BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'

Subject: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST,Goofy
Date: 29 Jun 03 - 07:33 PM

Sam Shephard will be so pleased.

I thought last week's Operation Desert Scorpion was supposed to take care of those pesky fedayeen. But today we have Operation Sidewinder.

Mr. Rogers wants to know: "Can you say quagmire"?

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jun 03 - 08:32 PM

Vietnam with no trees to defoliate

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jun 03 - 10:03 PM

And no Nixon around with a "secret plan."

"...liberate is the word we use,
Nice word to have in case we lose."

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 12:28 AM

Ah, yes, well a sidewinder is a poisonous snake. Very appropriate name for another operation by the Empire.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 01:12 AM

I saw something that was worded somewhat amusingly yesterday. Someone said something along the lines of "the occupiers are having difficulty imposing peace". I think it was from someone official, but I'm not sure. I'll try to find it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST,Crazy Eddie
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 08:42 AM

When I saw the name "Operation Sidewinder", the first thing that came into my head was "White man speak with forked tongue".

Is it just me?

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 10:17 AM

Here's an interesting article. It came out in the summer of 2000, so it's a bit dated, but it offers an interesting perspective on events up to that point:

"And They Called It Peace" US Policy on Iraq

By Phyllis Bennis

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 06:11 PM

In my opening post, I made a reference to playright and actor Sam Shepard, who wrote a play titled "Operation Sidewinder". The synopsis of the play is an advanced computer escapes into the desert where it becomes the heart of a battle between the power crazy military and a group of black revolutionaries. The play was first published in 1969, and first performed in NY in 1970.

Kinda eerie in that Sam Shepard sorta way.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 03:12 AM

Thanks for the link to that article Carol.

Interesting, it certainly is. Other adjectives that may be ascribed to it are, inaccurate, selective, incomplete and revisionist. Something that could only have been written with 20 x 20 hindsight and with the author adopting a position prior to putting pen to paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 06:53 AM

Thanks for the link, Carol.

Coincidentally I'm currently reading Phyllis Bennis's "Before & After" on US foreign policy. I knew nothing of her, but one of my daughters gave me the book as a birthday present thinking I might be interested, and she hit the button.

The book is somewhat partisan, but it gives a coherent and credible narrative of how the various US strategic interests in the Near and Middle East are interlinked, leading the US at different times to support some of the most obnoxious regimes in the world. I'm tempted to nominate it as my choice on the "books that most influenced you" thread, alongside Agee's "The company" which demonstrates first-hand how for the decades the US has been preaching democracy while subverting it through the CIA wherever its own selfish interests are even remotely threatened.

I used to sneer at anti-US paranoia, I find much that is admirable in the US, and have consistently fought against anti-US prejudice among colleagues and acquaintances, but now find myself considering a whole bunch of people - both public figures and people whom I have known personally - and wondered if they weren't working for the Company all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 07:01 AM

Interesting, it certainly is. Other adjectives that may be ascribed to it are, inaccurate, selective, incomplete and revisionist. Something that could only have been written with 20 x 20 hindsight and with the author adopting a position prior to putting pen to paper.

Possibly, Teribus. But then again, all of those things can be said about most of what you write too. So there you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 07:11 AM

An Pluiméir Ceolmhar, lately, when people (principally USians) ask the question, "if the US isn't the best country in the world, why are so many people risking their lives to move here", I find myself thinking maybe it's because the US government and the CIA do such a fine job of making people's lives so bloody miserable in so many other countries.

I guess they figure if they come here, they'll be safe from our government. Of course, that might not be the case by the time Bush leaves office (if he ever does).

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 07:38 AM

Indeed, Carol.

Anyone whose only source of information on what's happening in the world is the mainstream US media and who can't understand "why do they hate us?" should certainly read the book. It offers some good answers

And did you notice how I was irresistably drawn into having to make that 'I don't hate America' disclaimer in my previous post?

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 07:52 AM

Anyone whose only source of information on what's happening in the world is the mainstream US media and who can't understand "why do they hate us?" should certainly read the book. It offers some good answers

Unfortunately, most of them wouldn't believe it. We've been pretty effectively brainwashed here. The good news is that with the internet, a lot of us are discovering, on our own, what we haven't been told by our government, our media, or our educators. But there are still a lot of people who can't accomodate any view other than the one they've been taught to believe.

And did you notice how I was irresistably drawn into having to make that 'I don't hate America' disclaimer in my previous post?

Yeah. But it's probably a good idea to use that disclaimer anyway. There are a lot of good people here who don't deserve to be tarred with the same brush as the government of this country (or to be tarred with any brush at all). If you put people on the defensive, they won't hear anything you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:17 AM

Seems the Bush folks can't agree on anything. Prior to the invasion they had a hard time focusing on any legitimate reason for invading Iraq and now that they've done it they aren't any more focused on what they're supposed to be doing or what to call it.

