Multiple Points of Information on War and
the Gulf Wars
"If we go into Iraq unilaterally, or without the full weight of international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies…we're liable to supercharge recruiting for Al-Qaeda."
—Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Commander
-
Naomi Klein: At the Pentagon they call it the "Voila Moment"
- Letters the Troops Have Sent Me... by Michael Moore
"Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda and the Gulf " John R. MacArthur
ABOUT THE WAR SONGS (US/Iraq Policy, US/Turkey Policy, Iraq/Iran, and Kuwait/Iraq)
15 Stories They've Already Bungled
MILITARY FREE SCHOOLS
CAMS: www.militaryfreeschools.org/
Donald Rumsfeld greets his "good friend" Saddam Hussein in Iraq in
 As Middle East envoy
under President Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld visited Baghdad on December
19-20, 1983; this photo shows him shaking hands with Iraqi president
Saddam
Hussein. The US government supported the Hussein regime during
the Iran-Iraq
war.Fair use of photo by Getty Images. |
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
Photo of Rumsfeld with Hussein
Here's the photo
of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. And recall, this is after
Saddam had used biological weapons against Iranians, the Kurds, and other
Iraqi's.
That's just part of the story. The other story here is that not only did CNN scrub the photo from the internet, they scrubbed any mention of the video at all in the interview.
- - - - -
CNN.com - Rumsfeld on Iraq:MCINTYRE: Well, let me take you back about 20 years ago. The date, I believe, was December 20th, 1983, you were meeting with Saddam Hussein. Tell me what was going on during this meeting.
RUMSFELD: Well, Iraq was in a battle, war with Iran. And the United States had just had 241 Marines killed.
- - - - - - - - -
But, from the DoD's own copy of the transcript:McIntyre: Well, let me take you back to about 20 years ago. The date, I believe, was December 20, 1983. You were meeting with Saddam Hussein, I think we have some video of that meeting. Tell me what was going on during this meeting?
Rumsfeld: Where did you get this video, from the Iraqi television?
McIntyre: This is from the Iraqi television.
Rumsfeld: When did they give it to you, recently or back then?
McIntyre: We dug this out of the CNN library.
Rumsfeld: I see. Isn't that interesting. There I am.
McIntyre: So what was going on here, what were you thinking at the time?
Rumsfeld: Well, Iraq was in a battle, a war, with Iran....
Jamie MacIntyre, live at the Pentagon, making sure her corporate ladder remains intact with CNN.
 |
 |
We/ "MAD magazine" posted this way before the war...too bad it came true.
Support the Troops and the Human Shields, Not the War or the Hierarchy
"Question The Authority"
15
Stories They've Already Bungled Greg
Mitchell on the War Coverage So Far
1. Saddam may well have been killed in the first night's surprise attack (March 20).2. Even if he wasn't killed, Iraqi command and control was no doubt "decapitated" (March 22).
3. Umm Qasr has been taken (March 22).
4. Most Iraqis soldiers will not fight for Saddam and instead are surrendering in droves (March 22).
5. Iraqi citizens are greeting Americans as liberators (March 22).
6. An entire division of 8,000 Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse near Basra (March 23).
7. Several Scud missiles, banned weapons, have been launched against U.S. forces in Kuwait (March 23).
8. Saddam's Fedayeen militia are few in number and do not pose a serious threat (March 23).
9. Basra has been taken (March 23).
10. Umm Qasr has been taken (March 23).
11. A captured chemical plant likely produced chemical weapons (March 23).
12. Nassiriya has been taken (March 23).
13. Umm Qasr has been taken (March 24).
14. The Iraqi government faces a "major rebellion" of anti-Saddam citizens in Basra (March 24).
15. A convoy of 1,000 Iraqi vehicles and Republican Guards are speeding south from Baghdad to engage U.S. troops (March 25).
"Target Iraq- What the News Media Didn't Tell You"-
Why we'll keep going to war: The Pentagon's New Map
The battle between Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.
www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1
UNDERSTANDING THE U.S.-IRAQ CRISIS: A Primer www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer.htm
_____________________________________________________________________
The War Prayer
by Mark Twain
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation
*God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!*
Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:
"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think.
"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
Twain apparently dictated it around 1904-05; it was rejected by his publisher, and was found after his death among his unpublished manuscripts. It was first published in 1923 in Albert Bigelow Paine's anthology, Europe and Elsewhere.
The story is in response to a particular war, namely the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902, which Twain opposed. See Jim Zwick's page "Mark Twain on the Philippines" for more of Twain's writings on the subject.
