I've been invited to Iraq - Shall I go??
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
http://www.patdollard.com/main.html
E-mails:
03/08/2006 - "I'm going back to Ramadi in September. Want to work for me and run a camera?"
04/08/2006 - "It ain't a party. Here's how it works. There's a 90% chance you will come back alive.
There is a 70% chance you will come back unwounded ( ie a 30% chance you will be wounded ). There is a 100% chance that some piece of hot flying metal ( mortar sharpnel, bullet, rocket, ied shrapnel or even ied concussion ) will fly within mere inches of your body. 100% Chance you will come mere inches from dying or being wounded. It's guaranteed. And when you come back, after enduring such hardships to help these peasants fight terrorist/gangster rule, after escaping close brushes with death every single day, you will be afraid of nothing, and you will have zero tolerance for the average civilian and their typical arrogance, earned, ultimately, by nothing. It's almost comical how you'll see these soft dufuses parade around like the badasses they will never be, practically demanding you kiss their ass without ever having earned it. The average, lazy ass, self-centered civilian's arrogance will be truly astounding to you. It'll be as if shackles have fallen from your eyes. And every rock and movie star will have lost every ounce of mystique and appeal to you. They will be what they are: plumbers or bus drivers or whoever who are simply plying a differnt type of trade. You will forever live in a different world, one you can not truly share with those closest to you, but only with those who have been through what you have been through. You will understand family as a verb, and appreciate it more as such instead of as a genetic-based noun. And in an indescribable way, you will know the truth of human nature, you will know the truth of everyone around you. Don't ask me how, but you will.
If you survive."
Patrick Dollard
So, shall I go??
E-mails:
03/08/2006 - "I'm going back to Ramadi in September. Want to work for me and run a camera?"
04/08/2006 - "It ain't a party. Here's how it works. There's a 90% chance you will come back alive.
There is a 70% chance you will come back unwounded ( ie a 30% chance you will be wounded ). There is a 100% chance that some piece of hot flying metal ( mortar sharpnel, bullet, rocket, ied shrapnel or even ied concussion ) will fly within mere inches of your body. 100% Chance you will come mere inches from dying or being wounded. It's guaranteed. And when you come back, after enduring such hardships to help these peasants fight terrorist/gangster rule, after escaping close brushes with death every single day, you will be afraid of nothing, and you will have zero tolerance for the average civilian and their typical arrogance, earned, ultimately, by nothing. It's almost comical how you'll see these soft dufuses parade around like the badasses they will never be, practically demanding you kiss their ass without ever having earned it. The average, lazy ass, self-centered civilian's arrogance will be truly astounding to you. It'll be as if shackles have fallen from your eyes. And every rock and movie star will have lost every ounce of mystique and appeal to you. They will be what they are: plumbers or bus drivers or whoever who are simply plying a differnt type of trade. You will forever live in a different world, one you can not truly share with those closest to you, but only with those who have been through what you have been through. You will understand family as a verb, and appreciate it more as such instead of as a genetic-based noun. And in an indescribable way, you will know the truth of human nature, you will know the truth of everyone around you. Don't ask me how, but you will.
If you survive."
Patrick Dollard
So, shall I go??
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
It's a big decision. I'd be going purely for the adrenaline rush and the new experiences. Although obviously it would be putting my life on the line.
that's quite something. 90%!!
I wouldn't go.. but that's just me.
Hell of a trip.....:D
I got invited to go about a year ago by my place of employment, offered really good salary compensation and alot of things to sweeten the pot....you know what I told them???
GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!!
NEWAGEHIPPIE
Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
That's probably what I would say.
I wonder if Nicholas Berg got a letter like the above..... I guess it comes down to how much risk you're willing to take.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
Son of a bitch. You and him correspond? I emailed him awhile ago and haven't heard from him.
It's up to you!
Yeah, here's some of our correspondence. I'll post the rest later as it was sent to my work e-mail address.
Patrick Dollard:
1. The pan-establishment of democracy, capitalism and modernism ( particularly modern education ) are the only real cure for the spread of Jihadism aka Terrorism.
2. There is no legitimate analogue between the Cuban terrorism you cite, and global Jihadism.
3. Who specifically said that Iraq was responsible for 9-11?
4. The claim that the U.S. and British governments lied to their populations has been widely disproven and is debatable at best. What is the relevance of such past events to the succesful establishment of a democratic, capitalistic and modernized society in Iraq? What is happening in Iraq is an alliance between our troops and the average Iraqi against two married-by-convenience gangs that seek to run the country. We offer Iraqis hope, the insurgents and Al Qaeda offer a rule by gangsters. What do you offer? Do you wish to help yourself, or just talk?