Hope no one gets too gung ho over the "Sidewinder" 'cause it'll be something else next week.

I kinda like like "Operation Screw Up" myself...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:34 AM

Carol, there's a big difference in posting to a forum, where what you write can be challenged, to writing in a magazine, where what you write cannot, and where what you write can be jumped upon and offered as a serious work by those who have already bought into the line advocated in the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:36 AM

This is true, Teribus. But all of these things can be said about the sources of the information you post as well as to your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:14 AM

Partisanship is often only viewed as a negative by people (like Teribus, apparently) who disagree with the ideology of the author. I'm guessing that if Teribus had agreed ideological with the author, Teribus never would have claimed partisanship. When partisans like Teribus agree with the ideology of an author, all concerns of partisanship disappear.

It is ludicrous to condemn the author of a piece as partisan, because you ideologically disagree with their interpretations of events, issues, motives and intentions of political leaders, actions of governments, etc.

BTW, the answer to give people who ask 'why then are so many people trying to come to US' is that more people are emigrating to Europe and Canada, than the US. In most instances, the European and Canadian governments are light years ahead of the US government. And that isn't because of anti-American begrudgery over US wealth and power. It is much more basic than that. A frightening religious fundamentalism, bigotry, and fascist intolerance of people who disagree with/live outside of the conservative right wing mainstream society, is what is at the heart of peoples' fear and hatred of the US nowadays around the world.

Notice I said a fascist intolerance of people--not just ideas. That is one of the worst aspects of US society nowadays. It is the people who are attacked by the right wing, not the ideas. The reason for that is because the right wing's values and beliefs can't stand up to any kind of reasoned, judicious scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:22 PM

I challenge magazine articles all the time. If the writer makes a gross mis-statement, I point it out. And I've found that most writers support this new fascism either because 1) they WANT to, in which case they don't respond to my e-mails, or 2) they truly were ignorant on some point until I brought it to their attention, in which case they usually answer with a thank you note.

On Sidewinder, I ask American writers how they would feel if Russians invaded America under a plan called 'Operation American Freedom'. Then I point out the 'rebels' in Iraq are just the legal armed militia protecting their homes and families against invaders. Some writers actually haven't seen it from that perspective...they've been buying and disseminating the govt line that Americans are the ones under attack.

A harder fight is the Project for a New American Century report. This is a plan for global domination in the name of the US, but in name only. There is no way the vast plan outlined can be enforced without resorting to some larger governing body, like the U.N. But in naming the report, the architects were hoping to placate Americans who would not look beyond the report. "At least AMERICA will control the new century." Such Bushit. When America is spent, after subduing the Bush Company's 62 rogue nations, all profits will be turned over to the U.N. But that is WAY too far ahead to look when we're being terrorized by our govt with an atrocity a week.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:38 PM

It's true. People adore partisanship, when it supports their chosen side of an issue. They despise it when it doesn't.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 06:58 PM

Couldn't agree with you more, L.H.? Awww, jus funnin'.

Ahhhh, speakin' of view points, one needs to keep in mind that history is fluid and not a snapshot. A certain amount of interpretation is required as is an ability to revise it based on new information.

An example of this is the Bush administrations "run up" to an invasion of Iraq. If it's found that the Bush administration did not have any evidence of Iraq'a posession of WMD then it isn't exactly revisionary for historians to write it down that way. And it's not fair, or possible, for the Bush folks to just think this will pass. It won't. History has taught many of us this lesson. Perhaps Bush and Co. just thought they could change the rules down the road. Won't happen. They are accountable and the US and the world aren't going to give tyhem a *pass*.

I reckon that is the problem with Bush. He's been given way too many passes in life. Well, time to pay the piper.

The worst thing is that now the world is more on guard against Bush's bullying so if he does come by some credible evidence that someone is going to attack someone, he'll have a hard time getting anyone to believe him.

The sky is falling! No really! It is!

Major step backwards towards world stability....

Nevermind.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 04:29 AM

Totally agree that there is nothing wrong in being partisan. My objection to the article that Carol provided the link to was that it was inaccurate and misleading. If you are going to write such an article, from a certain view-point that you believe to be credible, there is no need to purposely distort the facts and ignore the circumstances of events taken at the time those events occurred.

