The Unjust War On Iraq:

A compilation of Important Articles

Before and During the War

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By

Ammar Nayfeh

 

3/22/03

(the war goes on)

 

 

note:  all citations are embedded within the paper

 

 

 

 

 

Baghdad

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I write today, the date is exactly March 17, 2003 12:00am pacific time.  Today George Bush has declared it a day of “day of reckoning”.  America, Britain and Spain just meet in the azores, for what they claim is a “last effort for a diplomatic solution” but it seems more like a final war meeting. They declared that the UN must agree to new resolution today, or war is the only way.  After watching this report I then called my friend and told him that tomorrow the weapons inspectors will begin to leave….(I went to sleep)….I woke up at 9:00am pacific time. 

 

“Breaking NEWS”:  With diplomatic efforts ending, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered all U.N. weapons inspectors, humanitarian staff and border monitors out of Iraq.”

 

United States President George W Bush is to address the American people at 2000 (0100 GMT on Tuesday) to issue Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with a final ultimatum, following the collapse of diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis.

Mr Bush is expected to tell the Iraqi leader he has as little as 48 hours to leave the country or face military action - a demand immediately dismissed by Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, who said "any child" in Iraq knew such a plan would fail.

5pm Pacific Time:

 

George Bush addresses the Nation:

 

“ Saddam and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq or military action will begin..”.

 

My thoughts:

 

 

The is an extraordinary moment in history as the United States of America, is about to attack a nation that has not attacked it.  This preemptive strike policy has become the trademark of the Bush’s administration.

 

Now, it is exactly March 18th, 2003 12:19AM, the world is asleep now, but soon they wake to the nightmare reality that is soon to befall.  I predict that Wednesday Night, United States will attack Iraq without United Nations backing, further straining relations with the international community. Just last week the United Nations was trying to end this peacefully with the weapons inspectors.

 

Now we wait for war…going about my life here at Stanford as a graduate student.  Trying to cope with this injustice and the eviliness that is about to come.  There was kind of a anticipation of war….people excited to see a “reality show” about to come live to you bedroom on CNN, FOX NEWS..you name it.  We wait for the greatest show on earth about to hit Baghdad.

 

I just had my group meeting…we discussed how to compare Germanium and Silicon in the CMOS technology around 4:30pm….as my group mate was talking I began to realize that war maybe minutes away…..

After the meeting I headed home and on the bus I heard.. “President Bush will addrss the nation in 15 minintues to declare the war has begun”.  I ran home to see and indeed the show has begun…

 

Wednesday 5:30pm…THE WAR HAS begun…40 Cruse Missiles launched in a targeted mission against Saddam Hussein loud explosions heard in Baghdad…. Is Saddam Dead? It appears not…Saddam is about to address Iraq….he is defiant and standing strong…..

 

The war has officially started…

 

After watching hours and hours of war coverage on mostly CNN..I realized how much of a show it actually appears…like a game..each station trying to get the most viewers…..

What kept going through my mind was… “Those 40 missiles must have hit somewhere?…the human cost of the war is forgotten… war is not a solution to any problem..it only leads to more and more problems...

 

Introduction

What is the real reason for a war on Iraq?  George Bush has tried to paint the picture that Saddam Hussein is a great threat to the USA, however it is clear he has failed in this regard.  It is clear that this war was preordained well before the United Nations began its resolutions and that diplomacy was never really given opportunity to work. Many nations in the Security Council felt like their vote in the end did not mean anything since the President has repeatedly said he would go at it alone.  So what are the possible reasons for this war: Oil, domination, right wing views, Israel, wag the dog, or the stern belief of “good versus evil”. Is there a zionist/Jewish/Israeli conspiracy that some people have spoken out about ?  Anyone of these issues or a combination of 2 or more could be the reason for this war that so many are opposed to.  The following paper is a compilation of important articles that led up to the current war, which allow for a substantial understanding of the issue and the issues to come. 

 

 

 

THE REASONS FOR WAR:

OIL

Blood, Oil & Iraq

The Iraq showdown is not over petroleum, 

even if some think of it as ‘black gravy’

 

By Michael Hirsh

NEWSWEEK

March 10 issue —  Vladimir Putin knows his value to George W. Bush. The U.S. president hasn’t talked to Gerhard Schroder, Germany’s newly pacifist chancellor, in months. Jacques Chirac—zut!—Bush hasn’t much time for him these days. Bush’s relationship with Chinese President Jiang Zemin is chilly at best. AND SO BUSH’S success in winning over the U.N. Security Council in coming weeks—especially the “permanent five” members with vetoes—could come down to Putin, the ex-KGB colonel whose soul Bush once looked into admiringly. Putin could be the key player in isolating the French-led antiwar faction and shifting Security Council opinion in favor of an attack-Iraq resolution. No surprise, then, that the Russian and American presidents have been chatting a lot lately, and that one of Putin’s pet subjects is oil. In a recent conversation, Putin asked Bush for reassurances that oil would not be permitted to drop too low (say, $21 a barrel) if there were an Iraq war, administration officials said. Oil came up again last week when Putin’s chief of staff, Aleksandr Voloshin, made the rounds in Washington. Along with visits to the White House and Secretary of State Colin Powell, Voloshin also met—with little publicity—with Commerce Secretary Don Evans. A key topic of discussion: the U.S.-Russia Energy Partnership, an expansion of U.S. investment in Russia’s oil and gas industries.

EXPENSIVE REAL ESTATE

Mind you, the Russians say, they are not the Turks, brazenly demanding billions in aid in exchange for support, as if Iraq were a piece of prime real estate (though, of course, it is). Moscow is not asking that Washington make any guarantees about maintaining price levels—the Bush administration insists it won’t interfere with the market—or about Russian postwar oil interests in Iraq. But Russia has elicited reassurances from Bush and other officials that the United States will do its best “to protect Russia’s economic interests” in the event of war.

The genteel dickering between Bush and Putin raises again the question of whether, as many protesters seem to believe, the imminent conflict is mainly a brazen U.S. grab for Iraq’s vast oilfields and reserves. Certainly much of the world thinks so, to judge from the number of NO BLOOD FOR OIL signs seen in protests worldwide. And as oil prices rise to their highest level since 1990-91—nearly $40 a barrel—there seems to be a greater urgency than ever about tapping Iraq’s unused reserves, believed to be the second largest in the world.  In truth, except for Bush’s harshest critics, few people believe that the seemingly imminent war involves a stark trade of blood for oil. Not least because such a policy makes no sense, oil experts say. Even if Washington were to seize Iraq’s oil industry, the expense of a U.S. war and occupation will far outweigh any benefit from Iraq’s 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Even a two-term Bush presidency would be long over before Iraq’s broken economy realized its full capacity of 6 million barrels or more. Bush administration officials insist that U.S. oil companies—which would love to get production-sharing agreements in postwar Iraq—have been kept at arm’s length from interagency discussions for postwar planning. One official privy to those talks says they’re bogged down in lawyerly squabbling. “It almost feels like seven blind men and an elephant. You’ve got the Pentagon lawyer saying, ‘We can do what ever we want with Iraqi oil.’ Then other lawyers will say, ‘Hold on, Cochise, what about international law, and antitrust and competition law’ ... There is no resolution.” 

DEBUNKING ‘MYTHS’

Bush, in a speech last week, sought to lay the issue to rest at last. Iraq’s “natural resources,” he said, will be used only “for the benefit of the owners: the Iraqi people.” The president also confirmed that Iraq’s oil revenue would continue to be funneled through the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program, which will be the heart of the humanitarian-relief effort. Bush officials like to point out that Americans returned Kuwaiti oil to its rulers a decade ago. They’ve even developed a paper of talking points titled “Myths to Be Debunked.” Among the standard lines is that if all America was looking for was cheap oil, Washington could cut a deal with Iraq: that would be far easier than going to war. One Pentagon official, asked why the administration can’t at least admit that the oil-rich region is critical to America’s economy—as Bush’s father did in justifying the 1990-91 gulf war—responded, “Because then a lot of idiots would say it’s about oil.”

 

 

So what is the war about? As described by some officials, the administration’s drive to take on Saddam began after 9-11 as a genuine fear of what this longtime U.S. enemy could do with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam’s ouster and the presumed Iraqi democracy to follow will be a two-part message to other autocrats who turn a blind eye to terrorism. First, that no pursuit of WMD will be tolerated; and second, that these leaders need to open up and reform their political systems and societies. This was the subtext of Bush’s speech last week touting a grand vision for the Mideast. As one official puts it, “an icebreaker” is needed in the frozen mass of dysfunction of the Islamic world. Its autocratic and backward regimes, like Saudi Arabia’s, only spur Islamist radicalism. “This is the crucial element that no one can talk [to the countries] about,” concedes one Bush official. “The president can’t say we want to scare all these other dictators, even the ones who have been ‘friendly’ to us.”

Only as part of this grand vision does oil play into the administration’s thinking—at least in the view of extreme hawks or “neoconservatives” like Richard Perle, the Defense Policy Board chairman who has long harbored a deep mistrust of Saudi Arabia. Especially since 9-11, the administration has sought to diversify its oil supplies beyond the Mideast, emphasizing new sources in Africa, Alaska and, yes, Russia. “The United States has had two mistresses in the Mideast for a long time: Israel and Saudi Arabia,” says Raad Alkadiri of Petroleum Finance Corp. “This is to ensure that one is banished from the bed forever.”

Most oil experts like Alkadiri scoff at this as a neocon fantasy. Saudi Arabia can’t be marginalized, they say. Case in point: today, with the world’s oil supplies strained, Riyadh controls some 75 percent of the excess capacity that will be needed to pull prices out of their upward climb (indeed, one reason prices are not even higher today is that the Saudis have ramped up production). Knowing this, even many Bush hawks concede that oil remains only a small part of the overall picture—”black gravy,” as one official puts it. “It’s almost a much bigger issue for Europe than for us,” he says. “They’re much more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Is it nice to have a country with so much oil on our side? Yes. But I don’t think there’s a strategy to exploit that.” The question is, can Bush convince the rest of the world that this is true?

With Christian Caryl in Moscow, Tamara Lipper and Richard Wolffe in Washington, and Christopher Dickey in Paris © 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feverish rise in oil prices

February 28, 2003 — Oil prices paused Friday after crude brushed $40 per barrel Thursday. NBC’s Jim Avila reports that prices hit historic levels due to the looming prospect of an Iraq war, political problems in Venezuela and harsh winter weather.

 

 

 

Monday September 23, 12:44 PM

U.S. plans war to control Iraq's oil wealth: experts

By P. Jayaram, Indo-Asian News Service

 

 

New Delhi, Sep 23 (IANS) The U.S. is talking of war with Iraq not because Baghdad has allegedly amassed weapons of mass destruction but to control the country's huge oil reserves, say Indian analysts and oil industry sources. The move, analysts say, was an effort to "reconstruct" the Middle East and could have far-reaching consequences for India. "Control of Iraq's oil production will allow American companies better leverage in getting sub-contracting projects in that country and stopping Baghdad from resuming full oil production," a top executive of an oil company told IANS on condition of anonymity. Leading defence analyst K. Subrahmanyam said: "They (U.S.) want an excuse to reconstruct the whole of the Middle East. (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein is the first one.  "Last year it was Osama (bin Laden), this year it is Saddam, next year it will be somebody else."  Subrahmanyam said Washington had realised it would finally have to deal with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. "In Pakistan, they are going to stay on. In Saudi Arabia, they have to find alternative sources of oil before they can act. That's why Iraq is important," he said. Iraqi Ambassador to India Salah Al-Mukhtar said the U.S. wanted to attack Iraq to control its oil reserves. This was also the reason behind Washington launching a war on terrorism in Afghanistan -- to control the oil- and gas-rich Central Asian nations, he told IANS.  Industry analysts say a change of regime in Iraq, as the U.S. wants, would adversely affect India.

 

"We have more to lose from a change in government, as the Saddam Hussein regime is favourably inclined towards India. This relationship has allowed India to get into the Iraqi oil upstream," said Ardhendu Sen, senior fellow of Tata Energy Research Centre.  "A regime more favourably inclined to the U.S. could upset the equation and would mean India having to renegotiate." According to Middle East watcher K.R. Singh, while oil is an important factor in U.S. designs on Iraq, the security interests of Israel were an equally important issue. Sources said control over Iraq and its oil wealth would allow American firms to manipulate global market prices by deciding on production levels and to keep out countries like India, which is engaged in developing oil fields in that country. Analysts said Iraq -- with proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, next only to Saudi Arabia -- could throw the global oil market into a tailspin by resuming full-fledged production if U.N. sanctions against it were lifted. Besides India, countries like France, Russia, China, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria have signed or sought to sign agreements to develop Iraqi oil fields, rebuild refineries and undertake exploration activities. Iraq is permitted to produce 3 to 3.5 million barrels of oil a day under a U.N. oil-for-food programme, but actual production is about 1.5 to 2 million barrels.This ensures that crude oil prices are kept high, as a steep drop is not in the interest of U.S. companies, which have been engaged in deep water exploration, a source said. "If prices fall, it could jeopardise their deep water exploration, as it would not be viable due to the high costs involved. "By keeping Iraqi supplies disrupted, the U.S. is able to ensure that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are benefited, as they are able to raise their production to meet the shortfall and earn more revenue." The source noted that U.S. President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have strong links with the oil industry and alleged that the threat to attack Iraq was aimed at helping American oil companies. In 1973, Iraq nationalised all oil companies. By displacing Saddam Hussein and installing a friendly regime, U.S. and British companies would be able to re-enter the country and get a major share of its oil industry. India, which looks at Iraq as an assured source of oil, is opposed to military action against Baghdad and wants sanctions against that country to be removed in tandem with compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. India and Iraq have historically had strong political ties. Iraq has been one of the moderate Islamic states and is perhaps the only Arab country to support India's stand on Jammu and Kashmir vis-a-vis Pakistan. Before the 1991 Gulf War, India was Iraq's largest bilateral trading partner and a large number of Indian companies had presence there. In the oil sector too, India had a major presence. The current tension in the Middle East has steeply pushed up crude oil prices and adversely impacted India -- a major importing country.