5. As for "U.S....failed state..." stuff, we've gotten to the core of the issue between us. You hate the United States. Someone has made you believe that we are inherently bad, while others are inherently good. If you hate the U.S., fine, but I don't need to be bothered by the silly propaganda of an "I hate the United States, I am an enemy of the United States" mindset.
6. Your freedom, and perhaps your life, is directly related to Iraq not turning into a terrorist state that makes Afghanistan under the Taliban look like Disneyland.
Me:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Steven Byrne wrote:
O.k, first of all, I've got more questions to ask you than any answers to give. You say that you are fighting a war on terror? Can you explain what you mean by this? I find this to be a strange comment in light of the fact that the top advisors in the U.S warned the Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism in the world. It therefor seems obvious that the Bush Administration cared little or nothing for fighting terror when invading Iraq would only increase terrorism. And not only does it seem obvious that they care very litle about fighting terrorism, but they in fact knowingly harbour and protest knwon terrorists in thier own country. For example, you may have heard of the Cuban 5? These are 5 Cubans arrested and imprisoned for attempting infiltrating members of a Cuban-American right-wing terrorist organizations based in Miami to monitor their actions; these proven CIA-sponsored organizations have been responsible for the deaths and injury of hundreds of people in Cuba and other countries.
The Cuban 5 infiltrated these organizations to protect the national sovereignty of their homeland Cuba and to safeguard the American populous from terrorist actions within the United States. The Cuban 5 shared the information with U.S. officials when dangerous actions were planned by these terrorist organizations. With a trial based in Miami, it was impossible for the Cuban 5 to receive a fair trial. Also, in 14,000 pages of transcript, no espionage evidence was ever introduced. It was also found that the information that the Cuban 5 had amassed was not government classified, but public information that did not threaten national security. It was clear that the charges brought up against the Cuban 5 were politically motivated fabricated, yet on June 8, 2001 they were found guilty of espionage and threatening national security.
The U.S. government has waged war on Iraq and invaded Afghanistan all in the name of fighting terrorism, yet Orlando Bosch, anti-Castro Cuban terrorist responsible for the murder of 73 passengers on a Cubana jetliner, and Luis Posada, a known CIA-sponsored international terrorist that has murdered countless people throughout Latin America, are allowed to walk free in Miami. It is this contradiction that proves that the Cuban 5 are a target of U.S. repression and a continuation of the U.S. hostile policies against Cuba.
You also refer to my frayed talking points. If by frayed talking points you mean my asking whether you think that 9/11 had something to do with Iraq, then I'd be interested to know how that constitutes a frayed talking point. As you know, Al-Queda had no agents operating Iraq before the US led invasion. Despite the efforts of your government to convince the U.S population that Iraq and AL-Queda were linked, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the facts knows this to be a blatant lie.
The U.S and British government's lied to their populations in their efforts to try and justify an invasion of Iraq. They began by claining Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Because of public pressure they were forced to obey International law and U.N weapons inspectors were sent in. They found nothing. Because they found nothing, the British and U.S governments accused the Iraqi authorities of not co-operating and of not disarming. The media in both Britain and the U.S did their job of perpetuating this bullshit. The British government even stooped so low as to present a dossier of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which it transpired was largely made up of a university students essay which was 12 years out of date. Eventually, both governments began to shift the focus of their reasons for invading. They began speaking of Iraq being linked with Al-Queda. This was then proven to be false. Various documents turned up which purportedly showed there was a link between Iraq and Al-Queda. These were eventually proven to be forgeries. The focus then shifted again. Both governments began talking of a moral crusade to otherthrow the evil dictator Sadaam Hussain. Mention was made of mass graves. The mass graves containing Kurdish civilians who had been gassed by Sadaam Hussain, and the mass graves of Sunni Muslims in the south of the country. They forgot to mention that both the British and U.S governments supported Sadamm Husain when he was gassing kurds and that the British government continued to sell Iraq chemical and biological weapons during this period. Tony Blair and Jack Straw were both in the opposition Labour party at the time, and either of them spoke out against these atrocities. As for the mass graves containing the dead Sunni's, these people were massacred at the end of the first Iraq war when Britain and the U.S abandoned the insurgent uprising which attempted to overthrow Sadaam, and actually instructed Saddam Hussain to "..restore order" in the country.
The U.S today qualifies as a failed state! Let me quote a few reasons which explain why:
The definition of "failed states" is hardly scientific. But they share some primary characteristics. They are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. They regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, hence free to carry out aggression and violence. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious "democratic deficit" that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance. One of the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and among the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror. If we allow ourselves to do so, we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of "failed states" right at home.