The evidence of Iraq's possession of WMD was provided by UNSCOM - it was not something "cooked up" by either the US or UK - Of course you could just come out and state clearly that you believe that UNSCOM were lying in their report to the UN Security Council, though exactly why they should do so would be hard to fathom.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 06:30 AM

Here is a good site that gives figured for the number of refugees/ displaced people going to different countries in the world. The get completely off the point, its a site I have used lots when arguing with people who say that the UK is a magnet for asylum seekers who come here because of our generous benefits and are mainly economic migrants. The figures actually show that other third world countries bordering the place being fled from are the countries that shoulder the vast majority of the burden of accomodating refugees, and that since the main bulk of refugees come from places with terrible human rights records, rather than countries where the people are just desperately poor. Because of biased, negative press coverage of asylum seekers, most people are unable to believe the figures I quote them unless I show them the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 06:32 AM

http://www.refugees.org/world/worldmain.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 08:45 AM

Well, T, now we're learning that the CIA had told the administration that it had serious doubts about Iraq's nuclear propgram. This has been reported by the Washington Post as well as probably hundreds of newspapers in the world. Yet, if you'll recall, it was Condi Rice who sent out the first trial baloon to sell the war by making a statement to the effects that the US couldn't wait until there was a mushroom cloud over it. Then this same message was parroted by Cheney/Rumsfeld and Bush in his Cincinatti performance of war drum pounding. This is what I'm talking about. (What, you don't happen to remember that childish temper tantrum?)

I would think that if a man had been told by his own intellegence folks that they had doubts, that one would perhaps look a little further into the facts before taking a country to war. Like I said before, T, folks generally can't hide this stuff but so long before it gets sorted out.

And just how many folks out there in the Catdom feel the world is a safer place with the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Pearle/Wolfowitz administration? Can I get a show of paws. Ahhhh, just one paw, T-Cat, will do. This ain't Florida...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 10:31 AM

Terribus, nowhere in the article I posted a link to does it say anything even resembling what you have said it says. In fact, I'm tempted to think you just gave your standard canned response without even having read the article. Here's what it says about Iraq's WMDs. (Keep in mind that this article was published in the summer of 2000):

"The new sanctions regime was linked to Iraq's efforts to create weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Economic sanctions were supposed to end when Iraq complied with the prohibition on WMD programs. To oversee their elimination, the UN created UNSCOM, the UN Special Commission. Over the years, despite Iraqi recalcitrance and embarrassing revelations of US and Israeli spy agencies' infiltration and undermining of UNSCOM, the agency still managed to find and destroy the overwhelming majority of Iraq's weapons sites.

A key disjuncture soon emerged between the US and the UN, in whose name the US-constructed sanctions were imposed. The UN resolution described the precise requirements for Iraq to get the economic sanctions lifted. But US officials consistently moved the goalposts. From Presidents Bush and Clinton, to their secretaries of state, and down Washington's foreign policy food chain, officials asserted that sanctions would stay in effect until "the end of time" or Saddam Hussein was out of office, until human rights were guaranteed and until Kuwaiti prisoners were returned, among other criteria. So US demands derailed any incentive for Iraq to comply with the weapons requirements, and instead signaled Baghdad that regardless of its compliance, Washington would not allow the sanctions to be lifted. (Now, the most visible non-governmental sanctions defender, Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, essentially ignores the UN requirements regarding weapons of mass destruction. Appearing on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" with Hans von Sponeck on May 3, Clawson focused solely on "containment" and "regime change," and never even uttered the words weapons of mass destruction.) The UN itself became a victim of US policy in Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 04:33 AM

Slightly mystified, Carrol, when? and where? did I infer, or quote from the article you provided the link to?

Are you referring to my statement, "The evidence of Iraq's possession of WMD was provided by UNSCOM - it was not something "cooked up" by either the US or UK"

If you are, then my point regarding the article being misleading is made. Phyllis Bennis, in her article makes references to UNSCOM reports of November 1998, but choses not to make any reference at all to the UNSCOM Report to the UN Security Council of January 1999 which detailed the following items that were known to exist (documented and declared by the Iraqi Authorities) but which could not be accounted for:

Up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent.

Up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, including approximately 300 tonnes which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare programme, were unique to the production of VX.

Growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured).

Over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents.

Her use of terms, to describe the acomplishments of UNSCOM is also clever. Note she says, "...UNSCOM, the agency still managed to find and destroy the overwhelming majority of Iraq's weapons sites."

What she wished to infer was that UNSCOM had successfully disarmed Iraq, which of course was categorically not the case according to UNSCOM. Remember the whole point of the article was to support the lifting of UN sanctions, which the Author ties to disarmament. In what she says, she specifically mentions Iraq's weapons sites - but no mention of existing stocks of precursor material, weaponised agent, munitions or delivery systems - no mention of the status of programmes directed at the development of WMD - As I originally stated, the article is inaccurate, selective, incomplete.

By the way Carrol - I most certainly did read the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 07:17 AM

And of course, 1998 was the last year that UNSCOM was in Iraq until the latest debacle. So the reports filed in 1999 were based upon their inability to finish inspections. And the reports at that time also stated that while there were many materials unaccounted for in 1998 when they left, they also believed that the decommissioning of Iraq's weapons after the first Gulf War had been mostly successful. UNSCOM also said that after the destruction of WMD in the wake of the first Gulf War, years of sanctions, and a lot of spying by the US, the chances of Hussein's regime being able to recommission and begin new WMD programs unnoticed, were slim to nil.

