Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Downed Pilot Scott Speicher - Did He Survive?

By m0rzo in News
Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 09:37:10 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

On August 2nd 1990 Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Armed Forces, dubbed at that time as the `fourth largest army in the world', rolled into Kuwait. The United States, having pledged to defend Iraq's neighbours at massive cost, immediately sent combat aircraft to Saudi Arabia. After over four months of intense negotiation, yielding nothing, the Gulf War began.

On January 18th 1991 the first American air-strikes commenced against targets in Iraq's capital, Baghdad. It was on this ferocious opening night that America incurred its first fatality, fighter pilot Scott Speicher. The circumstances of his death are sketchy; evidence to prove the assertion that he is actually deceased is non-existent. There is, however, an increasing amount of indication that Scott Speicher survived and has, for the last 11 years, been held prisoner in Iraq. A report which substantiates this hit President Bush's desk this week and has become an essential point on his foreign policy agenda.


Lt. Commander Michael Scott Speicher vanished over the skies of Iraq at 0333hrs local time on January 17th 1991. He was part of the 32-strong FA-18 fighter bomber group that took off at 0130hrs from the USS Saratoga which, at that time, was sailing in the Red Sea. He was part of the first raid on the first night. Speicher was a competent pilot, in fact, evidently one of the best on the ship. His mission was to suppress Iraqi air defences to the west of Baghdad. The night was dull and overcast, the barrage of anti-aircraft fire was incessant. It was, for sure, a dangerous mission. Eight minutes from the target, a fellow pilot, Bob Stumpf saw a massive flash. He assumed that the explosion was a missile but didn't believe any planes had been hit. At the same time as Stumpf witnessed the blast, Dave Renaud, who had been the closest pilot to Speicher, reportedly saw explosions five miles away in Speicher's direction. He even drew a circle on the map where he'd seen the fireball. It is believed that Scott Speicher was downed by an Iraqi MiG-25.

Within hours of this unpleasant incident, Secretary of Defence Richard Cheney announced that Lt. Commander Michael Scott Speicher of the United States Navy had been killed in action. Any reasonable observer might think this a somewhat hasty judgement to arrive at particularly as there was no evidence to suggest this other than a flash in the sky and no radio contact for 12 hours.

To this day, there is one man who hasn't stopped the relentless hunt for what truly happened to Speicher - his best friend. In the period after the Gulf War, Buddy Harris had begun to accept that his once best friend, who he met in 1980 at Aviation Officer Candidate School in Florida, was dead. He even married his widow Joan and the couple had two children together. However, three years later in 1994, new evidence materialised which has gained growing credence. Harris believes this evidence and at the expense of his marriage has vowed to unveil the mask of secrecy which has shrouded the death of a friend and a colleague.

In 1994 Speicher's FA-18 jet was relocated. Qatari agents took photographs of the aircraft and a piece of radar equipment was retrieved and handed to the American Embassy in Doha, the Qatari capital. The results of tests carried out on the stricken jet stunned the Pentagon. Not only did serial numbers match, confirming that the plane was indeed Speicher's but also, there was convincing evidence implying that Speicher had, after all, ejected.

In 1995 spy satellite images were revealed which pictured the FA-18's canopy miles away from where the aircraft had landed virtually intact. More compelling was what looked like an S.O.S that had been drawn into the sand. This final piece of persuasive evidence was proof to Harris that Speicher had not, contrary to the Pentagon, been killed.

Contrast this evidence to Dick Cheney's premature assessment of the night where he declared the downed pilot as deceased. Before the air campaign was initiated a set of protocols were decided by the Pentagon on the prerequisites for initiating a search-and-rescue operation for downed pilots. It was agreed that no such operation would be commenced if radio contact was not established. By the time Cheney had declared Speicher as dead, there had been no word from the Lieutenant for 12 hours. Henceforth, no operation of this kind was launched. Herein lay the problem. The versatile, revered FA-18 had recently had a radio upgrade to the system that pilots use before they bail out. It is believed that the redesigned radio would not have been able to withstand a direct missile hit and therefore Speicher would not have been able to inform others of his situation. In 1999, Speicher's widow, Joanne Speicher Harris, filed a lawsuit against the radio's manufacturers, Motorola.