Throughout the Cold War years, the framework of "defence against Communist aggression" was available to mobilise domestic support for countless interventions abroad. Then at last the communist-menace device began to wear thin. By 1979, "the Soviets were influencing only 6 per cent of the world population and 5 per cent of the world GNP" outside its borders, according to the Centre for Defense Information. The basic picture was becoming harder to evade.
The government also faced domestic problems, notably the civilizing effects of the activism of the 1960s, which had many consequences, among them less willingness to tolerate the resort to violence.
Under President Reagan, the administration sought to deal with the problems by fevered pronouncements about the "evil empire" and its tentacles everywhere about to strangle us. But new devices were needed. The Reaganites declared their worldwide campaign to destroy "the evil scourge of terrorism," particularly state-backed international terrorism — which Reagan secretary of state George Shultz called a "plague spread by depraved opponents of civilization itself (in a) return to barbarism in the modern age."
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the category of "terrorist states" to include "rogue states." A few years later another concept was added to the repertoire: "failed states," from which we must protect ourselves, and which we must help — sometimes by devastating them. Later came President Bush’s "axis of evil" that we must destroy in self-defence, following the will of the Lord as transmitted to his humble servant — meanwhile escalating the threat of terror and nuclear proliferation.
Cynical political leaders exploit these fears constantly. The Reaganites were masters of it. Every year or two the U.S. was facing some dire threat. It didn't matter how crazy it was: Libya, Grenada, Nicaragua, Arab terrorists, crime (by implication Blacks), drugs (Hispanics)... Reagan himself may even have believed it; some of his performances were astonishing. It's an efficient way to mobilise people, and important when carrying out policies that are harming them.
The rhetoric has always raised difficulties, however. The basic problem has been that under any reasonable interpretation of the terms — even official definitions — the categories are unacceptably broad. It takes discipline not to recognise the elements of truth in historian Arno Mayer’s immediate post-9/11 observation that since 1947, "America has been the chief perpetrator of ‘pre-emptive’ state terror" and innumerable other ‘rogue’ actions," causing immense harm, "always in the name of democracy, liberty and justice."
After Bush took over, mainstream scholarship no longer just reported world opinion, but began to assert as fact that the US "has assumed many of the very features of the ‘rogue nations’ against which it has ... done battle" (David C. Hendrickson and Robert W. Tucker, Foreign Affairs, 2004).
Under this broader usage, "failed states" need not be weak — which makes good sense. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were hardly weak, but by reasonable standards they merit the designation "failed state" as fully as any in history.
After World War II, a new regime of international law was instituted. Its provisions on laws of war are codified in the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg principles, adopted by the General Assembly. The Charter bars the threat or use of force unless authorized by the Security Council or, under Article 51, in self-defense against armed attack until the Security Council acts.
The National Security Strategy of September 2002, just largely reiterated in March, grants the US the right to carry out what it calls "pre-emptive war," which means not pre-emptive, but "preventive war." That’s the right to commit aggression, plain and simple.
In the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal, aggression is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" — all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example.
You said n your previous e-mail "Enjoy your couch and freedom. I'm sure you risked your life for both."
When you say freedom, can you explain to me why you believe my freedom has got anything to do with Iraq? Are you suggesting that my freedom was under threat from Iraq? If so, how so? All they had to attack me with were fucking rocks!
Have you ever read any of the articles from the 'Project for the new American century'? This is an American think tank whose contributors include, among others, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Richard Perle. In a an article entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' page 51, September 2001 it reads "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbour." The fact that it has since been proven that the Bush Administration had prior knowledge of plans by AL-Queda to attack key targets inside America using hijacked passenger planes makes the above quote look very interesting indeed.
Anyway, I'd be grateful to know what your thoughts on the occupation of Iraq are, and your justifications for being there are. Cheers, Steve.
Here's some more:
Patrick Dollard
Me
"Dude, you're grasping at straws in every response you've made; or you've simply dodged the questions." Pat Dollard.
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:46 AM, Byrne Steve (ST) wrote:
Just one more thing...you mention that my freedom, and possibly my life, is "..directly related to Iraq not turning into a terrorist state.." Can you please explain what you mean by a 'terrorist state'? If you mean a country which see's itself as being outside of international law, and which acts unilaterally in undertaking acts of 'pre-emptive aggression against soverign nations then that is quite interesting. Are you aware that the U.S is the only country to have ever been charged with state terrorism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicarag..._States_ca se
Original Message
From: Byrne Steve (ST)
Sent: 20 July 2006 12:24
To: 'Patrick Dollard'
Subject: FW: Iraq
Amended...
