Killing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts

re: Ferozk

I am sorry for the negative tone of my previous post. On rereading your last post I agree with your proposal. Only I do not see a preeminent position for India in the scheme of things(I do not believe that India is in any way more capable of articulating a common asian viewpoint). I would much rather have a wide based initiative for this realignment.

Ashish

re: Ferozk

I do not share the views expressed by Mr.Dhume on India`s dominance over the region. I was expressing my opinion about the recent activities in Iraq and believe that the same are the feelings of Indians in general. This certainly did not exclude Pakistanis nor did it relegate them to any kind of secondary role in the region or for that matter any of the nationalities in the whole of west asia(by that i mean everything west of the subcontinent which I consider South Asia). I hope you too share my desire to see democracy flourishing in the whole region. It is this perspective that I was talking about. And it is to fulfil this desire of mine that I recommended disengagement of the West from affairs in the region. This certainly does not mean supplanting western hegemony with the hegemony of any other nation. Rather a general movement of the entire region towards a stable democratic setup like western europe. Since I do not percieve western presence in the region as contributing towards this ideal(and I believe most Pakistanis feel the same way too), I propose unified action by all asian nations to take a moral stand against these activities. I regret that you have misinterpreted my concern and an idealistic (though I believe also pragmatic) proposal as having ulterior motives.



sincerely, Ashish

Re: Mubbashir

I agree with your contention that anti-American Iraqi policy advocates have to mobilize public support to seek a reversal of the present policy towards Baghdad.

You suggested that you do not want to lobby the government, that is fine, but local grassroots activism to change, influence, a policy is based on a public perception of the problem. In the case of the American policy towards Iraq, the vast majority of the American public is misinformed and indifferent towards and what is happening in Iraq as a result of American policy.

The Iraqi problem basically falls within a national security foreign policy agenda of the United States and that is a top-down approach. If you do not have access to the policy decision making bodies and as in this case, the media follows the establishment rationale, and denies you your cause access to diseminate information, then grassroots activism becomes a viable option.

The key is still how do you inform the American public that:

1) There is a serious problem
2) The problem affects them
3) The problem can be solved
4) They need to get involved
5) and lastly, but most importantly: finding and supporting political candidates who agree with your position.

This sort of political activism requires an infrastructure that is coherent and has the logistical acumen to get its message heard. Granted, there are a lot of organizations that moniter Iraq, but they are in most cases splintered and are not joined within a large scheme of things. Hence, their messages warnings are often disjointed, seen as alarming and they do not have a political focus; to increase public awareness to change a policy. I promise you, if these groups can join in a common consensus, they will have enough clout to consitute a lobby of their own, enough to interest media attention.

As to your other point, I agree. Saddam Hussein`s regime of terror is supported by the Iraqi elites who, in his ability to rule, see their own survivial. Their position of power, wealth and influence are a direct manisfestion of his rule and since their social status derives from him, they are not too eager to risk their own political suicide. The trick is to convince these groups that there is an existence after Saddam Hussein. No amount of cruise missiles will ``degrade`` this group`s faith in the regime. They have to be told and even, if necessary, promised that their status in society will not be lessened if Saddam Hussein goes the way of the Dodo bird.

In this case, I think that the best American policy would be one of a gradual approach and should be not to alienate the Iraqi people, but to,``win their hearts and minds.`` The Iraq people need to told and offered an alternative to Saddam Hussein. The idea of a Radio Free Iraq is a good idea; they should be told what they are not hearing and let them decide who is right.

Re: BG

I admire your passions and commitments towards many causes, including this one and I wish you bon chance et bon temps!

In this regard, I sincerely hope that you`ll forgive me. You denigerated the Realpolitik and other political rationalizations and therories, but whether we like it or not, the rules of the game are based on those paradigms. Unless you have a better idea or a replacement for the present rules, the games will go on just as they have. If you do have an alternative I would really like to hear your suggestions.