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

ROBERT FISK:

 

            In any conflict, fair reporting is important in any conflict.  Robert First has distinguished himself as an independent reporter   Last year, I had the oppurtunity to see Robert Fisk in person speaking about the conflict in Afganistan which was very enlighting experience to see a reporter with the courage enough to speak out.  Robert Fisk has reported

 

 

Hope fades as the citizens of Baghdad begin to

foresee the appalling fate awaiting them

 

Robert Fisk in Baghdad
The Independent
3/19/03

 

The darkness is beginning to descend, the fog of anxiety that falls upon all people when they realise that they face unimaginable danger. It's not just the thousands of empty, shut-up shops in Baghdad, whose owners are taking their goods home for fear of looting. It's not even the sight of concrete barges beside the Tigris to provide transport if the Americans blow up the great bridges. It's a feeling – and I quote a long-term Baghdad resident who has lived in the Middle East for almost a quarter of a century – that "the glue will come unstuck and there will be nothing left to hold people together".

The nightmare is not so much the cruel bombardment of Iraq, whose inevitability is now assured, as the growing conviction that the Anglo-American invasion will provoke a civil war, of Shia against Sunnis, of Sunnis against Kurds, of Kurds and Turkomans. Driving through the streets of the great Shia slums of Saddam City – the millions here originally came from the Amara region of southern Iraq – it is possible to comprehend the fears of the Sunni minority, that the poor will descend in their tens of thousands to pillage Baghdad City the moment central authority crumbles.

How unkind, you may say. Weren't the Shia the most repressed people in Iraq these past decades? Around Baghdad, the people have seen the Republican Guard; their checkpoints are growing more impressive. The main highway to Kurdistan has been closed for the past three days and thus the outlines of a siege are being laid in the minds of Baghdad's people. City officials are now talking of a total day-and-night curfew in Baghdad throughout the US bombardment, 24 hours of confinement without a known end, not a soul on the street for a week or two weeks – depending, I suppose, on the length of time General Tommy Franks wants to use and test his weapons against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

In the 1991 Gulf War, Baghdad residents packed their freezers with meat, only to find that the US destruction of the Iraqi power grid turned their food rotten within hours. Now they are eating through the contents of their freezers and buying tons of bread, biscuits, dates and nuts. Thousands of e-mail users in Iraq are also receiving anonymous messages in Arabic outlining the medical treatment to be given in the event of chemical or biological attack. They don't suggest who might use these weapons of mass destruction, nor who might have sent the messages. The very few Europeans left here suspect this could be a US military Psyops job, another attempt to throw panic into a civilian population.

Oddly, the e-mails did not mention something the Americans might prefer to hide from both Iraqis and their "allies" in the West: that they fully intend to use depleted uranium (DU) ammunition in the coming conflict. Tens of thousands of Gulf War syndrome sufferers and a growing number of medical scholars believe that the aerosol spray released by these armour-piercing rounds have caused plagues of cancers, especially in the area around Basra where they were used 12 years ago. But now – in remarks virtually ignored outside Kuwait – General Buford Blount of the US 3rd Infantry Division has admitted that his men would again be using DU shells in battle in Iraq. "If we receive the order to attack, final preparations will only take a few days. We have already begun to unwrap our depleted uranium anti-tank shells," he said.

Equally ignored outside Kuwait have been the violations of the UN's buffer zone between Kuwait and Iraq, guarded by Bangladeshi troops until their withdrawal yesterday. The great majority of recent violations have been by American helicopters, jets and vehicle patrols over the territory, which will be the starting point for America's invasion.

It's extraordinary that none of this makes its way into the Baghdad press. Not even when Ukrainian chemical weapons specialists agreed to assist US troops in the battlefield – most of Iraq's chemical weapons were of Soviet inspiration – did the Iraqi press wake up. For wasn't this the same Ukraine that was being threatened with sanctions by the US only four months ago for allegedly selling to Iraq its Kolchuga radar system, which can detect Stealth bombers?

So who, with the clock at five minutes to midnight, appears to be the most confident man in all Iraq? Indeed, need the reader ponder such an obvious question? On state television yesterday, he appeared yet again, insisting that his forces would destroy the American invasion force, instructing his son Qusay – commander of the Baghdad military zone – that American mothers would weep tears of blood at the death of their son if they invaded Iraq.

He was in uniform, and he smiled confidently, as usual. Perhaps there is some quaint reassurance to be had, listening to the wisdom of the Great Leader at such a moment. Yesterday, even as President Bush was giving him 48 hours to go into exile to spare his country invasion, President Saddam was regaling the world with his assurances to the Tunisian Foreign Minister. "When Saddam Hussein says we have no weapons of mass destruction, it means what he means he says," he explained. Then came the more familiar rhetoric. "If the US attacks, it will find [Iraqi] fighters behind every rock, wall or tree in defence of their land and freedom."

Only a couple of weeks ago, the President was telling his soldiers that "all this talk about what [weapons] America has, is nonsense ... We should plan on the basis that the battlefields must be everywhere, the battlefields should be wherever there are people." Orwellian isn't the word for it. As a quarter of a million US troops prepare to invade Iraq within hours, page two of the Baghdad newspaper Babylon informed its readers yesterday that "President Saddam Hussein, may God preserve him, received a telegram from the Ministry of Industry and Minerals on the anniversary of His Excellence's visit to the dairy product factories of Abu Ghoraib on 16 March, 1978."

Dairy products? Isn't that what President Saddam was thinking about 13 years ago, when he told a British schoolboy hostage he was about to free that he must "take care to drink your milk every day"? But the statement the world waited to hear about the Iraqi leader came from one of his officials. "The President was born in Iraq and will die in Iraq," he said.

BBC in EGYPT:

 

Uneasy Cairo awaits war

 

By Martin Asser

BBC News Online in Cairo

 

 

In happier days, Cairo could be best described as an exuberant, chaotic city - Mother of the World as Egyptians admiringly call their capital. But on the eve of a possible US-led attack on Iraq all that has changed - people are subdued, fearful of what the future holds.  Cairo is inextricably linked to Baghdad - they were the twin centres of civilisation during the classical Golden Age enjoyed by the Arabs in medieval times, and together they make up the backdrop for that greatest work of Arabic folk literature, the Arabian Nights. Fewer clients frequent Cairo's famous coffee shops Today, no Egyptian feels anything but sympathy for his Arab brethren hundreds of kilometres to the east, as they face the possibility of the destruction of their country. Most people here mistrust the US pursuit of Iraqi weapons, and feel outrage at President George W Bush's mission to bring about the downfall of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. "I don't like the guy," says a young mother, who has spent time abroad, referring with disdain to the Iraqi dictator. "But why does America have the right to depose him? Are they going to catch him like they caught Bin Laden?" she says. Washington may have lost its credibility here in Cairo, but many citizens concur with Tuesday morning's US ultimatum that Saddam go into exile - though not within the 48-hour deadline proposed by President Bush. As well as sparing 20 million Iraqis from the threat of war, the exile solution conveniently points a way out of Egypt's current biting economic crisis, which has seen import costs rocket after the floating of the Egyptian pound against the dollar. And a newly placated Washington could set about providing economic help to its friend, Egypt, to prevent instability elsewhere spreading to the region's biggest country. War, on the other hand - perhaps a long, bloody war, if Saddam's Republican Guards put up a fight around Baghdad - means all bets are off for Egypt's recovery, as well as any progress on that other open wound in

Arab minds, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nevertheless, this darker scenario has many supporters on the streets of Cairo. "We like Saddam because he is tough," says one woman, who works in the tourist sector. "He defends his country from the aggressor, and that's why his people love him." So how are Cairo residents spending the last few hours before Iraq – and the rest of the region - meets its fate in the shape of the Bush administration's final ultimatum? On Monday night, the intellectual elite packed into a hall at the American University in Cairo (AUC) to hear a lecture on Palestinian human rights by the renowned US-Palestinian academic Edward Said, followed by a lute recital by the Cairo-based Iraqi virtuoso Naseer Shama. The AUC is a cultural hub for the Westernised intelligentsia. There was not a dry eye in the house as Shama prayed for the safety of Iraqi and Palestinian children, before launching into his unflinching musical portrait of the bombing of Amariya shelter in Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War. Shama's lute mimics the sweet sound of children's games, then an air-raid siren, then the sound of aircraft and bombs falling and the screams of Amariya's 450 civilian victims. Outside the ivory towers of the AUC, many of the rest of Cairo's 18 million population are going about their business with an air of resignation as the clock ticks to Thursday morning's deadline. Saving pennies means that shops and hubble-bubble cafes are less busy than usual. The jokes of street-corner comedians are also told with less conviction. And simple people, unschooled in the intricacies of international diplomacy, ask foreigners - not for baksheesh these days - but for explanations about the political situation. Will Iraq burn its oilfields? Why does Tony Blair support George Bush when the British people don't? And why can't the Middle East region live in peace, when that's what the overwhelming majority of Egyptian people say is all they want.

 

 

 

My thoughts:

 

Friday March, 21 10:00am…the sounds of the call for prayer just finished..air raid sirens are going off…major bombing of Baghdad has begun large explosions and bombs are being heard.  The air war has begun…it is a incredible display of airpower…as load as can be…major fire..Baghdad in flames  Donald Rumsfeld speaking to reporters says: the war is going great.  WOW...I really still could not believe what I just saw in Baghdad.  I called a few friends to discuss this..they were also very shocked.  CNN says: Shock and Awe has begun. What about the people?.. 

 

 

 

 

INTERVIEW WITH RUSSIAN WAR EXPERT:

Civilian Deaths:

 

"SHOCK AND AWE"

 

Russian Expert Predicts 500,000 Iraqi Dead

 

in War Designed To Test Weapons

 

Rossiyskaya Gazeta in Russian, 22 Feb 2003.

 

Interview with military analyst Vladimir Slipchenko by Aleksandr

Khokhlov;

 

      Vladimir Slipchenko, is military analyst, doctor of military sciences, professor, and major general of reserves, is a major Russian specialist on future wars. His predictions of the course of US military operations in Iraq (1991, 1996, and 1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001) coincided almost 100% with what subsequently happened in reality. Today the military analyst predicts the course and outcome of the next US war against Iraq, which the American military themselves have already dubbed Operation "Shock And Awe." The main purpose of the war is indeed being left out of the picture and nobody is saying anything about it. I see the main purpose of the war as being the large-scale real-life testing by the United States of sophisticated models of precision weapons. That is the objective that they place first All the other aims are either incidental, or outright disinformation. For more than 10 years now the United States has conducted exclusively no-contact wars. In May 2001 George Bush Jr., delivering his first presidential speech to students at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, spoke of the need for accelerated preparation of the US Armed Forces for future wars. He emphasized that they should be high-tech Armed Forces capable of conducting hostilities throughout the world by the no-contact method. This task is now being carried out very consistently.

 

It should be observed that the Pentagon buys from the military-industrial complex only those weapons that have been tested in conditions of real warfare and received a certificate of quality on the battlefield. After a series of live experiments -- the wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan -- many corporations in the US military-industrial complex have been granted the right to sell their precision weapons to the Pentagon. They include Martin Lockheed, General Electric, and Loral. But many other well-known companies are as yet without orders from the military department. The bottom line is $50-60 billion a year. Who would want to miss out on that kind of money? But the present suppliers of precision weapons to the Pentagon are also constantly developing new types of arms and they must also be tested The US military-industrial complex

demands testbed wars from its country's political leadership.

 

 

 

      [Khokhlov] How will this war differ from the no-contact wars

      previously waged by the United States?

 

      [Slipchenko] First, in terms of its political objectives. For

      the first time since 1991 the United States sets the goal of

      changing the political system in the enemy state and removing

      or physically eliminating the country's leadership.

 

      They have not previously succeeded in this. Remember, the

      Americans did not previously try to remove Saddam Husayn from

      politics, and even Milosevic was not removed from the post of

      Yugoslav leader by military means. The US Armed Forces

      carried out their required tests of new weapons and then

      packed up their guns and went home. Now they face a very

      difficult mission.

