11

Both Saddam Hussein’s and Osama bin-Laden’s objectives are served through their alliance. They mutually loathe both the House of al-Saud and the United States. Bin-Laden accomplishes, as a non-state actor, what Hussein cannot and vice versa. The existence of an Iraqi-sponsored al-Qaeda capability or “wing,” poised to strike at Riyadh or regionally against US interests complicates and narrows counter-terrorism options for the United States and its allies.

By mid-November 1998, Saddam Hussein came to the conclusion, (with the advice and prompting of his son and intelligence chief, Qusay), that a campaign of terrorist attacks against the United States, under the “deniable” banner of Osama bin-Laden was the most effective means of deflecting U.S. attempts to topple the Hussein regime. Meetings between Iraqi intelligence operatives and bin-Laden in Afghanistan followed shortly. Both parties agreed to joint efforts in a detailed, coordinated plan for a protracted war against the United States. Iraq pledged further assistance with a chemical weapons expert while bin-Laden agreed to hunt down Iraqi opposition leaders who cooperated with the West against Hussein. 12 Bin-Laden reportedly dispatched 400 “Afghan” Arabs to Iraq to fight Kurds. 13

In December 1998, the Clinton Administration engaged in a bombing campaign against Iraq that was viewed by many, particularly Islamist leaders, as a political distraction or “Wag The Dog” side-show to diminish or reduce President Clinton’s scandals and domestic political trouble. The launching of anti-American Islamist terrorism in retaliation for the bombing campaign was certain. Iraqi trade minister Muhammad Mahdi Salah stated that he expected “terrorist activities” against the United States to increase as a result of the bombing of Iraq. 14

The Arabic daily newspaper, Al-Quds al-Arabi, first raised the issue of cooperation between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin-Laden’s al-Qaeda in a late December 1998 editorial that predicted, “President Saddam Hussein , whose country was subjected to a four day air strike , will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” The editorial noted that this type of cooperation was very likely considering that “bin-Laden was planning moving to Iraq before the recent strike.” 15


Following the December air strikes, Saddam Hussein dispatched Faruq al-Hijazi to Kandahar, Afghanistan in order to meet with bin-Laden. Hijazi was the former deputy chief of Iraqi intelligence and had first met bin-Laden in 1994. 16 Hijazi offered expanded cooperation and assistance to bin-Laden, as well as a re-extension of the offer of shelter and hospitality in Iraq for al-Qaeda. Bin-Laden agreed in principle to give Iraq assistance in a revenge campaign against the United States, but suggested further study and coordination before committing to a specific course of action or agreeing to a particular terrorist strike. To demonstrate Baghdad’s commitment to al Qaeda, Hijazi presented bin-Laden with a pack of blank, genuine Yemeni passports, supplied to Iraqi intelligence from their Yemeni contacts. Hijazi’s visit was followed by a contingent of Iraqi military intelligence officials who provided additional training and preparation to the al- Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. These Iraqi officials included members of Unit 999 of Iraqi intelligence, who conducted advanced sabotage and infiltration training for seasoned, veteran, al-Qaeda fighters. By January 1999, al-Qaeda terrorists were being trained by Iraqi intelligence and military officers at camps on the outskirts of Baghdad. 17

Following the Hijazi meetings, Qusay Hussein dispatched representatives to follow-up with bin-Laden and obtain his firm commitment to exact revenge against America. Baghdad offered an open-ended commitment to joint operations against the United States and its “moderate” Arab allies in exchange for an absolute guarantee that bin-Laden, al-Qaeda and their fundamentalist Islamists would not overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. 18 Israeli sources claim that for the past two years Iraqi intelligence officers have been shuttling back and forth between Baghdad and Afghanistan. According to the Israelis, one of the intelligence officers, Salah Suleiman was captured last October by the Pakistanis near the border with Afghanistan. 19

