First off, let me state that I have no intention of adhering to these guidelines!

"You agree, through your use of this YaBB forum, that you will not post any material which is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy"

Okay, now that we've gotten that little bit of business out of the way, allow me to present you with the first article.

How To Sell A Gulf War: A Brief History of False, Bushian Propaganda

In five weeks it is likely that United States soldiers will be fighting and dying in Iraq. While there is no doubt that we can defeat Saddam Hussein, there is much debate on whether we should go to war and what the ultimate costs to Iraq and the United States will be.

Americans want to believe that our government officials tell the truth and don't intentionally mislead us. "Other governments manipulate the truth, not ours", we think to ourselves.

It is hard for Americans to accept that at times we are lied to or intentionally misled in order to build support for a foreign policy decision. While this may be disturbing it is our duty as citizens in a democracy to be open to this reality. We are the strongest military in the world and ultimately decide which governments will fall or stand.

Read here about how American foreign diplomats triggered Gulf War I:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr...rr/glaspie.html

Note how Glaspie gave Hussein the green light to invade after Hussein described in detail how Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil by diagonal drilling on the border areas.

Gulf War I

If you followed the first Gulf War you remember the infamous story of how Iraqi soldiers "removed babies from incubators" in Kuwait city; "left them to die" and "shipped the incubators back to Iraq". This was front page news in every newspaper in the U.S. and the lead story on every major news station as the public was deciding whether to support going to war.

This story was repeated by President Bush senior in a number of speeches saying that such "ghastly atrocities," were like "Hitler revisited."

There is only one problem with this story. It never happened! It was a complete fabrication!

Months after the war ended TV Guide reported in Feb., 1992 that both 20/20 and Sixty Minutes interviewed doctors in Kuwait and determined no such incidents ever happened.

Another example from the first Gulf war, according to an article in the Christian Science Monitor, was a report by Pentagon officials, citing top-secret satellite images. Pentagon officials estimated that "up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border of Saudi Arabia, threatening the major supplier of oil for the US".

The St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time which showed no Iraqi troops visible near the Saudi border - just empty desert.

Gulf War II

In a September 7, 2002 news conference President Bush said that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon citing a report from The Itnl Atomic Energy Agency.

On Friday, Sept. 27, in a news interview Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman said, "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency."

When questioned, the White House said the President was referring to a 1991 IAEA report.

Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by IAEA in 1991!

Presently there are UN inspectors in Iraq who have discovered extremely little evidence to indict Iraq on charges of possession of weapons of mass destruction. Undeterred, the evil axis of Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz seem intent on destroying Iraq's popular Hussein regime.

In contrast, North Korea has blatantly stated that they do indeed possess nuclear capabilities and are working on developing nuclear arms. In response, Bush has indicated that "negotiations" will resolve this "crisis".

Why are negotiations an acceptable solution for the North Korean "crisis", yet military action is required against a prostrate, poor, Third World nation like Iraq? Can anyone say "oil"?

By the way, when will UN weapons inspectors be arriving on our shores to inspect our weapons of mass destruction? After all, we are the only country to have ever used them in war (against Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Dear Doug,

I agree with what you say.

Although old nuclear warheads have been found, Iraq is not known to possess nuclear weapons: even if they did, the US would have 1,000's more. Iraqw does, however, possess chemical warfare: so, why did the West not intervene when Saddam used Sarin and Mustard gas on Kurds, killing thousands? The West sat back and watched, "observing" chemical warfare and its awful affects.

So, why war now? In my view, the obsession with "security" in our countries and others is at the heart of it. We see this in the unfair treatment of refugees. Iraq has become a "threat" to us. Our leaders have an iron grip over the majority of the country, telling us that we are Anti-government if we do not support a war effort. We are "patriotic" if we support this war.

The Allies will easily sweep through the antiquated and far inferior Iraqi Army. But the toil on the civilians will be great. No-one can claim war on Iraq will help civil rights - especially with sanctions still in place.

Oil is another factor. Look at Afghanistan - oil pipelines were contracted with Western oil companies straight after the regime change. Many of the Bush Admin. worked in oil, and still have shares in those companies: Cheney worked for Halliburton, who have direct dealings with Saddam and the bin Ladens.

I could go on. Doug, one last thing - please don't directly disobey the rules of the forum. You don't need to, to get your view across: just state your point in a fair manner. I'm sure Shawn won't mind a little heated debate, but he probably won't want any aggression etc...

I'm aware of the hypocrisy of the U.S. regarding N. Korea and Iraq.  But Iraq is just asking for it, and Saddam's oldest son, the one who tried to threaten us by saying 9/11 would be child's play compared to what would happen if we invaded Iraq, should be shot.  

Many people might disagree with me, but if Iraq continues to provoke us, then I'd be in favor of a quick invasion and complete regime change.  What do other people think?  Is Cowboy Bush right on track, or does the Eurowimps pacifist
position pan out?  I guess we'll find out either way in the coming weeks.