The S.O.S message drawn out in the sand can be explained quite simply. Speicher may have done this instead of using his TACBE (Tactical Beacon) so as not to rouse the attention of the Iraqi Army. These beacons are marvellous inventions, sending out a signal which unfortunately can be detected by both sides giving a rather precise location.

During the Gulf War, US Commander-in-Chief General Norman Schwarzkopf stated that if he had been shot down on that night everything would have been done to rescue him. We now know that nothing was done at all. Similarly on March 7th 1991, Pentagon Spokesman Pete Williams assured the American people that they would continue the search for any missing servicemen.

Disturbingly, after the Gulf War the Baghdad delivered a sinister canister to the United States. In this canister contained one and a half pounds of human flesh which they claimed belonged to Speicher. A DNA test, however, revealed that it wasn't him at all. Was Iraq trying to hide something or was it just a genuine mistake?

After the satellite photographs were revealed in 1994, General John Shalikashvili, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, listened to a passionate plea which called for a Special Forces covert mission into Iraq to retrieve the aircraft wreck before it could become ruined by the destructive and menacing hands of Iraqi Secret Intelligence. The plea was snubbed; Shalikashvili actually said, rather insensitively said that he didn't wish to risk the lives of countless other servicemen looking for "old bones".

What happened on that fateful winter's night in Iraq? Why the mantle of secrecy that appears to have enveloped this case on both sides? Is Scott Speicher alive and has he been languishing in some God forsaken hellish Baghdad prison for the last 11 years completely at the mercy of Saddam Hussein and his infamous Imperial Guard? Perhaps more worryingly, why the apparently spurious conjectures from Cheney and the Pentagon?

In 1996 a US Navy review renewed Speicher's K.I.A (Killed in Action) status. A senate intelligence committee, however, opened up the case again and delved deeper into this vastly perplexing enigma. Ten days before he left office, President Clinton confronted this barrier of ambiguity by reclassifying Speicher from K.I.A to M.I.A (Missing in Action). Today, a small band of congressmen are rallying for this to be again changed, this time to Prison of War status.

A leaked report, detailed by the Washington Times on Monday indicates that US Intelligence, together with Britain's MI6, have unearthed yet more evidence to reinforce the possibility that Speicher is in fact alive. Today, President Bush is holding the downed pilot's case in high regard and stated that he, "...Wouldn't put it past him, given the fact that he gassed his own people,"

Recent attention to this case, however, could be more harm than good for Speicher if he is, as it happens, alive. The Iraqi's will have no doubt moved him from wherever he was before in apprehension of any attempt by the United States to snatch him back. Tim Connolly, a former US Army Ranger and one of the first to hear of the pilot being lost, fears the latest attention will have hampered efforts to find him. In a statement he revealed, "The immediate result is that the pilot will have been moved, and his life may be in greater danger," He went on to say,

"The chances of Scott Speicher being held where he was being held two days ago are virtually zero, so we're back to square one in terms of developing intelligence on his whereabouts.

"In the Rangers we had a saying. When people go man to man we called it a `pecker check'. (In male America, from the locker room to the army shower tent, your pecker is your penis.) My fear is that the fate of this pilot is going to become this President's pecker check with Saddam Hussein, and unfortunately Scott Speicher will get lost in the middle."

Connolly is under no illusions over whether Speicher is alive, "I believe he's alive. I've believed he's been alive since 1991. I see no evidence that he's dead, and I've seen a great deal of evidence that he survived ejection and was mobile and able to move, consistent with his prearranged escape plan."

It's certainly an interesting case. If anything, it shows how the American government has let down the people that happily risked their lives under the impression that they were doing good. It also exemplifies the chicanery and folly of international politics. Many people are now beginning to reject emphatically the notion that Speicher is dead instead opting to see solid evidence from the government to prove the contrary. From Mogadishu to Vietnam, the government's stand represents strongly a sense of excessive caution. On the other, more ominous hand, it represents a huge conspiracy of lies and cover-up. Regardless, it is a definite symbol of government betrayal - and completely mocks the old adage, "No Man is Left Behind."