Transcribed by Steven Orso (snorso@facstaff.wisc.edu)
________________________________________________________________
What do veterans have to say about Gulf Wars I and II?
epic-usa
*Veterans for Common Sense*
www.veteransforcommonsense.org/
Veterans for
Peace
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
also http://www.talion.com/suspension.html
and http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com/awol.htm
___________________________________________________________________________________________
If Bush gave a shit about America's military he would increase rather than cut veteran benefits and certainly would not have signed an executive order to cut high-deployment overtime pay (as if he knew the war was coming)
________________________________________________________________________
To
the Editor:
Michael Ruff's column in the Feb. 7 issue of The Flat Hat (opinionsletter.shtml),
in which he attacks "doves" and "peace-niks," sparks the following question:
for
those who favor the war, are you standing on post ready to die or kill for
this
cause? If the answer is "no," I highly suggest you either
reevaluate your
position or enlist, because you are in no position to make ridiculous
demands on my life.
I am a U.S. Marine of four years and, as such, have sworn to fight when
directed to by my superiors. I am the one forgoing the civilian component
of my life. I am the one facing attack in the deserts of Iraq. Torn
asunder from family, friends and a life I would much rather lead, I am the
one facing extreme conditions. I am a Marine who has willingly joined, but
I am totally against this war.
I am not here to argue the idiocy of this war; the absence of evidence
performs that job for me. What I am here to say is how laughable it is for
someone to make ludicrous demands on my life when they have little to
lose. There is nothing easier than sitting back and casting one's opinion
about a volatile situation, in turn giving the impression that one's view
is "hardline" or "tough" when you are taking
absolutely no steps to
enforce your beliefs.
If, in fact, you have concerns such as raising your kids in a safe world,
I believe your local Marine recruiter would be more than happy to talk to
you.
I will fight this war and, hopefully, I will return safely to the life I
am leaving behind. I must do so because I volunteered for service. But I
refuse to let others comfortably opine without retribution and make
demands on my life, especially for a cause so intellectually vacant. If
your needs are imperative, then stand next to me with your M-16 and face
this Iraqi regime that is so "threatening" to the world -- stare
down the
barrel of the gun you are asking others to do for you.
-- Luke Thomas
Class of '02
____________________________________________________________________________________
GULF WARS VETS AND MILITARY ANALYSTS question NEW WAR IN IRAQ http://epic-usa.org/pressroom/press.php?n=14
Audio Lecture and Q and A from former Marine and UN Inspector Scott Ritter @ Chapman University speaking about Patriotism and the illegality of the US war on Iraq
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Resource+Links/Downloads/418.aspx
U.S. Arm-twisting Over Iraq War
COALITION OF THE WILLING OR COALITION OF THE COERCED? www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf (www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm)
- Although the Bush Administration claims that the anonymous "Coalition of the Willing" is the basis of genuine multilateralism, the report shows that most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery.
CENSORSHIP: Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views
http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-sources-networks.html
New York Times, Networks Shun U.N. Spying Story
www.fair.org/activism/un-observer-spying.html
The U.N. Spying Story: www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html
Who
Dies for Bush Lies? www.whodies.com/
Created by the Committee to Unsell the War to put the case against war on
Human shield mission to Iraq www.humanshields.org/ Convoy of peace campaigners traveling to Baghdad to act as a human shields.
September 11th
families for peaceful tomorrows www.peacefultomorrows.org/
An advocacy organization founded by family members of September 11 victims,
seeking effective non-violent responses to terrorism.
__________________________________________________________________
- Hour 1: The prince of darkness resigns: A look at the controversial businesses dealings of Pentagon adviser and war hawk Richard Perle.
- What will a U.S. occupation of Iraq look like: A speech by Asla Bali of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.
- War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly rejected advice from top Pentagon planners on how to attack Iraq: Former Marine & UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter explains why the U.S. may lose the war.
___________________________________________________________________
Letters the Troops Have Sent Me... by Michael Moore
>December 19, 2003
>What they are saying to me, often eloquently and in heart-wrenching words, is that they were lied to -- and this war has nothing to do with the security of the United States of America.
>“You'd be surprised at how many of the guys I talked to in my company and others believed that the president's scare about Saddam's WMD was a bunch of bullshit and that the real motivation for this war was only about money. There was also a lot of crap that many companies, not just marine companies, had to go through with not getting enough equipment to fulfill their missions when they crossed the border. It was a miracle that our company did what it did the two months it was staying in Iraq during the war…. We were promised to go home on June 8th, and found out that it was a lie and we got stuck doing missions for an extra three months. Even some of the most radical conservatives in our company including our company gunnery sergeant got a real bad taste in their mouth about the Marine corps, and maybe even president Bush.”:
>Here's what Specialist Mike Prysner of the U.S. Army wrote to me:
>"My son replied ‘You just don't get it, do you?’