 

      Therefore, second, because of the change of objective the

      strategy of the war also changes radically For the first time

      the war aims mean that the United States must without fail

      achieve total victory. To that end it is necessary to achieve

      three objectives: rout the enemy's Armed Forces, destroy his

      economy, and change the political system.

 

      The Iraqi army will be subjected to very powerful blows. It

      will be physically annihilated. In order to impose a new

      puppet government in the country (and I am sure the Americans

      have already formed that government) and to give that

      government the opportunity to get on with its work, the

      United States will be forced actually to occupy Iraq. The

      occupation of territory within which seats of organized

      resistance could persist would lead to large losses among US

      Army personnel. Guerrillas, and in the context of the Arab

      world also shahid martyrs wearing explosive belts --

      naturally the Americans do not need this Therefore they will

      totally annihilate the Iraqi army. Practically all Iraq

      servicemen will die. There will be terrible carnage.

 

      [Khokhlov] Does Iraq have any chance of offering resistance

      to the United States?

 

      [Slipchenko] In Iraq we will once again see a situation where

      two generations of warfare meet. Iraq is strong and prepared

      for a war of the last generation -- on land and for land, for

      every target. But 600,000 soldiers, 220 military aircraft,

      something like 2,200 tanks, 1,900 artillery guns, around 500

      multiple rocket launchers, 6 SCUD missile launchers, 110

      surface-to-air missile systems, and 700 anti-aircraft

      installations will prove useless when they meet the

      aggressor.

 

      In fact, there will not be a meeting on the battlefield as

      such. The Americans, waging a no-contact war, will

      methodically use precision missile strikes to destroy all the

      key facilities of Iraq's state and military infrastructure,

      and will then wipe out enemy manpower with missile and

      bombing raids.

 

      Progress of the War

 

      [Khokhlov] How will the Americans begin hostilities?

 

      [Slipchenko] First of all there will be precision strikes

      against bunkers and command posts where Saddam Husayn and the

      Iraqi leaders might be hiding, against Army headquarters and

      troop positions, and against components of the air defense

      system. Sophisticated ground-penetrating vacuum-type

      precision munitions will be used to destroy buried targets.

      Even if one of these weapons explodes not exactly inside,

      say, an underground bunker, in any case the exits from the

      shelter will be blocked. The bunker will become a mass grave

      for everyone who is unfortunate enough to be in it.

 

      To destroy armored equipment, in the very first days the

      Americans will use cluster aviation bombs with self-guided

      munitions. The "mother"-cluster bomb gives "birth" to several

      tens or hundreds of "baby" bombs, each of which independently

      chooses its own target to destroy on the ground.

 

      I am confident that in the very first hours of the war the

      United States will also use new pulse bombs They are also

      called microwave bombs. The principle by which these weapons

      operate is as follows: an instantaneous discharge of

      electromagnetic radiation on the order of two megawatts. At a

      distance of 2-2.5 kilometers from the epicenter of the

      explosion the "microwaves" instantly put out of action all

      radioelectronic systems, communications and radar systems,

      all computers, radio receivers, and even hearing aids and

      heart pacemakers. All these things are destroyed by the

      meltdown method. Just imagine, a person's heart explodes!...

 

      As a result of the use of these weapons Iraqi systems for

      command and control of the state and troops will be destroyed

      practically instantaneously.

 

      [Khokhlov] What other new types of arms could be tested?

 

      [Slipchenko] Since this war will be experimental for the

      United States, several new types of precision cruise missiles

      will be tested with a view to obtaining quality certificates.

      I believe attention will be devoted first and foremost to

      missile launches from submarines. The Americans are planning

      to make their submarine fleet the main launchpad.

 

      The Pentagon will continue to perfect the mechanism for

      targeting precision weapons. In 2000 with the help of the

      space shuttle Endeavor the United States scanned around 80%

      of the surface of the Earth and created an electronic map of

      the planet in three-dimensional coordinates. The level of

      detail of objects on this map is down to the size of a

      window. That is to say, you could train a lens -- installed

      in a military satellite -- first on Baghdad, then on the city

      center, then on Saddam's palace, and on his bedroom window.

      You give the command -- and in a few minutes' time a targeted

      cruise missile flies into that window...

 

      [Khokhlov] How long will this war go on?

 

      [Slipchenko] I predict that Operation Shock And Awe will last

      not more than six weeks. The first period of the war -- the

      "shock" -- will last around 30 days. Some 400-500 sea- and

      air-based precision cruise missiles will be launched against

      targets in Iraq every 24 hours. During that month Iraq's

      troops and its economic potential will be annihilated.

      Anything that survives for any reason will be guaranteed

      destruction in the next two weeks. In the second stage --

      "awe" -- the Americans will conduct a piloted version of a

      total cleanup of the territory. To this end the United States

      will use B-52 and B-2 Stealth bombers. In four hours of

      flight one Stealth is capable of detecting and destroying as

      many as 200 stationary or moving targets on the ground. The

      United States intends to use at least 16 B-2 bombers The

      Stealths will be in the air constantly, one replacing the

      other.

 

      [Khokhlov] Will the Iraqi air defense system be able to

      counter the American planes and cruise missiles?

 

      [Slipchenko] Iraq already has no air defense facilities in

      the north and south of the country -- US aviation is

      constantly bombing these areas. What remains in the center of

      the country will be destroyed in the first 10 minutes of the

      war. Iraq's anti-aircraft system is based on the classical

      active radar detection system: emit -- detect -- illuminate

      -- destroy. The Americans will exploit this for their own

      purposes. As soon as an Iraqi radar reveals itself by

      emitting electromagnetic energy, a precision cruise missile

      will be dispatched against the "revealed" air defense

      facility using this same beam. Iraq has no chance of

      countering this.

 

      [Khokhlov] How much will this war cost?

 

      [Slipchenko] According to my estimates, $80 billion. But the

      total sum spent could rise to 100 billion. We will never know

      the exact figure of expenditure, if only because the war will

      be partly funded by private companies offering the Pentagon

      their experimental models of precision weapons for free in

      the hope of future dividends. The program for rearming the US

      Armed Forces is about $600 billion Therefore today the

      military-industrial complex need not stint, it can give

      weapons to the Army for free.

 

      [Khokhlov] What human losses could Iraq suffer?

 

      [Slipchenko] Very considerable ones. Since the Americans are

      planning to physically annihilate the Iraqi army, I reckon

      that at least 500,000 people will be killed. This will be a

      very bloody war.

 

      After the Apocalypse

 

      [Khokhlov] What will come after the war?

 

      [Slipchenko] The Americans will have to occupy Iraq. The

      occupation corps will apparently consist of four mechanized

      and armored divisions, one parachute division, and one

      division of the British Armed Forces. All these troops will

      not fight. There will be no ground operations in Iraq! The US

      Army will enter a burning desert -- the Iraqis will certainly

      set fire to the oilfields -- without a single shot being

      fired. There will simply be nobody to shoot at them.

 

      [Khokhlov] How long will the direct occupation last? Will the

      Americans stay in Iraq forever?

 

      [Slipchenko] They will certainly leave Iraq. There is no

      point in their staying there. The occupation will last one

      and a half, two, or at the most three years and will cost

      American taxpayers a further $80-100 billion to maintain the

      troops in Iraq. Then the United States may enlist in an

      operation that they will undoubtedly call "peacekeeping" the

      Poles, Czechs, and other "new recruits" to NATO, the

      Estonians, but they themselves will leave. The "peacekeepers"

      will stay a further one to one and a half years in Iraq.

 

      During this time major investments will be made in the

      country with a regime friendly to the United States, and in

      two years' time Iraq's oil sector will reach a level of oil

      extraction of 2-2.4 million barrels a day. In five years they

      will be extracting up to 5 million barrels of oil a day. The

      world oil price will fall to $12-15 a barrel. The currently

      stagnant US economy will soar.

 

 

After War:

 

Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq

American Would Oversee Rebuilding

 

By Karen DeYoung and Peter Slevin

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, February 21, 2003; Page A21

 

 

The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources. Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, is to maintain military control as long as U.S. troops are there. Once security was established and weapons of mass destruction were located and disabled, a U.S. administrator would run the civilian government and direct reconstruction and humanitarian aid. In the early days of military action, U.S. forces following behind those in combat would distribute food and other relief items and begin needed reconstruction. The goal, officials said, would be to make sure the Iraqi people "immediately" consider themselves better off than they were the day before war, and attribute their improved circumstances directly to the United States. The initial humanitarian effort, as previously announced, is to be directed by retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner. But once he got to Baghdad, sources said, Garner would quickly be replaced as the supreme civil authority by an American "of stature," such as a former U.S. state governor or ambassador, officials said. Officials said other governments are being recruited to participate in relief and reconstruction tasks under U.S. supervision at a time to be decided by Franks and officials in Washington. Although initial food supplies are to be provided by the United States, negotiations are underway with the U.N. World Food Program to administer a nationwide distribution network Opposition leaders were informed this week that the United States will not recognize an Iraqi provisional government being discussed by some expatriate groups. Some 20 to 25 Iraqis would assist U.S. authorities in a U.S.-appointed "consultative council," with no governing responsibility. Under a decision finalized last week, Iraqi government officials would be subjected to "de-Baathification," a reference to Hussein's ruling Baath Party, under a program that borrows from the "de-Nazification" program established in

 

Germany after World War

 

Criteria by which officials would be designated as too tainted to keep their jobs are still being worked on, although they would likely be based more on complicity with the human rights and weapons abuses of the Hussein government than corruption, officials said. A large number of current officials would be retained. Although some of the broad strokes of U.S. plans for a post-Hussein Iraq have previously been reported, newly finalized elements include the extent of U.S. control and the plan to appoint a nonmilitary civil administrator. Officials cautioned that developments in Iraq could lead them to revise the plan on the run. Yet to be decided is "at what point and for what purpose" a multinational administration, perhaps run by the United Nations, would be considered to replace the U.S. civil authority. "We have a load of plans that could be carried out by an international group, a coalition group, or by us and a few others," one senior U.S. official. President Bush, the official said, doesn't want to close options until the participants in a military action are known and the actual postwar situation in Iraq becomes clear. The administration has been under strong pressure to demonstrate that it has a detailed program to deal with what is expected to be a chaotic and dangerous situation if Hussein is removed. The White House plans to brief Congress and reporters on more details of the plan next week.

 

No definitive price tag or time limit has been put on the plan, and officials stressed that much remains unknown about the length of a potential conflict, how much destruction would result, and "how deep" the corruption of the Iraqi government goes. The administration has declined to estimate how long U.S. forces would remain in Iraq. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman told Congress last week that it might be two years before the Iraqis regained administrative control of their country. But "they're terrified of being caught in a time frame," said retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, one of a number of senior military and civilian experts who have been briefed by the Pentagon on the plan. "My own view is that it will take five years, with substantial military power, to establish and exploit the peace" in Iraq.

 

Although more than 180,000 U.S. troops are on the ground in the Persian Gulf region, U.S. officials continued to emphasize that President Bush still has not made a final decision on whether to go to war. Negotiations at the United Nations, where Bush is seeking a new Security Council resolution declaring that Hussein has violated U.N. disarmament demands and authorizing that he be disarmed by a U.N. multinational force, are at a delicate stage. A majority of the council's 15 members have said they believe a decision on war should be delayed while U.N. weapons inspections, launched in November, continue. Bush has said that, if necessary, the U.S. military and a "coalition of the willing" will disarm Iraq without U.N. approval. The administration also is continuing discussions with Arab governments about the possibilities of exile for Hussein and several dozen of his family members and top officials. Sources said, however, that even if Hussein and a small group of others were to leave, uncertainties about who would remain in charge, the need to destroy weapons of mass destruction, and concerns about establishing long-term stability would likely lead to the insertion of U.S. troops there in any case.

 

Among the other parts of the post-Hussein plan:

 

Iraqi military forces would be gathered in prisoner-of-war camps, with opposition members now receiving U.S. training at an air base in Hungary serving as part of the guard force. The Iraqi troops would be vetted by U.S. forces under Franks's command, and those who were cleared, beginning with those who "stood down or switched sides" during a U.S. assault, would receive U.S. training to serve in what one official called a "post-stabilization" force. U.S. forces would secure any weapons of mass destruction that were found, including biological and chemical weapons stores. "At an appropriate time," an official said, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, who are conducting U.N.-mandated weapons inspections in Iraq, might be brought in to examine weaponry, scientists and documentation. In addition to the consultative council, an Iraqi commission would be formed to reestablish a judicial system. An additional commission would write a new constitution, although officials emphasized that they would not expect to "democratize" Iraq along the lines of the U.S. governing system. Instead, they speak of a "representative Iraqi government."

 

Officials said the decision to install U.S. military and civilian administrations for an indeterminate time stems from lessons learned in Afghanistan, where power has been diffused among U.S. military forces still waging war against the remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda, a multinational security force of several thousand troops in which the United States does not participate, and the interim government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The administration is particularly keen on averting interference by other regional powers, and cites the "ability of people like the Iranians and others to go in with money and create warlords" sympathetic to their own interests, one official said. "We don't want a weak federal government that plays into the hands of regional powers" and allows Iraq to be divided into de facto spheres of influence. "We don't want the Iranians to be paying the Shiites, the Turks the Turkmen and the Saudis the Sunnis," the official, referring to some of the main groups among dozens of Iraqi tribes and ethnic and religious groups.