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Do you think he's alive?
o Yes 16%
o No 23%
o Undecided 60%

Votes: 60
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o fourth largest army in the world
o Scott Speicher
o report
o lawsuit
o Motorola
o report
o Washington Times
o stated
o Also by m0rzo


Display: Sort:
Downed Pilot Scott Speicher - Did He Survive? | 55 comments (50 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
It's also possible (4.00 / 9) (#1)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:30:54 PM EST

#ifndef POLITICALLY PARANOID
#define POLITICALLY_PARANOID

It's also possible that the entire story about Speicher still being alive has been fabricated as an excuse to launch an attack on Iraq.

#endif

An attack? Not over this (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Torgos Pizza on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:57:01 PM EST

I don't see this as a prelude to an attack. There needs to be some hard evidence of him being still alive to do this. Even when more credible evidence of possible Vietnam vets being still held captive, the most it did was launch an investigation and not missiles.

Selling newspapers might be a better motive.

I intend to live forever, or die trying.
[ Parent ]

Not a fair comparison (none / 0) (#20)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 04:56:13 PM EST

Even when more credible evidence of possible Vietnam vets being still held captive

True --- but the US ran away from Vietnam in defeat, remember? :) It's a totally different thing, psychologically, from the gulf war.

[ Parent ]

Need a casus belli? (2.00 / 1) (#36)
by tftp on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 07:09:55 PM EST

There needs to be some hard evidence of him being still alive to do this.

Demand that Iraq releases him or his body to the USA, and if Iraq refuses - bomb it!

Sadly, that is exactly what may happen :-(

[ Parent ]

*Wretch* (1.33 / 6) (#2)
by Ken Pompadour on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:31:22 PM EST

That you would help to propagadate this blatant propaganda is truly saddening.

Next we'll be hearing stories about Saddum Hussein's renewed interest in stuffing babies into furnaces, no doubt.



...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
No Need (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by elefantstn on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:52:03 PM EST

His propensity for conducting genocide with chemical weapons is enough. Whether you think the US should attack Iraq or not, you have to be wearing blinders to think that the US has to propagandize to make Saddam Hussein seem evil.

[ Parent ]
Does that make Churchill evil? (none / 0) (#7)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:53:51 PM EST

Granted, he never used chemical weapons, but the British cabinet had decided in advance that if it lost the battle of Britain and Hitler's army invaded England, that they would use crop-duster type planes to mustard gas the invaders. (My source for this is Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which i've been reading the last several days).

[ Parent ]
That depends... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by elefantstn on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:58:00 PM EST

On whether you think thinking about using chemical weapons on an invading army is the same as actually using them on civilians.

[ Parent ]
Man, that always bugs me (none / 0) (#11)
by Ken Pompadour on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 04:03:28 PM EST

How come some people think that people in the military are expendable?

That really gets my goat.

Especially coming from Americans, who love to chant about "All men are equal."

...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Well... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by m0rzo on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 04:07:56 PM EST

'People in the military' are willing combatants. When they sign up to the army they understand and accept the risks of war and the crude methods that may be employed. A civilian populace are completely innocent; they didn't sign up to anything. That's the fundamental difference.

Soldiers, believe it or not, are there to fight and ultimately to die. It's in the job description.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

What about conscripts? (none / 0) (#18)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 04:54:53 PM EST

Conscripts are, in general, *not* willing combatants.

[ Parent ]
It doesn't really matter... (1.50 / 2) (#22)
by m0rzo on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 05:00:57 PM EST

They're still soldiers and not unarmed civilians. There is a difference, believe me.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

It's not that people think military = expendable. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 05:27:20 PM EST

It's that most civilians, and even most military people in strongly democratic countries, place a different moral judgement on the killing of active combatants and on the killing of civilians.

Within reason, anything you do to someone who is actively engaged in a war against your country is considered to be morally justified. However, most acts against non-combatants are not.

Consider, for example, the difference in moral opprobrium directed at the Germans for the Holocaust vs. that directed at the Germans for invading a dozen of their neighbors, and killing the soldiers of those countries. The former is considered to be one of the worst crimes ever committed; the latter is considered to have been bad, but on a completely different scale.

[ Parent ]

Did he survive? And/Or is he being used? (4.44 / 9) (#3)
by bobaloo on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:32:10 PM EST

Sorry to be a paranoid conspiracy nut, but isn't it odd, that after all these years, this story comes to light just as the administration is trying to whip up enthusiasm for attacking Iraq? Coincidence, I think not.

