U.S. Search Teams Find Buried Iraqi Jets

by hawkaw 57 Replies latest social current

  • Simon

    Well, the reasons keep on changing and the proof never arrives.

  • hawkaw

    Yerusalyim is correct.

    There were many reasons and justification.

    These idiots violated their cease fire agreement and opened the door.

  • Yerusalyim


    WMD PROOF, Bio Labs...nuff said,

    Terrorism Links...you mean aside from paying terrorists in Palestine...aside from the terror camps that the US and UK took down...aside from Al Qaeda big wigs showing up in Baghdad for surgery...yep there's no proof.

    Saddam was a nice guy, just misunderstood.

  • Abaddon
    Terrorism, the links have been proven,

    Oh yeah, like the Al-Q link has been 'proven', as in asserted on so may occasions sheer repetiton has made people feel it is a fact that would stand up in a court of law...

    Yeru, how come you don't see 'New Light' for what it is? We all were sold the invasion on a dodgy bill of goods. Just as the Borg try to make peoples anticipation of '75 nothing to do with their statements and everything to do with peoples interpretation, so to now do the administrations of the UK and US.

    You might be happy to defend people who will either sell an invasion to the public on a dodgy pretence, or mount one due to an incompetant assesment of threat.

    Fine, vote for them. Just hope they don't do it again. This time the demise of Saddam was a good thing. Next time their incompetance or their dishonesty might not lead to a good thing.

    It is your failure, and the failure of the Republican Male Vpoice Choir, to comprehend this simple truth, that worries me most.

  • siegswife

    Repetition for emphasis.


    "Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

    For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

    Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

    3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

    4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

    5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

    6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

    7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

    9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.

    10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

    12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

    14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

    Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."

  • Panda

    Abaddon, Please reread my messages. I never said that Iraq was invaded because the Kurds were gassed. My point was that Iraq had the gas and did not hesitate to use the gas WHICH and I assume you agreee, the gas is WMD. That point should be clear.

    Also, I am not enamored of my govt's lack of attention to the economy. There, now you know. I have a disagreement with our beloved President. However, I am supportive of what is a good thing to do --- free up the natural resources for the Iraqi people --- Which BTW the oil for food UN sponsored fiasco was supposed to accomplish --- but failed.

    What is it that you think was going fine in Iraqi daily lives --- the mass graves? Hey, somebody had to dig those and isn't employment a good thing? Or the torturing of innocent people just to make sure the possible coup planners didn't get away and SH could sleep at night? That was an interesting step in national security, eh? Or maybe the raping and disfiguring of women AND children? Were these things okay... Ya know what, even w/o the original agreement ( you continue to ignore UN 1441) of UN countries [which we had then didn't have because of their (Russian and French) own spineless (sorry for the insult to any invertebrates) self -interest in Iraqi $$$ and oil], w/o all of that --- showing that people do matter, that's worth fighting about.

    BTW since you are so quick to blame US support for SH for atrocities I'd like to know what the Russians and French were doing as they supported the horrors conducted by the SH family "the family that slays together stays together."

  • George W Bush
    George W Bush
    Well, the reasons keep on changing and the proof never arrives.

    Dear Mr Simon the reasons have never changed. What has happened is people who are anti Bush simply only hear what they want to hear. Many of the Bush haters have taken the WMD portion and ran with that. Respectfully sir there were many many reasons listed other than WMD.

    You might also consider that many who are now actively anti war during the Clinton administration were saying exactly the same things as the Bush administration has said. The only difference is Clinton did not act on it will the same force as the Bush administraion did. Clinton promised to go in to destroy Saddams capability of producing and owning WMD. In fact he has now come out to state that beating the WMD thought to death is not productive or accurate.

    Think about this. Why did Saddam bury an entire airforce? In such a manner that they would no longer be usable. What was he doing if not trying to hide something.

    The WMD are most likely in the country and there has been much proof put forth that proves they've been there recently in certain areas.

    But no fear sir, the world will become a safer place. There is an administration in Washington that is going to fight terrorism to the ends of the earth. This administration will be intact until 2008. There is little doubt of that. Meanwhile our enemies will cover in caves and tunnels afraid to show themselves. This is a good thing.

  • Satanus

    Bio labs??? Here is a news piece showing that part of the american and british govt intelligence branches didn't go along w that conclusion. They believe that those trailers were for hydrogen making for baloons for artilary practice.


    The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment.

    But it had not previously been known that a majority of the Defense Intelligence Agency's engineering team had come to disagree with the central finding of the white paper: that the trailers were used for making biological weapons.

    "The team has decided that in their minds, there could be another use, for inefficient hydrogen production, most likely for balloons," a Defense Department official said.


Share this