> Lots of Love,
> Nicci
>
>
> Subject: Letter >From a Fighter Pilot
>
> Dearest Family and Friends,I just wanted to send an e-mail out that was
> typed by a friend of
> mine. His callsign is T-bone, and he's an F-15 Eagle pilot. I'll forgo
> the jokes Eagle guys this time, since he wrote an intelligent and
> thoughtful insight into the world's events. He's a warrior and a patriot,
> but also not
> prone to rash decisions or emotions. It's a great perspective, and he
> researched the statements and claims that are imbedded. Please give
> it a look, send it to others, and include this in your background
> knowledge concerning world events and reasons for my deployment, as well
> as the loads of other soldiers in the air, on the
> ships and marching on the ground. V/R
> Quote:
> I've been deployed to Turkey for about 3 months now and am told I will be
> here "indefinitely." We aren't flying much and there isn't a whole lot
> else to do right now, so I get to keep up with the news pretty well on
> satellite TV. This weekend, I was shocked, and frankly pretty annoyed,
> to see millions of people around the world protesting potential war in
> Iraq. Don't get me wrong; I don't disagree with anyone's right to do
> that. In fact, I encourage it if that is what they truly believe. It
> is just clear to me based on the ridiculous comments they made to
> reporters and the carnival atmosphere of the marches that these people
> have no idea what the actual facts of the matter are. If they knew the
> facts, I believe many would feel differently. Since there are probably
> some of "those people" among you and you apparently weren't swayed in
> the face of Colin Powell's evidence, let me present my perspective to
Colin Powell presented no strong evidence. The best evidence he gave us was circumstantial, and the worst was outright lies.
> you. Many people out there think that we should just give the
> inspectors
> more time, that war should be the last resort. I agree with you--war
> should be the last resort. Trust me, it's my pink body on the line, not
> yours. The problem with the "more time" argument is that people are only
> taking into account the last three months of inspections. Do you realize
> that there have been UN inspections for a total of 9 out of the last 12
> years? That's right, there have NOT been three months of inspections.
> There have been NINE YEARS of inspections. Do you really think they are
> working? They haven't turned anything up, but do you really, honestly
> believe that the Iraqis are not hiding anything? Do you really, honestly
> believe that inspections will find what they are hiding? How many YEARS
> of inspections would it take to satisfy you? I think nine is more than
> enough. Based on Powell's speech alone, even a skeptic can see that the
> Iraqis know ahead of time where the inspectors are going and clean those
> sites out before the inspectors get there. We know for sure, FOR SURE,
> that the Iraqis have chemical and biological weapons. No question. The
If the US knew that the Iraqis had chemical and biological weapons, they would have made a quick phone call to the inspectors and told them where they were. Fact is, we do not know if Iraq has these weapons. Bush is using this as a scare tactic to get what he wants.
> Iraqis
> continue to claim they don't have them. The inspections have not found
> them. "Then how could we know that and why won't the government 'prove'
> it to me," you ask. Intelligence is the answer. The reason you can't
> know HOW we know is that the way we know that would then be given up.
> We need the WAY we know that to be secret because we need those sources
> to continue to provide information so we can DESTROY the chem/bio
> weapons. In a purely theoretical example, if we bugged a conference
> room where the Iraqi generals discussed where they were moving their
> weapons and we told the world of the conversations we overheard there,
> the Iraqis are not stupid enough to keep talking in that con! ference
> room! We no longer have that information coming in. We may not be able
> to use that info to go destroy the chem/bio weapons. Since that is the
> REAL GOAL, it is far more important to accomplish that than to
> convince you. Intelligence is a simple thing to counter if the bad guys
> know how you are getting your information. The trick is keeping them
> from knowing
> your sources and methods. Therefore, the "good stuff" can't exactly
> bebroadcast on the evening news just to satisfy you. Many out there
The above argument could be used by any government to protect its lies from being found out. History has shown us plenty of examples where the government lied to get exactly what it wanted. The Vietnam was was started with a lie that a US warship was sunk in the Gulf of Tonkin (http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html) The first Bush Gulf War was also begun with a lie (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3589/us-iraq-lie.html) The american public knows the government lies, so we demand to know the evidence before we go to war. The above argument is not good enough.