As the Irish say, may the road rise up to meet you!

re: Ferozk

Thanks for your insightful replies to my responses and those of RR and mubbashir. You have nicely articulated the American position and the rationale given by the Americans(or lack thereof) for that. But my response was from the Indian perspective. Hence the desire to ``change the rules of the game`` in West Asia. I believe that the current American policies in the region are working opposite to the stated objectives(and towards other not so benign ones, intentionally I believe). Replacing the present regime with another dictator or a Shia-Kurd one doesn`t look like something that will lead to long term stability(or democracy). Weakening the people will certainly give more power to the current regime or any similar successor. Disengagement, therefore, seems to be the best policy from the moral standpoint and pragmatic in the long run. I cannot but advocate this. Radio Free Iraq, if it really preaches democracy, I support.

regards,

Ashishk

re: all

Here is a nice article from the Times of India

High Crime In Iraq Not in White House

By VIDYA SUBRAHMANIAM

http://www.timesofindia.com/221298/22edit9.htm

Ashish

here is some more useful information from the international action center:

``But let`s look at the specifics of the U.S. charges against Iraq right now. They too are a lie. Was Iraq in noncompliance? Neither Butler nor the U.S. has challenged the Iraqi Foreign Minister`s allegation that since November 17, 1998, when Iraq allowed weapons inspections to resume, there have been 427 inspections, 128 of them at new sites, and UNSCOM has cited only five so-called obstructions. Five obstructions! And what were they? One was a 45 minute delay before allowing access. Another was a rebuff to an outrageous demand by a U.S. arm inspector, Dianne Seamons, that inspectors be allowed to
interview all of the undergraduate students in Baghdad University`s Science Department. Another, on December 9, was the inspection of a small headquarters of the Baathist political party. Inspectors left those premises after they were asked what is the relation between the
small headquarters of a party and the disarmament mission. The last two cases of so-called Iraqi noncompliance were this: UNSCOM asked to
inspect two establishments on Fridays--the Muslim holy day. The Iraqis told UNSCOM that since these establishments were not open on Friday, the inspectors could visit the establishments, but they would need to be accompanied by Iraqi officials. This is in accordance with the agreement between Iraq and UNSCOM about Friday inspections. These five incidents are the supposed legal basis for raining thousands of powerful missiles into Iraq.``

here is some more useful information from the international action center:

``But let`s look at the specifics of the U.S. charges against Iraq right now. They too are a lie. Was Iraq in noncompliance? Neither Butler nor the U.S. has challenged the Iraqi Foreign Minister`s allegation that since November 17, 1998, when Iraq allowed weapons inspections to resume, there have been 427 inspections, 128 of them at new sites, and UNSCOM has cited only five so-called obstructions. Five obstructions! And what were they? One was a 45 minute delay before allowing access. Another was a rebuff to an outrageous demand by a U.S. arm inspector, Dianne Seamons, that inspectors be allowed to
interview all of the undergraduate students in Baghdad University`s Science Department. Another, on December 9, was the inspection of a small headquarters of the Baathist political party. Inspectors left those premises after they were asked what is the relation between the
small headquarters of a party and the disarmament mission. The last two cases of so-called Iraqi noncompliance were this: UNSCOM asked to
inspect two establishments on Fridays--the Muslim holy day. The Iraqis told UNSCOM that since these establishments were not open on Friday, the inspectors could visit the establishments, but they would need to be accompanied by Iraqi officials. This is in accordance with the agreement between Iraq and UNSCOM about Friday inspections. These five incidents are the supposed legal basis for raining thousands of powerful missiles into Iraq.
``

re: FerozK

I have enjoyed your explanations on Real Politik, hunting, and socio-political darwinism. And I agree that when it comes to institutionalized power, the state, family, its ``might (that) makes right``. But speaking for myself, i don`t expect the people in the pentagon, white house and congress to stop and ask themselves why they are bombing people of Iraq. Like you said it`s in their (not just Clinton here) vested interest to have Saddam, to enact the sanctions, and to occasionaly bomb the place. All the moralisms are not going to stop anything when it comes to the action of the state.

Their justifications might be as hollow as the one`s used to burn down Vietnamese villages in order to save them, but they will work as long as we sit back as spectators. But (here is where i disagree with you), one of the reasons why people have gotten involved in doing something about what`s going on is to disseminate information about what is realy going on and has been going on for a long time in this region. So we are not looking to lobby to the gov`t where our voices will be drowned by better financed interests but to turn to the public- in the form of protests, rallies, posters. This might sound naive to practitioners of real politik but as the action of the Ohio State student activists in preventing US bombing of Iraq in the previous build-up showed that `political animals` can be checked by a informed public or good agitation-propaganda to change the presumptions about this conflict.

