MMC encourages the following, as all should:

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President

US global domination
'regime change'
'global Pax Americana'

a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence,

'American grand strategy' the US must 'discourage advanced industrial
nations from challenging our leadership 'demanding American political
leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total
control of cyberspace.

US may consider developing biological weapons
'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will
be more widely available ...
combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace,
and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological
warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological
warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes justifies the
creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.


'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of
their making.

Wow all great ideal MMC thanks for the tips.

The real issues, not MMC anti USA propaganda

the cost of non-intervention was to high with Saddam


The fact Saddam was a totalitarian dictator and that the freedom and
liberty of Iraqis are voided by his continued
dictatorship seems to have escaped the supposed moral concerns of the
French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Vatican.


1) 12 years of continued torture, rape, murder, and totalitar-
ianism by Saddam and Saddam's cronies against the
people of Iraq,


2) Saddam's use of biochemical weapons against the Kurds
and Iranians,


3) Saddam's starvation of groups out of favor with the ruling
regime (Marsh Arabs),


4) Saddam's construction of mosques and palaces of enormous
opulence as his people suffered,


5) Saddam's continued development of weapons of mass destruc-
tion,


6) Saddam's alliances with and assistance to likeminded terrorist
entities,


7) Saddam's refusal to cooperate and pro-actively assist the inspec-
tors in a genuine effort to rid itself of weapons of mass destruc-

tion,


8) Saddam's treating his commitments to disarm as burdens to be
avoided rather than as obligations to be fulfilled (disarmament
as a game, rather than as a goal),


9) Saddam's financial support of Palestinian suicider-mass murder-
er organizations in a public display of hatred for human life,


10) Saddam's past atrocities committed against the peoples of
Kuwait and Israel and Iran,


11) Saddam's past efforts to develop nuclear weapons (only
stopped due to Israeli bombing of a nuclear reactor and,
later on, the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the surprising
discovery, thereafter, that Iraq was within two years of devel-
oping nuclear weapons),


12) freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people, a people who have
been bullied and murdered into submission to totalitarianism,


13) defense of the United States, a country vulnerable to attacks
from mass murdering Islamist terrorists who could easily find
succor and WMD from an American-hating tyrant,


14) prevention of the Saddam-Islamist-terrorist goal of a united
Arabia confronting the west (Saddam's goal was a united Arabia
led by Saddam -- Islamists' goal, worldwide conquest led
by a strong leader and the strongest leader in Arabia was
Saddam),


15) reducing the likelihood that Iran will develop nukes by removing
Iran's feeling it must do so to protect against its arch enemy,
Saddam,


16) increasing pressure on Saudi Arabia to deal with the terrorist
elements which are widespread in its midst due to Wahabism,


17) the historical record which clearly demonstrates that pacifism-
appeasement-diplomacy are inept when confronting totalitarian-
ism led by a belligerent and powerful foe -- reference the Treaty

of Versailles and its lack of enforcement by France and Great
Britain as Hitler violated its tenets, re-armed, re-militarized
the
Rhineland, and (unopposed until it was too late) set out to con-
quer most of Europe and Russia, allied with Japan in its effort
to dominate the Far East (an effort which led to the attack on
the U.S. at Pearl Harbor), -and- committed the systematic mass
murder of the handicapped, Jews, homosexual men, and any-
one else opposed to Hitler's tyranny.


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^


References:


- - -


Is he at war?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../synopsis.html

Excerpt: ... In the 10 years since the Gulf War ended,
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has said that he has
always considered himself at war with America. And
during that time, the U.S. has always considered him
a threat. ...


- - -


Motive:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/mylr...

Excerpt: ... Saddam's view of the utility of violence is
entirely different than ours. ... Saddam sees violence as
something that can achieve his goals. He sees a utility in
violence. In addition, Saddam seeks revenge against the
United States, to do to us what we have done to Iraq. ...


- - -


Primary goal/character (1 of 2):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...terviews/aburi...

