posted on February 14, 2003 10:04:37 PM new
....that their sons and daughters that die in this coming war by chemical or bacterial means will be bulldozed into mass graves and their bodies burned? No body to bury here at home. Guess that cuts down on the footage of the bodybags coming home.How terribly sad.
This was touched on on Bill Moyers show this evening but I have heard it elsewhere as well.
posted on February 14, 2003 10:10:18 PM new
Hi rawbunzel! I heard that also but then I heard on CNN they weren't going to do that and would be sending the dead home in a metal casket. Still gruesome.
posted on February 14, 2003 10:13:00 PM new
There will be many families that will not have even the body of their loved ones to greive over. Not because the body couldn't be found or was in tiny pieces, but because there is no duct tape or plastic sheets in Iraq to wrap them safely up with to send back.
posted on February 14, 2003 10:17:03 PM new
I could send them some priority mail tape. I'm sure it can be used like duct tape in this instance.Alas, I have no plastic sheeting. Lots of those little plastic bags though. If I tape enough of those together I can cover anything!
Krafty, There was no mention of the metal caskets. You wouldn't be able to open them so would never know who was really in there.Not that you would necessarily want to.
Would that work in case of radiological exposure?
[ edited by rawbunzel on Feb 14, 2003 10:17 PM ]
posted on February 14, 2003 11:06:07 PM new
Every mother knows that her children were born only to die. I would much rather have a son or daughter die in the service of their country and mankind than die of old age in a country that is no longer free or continually under the threats of terrorists.
There are fates worse than death, no matter how one dies.
posted on February 14, 2003 11:41:12 PM new
>I would much rather have a son or daughter die in the service of their country and mankind than die of old age in a country that is no longer free or continually under the threats of terrorists.
A country no longer free - under the Bush Regeime? Terrorists come in all stripes these days and Republican ones aren't any more clever.
posted on February 15, 2003 12:09:11 AM new
I'm satisfied that the country is waking up to Bush's domestic agenda and the war won't divert scrutiny. So I can return to unfinished projects at home for a while knowing that freedom as the Founding Fathers established it will prevail over Orwellian substitutions.
The article below explains the purpose of the recent terror alerts as much as the attempt to coerce public support for the invasion of Iraq.
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 15, 2003; Page A16
President Bush unveiled broad new plans yesterday to place FBI and CIA counterterrorism operations under one roof, prompting immediate objections from lawmakers and civil liberties groups who fear the CIA will gain too much influence over domestic intelligence issues.
Under the plan, the FBI's entire counterterrorism division would be moved into a secure building along with the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and a new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, bringing operational FBI agents and CIA analysts into a closer working arrangement.
Bush, during an appearance at FBI headquarters, said the "goal is to develop a comprehensive picture of terrorist activity."
"All our successes in the war on terror depend on the ability of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to work in common purpose," Bush said. "In order to better protect our homeland, our intelligence agencies must coexist like they never had before."
The reorganization, first mentioned in Bush's State of the Union address, comes after sharp criticism from lawmakers over intelligence and communication missteps by the FBI and CIA before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some lawmakers, including Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), want to strip the FBI of its domestic intelligence responsibilities and create a domestic intelligence agency akin to Britain's MI5.
Under the administration's plan, the FBI would retain control over its counterterrorism division. George J. Tenet, the CIA director who also oversees all government intelligence as director of central intelligence, would run both the counterterrorism and threat centers.
Civil liberties advocates say the arrangement would give the foreign intelligence agency too much access to domestic affairs. Some FBI agents also view it as an unfair encroachment on the bureau's turf.
"These latest developments confirm our concerns that putting the CIA in charge of an analysis center would inevitably lead to CIA direction of intelligence gathering in the United States," said Tim Edgar of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Edwards said in a statement that the Bush plan is "only a half-measure at best" that does not acknowledge the FBI's fundamental failures in combating terrorism, while Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said the plan raises questions about Tenet's role in domestic intelligence.
A senior FBI official said such fears were misplaced because FBI spying would still be conducted under Justice Department guidelines and court supervision. Although CIA analysts within the threat center could suggest U.S. spying targets, decisions to seek such authority would still be made by the FBI and Justice, the official said.
"There are functions that the agency has that the bureau won't participate in, and there are functions the bureau has that the agency won't be involved in," the senior FBI official said.
But, the official added, "there's going to need to be oversight on this to make sure that we're operating appropriately."