A little late, eh? (4.46 / 13) (#4)
by J'raxis on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:38:29 PM EST

Wouldn’t it have been more effective for this story to have been fabric^W discovered before Bush started talking about attacking Iraq? It’s rather convenient now. I suppose we’ll see stories about N. Korea still holding prisoners next?

— The Cynical Raxis

[ J’raxis·Com | Liberty in your lifetime ]

nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by skullY on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 06:54:56 PM EST

Don't you remember when Chuck Norris went over to rescue the last POW's in Korea?

--
Something about taking something as cute as puppies and making it horrible makes me giggle like a schoolgirl. -Parent ]
As much as I'd hate to admit... (none / 0) (#50)
by Netsnipe on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 08:54:03 AM EST

having actually sat through all of Chuck Norris's awful POW trilogy, Missing in Action (1984) has Colonel Braddock going back to VIETNAM to resuce the last POW's in Korea. One whole year before movie audiences watched Stallone rehash the whole damn thing in Rambo: First Blood Part II. Though there have been plenty of stories around that North Korea did covertly hand over downed F-86 Sabre pilots over to the Soviet Union for interrogation and most if not all were never handed back over after the ceasefire. See the U.S. - Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIAs's Korean War Working Group page for more information.

Despite having a k5 uid of 998, I fear that my admission to having watched films from both the Missing in Action and Rambo series will tarnish my reputation here forever! Oh the shame... = )

--
Andrew 'Netsnipe' Lau
Debian GNU/Linux Maintainer & Computer Science, UNSW
[ Parent ]

Sorry. I cut and pasted without correcting first. (none / 0) (#51)
by Netsnipe on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 08:58:08 AM EST

s/to resuce the last POW's in Korea/to rescue POWs/

--
Andrew 'Netsnipe' Lau
Debian GNU/Linux Maintainer & Computer Science, UNSW
[ Parent ]
This one is pretty old tho... (4.00 / 1) (#41)
by SvnLyrBrto on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 08:12:15 PM EST

Believe me, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who holds king george and its republican minions in more contempt than I. But I actually first heard this one well before the shrub sued its way into the white house.

It was on one of those newsmagazine shows (60 Minutes, 48 hours, 20/20, I don't remember which).

One of the key points was that the navy had just issued new rescue radios/beacons, to the pilots, which were slightly larger than the old ones. The problem was that the vest/harness in which they held their gear (in case they had to bail out) was made to fit the old radio (or vice/versa). It was the opinion of some of the other pilots and ground chiefs that, if a pilot ejected, the radio would come loose, and be lost in the bailout.


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

Maybe, maybe not (none / 0) (#52)
by J'raxis on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 10:25:19 AM EST

It may be true, it may not be. Some people still believe Viet Nam is holding POWs, and they were, for quite a while after the war. However, the fact that this story is re-entering the news now is what made me suspect it: It’s all about timing; the revival of this rumor, now, makes it looks as if it’s merely being used to further current political goals.

Did you see today’s front-page article in the Metro? Taliban-like rebel group growing in Northern Iraq. Apparently all this group does is go around burning things down and raping women, too. Right.

— The Raxis

[ J’raxis·Com | Liberty in your lifetime ]
[ Parent ]

He's dead Jim (4.20 / 5) (#5)
by Torgos Pizza on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:50:54 PM EST

Even if he was still alive, what good is he to Saddam now? What about three years ago? What about five years ago? Iraq captured several allied pilots during the war, but later released them all. I just don't see what good holding back one pilot would do for Iraq's position. Food for hostages perhaps?

Even if this was a government plant, this does little to bolster support going into Iraq. Not even our government is going to risk a war over one guy who may or may not be alive.

Chances are this guy is deader than a red-shirted ensign shouting, "Captain! Over here, I've found something. Aaaaagh!" He probably ejected, couldn't radio for help and was captured or killed by soldiers or locals. Given the situation at the time, I don't think that much could have been done to save him once his plane went down.

I intend to live forever, or die trying.