 

A similar anxiety led to the decision to prohibit the Iraqi opposition based outside the country from forming a provisional government. The chief proponent of that idea, Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, was informed this week that any move to declare a provisional Iraqi government "would result in a formal break in the U.S.-INC relationship," the official said.

 

 

My thoughts:

 

11:21 am 3/11/03:

I have been watching the news for about 2 hours..I had breakfast and I am still stunned by what I just saw on TV.  An incredible display of Air Power..there has to be civilian causulaties..  Rumsfeld..we are trying to remove a regime that has killed thousands..The most

precision bombing in the history of war as the say.  I can  only imagine the sheer horror that is going into the minds of the people  in Baghdad.  And what shocks me is the USA is doing this without United Nations approval which is IllegaL.  In affect we have become the “Evil” nation..why has American fallen to this level? How many Terrorist have been created over night..all over the world? Why? 

 

 

 

 

 

EVEN BEFORE THE WAR…let travel back in time….

 

 

 

February 27, 2003

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

 

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who

has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to

Yerevan.

 

Dear Mr. Secretary:

 

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

 

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department  would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

 

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with

American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

 

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratically. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

 

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead. We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

 

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

 

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

 

 

My THOUGHTS: 

 

     This letter was remarkable to read for me this man has a lot of courage to say the things he says.  It shows how the Bush administration has become more and more isolated even at home.

 

 

 

 

 

FAILED or FAKE DIPLOMOCACY:

 

 

My thoughts: 

 

     I never thought Bush wanted peace in this conflict.  It seems he was pushing for this war and looking for any excuse.  That is why the  ANTI-War Movement was pushing ahead. I always thought to My self, “Nothing is gong to stop this war”! NOTHING!

 

 

FORGED:

 

Senator Wants Fake Iraq Documents Probed

Fri Mar 14, 6:26 PM ET

 

By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the FBI (news - web sites) on Friday to investigate forged documents the Bush administration used as evidence against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his military ambitions in Iraq (news - web sites).

 

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said he was uneasy about a possible campaign to deceive the public about the status of Iraq's nuclear program.

An investigation should "at a minimum help to allay any concerns" that the government was involved in the creation of the documents to build support for administration policies, Rockefeller wrote in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.  Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) has denied the U.S. government had any hand in creating the false documents. "It came from other sources," Powell told a House committee Thursday. "We were aware of this piece of evidence, and it was provided in good faith to the inspectors."  Rockefeller asked the FBI to determine the source of the documents, the sophistication of the forgeries, the motivation of those responsible, why intelligence agencies didn't recognize them as forgeries and whether they are part of a larger disinformation campaign.  The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.  Sarah Ross, a spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts, said the committee will look into the forgery, but Roberts believes it is inappropriate for the FBI to investigate at this point. The documents indicated that Iraq tried to by uranium from Niger, the West African nation that is the third-largest producer of mined uranium, Niger's largest export. The documents had been provided to U.S. officials by a third country, which has not been identified.  A U.S. government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it was unclear who first created the documents. The official said American suspicions remain about an Iraq-Niger uranium connection because of other, still-credible evidence that the official refused to specify.  In December, the State Department used the information to support its case that Iraq was lying about its weapons programs. But on March 7, Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were forgeries.  Rockefeller said U.S. worries about Iraqi nuclear weapons were not based primarily on the documents, but "there is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq."

At a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing Thursday, Powell said the State Department had not participated "any way in any falsification."  Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin, the committee's top Democrat, noted a Washington Post report that said a foreign government might have been conducting a deception campaign to win support for military action against Iraq. When Obey asked Powell if he could say which country that was, Powell replied, "I can't with confidence." The Niger documents marked the second time that ElBaradei has challenged evidence presented by the United States meant to illustrate Iraq's nuclear weapons program. He also rejected the U.S. position that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended to make nuclear bombs.  ElBaradei has said his inspectors have found no evidence that Saddam has revived its nuclear weapons program.

 

 

 

LETS TRAVEL BACK IN TIME…some more..

 

Iraq resolution introduced in Senate

Bush hails 'unity'; debate set for Thursday

Thursday, October 3, 2002 Posted: 4:55 AM EDT (0855 GMT)

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite some Democratic divisions, the Senate moved closer Wednesday to sanctioning war with Iraq with the introduction of a bipartisan resolution that gives President Bush the authority to commit U.S. troops.  In a Rose Garden appearance with lawmakers who support his plan, Bush hailed the resolution as a show of "unity" and declared that war with Iraq "may be unavoidable."  The Senate resolution mirrors one that House leaders and Bush administration officials agreed to earlier in the day. It would limit the use of the U.S. military force to Iraq and any "current ongoing threats" it poses, and allow Bush to use American troops to force Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions on disarmament. The congressional resolution would not tie U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.  The resolution was introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle -- who has clashed with Bush over Iraq -- was noticeably absent from the initial floor proceedings and the Rose Garden news conference.  Some Democrats -- and a few Republicans -- remain uneasy with the prospect of authorizing war without more international support for such a move, but the momentum for a resolution was clearly in the White House's favor.  Formal debate on the resolution in the Democratic-controlled Senate was expected to begin Thursday. The House International Relations Committee was to begin its work on the resolution later Wednesday with debate in that GOP-controlled chamber to follow next week.  Lieberman introduced the resolution in the Senate with Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, and John Warner, R-Virginia. The men joined Bush at the later Rose Garden event.  "The text of our bipartisan resolution is clear and it is strong," Bush said. "The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the Untied States. In Baghdad, the regime will know that full compliance with all U.N. security demands is the only choice -- and the time remaining for that choice is limited."

Declared Lieberman, who is mulling a run for the White House in 2004: "The moment of truth has arrived for Saddam Hussein."  The agreement came after the White House agreed to a number of concessions in its initial proposal for broad authority to use military force. Some Democrats in the Senate want the administration to go further, but Bush largely got what he wanted.  Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the House agreement with the administration had undercut efforts for further negotiations in the Senate, as well as those at the United Nations. The Delaware Democrat said it was "probably too late" to change the resolution significantly.

Amendments, however, were expected to be introduced to the Senate resolution in an effort to narrow how the administration could use military force against Iraq.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, introduced the bipartisan resolution in the Senate.  "I'm sure the argument will be why are we nit-picking, but what I want to do at a minimum in the debate is lay out what I understand what the president's committing to do," Biden said.  House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said the resolution moves "us in the right direction," but he conceded that differences remain among Democrats about Iraq.  "Everybody needs to decide this on their own, what their conscience dictates, what their hearts and minds tell them to do," Gephardt said.  The bipartisan resolution includes language:  Supporting the president's effort to get a new resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council.  Limiting the use of U.S. military force against Iraq, and the scope of any military operation to dealing with "current ongoing threats posed by Iraq" and to forcing compliance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions  Requiring Bush to make a determination to Congress prior to ordering military action that further diplomacy will not succeed in bringing Iraq into compliance  Requiring Bush to make a determination that using military force against Iraq is consistent with and will not detract from the ongoing effort to take action against terrorists and terrorist organizations  Requiring regular consulting and reporting to the Congress.  Requiring the White House, consistent with the War Powers Act, to report to Congress every 60 days on military operations and planning for "post-military" operations including any plans for peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Following the introduction of the resolution in the Senate, Daschle released a statement saying it contained "improvements over the initial proposal" submitted by the White House. But he said more modifications were needed, including "a clearer assessment of the administration's plans for the political and economic reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq."  Still, Daschle predicted the Senate would adopt a resolution with "broad bipartisan support."  Meanwhile, Wednesday morning, two congressmen -- just returned from a controversial visit to Baghdad -- held a news conference and defended their trip, which had drawn harsh criticism. "We went to Iraq because we care what happens to Americans -- what happens to American soldiers, what happens to American people," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington.  While in Iraq, Reps. David Bonior, D-Michigan, and McDermott urged Bush to allow the U.N. inspections to resume first and see that process through. (Full story)  Earlier this week, McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, said the key issue is where the congressmen made their comments.  "Look, if Congressman McDermott and Congressman Bonior wanted to go to the floor of the House and question the president's credibility, go right ahead and do it," McCain said. "Don't go to Baghdad and do it." (Full story)  Despite an agreement between United Nations and Iraqi officials, the United States said Tuesday it will oppose the return of U.N. inspectors for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq without a new mandate from the U.N. Security Council. (Full story)  Iraq has denied possessing weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological or nuclear.

 

 

My Thoughts:

 

Is there a Zionist/Jewish/Israeli Conspiracy?

 

            Many people have quietly raised the idea of a Jewish conspiracy urging Bush to fight a war with Iraq.  It is very obvious that not every Jew supports the war and many of the most adamant Anti-War proponents are Jewish.  I know many Jewish people who oppose this war.   So where does even the idea start from?   It appears the Jewish conspiracy theory is the result of a few very right wing prominent pro-zionist members of the Bush administration that have pushed for a war with Iraq for many years.  They have in effect hijacked a religion and used the Israel in the regard.  It appears much that this war is just a proxy war for Israel.   I think it is important that anti-war Jewish people let there voices be heard and not let these few ultra-conservatives dictate the religion as a whole.  However, it has to be made clear that there are many Israelis/Jews that support this war and many that oppose, so jumping out to a large great conspiracy theory may be over doing it. But there still remains a question in the air about the role of Israel in this war and many articles ask the same question and raise the issue….

 

US Media Airs Alleged

Zionist Role In Iraq War

By Jonathan Wright

3-14-3

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With an invasion of Iraq looming, some critics of the war have revived allegations the U.S. campaign is the brainchild of Jewish neoconservatives who promoted the idea in the 1990s and assumed positions of power when the Bush administration took office in 2001.

 

Rep. James Moran, a Virginia Democrat, brought down a torrent of opprobrium on his head this month when he said the United States would not be planning an invasion of Iraq "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community."

 

"The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should," a newspaper quoted him as saying.

 

The White House condemned his remark as "shocking," as did congressional leaders of both parties. Moran later apologized.

 

Rep. Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican, asked Secretary of State Colin Powell directly on Thursday whether there was any truth to the claim that supporters of Israel or any other group were conspiring to influence U.S. policy.

 

"It (policy on Iraq) is not driven by any small cabal that is buried away somewhere that is telling President Bush ... what our policies should be," Powell replied, speaking to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

 

The Washington Post, which has been mostly supportive of the Bush administration on Iraq, took up the attack on Moran on Wednesday, saying it was "demonstrably wrong" that Bush's Iraq policy is motivated primarily by the desire to protect Israel.

 

"The argument moves from merely wrong to patently offensive when it attributes to Jews or 'the Jewish community' a single view and a nefarious influence," it added.

 

AIRING IN EDITORIAL PAGES

 

The two big East Coast newspapers, the Post and The New York Times, have given the conspiracy theory some airing on their op-ed pages, if only to try to quash it.

 

"How the Bush administration has arrived at the brink of war with (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein, and to what extent Israeli influence has brought it there, is a legitimate question about which there is ample room for disagreement," Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the Post.

 

Bill Keller, in The New York Times on Sunday, said the theory deserved some attention because the idea that the war was about Israel was "more widely held than you may think" and because it has "sprouted from a seed of truth."

 

The alleged seed of truth is that several key second-tier officials in the Bush administration are Jewish neoconservatives who have advocated overthrowing Saddam Hussein to enhance the security of Israel.

 

The group is said to include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, National Security Council Middle East official Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

 

Some of their allies are former members or advisers to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a Washington organization which argues that the security of the United States and Israel is inextricably intertwined, or to the like-minded Center for Security Policy.

 

That group includes Cheney, Feith, Perle and Under Secretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky.

 

Feith put the case in public last month when he told a Senate committee that democracy in Iraq could help bring to power the kind of Palestinians Israel wants to talk to.

 

The most prominent U.S. politician accusing them of foisting the war on Bush for Israel's sake is former Reform Party presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, an isolationist opposed to foreign adventures by the United States.

 

Buchanan, writing in the American Conservative this week, said: "The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for.

 

"Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are ... claiming the status of a persecuted minority group."

 

Keller said the element of truth was that the interests of Israel and the United States coincide in the case of Iraq.

 

"(That) does not mean that a Zionist fifth column has hijacked the president's brain. ... Making the world safer for us -- defusing terrorism and beginning to reform a region that is a source of toxic hostility to what we stand for -- happens to make the world safer for Israel as well," he said.

 

The public debate so far has been mainly over whether it is anti-Semitic even to suggest that the neoconservatives may have a dual loyalty to Israel and to the United States, not so much over whether the allegation might be true.

 

Kaplan said that, although the debate was legitimate, the accusation of impaired loyalty was beyond the pale.

 

"Invoking the specter of dual loyalty ... amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity?" he wrote.

 

Buchanan, who said before the 1991 Gulf War that the only groups beating the drums for war in the Middle East were "the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States," is undeterred.

 

"Those hurling these charges (of anti-Semitism) harbor a 'passionate attachment' to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America," he wrote.

