NewCelica.org Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Shock And Yawn Plan Could Kill Millions In 48 Hours -
Why Don't Americans Care?
By Geov Parrish
workingforchange.com
2-27-03


Exactly a month ago Pentagon planner Harlan Ullman, in a CBS-TV interview, publicly revealed for the first time the Pentagon's "Shock and Awe" plan for its assault upon Iraq, should (or when) George W. Bush orders it.

Ullman's information was subsequently confirmed by a number of sources; it's for real. Here is what I wrote about it in my <http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14425>column of January 30:

"The plan includes simultaneous ground invasions from north and south... It also includes a sudden decimation of Baghdad by raining down on its people, in two days, over 800 cruise missiles -- more than were used in the entire Gulf War. Ullman... characterized the Baghdad assault thusly: `You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons of Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes.' It would be a firestorm, a Dresden or Tokyo with 60 years of new technology. It would be a war crime of quick and staggering proportions.

"Such a plan, of course, makes a mockery of Donald Rumsfeld's ritual insistence that the Pentagon takes enormous care to avoid civilian casualties; the plan apparently is to kill a staggering percentage of Baghdad's civilian population in the first day alone. ... The name refers to the demoralizing effect such an attack would have on Iraqis, an effect, presumably, similar to the instant (although already planned) surrender of Japan after the gratuitous bombing of Hiroshima (and even more gratuitous bombing of Nagasaki. But those were, both military and diplomatically, demonstration attacks -- suggesting what could be done to the imperial rulers themselves and to Tokyo, a city far more valuable and populous than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

"In Iraq, Baghdad is the capitol."

Now, those plans, and sentiments of horror similar to mine, have been echoing around the Internet for a month; they've been featured extensively in alternative publications that have come out during that time. Which is precisely the problem.

The United States is planning to suck all the oxygen out of the air with a fireball over the heads of the five million residents of Baghdad -- so that, as another Pentagon interviewee said, "nobody in Baghdad will be safe," whether above ground or below. This has been well-documented public knowledge for a month, widely reported in the rest of the world. But in America it has been roundly ignored, confined to the fringes of the media landscape and probably, by many Americans, dismissed as a result as conspiracist nonsense.

This raises two questions:

1) Are Americans -- politicians, media executives, and ordinary citizens -- so numb, or oblivious, or callous to the horrors of war that we cannot raise ourselves to be bothered by what would be, if it works as planned, one of the greatest massacres, one of the greatest war crimes, in the history of the world, committed in our name and with our money?

2) Forgetting for a moment those apparently irrelevant concerns about millions of innocent lives, war crime tribunals, and the like, do America's war planners seriously think such an action would decrease the motivation or effectiveness of terrorists, who are presumably the target of the "War on Terror" and who will most certainly not be in Baghdad? (More, in fact, are likely to be huddled in any major American city. Perhaps we should preemptively bomb Philadelphia or Houston.)

To take the last question first, whether it is ever implemented or not, even the publicizing of this plan does incalculable damage to the already-abysmal reputation of the United States in the Islamic world and beyond. Any country that would even seriously consider such a monstrous act certainly isn't going to be shown mercy when war is brought to its civilian population. That's you and me.

According to captured Al-Qaeda documents, planners of the 9/11 massacre had originally considered flying jets into American nuclear facilities, but decided not do so to on "humanitarian" grounds. Does anyone think that, after our amphetamine-soaked pilots casually incinerate a major world city and its inhabitants, that they'll show such restraint next time? You know the answer.

Muslims, who, like the rest of the world, seem to have a longer memory than we do, will also recall that a massive famine, killing up to six or seven million Afghans, was only narrowly averted in fall 2001, even though the U.S. bombing campaign cut off badly needed supplies almost until it was too late - - and would have continued to do so had the Taliban not retreated. Shock and Awe, then, is the second serious brush with genocidal civilian death from the Bush crew in only 15 months. And we genuinely wonder why anyone hates us? Who wouldn't?

It is as if Bush and his sociopathic advisors want stronger terrorist groups -- want further attacks on Americans -- so as to justify their lust for global military dominance. Regardless, they're certainly doing their best to provoke it.

And this brings us to the initial question: why don't Americans seem to care? Again, setting aside niggling questions of morality, plans like this, whether executed -- er, carried out -- or not, put every single person living in this country in far greater danger. Forget duct tape; we need protecting from the Bush White House, and from the record levels of new and deepening anti- American sentiment it is generating daily.