In January 1999, Iraq began reorganizing and mobilizing intelligence front operations throughout Europe in support of al-Qaeda. 20 Iraq’s intelligence service has operated a network of outwardly legitimate businesses across Western Europe, using them as bases for espionage, terrorism and weapons procurement. Hans Josef Horchem, former chief of West Germany’s Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence service) stated that most of the Iraqi intelligence front companies are import-export firms and used-car dealerships. In the Fall of 1990, at least three firms were operating in Hamburg and the German state of Hesse – with roughly seven additional Iraqi front operations in the rest of Europe. 21 Iraq’s Unit 999 now increased the intensity of its operations – moving funds and people around Europe and activating previously dormant intelligence contacts and operatives. Together with intelligence officers assigned under diplomatic cover, these activated operatives began scouting safe houses, vehicles, letter drops, communications, arms caches and other logistical requirements for operations. Concurrent with this activation of Iraqi’s European intelligence assets, appeared the previously unheard of “Armed Islamic Front,” who it turned out, were made up of bin-Laden’s “Afghans” and “Bosniaks,” that would now conduct terror strikes against both bin-Laden’s and Hussein’s enemies. 22

According to Czech intelligence sources, Mohammad Atta, the September 11, 2001 hijacking ringleader, met in June 2000 with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a consul and second secretary at the Iraqi embassy in Prague. 23 At 43, al-Ani is one of Iraqi’s most highly decorated intelligence officers: a special forces veteran and senior leader of Iraq’s “M-8," unit – the country’s “special operations branch.” 24 There are additional reports of a second meeting with another hijacker – Khalid Almihdar. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross has also confirmed that Atta met with al-Ani in early April 2001 in Prague. 25 Atta also reportedly met with Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and former Iraqi deputy intelligence director Farouk al-Hijazi in Prague sometime in early April 2001. 26 Al-Ani was expelled from the Czech Republic earlier in 2001 for espionage activities. Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kavan flew to Washington, DC to deliver the intelligence files on the meetings to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Additional intelligence surrounding the Iraqi – Al-Qaeda connection continues to mount. The CIA reportedly believes Iraq provided falsified genuine passports for the 19 hijackers of the September 11th attacks. 27 Further, senior U.S. intelligence sources say that in the spring of this year, Marwan al-Shehri and Ziad Jarrah – two of Atta’s closest associates and members of al-Qaeda’s “German cell,” met with known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States. 28 Czech intelligence sources reported that al-Ani had been under surveillance because he had been observed apparently “casing” the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty headquarters in Prague. Czech authorities believed the site had been selected for attack by terrorists. 29 The intelligence sources further report that Atta and al-Ani embraced upon meeting at Prague’s Ruzyne airport, and that Atta’s may have visited the Czech capitol on four occasions. 30 Iraqi opposition leaders in Prague reported that al-Ani visited Iraqi dissidents in Prague and attempted to persuade them to return to Iraq, on one occasion allegedly threatening an Iraqi student. 31

Recent discoveries of anthrax in letters sent via the US Postal Service add further weight to the involvement or sponsorship of Iraq, as the Iraqi government has experience with biological and chemical weapons, including the chemical bombing of Kurds in northern Iraq that killed over 5000 people in 1998. Only the United States, Russia and Iraq could have produced a chemical additive enabling the anthrax spores to become airborne. 32 UN inspectors have repeatedly documented evidence of anthrax experiments on the part of the Iraqi government after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. UN inspectors have also identified and documented Iraqi government stockpiles of sarin and VX gas. 33 The German newspaper Bild, citing Israeli intelligence sources, says that Atta was handed a vacuum flask of anthrax by his Iraq contact – al-Ani. Atta flew from Prague to Newark, NJ. The letters laced with anthrax that were sent to news media and politicians were posted from New Jersey. 34

Italian security sources have reported that Iraq made use of its Rome embassy to foster and cultivate Hussein’s partnership with al-Qaeda. Habib Faris Abdullah al-Mamouri, a general in the Iraqi secret service, and from 1982 to 1990 a member of the “Special Operations Branch,” (M-8) charged with developing links with Islamist militants in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Gulf states, was stationed in Rome as an “instructor” for Iraqi diplomats. Al-Mamouri reportedly met with Mohammed Atta in Rome, Hamburg and Prague. Al-Mamouri has not been seen in Rome since July, shortly after he last met Atta. 35