LOL (3.25 / 8) (#8)
by wji on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 03:54:18 PM EST

So, his plane crashes and burns 11 years ago, he's presumed dead by everyone, the case is investigated and it's found he could not possibly have survived, and then when we're trying to drum up support for another massacre in Iraq he is miraculously ressurected and found in an Iraqi prison, having been kept there for no reason other then that the Iraqis are inherently evil and barbaric.

But hey, Saddam (there's no such country as Iraq, it's actually named Saddam Husseinistan) gassed Kurds at Halabja*, so this must be true!!

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.

Heh (4.50 / 4) (#13)
by trhurler on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 04:15:01 PM EST

I find it funny that so many people are cynically saying this is made up to justify Bush's war. It would make a lot more sense and be a lot more likely that the truth would be that the suggested action against Iraq has caused high ranking officials to actually get involved in the matter of this pilot, rather than make it up entirely.

By the way, for anyone who wonders why the Iraqis would keep this pilot(I read one guy's comment saying "just because they're evil,") think about it: the US would do the same thing under the same circumstances, if nobody knew and it was a practical option - not because it is good or justified or anything, but simply because that's what paranoid and usually incompetent bureaucrats DO.

I remember thinking at the time that the report of this guy being dead seemed a bit hasty. I assumed they had conclusive aerial photography or something, but apparently not.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Probably not made up... (none / 0) (#21)
by PhillipW on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 04:58:23 PM EST

But blown out of proportion? Most certainly so.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Convenient (3.75 / 4) (#14)
by ChiefHoser on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 04:17:34 PM EST

To reiterate previous comments, this sounds awfully convenient. I can only think of one thing:

Department of Strategic Influence
-------------

Chief of the Hosers
I'd thought of that myself (none / 0) (#40)
by wiredog on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 07:55:25 PM EST

If we're looking for a causus belli, this would do.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
Strange conclusion (4.25 / 4) (#15)
by jasonab on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 04:20:33 PM EST

While I certainly expected the article to bring our resident anti-Americans out of the woodwork, I'm quite surprised at the collective conclusion that this is a pretext to attack Iraq. It seems to me that, if he is alive, America looks worse for abandoning a POW to Iraq for ten years than anything else (as the conclusion claims). If I were Bush, I would be in much better shape if the guy were dead. I really don't understand how one guy could be a pretext for war.

He probably won't be. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 05:23:39 PM EST

However, given the current mood of the American public, a reliable assertion that Saddam Hussein has been keeping an American POW and torturing him *for 11 years* would piss the majority of the country off, and it *could* be enough to swing support for a war that the economist, as well as other sources, believe Bush has already decided on.

[ Parent ]
pretext... (3.00 / 1) (#29)
by nobby on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 06:00:50 PM EST

even if you couple it with recent condemnations of the 'regime' over the breaking of UN resolutions? (Which incidentally they've been doing for some time)


Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
[ Parent ]
Yup, it's backwards (4.50 / 2) (#32)
by Lord of the Wasteland on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 06:16:40 PM EST

Bush's PR team isn't that great, but I don't see them making a blunder like this. After all, it was Bush's father who was Commander In Chief during the first Gulf War--if a POW was abandonded it would reflect badly on him. When the administration wants to whip up public feeling against Iraq, it has plenty more plausible stories.

Instead, I think that this story is being aired in popular media because it's topical. As the Bush drums up support for GULF WAR II: THE VENGENCE (thanks, The Onion) people's eyes are drawn to headlines about Iraq. This way, they'll sell more papers. During the Clinton years, when all the headlines were about yet another bombing or more deaths from sanctions, most people didn't really want to read about it.

[ Parent ]
If Alive ... (none / 0) (#54)
by sonovel on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 03:15:44 PM EST

How the heck does this turn into an anti-american screed?

Why aren't we hearing from the red cross et al about how Iraq is violating the Geneva convention?

why do some filter everything through anti-american glasses?



[ Parent ]
Scott Speich arrives back in the usa... (4.00 / 4) (#19)
by sisyphus on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 04:55:19 PM EST

only to find his "buddy" , (is anyone in real life called this), boning his wife and fathering the kids, thank god he was his best friend.

Anyway this guy is probably with Bin Laden and Elvis.


The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.

the latest American excuse to attack Iraq (2.20 / 5) (#24)
by tiger on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 05:14:12 PM EST

Your “news” is phony like most American news is. Your “news” only serves the interests of an imperial America that wants to destroy Iraq’s current government, and install a puppet government in its place.