>It is Mr. Bush and his filthy rich cronies -- whose sons and daughters will NEVER see a day in a uniform -- they are the ones who do NOT support our troops. Our soldiers joined the military and, in doing so, offered to give THEIR LIVES for US if need be. What a tremendous gift that is -- to be willing to die so that you and I don't have to! To be willing to shed their blood so that we may be free. To serve in our place, so that WE don't have to serve. What a tremendous act of selflessness and generosity! Here they are, these 18, 19, and 20-year olds, most of whom have had to suffer under an unjust economic system that is set up NOT to benefit THEM -- these kids who have lived their first 18 years in the worst parts of town, going to the most miserable schools, living in danger and learning often to go without, watching their parents struggle to get by and then be humiliated by a system that is always looking to make life harder for them by cutting their benefits, their education, their libraries, their fire and police, their future.
>By doing all of this, Mr. Bush has proven that it is HE who does not support our troops. It is HE who has put their lives in danger, and it is HE who is responsible for the nearly 500 American kids who have now died for NO honest, decent reason whatsoever.
>I know it feels hopeless. That's how they want us to feel. Don't give up. We owe it to these kids, the troops WE SUPPORT, to get them the hell outta there and back home so they can help organize the drive to remove the war profiteers from office next November.
>To all who serve in our armed forces, to their parents and spouses and loved ones, we offer to you the regrets of millions and the promise that we will right this wrong and do whatever we can to thank you for offering to risk your lives for us. That your life was put at risk for Bush's greed is a disgrace and a travesty, the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime.
__________________________________________________________________
by
Naomi Klein > February 27 2003
At the Pentagon they call it the "Voila Moment"
That's when Iraqi soldiers and civilians , with bombs raining down on
Baghdad, suddenly scratch their heads and say to themselves: "These bombs
aren't really meant to kill me and my family, they are meant to free us
from an evil dictator!" At that point, they thank Uncle Sam, lower their
weapons, abandon their posts, and rise up against Saddam Hussein. Voila!
Or at least that's how it is supposed to work, according to the experts in
"psychological operations" who are already waging a fierce information
war
in Iraq. The "Voila Moment" made its first foray into the language of
war
last Monday, when a New York Times reporter quoted an unnamed senior U.S.
military official using the term.
This peppering of military jargon with bon mots could be Colin Powell's
latest plan to win over the French on the Security Council. More likely
it's the product of the Bush administration's penchant for hiring
advertising executives and flaky management consultants as foreign policy
advisors (doesn't the "Voila Moment" sounds suspiciously like the
"Wow
Factor"-sold to millions of corporate executives as the key to building a
powerful brand?)
Wherever it came from, the Pentagon has "Voila" in its sights, and it
is
sparing no expense to hit its target. Airborne transmitters are flying
over Iraq broadcasting radio propaganda. Iraqi business, military and
political officials have been bombarded with emails and phone calls urging
them to see the light and switch sides. Fighter planes have dropped more
than 8-million leaflets informing Iraqi soldiers that their lives will be
spared if they walk away from their military equipment. "It sends a direct
message to the operator on the gun," says Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley,
commander of allied air forces in the Persian Gulf.
According to the senior military official quoted in The Times, Central
Command will know it has reached "Voila" when "we see a break
with the
leadership." In other words, the U.S. military is advocating nothing less
than mass civil disobedience in Iraq, a refusal to obey orders, or to
participate in an unjust war. Will it work? I'm skeptical. There was,
after all, a Voila Moment during the last Gulf War, when many Iraqis
living near the Kuwaiti border believed U.S. promises that they would be
supported if they rose up against Hussein. It was followed shortly after
by a Screw You Moment, when the rebels watched U.S. forces abandon them to
be massacred by Hussein.
But all this Voila talk got me thinking: the civil disobedience the U.S.
military is hoping to provoke in Iraq is exactly the sort of thing the
anti-war movement needs to inspire in our countries if we are really going
to stop, or at least curtail, the pending devastation in Iraq. What would
it take for large numbers of people in the U.S., the U.K, Italy,
Canada-and any other country assisting with the war effort-to truly break
with our leaders and refuse to comply? Can we create thousands of "Voila
Moments" back home?
That is the question facing the global anti-war movement as it plans its
follow up to the spectacular marches on February 15. During the Vietnam
War, thousands of young Americans decided to break with their leaders when
their draft cards arrived. And it was this willingness to go beyond
protest and into active disobedience that slowly eroded the domestic
viability of the war.
What will today's conscientious objectors and military deserters look
like? Well, all week in Italy, activists have been blocking dozens of
trains carrying U.S. weapons and personnel on their way to a military base
near Pisa, while Italian dockworkers are refusing to load arms shipments.
Last weekend, two U.S. military bases were blockaded in Germany, as was
the U.S. consulate in Montreal, and the air base at RAF Fairford in
Gloucester, England. On March 1, thousands of Irish activists are expected
to show up at Shannon airport, which, despite Irish claims of neutrality,
is being used by the U.S. military to refuel its planes on route to Iraq.