Recent Iraqi defectors provide additional details of Saddam Hussein’s support of international terrorism through the 1990s. The documentary program “Frontline,” has interviewed former Iraqi intelligence and army officers with first-hand accounts of highly secret installations run by an international terrorist known to Iraqi staffers only as “the Ghost.” 36 “The Ghost” is reportedly Abdel Hussein, the chief trainer at the camp and responsible for conducting assassinations outside Iraq to support Saddam Hussein’s regime. 37 The facility contained a Boeing 707 jet fuselage used to practice hijacking scenarios. UN inspectors independently confirmed the existence of the terrorist training camps. 38 The Iraqi defector known as “Saddam’s Bomb-maker,” Dr. Khidhir Hamza, who served as Iraq’s Director of Nuclear Weaponization analyzes Iraqi’s sponsorship of bin-Laden as follows:

“What I think is there is somehow a change in the level of the type of operation bin Laden has been carrying [out]. What we are looking at initially is more or less just attempts to blow some buildings, just normal use of explosives for a terrorist. What we have in the September 11 operation, [is a] tightly controlled, very sophisticated operation; the type an Iraqi intelligence agency, well versed in the technology [could pull off]. ... So my thinking is a guy sitting in a cave in Afghanistan is not the guy who will do an operation of this caliber. It has to have in combination with it a guy with the sophistication and know-how on how to carry these things.
... Iraq [also] has a history of training terrorists, harboring them, and taking good care of them, by the way. A terrorist is well cared for with Saddam. So he has a good reputation in that type of community, if you like.” 39
Several leading authorities on Saddam Hussein and bin-Laden’s al-Qaeda network concur on the likelihood of Iraq’ state sponsorship and coordination of the September 11th terror attacks. The former head of Israel’s Mossad secret service, Rafi Eitan, and former CIA Director, R. James Woolsey share the view that Saddam Hussein and bin-Laden conspired in the attacks.40 Their views are shared by Laurie Mylroie an academic and Iraqi affairs expert with the American Enterprise Institute. Mylroie cites the role of Iraqi operatives in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center to support her claim that the September 11th attacks are a matter of unfinished business from the perspective of Saddam Hussein, who still considers himself at war with the United States. 41



1Peter L. Bergen, “Holy War, Inc.,” The Free Press, New York, 2001, page 37.
2Laurie Mylroie, “Study of Revenge,” American Enterprise Institute Press, Washington, DC, 2001, page 18-19.
3Youssef Bodansky, “Bin Laden; The Man Who Declared War on America,” Prima Publishing, Roseville, CA, 2001, page 323.
4Bodansky, page 323.
5Bodansky, page 323.
6Berger, page 95
7Tom Walker, “Hotel Clue Points To An Iraqi Connection,” Sunday Times (London), September 30, 2001.
8Bodansky, page 324.
9Bodansky, page 325.
10Bodansky, page 324.
11Bodansky, page 324-325
12Bodansky, page 346-347.
13Daniel McGrory, “Hijacker ‘Given Flask by Iraqi Agent’,” The Times (London), October 27, 2001.
14Bodansky, page 360.
15Bodansky, page 360-361.
16Justine Smith, “Investigation Into Saddam’s Fingerprints On The Terror Attacks: The Link,” The Mirror, October 8, 2001.
17Bodansky, page 361.
18Bodansky, page 362.
19Janes.
20Bodansky, page 381.
21Ferdinand Protzman, “German Terror Expert Says Iraqis Have Front Companies Across Europe,” New York Times, October 30, 1990.
22Bodansky, page 381.
23Richard Beeston, “Iraq Accuses US of Trying to Settle Old Scores,” The Times (London), October 10, 2001.
24David Rose, “Focus Special: The Terrorism Crisis: The Iraqi Connection,” The Observer, November 11, 2001.
25Patrick E. Tyler with John Tagliabue, “Czechs Confirm Iraqi Agent Met With Terror Ringleader,” The New York Times, October 27, 2001.
26Evan Thomas, “The Manhunt: Cracking The Terror Code,” Newsweek, October 15, 2001.
27Smith, ibid.
28Rose, ibid.
29Tyler, ibid.
30McGrory, ibid.
31Newsweek, Periscope: “Hard Questions About an Iraqi Connection,” October 21, 2001.
32Peter Finn, “Czech’s Confirm Key Hijacker’s ‘Contact’ With Iraqi Agent in Prague; Atta Communicated With Diplomat Who Was Later Expelled,” The Washington Post, October 27, 2001.
33Glen Schloss, “Suspicion Falls on Saddam,” South China Morning Post, October 12, 2001.
34McGrory, ibid.
35McGrory, ibid.
36PBS; and PBS 2
37Chris Hedges, “Defectors Citing Iraqi Training For Terrorism,” The New York Times, November 8, 2001.
38Tyler, ibid.
39PBS 3
40Dennis Eisenberg, “Saddam Links to Attacks,” The Herald Sun, September 23, 2001.
41Mylroie, ibid.
101 posted on 01/29/2003 10:12:40 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
I responded to your other point re: terror links, but I also note: Still with the lie that USA funded terrorists, now its "WE also supplied known terrorists with weapons,money,supplies, ..."