 

Conservative Christians Biggest Backers of Iraq War

by Jim Lobe

 

WASHINGTON - Of the major religious groups in the United States, evangelical Christians are the biggest backers of Israel and Washington's planned war against Iraq, says a new survey released here Wednesday by a politically potent group of fundamentalist Christians and Jews.

 

Some 69 percent of conservative Christians favor military action against Baghdad; 10 percentage points more than the U.S. adult population as a whole.

 

And almost two-thirds of evangelical Christians say they support Israeli actions towards ''Palestinian terrorism'', compared with 54 percent of the general population, according to the survey, which was released by Stand For Israel, a six-month-old spin-off of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ).

 

''The single strongest group for Israel in the United States, apart from Jews, is conservative Christians,'' declared Ralph Reed, co-chairman of Stand for Israel and former executive director of the Christian Coalition. He also noted that 80 percent of self-identified Republicans also favor military action against Baghdad.

 

Reed, who was widely regarded as the wunderkind of the Christian Right during the 1990s, said the poll results might have important political implications in upcoming U.S. elections, particularly for the Jewish vote, which has traditionally gone overwhelmingly to Democrats. In 2000, for example, only 18 percent of Jewish voters cast ballots for President George W. Bush.

 

''There is a new openness among Jewish voters to support this president and other Republicans who strongly support Israel,'' Reed said, adding that he believes Bush in 2004 may reap close to the 38 percent of the Jewish vote harvested by Ronald Reagan in 1984, the highest percentage ever received by a Republican presidential candidate.

 

Some 81 percent of Jewish respondents said they see Bush as a strong supporter of Israel, and 46 percent said they were more likely to vote for him based on his handling of the ''war on terrorism''. The poll also found that two-thirds of Republicans said they supported Israel in the current conflict, compared to 46 percent of Democrats.

 

''The bottom line is that Bush appears to be making some significant inroads with this heavily Democratic group, something that could have an impact on the next two election cycles,'' said Ed Goeas, head of the Tarrance Group, which carried out the poll.

 

The survey, which included 1,200 respondents contacted last week, tends to confirm the findings of similar polls over the last several years that have shown strong support for Israel on the part of evangelical Christians, who together make up about one third of the U.S. adult population.

 

Historically apolitical, the group first came to the attention of the political elite in 1976 when large numbers of them helped elect Jimmy Carter, a ''born-again'' Christian. Disillusioned by Carter's liberal politics and social attitudes, they became a major recruiting ground for the ''New Right'' that in turn paved the way for the election in 1980 of former president Ronald Reagan.

 

At the same time, Christian fundamentalists were also avidly courted by the right-wing Likud government in Israel, which saw in them a promising new constituency that, for theological reasons, could be persuaded to oppose the return of Jerusalem and the West Bank to Arab rule.

 

In 1979, the government of Israel reportedly gave Jerry Falwell, head of the ''Moral Majority'' and the leading Christian Right figure of the time, his first private jet.

 

The Israeli government has also arranged special tours for evangelical Christian groups that have contributed tens of millions of dollars to Jewish and Israeli agencies involved in resettling Jews to Israel and in building Israeli settlements on the occupied territories.

 

With offices in Chicago and Jerusalem, the IFCJ has acted as a key forum for promoting the relationship between conservative U.S. Jews and evangelical Christians since 1983. As violence between Israelis and Palestinians intensified last spring, the group created ''Stand for Israel'', which it called ''an effort to strategically mobilize leadership and grassroots support in the Christian community for the State of Israel''.

 

''Jews are only now beginning to understand the depth of support they have among conservative Christians,'' said IFCJ's founder-director and Stand for Israel co-chairman, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, at the time.

 

''Once the potential of this immense reservoir of good will is fully comprehended by the Jewish people and strategically tapped by the Stand for Israel campaign, you will see support for Israel in the United States swell dramatically.''

 

The new survey's results appear to bear out that prediction, at least in part. Two thirds of conservative Christians queried in the poll said that they believed they shared the same or similar perspective as Jews when it comes to the issue of ''Israel and its current struggle against Palestine''.

 

Reed and Eckstein also claimed that the survey effectively debunked the notion that evangelical Christian support for Israel was based on New Testament prophecy that the reconstruction of the ancient Jewish kingdom of David would usher in the ''end times'' and the second coming of Christ.

 

Asked which was the most important of four possible reasons why they supported Israel, 56 percent of fundamentalist Christian respondents chose political reasons, particularly Israel's democratic values, its alliance with the United States in the war against terrorism, and its role as a safe haven for persecuted Jews elsewhere. Thirty-five percent opted for the ''end-times'' option.

 

But when given a choice of four religious alternatives, only 28 percent cited the end-times alternative. Almost two thirds said that God had given the Jews the land of Israel as the main theological reason for backing the Jewish state.

 

''This survey bears out my view that Christians are trustworthy and vital allies,'' said Eckstein. ''I've seen more positive changes (in Jewish and conservative Christian relations) in the past six months than I have for the past 25 years,'' he added.

 

Along with announcing the survey results, Eckstein, who co-chairs Stand for Israel with Reed, unveiled a one-minute video which will be run in ''tens of thousands'' of churches with combined memberships of 3.2 million people on Sunday, Oct. 20, exhorting Christians to pray for Israel whose enemies, it says, ''are on the attack again''.

 

''God has promised that those who bless Israel will themselves be blessed,'' says the video, which is filled with recent images of violence in Israel and the West Bank.

 

Reed conceded that not all conservative Christians were as supportive of Israel as those involved in the ''Stand for Israel'' campaign.

 

Indeed, some 50 evangelical ministers recently issued a statement opposing unilateral military action against Iraq, and at least one national evangelical group has urged a more-balanced policy toward Israel and the Palestinians. But Reed insisted that his views represented those of a ''very, very large majority'' of evangelical Christians.

 

 

How Israel Is Wrapped Up in Iraq

Joe Klein

contends that a stronger Israel is very much embedded in the

rationale for war with Iraq

 

Wednesday, Feb. 05, 2003

In his State of the Union message, President Bush devoted only a single, lapidary sentence to the most nagging of all foreign policy dilemmas: "In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine." This was both appropriate and misleading. It was appropriate because the Bush Administration hasn't done very much to bring about peace in the Middle East; in fact, it has allowed a bad situation to grow worse. And it was misleading because a stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community.

 

The fantasy involves a domino theory. The destruction of Saddam's Iraq will not only remove an enemy of long-standing but will also change the basic power equation in the region. It will send a message to Syria and Iran about the perils of support for Islamic terrorists. It will send a message to the Palestinians too: Democratize and make peace on Israeli terms, or forget about a state of your own. In the wackiest scenario, it will lead to the collapse of the wobbly Hashemite monarchy in Jordan and the establishment of a Palestinian state on that nation's East Bank. No one in the government ever actually says these things publicly (although some American Jewish leaders do). Usually, the dream is expressed in the mildest possible terms: "I have high hopes that the removal of Saddam will strengthen our democratic allies in the region," Senator Joe Lieberman told me last week. He may be right. But there is also a chance that the exact opposite will happen, that war will nourish the Arab mirror fantasy: the fantasy of martyrdom, and a continuing romantic struggle that will only end when "Zionists and Crusaders" are once more expelled from the Holy Land.

 

In service of the neoconservative fantasy — and of the Likud government, which was handily re-elected last week — the Bush Administration has been dangerously out of touch in the Middle East. The standard term of art for what America should be doing is "engagement," a euphemism suggesting that we twist Ariel Sharon's arm. But effective diplomacy entails the twisting of all available arms, and Lieberman faults the White House for not pressuring the fatuous Europeans and deceitful Arabs "to get the Palestinian leadership to stop the terror." Indeed, the Middle East mess starts with the Arabs, with their state-fed spew of anti-Jewish hatred, with their funding of terrorism, with their unwillingness to recognize Israel's right to exist. Their intransigence has caused the hardening of Israel's heart. There was a moment last year, after the Saudis proposed a peace plan — the return of the occupied territories in return for recognition from the Arabs — when American pressure on the Arabs might have led to real Arab pressure on the Palestinians. But America had to be willing to sit on the Israelis as well, and the Bush Administration has been quite unwilling to do that.

 

There are moral, ideological and political arguments for Bush's reluctance to "engage." The moral argument is simple, strong and simplistic: Yasser Arafat is an evildoer who has never intended to make peace. He winks at terrorism; he tries to purchase arms from the Iranians. He flirts with peace, then flees. The ideological argument has the subtlety of a punch in the nose: it is based in the Sharon-Likud conceit that Arabs "only understand" strength. This has a certain resonance with tough guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney. America's Likudnik tilt has empowered the Sharon government to preside over a dramatic increase in illegal — that is, unapproved — West Bank settlements: 70 new outposts in Palestinian areas, many of them tended by religious extremists. Palestinians regard these settlements about the same way as Israelis do suicide bombers. As for the political argument, well, it's ... Florida. Specifically, Palm Beach County, where the Karl Roveian hope is that all those perplexed elderly Jewish Pat Buchanan voters will butterfly over to the Republican column in 2004. "The President's policy has earned him wide respect in the Jewish community," a religious leader told me.

 

The maddening thing is, the outlines of a Middle East peace are obvious: Israelis abandon most of the settlements; Palestinians abandon the right of return. A neighborhood in East Jerusalem is declared the capital of Palestine; the religious sites are put under international jurisdiction. Vast majorities of Jews and Arabs support this deal. The notion that war will somehow speed along a better one assumes the Palestinians will somehow change their minds about real statehood. They won't. The only other alternative for Israel is more of the same: more violence, a collapsing economy, a larger and ever more vehement Arab population. George W. Bush should make that clear before he takes another step toward war.

 

The key to seeing the level of the Israeli lobby's influence on the George Walker Bush (Bush Jr) Administration is watching the appointments of the following Israelis and pro-Israel Jewish advisors to posts in the White House or other Executive Branch Positions. It is the war-mongering of many of these pro-Israeli advisors that is driving all the hype of wanting to go to war against Iraq. The Israeli lobby wants the United States to do Israel's dirty work by fighting its proxy war against Iraq. The reality of the situation is that no one in Washington, whether in the Pentagon (top military brass, joint chiefs, etc) or in Congress, wants this Israeli proxy war against Iraq. Only those connected to the Israeli lobby want this war. It is very important to know the identity of these pro-Israeli officials within the administration in order to understand who is behind this war-mongering and realizing that is serving Israeli interests, not American interests.

 

 

This Zionist network, which includes Richard Perle and David Wolfowitz, pressed

Bill Clinton to invade Iraq in 1998

 

1). Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy

advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's

Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli

government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator

Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the

National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing

Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to

the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the

Israeli weapons firm, Soltam.

 

2). Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and

member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the

Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle,

and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli

military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is

the number two leader within the administration

behind this Iraq war mongering.

 

 

3). Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and

Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close

associate of Perle and served as his Special

Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a

pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab

policies in the past. He is closely associated with

the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of

America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree

with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at

ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith

and Zell, which only has one International office,

in Israel. The majority of their legal work is

representing Israeli interests. His firm's own

website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith

"represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith

basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith,

like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for

this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

 

 

 

Moran steps down from leadership post

Lawmaker under fire for saying Jews push war with Iraq

Friday, March 14, 2003 Posted: 3:58 PM EST (2058 GMT)

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Harshly criticized for saying pressure from the Jewish community was driving the push toward a possible war against Iraq, Rep. James Moran stepped down Friday as a House Democratic regional whip.  House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California issued a statement indicating she left Moran, D-Virginia, with little choice but to give up his leadership post.  "I have taken this action because Congressman Moran's irresponsible remarks were a serious mistake," Pelosi said in a statement. "As I said earlier this week, his comments were not only inappropriate, they were offensive and have no place in the Democratic Party."  Moran has been under fire since March 3, when he said at an antiwar forum that Jewish leaders were pushing a war with Iraq.  "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," he said at the forum in Reston, Virginia. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."  The comments drew condemnation from the White House, Jewish leaders, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.  He has since apologized repeatedly for the remarks, saying he should not have singled out any one group.  "What I was trying to say is that if more organizations in this country, including religious groups, were more outspoken against a war, then I do not think we would be pursuing war as an option," he said in a statement posted on his congressional Web site.  But his initial apologies did little to assuage anger over the comments, and the loss of his leadership post reflects pressure that Democrats have been under to take some steps against Moran.  "I stepped down from my leadership position today as a way to demonstrate acceptance of my responsibility for insensitive remarks I recently made," Moran said in a statement Friday. "I will continue to reach out to the Jewish community and others who were offended by my remarks."  The controversy over Moran's remarks has been compared by some to the firestorm generated when Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi appeared to express nostalgia for segregation during a December birthday party for former Sen. Strom Thurmond. Under pressure, Lott stepped down as Senate majority leader, but he remains in the Senate.  On Wednesday, a number of Jewish House Democrats urged Moran not to seek re-election in the wake of his comments. In Virginia, several local Democrats have already expressed interest in challenging Moran for re-election. The leader of the Jewish Community Council of Washington said Moran should consider resigning. Moran, 57, has said he will not give up his seat.  "I will strive to learn from my mistakes and listen to the concerns of my constituents," Moran said in his statement Friday.  The Anti-Defamation League was also among those that condemned Moran's comments.  "This is one voice in the chorus spreading a new lie, the age-old anti-Semitic canard that when our country faces danger, Jews are responsible," it said.  "As we move closer to an invasion with Iraq, the drumbeat of 'blame the Jews' -- meaning Jews in the administration, the 'Jewish lobby' and the Jewish community -- is intensifying and multiplying.  "Congressman Moran's remarks are symptomatic of a more serious problem -- that in times of crisis and anxiety, Jews continue to be a convenient and tempting option for scapegoating."