Some would point to corporate control of media as the culprit in the lack of publicity given to Shock and Awe, but I suspect the more significant factor is more banal. Such images of mass suffering are so overwhelming in their scope that they mean nothing to most of us. If 9/11 seemed like a movie -- as many Americans said at the time -- Shock and Awe represents a horror so sweeping it has only rarely been depicted on film, and never by Hollywood. You simply can't have an action hero take on a nuclear bomb in mid- detonation, or a barrage of cruise missiles (and munitions using un- depleted uranium) that have a similar, instantly lethal effect. What you would have is an action hero called The Shadow, because that's what would be left of him, burned into the sidewalk along with a few million husbands, wives, moms, dads, and children.

Politically, this country's leaders could not even conceivably propose turning America into a nation permanently at war, let alone one capable of such monstrosity. Unless, under the leadership of both major parties, we had not spent decades being inured to American militarism, and, in the last few years, to bombings, invasions, and civilian deaths in faraway lands. Granted, most of the least desirable aspects of American militarism have been carefully excised from U.S. media, but even so, what we do get to see and hear should horrify anybody. It doesn't, and so, an apocalyptic vision like Shock and Awe becomes just another abstract headline, part of the arcana of military planning, completely divorced from the daily reality of our extremely comfortable lives. No wonder news editors don't think we'd care.

But, of course, as February 15 literally demonstrated, many of us do care. And hopefully, many of us will keep caring long after Bush either backs down or incinerates the cradle of civilization. (Ashes to ashes, indeed...) The problem, ultimately, isn't Saddam Hussein, or Iraq, or even George Bush. The problem is militarism, and a purported democracy in which its leaders think themselves above accountability for their actions. Or crimes.

Geov Parrish is a Seattle-based columnist and reporter for Seattle Weekly, In These Times and Eat the State! He writes the daily Straight Shot for WorkingForChange.



Comment

From Chuck Morrison
2-28-03


Dear Jeff,

Couple things on the item with the above title. First, it has been discussed on the national news, on Tom Brokaw to be exact. Of course, it wasn't described so graphically (realistically), so most viewers, unless they know a thing or two, won't get it anyway. But when has the majority of "average people" ever "gotten it"? Solomon was right, there is definitely "no new thing under the sun".

The other thing is this. People keep missing the lack of logic in this rush to war. I'm pretty conservative about a lot of things. I'm a strict Constitutional Constructionist, and have voted for people from various parties at various elections. I think Saddam is a real, honest-to-goodness, BAD MAN. I wish people wouldn't keep trying to defend Saddam in their effort to stop the war. That's the point where the left's logic fails. The right's logic fails in the simple fact that NOTHING substantial has to date been accomplished that will defend us from future terrorist attacks, AND our impending attack of Iraq will DEFINITELY result in more terrorist attacks against us, perhaps with a much greater loss of life per incident than 9/11.

In other words, it doesn't matter what you are politically, there is something to hate about this rush to war, something that doesn't sit right. Saddam isn't logical, because no one in their right mind would act the way he is acting. Logically, if he really cared about his countrymen, he would surrender now to prevent the loss of innocent life. This boosts the case for Saddam actually being a change agent for the NWO. Logically, if Saddam was really an Al-Qaeda booster, then we could have gone in any time with a congressional declaration of our own. Why should a soveriegn nation such as ours, and the worlds sole superpower at that, have to kick our heels outside the UN Chamber waiting for permission to attack a prime funder of Al-Qaeda?

Obviously, the entire story that has been spoon-fed to us has been cut from whole cloth, and a chain of events has been started that is clearly designed to plunge the world into a state of Chaos, resulting in a desperate need to have order. A new order. A STRONG order. An illuminist order. Out of Chaos; Order. I'm convinced the time is upon us, and there is very little any of us can do to stop it. The time has come to protect yourselves, for who is to say what will constitute an enemy when this nation has fully succumbed to tyranny and becomes the police state we have feared for so long? Ron Paul certainly has it right, and I think he may be one of the bravest men in America. I honestly don't expect him to live much longer. He's not the type to just shut up and go away. More will disappear, too. Bet on it. It's been going on for years, it's nothing new to them. But the lists are much longer now, and you can bet that every American who participated in a protest march in recent weeks already has their picture and name on file, because every one of you were photographed.

It's too late. The Constitution has already been killed, and they're trying to drain the blood out of the corpse with Patriot Act II. None of our Rights matter anymore. About the time the next big thing happens, I expect that radio, tv, and the internet will be "secured", which means that people like you and me will no longer be seen on those formats.