In Chicago last week, more than a hundred high-school students
demonstrated outside the headquarters of Leo Burnett, the advertising firm
that designed the U.S. military's hip, youth-targeted "Army of One"
campaign. The students claim that in under-funded Latino and
African-American high schools, the army recruiters far outnumber the
college scouts.
The most ambitious plan has come from San Francisco where a coalition of
anti-war groups is calling for an emergency non-violent
counter-"strike"
the day after the war starts: "Don't go to work or school. Call in sick,
walk out. We will impose real economic, social and political costs and
stop business as usual until the war stops." It's a powerful idea: peace
bombs exploding wherever profits are being made from the war-gas stations,
arms manufacturers, missile-happy TV stations. It might not stop the war
but it would show that there is a principled position between hawk and
hippy: a militant resistance for the protection of life.
For some, this escalation of the war against war seems extreme: there
should simply be more weekend marches, bigger next time, so big they are
impossible to ignore. Of course there should be more marches, but it
should also be clear by now that there is no protest too big for our
politicians to ignore. They know that public opinion in most of the world
is against the war. What our politicians are carefully assessing before
the bombs start falling, is whether the anti-war sentiment is "hard"
or
"soft." The question is not "do people care about war," but
how much do
they care? Is it a mild consumer preference against war, one that will
evaporate by the next election? Or is it something deeper and more lasting
- a, shall we say, Voila kind of care?
On one end of the caring spectrum, Levi's Europe has decided to cash in on
the anti-war fad by releasing a limited edition teddy bear with a peace
symbol attached to its ear. You can clutch and hug it while watching the
scary terror alerts on CNN.
Or you could turn off CNN, refuse to be a soft and cuddly peacenik, get
out there and stop the war.
This article first appeared in The Globe and Mail.
http://www.nologo.org
________________________________________________________________
Michael
Parenti
"America's Drive For Global Empire"
Parenti spoke at Sonoma State University about the press
in times of war. Parenti addresses the underlying issues associated with war and
how the press portrays these issue to the average American http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/ramfiles/eyes_military_parenti_crews.ram
_______________________________________________________________
Imad Khadduri, former Iraqi nuclear scientist, has released a new article in www.yellowtimes.org
This is his fourth article on Iraq's nuclear weapon program.
Khadduri has been interviewed by the Toronto Star and various other publications. You can read a Reuters report on him: The Reuters Report on Imad Khadduri
His YT articles are below:
November 21, 2002: ''Iraq's
nuclear non-capability''
November 27, 2002: "'Saddam's
bombmaker' is full of lies"
February 07, 2003: ''The
nuclear bomb hoax''
February 16, 2003: "The
demise of the nuclear bomb hoax"
_________________________________________________________________
"Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda and the Gulf " John R. MacArthur
www.harpers.org/freetrade/about.html#second
While the United States government made noisy preparations to go to war against Saddam Hussein, it was also purposefully planning another war. But this enemy, unlike Hussein, was strangely passive in the face of these threatening maneuvers.
The government's other enemy was the American media, and the quiet assaults on its constitutional freedoms during Operation Desert Storm was unprecedented in American history. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda and the Gulf War documents in vivid detail the behind-the-scenes activities by the U.S. and Kuwaiti governments, as well as the media's own cooperation when its rights to observe, question, and report were increasingly limited.
In frank and startling interviews with, among others, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Ben Bradlee, Katharine Graham, Robert Wright, and Pete Williams, author John R. MacArthur shows how the press corps was treated more like a fifth column than as representatives of a free people. MacArthur demonstrates how, despite the torrent of words and images from the Persian Gulf, Americans were systematically and deliberately kept in the dark about events, politics, and simple facts during the Gulf crisis.
With a reporter's critical eye and historian's sensibility, he traces decades of press-government relations—during Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama—which helped set the stage for restrictions on Gulf War reporting and for a public-relations triumph by the government. His analysis of the issues that confronted the media in this war is frightening testimony to what happens when the government goes unchallenged and when questions go unasked.
____________________________________________________________________
Chicken Hawks as Cheer Leaders
the signers
of the influential Project for a New American Century
document ...
who signed it and what does it mean?
www.presentdanger.org/pdf/gac/0209chickenhawks.pdf
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20021216.html
Story: "GEORGE W. BUSH COULD SUCCEED WHERE OSAMA BIN LADEN FAILED IN PROVOKING A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE WEST": INTERVIEW WITH DILIP HIRO
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20021218.html
Story: TOP SECRET IRAQ WEAPONS REPORT SAYS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT & CORPORATIONS HELPED TO ILLEGALLY ARM IRAQ WE TALK WITH THE GERMAN REPORTER WHO OBTAINED LEAKED PORTIONS OF THE UNEDITED REPORT THAT NAMES HEWLETT PACKARD, DUPONT AND BECHTEL & 20 OTHER U.S. COMPANIES AS WELL AS LOS ALAMOS AND LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORIES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20021219.html
Story: TOP SECRET IRAQ WEAPONS REPORT SAYS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT & CORPORATIONS HELPED TO ILLEGALLY ARM IRAQ, PART TWO
______________________________________________________________________
WHAT'S A CONSPIRACY AND WHAT ABOUT 9-11?
http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/html/sr_iraq.shtml
http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm
http://www.zmag.org/conspirthdebate.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/b_conspi.html
http://waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/
______________________________________________________________________
The 11-part series on the Business of War.