> believe that the Iraqis MAY have chem/bio weapons, but don't really care
> because "they are only for self-defense. They wouldn't actually use
> them." Let me tell you about the Iraqis and chemical
> weapons. Saddam Hussein took power in 1979. In 1980, Iraq invaded its
> eastern
> neighbor, Iran. The resulting Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years. Iraq
> started it. They invaded Iran and then used chemical weapons to kill
> thousands of Iranian troops. They used chemical weapons against Iranian
> villages
> and civilians. Oh yeah, the soldiers he captured in that war became
> medical guinea pigs for chem/bio experiments. They all died as well.
> (Let's see, who else in history has used humans as guinea pigs for
> chemical weapons experiments? You can figure that one out, I digress.)
> "Well, that was war" you say. In 1988, Iraq ordered chemical weapons
> used against a Kurdish village (all civilians) in northern Iraq. FIVE
> THOUSAND people died, SEVEN THOUSAND were wounded. For reference, note
> that 3500 were killed in the WTC attacks. In 1991, after the end of the
> Gulf War, Saddam Hussein ordered Iraqi troops to use chemical weapons
> against another Kurdish village in northern Iraq. He killed everyone in
> that village--3000 people. The Kurds were all civilians. They were all
> IRAQI CITIZENS. Saddam killed them because of ETHNIC
> HATRED. Think of the Kurds kind of like the Gypsies in Italy. The Turks,
> Iraqis, and Iranians all hate the Kurds. But let me say that again, he
> KILLED them because of ETHNIC HATRED. Women, children, old people.
> (once again, sound familiar in history?) He doesn't care. "Well," you
No anti-war protester thinks Saddam is an angel. I know of many atrocities he has committed. It sickens me. But go to the internet, any search engine, and type in "IRAQI DEAD" I guarantee you will find MANY more dead from US actions, than died from these actions in the 80's when, by the way, Saddam was best friends with Rumsfeld (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm). We killed 200,000 in the first Gulf War. Bush Jr has continued the killing in Afghanistan, where there were mass executions. I would be pro-war if war killed the leaders who started it instead of innocent men, women, and children.
> say, "Iraq has been oppressed by sanctions since the Gulf War. Its
> people are starving. It's only natural for them to try to break free
> from these oppressive resolutions." (Once again, sound familiar in
> history?) Let me tell you about that. The UN authorized the Oil for Food
> Program after the Gulf War that would allow Iraq to sell oil to get
> money for food and medicine for its people while economic embargo's
> remained in place to force Iraq to disarm. International aid
> organizations have been sending food and medicine for years. Much of it
> is taken and immediately sold on the black market for cash. That cash is
> used to buy items (mostly weapons) prohibited in the Gulf War cease
> fire agreement. Most of the rest sits in warehouses in Baghdad,
> undistributed to the Iraqi people. The Iraqi government refuses to hand
> it out because they want to be able to blame the plight of their people
> on the US. If
> the people see that the US is sending them food and me! dicine, that
> ruins the argument. Much of the money Iraq was supposed to use to buy
> food was diverted directly to Saddam Hussein himself. Since the Gulf
> War, Saddam has built himself forty palaces. That's right, FORTY
> PALACES! These are not just big houses. The total landmass of Saddam's
> new palaces totals about NINE SQUARE MILES! The palaces are filled
> with marble and gold and plenty of portraits of Saddam. Meanwhile, his
> people starve and he doesn't care.
The idea that we are supplying Iraqis with food and medecine, while at the same time enforcing sanctions against them, is hypocritical. It has been strongly argued that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have died due to sanctions. This is controversial and I don't know whether to believe it. However, if the thought ever strikes you that the US cares at all about Iraqi people, read this quote:
"When Madeleine Albright, then the American secretary of state [sic], was asked in an interview on 60 Minutes whether she had considered the resulting death of 500,000 Iraqi children (of malnutrition and disease), she said, ‘We think the price is worth it.’"
> "We should be focusing on Al Qaeda," you say. "They are the real threat
> to us." Well Al Qaeda has strong ties with the Iraqi government (you're
> going to have to trust me on that) and Iraq is a haven for Al Qaeda
Sorry, I don't trust you. See argument above.