...also your confusion on why Iraqi people don`t show their appreciation for American bombing of their cities is kind of self explanatory---if anything US actions since the end of Gulf War have probably strengthened Saddam with some segments of Iraqi population, while dissenting rebels have been systematically executed, or forced to flee.

re: Saddam

An interesting twist on the coincidence angle: what if the mice are running the show ?

Just a thought (and no i am not being facetious)... dL

BG (24, 28):

Yes, I guess you`re right, the third reason I gave--EGO--should be read in a very comprehensive sense. ``Ego`` also meaning a display for the world, in no uncertain terms, about its reach and destructive power.

About this being a moral thing: I agree that we must speak up and make a stink about this whole thing (did you ever go to that demonsration in Time Square?). And there is no question that it is morally wrong. I mean, there has to be another way to deal with all this, a way that doesn`t involve butchering so many people. US foreign policy needs a big overhaul in that respect.

--AS

Visit http://www.lbbs.org for an alternative viewpoint to the barrage of propaganda in the U.S. media. Lots of great articles and statements on the U.S. killings.

my sincere apologies to umair and the readers. i just wanted to put this out there:

The Independent (18 Dec 1998)

Robert Fisk - Deadly cost of
a degrading act

WE ARE now in the endgame, the final
bankruptcy of Western policy towards Iraq, the
very last throw of the dice. We fire 200 cruise
missiles into Iraq and what do we expect? Is a
chastened Saddam Hussein going to emerge from
his bunker to explain to us how sorry he is? Will
he tell us how much he wants those nice UN
inspectors to return to Baghdad to find his
``weapons of mass destruction``? Is that what we
think? Is that what the Anglo-American
bombardment is all about? And if so, what
happens afterwards? What happens when the
missile attacks end - just before the Muslim holy
month of Ramadan, because, of course, we really
are very sensitive about Iraqi religious feelings -
and Saddam Hussein tells us that the UN
inspectors will never be allowed to return?

As the cruise missiles were launched, President
Clinton announced that Saddam had ``disarmed
the [UN] inspectors``, and Tony Blair - agonising
about the lives of the ``British forces`` involved (all
14 pilots) - told us that ``we act because we
must``. In so infantile a manner did we go to war
on Wednesday night. No policies. No
perspective. Not the slightest hint as to what
happens after the bombardment ends. With no
UN inspectors back in Iraq, what are we going to
do? Declare eternal war against Iraq?

We are ``punishing`` Saddam - or so Mr Blair
would have us believe. And all the old cliches are
being trundled out. In 1985, just before he
bombed them, Ronald Reagan told the Libyans
that the United States had ``no quarrel with the
Libyan people``. In 1991, just before he bombed
them, George Bush told the Iraqis that he had ``no
quarrel with the Iraqi people``. And now we have
Tony Blair - as he bombs them - telling Iraqis
that, yes, he has ``no quarrel with the Iraqi
people``.

Is there a computer that churns out this stuff? Is
there a cliche department at Downing Street
which also provides Robin Cook with the tired
phrase of the American Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright, about how Saddam used gas
``against his own people``?

For little did we care when he did use that gas
against the Kurds of Halabja - because, at the
time, those Kurds were allied to Iran and we, the
West, were supporting Saddam`s invasion of Iran.

The lack of any sane long-term policy towards
Iraq is the giveaway. Our patience - according to
Clinton and Blair - is exhausted. Saddam cannot
be trusted to keep his word (they`ve just
realised). And so Saddam`s ability to ``threaten his
neighbours`` - neighbours who don`t in fact want
us to bomb Iraq - has to be ``degraded``. That
word ``degraded`` is a military term, first used by
General Schwarzkopf and his boys in the 1991
Gulf war, and it is now part of the vocabulary of
the weak. Saddam`s weapons of mass destruction
have to be ``degraded``. Our own dear Mr Cook
was at it again yesterday, informing us of the need
to ``degrade`` Saddam`s military capability.

How? The UN weapons inspectors - led for most
of the time by Scott Ritter (the man who has
admitted he kept flying to Israel to liaise with
Israeli military intelligence), could not find out
where Saddam`s nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons were hidden. They had been harassed
by Iraq`s intelligence thugs, and prevented from
doing their work. Now we are bombing the
weapons facilities which the inspectors could not
find. Or are we? For there is a very serious
question that is not being asked: if the inspectors
couldn`t find the weapons, how come we know
where to fire the cruise missiles?

