A chess match - in which Saddam has possibly castled Queen side? By not only agreeing to Bush's demands to admit UN inspectors back into the region (already having been there for 7 1/2 years prior), and adhering to forceful "regulations" brought about by saber rattling of the U.S. and the British, but fully without the conditions he requested before, sacrificing his own convictions to save his people from mass murder, is a step further than Bush "may have" expected him to take. Saddam played his trump by submitting to two requests; one, to readmit UN inspectors, prepared prior to this latest agreement to readmit inspectors with outlined conditions, those conditions being the lifting of inhumane US sanctions, but to let them back in without said conditions. This, apparently, is not enough for the Bush Administration. In other words, the readmittance of UN inspectors was just a ploy and insincere from the beginning or compliance would have been immediately seen by Bush as to be a step in the right directio
Now he is allowing the inspectors back, and has "buckled" under the pressures by lifting the conditions he himself had levied prior. While this may be a plan to prove Bush is "out for blood", it also may be a well thought out "move" to prove to the world that he is not the monster that the Bush Administration would have you "believe" he is, or an effort to show that the things Saddam is accused of, he is innocent and poses no threat to America. (ie; building weapons of mass destruction for preemptive action or retaliation - in kind.)
The truth is simple - Bush wants Saddam out and will stop at nothing to see that happen. Even the possibility of peaceful resolution is unacceptable, based on Bush's unsubstantiated allegations such as "Saddam will attack America with WMD within one year if we do not stop him". Where did he get this information? Has the Bush administration suddenly become clairvoyant and can predict such things with certain accuracy when they could not (it is claimed) foresee the destruction of the World Trade Center? I digress, and refer here briefly to a letter from Usama Bin Laden which was in the possession of the CIA one day prior to 9/11 and which was allegedly not shared with the Bush administration nor the American people, which exclaimed an attack was about to occur.
Now Bush "does not believe Saddam", claiming that he is a "liar" and able to hide his WMD and Bush's "push to disregard" the latest compliance. He has made the call for operations to oust Saddam and the terrorist regimes within to continue. This is not a simple matter of compliance on the part of Saddam, for no matter how well Saddam buckles under Bush's demands the objective is clear: a full regime overhaul, and nothing less will do.
We have seen this in Afghanistan. We have seen this in the West Bank (aka Palestine). We have also seen compliance with US demands the world over, and will continue to see, with the U.S. and Zionist led race for world domination fully and secretively "under wraps". A brand new strategy implemented by Bush, of "The Office of Homeland Security", (A term almost identical to Hitler's "Heimat Staats-Sicherheit") and under the ill-begotten, ill-fated, so-called "Coalition" (another word for NWO), he has made it clear to all who pay attention that he is pressing for World Domination. Russia has said under no uncertain terms, that, should Bush attack Iraq, the U.S. created Coalition will suffer "irreversible damage".
Bush is in a race against time to fulfill the agenda of those "behind the magic curtain", (the secret societies and other power cabals who seem to be truly in power) before his term in office has expired and "they" prop up yet another under the same "umbrella" to take his place and to continue with the same agenda, only with a different "face". The current face of choice is "America's New War", or the "War On Terrorism". Terrorism brought on not by the civilians of the world, but the hawkish super power itself.
The dilemma seems to be that the US and other nations are permitted to build any and all weapons they can to protect and defend their country. Yet, it is expected by not only Bush that Iraq is not one of those nations that possesses these same rights, but the US has immersed Saddam in a perpetual game, so much so that he himself (Saddam) does not complain about the apparently unspoken atrocity of unfair and unequal U.S. policy. (Does he not notice?) Instead he must to bow to the whims of the super power, fully intimidated, while "assuming" he should not be permitted the same rights as other nations - while being labelled a "terrorist manufacturing regime". Sounds pretty straight forward.