 

 

 

My thoughts:

 

      It is clear that there many right wing Zionist in the bush administration are pushing for a war.  However, clearly there are many Jews against this war.  However, it appears the Bush administration is exploiting these Zionist for their own war plans: to use them as the blame.  The plan is w0rking as many people believe now that the war is just a war to protect Israel and to expand the Israeli state.  It is important for people to realize the great divide within the Jewish community as a whole.  In the end, theory’s will be discussed and the more the war drags on the more theories will be presented.  Like Oil…..and many others…it is important not to play the blame game and blame one group..when the views of a few does not represent the entire group.   But with the Palestinians on going suffering the zionist theory will be very popular. 

 

 

My thoughts:

 

      With Anti-American feeling at an all time hight in the middle east the President decided to speak about a peace plan in the HolY Land. For a president that has totally ignorded the issue this was an obviously “timed” with the Iraq:

 

 

 

 

Bush Ties Palestinian State to New PM

Fri Mar 14, 6:29 PM ET

 

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

 

WASHINGTON - At odds with most Arab countries over war with Iraq (news - web sites), President Bush (news - web sites) said Friday he would endorse a path toward Palestinian statehood immediately after the confirmation of a Palestinian prime minister.  European leaders praised Bush's move. Palestinian officials said pressure on Israel was required, not further discussion of a so-called "road map" to settlement.  British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) linked the timing of Bush's White House announcement to the movement toward war with Iraq. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who is opposed to any war, lined up behind Bush and said his statement was "identical to the European and German position."  The French Foreign Ministry called Bush's initiative "an important step" that could resolve a conflict "in which two peoples are tearing each other apart."  Speaking in the Rose Garden, Bush said he would give the "road map" to Israel and the Palestinians after Mahmoud Abbas, known also as Abu Mazen, has been confirmed as prime minister, which is expected in about a week.  "Once this road map is delivered, we will expect and welcome contributions from Israel and the Palestinians to this document that will advance true peace," Bush said. "We will urge them to discuss the road map with one another."  Elements of the Bush plan, known widely for nearly a year, would establish a Palestinian state before the end of 2005 on land held by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War.   Bush had conditioned U.S. support for a Palestinian state on removal of Yasser Arafat (news - web sites), symbol of the Palestinian statehood movement for four decades and currently head of the Palestinian Authority (news - web sites). Bush's statement indicated Friday that Abbas' appointment would satisfy U.S. objections to Arafat, provided the prime minister assumes authority over security and over negotiations with Israel.  Still, Arafat seemed to remain in charge, with the final say in those two areas. The new prime minister is to run day-to-day Palestinian affairs. Blair accorded Arafat the respect of a leader, telephoning him. Arafat asked the prime minister to "exert pressure on Israel." Other Palestinian officials were skeptical that Bush had moved the process forward. "I thought we had finished the comment phase last November," Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said. Palestinian parliament speaker Ahmed Qureia said the Palestinians already accepted the "road map." "What is needed now is to immediately unveil the road map and pressure the Israeli government to accept it without any amendments in order to begin implementing it immediately," Qureia said. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) has ruled out negotiations while Palestinian terror attacks continue. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told a House subcommittee Thursday the attacks were hampering U.S. mediation efforts. From the outset, Bush has shunned contact with Arafat, and that appears not to have been changed. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Friday, "We have no interest in talking to Arafat." On the other hand, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), Bush's chief national security adviser, said, "There would be nothing better, at some point in time when it is appropriate, for a Palestinian prime minister to visit the White House." "But the timing will be important, and we will be in touch with them about this," she told al-Jazeera, the Arab television station based in Qatar. With his announcement, Bush was responding to European as well as Arab complaints of inaction as he declared Israel could not have peace without giving way to a Palestinian state. "There can be no peace for either side in the Middle East unless there is freedom for both," he said. "The time has come to move beyond entrenched positions, and to take concrete actions to achieve peace." In London, Blair said, "I think it is precisely now, when we do have all this focus on the issue of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam and all the things that he has done, ... that we say to the Arab and Muslim world, we accept the obligation of evenhandedness" between Israel and the Palestinians, Blair said. King Abdullah II of Jordan welcomed Bush's statement. He called for a fair settlement that would guarantee full Arab rights. Many Arab and European governments insist that terror attacks against the United States are rooted largely in Palestinian frustration. The Bush administration has not made such a link in effectively declaring war on al-Qaida and other terror groups. Still, Bush seized on the creation of a prime minister's post as a springboard for stepping up U.S. mediation, with the help of the United Nations (news - web sites), the European Union (news - web sites) and Russia. Rice lobbied with the Arab media and American Jewish leaders for support. "We expect that it will be a prime ministership that has real authority," she said. "That's a step forward." Rabbi Jerome Epstein of New York, one of about two-dozen American Jews called in to meet with Rice, said afterward that "people there were interested in pushing that the security of Israel would be protected." Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, said there also was "concern about Iraq, not only in terms of Israel, but people are concerned about the proposition of war." Amy Friedkin and Howard Kohr, president and executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading pro-Israel lobby group, said in a statement that they welcomed "President Bush's consistent support for a peace process predicated on proven, effective Palestinian leadership."

 

 

My thoughts:

 

     Speaking out against the policies of this administration’s policies about Iraq was concided political sucide especaly aftery 9-11.  However w3e are very lucky to have Byrd and Jimmy Carter.

 

 

 

Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12,

2003

by US Senator Robert Byrd

 

 

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defame a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq . What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his mforces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan , the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan . Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq . In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq 's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel ? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq ? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our mattack on Iraq , it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq . Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

 

 

Just War  or a Just War?

 

By JIMMY CARTER

 

ATLANTA . Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises. As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

 

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

 

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options ^× previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations ^× were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment. The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes. Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing. The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern. The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace. What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in ourcountry to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions with war as a final option will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

 

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the

Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

 

 

MY THOUGHTS:

 

I would like to thank Jimmy carter and Byrd for there courage on this…

lEt also not forget the Iraqi people….

I just hope more and more people have the courage to challenge this administration….

 

 

 

Here is map to think about:

 

 

 

 

 

Lets not forget: 

THE SUFFERING OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE:

 

 

My thoughts:

 

     It is now MARCH 22ND 2003, With the war now in full swing..THE Bombing of the Baghdad has begun.  While it all looks like a vidwo game on TV..there are real people suffering from this.  Lets take a look at the facts from last gulf war:

 

 

7 Years of Investigation, 12 Years of Lethal Siege

 

 

The American British Air bombardment during the Golf War continues for

42 days

 

During the war, Iraq was exposed for

940 thousand uranium missiles

 

Number of tank missiles, Iraq was exposed for during the war

14

 

During the war, Iraq was exposed for

88 thousand of bombs

 

This equals about 7 folds of the destructive power. That swashed Hiroshima and Nagasaki cities. After being bombed with the American nuclear bombs, at the end of 2nd world war.

 

Uranium missiles equal

350 tons of consumed Uranium

 

Killed during this air force attack

100- 200 thousand Iraq citizens

 

Injured during this air force attack

300- 700 thousand Iraq citizens

 

During the incursions , USA bombed America refuge and killed

400 civilians

 

During the incursions , USA bombed America refuge and injured

1500 civilians

 

Because of the punishments , day after day killed

106 million Iraq citizens

 

Deads / day

Average 250 Iraq / day

 

Among every eight children , a child dies before the age of five

 

The percentage of children with cancer increased

5 folds

 

Percentage of anemic pregnant women

70 %

 

Cities’ inhabitant who have water supplies convenient for human consumption

50 %

 

Rural inhabitant who have water supplies convenient for human consumption

33 %

 

Among every four Iraqi children, one leaves school because of poverty and in capability to keep up with studying needs.

 

Children died because of punishment during the last decade

500 thousand children

 

Among every 1000 newborn , 56 died during the period

1984 - 1989

 

Among every 1000 newborn , 131 died during the period

1994 - 1999

 

The percentage of malnutrition between 1991 and 1996 increased

From 12 % to 23 %

 

Cancer cases increased from 6555 case in 1989 to 10931 case in 1991.

 

 

 

 

 

AND WHAT IS TO COME:

 

 

How Many Dead Iraqis?

Guessing about collateral damage.

By Fred Kaplan

Posted Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 3:23 PM PT

 

 

How many Iraqi civilians will die in Gulf War II? It's one of the most disturbing questions going into this battle, the question that fills doves with passion and hawks with doubt^×so a few activists and analysts have tried to develop an answer. The most widely circulated one comes from a confidential report by a U.N. humanitarian-aid specialist, which was leaked to a group in Cambridge, which in turn published it on the Internet. This report estimates that civilian casualties could total 500,000. Another much-cited public study, by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, cites a figure of up to 100,000. If these calculations were even close to plausible, they would certainly strain many of the rationales for going to war, especially those that involve the liberation and welfare of the Iraqi people. So, it's worth asking: How were these numbers computed? On what assumptions especially about U.S. strategy, tactics, weapons, and targets are they based? There's an old phrase among those who work with computer models: "GIGO," for Garbage In/Garbage Out. Feed a computer silly assumptions; it spits out ridiculous numbers. Not to paint a rosy picture on the devastation wrought by any war, especially this one, which is likely to be fought partly in densely populated cities, but these numbers are textbook cases of GIGO. They're not so much wrong as they are completely useless. The U.N. study, which was written last December (the author has not been revealed, though the document's authenticity has been confirmed), makes the following assumptions about the course of the war: That U.S. and allied bombing will severely damage Iraq's electrical power plants, generators, and distribution networks, which will have a grave effect on the country's electrified water and sanitation systems; That the port of Umm Qasr will be disabled, thus blocking imports of vital supplies; That the country's railroad tracks, bridges, and key roads will be destroyed, disrupting internal travel, trade, and post-war aid. The International Physicians' report makes the same assumption: "The destruction of roads, railways, houses, hospitals, factories, and sewage

plants will create conditions in which the environment is degraded and disease flourishes." These structures and networks were key targets in the 1991 Gulf War; they were bombarded heavily and repeatedly. As a result, according to several independent estimates, about 3,500 Iraqi civilians were killed during the war, and another 110,000 died from the after-effects on the country's health and sanitation system. In a similar vein, the leaked U.N. study calculates that 100,000 civilians will die during the coming war, plus 400,000 after the war. Here's the fallacy, though: In this war, the United States has no intention of attacking power plants, railways, or bridges or not many, anyway. Several news stories (for example, click here) have said as much, but logic makes the same point. First, this time around, the U.S. leadership seems genuinely interested in rebuilding Iraq after the war. It makes no sense, therefore, to bomb these kinds of targets, the repair of which would only make an already-difficult job even more costly and time consuming. Second, and more pertinent, the basic aims of this war are very different from Operation Desert Storm. In 1991, the goal was to push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait and make sure they couldn't reinvade afterward. Bridges, railways, and roads were bombarded in order to cut off those troops in Kuwait and in southern Iraq from command channels and supply lines. Electrical power plants were destroyed in order to "blind" Iraq's politico-military machine. This was necessary to keep Saddam's intelligence officers from detecting the vast movement of U.S. troops and armor just across the border. This movement, which had to remain covert to be effective, allowed the United States to sweep up and around the dug-in Iraqi soldiers, surrounding them from the rear and the flank and thus attacking them from all sides, once the ground war started.

 

The destruction wreaked by this bombing was horrendous, especially since Bush I bugged out right after a cease-fire was reached, helping neither to rebuild the country nor to overthrow Saddam. The point here, though, is that power plants, bridges, and so forth were considered military targets in 1991; they are not or at least not remotely to the same extent in 2003. If these sorts of facilities are not bombed much in the coming war, then the assumptions in the U.N. and International Physicians' report are completely off-base, as are the casualty estimates that go with them. A closer look at those reports' numbers reveals a great deal of looseness, even if their assumptions were pertinent. The U.N. report does not lay out the range of estimates a failing that, given the range of uncertainties in any war, makes the calculations inherently suspect. (How 100,000 civilians are supposed to die in the course of the war, from the bombing alone, is not explained.) However, the International Physicians' report does lay out a range. In Baghdad, it states, civilian deaths caused directly by the war will total between 2,000 and 50,000; wounded will reach 6,000 to 200,000. In Basra, Diyala, Kirkuk, and Mosul, civilian deaths will be between 1,200 and 35,000; wounded, between 3,600 and 120,000.