And all the while, we continue to impose
genocidal sanctions on Iraq, sanctions that are
killing innocent Iraqis and - by the admission of
Mr Cook and Mrs Albright - not harming
Saddam at all. Mrs Albright rages at Saddam`s
ability to go on building palaces, and Mr Cook is
obsessed with a report of the regime`s purchase
of liposuction equipment which, if true, merely
proves that sanctions are a total failure.

Mr Cook prattles on about how Iraq can sell
more than $10bn (£6bn) of oil a year to pay for
food, medicine and other humanitarian goods. But
since more than 30 per cent of these oil revenues
are diverted to the UN compensation fund and
UN expenses in Iraq, his statement is totally
untrue.

Dennis Halliday, the man who ran the UN
oil-for-food programme in Baghdad, until he
realised that thousands of Iraqi children were
dying every month because of sanctions, resigned
his post with the declaration that ``we are in the
process of destroying an entire society. it is illegal
and immoral.`` So either Mr Halliday is a
pathological liar - which I do not believe - or Mr
Cook has a serious problem with the truth -
which I do believe.

Now we are bombing the people who are
suffering under our sanctions. Not to mention the
small matter of the explosion of child cancer in
southern Iraq, most probably as a result of the
Allied use of depleted uranium shells during the
1991 war. Gulf war veterans may be afflicted
with the same sickness, although the British
Government refuses to contemplate the
possibility. And what, in this latest strike, are
some of our warheads made of? Depleted
uranium, of course.

Maybe there really is a plan afoot for a coup
d`etat, though hopefully more ambitious than our
call to the Iraqi people to rise up against their
dictator in 1991, when they were abandoned by
the Allies they thought would speed to their
rescue. Mr Clinton says he wants a democracy in
Iraq - as fanciful a suggestion as any made
recently. He is demanding an Iraqi government
that ``represents its people`` and ``respects`` its
citizens. Not a single Arab regime - especially not
Washington`s friends in Saudi Arabia - offers such
luxuries to its people. We are supposed to
believe, it seems, that Washington and London
are terribly keen to favour the Iraqi people with a
fully fledged democracy. In reality, what we want
in Iraq is another bullying dictator - but one who
will do as he is told, invade the countries we wish
to see invaded (Iran), and respect the integrity of
those countries we do not wish to see invaded
(Kuwait).

Yet no questions are being asked, no lies
uncovered. Ritter, the Marine Corps inspector
who worked with Israeli intelligence, claimed that
Richard Butler - the man whose report triggered
this week`s new war - was aware of his visits to
Israel. Is that true? Has anyone asked Mr Butler?
He may well have avoided such contacts - but it
would be nice to have an answer.

So what to do with Saddam? Well, first, we
could abandon the wicked sanctions regime
against Iraq. We have taken enough innocent
lives. We have killed enough children. Then we
could back the real supporters of democracy in
Iraq - not the ghouls and spooks who make up
the so-called Iraqi National Congress, but the
genuine dissidents who gathered in Beirut in 1991
to demand freedom for their country, but were
swiftly ignored by the Americans once it became
clear that they didn`t want a pro-Western
strongman to lead them.

And we could stop believing in Washington.
Vice-President Al Gore told Americans yesterday
that it was a time for ``national resolve and unity``.
You might have thought that the Japanese had just
bombed Pearl Harbor, or that General
MacArthur had just abandoned Bataan. When
President Clinton faced the worst of the Monica
Lewinsky scandal, he bombed Afghanistan and
Sudan. Faced with impeachment, he now bombs
Iraq. How far can a coincidence go?

This week, two Christian armies - America`s and
Britain`s - went to war with a Muslim nation, Iraq.
With no goals, but with an army of platitudes,
they have abandoned the UN`s weapons control
system, closed the door on arms inspections, and
opened the door to an unlimited military offensive
against Iraq. And nobody has asked the obvious
question: what happens next?

So now we know who truly owns ``Weapons of Mass Destruction``.

The Sudanese are without life-saving drugs, civilizations spanning the earliest millennia are being destroyed, and we watch the spectacle on TV.

I agree with you BG. The CNN TV coverage is a sickening, trivializing, infuriating, spectacle.