The U.S. has upwards of forty nuclear facilities throughout its states, has committed terrorist activities foreign and domestic, has engaged in clandestine operatoins and assassinations (It is commonly known that the CIA, etc., has engaged in foreign and domestic terrorism, mind control, (MKUltra and its successor program MKNaomi) has developed numerous WMD, chemical and biological - and has used such for decades on it's own citizens and abroad. (WACO, and the use of Cyanide gas on the men, women and children inside the WACO compound by the FBI, Ruby Ridge, Viet Nam, (Agent Orange - sprayed over the jungles in which The US knew fully and well American soldiers were down below, resulting in countless illnesses and cancer related deaths due to AO poisoning of Viet Nam Veterans, and suicides from depression, as their voices, too, are repressed.) Let us also not forget the inhumanity alone of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All perpetrated and held unaccountable for by the U.S.: "justified" mass murder to hundreds o
US soldiers returned from the Gulf War complaining of chemical exposure to US biological weapons, and have been sick and dying, though the information has been repressed for the most part. It has been rumored the soldiers may be "contagious" to their own families.
"President" Bush's "War Machine" has threatened and bullied other nations to comply with demands or face the consequences. To wit: "The Bush Administration at once presented the nations of the world with a choice: join us, or face destruction." [Exerpted from the book by "Noam Chomsky", "911", referring to a quote published in The New York Times, September 14, 2001; op. cit., p.75 ]
America has ceased all air drops of food and aid to the starving Afghanistan peoples, not for lack of means but as political leverage.
At least 1 1/2 million Iraqi children alone have died as a result of recent UN sanctions, as reported in a popular Iraqi News Agency, in a series of no less than three letters written by Saddam Hussein himself, addressed to the American and Western peoples.(Which I will append to this article) These letters were not reported nor shown (infact, repressed) in the American media outlets due to the nature of the words inside. The letters showed a completely different personality than the Bush-led "Saddam Smear Campaign" and disseminated by the American media - letters which were never delivered to us, the American and Western people to whom they were originally addressed.
Could it be that the letters were deemed "classified" or harmful to the American people to be in possession of such information? I doubt so, since they were addressed to us, the American and Western people. This solidifies the argument that the Government of the United States is in violation of its own laws, infact creates its own laws as it goes along (hence we see the new "lawmakers" agency) emerge. It's all about control of information. There are two ways the U.S. Govt. asserts itself - control by information, and control by force. Is it therefore not an illegal act to tamper with or to withhold a nations personal mail, or to repress information from us unless it is officially deemed "classified"? Are we not to know what is classified and what is not classified, as that information is also classified?
Russia, Germany, Canada, France, The Arab world, the "people" of Britain, the "people" of America itself feel stronger every day about their own opinion that Bush (all by his lonesome) should not, and will not attack Iraq. Now he knows that if he does not, he will look a fool. Now he also knows that if he does, he will look a fool. Catch 22? Damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't? It's not that simple. What I have concluded personally is that Bushs' war is a personal vendetta. That is to finish the job his daddy started -recalling Bush's sentimental comment in the media last year, that his father is his "#1 confidant and advisor".
How many polls were taken to ask the American people if they wanted to democratically support Israel? The "old hatred" is hidden between rhetoric and propganda. The lengths of back channel manipulation have been long and winding. With the truth NOW, finally, for the first time in history accessable to the public and the world, we have an easier time sifting through the lies and once we knew our governments controlled the media, we began to look closer and we COULD see the truth in a sea of lies. Manipulation tends to backfire.
This is a rather hasty, crude attack not designed to topple the "regime" in the traditional sense of operations, but rather one that makes its claim depending on "manufactured" public consent. When Bush refers to the Govt. of Iraq, he refers to it as a "regime". When Bush refers to Saddams living quarters, he says, "Saddams bunker". Bush has a full fledged "Government". Bushs' home is "The White House".