> leaders. Al Qaeda SEEKS chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.Iraq
> HAS chemical, biological, and IS DEVELOPING nuclear weapons. They are
> now friends. It doesn't take an Einstein to do the math here. Everyone
> wants to see a smoking gun. You idiots! If there is a smoking gun, it is
> too late. The gun has gone off. The smoke will be dead bodies. What do
> you want, pictures of Saddam playing golf with Osama? After Sept 11th,
> everyone asked why we couldn't piece it all together beforehand. Why
> couldn't the government see it coming? What do you think the "smoking
> gun" would have been back then? Some guys took flying lessons? Some guys
> got on airplanes with box cutters? Before the actual hijacking, there
> was not "proof" of anything! Would anyone have supported invading
> Afghanistan and rooting out Al Qaeda based on that? NO WAY. The smoking
> gun, well, you know that by now. "Exhaust diplomacy," you say. First of
> all, there has been TWELVE
> YEARS of diplomacy to try to make Iraq disarm. Did you know that Iraq
> has not fully complied with a single UN resolution in the last twelve
> years? That's right, not just this stuff about the inspectors. ALL
> SEVENTEEN resolutions have been ignored. Do you honestly believe that
> anything we do diplomatically will convince Saddam to disarm? DO YOU? He
> is only interested in staying in power and is playing the game well to
> keep
> himself there. We have tried talking to the him. We have tried economic
> and trade sanctions. We have tried military action. We have tried no fly
> zones. We have tried inspections. What else do you suggest? Maybe if
> we just say "pretty please" he'll comply. We've tried everything else.
Why don't we simply try minding our own business? Oh yeah, the oil.
> "Don't act unilaterally," you say. Last time I checked that word means
> "by ourselves." In case anyone hasn't noticed, France and Germany are
> the only allies NOT on board. The rest of NATO IS on board. The rest of
Bought and paid for by your tax dollars. Our great-great-great grandchildren will be paying off the debt from paying off all these countries. If what we are doing were right and just, countries would join us freely.
> Europe IS on board. Australia IS on board. Poland, the Czech Republic,
> Egypt, Bulgaria, Latvia, the Netherlands are ALL on board. Over FORTY
> COUNTRIES have offered military assistance of some sort. Even Jordan, an
> ally of Iraq, has offered assistance. I'm not quite sure how that
> translates into unilateralism. Several countries have already deployed
> forces to take part in any potential military action. This is not the
> first time the French have balked at striking out at terrorism. In 1986
> there were several terrorist attacks across the globe including the
> bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. Several of the
> attacks had been in France, including a nightclub bombing that killed
> many American servicemen. US intelligence pinpointed the source! e of
> the terrorist attacks as Libya. In response, President Reagan ordered
> military air strikes on terrorist camps inside Libya. Some of the
> fighters were to launch out of bases in England. Reagan called then
> French President Francois Mitterand just to ask permission for our
> fighters to overfly France on the way to Libya. To go around France
> meant a
> 16-hour round trip flight for the pilots. Mitterand refused, despite
> several of the terrorist attacks having happened INSIDE FRANCE. He
> then had the gall to tell Reagan: "Don't let it be just a pinprick (the
> air
> strikes). Really let them have it." The French of all people should
> know the consequences of inaction. Wishful thinking has cost them their
> country twice in the last eighty years. The problem with the antiwar
> activists is that THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. They
> don't know any of the FACTS about Iraq
I have found anti-war protesters to be some of the most intelligent, well-read people I've ever met. On the other hand, the pro-war are usually easily refuted lies (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15305) (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0318-04.htm) Any lie, however, repeated enough times, begins to sound like the truth to the average American. What do you expect, when these lies are spread through our mass media, which is the only news source for most of Americans.
> and what has happened there. They have paid no attention to the last
> twelve years and cannot tell you the contents of a single UN resolution.
> They cannot tell you the names of the military operations that support
> those resolutions. They would be shocked to know that Americans get shot
> at virtually EVERY DAY enforcing those resolutions. They have no idea
Why do Americans fight "every day" enforcing UN resolutions, yet when the UN passes a resolution against Israel, the US vetoes it? (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html) Is Israel, or the US, exempt from UN resolutions? We can't protect something (the UN) we don't respect.
> about the sacrifice America has been willing to make for those
> resolutions to work. They would know it if they ever decided to pay
> attention. They would know it if they sought out the actual facts. It's
> in the newspaper every day. It's on the news every night. But they
> have no idea about the real situation in Iraq. They don't care either.
> They just want to sit around the coffee house and complain
> that the government couldn't keep them safe on Sept 11 and then complain
> when the government now leans forward to keep them safe in a post Sept
> 11th world. If we don't do something, there WILL be another Sept 11th
> and it will be ugly. There may be one regardless of what happens in
I have no doubt there will be another 9-11. It may be spearheaded by the young Iraqi who sees his father's charred remains after a US "surgical strike". Violence perpetuates more violence. Bush's job is to protect us, not attack the world.
> Iraq, but that can't keep us from acting on this. There are people out
> there that want to attack us with weapons of mass destruction. There
> is no way to stop every terrorist attack. There just isn't. But we
> HAVE TO stop the terrorists from getting chemical, biological, and
> nuclear weapons. We can't afford to look back one day and realize we
> could have cut them off at the source. The problem really is wishful
> thinking. Everyone (including Bush, including me, including anyone else
> who would bleed in war) wishes there will be no war. We hope there is
> another way. That is just wishful
> thinking. Sometimes there is no choice. Sometimes it has to get ugly for
> the greater good. Look at history for a guide. I've alluded to it
> several times already. In case you haven't figured out my historical
> comparison to Hussein, it's Hitler. In the mid-1930s, Hitler began to
A much more apt comparison is of Hitler to Bush (too many links to list here. Do the research yourself.) Saddam is a nobody. Bush is abusing his control of the greatest military the world has ever seen. "Homeland" security. "Total Information Awareness". Bush is either the biggest fan ever of Hitler, or he is the only American who didn't learn about him in school (why does this sound so likely?) Germany has ALREADY called Bush "Hitler", and they should KNOW!
> rearm Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. The League of
> Nations said "stop." Hitler said "okay" but kept on arming. The League
> of Nations said "stop" again, but Hitler ignored them. Then Hitler
> invaded Poland. The world community said "hey, don't do
Hussein invaded Kuwait after the US said it would not intervene (http://members.aol.com/Alaco/cheney.htm) Then, we turned on him.
> that." Hitler said "if you give me this and this and that, I'll stop.
> The world said "okay, whatever you want. Anything is better than war.
> Just stop." It was called "Appeasement." We know what happened next.
> It was the worst example of diplomacy in history. That mistake cost the
> world MILLIONS OF LIVES. World War II could have been stopped cold
> before it started simply by standing up to the bully. Everyone was so
> afraid of war that they let Hitler get away with whatever he wanted.
> They gave him an inch and he took a mile. No one stopped him, so he kept
> on going. Sound familiar? I'm not suggesting that Saddam Hussein will
> start invading his neighbors again and take over the Middle East. Note
> the "again" part--he's already invaded two of his neighbors and set
> himself up to invade a third before we stopped him in 1990. However, if
> he gets a nuclear weapon or if he gets long range missiles to deliver
> chemical weapons, he will be the biggest menace the world has ever
> known. He will be able to wipe countries off the face of the earth with
> one button and will blackmail the world to get what he wants. Will
> everyone be so afraid of war then that they'll give him whatever he
> wants? If the United Nations does not have the backbone to support it's
> own resolutions and ensure compliance, then it will go the way of the
> League of Nations. Why would anyone ever comply with Security Council
> resolutions if there are no consequences for non-compliance? Do you want
> to live in that world? "I just don't trust Bush," you say. Why is
> everyone so willing to trust the Iraqis and so unwilling to trust our
> own American leaders? The Iraqis say they don't have anything. They say
> the aluminum tubes are not
> for nuclear purposes, despite all the evidence. They say they forgot
> exactly how they destroyed thousands of gallons of Vx nerve gas and
> anthrax, but "trust us, we destroyed them way back in 1991." And so many
> people say "didn't you hear that? They said they didn't have any.
The above is a laundry list of fears compiled by the Bush administration to support a war. That's their job. Bush says, "I want to go to war with Iraq. Find or invent reasons that the American public will buy." If Bush weren't in the driver's seat of the US military, this war would exist as no more than a grudge in his tiny brain. The way things are now, however, US troops like the one who wrote this letter are sent off to fight a battle for a little boy with a big ego and a new toy gun.
> Everyone pack up and go home now.
> We're safe. They SAID so." WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE? Why
> does everyone want so badly to believe a man and a regime that has
> invaded and gassed it's neighbors, gassed it's own people, has ties to
> and harbors terrorist groups, defies EVERY SINGLE UN RESOLUTION against
> it, tortures political foes, let's its own children starve ON PURPOSE,
> and has a history of pathological lying on almost every matter? Are you
> so cynical about the American government that you would trust the Iraqis
I trust neither.
> before you would trust us? You may not like our leaders. Fine, vote them
> out if you feel that way. But how can you honestly stand there and
> believe that the IRAQIS are telling the TRUTH and OUR leaders are LYING
We will vote him out (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/03/06/poll/print.html) So don't go off getting hurt because of a one-term president who will be fired next year.
> to you? Many people say this is about oil. Those people embarrass
> themselves. They have no grasp of the facts. They have nothing to
> say, so they blame it on oil. This has nothing to do with oil. Our
> leaders are not evil. This is not a conspiracy to boost their friends'
I don't think our leaders are evil. I think they're greedy, and used to doing ugly things to get more money and power.
> bank accounts. We do not boost our economy by paying for it with
> American lives. Anyone who thinks that hasn't really thought about this
> at all. I don't want a war. Trust me I don't. I want Saddam Hussein to
> go into exile and live out his days in Argentina or Paraguay or
> wherever evil dictators go to live. I want that more than anything. But
> when he doesn't leave, I will be on the front edge of the charge across
> that
> country. Because I know the facts, I am comfortable with that. I know
> the risks and I will take them because I know the consequences if I do
> not. I am glad that Americans don't take war lightly. They shouldn't.
> But before marching and protesting and singing their songs, why don't
> they actually look at the facts? Let me tell you, it was a big morale
> killer this weekend to see all those people running around with poster
> board signs and singing hippie songs when I knew that not one of them
> had any idea what they were talking about. I don't want blind
> patriotism. That doesn't help anyone. What I do expect is that any
> American who feels strongly enough to try to influence foreign policy,
> which-! -let's face it--is the goal of demonstrations, would actually
> have a clue about the subject they are trying to protest. Right now
I'm not surprised that there are ill-informed protesters. On the other hand, I don't know how eloquent I would be if a reporter jammed a camera in my face. However, I'm sure that there are plenty of ill-informed people in the military. Don't judge a revolution by one drunk or stupid protestor. Find out if the movement speaks the truth, and judge it as a whole.
> there are 150,000 of your fellow Americans in the middle east and
> another 100,000 on the way. If we get the call, we will steamroll across
> that country like the world has never seen. Civilian casualties will be
> painstakingly avoided, but there will be no mercy on the Iraqi
> leaders or its military. It will be an overwhelmingly violent campaign.
> It has to be for the greater good. The quicker the war, the fewer
> overall casualties occur. History has taught us that, too. How will you
> feel when you hear the news that the war has begun? Will you be angry
I was sad. For many reasons.
> because you feel it is out-of-control American imperialism? Will you
> feel bad for the Iraqi people (who, by the way, are about to become free
> for the first time)? Or will you feel a mix of pride and sadness for the
> Americans--pride that Americans are risking their lives to protect you
> and sadness because some will not come back? I frankly don't care how
> you feel. I'll do my job either way. But don't you owe! it to yourself
> to know the truth about the world around you? You don't see American
> troops deserting and running to Canada do you? There are a lot of your
> fellow Americans that feel strongly enough about this to risk their
> lives for this cause. Maybe they are on to something.
It's easy to grasp at anything that supports one's image of being a "good" person. The Bush administration and the US media will supply you with more than enough reasons, if that's all you want. But if you really want to decide for yourself, seek the truth. There isn't an "us versus them". People aren't "evil". There is simply a huge apparatus in this country, and in most countries, that dehumanizes us and asks us to do things that we normally would consider wrong. It is fed by money and power.
Do you think it is right to blindly follow a leader who may not be telling us the truth about his motives?
Do you think it is right for us to attack a country which is not attacking us?
Do you think it is right to send explosive missiles into a crowded city, killing thousands? (If you do, then you must wonder what all the fuss was about on 9-11)
Do you think it is right to end the life of a young Iraqi soldier because his leader is an asshole?
Do you think it is right for us to blow apart an innocent civilian with a "smart bomb" that missed by 50 feet?
Do you think it is right to take away a child, forever, from a mother and father?
I don't, and that's why I will be protesting tonight, and until this ends?
>
>
> T-BONE
>
>
Richard Kelly
(richard-at-kelly.ws)