The threat center, which will start out with a staff of about 60 at CIA headquarters in Langley, will eventually swell to about 300 employees. FBI staff in the same building could total 1,200 or more, officials said.
posted on February 15, 2003 01:23:20 AM new
I wouldn't worry too much about the Iraqi Army's ability to inflict damage. Chem/bio agents are terror weapons for use against civilians, their use against troops is not very effective even against units not as well equipped as ours. To be effective you have to have the agents concentrated for a period of time. Desert winds and the heat rising from the terrain quickly disperses this stuff. The military analysts don't have the concerns the TV talking heads do.
posted on February 15, 2003 02:38:58 AM new
I can see the two agencies working in the same building - 80 % of their effort will be directed to making sure their own offices are secure and bugging the other guys. They will be sitting writing notes to each other -- "Let's go to lunch I need to tell you something." and lunch will be a 40 minute drive away so the dinner has a chance not to be bugged.
posted on February 15, 2003 10:44:22 AM new
I wonder what it is like to be a mother and see the millitary shipping both her son or daughter to fight this war and also the metal caskets to bring them home with?
posted on February 15, 2003 12:29:08 PM new
The reality of any war is pretty pathetic. A bunch of leaders arguing while citizens prepare to die for leader's beliefs. I often wonder if when a soldier is on the battlefield and looks at an enemy soldier, does he realize neither he or the enemy is the real problem? It must be difficult.
Sorry Rawbunzel, I didn't see the whole thing, just heard it when stopping for a break.
posted on February 15, 2003 01:29:14 PM new
There shouldn't be ANY casualties of war. The whole war concept is ridiculous and is only thought of by people who can't see the forest for the trees.
posted on February 15, 2003 02:02:35 PM new
KD - Would you mind sharing your opinion on what a country, like the US, should do when they've been attacked and more is promised by terrorists? You seem to be saying do nothing...just take it...don't try to prevent this from happening again. Is that correct? Or are you of the opinion that they can be 'talked' out of doing this again?
I'd like to better understand you on this, if you're willing.
posted on February 15, 2003 02:06:56 PM new
kraftdinner,
That would be in a perfect world. We would dress the same, all live in the same little house, have the same fuel cell car (of the same red color) and be the same heights. There would be no religions. If you smiled you would be different then someone that frowned. That wouldn't be allowed.
The world has never been that way and never will. It was a very violent world long before man ever stepped foot on the planet.
Your idea of humanity is not something you can bestow on everyone. There will be bad and good no matter what you may think.
As that famous California spokesperson once said. "Can't we all just get along?"
posted on February 15, 2003 03:22:24 PM newDoD Confirms Current Method of Handling Remains
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 14, 2003 – The current method of handling the remains of U.S. service members will remain in place, DoD officials said today.
Senior defense officials examined the policy of handling human remains contaminated by biological or chemical weapons.
They wanted to be certain that all options were open to commanders to ensure the health and safety of all service members. The group – which included representatives from the services, the Army's mortuary affairs, DoD's health affairs and DoD's personnel and readiness staffs – wanted to ensure that any decision was based on the latest medical thinking.
The result was to validate the way remains are already handled. Human remains contaminated by biological or chemical weapons will not be cremated. Nor will mortuary affairs personnel bulldoze mass graves, said DoD officials.
"Cases involving contaminated remains will be handled with the dignity and respect accorded to all remains and processed by mortuary and medical personnel consistent with applicable laws and procedures to ensure the health of the living," DoD officials said.
The policy review began in September 2002 and ended earlier this month.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 15, 2003 03:24 PM ]
posted on February 15, 2003 06:39:05 PM new
Sorry, I had to go out (20 below!!)
I guess the thought of retaliation bothers me Linda. Going to war in this day & age, is like lighting a fuse. Too many countries are nuclear capable with a few that might be hiding their capabilities. Because of that, it makes more sense to keep peace talks going to try and resolve some of the issues that cause the conflicts. Like Afghanistan, oil seems to be the goal in this stand-off with Iraq. You can't tell me that the U.S. doesn't have the intellegence and the means to go in and take Saddam out. Instead, Bush chooses war and a bunch of innocent people will lose their lives because of it. Do any of you think there will be great gains after the U.S. strikes Iraq?
posted on February 15, 2003 06:57:19 PM new
Linda, Iraq has not attacked us. Iraq has never tried to attack us. Iraq has never threatened to attack us. What does 9-11 have to do with Iraq?
N-O-T-H-I-N-G!
>You seem to be saying do nothing...just take it...don't try to prevent this from happening again.
Bush is attacking Iraq on the novel idea that 'we have to get them before they get us' -- truly paranoid. That is the Imbecil's Method of Diplomacy. Not only is the premise that Bush is using to attack Iraq against UN agreements and resolutions, but it also violated international law! If we break them, then we can't complain when someone else does it to us.