Today the Iraqi people are fearful and prepare themeselves to be attacked by the most formidable and dictatorial government "regime" in the entire world! Yet, even in the face of things, the shining truth, that the world at large and as a whole people speaking out, do so in disfavor of an attack on Iraq -Bush is ever-more determined to sway opinion. The two....who stand alone. Bush...and Blair, who is reluctantly obeying and doing what he "must" against the votes of his own people. Two who stand alone. Yet, they step up their attempts at recruitments.
The Iraqi people have spoken out....in fear of America and the lies, in fear of being attacked, and determined to fight to keep their leader, Saddam, whom they claim is the bravest leader in the world. (Much to the American media propaganda to the contrary) If Iraq were to attack America with such weapons of mass destruction, then that would fly in the face of all logic. They (Bush and Blair) have had their arguments and pleas heard. They have captured the attention of the world. And the world says to Bush to back off from Iraq. Russia has said that if the US strikes Iraq it will have succeeded in dividing the united world coalition, resulting in irreversable damage. Or words very close to that effect. Point is...why should he and his country be "forbidden" to develop weapons "to protect themselves" just the same way America and every other country in the world has the option of doing? Is it truly because he has terrorism in his govt., as America also has been engaging in terrorist activities. We ALL kno
We have a president saying "Saddam intends to use WMD on us". We must PROVE THAT and also, who is threatening to attack WHOM, now, with undisclosed operations ongoing with or without the consent, knowledge, or agreement of the people as a whole entity with a mind. I don't think it's the power brokers so much as it is the so-called "lawmakers", on whom Bush relies on final decisions. Bush also stated that he would oust Saddam with or without unanimous support of other world govt's and their people. In other words... "You're going to eat it, Saddam." Why? Why is this a foregone conclusion unless it were a personal vendetta.
We have been over the no-fly-zones and there have been these little wars going on to prepare for the bigger ones. I have every faith that Bush will hold to his word and attempt to exact his plans upon Saddam. And everywhere in the news they say "Bush says we must attack Iraq Now" (emphasis on now) before he aquires what he feels he has no right to aquire: that which he himself has. Bush said he would go against the wishes of the UN and the Coalition, a united front that HE created to coerse them over to "his side" of the game, while refusing to join in the "world court", and in so much as has "erased" Clintons signature from the World Court for the United States of America and it's people. It is not the people against a World Court, it is the US govt., and in this, they also stand alone.
I have every faith that Bush will hold to his word and make what he wants to happen, happen, and I have little doubt that all discussions are off and polls are but a mere manipulated, propagandized distraction while we prepare to murder thousands, if not millions of people and bring on a whole lot of nasty business upon America and the people of the United States and quite possibly the world, if it isn't already a little too late for any such diversion.
We know who has the power. And we know who wants to keep it. "Saddam Hussein and his organs of power (foreign intelligence services) have their fingerprints all over the Oklahoma City bombing, but most recently the attacks of September 11th". I am not so certain I agree with that sentiment. The Oklahoma bombing was proven to be domestic. As Congress was rushing to retaliate against Iraq...they found it to be domestic terrorisism. (vis-a-vis "inside" the US borders) The going consensus to this day, is that the assault was in retribution for WACO. And Saddam is not responsible for the attacks on Sept 11, rushing with other Arab nations leaders to disavow what happened and declare they were against the attacks. Immediately, Bush decried it was Usama Bin Laden, although it appears Bush has made efforts to tie the two "enemies" together in an all-out frontal assault in Iraq, et al.
The chemical and biological weapons at their disposal now, we supplied to them. What would be so horrifying or so terrible to imagine making friends with those who are not your enemies? Can we as a human race afford to assume agression and war are the answers to the easiest questions posed to mankind? Do we promote cessation of violence or do we stand for peace, throughout the world? The answer is very simple. We either choose destruction or we choose peace. Why couldn't Bush just once say, "we made mistakes, you did, we all have in the past. Let's start from a clean slate and usher in a new, modern and sophisticated message of peace"? Why could not Bush embrace Saddam as a world leader if he wants the world to see him as the example he wants so much to be. Lead with peace, and only peace.
