Armageddon seems off topic to me (was Re: Signs point to Armageddon

[Guest guest]

Actually, , I have not commented on the thread because

it seems way off topic to me, so I would not want to add anything

to the subject one way or another. I commented on one point

that was made relative to the Frist bill, because I do care

about that and I didn't want anyone to feel discouraged about

writing about that specific bill. I hope the discussion can

be dropped. I'm sure that there are lots of lists where it

would be ON topic.

best wishes,

Moria

> I guess I am not the only one who thinks these things are leading to

Armageddon.

> The signs are there fo those who want to see. Read on.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Print This Story E-mail This Story

>

>

> Bush's Messy War is Courting Total Disaster

> By Rivers Pitt

> t r u t h o u t | Report

>

> Tuesday, 30 July, 2002

>

> At the same time Americans were celebrating what is left of

their freedoms on the Fourth of July, civilians in the Uruzgan

Province of Afghanistan were burying women and children massacred by

U.S. forces during a wedding ceremony. According to reports, 48

civilians were killed and 100 more were wounded when Air Force attack

aircraft swooped down and strafed the wedding with bombs and cannon fire.

>

> The simple fact is bad enough. This disaster is no secret in

Afghanistan and the rest of the Muslim world. The deaths of these

innocents has undoubtedly birthed new would-be terrorists who will

someday seek to die for the privilege of seeing Americans die. Our

bombs and bullets have done marvelous recruiting work for Osama bin

Laden and Al Qaeda.

>

> A preliminary United Nations report on its investigation of

that attack is said to have found evidence of an attempted coverup by

American forces of the attack. Shrapnel, bullets and bloodstains were

removed from the scene. Civilian women at the site are reported to

have been bound at the hands by our forces while the evidence was

removed and destroyed. The massacre of civilians was horrific. The

fact that we tried to cover it up is monstrous.

>

> So it goes with Mr. Bush's war on terrorism. The fight in

Afghanistan is far from over, as evidenced by recent attacks upon our

troops in the Khost region. Several major media outlets reported some

days ago that some of our troops were in fact killed, a claim the

Pentagon vehemently denied. The UN report of American efforts to cover

up the facts of the wedding massacre make such denials difficult to

believe.

>

> While American troops and Afghan civilians continue to

bleed, Bush is shopping around for a new battlefront. Momentum is

building across our national political landscape for a war with Iraq.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold hearings beginning

Wednesday, July 31st, to explore the threat to America represented by

Saddam Hussein. It is unlikely that any politician will stand up and

ask the central questions - Where is the evidence that Hussein poses a

threat? If he has weapons of mass destruction and we know it, why

didn't we go to war against him months ago? Thanks to this cowardice,

the Committee hearings will be little more than a rubber stamp for

conflict. It seems all too likely that our forces will soon be engaged

in Iraq.

>

> The fallout from this conflict will be enormous. American

troops will die, unless we engage in antiseptic aerial bombardment

that will utterly fail to dislodge Hussein or his purported weapons.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians will die no matter how we decide

to wage the war. If America decides, in pure Bush unilateralist

action, to wage war without the blessings of the international

community or a United Nations mandate, our prestige on the world stage

will be annihilated.

>

> Worse, war in Iraq will drive the Middle East into a state

of utter chaos. Reports from the British Foreign Affairs office paint

a picture of a teetering Saudi Arabia on the brink of collapse.

Infighting between the ruling Prince Abdullah and pro-Al Qaeda members

of his royal family, fueled by Abdullah's pro-Western stance, has led

observers to wonder how long this American ally within the House of

Saud can stay on the throne. Popular uprisings against Abdullah have

added fuel to this fire.

>

> An American attack upon Iraq could very easily be the spark

that ignites a terrible conflagration. If Prince Abdullah falls to an

uprising exacerbated by our conflict in the region, the Saudi oil

fields will come under the control of fanatics loyal to Al Qaeda's

cause. This is precisely what Osama bin Laden wanted - the oil. Were

this to happen, it is certain that Bush would commit our forces to

defeating the insurgents. American war in the land of Mecca and Medina

would precipitate a global crisis that would make the events of

September 11th seem tame by comparison.

>

> With the fight in Afghanistan still unfinished, with no

evidence on the table to make the case that Saddam Hussein poses a

threat to America, and with the terrifying implications of chaos in

the Mideast if we do go to war there, why on earth would Bush and his

people want to push towards battle?

>

> In all likelihood, the answer lies within the geometry of

the voting booth and the American marketplace. The Congressional

midterm elections will be taking place in 99 days. Instability in the

stock market, combined with reports of massive corporate fraud and

mounting evidence that Bush and Cheney behaved like Lay and Fastow,

augmented by a war on terror that does not seem to be getting anything

done, has stripped the GOP of anything to run on in their respective

races. By most reports, Republicans are facing an electoral wipeout to

rival the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. A splendid little war, combined

with the inevitable demands for patriotism, would serve to create Bush

coattails where none currently exist.

>

> Beyond that lies a motivation that is chilling in its

inception. Larry Kudlow, a market analyst for CNBC, put forth the

proposition in a column published on July 28th that war in Iraq is

necessary to save the stock market. The article is entitled, 'Taking

Back the Market - By Force.'

>

> " The shock therapy of decisive war, " opined Kudlow, " will

elevate the stock market by a couple thousand points. We will know

that our businesses will stay open, that our families will be safe and

that our future will be unlimited. The world will be righted in this

life-and-death struggle to preserve our values and our civilization. "

>

> If thinking such as this is mirrored within the Bush

administration, and all indicators point to the sad fact that this is

indeed the case, there will be little left of our civilization. The

world will burn, the markets will crumble, and many more innocents

will die. This war, already a mess on so many levels, flirts with

Armageddon.

>

> Print This Story E-mail This Story

>

>

> © : t r u t h o u t 2002

>

> | t r u t h o u t | forum | issues | editorial | letters |

donate | contact |

> | voting rights | environment | budget | children | politics |

indigenous survival | energy |

> | defense | health | economy | human rights | labor | trade |

women | reform | global |

>

>

>

>