Anita

re all

you know all this talk about real politik and rationalism and realism and interests is all bogus. US national security and US interests, according to the spin doctors, *by definition * exclude security and interests of the majority of the world`s people. is the contradiction not clear? the US`s reasons for bombing are transparent. we dont need theory to understand what is going on, merely common sense. ultimately, it is a moral judgement. do we think that violence and aggression are `wrong` no matter who commits them or do we think that if you have the bigger gun, you call the shots? do we let the greediest, meanest bully win because he makes and breaks the rules of the game or do we challenge the game and the rules?

it is laughable that the US bombed iraq for supposedly disobeying the UN, while the US itself has broken every conceivable international law in this latest show of cowardly, arrogant disregard for the life of iraqis.


as an aside: CNN`s live coverage of the bombing, as if it some kind of game, is truly sickening. we sit here, thousands of miles away, safely in front of our television sets, enjoying the `live` spectacle of the bombing. its truly surreal how the physical distance from the war (because, of course, its not on our precious soil robbed from the indigenous people) turns it into some kind of entertainment for US americans, while iraqis die and fear for their lives. the sheer cowardliness of the whole business makes me ill.


re annogul

``a white Christian country``

the white makes all the difference. we all know the christians down in panama, grenada, palestine or lebanon dont really count.

Re: RR

This is the first time I`ve done double a play on the Chowk....

Lets start from the bottom and work our way to the top. Thanks for admonishing me not to sell myself short, but being a political animal by nature and by instinct, I have to otherwise no one will buy me! RR, do you know the difference between a politican and a whore...there is none, if the money is right, we`ll assume any position you`d like! As to my being an educated person, I will take your word for it!

As to the realist mindset and the precepts of Realpolitik, I have never subscribed to that viewpoint. Realism, as viable political philosophy, and its adherence to the the doctrine of the zero-sum game, ended on August 4,1914, when the First World War began and invalidated it. The antebellum Europe was dominated by Bismarck and his Realpolitik and by its secert military alliances in a win-lose logical format. Whether I agreed or disagreed with that modus oprendi is a moot point. The reality is that the world I live in still operates on that basis and since I live in an imperfect world, I have to play the game as the rules warrant and not as I would like them to be.

RR, there is an old saying which simply says that one can not hunt with the hounds and also run with the foxes. That applies to life also. We all pick our battles when we can best fight them and I do not look down on any one who has the common sense to turn away and fight another day. Life is like a street fight (in my case drunken fraternity brawls at the local bars) and you must put your opponent down before he puts you down.

I do not play the blame game. As Marx said, ``to each according to his ability and to each according to his means``, I can undertand why the ``weaker opponent``, in your words resorts to bombing the World Trade Center, but I do not and will not condone that approach. Your rational and arguments for winning and surviving in a jungle are correct and I have no qualms against them, but I will say this you: you do not pick a fight with the lion in the jungle unless you are prepared to see it to a finish. If you merely paw the lion, and do it again and again over a period of time, you will only anger and infuriate the lion even more. If you want to kill a lion, you do so when he is weak and not stong.

The same reasoning and rationale applies to the groups and the nations that support them who do not have access to the modern weapons. Why do these groups only attack selective targets in a pin prick fashion that only results in massive retailiation against them. Destroying the WTC and some embassy in a Third World country will not bring them any closer to their aims. Each can play by their own rules, but if the judges (west, the majority of countries)are biased in favor of one set of rules (international diplomacy) then you still will lose the game. Let me put it to you this way, you are playing poker and the other guy is holding a pair of aces and what do you have to back up your bluff with, when it is called?

RR, I have been in enough fights to know that you do not start a fight you can not finish...that is called a death wish. That is my problem with these groups who seek to fight the United States and then say ``Hey, Uncle Sam is not playing fair.`` If you want a fair fight, go to Las Vegas, because the United States fights by street rules; dirty, rough and with the intention of putting its opponents down before they can put it down.

As to your example of the Iraqi uprisings during Bush administration and their eventual ruination, because of a lack of American support, same thing happened during the Bay of Pigs invasion, when JFK, who had favored the invasion, got cold feet and cancelled the air support hours before the landings. The Cuban exile force still went ahead and were decimated by the pro-Castro forces.

Concerning a more detailed reply on this issue, I would suggest that you see my reply to ASK below this post (I am not sure what the reference # is), but you`ll see it. You can`t miss it, the damn thing is too long!

RR; here is something for you to ponder...