Original Message
From: Steven Byrne [mailto:sfbyrne300@hotmail.com]
Sent: 18 July 2006 19:21
To: Byrne Steve (ST)
Subject:
1. The pan-establishment of democracy, capitalism and modernism ( particularly modern education ) are the only real cure for the spread of Jihadism aka Terrorism.
And do you have a historical precedent on which you base this assumption? Or is it merely an assumption?
2. There is no legitimate analogue between the Cuban terrorism you cite, and global Jihadism.
I didn't say that there was. I was reffering to the double standards of the Bush Administration, who are knowingly harbouring known terrorists in the U.S.
3. Who specifically said that Iraq was responsible for 9-11?
You mentioned that Iraq and terrorism were linked. You also mentioned 9/11 within a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the invasion of Iraq.
4. The claim that the U.S. and British governments lied to their populations has been widely disproven and is debatable at best.
There has been no independent inquiry into this matter. The 2002 Butler report was a sham. Anyone with an iota of intelligence knows that the goverments of Britain and the U.S lied to the populations in order to try to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. Why, for instance, would the British government present a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which was made up largely of a plagiarized students thesis 12 years out of date?
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...ocon_hoax.html
" But it emerged that some of the document was copied from three different articles, including one written by a postgraduate student. Excerpts from a paper relating to the build-up to the 1991 Gulf War by Californian student Ibrahim al-Marashi were used in the intelligence document. The paper was published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs. Other sections in the dossier were apparently taken from defence journal Jane's Intelligence Review. "
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide
5. What is the relevance of such past events to the succesful establishment of a democratic, capitalistic and modernized society in Iraq?
Because a democratic, capitalistic, and modernized society shouldn't be founded on lies, theft, and murder.
6. What is happening in Iraq is an alliance between our troops and the average Iraqi against two married-by-convenience gangs that seek to run the country. We offer Iraqis hope, the insurgents and Al Qaeda offer a rule by gangsters. What do you offer? Do you wish to help yourself, or just talk?
How did these two gangs - Al queda and the insurgents - happen to arise ? What was the catalyst for this event, or did it just simply happen out of a vacuum in history? There were no Al Queda in Iraq until after the U.S invasion. Now the place is a hotbed of terrorism and factional fighting to the point of it being a civil war. The U.S government were forewarned that an invasion would increase terrorism in the world but went ahead anyway. You created the mess, now deal with it.
You offer the Iraqi's hope? Interesting. Read this...
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
7. As for "U.S....failed state..." stuff, we've gotten to the core of the issue between us. You hate the United States. Someone has made you believe that we are inherently bad, while others are inherently good. If you hate the U.S., fine, but I don't need to be bothered by the silly propaganda of an "I hate the United States, I am an enemy of the United States" mindset.
This comment is too ridiculous to be worthy of a response.
6. Your freedom, and perhaps your life, is directly related to Iraq not turning into a terrorist state that makes Afghanistan under the Taliban look like Disneyland.
That is a totally subjective opinion with no basis in reality.
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Steven Byrne wrote:
Or so I heard.
As the highest ranking US general in Iraq puts it, "Sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it."
Which, incidentally, would fit into the US foreign policy template for post invasion to a tee-Divide and rule...Afghanistan is chopped up pretty good, ruled by warlords. Yugoslavia was broken up, just seems pretty common. To divide and rule...
They're probably arming all sides in the conflict, they got a guy in every group they want to rule, and so they arm his specific group and hope that he takes power...
So no, I wouldn't want to be in the middle of that. That's just me.
"There's only one party I know and it is freedom"
-EV
6-3-03 Irvine, CA
Go Cubs!
Honestly, if you go, you're not only a fool, you're part of the problem.
But I think maybe you're asking this question rhetorically?
I've always wanted an ear necklace
i'll trade a poster for it
cunts watch their bodies
You either want to go to a dangerous place to do a job or you don't.
Politics are coincidental, you want to be a part of this thing or you don't.
Either the allure of glory and the ability to trump you buddies at a bar are calling you or they aren't.
You don't believe in the guys cause, so you're not going for ideological reasons, you're going for an adventure or you're not. For every Berg there's a thousand journalists who did their year, got out, and now have a life altering experience behind them.
If you're life is more important than this experience don't go. If the experience will strike a chord within you that will propel your life towards the illusions of grandeur we all have but seldom realize, then by all means go.
If I went I'd be going to film what is happening there. I certainly wouldn't be going to support the war, but simply to record the effects of the war on the civilian population, and on the troops.