Excerpt: ... Saddam Hussein thinks he talks to god. He has
a message--he has to lead Iraq, make it a model for the Arab
countries and then attract the rest of the Arab countries and
become the sole Arab leader of modern times.


... There is no stopping the man. He always has things in
focus. He never misses a beat. In terms of what the country's
all about, and in terms of where his country fits in the whole
world. ...


- - -


Primary goal/character (2 of 2):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... Saddam is very vengeful, and Saddam believes
in getting back and attacking. ...


- - -


Saddam and weapons of mass destruction - differing
views of Arabs and Iraqis, generally speaking:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...terviews/aburi...

Excerpt: ... I don't think there was any Arab in the seventies
who did not want Saddam Hussein to have an atomic weapon.
They wanted him to have military parity. Israel had atomic
weapons. The Arabs wanted an Arab country to have atomic
weapons. Iraq was the head of the pack and therefore all
Arabs supported Saddam Hussein. ... I don't think there are
many Arabs at this moment in time ... who do not want Sad-
dam Hussein to have an atomic weapon now.


... there is a division between the vision of Saddam Hussein
that the Iraqis have and the vision of Saddam Hussein the
rest of the Arabs have. To the rest of the Arabs, he is the
man standing up to West. To the Iraqis, he is the man who
dragged us into this state of misery. Unwillingly. ...


- - -


Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Nuclear / Biological / Chemical:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...c/arsenal.html

Excerpt: ... In summary, the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) report says that following the August 1990
invasion of Kuwait, Iraq launched a "crash program" to
develop a nuclear weapon quickly by extracting weapons
grade material from safe-guarded research reactor fuel.
This project, if it had continued uninterrupted by the war,
might have succeeded in producing a deliverable weapon
by the end of 1992.


... In its 1999 final report to the U.N. Security Council,
UNSCOM noted that Iraq's biological warfare program was
"among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of
mass destruction."


- - -


Inspections a Cure-All?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... The United Nations inspectors had a very mis-
guided opinion about what is disarmament. ... They thought
if you have something, I take it away from you, and you are
disarmed. Despite the knowledge you have, the expertise
you gained through the years, your contacts that could re-
purchase parts for you and put the thing back together. They
discounted all this. If you have a piece of equipment, they
take it away, and you are disarmed.


This is simplistic. They are not naïve; I talked to them. I talked
to many of the inspectors. We had some kind of give and take
in this. But they were restricted. ...


For example, on the nuclear ... the critical parts, that Iraq
could not replace easily, we did not tell about -- for example,
the molds that you make explosives with, the machines that
you make explosives with. Nobody is going to sell you these
anymore. Very difficult. So Iraq did not give these up. Not a
single explosive was given to the inspectors for the nuclear
weapon program. Not a single mold, not a single machine. ...


- - -


If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region.


Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the
full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio-
logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists
are there, and he has oil money, to a degree, not as much as
before. So what you are getting is a highly weaponized state
with a huge terror organ -- the government itself is a terror
organ, and several organizations that could be satellites to it,
including Al Qaeda. ...


A nuclear bomb would turn Saddam into a huge figure in the
region. Islamic fundamentalists and many of the Arab nation-
alists feel humiliated throughout this century -- the loss of
Palestine, the occupation of Arab land by the West, the humil-
iation of the region throughout the century; they'll be vindicated
with Saddam. Here is a man who can stand up to the West,
who made it, who has it, who can do it. He will be a huge figure
in the region.


And the Arab "street," which we used to think is not very im-
portant ... September 11 is telling us, now, is very important,
because 14 out of the 19 killer hijackers, 13 or 14, are Saudis,
which are basically U.S. allies. So the Saudi street is not
stable, is not happy, neither with the government nor with the
alliance. So what we are ending with us a breeding ground
of groups that would work outside the alliance structure and
could support whichever extremist regime they think is attrac-
tive to them.


... There was no choice. Absolutely no choice to removing Sad-
dam. No alternative. Saddam has to be removed. Otherwise,
what you'll have is the region going down the drain, eventually,
with all kinds of extremist groups, possible skirmishes, small
wars, all kinds of actions. ...