--
Male circumcision in America damages sexual relations



Hehe... (4.50 / 2) (#26)
by m0rzo on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 05:24:21 PM EST

..oh, put a sock in it, eh? You impertinent lefty swine. An 'Imperial American government' which, may I add is democratically elected, as opposed to Saddam Hussein's regime which is...? Yes, a rabid dictatorship.

You're typical of the type of idiots who predominantly hold your opinion. Yes, a nice little middle-class boy, white I suspect, never wanted anything. You're just trying to be a 'rebel' right? Maybe you'll grow up one day.

You think the Iraqi people side with your opinion? The very same Iraqi people who were impoverished before the Persian Gulf War?

The hilarity of your rhetoric humours me deeply. It's also worrying though. Let's see, where do you live? America? Ok, maybe not America.. but somewhere in Europe? Somewhere 'civilised', right? I will gladly pay for you to go and live in Baghdad. No special treatment for you though. If you step out of line, you've had it. I can almost guarantee you'll be whimpering within a week and begging to get out of the place.

Sure, the United States isn't perfect. It's nowhere near perfect in fact. I recognise her faux pas, but I can tell you where I'd rather be living...

I cannot believe you have the nerve to defend that guy.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

Well... (4.75 / 4) (#30)
by Danse on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 06:05:56 PM EST

I'm not defending the poster, but there is a difference between liberating a country from a ruthless dictator because it is the right thing to do, and liberating a country from a ruthless dictator so that you can install a ruler that will be amenable to your own desires and will see to it that America gets all the oil she wants. America has shown that it will abide even oppressive regimes as long as they don't interfere with the oil trade.






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
Oh, for Christ's sake (none / 0) (#43)
by Demiurge on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 10:33:16 PM EST

Why do leftists try to hammer on the oil argument constantly?

If the US was motivated by oil, why did we slap sanctions on Iraq? By your reasoning, it's France, and the other nations that oppose lifting trade restrictions with Iraq that are bloody dictatorships who worship at the altar of Oil.

[ Parent ]
of course oil is an oversimplification (none / 0) (#55)
by minra on Tue Mar 19, 2002 at 12:46:41 PM EST

But you'd have to be brainwashed to miss the fact that armed forces and covert agencies of the USA do the dirty work for the NWO establishment.

Iraq "should" be bombed smithereens because it's might *own* weapons of mass desctruction?

Great.

Then what "should" be done to a country that *uses* weapons of mass destruction?

Tick, tick, tick, tick...


[ Parent ]
LOL! (4.00 / 4) (#33)
by CokeBear on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 06:25:00 PM EST

Democratically Elected? The USA is many things, a democracy it most definitely is not.

As Republicans were so quick to remind us after the last election, it doesn't matter what the result of the popular vote is. The USA is a Republic, not a democracy!

Whether it should be or not is a matter of discussion for another K5 story.

[ Parent ]

democracy, democratic, democrat (none / 0) (#45)
by Rahaan on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 12:20:37 AM EST

..are three (almost completely) different things. All have multiple meanings.

dem·o·crat·ic Pronunciation Key (dm-krtk) adj.

Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s) n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

I'm pretty sure almost everyone recognizes the differences between the US style of government and democracy. Refute his point, don't get stuck in the semantics.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by svampa on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 07:09:44 PM EST

Sadam Hussein is nasty dictator. And I wouldn't like to live there nor even for a million dollars. But he isn't worse than a lot of guys in the world, for example Pakistan, nowadays USA ally.

Recently I saw a documental about how Iraq opresses kurdos, and that's absolutly true, but so does Iran, and so does Turkey, USA ally. From now, on we will see a lot of information about opression in Iraq, violations of human rights etc. And they are true, as they are true for a lot of countries all over the world.

Why this informations specially about Iraq, and not about other dictatorships? Because it is probably the next target of USA. They are focusing public hate against Iraq, they are preparing public opinion for war.

They suspect this pilot is alive since 1995, the war was over, it was time to cure wounds, not to upset people. This information is in frontpage today, and not 7 years ago for some reason. It is just another touch of hate, they are preparing war

They have admited that Iraq is not related to Al Qaeda nor WTC, so it doesn't fit well with "War of terrorism", they need a good PR to attack Iraq.