Why we'll keep going to war: The Pentagon's New Map
The battle between Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.
www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1
The
Hypocrisy of the USA's Foreign Policy:
www.zmag.org/ForeignPol/blumtop.htm
www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/
www.addictedtowar.com/dorrel.html
www.americanempireproject.com/index.htm
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Empire_PeoplesHx.html
"We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation." G.W. Bush
_________________________________________________________________
Song 1: Embedded Emissaries of 'Demotatorship'
Song 2: Operation Phoenix Redux
Preemptive versus preventive:
The following paragraphs are from are from the two sites below:
www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.09A.kennedy.htm
...................................................................................................
www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/09/23/build/safety/q-internationallaw.php?nnn=2
On September 20, the Administration unveiled its new National Security Strategy. This document addresses the new realities of our age, particularly the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks armed with the agendas of fanatics. The Strategy claims that these new threats are so novel and so dangerous that we should "not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively."
But
in the discussion over the past few months about Iraq, the Administration, often
uses the terms "pre-emptive" and "preventive"
interchangeably. In the realm of international relations, these two terms have
long had very different meanings.
Traditionally,
"pre-emptive" action refers to times when states react to an imminent
threat of attack. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian forces mobilized on
Israel's borders in 1967, the threat was obvious and immediate, and Israel felt
justified in preemptively attacking those forces. The global community is
generally tolerant of such actions, since no nation should have to suffer a
certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond.
By
contrast, "preventive" military action refers to strikes that target a
country before it has developed a capability that could someday become
threatening. Preventive attacks have generally been condemned. For example, the
1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan,
because the Japanese were seeking to block a planned military buildup by the
United States in the Pacific.
The
coldly premeditated nature of preventive attacks and preventive wars makes them
anathema to well-established international principles against aggression. Pearl
Harbor has been rightfully recorded in history as an act of dishonorable
treachery.
Historically,
the United States has condemned the idea of preventive war, because it violates
basic international rules against aggression. But at times in our history,
preventive war has been seriously advocated as a policy option. www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.09A.kennedy.htm
.......................................................................
Pre-emption
is not a new concept. Anticipatory self-defense is not a new concept,” said
the senior administration official. “You have to explain why it would be
common sense if we sit and wait to be attacked if we can do something about the
threat before we are attacked.”
But the Bush administration has used the term “pre-emptive war” and anticipatory self-defense in its doctrine to shroud what is essentially preventative war, said John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor.
Under international law, it is acceptable to conduct a pre-emptive war when there is direct evidence of an imminent attack, he said. But according to the doctrine, the Bush administration wants to act when it perceives a threat, even before clear evidence of an imminent attack. That would amount to preventative war, according to Mearsheimer, which is not accepted under international law.
www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/09/23/build/safety/q-internationallaw.php?nnn=2
The song is supposed to be as confusing as the language of "preemptive" and "preventive" war. Striking first does not prevent war, and preventing war is not done by striking first. War is prevented by not striking at all. To Bush, they're is no difference between the terms preemptive and preventive. They both mean war and the idea that preemption will prevent war at a later date. "Preventive war" is an oxymoron and its still preemption. No matter how its sliced, war is war. Its terrorism on a grand scale. Terrorism is a act of war aimed at forcing one's will on another, especially for political purposes; and war is an act of terrorism aimed at achieving the same thing: destroying other political ideologies.