But these aren't estimates; they're dartboards. A footnote in the report cites a source for these numbers, and it turns out to be an article by Brookings analyst Michael O'Hanlon that appeared in Slate last September. O'Hanlon wrote, "Iraqi troop losses might be expected to be anywhere from 2,000 to 50,000, with civilian casualties in the same relative range," adding, "Even as broad a range as this is based on certain assumptions." O'Hanlon was making the point that it's nearly impossible to predict how many civilians will die; it's based on too many factors that are themselves impossible to predict. The International Physicians, it appears, took O'Hanlon's hand-waving gesture of the task's futility as a precise piece of science. The physicians go on to state that this war will "be much more intense and destructive than in 1991" because of the "new, more deadly weapons" that the United States has "developed in the interim." This makes little sense. To the extent the new U.S. weapons are deadlier, it is because they are far more accurate than those used in '91 and are, therefore, at least theoretically, likely to cause less "collateral damage." There has also been much talk of "directed-energy weapons," which can destroy electronic circuits by zapping them with microwaves. (Think of them as the opposite of "neutron bombs," in that they can destroy property without killing people.)

It is true that heightened precision can have a lulling effect on commanders. In the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, U.S. "smart bombs" had grown so accurate that the commanders dared to drop them on urban targets particular buildings, specific street corners that would have been impossible to hit so precisely, and therefore would have been avoided, in earlier "limited wars." However, some bombs did go astray, as some inevitably do; some targets were imperfectly identified (for example, as a military facility as opposed to what it really was the Chinese Embassy); and, as a result, a few mistakes led to over 1,000 civilian deaths. There is no way to estimate ahead of time even within several orders of magnitude how many civilians, or for that matter how many combatants, will die in this war or in any war. Beth Osborne Daponte is a public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon and a former government demographer who got hounded out of her job by the Bush I administration for attempting to do a post-'91 estimate of Iraq's civilian casualties. She is ignoring all inquiries about how many might die in this next war. As she put it to me, "Multiply an unknown by an unknown, and you get an unknown." However, there are lessons to be learned from the '91 war. The vast majority of the deaths came after the war, as a result of the destruction of the country's infrastructure and electrical network. The best way to minimize casualties is to minimize targeting that network. Bush officials insist they are planning to do just that. If the war comes, they should be held to that standard.

 

Fred Kaplan, the author of The Wizards of Armageddon, writes the "War

Stories" column for Slate.

 

 

Focus: Inside Iraq - The Tragedy of a People Betrayed

Wherever you go in Iraq's southern city of Basra, there is dust. It rolls down the long roads that are the desert's fingers. It gets in your eyes and nose and throat; it swirls in markets and school playgrounds, consuming children kicking a plastic ball; and it carries, according to Dr Jawad Al-Ali, 'the seeds of our death'...

23 February 2003

 

 

Dr Al-Ali is a cancer specialist at Basra's hospital and a member of Britain's Royal College of Physicians. He has a neat moustache and a kindly, furrowed face. His starched white coat, like the collar of his shirt, is frayed.

 

"Before the Gulf War, we had only three or four deaths in a month from cancer," he said. "Now it's 30 to 35 patients dying every month, and that's just in my department. That is a 12-fold increase in cancer mortality. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years' time to begin with, then long afterwards. That's almost half the population.

 

"Most of my own family now have cancer, and we have no history of the disease. We don't know the precise source of the contamination, because we are not allowed to get the equipment to conduct a proper survey, or even test the excess level of radiation in our bodies. We strongly suspect depleted uranium, which was used by the Americans and British in the Gulf War right across the southern battlefields. Whatever the cause, it is like Chernobyl here; the genetic effects are new to us.

 

"The mushrooms grow huge, and the fish in what was once a beautiful river are inedible. Even the grapes in my garden have mutated and can't be eaten."

 

Along the corridor, I met Dr Ginan Ghalib Hassen, a paediatrician. At another time, she might have been described as an effervescent personality; now she, too, has a melancholy expression that does not change; it is the face of Iraq. "This is Ali Raffa Asswadi," she said, stopping to take the hand of a wasted boy I guessed to be about four years old. "He is nine. He has leukaemia. Now we can't treat him. Only some of the drugs are available. We get drugs for two or three weeks, and then they stop when the shipments stop. Unless you continue a course, the treatment is useless. We can't even give blood transfusions, because there are not enough blood bags."

 

Dr Hassen keeps a photo album of the children she is trying to save and those she has been unable to save. "This is Talum Saleh," she said, turning to a photograph of a boy in a blue pullover and with sparkling eyes. "He is five-and-a-half years old. This is a case of Hodgkin's disease. Normally a patient with Hodgkin's can expect to live and the cure can be 95 per cent. But if the drugs are not available, complications set in, and death follows. This boy had a beautiful nature. He died."

 

I said, "As we were walking, I noticed you stop and put your face to the wall." "Yes, I was emotional ... I am a doctor; I am not supposed to cry, but I cry every day, because this is torture. These children could live; they could live and grow up; and when you see your son and daughter in front of you, dying, what happens to you?" I said, "What do you say to those in the West who deny the connection between depleted uranium and the deformities of these children?" "That is not true. How much proof do they want? There is every relation between congenital malformation and depleted uranium. Before 1991, we saw nothing like this at all. If there is no connection, why have these things not happened before? Most of these children have no family history of cancer.

 

"I have studied what happened in Hiroshima. It is almost exactly the same here; we have an increased percentage of congenital malformation, an increase of malignancy, leukaemia, brain tumours: the same."

 

Under the economic embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council, now in its 14th year, Iraq is denied equipment and expertise to decontaminate its battlefields from the 1991 Gulf War.

 

Professor Doug Rokke, the US Army physicist responsible for cleaning up Kuwait, told me: "I am like many people in southern Iraq. I have 5,000 times the recommended level of radiation in my body. Most of my team are now dead.

 

"We face an issue to be confronted by people in the West, those with a sense of right and wrong: first, the decision by the US and Britain to use a weapon of mass destruction: depeleted uranium. When a tank fired its shells, each round carried over 4,500g of solid uranium. What happened in the Gulf was a form of nuclear warfare."

 

In 1991, a United Kingdom Atomic Eneregy Authority document reported that if 8 per cent of the depleted uranium fired in the Gulf War was inhaled, it could cause "500,000 potential deaths". In the promised attack on Iraq, the United States will again use depleted uranium, and so will Britain, regardless of its denials.

 

Professor Rokke says he has watched Iraqi officials pleading with American and British officials to ease the embargo, if only to allow decontaminating and cancer assessment equipment to be imported. "They described the deaths and horrific deformities, and they were rebuffed," he said. "It was pathetic."

 

The United Nations Sanctions Committee in New York, set up by the Security Council to administer the embargo, is dominated by the Americans, who are backed by the British. Washington has vetoed or delayed a range of vital medical equipment, chemotherapy drugs, even pain-killers. (In the jargon of denial, "blocked" equals vetoed, and "on hold" means delayed, or maybe blocked.) In Baghdad, I sat in a clinic as doctors received parents and their children, many of them grey-skinned and bald, some of them dying. After every second or third examination, Dr Lekaa Fasseh Ozeer, the young oncologist, wrote in English: "No drugs available." I asked her to jot down in my notebook a list of drugs the hospital had ordered, but had not received, or had received intermittently. She filled a page.

 

I had been filming in Iraq for my documentary Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq. Back in London, I showed Dr Ozeer's list to Professor Karol Sikora who, as chief of the cancer programme of the World Health Organisation (WHO), wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee]. There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical and other weapons.

 

Nearly all these drugs are available in every British hospital. They are very standard. When I came back from Iraq last year, with a group of experts I drew up a list of 17 drugs deemed essential for cancer treatment. We informed the UN that there was no possibility of converting these drugs into chemical warfare agents. We heard nothing more.

 

"The saddest thing I saw in Iraq was children dying because there was no chemotherapy and no pain control. It seemed crazy they couldn't have morphine, because for everybody with cancer pain, it is the best drug. When I was there, they had a little bottle of aspirin pills to go round 200 patients in pain. They would receive a particular anti-cancer drug, but then get only little bits of drugs here and there, and so you can't have any planning. It's bizarre."

 

I told him that one of the doctors had been especially upset because the UN Sanctions Committee had banned nitrous oxide as "weapons dual use"; yet this was used in caesarean sections to stop bleeding, and perhaps save a mother's life. "I can see no logic to banning that," he said. "I am not an armaments expert, but the amounts used would be so small that, even if you collected all the drugs supply for the whole nation and pooled it, it is difficult to see how you could make any chemical warfare device out of it."

 

Denis Halliday is a courtly Irishman who spent 34 years with the UN, latterly as Assistant Secretary-General. When he resigned in 1998 as the UN's Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq in protest at the effects of the embargo on the civilian population, it was, he wrote, "because the policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple as that ... Five thousand children are dying every month ... I don't want to administer a programme that results in figures like these."

 

Since I met Halliday, I have been struck by the principle behind his carefully chosen, uncompromising words. "I had been instructed," he said, "to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime – Saddam Hussein – is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible."

 

In the UN, Mr Halliday broke a long collective silence. On 13 February, 2000, Hans Von Sponeck, who had succeeded him as Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Baghdad, resigned. Like Halliday, he had been with the UN for more than 30 years. "How long," he asked, "should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?" Two days later, Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Programme in Iraq, another UN agency, resigned, saying that she, too, could no longer tolerate what was being done to the Iraqi people.

 

The resignations were unprecedented. All three were saying the unsayable: that the West was responsible for mass deaths, estimated by Halliday to be more than a million. While food and medicines are technically exempt, the Sanctions Committee has frequently vetoed and delayed requests for baby food, agricultural equipment, heart and cancer drugs, oxygen tents, X-ray machines. Sixteen heart and lung machines were put "on hold" because they contained computer chips. A fleet of ambulances was held up because their equipment included vacuum flasks, which keep medical supplies cold; vacuum flasks are designated "dual use" by the Sanctions Committee, meaning they could possibly be used in weapons manufacture. Cleaning materials, such as chlorine, are "dual use", as is the graphite used in pencils; as are wheelbarrows, it seems, considering the frequency of their appearance on the list of "holds".

 

As of October 2001, 1,010 contracts for humanitarian supplies, worth $3.85bn, were "on hold" by the Sanctions Committee. They included items related to food, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and education. This has now risen to goods worth more than $5bn. This is rarely reported in the West.

 

When Denis Halliday was the senior United Nations official in Iraq, a display cabinet stood in the foyer of his office. It contained a bag of wheat, some congealed cooking oil, bars of soap and a few other household necessities. "It was a pitiful sight," he said, "and it represented the monthly ration that we were allowed to spend. I added cheese to lift the protein content, but there was simply not enough money left over from the amount we were allowed to spend, which came from the revenue Iraq was allowed to make from its oil."

 

He describes food shipments as "an exercise in duplicity". A shipment that the Americans claim allows for 2,300 calories per person per day may well allow for only 2,000 calories, or less. "What's missing," he said, "will be animal proteins, minerals and vitamins. As most Iraqis have no other source of income, food has become a medium of exchange; it gets sold for other necessities, further lowering the calorie intake. You also have to get clothes and shoes for your kids to go to school. You've then got malnourished mothers who cannot breastfeed, and they pick up bad water.

 

What is needed is investment in water treatment and distribution, electric power for food processing, storage and refrigeration, education and agriculture." His successor, Hans Von Sponeck, calculates that the Oil for Food Programme allows $100 (£63) for each person to live on for a year. This figure also has to help pay for the entire society's infrastructure and essential services, such as power and water.

 

"It is simply not possible to live on such an amount," Mr Von Sponeck told me. "Set that pittance against the lack of clean water, the fact that electricity fails for up to 22 hours a day, and the majority of sick people cannot afford treatment, and the sheer trauma of trying to get from day to day, and you have a glimpse of the nightmare. And make no mistake, this is deliberate. I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable."

 

The cost in lives is staggering. A study by the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) found that between 1991 and 1998, there were 500,000 deaths above the anticipated rate among Iraqi children under five years of age. This, on average, is 5,200 preventable under-five deaths per month.

 

Hans Von Sponeck said, "Some 167 Iraqi children are dying every day." Denis Halliday said, "If you include adults, the figure is now almost certainly well over a million." A melancholia shrouds people. I felt it at Baghdad's evening auctions, where intimate possessions are sold to buy food and medicines. Television sets are common. A woman with two infants watched their pushchairs go for pennies. A man who had collected doves since he was 15 came with his last bird; the cage would go next.

 

My film crew and I had come to pry, yet we were made welcome; or people merely deferred to our presence, as the downcast do. During three weeks in Iraq, only once was I the brunt of someone's anguish. "Why are you killing the children?" shouted a man in the street. "Why are you bombing us? What have we done to you?" Through the glass doors of the Baghdad offices of Unicef you can read the following mission statement: "Above all, survival, hope, development, respect, dignity, equality and justice for women and children."

 

Fortunately, the children in the street outside, with their pencil limbs and long thin faces, cannot read English, and perhaps cannot read at all. "The change in such a short time is unparalleled, in my experience," Dr Anupama Rao Singh, Unicef's senior representative in Iraq, told me.