I thoroughly expect this conflict to escalate. It is the beginning of WWIII. Bush has been selected to be the fall-guy for America. The fact that his actions seem forced and rather crazy should come as no surprise, then, for there is a purpose. When the nukes have gone off, and the pictures of horribly burned and suffering Iraqis (not to mention our own troops!) begin to circulate, the whole world, including our own people here, will demand that this war-criminal be tried. The Constitutional Crisis that results will be just the thing the NWO nazi illuminists are looking for. See? We can't win. Everything we do at this point will play into their hands. We are balanced on the tip of the fulcrum, and no matter which way we move, we will fall. I believe it is ordained to occur this way, these last days of life as we have known it. For the time of THE END is upon us, and our redemption draweth nigh.

Keep your powder dry, Jeff. I hope you have a secret short-wave transmitter somewhere. You'll need it before all is said and done, if they don't take you first. Plan your escape route and keep your tank full. And that goes for anyone else who might read this. God Bless you and yours.

Chuck Morrison
[email protected]
Modesto, CA

~~~~~~~~

Actually, I think the WTC/NYC/DC attacks was/were the precipitating events for WW III; some say the sinking of the Kursk which may or may not have been an attack on a Russian sub according to the earliest accounts from Russia. Either way Gulf War II will surely ESCALATE matters far beyond the control of the likes of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Great read.
Depressing, alarming, but great nonetheless.
I agree with much of what is said:
If America moves forth with this type of "scorched earth" policy, the only result will be intensified attacks against American civilians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
That sounds like utter BS. Why would our government whipe out civilians on such a large scale like that. The whole world would be against us if we did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Well, the whole world is against you guys right now (regarding Iraq and Israel) but that doesn't seem to matter much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,395 Posts
Chui said:
politicians, media executives, and ordinary citizens -- so numb, or oblivious, or callous to the horrors of war that we cannot raise ourselves to be bothered by what would be, if it works as planned, one of the greatest massacres, one of the greatest war crimes, in the history of the world
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
That sounds like BS.. you gotta read it out loud and listen to yourself.. it sounds like a real bad conspiracy theory from X-Files lol.

I have no doubt that the US military plans a massive attack ( time on target ) but careless, reckless endagerment of civilians on a massive scale? I don't think so.

What the author wrote about is basically saying we are going to carpet bomb Baghdad.

If we did that then 99% of the world will indeed be against us.

If there's any truth to this report ( and ubiased ) then then military plans a massive attack on MILITARY targets all at the same time. Now that I would believe... yes civilians will be killed.. but only a very small handful which cannot be avoided in war.. but not at the scale that the author described.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Well, you don't know much about military engagements then. Human life is cheap in war and it doesn't much matter if you hurt civilians ["Soft Targets"] or military targets ["Hard Targets"]. Hitting both HAS AN EFFECT. It was discovered/devised by one Lord Rawlings Reese of what was to become Tavistock Institute during the Second World War. He was a British guy who came up with the devious hypothesis that if 1/4 of the German CIVILIAN population were killed Germany would capitulate. The rest, as we euphemistically state, is history...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
I finally had time to read this, and yes the article is extreme, however it is based in truth. RAND corporation documents I was privy last summer confirmed many of the details. Of course those documents were relating to a hypothteical wargame...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,478 Posts
it's scary to think about what the ramifications for us in the States would be if such a plan were to be carried out. i guess it's time to buy a bomb shelter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,924 Posts
Chui said:
Well, you don't know much about military engagements then. Human life is cheap in war and it doesn't much matter if you hurt civilians ["Soft Targets"] or military targets ["Hard Targets"]. Hitting both HAS AN EFFECT. It was discovered/devised by one Lord Rawlings Reese of what was to become Tavistock Institute during the Second World War. He was a British guy who came up with the devious hypothesis that if 1/4 of the German CIVILIAN population were killed Germany would capitulate. The rest, as we euphemistically state, is history...
Here is some interesting reading from a very interesting source.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/tavistok.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Chui said:
Well, you don't know much about military engagements then. Human life is cheap in war and it doesn't much matter if you hurt civilians ["Soft Targets"] or military targets ["Hard Targets"]. Hitting both HAS AN EFFECT. It was discovered/devised by one Lord Rawlings Reese of what was to become Tavistock Institute during the Second World War. He was a British guy who came up with the devious hypothesis that if 1/4 of the German CIVILIAN population were killed Germany would capitulate. The rest, as we euphemistically state, is history...
So you are saying you know more than I do about military engagements because you read some conspiracy theories? Do you have military experience? Combat experience?

I had neither experience (1 year in guard..doesnt count).

I'm not doubting that you may know more than I do.. but massacre's like that during our Civil War and the two WW's may have been accepted then.. but this is the 21st century.. the lost of a handful of human lives will cause outcry from the public (activists or what not).

So you see, a massive loss of Iraqi civilian lives would cause a little bit of a problem.. it would be a disaster for the administration. They will try to avoid it as much as possible or else Bush will be kicked out of the oval office.

Human lives may be "cheap" as you say-to a country like Iraq that may be ok.. but not in this country. Sure I can believe there's an acceptable amount of civilian casualties depending on the scale of the operation.. but this article makes it seem that there will be thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,991 Posts
"The plan includes simultaneous ground invasions from north and south... It also includes a sudden decimation of Baghdad by raining down on its people, in two days, over 800 cruise missiles -- more than were used in the entire Gulf War. Ullman... characterized the Baghdad assault thusly: `You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons of Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes.' It would be a firestorm, a Dresden or Tokyo with 60 years of new technology. It would be a war crime of quick and staggering proportions.
first off whoever wrote this has no knowledge of military planning or the TLAM system. The firing of 800 TLAM missiles would take alot longer than a few minutes, also TLAM missiles would not be used for this, we have much larger bomb's that would be way more effective.

"Such a plan, of course, makes a mockery of Donald Rumsfeld's ritual insistence that the Pentagon takes enormous care to avoid civilian casualties; the plan apparently is to kill a staggering percentage of Baghdad's civilian population in the first day alone. ... The name refers to the demoralizing effect such an attack would have on Iraqis, an effect, presumably, similar to the instant (although already planned) surrender of Japan after the gratuitous bombing of Hiroshima (and even more gratuitous bombing of Nagasaki. But those were, both military and diplomatically, demonstration attacks -- suggesting what could be done to the imperial rulers themselves and to Tokyo, a city far more valuable and populous than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
As far as this paragraph goes, the US military does not use the demorilization of innocent citizen's as a tool of war, we do demoralize soldiers. Civilian's of any sort are considered a great casualty and are avoided at all costs. If the US ARMY were to invade Baghdad it would be on foot or in motorized units that would allow us to take out the combatent forces with minimal loss of life. And as far as the attacks on Japan go that was over 50 years ago and nothing like that would ever happen in this day and age.

Now, those plans, and sentiments of horror similar to mine, have been echoing around the Internet for a month; they've been featured extensively in alternative publications that have come out during that time. Which is precisely the problem.
This statement says it all, these "alternative" publications that have been circulating through the internet for the past few months are the problem, they breath statements of stupidity into the minds of the weak.

According to captured Al-Qaeda documents, planners of the 9/11 massacre had originally considered flying jets into American nuclear facilities, but decided not do so to on "humanitarian" grounds. Does anyone think that, after our amphetamine-soaked pilots casually incinerate a major world city and its inhabitants, that they'll show such restraint next time? You know the answer.
what is humane about an unprovoked attack against thousands of civilians (to include women and children)? once again this shows just how stupid this author is.

a barrage of cruise missiles (and munitions using un- depleted uranium)
correct me if I am wrong but we do not use "un-deplets" uranium reounds we either use tungston(sp?) or depleted uranium rounds. And it is the tungston(sp?) rounds that are the "war-rounds" once again showing the lack of knowledge of the author.



well i think i have shown that this author is a complete moron and that he should stop spreading lies and rumor...If you need me to finish picking over this article just let me know

BTW I am in the military and have aided in planning military strikes in the past, so i feel safe in saying that I have more experience and knowledge than any of you in this subject. Especially when it comes to the use of Naval firepower (ie. TLAM's) unless one of you are ESWS qualified as well...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Hmmm, let's see about whether or not we "demoralize civilans". WACO and RUBY RIDGE quickly come to mind. Chile also comes to mind as does Guatemala. Iraqi civilian casualties have been astronomical as well. Let's not forget our complacent role in the Rwanda massacre of civilians - both US and Belgian soldiers were reportedly on the ground. We've allowed the Kurds to be destroyed by the Iraqi Republican Guard and more recently by the Turks - fully knowing what was going on. Back to WW II... There's a book titled Other Losses that you must get a copy of. It'll turn your stomach. 1.5 million German soldiers and approximately 3 million German citizens were starved to death and/or turned over to the Soviet Union who we knew would systematically kill them.

Back to the US... The Black Panther Party was gunned down. To be honest I despised the group's philosophy as well as their pechant for violence. And Operation MOVE back in June or July of 1976. Kent State. Jackson State.

You've gotta be kidding me, dude.

:rolleyes:

Militaries are BRUTAL. They DESTROY stuff - including HUMAN LIVES.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top