The memory of an oppressed people is longer than the road to glory- Walter Winchell

Re: ASK (#20)

I will try to answer your objections to my post:

I did not question the Iraqis being as ``unfit`` in a quality of life argument, but in a political senser. All things being considered equal, the Iraqis are different from other peoples of the region, because they do not have a basic right to life. Saddam Hussein makes sure of that and in the past he has proven that point, even to his son-in-law. The west did not take away the Iraqi right to life on January 17, 1991, and has denied it since then, but Saddam Hussein did when he instituted his reign of terror over the Iraqis.

My question, which I raised, is why, in a basic sense, are the Iraqis willing to suffer for this man ? What are limits of Iraqi suffering and how long will they suffer under him and for him ? What I was suggesting was that they are the only ones who can answer that and no one else.

To be perfectly honest with you, your suggestion that the sanctions be lifted and the Iraqis wait for his much anticipated death, is unlikely to happen. The whole idea of the sanctions was to create conditions in Iraq that would foster his removal. If the sanctions were to be removed, Saddam Hussein would still be there and the Iraqis would still be suffering and there would be no democratic uprising.

The other, the real, reason why the sanctions will not be lifted, is because if that happens, then the west is admiting in toto that its policies, for the last eight years towards Iraq, were flawed. It will not admit to its own quilt in the matter. There is a annoying tendency in the western political mind to ignore its actus rea (guilty act) by refusing to credit its mistakes in hopes that they will be forgotten. The reason why the Europeans favor appeasement in the Balkans and do not reverse their policies and resist the Butcher of Belgrade, is because that would be an admission that their policies were wrong.

Concerning your argument for the induction of western ground troops into Iraq, the US Congress would dead set against that idea. (ASK, there is no way for me to hide behind words, so I`ll be honest and burn myself in the process; I have contacts who work in the US Congress and the following is based on our conversations.) The US Congress, since Afghanistan, is using the Afghan resistence as a yardstick to commit American resources in an armed conflict. Forget about American security interests, US will not deploy troops in harm`s way (incidently, First in Harm`s Way, is the motto of the US Navy and that is where the term comes from) till it sees a reciprocation on the ground.

What that means is that the Iraqis have to take the first step and mobilize against Saddam Hussein. The US will watch this and wait, till it sees that there is a probability of success for it to commit resources, in a policy which will have to be sold to the Congress, in a win-win situation. The US criteria for this is not democratic ideals in Iraq, but the monetary value it will cost the Americans to implement such a policy and the political price to be paid in domestic support. Otherwise, the administration is risking another Contra affair in another Nicagraua. This then needs to be sold to the American public which is eternally suffering from the ghosts of Vietnam and to a generation that came in political vogue during that era.

However, the critical assumption here is and will be; will the Iraqis fight without direct American western intervention and that again is up to the Iraqis to decide. Lets leave the prospect of American western ground intervention and deployment aside for a second, but lets talk about the Arab response to this.

If Saddam Hussein is such a big threat to his neighbors (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc.), they should seriously consider a ground operation to ``liberate Iraq`` and commit ground troops to do so with tacit American support. Why are the Arabs tolerating this man and sanctioning the sufferings of their fellow Arab breathen ?

Hence, it would be highly foolish on our behalf to expect the sanctions to lifted in the near future and the only way to remove them, is for the Iraqis to take the matters in their own hands. That is what the Americans are waiting for and that is what they want to see happening. They have to make the first moves and the sooner they do, the better off they will be.

Right now, the American public sees the Iraqis chanting pro-Saddam Hussein slogans on CNN and they wonder, if the Iraqis like him, why should they sacrifice their sons daughters to remove him for, what they believe to be, an ungrateful nation. The Iraqis need tell them otherwise and they need to start showing their hatred for this man. In its most basic and primary sense, this whole thing is a massisive public relations campaign and the Iraqis need to learn how to sell their product (life, liberity and the pursuit of happiness) to the American people.

ASK, I am sorry for the lenght of this post, but my post #18 was based on some frank conversations with friends who are in the Marine Corps, the US Army and I felt that you needed to know what the real and unsaid truth was, and why I sounded so callow and indifferent towards the plight of the Iraqis. I have, and I hate this, access to sources of infomation that the average person does not and in most cases, that is a curse. There are many times when I am willing to be hated in order to preserve access to that intelligence. This is one of them. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, do not ask for the truth, because most of the time, you will not be able to handle it.

Sincerely and humbly, FRK