Not that this matters, but if Bush is a Christian and 'man of god' as he constantly reminds us with the religious crap that spews from his mouth. I have serious issues with religious people, and Christians in particular. How is this for confusion: What happened to "do unto others" and "love thy enemy"? And WWJD: "What Would Jesus Do"? Or is this an "eye for an eye"? Maybe it's "I have come not to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). Or maybe if Exodus 15:3 is right "God is a man of war" and Jesus being God (John 10:30) is a warmonger by default. Despite this confusion and Bush's possible dyslexia aside, I don't believe the policy of Shock and Awe (3000 tons of bombs in 48 hours) is equivalent to 9-11 or an eye for an eye. Especially when we consider that there is absolutely no link between the 'secularism' of Hussein and the fundamentalism of Bin Ladden. Given the chance, Bin Ladden would cut Hussein's throat for Allah. "Shock and Awe" sounds like an act of terrorism to top all other acts, a massacre, a slaughter. It could be rephrased: "Shock and Terrorize." And if the US cared about the humanitarian situation of Afghanistan and Iraq then they wouldn't bomb electric, water, and sewer plants. Not to mention bleeding the people of Iraq to death with sanctions. The pure evil of the imperialist fascism of the empire of the Rouge Untied States continues.... The US doesn't give a shit about human rights and never has. They don't even care about their own military. Unless they consider depleted uranium a form of love. The US has been an enemy of democracy for decades: just look at what they've done in Chile, Guatemala, Columbia, and Venezuela..... And Timor and Cambodia....And to let Apartheid thrive for centuries in South Africa? What about the terrorism of Israel against Palestinians? Going to war with Iraq is not about human rights, but the rights of American companies to preemptively carve up Iraqi oil reserves, make a bundle for American companies that rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, and billions more to the manufactures of the weapons and weapons systems of the military-industrial complex (which president Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us of).
Another pivotal reason the US wants to force a regime change includes the fact that Saddam is a socialist and he nationalized Iraq's oil to pay their Iran war debt. The hierarchy of America did not care how evil he was or who he gassed etc. until the Kuwait incident. America supported and funded him before he invaded Kuwait. Why did he invade Kuwait? For oversupplying oil and thus lower oil prices, and the oil that was used was Iraq's to begin with--it was taken by sideways drilling under the border. Furthermore, they probably regretted giving up Kuwait a century earlier. In 1899 Kuwait became a British protectorate until its independence in 1961. Kuwait's borders were established in 1922 and 1923. Iraq affirmed its border with Kuwait in 1932 when it applied to the League of Nations for membership as an independent state. Oil was first discovered in Kuwait in 1938 and large scale drilling began in June 1946. On June 19, 1961 Kuwait gained full independence from Britain. It was then that Iraq first denied Kuwait's independence and threatened annexation. In turn, Britain showed military force which was later replaced by an Arab League force. In 1963 Kuwait became a member of the United Nations, and in the same year Iraq is signed a treaty to recognize Kuwait's independence and borders. However, there were border disputes again in 1973. And again when Kuwait pissed off Iraq for oversupplying oil as well as stealing it, which resulted in the first Gulf War.
Yet another reason for the war, high on the list, is that Iraq was going to change to the Euro:
http://www.rferl.org/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp
http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/iraqeuro.html
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/petrov/2006/0120.html
____________________________________________________________
www.coastalpost.com/98/6/4.htm:
During the Iran/Iraq war, instead of military support, Kuwait and other Arab states gave money. In 1988, according to the London Economist, at the end of the war, James Baker visited Saddam. He said Iraq wouldn't get more credit from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the West to pay their war debts unless Iraq gave up phosphate, sulfate, oil and other raw material rights as collateral and in perpetuity. Saddam was outraged and refused.
Kuwait began demanding payment of its "war loans." The Iraqis, unable and unwilling to repay, said the money was Kuwait's war contribution. Here Saddam had saved the Arabs. Now, he was supposed to foot the bill. Early in 1990, Kuwait glutted the oil market with Iraqi oil. Already low prices tumbled. Iraqi's shaky economy went belly-up.
Important is a dispute over Iraq and Kuwait's "floating border." Iraq never accepted Kuwait's claim to land abutting Iraq's lucrative Rumanian oil fields. During the Iran War, Kuwait sneaked in and grabbed the turf.
Less than six months after certain November '89 meetings in Kuwait, Kuwait started drilling sideways under the new border to collect its debt. This was the oil Kuwait used to flood the market.
Interestingly, Kuwait purchased its slanted drilling equipment from the Santa Fe Drilling Company. A large stockholder was Brent Scrowcroft, Bush's National Security Advisor.
Saddam demanded negotiations. The Kuwaitis insulted him. Kuwait would ignore Iraq's protests. "Let them try to occupy our territory. We're going to have the Americans come in."
Way before that, when James Baker told Saddam to turn over his oil rights or face the consequences, Secretary of State George Schultz got sanctions against Iraq for poisoning the Kurds in March, 1988. The photos shocked us into the Chemical Weapons Age. Even the Pentagon agreed there was no proof Iraq did the gassing. Both Iran and Iraq were using chemicals by then. Iran had cyanide. That's what killed the Kurds. Iraq did not. The Pentagon investigated. The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College said:
"Having looked at all the evidence available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim poison gas was used by Iraq in this incident."
The UN came to the same conclusion. Jordan decided much of the evidence was outright forgery.
The Institute concluded, "...Congress acted more on...emotionalism than factual information."