... Repeating the lie for a fifth time doesnt make it true.
102 posted on 01/29/2003 10:21:52 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: section9; sneakypete; WOSG; Light Speed; Uncle Bill; WhiteGuy
Creating straw men allows you to neatly sidestep the core issues of war and peace. That is both cheap and tawdry, and characteristic of the man who has neither argument nor fact, and is left to pound the table as if that will carry the debate.

Section9, your screed compelled me to write a rebuttal. So lets discuss those core issues of war and peace a little.

Elections are a means of peacefull political change.

War is the result of the failure of diplomacy.

War is political change through violent means.

Does one go to to war because of what one knows, or does one go to war because of what one does not know?

Peace flows from the end of a gun barrel.

Is what we know about Iraq sufficient to justify war? Is what we don't know about Iraq enough to justify war?

When one looks at the Cuban missile crises, it was thought that the U.S. knew enough to go to war. What the Soviet archives reveal however, is that the CIA's failure to spot the tactical nukes present led to a potentially catastrophic underestimation of the threat that Cuba posed as President Kennedy was considering invading the island to knock out the strategic missiles. A Pentagon estimate issued in midcrisis that a U.S. invasion would suffer 18,500 dead and wounded did not include the possibility that Cuba had tactical nukes. Two recent books -- One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy, 1958-1964 by Timothy Naftali, a Cold War historian at Yale University, and Russian historian Aleksandr Fursenko, and Gribkov's Operation Anadyr -- put the number of tactical warheads deployed in Cuba at between 98 and 104, and these were under direct authority of Cuban President Fidel Castro. He wanted to keep the tactical weapons -- short-range rockets and airplane bombs -- even after the crisis, and Moscow's defense minister had initially ordered his troops to train Cubans in their use. We were so self-assured about what we thought we knew for thirty years, that the truth was indeed quite chilling.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, horrified upon Castro's urging to launch strategic nuclear missiles against the United States - in a first strike - at the height of the crisis, ordered that all the tactical weapons be swiftly removed.

The information that recently has been uncovered is that Castro fully intended to use the weapons at his disposal in response to a U.S. invasion force. This would've eliminated many times the original estimate of casualties forecast by the CIA, in addition to the loss of dozens of U.S. Navy fleet surface ships. What options would the U.S. have had in response? Keep in mind that by 23 Oct 1962, there were 41,902 Soviet military personell, including 10,000 combat troops on the island. And they definitely would've been collateral damage in that exchange.

Khrushchev's son was asked what his father's response would've been to what would've been no doubt America's only response to Cuba's use of the tactical nuclear weapons at its disposal. He answered, that his father would've had two choices. One would've been to resign. That was a death sentence, because he'd have been killed. The other choice was to launch a full scale assault on Europe.

At the height of the missile crisis, on Oct. 27, when the world seemed poised on the edge of nuclear holocaust, Castro had appeared to urge Moscow to launch a first-strike nuclear attack on America.

``If the imperialists invade Cuba,'' Castro wrote in a letter to Khrushchev, ``the danger that that aggressive policy poses for humanity is so great that following that event, the Soviet Union must never allow the circumstances in which the imperialists could launch the first nuclear strike.

``If they actually carry out the brutal act of invading Cuba . . . that would be the moment to eliminate such danger forever through an act of legitimate self-defense, however harsh and terrible the solution would be.''

When the stunned Soviet ambassador in Havana, Aleksander Alekseev, asked Castro if he was really advocating that Moscow be the first to launch its nukes, Castro demurred.