- - -


Terrorism Training Inside Iraq

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod...

Excerpt: ... And they trained people to hijack airplanes?


Yes.


For what purpose?


... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from
the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Sad-
dam's fighters is to attack American targets and American
interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it.


All this training is directed towards attacking American targets,
and American interests. The training does not only include
hijacking of planes and sabotage. ... Some other people were
trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on
how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind
enemy lines. But it's all for the general concept of hitting and
attacking American targets and American interests. ...

joe

Joe wrote:


- - -

If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region.

Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the
full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio-
logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists


Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG,
to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note,
November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,
no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the
capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was
appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to
Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial
control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004,
Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed
questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]"

Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees
from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod...

This link points to nowhere.

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
Joe wrote:


- - -

If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region.

Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the
full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio-
logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists


Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG,

Yeah I like the big bad boss man of the blues on the radio sunday
mornings on PBS here in Houston. That how I found out about PBS.

I was tossing liberal pre -war chum to the liberal fishies. Gonna see
who strikes

Joe



Cheers
Marty

I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American
Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts about
why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the
proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the
insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's quite
an indictement.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:


- - -

If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region.

Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the
full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio-
logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists


Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG,
to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note,
November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,
no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the
capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was
appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to
Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial
control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004,
Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed
questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]"

Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees
from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod...

This link points to nowhere.

Cheers
Marty

Capt. JG wrote:
I know he's not going to do it, but he should read Fiasco: The American
Military Adventure in Iraq, but Thomas Ricks. It's filled with facts about
why we went and what we're doing. Bascially, the facts support the
proposition that US policy and Bushco in particular did more to fuel the
insurgency and Al Qaeda than they could have done on their own. It's quite
an indictement.

If true then the Democrats owe it to the people that elected them to
impeach the President.
Guess we will see in the first "100 days" huh?
Been to any M. Moore flicks lately?

Joe


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:


- - -

If Saddam Gets Nukes, What Will Happen?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/hamz...

Excerpt: ... We are talking about now the future of the region.

Now, Saddam gets nuclear weapons, and he has already the
full range of the chemical and most of the range of the bio-
logical probably. ... The expertise are there, all the scientists


Joe, glad to see you're willing to quote from liberal site like PBS.ORG,
to bad you didn't post the codacil to this interview: "[Editor's Note,
November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,
no evidence has surfaced showing that Saddam Hussein had had the
capability to deploy nuclear weapons. After Saddam's fall, Hamza was
appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be senior adviser to
Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology. In this role, he had partial
control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries. In March 2004,
Hamza's contract was not renewed. To date, he has not addressed
questions about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.]"

Hmmm.... I wonder how much else you left out, quoting zealous refugees
from Saddam's scourge hardly constitutes credible evidence



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nterviews/khod...

This link points to nowhere.

Cheers
Marty

Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding
our invasion of Iraq:

I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert
of Southern California. A few of my golfing buddies are retired
senior Army officers still doing advisory work relative to the
training activities at that center.

One of them told me... about a year prior to the actual invasion...
that this was what all their training agendas were focused on in-
cluding the month that was anticipated for their entry into Iraq.

As a result of our conversation... and in the ensuing months to
follow I kind of got the impression that Saddam Hussein himself
could have come crawling into the Oval Office on his hands and
knees offering appeasement ...but it wouldn't have made any
difference.

That this invasion was pretty well pre-ordained and etched in stone
.... so to speak.

My aformentioned statement is not an attempt to justify or criticize
what has occurred... but just a sharing of some personal insight
that I came accross back then... and of course subject to my own
perception of what I heard.

Best regards to all

Bill

wrote:
Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding
our invasion of Iraq:

I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert
of Southern California. A few of my golfing buddies are retired
senior Army officers still doing advisory work relative to the
training activities at that center.

One of them told me... about a year prior to the actual invasion...
that this was what all their training agendas were focused on in-
cluding the month that was anticipated for their entry into Iraq.

As a result of our conversation... and in the ensuing months to
follow I kind of got the impression that Saddam Hussein himself
could have come crawling into the Oval Office on his hands and
knees offering appeasement ...but it wouldn't have made any
difference.

