SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GST who wrote (156861)5/1/2003 4:19:45 PM
From: Victor Lazlo  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
I said we don't do carpet bombing. And I believe that was in reference to Afghnistan. That's different from cluster bombimg.

Anyway, there is a price to freedom. And a value to it. And they are not the same thing.

You seem to live life to the fullest and take advantage of your freedom, and that is admirable. What i don't understand is this resentment that a whole country, Iraq, has now been newly freed. Are they somehow not worthy?



To: GST who wrote (156861)5/2/2003 12:06:25 AM
From: Victor Lazlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
May 1, 2003
Saddam loyalists take aim from cover of civilians
By Rowan Scarborough and Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Saddam Hussein's last remaining loyalists are using a trick they employed in the war by mingling with civilian crowds and firing on American forces trying to stabilize Iraq, U.S. military officials say.

Since the fall of Baghdad on April 9, the tactic has been used sporadically, mostly in Sunni Muslim-dominated towns such as Kut, Mosul and Fallujah west of the capital.
It was in the conservative Islamic town of Fallujah this week that 82nd Airborne Division soldiers ran up against one of the largest collection of armed Saddam loyalists. As townsfolk protested outside U.S. headquarters in an Islamic school, paramilitaries armed with AK-47s fired from within the crowd and from rooftops.
"We have seen this before where crowds gather," said Air Force Lt. Col. Ed Worley, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command forward headquarters in Doha, Qatar. "You look at the crowd, and all of a sudden they start shooting.
"These are folks who are loyal to the regime for whatever reason," Col. Worley said. "There are still folks out there. It seems that every time we get involved in one of these firefights like the ones we got involved with in Fallujah, when we get a chance to see them they are dressed like paramilitary folks."
Other U.S. military officials say the paramilitaries are remnants of several different Saddam groups. They include the dictator's fanatical Saddam Fedayeen death squads, as well as former Republican Guard fighters and special security officers.
A U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that most of the Fedayeen forces who menaced coalition troops in the war have either been killed or fled the battlefield.
Of the remaining Saddam loyalists, the official said, "You're not talking about any kind of coherent, organized fighting element. You're basically talking about ragtag elements."
Col. Worley said 82nd Airborne troops did not capture any of the assailants at Fallujah, so they do not know what type of paramilitaries were involved.
Central Command has reported at least 11 separate incidents of Iraqis firing on American troops during the past three days. One occurred in the southern Rumeila oil fields. The other 10 broke out further north, in Baghdad, Tikrit — which is Saddam's hometown — Fallujah and Kut.
President Bush today will address the nation from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. He is expected to declare an end to major combat operations in Iraq, as U.S. representatives work to establish an interim Iraqi government.
The military's main combat task now is to root out nests of paramilitaries and defend U.S. troops. Central Command issued a statement this week warning that Iraq remains a dangerous place.
"Coalition efforts to defeat regime pockets of resistance in Iraq are proving successful, but incidents directed against coalition forces are evidence that despite the significant decrease in active military operations, dangers are still evident," the statement said.
The United States does not discuss in detail its rules of engagement for confronting fighters that blend in with civilians. But in general terms, soldiers and Marines are told to hold fire if possible and withdraw, or to try to isolate the paramilitaries before firing. Often airborne surveillance is used to spot muzzle fire.
"Coalition forces will continue to use the appropriate amount of force to defend themselves against such threats," Central Command said.
During the battle for Baghdad, for example, airborne or ground spotters would find the source of sniper fire, then call in low-flying, armored A-10 attack jets to strike the position with cannon fire.
The Army's 4th Infantry Division in northern Iraq is discouraging attacks by launching demonstrations of force, such as buzzing neighborhoods with Apache attack helicopters.
The atmosphere is particularly tense in Tikrit, about 100 miles north of Baghdad, which is a hotbed of Ba'ath Party followers.
Some civilians, who may be ex-Republican Guard, drive up to abandoned bunkers to steal arms and ammunition. In some cases, they have been fired on by Apaches.
In the Fallujah incident Monday night, Iraqis say the American soldiers killed 13 persons. Col. Worley said the troops were fired on first, the scene was confusing, and that Central Command has no casualty numbers. "We think the numbers are less than 13," he said.
"I think our guys are showing extremely good discipline," he said. "They have M-16s. They could put them on automatic fire. But they're not doing that. They are exhibiting good weapons discipline. They are not shooting indiscriminately. They are shooting at those with weapons."
American troops came under fire for a second time in Fallujah yesterday when Iraqis threw rocks and fired at a convoy, Central Command said. The crowd dispersed when helicopters arrived. At least two Iraqis were killed, the command said.
The firefight mirrored enemy tactics during the war, especially in the southern towns of Basra, Nasiriyah and Karbala. Fedayeen guerrillas would position themselves among civilian groups, then open fire. In some cases, they faked surrenders, then shot at allied troops.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this week is touring Gulf nations, including Iraq, to learn firsthand about the security situation.
Mr. Rumsfeld told Middle East Broadcasting: "There are still pockets of resistance, there are still people getting killed and wounded — American and coalition forces — by some of these so-called death squads that have been roaming around the countryside, the kinds of people who had their headquarters in hospitals and schools, the kinds of people who used the Red Crescent for military purposes and hid under the guise of humanitarian assistance, and that's the kind of people they were and they are."
•Guy Taylor contributed to this report from northern Iraq. He is embedded with the Army's 4th Infantry Division.



To: GST who wrote (156861)5/2/2003 12:07:58 AM
From: Victor Lazlo  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
Bombs, Bugs and Poisons
Clifford D. May
URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/May20030501.shtml

May 1, 2003

“We have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. …Does it matter that we were misled into war?”
- New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 4/29/03

“Nissar Hindawi, a leading figure in Iraq's biological warfare program in the 1980's, says the stories and explanations he and other scientists told the United Nations about the extent of Iraq's efforts to produce poisons and germ weapons ‘were all lies.’ …He said military officials had asked him to tell inspectors that he was the head of a single-cell protein facility. The plant, in fact, had made botulinum toxin and anthrax. He said he had had no choice but to lie, just as he had no choice but to work in the program. ‘It was that or else,’ he said.”
- New York Times reporter Judith Miller, 4/27/03

Perhaps Paul Krugman just doesn’t have time to both read The New York Times and write a column for it. Or maybe it’s too much bother for him to attempt to unravel Saddam Hussein’s plots and plans. How much more satisfying to charge that that trigger-happy cowboy George W. Bush “hyped the threat Saddam posed” and tricked Americans into going to war.

Let me try to explain what has so far been revealed by The Times’ Judith Miller in a manner simple enough that even a Bush-bashing Times columnist might get it: The fact that huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) haven’t been found does not mean that Saddam did not have scientists working feverishly to develop such weapons. On the contrary, scientists such as Nissar Hindawi are now confessing that they were doing exactly that. Once Saddam had combined the ingredients, the formula and the expertise, who knows when he might have turned the product over to terrorists to use against Americans? Who knows how many Americans a suicide-terrorist with a genetically-altered disease might manage to kill?

Krugman and others in the Appeasement Movement apparently believe we should accept such risks. But most Americans – Republicans and Democrats alike – would probably prefer to have leaders who don’t permit the development of horrific WMD by mass-murdering, American-hating dictators who conspire with terrorists – and there’s no longer a shred of doubt that Saddam did conspire with terrorists, including al Qaeda.

Is it not also curious that the same people who, just a few weeks ago, were arguing that Hans Blix’s inspectors should “be given more time to do their job” are concluding that American forces – after less than 2 months in Iraq – must have completed a thorough hard-target search of a nation the size of California? They further leap to the conclusion that whatever hasn’t been found was never there, ignoring the obvious -- and disturbing -- possibility that WMD have simply been well hidden or, worse, transferred to other countries.

Those who have acquitted Saddam of the charge that he was developing WMD need to answer these questions:

Why did Saddam force the removal of the UN inspectors in 1998? If he had nothing to hide why didn’t he want inspectors looking?

In Resolution 1441, every member of the Security Council agreed that Saddam was “in material breach” of his obligation to disarm. Were all of them misinformed?

What did Saddam do with the WMD for which he never accounted? Did he destroy them in secret and without keeping records? For what possible reason?

Why did Saddam allow Iraq to endure years of economic sanctions if he could have shown that he had given up his WMD?

Why did he refuse to allow his scientists to be interviewed by Blix’s inspectors if the testimony of those scientists would have cleared Saddam of the charges against him?

Why did Saddam have several hundred military intelligence operatives assigned to monitor and deceive the UN inspectors?
Finally, let’s pretend for a moment that Krugman and his friends are right -- that America went to war against a regime that didn’t actually have the capability to do us serious harm. In that case, the US military action in Iraq – like US military actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and elsewhere – was altruistic. In that case, America sacrificed blood and treasure to liberate the Iraqi people from one of the world’s most brutal dictators.

There was a time when Times columnists – liberal and conservative alike -- believed liberation was a good and noble thing. Krugman should ask himself: When did that change?

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times reporter, is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.