``No,'' he answered, according to Alekseev's report to Moscow. ``I don't want to say that directly, but under certain circumstances we must not wait to experience the perfidy of the imperialists, letting them initiate the first strike.''

Before his death, Dr. Ernesto "Che" Guevera was asked if he was happy about the outcome of the Cuban Missile crises, seeing how close it came to nuclear holocaust. Guevera demurred that he was quite dissapointed. How could he be dissapointed that Cuba, and his cause was not obliterated by the most likely of U.S. responses. His answer: "We and Cuba's cause might be dead. But the United States would be destroyed."

That was then. This is now. Question is, are there any even more wacked-out people than Guevera running about now? Would it matter if there are wack jobs running around with towels wrapped on too tightly about their heads, cutting off oxygen to their brains? The question is, is Saddam a wack job like Guevera? Or does he know somebody who is just such a wack job and has been supplied by him (as Castro was by Khrushchev)? Is it plausible to believe that wack jobs can exist that have no sense of self preservation and would sacrifice not only themselves, but their nation and people, satisfied with the knowledge that the United States would be dealt a fatal blow? Is it possible that people exist that hate the United States in the full meaning of the word, and would do - at all costs - whatever necessary so as to accomplish the destruction of their nemesis? Do we know enough to justify the possible ramifications to our actions based on what we don't know? Or vice versa? That is indeed the question.

I'm extremely thankfull to God that none of you shallow, short-sighted Bush sychophants are running the show. It is nevertheless entirely Bush's call. And I do pray to God that He gives him the wisdom and guidance necessary to carry out the heavy responsibility that has been placed on his shoulders. The thing that saved the world 40 years ago, was that the leaders of the two mightiest countries in the world, having incomphrehensilbe destructive forces at their finger tips, mutually sought for a way out. Neither one of them listened to their advisors and both activley seeked for a peacefull resolution. I pray that God gives Bush the wisdom he needs to make the right decision. I pray that he seeks God's guidance, and that the perhaps the decision to spill the cup of wrath might be spared (as Jesus begged His Father to take the cup from Him in the Garden of Gethsemene before His crucifixion). No matter what Bush decides however, I pray that it is done for the right reasons. And if Bush decides for war, then so be it. Its his decision, that's what we pay him for. And to think people fight and claw over each other to get to the top and into that postion so as to be responsible for just those kinds of decisions, their aftermath and the legacy they leave behind as a result of them.

103 posted on 01/30/2003 12:26:42 AM PST by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq has been bin-Laden’s active political, military and intelligence sponsor for just over three years.

HorseHillay,and pure political spin. Exchange the word "Iraq" with "Saudi Arabia",and you come closer to the truth. Yeah,there has been some sharing of intelligence information between the two groups when it comes to their mutual enemies,but this doesn't make them the soul mates this article tries to spin them into being.

Osama bin Laden had dealings with Iraqi Intelligence as early as 1993 in Somalia.

Of course they did. So did every other anti-American group operating and observing activities in Somalia. This doesn't mean they were even "going steady",much less "married". It only means they saw and met each other as they were meeting with the various Somali warlords.

In June 1994, bin Laden met with Faruq al-Hijazi, then the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Department, while in Khartoum. Iraqi concern over bin Laden’s militant Islamist zeal restrained their dealings with bin Laden and limited their willingness to provide practical support and cooperation.

These may be the truest words in this whole propoganda piece. Hussein and Iraq have killed more radical Muslim fundies than any other country in the world. Within approximately three years, Iraqi hesitance and concerns regarding bin-Laden evaporated.

ROFLMAO! Oh,yeah! Here we are being led to believe two competing religious factions are suddenly anxious to tongue wrestle with each other in their frenzy to forget decades of killing each other in their goals to make THEIR religious cults the power base that runs the middle east. What is so hard to believe about that? Next thing you know,we are going to be asked to believe Arafat is converting to Judaism,and the Pope is going Protestant.

Pragmatic considerations, driven by the deepening political and social crises in Iraq resulting from UN sanctions as well as growing Shiite revivalism in southern Iraq and Kurdish nationalism in northern Iraq, led Saddam Hussein to reassess cooperation with bin-Laden.