_________________________________________________________________
www.progressiveaustin.org/pearson1.htm
Former U.S. Secretary of State Ramsey Clark reports that, from as early as 1972, the CIA and State Department had been monitoring Saddam Hussein's ambitious determination to acquire "non-conventional weapons of mass destruction." Documents obtained by Congress show that in the 80s, during the height of the Iran-Iraq War, the United States knew that a $1.7 billion "agricultural aid" package to Iraq was actually being used by Saddam Hussein to purchase helicopters, trucks, pesticides – and even anthrax. (One document shows the purchase from the United States of "bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240) Batch #05-14-63 (3 each) Class III pathogen).
Immediately Congressional leaders began questioning these practices. But, according to Clark, the U.S. State Department and CIA, under former presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr., began to systematically quell all Congressional inquiries about U.S. support for Iraq's military build-up, and eventually the inquiries faded away.
As a result of Saddam Hussein's unprovoked war with Iran and massive arms purchases, by the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988, Saddam Hussein had managed to ruin Iraq's economy and place them about $40 billion in debt.
Because of this debt, Iraq was desperate to nationalize their oil fields so they could profiteer off their oil productivity and help offset their war-related economic woes.
"OPEC keeps the price of oil stable by limiting how much oil each OPEC member-country can produce," says Siu Hin Lee, an international oil market analyst. "In 1989, after the end of the Iraq/Iran war, Kuwait suddenly exceeded its quotas by 20 percent, driving the price of oil down on the world market. As a result of Kuwait's production hike, Iraq lost almost a third of its oil income. And this was at a time when Iraq was desperate for money."
Kuwait – a major source of oil to the West – is an artificially created country, set up by the British Empire during the "Mandates Period," and carved out of the southern tip of Iraq. The creation of Kuwait by the British took Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf away from them and set up a British-picked royal family, or "emirate," that was friendly to the West, as the rulers. The territory had been in dispute by Iraq for nearly a century. But when Kuwait's newfound wealth added to Iraq's already miserable economic woes, many Iraqi government leaders suddenly "remembered" that Kuwait was theirs, and Saddam Hussein decided it was time to re-annex Kuwait.
As late as six days before Iraq's invasion of Iraq, the U.S. State Department was assuring Saddam Hussein that the United States had "no security agreement with Kuwait." Taking his cue, in 1990 Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, convinced that the United States would not react. But in reality, the Pentagon was more than ready to react.
"We went ahead and did an exercise, what is called a command post exercise, which is what Internal Look was, to test our ability to deal with this particular scenario, and also to uncover any command and control problem that might exist, any doctrine problem that might exist between the Air Force, the Navy and the armed forces," says former Gulf War Commander-in-Chief General Norman Schwarzkopf. "And it just so happened that we were in the middle of conducting the Internal Look command post exercise at the same time when the crisis developed in the Gulf."
Within hours after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iraq, the United States had managed to freeze all of Iraq's assets and the U.S. Navy had started a blockade of the Persian Gulf – before the United Nations even had a chance to convene to discuss the crisis.
Within days of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense officials were in Riyadh meeting with Saudi Arabian officials in an attempt to convince them that Iraq was determined to invade Saudi Arabia. U.S. representatives argued that Iraq posed a grave threat to Saudi Arabia and that the United States must be allowed to deploy hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Saudi Arabia to help protect the Saudis. As part of this attempt at persuasion, the American officials showed the Saudis military satellite photos of a massive build-up of Iraqi troops in Kuwait, apparently poised to invade Saudi Arabia at any moment.
But some of the American media didn't buy it. The St. Petersburg Times and ABC News had asked repeatedly for permission to view the military satellite photos of the Iraqi build-up and were repeatedly denied access to them. Finally, in frustration, investigative reporters from The St. Petersburg Times acquired commercial satellite pictures of the same area and time period – and were shocked to see no evidence whatsoever of an Iraqi military build-up. Investigative reporter Jean Heller says:
"The airport in the Kuwaiti capital appeared to have been abandoned, which it wouldn't be. If you think about it for a minute, if you're trying to supply a quarter of a million troops, it takes a lot of food, a lot of camping equipment, a lot of fuel for the tanks. They didn't see tanks tracks in the sand in the desert and they would not have worn away because satellites are still pickling up images of sand tracks in the desert of Northern Africa that were left during World War II.
"I happened to know the Press Secretary of Defense personally, and I asked him, 'Look, you know me, we've known each-other for a long time, let me look at some of the U.S. intelligence satellite photos, prove to me that I'm wrong. I don't need to take them out of the building, I don't need to copy them. Prove to me that we are wrong and we won't run the story.' And he refused to so that. He refused to do it on a number of occasions.
"As a reporter, I'm not supposed to conclude anything, but everyone else who was familiar with this story and familiar with the satellite photographs has concluded that the [Bush] administration lied to the Saudis, to the world in order to get the invitation to come into the Middle East to protect the innocent. What does it say about the government? If in fact the fact the government lied, does that surprise anyone?"
But what purpose would the United States have in deceiving the Saudis?
"Well, you have to understand that there were principal focuses over the world amounting to military commands," says General Schwarzkopf. "You had the focus of the European Command on the NATO situation, you had the focus of the Pacific Command, for instance on the Pacific, the Atlantic on the battle in the Atlantic, but there were certain areas in the world that had no focus. The Middle East was an area. The problem was that no Arab country wanted a major U.S. military headquarters in their country."
The Saudi government were sufficiently frightened enough by the United States scare tactics to respond as desired. On August 7, 1990, the Saudis officially accepted the American delegates' offer of "protection" via American troops.
Within 24 hours of their agreement, the U.S. military steamrolled into Saudi Arabia without even notifying Congress. Within a few short months, more than 500,000 American soldiers were deployed in Saudi Arabia to "protect" the Gulf nation from Iraqi aggression.
But now that the Saudis had been convinced of the Iraqi threat, it was time for the U.S, government to persuade the American public and the world that the Iraqi threat was serious enough to justify a monumental military build-up in the Gulf.
But the United Nations had other plans. At U.N. headquarters in New York, officials worked desperately to find a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the crisis. U.N. Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar even went so far as to fly to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein in an attempt to convince him that the international military threat will be real if he chooses to remain in Kuwait.
"Saddam Hussein had indicated a willingness to compromise, mediate and withdraw his troops," says Denis Halliday, former director of the United Nation's Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq. "Also the Arab states were given a chance to mediate but they were given 48 hours, I believe, by President Bush. So in summary, I think the Americans didn't want a diplomatic solution at that late stage, I am talking about after the invasion."
Phyllis Bennis, a former U.N. journalist and author, reported in her book Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's U.N. that Yemen voted against the use-of-force resolution. She says, "No sooner had the Ambassador of Yemen put down his hand after the vote that there was a U.S. representative at his side saying, 'That will be the most expensive no vote you will ever cast.' And sure enough, three days later, the U.S. cut-off its entire aid-budget to Yemen, the poorest nation in the Arab world."
Despite widespread international opposition to war, on November 29, 1990, the U.N. Security Council caved in to pressure from the United States and passed the war resolution with a deadline for Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait by January 15.
Two days after the deadline, on January 17, 1991, 3:00 a.m. Iraq-time, the United States and her allies launched a bombing raid on Baghdad. Televisions all over the world started broadcasting images of a supposedly fool-proof, high precision "surgical strike" campaign, which allegedly would hit nothing but Iraqi military targets. But a little over a decade later, we have learned the truth of what was wrought on Iraq.
In conclusion, Saddam used to be seen as someone that the US could "trust" because he wasn't a Muslim fundamentalist like many of his neighbors. The attack on Kuwait was a perfect opportunity to add another strategic military base, as well as an oil supply, to the Empire.
And what's with the defiance of America's leaders to the UN (or NATO for that matter)? If the United States supports democracy and truly believes in democracy then they would abide by the votes and participate with the UN, not act as a Rouge Dictatorial/Fascist Empire when they don't get their way. Someone has to lose in a democracy, but America doesn't like to lose and they know how democracy works in the USA: it's for sale, it's bought. So they wave millions of dollars in front countries on the UN Security Council to bribe their votes to side with America. And if they don't get their way, the United States will still do whatever the hell they want because they know they can. No other country can stand up to their military. A dangerous Bully.
Now with 300,000 plus troops over there ready to go it is unlikely that the US will retreat in order to "save-face." Its a shame that retreating won't be seen by a large number of people as honorable.
Lastly, Bush would not attack Iraq if he knew they had Nuclear weapons. He is opting to talk to North Korea because his advisors know they have nukes...hell they flat out told the US they had them and kicked the UN out of their country. America wouldn't dare attack a country armed with "weapons of mass destruction." Iraq is an 'easy' win and Bush is ready to attack because the chicken hawks know Iraq is 'unarmed.'
OK so I'm not done:
One final note which I (or rather Noam Chomsky) would like to clarify is to rebut the statement of George Bush regarding Saddam and the gassing of the Kurds. The United States has killed more Kurds by supporting Turkish policy than Saddam ever did: www.zmag.org/meastwatch/prospects_for_peace.htm Z magazine, Noam Chomsky:
The Kurds have been miserably oppressed throughout the whole history of the modern Turkish state but things changed in 1984. In 1984, the Turkish government launched a major war in the Southeast against the Kurdish population. And that continued. In fact it’s still continuing.
If we look at US military aid to Turkey—which is usually a pretty good index of policy—Turkey was of course a strategic a