Linda, whether you and Bush like it or not, ALL nations have the soverign right to defend themselves against intrusion or agression from neighbors or anyone else. No nation is limited to what type of weapons that it can have in its aresenal - except Iraq, which was imposed on it at the end of the Gulf War. That does not translate that we have any authority whatsoever to tell any other nation what weapons it can and can't have to defend itself with - except Iraq.
However, Saddam must feel that he's entitled to hang onto them. He knows very well that if he were to cross over and to violate even the No Fly Zone of his own home country, he would get pounced on and made into mincemeat.
In fact, if he had not been betrayed by G.W. Bush Sr, he never would have crossed over into Kuait.
So what's the problem? That he isn't following the UN resolutions and agreeements tot he letter of the law? Do we? No and no. So? So, that should tell you that diplomatic agreements are never written in stone and are fluid and can be changed or warped. That is due to the nature of such agreements. And we can't hold anyone else to them, especially in light of Dubya's breakling of UN Resolutions and International Laws.
Now, if Dubya does go attack Iraq without sufficient proofs, then George W. Bush, Jr. and his senior staff will become War Criminal sand will have to be handed over to a War Crimes Tribunal for trial and likely, death sentances life life imprisonment. Serious stuff.
posted on February 15, 2003 07:19:45 PM new
Wow! The power of propaganda is amazing!
Here is Linda believing that we are going to war with Iraq in retaliation for the terrorists 9/11 attack? There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq is responsible for that attack. And in addition, believing the propaganda that we are really concerned about weapons of mass destruction?
Obtaining the oil of Iraq, the natural gas of Iran and the pipelines of Afganistan are the real goals of this war.
posted on February 15, 2003 08:25:47 PM new
ChevronTexaco Corp., Conoco Phillips and Halliburton-- have been in discussion with the Bush administration over rehabilitating Iraq's damaged oil infrastructure which is in a state of disrepair largely due to the sanctions.
But the most important motive for the United States is increased influence in Middle Eastern affairs. Iran, Libya, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia have all posed problems for U.S. interests. The first Gulf War gave the United States its first major foothold in the Middle East: most notably its bases in Saudi Arabia that remain to this day. However, after September 11, the United States was given a window of opportunity to further its influence in the Middle East.
Following the model used in Afghanistan, the United States would aim to remove Saddam Hussein from power and then attempt to create a U.S. friendly government in Iraq; in addition, the U.S. would establish military bases in strategic locations around the country. The hope is that, like Afghanistan, the new Iraqi regime would have no qualms about the U.S. using the country for a military staging ground. The new regime would also be more sympathetic to Washington's concerns about global oil production, should the United States want to interfere with quotas set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies (OPEC).
Removing Hussein would also sandwich Iran, part of the "axis of evil," between U.S. military bases in Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west. If the United States were to have its military poised on both sides of the Iranian border, Tehran would have to become very careful about taking actions that could threaten U.S. interests. In addition to threatening Iran, the U.S. would send a strong signal to other countries in the area opposed to U.S. influence in the Middle East.
Linda, you've probably heard the saying, "what goes around comes around." That applies to the cyclical nature of terrorism also. When the Bush administration extends the military into an increasing number of territories and these areas become destabilized, clashes between US and local militants will follow and terrorism will increase.
posted on February 16, 2003 07:43:13 AM new
You couldn't be more wrong, Helen.
It's pacifists like yourself that, if they could be in a decision making postion, would be the cause of our country's downfall.
Read the statements of those leaders like bin Ladin. HEAR what they're saying [The US is cowardly]. They wouldn't be 'leaving us alone'. They WEREN'T leaving us alone. How quickly you appear to forget 9-11. There would be much more of that if people of your ilk had their way. We aren't going to sit back and 'let' that happen. It may, even though we work to prevent it. But being cowardly is NOT how I see America.
I'm glad most American's don't hold the same views you do.
posted on February 16, 2003 08:05:28 AM new
Morning snowy - Yes, that sure is one way things could go. I agree and know that is a concern to all. I believe most who have decided which way they lean have thought of that possibility. But to sit back and do nothing about disarming terrorists can also lead to that same scenario. Read bin Laden's last statements? He think's we've proven we're cowards. I don't believe we are and would rather go down fighting those of his and Saddam's ilk.
posted on February 16, 2003 08:23:54 AM new
Helen - You are being bulldozed with propaganda. Oh and you aren't? It's just you're choosing to believe the propaganda of our enemies, while I believe that of our country. We're just on different sides.
And as far as answering KD, [KD I appreciate your answering] I see her opinions of someone acting out of fear of what can happen. Understandable...many can identify with those fears. My position is we [the US] cannot act out of fear...the end result will be losing our way of life.