Most likely true to a certain extent,but not to the extend the article implies. Neither trusts the other,and they remain competitors. This is purely a marriage of convenience between both parties. Hussein can't afford to trust or allow bin Laden and his boys to gain too much power or influence,or he and his whole family will end up in front of a firing squad.

Bin-Laden reportedly visited Baghdad for consultations in March 1998. Giovanni De Stefano, an international lawyer visiting Baghdad on business, had a chance encounter with bin-Laden in the lobby of the five star Al-Rashid Hotel during which the two men introduced themselves and engaged in polite conversation. De Stefano did not, at the time, recognize bin-Laden’s name. Five months after the chance encounter, bin-Laden’s suicide bombers attacked the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam.

And we are supposed to believe this,based on the word of a lawyer who didn't even know who bin Laden was,much less what he was alleged to be doing there? Or even that it WAS the real bin Laden he met,not somebody from Iraqui intelligence playing games with him in a disinformation campaign?

An outcome of the April meetings was Iraq’s commitment to train a network of bin-Laden’s operatives within Saudi Arabia.

Really? Since when has Iraq been able to give permission to run training operations within Saudi Arabia? I am so ignorant I was assuming they were two different countries that were oppossed to each other,so maybe you can fill me in on when they became united?

By mid-November 1998, Saddam Hussein came to the conclusion, (with the advice and prompting of his son and intelligence chief, Qusay), that a campaign of terrorist attacks against the United States, under the “deniable” banner of Osama bin-Laden was the most effective means of deflecting U.S. attempts to topple the Hussein regime.

And how is this known? Did they call Sister Cleo on her psychotic hotline,or did they maybe just call up Saddam on the telephone and ask him what he and his psycho son had been talking about recently?

Baghdad offered an open-ended commitment to joint operations against the United States and its “moderate” Arab allies in exchange for an absolute guarantee that bin-Laden, al-Qaeda and their fundamentalist Islamists would not overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

Hey,if you can't take the word of a fundie religious nutcase who has sworn to overthrow and kill you in the past,whose word CAN you take? After all,bin Laden's whole purpose of living is to overthrow and punish all the "moderate" Muslims so he can establish his own Muslim cult as both the government and the state religion of the whole middle east. Can't ya just FEEL the love here?

According to Czech intelligence sources, Mohammad Atta, the September 11, 2001 hijacking ringleader, met in June 2000 with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a consul and second secretary at the Iraqi embassy in Prague.

I know senior administration officials from the Bubba-2 administration were claiming this at one time,but they had to drop it like a hot potato when it was proven to be false. None the less,this falsehood DID serve their purpose,as no doubt there are many people out there like you who will remember this charge being pushed as the truth,and forget it was proven false.

In short,this whole article amounts to a very clever disinformation piece. It has enough truth in it it can't be dismissed out of hand,but enough lies in it to spin the facts presented in a manner that they mean something else.

104 posted on 01/30/2003 4:15:50 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I responded to your other point re: terror links, but I also note: Still with the lie that USA funded terrorists, now its "WE also supplied known terrorists with weapons,money,supplies, ..."

WHO do you think "WE" are,numbnuts? While we are on the subject,what do YOU think (I say "think" because you obviously don't know) the definition of a "terrorist" is?

... Repeating the lie for a fifth time doesnt make it true.

I am not responsible for either your stupidity,or your ignorance. I am not and do not lie. You,on the other hand,are clearly ignorant,and too stupid to recogonize the truth when you see it. Ignorance can be cured,but stupidity is forever.

105 posted on 01/30/2003 4:20:42 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Life of Brian
You are obviously not up to speed on force field technology my confused friend. The Enterprise is capable of surrounding each and every well with impenetrable force fields that the Iraqis simply cannot get through. These fields also block the transmission of signals into any pre-set charges rendering them harmless. The Iraqis run up to the oil well and...CAWUNGG..CAWUNGG or ZZAP ZZZZZZZZAP..."hey! who put this invisible force field here!" If the charges are time-set then a simple tri-corder set to coordinates is capable of turning them off. These things were childs play in the early 70's and we have advanced well beyond that now. If you are still in doubt a laugh and a shaking of the head will do but to continue questioning the superior capabilities of the Star Ship Enterprise and commander Janeway or Captain Kirk or Jean-Luc Picard is stepping over the line. Isn't Jean-Luc French? Humm, yes, let's leave him on the sidelines this time shall we? Even your screen-name shows you are too much a realist to understand these things. Are rivers truely wet? What is wet? If you remove the hydrogen from the H2O is it still wet? No of course not. What if you remove the oxygen then light a match? It's not even close to wet is it? So SEE? Also have you never heard of miracles? How about wishful thinking? How about hope? Best guesses? Luck? Anyone? Help me out here.