Why was UNSCOM thrown out of Iraq? Because the Hussein regime discovered that UNSCOM was being used as a front for American spies.

You are conveniently leaving out quite a few salient details, Teribus, in an attempt to fortify your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 08:55 AM

Guest 07:17 AM 4th July.

Opinion has nothing to do with it.

With regard to your post above - here are some salient facts - note facts not opinions.

You say," ...the reports filed in 1999 were based upon their inability to finish inspections." Correct, they were unable to finish their inspections due to the withdrawal of all co-operation on the part of the Iraqi Regime. This lack of co-operation and deception on the part of the Iraqi Regime was reported and documented by UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors during the period 1994 to 1998.

You state, "...the reports at that time also stated that while there were many materials unaccounted for in 1998 when they left, , they also believed that the decommissioning of Iraq's weapons after the first Gulf War had been mostly successful." Again correct, I am very pleased to see that you at least believe what the UNSCOM inspectors reported in January 1999 - Those are the WMD that this was all about, and it still has to be established what happened to them.

As to, "UNSCOM also said that after the destruction of WMD in the wake of the first Gulf War, years of sanctions, and a lot of spying by the US, the chances of Hussein's regime being able to recommission and begin new WMD programs unnoticed, were slim to nil." Now that is an opinion and one that was proved to be incorrect - salient facts - Al-Samoud 2 missile development programme, 384 rocket engines illegally smuggled into Iraq during the period 1998 to 2002, equipment dismantled by UNSCOM that UNMOVIC inspectors found to have been moved, repaired and re-assembled.

You ask the rhetorical question, "Why was UNSCOM thrown out of Iraq? Because the Hussein regime discovered that UNSCOM was being used as a front for American spies."

Fact - UNSCOM was not thrown out of Iraq in December 1998 - they were withdrawn by the UN immediately prior to commencement of Dessert Fox.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 09:17 AM

I don't know where you get your Republicrat spin doctored facts from there Teribus. But here is where I get mine from:

Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation

The above article is from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, or FAIR, an independent New York based media watchdog group.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 09:26 AM

The US were cuaght spying
Iraq withdrew cooperation with UNSCOM
Operation Desert Fox was ordered
The UN withdrew UNSCOM

That about sums it up doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 09:30 AM

Of course, I should mention that the article's "action contact" list is a bit out of date. Howell Raines, Executive Editor of the New York Times, no longer has his job.

Why? Well, it seems the "all the new that's print to fit the pop culture spin society" editorial style was caught out in the Blair scandal.

Could it possibly be that Our Most Revered Journalistic Institutions are full of shit after all?

I rather liked this idea for work for Fox schooled Mr. Raines, from the New York Observer:

"It was clear Mr. Raines was made for something more stylish than print. Show business! With apologies to 60 Minutes executive producer Don Hewitt's acknowledged successor, Jeffrey Fager—by all accounts, a talented producer—consider this bit of fantasy baseball: What if CBS understood that the only man who could follow a showboat like Don Hewitt would be a showboat like Howell Raines, the kind of seersuckered news executive who comes along only once in a decade. What if CBS brought in Mr. Raines to replace Mr. Hewitt when the founding father releases his own kung-fu grip in June 2004?

It's not so crazy: As a news editor, Mr. Raines is an aggressive, gut-check guy, Captain Flood-the-Zones, who coddles stars and is willing to spike the punchbowl with pop culture and fresh talent—the sort of Rainesian tactics he used to punch up The Times and that 60 Minutes could use now. It's exactly the sort of right stuff Mr. Hewitt had when he invented the program 35 years ago, after a stint producing CBS Evening News.

Sure, Mr. Raines' tendency to tart things up produced its share of resistance at the paper, but it was also fun to read for kids under 55—something 60 Minutes can't say about its viewers."

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 12:30 PM

Still no more "inaccurate, selective, incomplete" than anything I've seen posted by you, Teribus. Your sources are every bit as propagandistic as that article, and often more so. I guess it's as LH and other have said... all a matter of your chosen perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 01:07 AM

Teribus said:

"The evidence of Iraq's possession of WMD was provided by UNSCOM - it was not something "cooked up" by either the US or UK"

Aren't you forgetting that there has been no evidence at all? Just pre-invasion conjecture (and lies) and post-invasion excuses (and lies).

Subject: RE: BS: Now it's 'Operation Sidewinder'
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 10:42 AM

Been catching up on arrears of Doonesbury, and am gratified that Mr T. shares my concern at the infringement of Iraquis' second-amendment rights.