[ Parent ]
Oddly, though (none / 0) (#42)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 10:32:21 PM EST

neither of your other two examples are *in general* nasty repressive dictatorships. Iran is a theocracy with a strong vibrant democracy that is contained by it; Turkey is in a halfway state between democracy and dictatorship. If I had to live *anywhere* in the middle east, it would be in one of those two countries; both of them have governments which are far more pleasant than Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt (for example).

[ Parent ]
Wait a couple of decades for Iran (none / 0) (#44)
by Ken Pompadour on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 11:02:01 PM EST

Wait till those religious bums get thrown out on their asses, then use the depreciated ecenomy to your advantage and buy a nice house for your retirement. At least, that's what I hope to do :)

...The target is countrymen, friends and family... they have to die too. - candid trhurler
[ Parent ]
Kurdistan, Iran, Turkey (none / 0) (#49)
by svampa on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 08:25:19 AM EST

I didn't tell if Turkey or Iran are dicttorships, I just told that they treat Kurdos as bad as Iraq. But the documental I saw wasn't about oprresion kurdos suffer, it was just about the opression kurdos suffer from Iraq. That is how bad is Iraq.



[ Parent ]
In fact (none / 0) (#47)
by Betcour on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 05:53:40 AM EST

Actually Iraq was ok to live in between the war with Iran and with Koweit. Iraq used to be a pretty rich and developped country thanks to a good supply of petrol. Of course the idiotic and selfish USian policy has turned it into a living hell.

[ Parent ]
+1 FP just because... (3.00 / 4) (#28)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 05:40:44 PM EST

I love opinion polls about matters of fact!

-Soc
I drank what?


Wait a minute.... (4.25 / 4) (#31)
by FuriousXGeorge on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 06:10:54 PM EST

<<To this day, there is one man who hasn't stopped the relentless hunt for what truly happened to Speicher - his best friend. In the period after the Gulf War, Buddy Harris had begun to accept that his once best friend, who he met in 1980 at Aviation Officer Candidate School in Florida, was dead. He even married his widow Joan and the couple had two children together. However, three years later in 1994, new evidence materialised which has gained growing credence. Harris believes this evidence and at the expense of his marriage has vowed to unveil the mask of secrecy which has shrouded the death of a friend and a colleague. >>

Isn't that the plot of "Pearl Harbor"?


-- FIELDISM NOW!
Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted (none / 0) (#37)
by opendna on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 07:10:45 PM EST

Bin Laden is alive an out there somewhere...
...therefore we'd better go get him.

If he were dead, well, the "War" just might be over!

Scott Speicher is alive in an Iraqi prison...
...therefore we'd better go get him.

If he were dead, well, we wouldn't be obliged to go in.


No man gets left behind, remember? Millions of military men in the US know this. KIA? Yes. MIA? Maybe. POW? Never. That's how it'll play to the general public (we've all seen RAMBO, right?).

That there appears to have been decisions at a high-level to declare Speicher dead and not look for him; to abandon him to the Iraqis. I can't imagine this will play well with service men in the field.

Repeating Story (none / 0) (#46)
by Bad Harmony on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 12:44:12 AM EST

In every war since, and including, World War II, there have been stories of American soldiers and pilots that were captured and never repatriated. It is difficult to know if any of these stories are true. If captured, were they interrogated and executed? Did the U.S. Government ignore their existence to avoid the political and diplomatic consequences of Americans being held captive by a foreign power?

54º40' or Fight!

Why? (none / 0) (#48)
by enterfornone on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 06:04:07 AM EST

I can't see why Sadaam would secretly keep this guy prisoner. He would either be executed or he would inform the US that he has a hostage. Keeping it a secret doesn't make sense.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
To All Paranoids & Bush bashers: Chill (none / 0) (#53)
by Intrope on Fri Mar 15, 2002 at 03:04:13 PM EST

This story may have bubbled up to the top recently, but it appears that it isn't new. In fact, it appears to predate President Bush.

(Google cache links used to avoid recent backdating of pages.)

--
Intrope



Downed Pilot Scott Speicher - Did He Survive? | 55 comments (50 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!