This rant is much more entertaining when I picture you dressed up like -- and talking like -- Beetlejuice.

106 posted on 01/30/2003 4:38:46 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: raygun
Good post. I would only add that for some unknown reason everybody wants to keep overlooking the nuke sub pens in Cuba that serviced Soviet "boomers". For one thing,this proves beyond all doubt that the press was heavily pro-Kennedy. He is given credit for removing all nukes from Cuba,yet no mention is ever made of the sub pens remaining in use. Beyond all the other points you made,it is highly unlikely the USSR would have been in a very forgiving mood if we had destroyed a couple of their nuke subs. And you can bet the US Navy was watching and tracking them,and that we would have had no other choice once the shooting started.

The truth is that the monster known as Khruschev deserves more credit for avoiding war in Cuba than that idiot Kennedy did.

107 posted on 01/30/2003 4:42:12 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Amusing how you strain to fight the truth of the matter and accuse others of exactly what you do yourself.

Hey, dont let the facts get in the way of your "enlightened" views ....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/832904/posts

108 posted on 01/30/2003 5:03:16 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Tom Bombadil
"What would you accept as proof that GWB isn't in it for the money? In other words, for you, what would being proven wrong look like?"

Thanks for your question.

1. Close and defend OUR borders, send ALL illegals home immediately.
2. Bring OUR troups home now.
3. Issue a public statement, either saddam and his minions are gone in 72 hours or all the hidden chemical weapons and dirty nukes in the country (along with every living soul) will be vaporized
4. Follow through on above statement.
5. Repeat as needed.

(I am too that cynical)

109 posted on 01/30/2003 5:03:51 PM PST by WhiteGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Deb
A few weeks ago the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bush administation has signed deals with Iraqi opposition leaders to keep control of Iraqi oil profits in their country, to rebuild and sustain their economy. Also to dispell the whole "Blood for Oil" nonsense and because Bush felt that profits from Iraqi oil should benefit the Iraqi people. Of course, practically no one reported this story.

It's a good cover, but you have to ask yourself, from whom will the "Iraqi opposition leaders" buy the technology and infrastructure to rebuild their country from?

Which companies will provide the equipment to modernize the oilfields and pipelines?

Who will be there to rebuild the destroyed cities? Who will come to build apartments and condos for all the displaced? Who will provide the food and medical services?

Will it will be companies owned and controlled by the Bush family, the Cheney family, the Rumsfeld family?

Will it be companies owned or soon to be acquired by the Carlyle Group? Will it be companies owned and operated by big time GOP contributors?

Please don't mis-interpret my comments. It's a beautiful thing to make money. There will be multiple generations worth of fortunes made here. The Bush family will end up making the Kennedys look working class.

I'm all for free enterprise and grabbing all you can with both hands, I just can't stand for the self-rightous lies about "regieme change" and liberation of the Iraqi people".

Just my cynical humble opinion.

At least when it's over, there'll be one less thug to worry about.

110 posted on 01/31/2003 12:47:52 AM PST by WhiteGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
There's nothing "humble" about your opinion. Unfortunately, I won't be there to see your opinion crammed down your throat when your BS is refuted by reality. Hopefully you'll choke.
111 posted on 01/31/2003 10:59:33 PM PST by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Deb
I guess I must have touched a nerve.......

You speak to me about Reality?

I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love to actually believe that our government in general, and Bush in particular, are good wholesome public servants.

They always, before making any decision, consider if it is within the limits of the constitution and if it is in the best interest of the average American.

It would be wonderful if in our "elections", candidates argued over who could eliminate the most wasteful spending instead of who panders to the richest lobbyist.

Power and personal wealth. For our politicians, that is reality.

112 posted on 02/01/2003 6:22:59 AM PST by WhiteGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson