Also see Foreign Affairs Discussion Group:
Subject 51724
and C-Span:
c-span.org
WAR POLLS:
January 3-6, 2003 Knight-Ridder Poll:
Message 18434053
January 19-22 2003 New York Times/CBS Poll:
metimes.com
January 28, 2003 (America's CNN/USA; Britain's The Sunday Times YouGov Poll; Germany's Forsa Institute Poll' Demark's Politiken Poll; Canada's Ipsos-Reid Poll for The Globe and Mail; and Australia's Herald Poll):
smh.com.au
January 27th UN Inspector Update Report Coverage:
newsday.com
newsday.com
nytimes.com
newsday.com
newsday.com
cnn.com
msnbc.com
cnn.com
newsday.com
Quick Reads to Get Up to Speed:
globalpolicy.org
guardian.co.uk
history.searchbeat.com
newsday.com
cnn.com
cbsnews.com
newsday.com
michaelparenti.org
bullatomsci.org
globalpolicy.org
globalpolicy.org
INTRODUCTION:
[NOTE: Don't forget to bookmark this thread--thanks!]
As of this writing, January 2, 2003, I'm not aware of any direct proof Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush Administration seems poised to conduct war on Iraq, with or without proof.
If no weapons of mass destruction are found by the United Nations inspection team, led by Hans Blix and Mohamed Elbaredi, what will or should America do?
Will Bush decide on war anyway?
If the Bush Administration plays the war card, is there any way to stop America's generals from marching innocent Americans into the Winds of War? And how would history view such a war?
My theory is a war in Iraq could be prevented if Hans Blix and Mohamed Elbaredi, because the inspection team cannot find any weapons of mass destruction, decide themselves to become human shields by remaining in Iraq in defiance of Bush. Were this to happen, Bush would have to think long and hard how future historians would pen history. Introspectively, he'd have to think long and hard about his own war.
More to consider.
Just consider what it'll be like for a US-led invasion to capture Baghdad. If Saddam's military forces retreat into Baghdad in order to defend it, an intensive urban combat condition likely would make the Battle of Morgadishu (see film Blackhawk Down) seem like paintball in comparison.
However, in order to prevent this from happening, a scenario that likely would cause untold numbers of American combat deaths, the US could invoke its "Shock and Awe" strategy by raining death and hellfire upon Baghdad's citizenry of 5.5 million. A citizenry who, ironically, themselves are Saddam's victims.
dodccrp.org
Any thoughts, folks? Let's hear 'em!
WHITE HOUSE:
Wanna call Bush yourself--tell him what you think?
Message 18441715
What White House reporter Helen Thomas thinks:
Message 18435987
HIGHLIGHTS:
Message 18493981
news.bbc.co.uk
alternet.org
inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dschedule
la.indymedia.org
usinfo.state.gov
wais.stanford.edu
transnational.org
With the Pope's church weakened from scandals too numerous, maybe peace-minded folk do need someone like Hans Blix and Mohamed Elbaredi, ghosts of Gandhi, if you will, to step to the plate and make sure Bush's really throwin' the right kind of stuff.
And of the right stuff, here's some interesting background about some who are on the top of the hill who, today, are influencing public opinion on whether America should march into war with Iraq:
nhgazette.com
CHRONOLOGY OF KEY WAR DEVELOPMENTS:
June 3, 1997:
newamericancentury.org
March 2, 1999:
washingtonpost.com
June 2000 (Arms Control Association):
armscontrol.org
December 21, 2001:
wsfi.net
July 30, 2002:
news.bbc.co.uk
August 28, 2002:
globalpolicy.org
August 29, 2002:
csmonitor.com
zmag.org
September 9, 2002:
cnn.com
October 28, 2002:
globalpolicy.org
November 2002:
scn.org
November 15, 2002:
ksg.harvard.edu
January-February 2003 (Foreign Affairs Issue):
nytimes.com
January 5, 2003:
ccmep.org
January 6, 2003:
cnn.com
cdi.org
truthout.org
washingtonpost.com
January 7, 2003:
arabicnews.com
ellsberg.net
workingforchange.com
guardian.co.uk
January 8, 2003:
msnbc.com
January 9, 2003:
newsday.com
newsday.com
edinburghnews.com
Message 18433975
January 10, 2003:
msnbc.com
Message 18432254
January 12, 2003:
siliconinvestor.com
observer.co.uk
January 13, 2003:
cnn.com
washingtonpost.com
January 14, 2003:
thenation.com
smh.com.au
msnbc.com
washingtonpost.com
upi.com
usatoday.com
news.independent.co.uk
January 15, 2003:
timesonline.co.uk
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
January 16, 2003:
cnn.com
cbc.ca
January 17, 2003:
miftah.org
sunspot.net
tompaine.com
Message 18474903
January 18, 2003:
abcnews.go.com
newsday.com
argument.independent.co.uk
globeandmail.com
atimes.com
January 19, 2003:
news.yahoo.com
newsday.com
ap.tbo.com
newsday.com
January 20, 2003:
washingtonpost.com
iht.com
ap.tbo.com
newsday.com
villagevoice.com
argument.independent.co.uk
January 21, 2003:
washingtonpost.com
newsday.com
commondreams.org
washingtonpost.com
January 22, 2003:
washingtonpost.com
nytimes.com
news.bbc.co.uk
polyconomics.com
January 23, 2003:
alternet.org
english.pravda.ru
Message 18484151
tehrantimes.com
msnbc.com
abcnews.go.com
newsday.com
newsday.com
newsday.com
newsday.com
guardian.co.uk
atimes.com
Message 18489876
January 24, 2003:
cbsnews.com
washingtonpost.com
newsday.com
theage.com.au
usatoday.com
sfgate.com
newsday.com
argument.independent.co.uk
globalpolicy.org
January 25, 2003:
latimes.com
nytimes.com
swissinfo.org
newsday.com
hindustantimes.com
January 26, 2003:
newsday.com
cnn.com
theage.com.au
smh.com.au
nytimes.com
Message 18492620
January 27, 2003:
jordantimes.com
guardian.co.uk
canada.com{3B9F2801-CA47-415E-8E45-F4FD17FC108E}
msnbc.com
cnn.com
newsday.com
newyorker.com
freep.com
January 28, 2003:
theage.com.au
nytimes.com
February 3, 2003 Issue (printed on January 27th)
msnbc.com |