That this invasion was pretty well pre-ordained and etched in stone
... so to speak.

My aformentioned statement is not an attempt to justify or criticize
what has occurred... but just a sharing of some personal insight
that I came accross back then... and of course subject to my own
perception of what I heard.

Best regards to all

Bill

The reason the focus of the military was on Iraq was was because in
1998 the Congress of the United States passed the "Iraqi Liberation
Act."

This act was promoted and signed into law by then President Clinton.
This Act called for support of the INC (Iraqi National Congress) and
the removal of Saddam from power.

The Iraqi Liberation Act was enacted and was black letter law
long before President Bush was elected as President. President
Bush inherited this law, and the removal of Saddam had already
been mandated by the US Congress long before President Bush took
office.

In October 2001, the US Congress voted unanimously (save one
traitor from California) to resolve that "a state of war exists
between the USA and all international terrorists and all those
that aid or harbor terrorists." This Congressional resolution
provided President Bush with the individual power to determine
which entities and nations were either terrorists or aiding or
harboring terrorists, and further, granted President Bush
*exclusive* discretion to use the full weight of the US Military
to hunt down or otherwise eliminate any such designated enemies.


Saddam had developed his own terrorist faction called the
Fedayeen, and these terrorist goons surfaced during the invasion
of Iraq. These terrorists were not only responsible for murderous
attacks on coalition forces, they also were murdering Iraqis that
refused to fight and were further holding hostage the families of
Iraqi soldiers. In true radical Muslim style, these Fedayeen
terrorists also traveled around the Iraqi countryside
decapitating Iraqi women that had committed the unspeakable crime
of simply waiving at the coalition forces.


Saddam openly admitted and bragged about sending money and
arms to the Palestinian terrorist organizations known as Hamas,
PLO, and Islamic Jihad. All three of those terrorist
organizations have murdered Americans in the past, and are
well-known terrorist organizations.


On December 27, 2000, Saddam openly and publically declared
war on the United States, Britain and Israel. Saddam's
declaration of war occurred only ten months prior to the 911
massacres, and his declaration of war was carried on the front
pages of all the Baghdad newspapers, and on the front page of
most Arabic European newspapers. Under the articles of the Geneva
Convention, any nation in receipt of an official declaration of
war has a right to preemptively attack the nation that issued the
war declaration.


The USA and Britain not only had the legal right to invade Iraq
and depose Saddam due to the violation of not less than seventeen
UN Resolutions since the Gulf War, they also had the moral
authority and the ethical necessity to do so.

Joe

End of this thread.....

Your buddies are dead on right. Same story in the book I mentioned.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
ups.com...
Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding
our invasion of Iraq:

I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert
of Southern California. A few of my golfing buddies are retired
senior Army officers still doing advisory work relative to the
training activities at that center.

One of them told me... about a year prior to the actual invasion...
that this was what all their training agendas were focused on in-
cluding the month that was anticipated for their entry into Iraq.

As a result of our conversation... and in the ensuing months to
follow I kind of got the impression that Saddam Hussein himself
could have come crawling into the Oval Office on his hands and
knees offering appeasement ...but it wouldn't have made any
difference.

That this invasion was pretty well pre-ordained and etched in stone
... so to speak.

My aformentioned statement is not an attempt to justify or criticize
what has occurred... but just a sharing of some personal insight
that I came accross back then... and of course subject to my own
perception of what I heard.

Best regards to all

Bill

wrote
Just to add a little fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding
our invasion of Iraq:

I live near a major Army training center up in the High Desert
of Southern California.


Is this you???? http://www.warnockworkbench.com/ Kewl lake. Kewler house.

Cheers,
Ellen

Is this you????

Yeh Ellen... That's were I live and my "cave" as I call it.

But I keep my little boat (Mac) at a marina located in Oxnard
California... which is right next to Port Hueneme which Joe
and some of the other Navy vets would be familiar with .

Bill:

You can also visit:

www.billwarnock.com