HA HA Shawn! I like how you describe cowbou Bush and Eurowimps...COOL! As for my opinion on the matter...I really don't know where I stand. I guess I am somewhrere n the middle...like a cowboy wimp ???

BYE, Dara

cowboy wimp?  LOL. Now that's funny, though you're nothing of the sort, Dara.  It's very easy to turn the 'invade Iraq' question into a complicated and messy problem that admits no easy resolution but heats up tempers nonetheless.  But if we keep things simple....hmm

best regards,
Shawn

Yes, simple is fine and good. I will say this, here and now. I believe all poeple have the right to their own opinion, as LONG as it agrees with MY opinion.........
JOKING, HA HA...my POOR attempt at humor for the night!
Ok, seriously though, I do believe each of us have the right to have our own opinions, EVEN if it differs form mine, as long as nobody forces THEIR opinions on other people. For this reason, I think I try to stay quiet on hot topics like this one. I know people can get real heated about this, and I can't take the heat, so I am not even going in the kitchen! Oh, sorry, I said no more lame-o jokes, and NOW look!
I would like to hear others opinions on this matter though. It does effect us all, regardless if you are a cowboy Bush, a Eurowimp, or a cowboy wimp!  :P
Bye, Dara

Aled, did you mention something about a "pipeline"???

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAQ51OR6AD.html

Pakistani, Turkmen, Afghan Leaders to Sign $3.2 Billion Pipeline Deal

By Bagila Bukharbayeva Associated Press Writer
Published: Dec 26, 2002

ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan (AP) - Leaders from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan met Thursday to work out the final details of an ambitious deal to build a gas pipeline through war-ravaged Afghanistan.

The long-delayed $3.2-billion natural gas pipeline, known as the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, would carry gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan. It would be one of the first major investment projects in Afghanistan in decades.

The project promises to give an economic boost to Afghanistan but lacks solid financial backing. Investors are leery of the risks of doing  business in a country where U.S.-led coalition forces are still hunting down remnants of Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.

Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov welcomed Afghan President Hamid Karzai* and Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali to his marble working residence in the Turkmen capital Ashgabat for the two-day meeting. Huge portraits of the three leaders hung outside the palace.

The meeting is to culminate Friday in the signing of a framework agreement defining legal mechanisms for setting up a consortium to build and operate the pipeline.

The pipeline would pump hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan's ruined economy and create 12,000 jobs there.

Pakistan would get more than $300 million in transit fees annually and gain access to the gas.

Turkmenistan, which possesses the fifth largest gas reserves in the world, would get a badly needed alternative route for gas exports. In 1994 Russia refused to transport gas from this former Soviet republic via the pipelines running through its territory.

"Once the contract is signed tomorrow, different private companies and consortiums can take interest in the project should there be interest in it," said Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah. "It is a project which is good for prosperity of all three countries."

The Asian Development Bank is carrying out a study for the 910-mile pipeline, which would tap into natural gas wells at Turkmenistan's huge Dauletabad-Donmez field. The field holds more than 100 trillion cubic feet in gas reserves.

The pipeline would carry up to 700 billion cubic feet of gas a year.

The $1 million study approved last week by ADB directors is slated to begin next month and be complete in June 2003, after which work on setting up a consortium will begin.

The pipeline was originally launched in 1997 by a consortium led by U.S. energy giant Unocal Corp. but abandoned after the United States fired cruise missiles into Afghanistan in 1998 in pursuit of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

The Afghan, Pakistani and Turkmen leaders relaunched the project at a meeting in May in Islamabad. The signing ceremony was originally scheduled for October but was postponed because Pakistani officials were busy forming a Cabinet and because of questions the Asian Development Bank raised about financial aspects of the plan.

The Japanese conglomerate Itochu has expressed interest in participating, but no company has joined the project. Unocal said it has no plans to do so.

India is the main potential buyer of the Turkmen gas that would be pumped through Afghanistan. But efforts to interest New Delhi in the project so far have been unsuccessful, with India reluctant to depend on its rival Pakistan.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones said earlier this year that Washington would support the project as long as it is commercially viable.

Skeptics say the project would require an indefinite foreign military presence in Afghanistan.

The summit comes a month after the Turkmen government reported an assassination attempt against Niyazov. The authoritarian leader has ruled the five-million Central Asian nation with an iron hand since before the Soviet collapse, maintaining state control over the country's extensive energy resources.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Hamid Karzai is the oil man Bush appointed to govern Afghanistan. He represented Occidental Oil at a conference in Houston which discussed two pipelines, this one, plus a huge one to connect the Caucus oil field with the Arabian Sea ports. The Taliban rejected the plan. Bad Taliban. They are bad like Hussein when he nationalized the Iraqi oil industry.

The Taliban is verry baad also, because they forbade the cultivation of poppies.

Of course this is all Occidental, er, excuse the typo, accidental, er, darn, I meant coincidental.