Quote from Reuters: "By supporting terrorist groups, repressing its own people and pursuing weapons of mass destruction in defiance of a decade of U.N. resolutions, Saddam Hussein's regime has proven itself a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take," Bush said."
By supporting Bushes hawkish war mongering, posturing attempts to "persuade people from how they already feel", already the holder of massive nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry that it HAS used countlessly on humans, (WACO, Ruby Ridge, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Viet Nam(Agent Orange on their own soldiers down below in the jungles, knowingly, etc.) and who's own CIA has trained Al Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden on how to be a terrorist to assist their activities in the Gulf, supplied them with weapons to use against their brothers, have covered up and ended the UN "investigations" of Palestinians in the West Bank by throwing diversionary tactics, capitalizing on tragedy (911) to assuage the people of the world to "not think" and just listen....to target Saddam in the name of Zionism, and all of these diversionary tactics need to be brought up when the WORLD COURT summons President Bush to the chair for War Crimes. If we live long enough to see it happen. Of course, then again, Bush was the only one to refuse
Bush says out of one side of his mouth that he will oust Saddam with or without the support of other nations yet he urges them to align. Out of the other side comes "We need to attack 'Iraq'. Is it Saddam that he wants, or does he want to act as the Israelis are and attack Iraq, (Iraq meaning Iraq, the whole of Iraq including its people) or is it the Iraqi and Arab nations that the Zionists and the Christians WILL gain control of, since the illusion is already in place, as we send in "our inspectors" to any place we want in the world so that we are the one and only super power.
As for Saddams "defiance of a decade of UN resolutions", the UN inspectors were in Iraq for 7 1/2 years. If they are so defiant, why do they beg and plead for resolutions to lift UN sanctions? Why are they compliant with the sanctions at all? BECAUSE they ARE compliant. But they do not like the fork tongued Bush and the threat of the Israelis. This war is no new war. It has been waging for thousands of years and conti
Bush: "To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble." To assume the Iraqis will suddenly use a nuclear weapon on America within one year, if we "let them", is to commit murderous acts upon millions and the peace of the world in the name of a "reckless gamble", and one that puts our entire world and our children at grave risk. More aptly put, I would say - we cannot rejoice that there are maybe 3 nations that support an attack on Iraq. We must be very cognizant of the fact that it is precisely why if Bush goes ahead (when he does) with his diabolical plans, that it is because he will be going against the majority of other nations recommendations and disregarding them as fluff. That, is when we must begin to worry. Which is now. Now...all we as a people can do is wait. Wait to see how the super power will come to the rescue of the world or the destruction of said, under such extreme circumstances.
I was under the impression we would be going after Iraq because of the threat of Nuclear weapons upon us...not what allegations of possible (I say, possible) propaganda that he has committed these atrocities? How else have these countries that suffer in poverty, death and starvation been provided with any means to become a "real and present danger" in the first place? Who was it that said it was all about oil...that to me sounds plausible. At the very least a greater part of the big picture. I am not anti or pro America, nor am I anti or pro Iraq. Freedom is what I am for, freedom, trust, a bonding of leaders who treat the middle east like their sandbox with which they can play these monolithic games in. Very serious games with utterly unnaceptable possible outcomes.
Do you not know that there will be retaliation and that retaliation would be met with yet more whereby others feel their own sense of right and wrong choose a side...and then join into the fight. We are talking about Russia here, Germany, China, and many nations that possess nuclear capability and also adhere to the notion of preemtive strike, which is based on loose supposition and projection of the most treacherous kind. You cannot win a war. No one wins a war. No one. And we are now at war, not because we wanted to be, but because we were told we were.
Written exclusively for ISpyOnlineCanadianTabloid
All rights reserved.