 

"In 1989, the literacy rate was more than 90 per cent; parents were fined for failing to send their children to school. The phenomenon of street children was unheard of. Iraq had reached a stage where the basic indicators we use to measure the overall wellbeing of human beings, including children, were some of the best in the world. Now it is among the bottom 20 per cent."

 

Dr Singh, diminutive, grey-haired and, with her precision, sounding like the teacher she once was in India, has spent most of her working life with Unicef. She took me to a typical primary school in Saddam City, where Baghdad's majority and poorest live. We approached along a flooded street, the city's drainage and water distribution system having collapsed since the Gulf War bombing. The headmaster, Ali Hassoon, guided us around the puddles of raw sewage in the playground and pointed to the high-water mark on the wall. "In the winter it comes up to here. That's when we evacuate.

 

We stay for as long as possible but, without desks, the children have to sit on bricks. I am worried about the buildings coming down." As we talked, an air-raid siren sounded in the distance.The school is on the edge of a vast industrial cemetery. The pumps in the sewage treatment plants and the reservoirs of potable water are silent, save for a few wheezing at a fraction of their capacity. Those that were not bombed have since disintegrated; spare parts from their British, French and German manufacturers are permanently "on hold".

 

Before 1991, Baghdad"s water was as safe as any in the developed world. Today, drawn untreated from the Tigris, it is lethal. Just before Christmas 1999, the Department of Trade and Industry in London restricted the export of vaccines meant to protect Iraqi children against diphtheria and yellow fever.

 

Dr Kim Howells told Parliament why. His title of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs perfectly suited his Orwellian reply. The children's vaccines were, he said, "capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction".

 

American and British aircraft operate over Iraq in what their governments have unilaterally declared "no fly zones". This means that only they and their allies can fly there. The designated areas are in the north, around Mosul, to the border with Turkey, and from just south of Baghdad to the Kuwaiti border. The US and British governments insist the no fly zones are "legal", claiming that they are part of, or supported by, the Security Council's Resolution 688.

 

There is a great deal of fog about this, the kind generated by the Foreign Office when its statements are challenged. There is no reference to no fly zones in Security Council resolutions, which suggests they have no basis in international law.

 

I went to Paris and asked Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the UN in 1992, when the resolution was passed. "The issue of no fly zones was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word," he said. "They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq." "Does that mean they are illegal?" I asked. "They are illegal," he replied.

 

The scale of the bombing in the no fly zones is astonishing. Between July 1998 and January 2000, American air force and naval aircraft flew 36,000 sorties over Iraq, including 24,000 combat missions. In 1999 alone, American and British aircraft dropped more than 1,800 bombs and hit 450 targets. The cost to British taxpayers is more than £800m.

 

There is bombing almost every day: it is the longest Anglo-American aerial campaign since the Second World War; yet it is mostly ignored by the British and American media. In a rare acknowledgement, The New York Times reported, "American warplanes have methodically and with virtually no public discussion been attacking Iraq ... pilots have flown about two-thirds as many missions as Nato pilots flew over Yugoslavia in 78 days of around-the-clock war there."

 

The purpose of the no fly zones, according to the British and American governments, is to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south against Saddam Hussein's forces. The aircraft are performing a "vital humanitarian task", says Tony Blair, that will give "minority peoples the hope of freedom and the right to determine their own destinies".

 

Like much of Blair's rhetoric on Iraq, it is simply false. In nothern Kurdish Iraq, I interviewed members of a family who had lost their grandfather, their father and four brothers and sisters when a "coalition" aircraft dive-bombed them and the sheep they were tending. The attack was investigated and verified by Hans Von Sponeck who drove there especially from Baghdad. Dozens of similar attacks – on shepherds, farmers, fishermen – are described in a document prepared by the UN Security Section.

 

The US faced a "genuine dilemma" in Iraq, reported The Wall Street Journal. "After eight years of enforcing a no fly zone in ... Iraq, few military targets remain. 'We're down to the last outhouse,' one US official protested. 'There are still some things left, but not many.'"

 

There are still children left. Six children died when an American missile hit Al Jumohria, a community in Basra's poorest residential area: 63 people were injured, a number of them badly burned. "Collateral damage," said the Pentagon. I walked down the street where the missile had struck in the early hours; it had followed the line of houses, destroying one after the other. I met the father of two sisters, aged eight and 10, who were photographed by a local wedding photographer shortly after the attack. They are in their nightdresses, one with a bow in her hair, their bodies entombed in the rubble of their homes, where they had been bombed to death in their beds. These images haunt me.

 

I flew on to New York for an interview with Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He appears an oddly diffident man, so softly spoken as to be almost inaudible.

 

"As the Secretary-General of the United Nations which is imposing this blockade on Iraq," I said, "what do you say to the parents of the children who are dying?" His reply was that the Security Council was considering "smart sanctions", which would "target the leaders" rather than act as "a blunt instrument that impacts on children". I said the UN was set up to help people, not harm them, and he replied, "Please do not judge us by what has happened in Iraq."

 

I walked to the office of Peter van Walsum, the Netherlands' ambassador to the UN and the chairman of the Sanctions Committee. What impressed me about this diplomat with life-and-death powers over 22 million people half a world away was

 

that, like liberal politicians in the West, he seemed to hold two diametrically opposed thoughts in his mind. On the one hand, he spoke of Iraq as if everybody were Saddam Hussein; on the other, he seemed to believe that most Iraqis were victims, held hostage to the intransigence of a dictator.

 

I asked him why the civilian population should be punished for Saddam Hussein's crimes. "It's a difficult problem," he replied. "You should realise that sanctions are one of the curative measures that the Security Council has at its disposal ... and obviously they hurt. They are like a military measure." "Who do they hurt?" "Well, this, of course, is the problem ... but with military action, too, you have the eternal problem of collateral damage." "So an entire nation is collateral damage. Is that correct?" "No, I am saying that sanctions have [similar] effects. We have to study this further."

 

"Do you believe that people have human rights no matter where they live and under what system?" I asked. "Yes." "Doesn't that mean that the sanctions you are imposing are violating the human rights of millions of people?" "It's also documented the Iraqi regime has committed very serious human rights breaches ..."

 

"There is no doubt about that," I said. "But what's the difference in principle between human rights violations committed by the regime and those caused by your committee?" "It's a very complex issue, Mr Pilger."

 

"What do you say to those who describe sanctions that have caused so many deaths as 'weapons of mass destruction' as lethal as chemical weapons?" "I don't think that's a fair comparison." "Aren't the deaths of half a million children mass destruction?" "I don't think that's a very fair question. We are talking about a situation caused by a government that overran its neighbour, and has weapons of mass destruction."

 

"Then why aren't there sanctions on Israel [which] occupies much of Palestine and attacks Lebanon almost every day of the week? Why aren't there sanctions on Turkey, which has displaced three million Kurds and caused the deaths of 30,000 Kurds?" "Well, there are many countries that do things that we are not happy with. We can't be everywhere. I repeat, it's complex." "How much power does the United States exercise over your committee?" "We operate by consensus." "And what if the Americans object?" "We don"t operate."

 

There is little doubt that if Saddam Hussein saw political advantage in starving and otherwise denying his people, he would do so. It is hardly surprising that he has looked after himself, his inner circle and, above all, his military and security apparatus.

 

His palaces and spooks, like the cartoon portraits of himself, are everywhere. Unlike other tyrants, however, he not only survived, but before the Gulf War enjoyed a measure of popularity by buying off his people with the benefits from Iraq's oil revenue. Having exiled or murdered his opponents, more than any Arab leader he used the riches of oil to modernise the civilian infrastructure, building first-rate hospitals, schools and universities.

 

In this way he fostered a relatively large, healthy, well-fed, well-educated middle class. Before sanctions, Iraqis consumed more than 3,000 calories each per day; 92 per cent of people had safe water and 93 per cent enjoyed free health care. Adult literacy was one of the highest in the world, at around 95 per cent. According to the Economist's Intelligence Unit, "the Iraqi welfare state was, until recently, among the most comprehensive and generous in the Arab world."

 

It is said the only true beneficiary of sanctions is Saddam Hussein. He has used the embargo to centralise state power, and so reinforce his direct control over people's lives. With most Iraqis now dependent on the state food rationing system, organised political dissent is all but unthinkable. In any case, for most Iraqis, it is cancelled by the sense of grievance and anger they feel towards the external enemy, western governments.

 

In the relatively open and pro-Western society that existed in Iraq before 1991, there was always the prospect of an uprising, as the Kurdish and Shia rebellions that year showed. In today's state of siege, there is none. That is the unsung achievement of the Anglo-American blockade.

 

The economic blockade on Iraq must be lifted for no other reason than that it is immoral, its consequences inhuman. When that happens, says the former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, "the weapons inspectors must go back into Iraq and complete their mandate, which should be reconfigured. It was originally drawn up for quantitative disarmament, to account for every nut, screw, bolt, document that exists in Iraq. As long as Iraq didn't account for that, it was not in compliance and there was no progress.

 

"We should change that mandate to qualitative disarmament. Does Iraq have a chemical weapons programme today? No. Does Iraq have a long-range missile programme today? No. Nuclear? No. Biological? No. Is Iraq qualitatively disarmed? Yes. So we should get on with monitoring Iraq to ensure they do not reconstitute any of this capability."

 

Even before the machinations in the UN Security Council in October and November 2002, Iraq had already accepted back inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. At the time of writing, a new resolution, forced through the Security Council by a Bush administration campaign of bribery and coercion, has seen a contingent of weapons inspectors at work in Iraq. Led by the Swedish diplomat Hans Blix, the inspectors have extraordinary powers, which, for example, require Iraq to "confess" to possessing equipment never banned by previous resolutions. In spite of a torrent of disnformation from Washington and Whitehall, they have found, as one inspector put it, "zilch".

 

An attack is next; we have no right to call it a "war". The "enemy" is a nation of whom almost half the population are children, a nation who offer us no threat and with whom we have no quarrel. The fate of countless innocent lives now depends on vestiges of self-respect among the so-called international (non-American) community, and on free journalists to tell the truth and not merely channel and echo the propaganda of great power.

 

It is seldom reported that UN Security Resolution 687 that enforces the embargo on Iraq also says that Iraq's disarmament should be a step "towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction ..." In other words, if Iraq gives up, or has given up, its doomsday weapons, so should Israel. After 11 September 2001, making relentless demands on Iraq, then attacking it, while turning a blind eye to Israel will endanger us all.

 

"The longer the sanctions go on," said Denis Halliday, "[the more] we are likely to see the emergence of a generation who will regard Saddam Hussein as too moderate and too willing to listen to the West."

 

On my last night in Iraq, I went to the Rabat Hall in the centre of Baghdad to watch the Iraqi National Orchestra rehearse. I had wanted to meet Mohammed Amin Ezzat, the conductor, whose personal tragedy epitomises the punishment of his people. Because the power supply is so intermittent, Iraqis have been forced to use cheap kerosene lamps for lighting, heating and cooking; and these frequently explode. This is what happened to Mohammed Amin Ezzat's wife, Jenan, who was engulfed in flames.

 

"I saw my wife burn completely before my eyes," he said. " I threw myself on her in order to extinguish the flames, but it was no use. She died. I sometimes wish I had died with her." He stood on his conductor's podium, his badly burnt left arm unmoving, the fingers fused together.

 

The orchestra was rehearsing Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite, and there was a strange discord. Reeds were missing from clarinets and strings from violins. "We can't get them from abroad," he said. "Someone has decreed they are not allowed." The musical scores are ragged, like ancient parchment. The musicians cannot get paper.

 

Only two members of the original orchestra are left; the rest have set out on the long, dangerous road to Jordan and beyond. "You cannot blame them," he said. "The suffering in our country is too great. But why has it not been stopped?"

 

It was a question I put to Denis Halliday one evening in New York. We were standing, just the two of us, in the great modernist theatre that is the General Assembly at the UN. "This is where the real world is represented," he said.

 

"One state, one vote. By contrast, the Security Council has five permanent members which have veto rights. There is no democracy there. Had the issue of sanctions on Iraq gone to the General Assembly, it would have been overturned by a very large majority.

 

"We have to change the United Nations, to reclaim what is ours. The genocide in Iraq is the test of our will. All of us have to break the silence: to make those responsible, in Washington and London, aware that history will slaughter them."

 

Facts & Figures
The Impact of Sanctions in Iraq

Population1
GDP/capita2

18.1 million (1989)
$2840 (1989)

 

21.2 million (1997)
$200 (1997)

Birth Rate3(annual average)
Death rate
Annual growth rate
Total Fertility Rate
(average births per woman)

40.3/1000 (1985-90)
7.2/1000 (1985-09)
3.3% (1985-90)
6.15 (1985-90)

 

38.4/1000 (1990-95)
10.4/1000 (1990-95)
2.8% (1990-95)
5.70 (1990-95)

Infant mortality rate4
[deaths to children less than one year of age/1000 live births]
Child mortality rate5
[deaths to children less than firve years of age/1000 births]

80(1989-90)
.

40 (1985-90)

 

160 (1994-95)
.

198 (1990-95)

While the accuracy of statistics demonstrating the impact of United Nations sanctions on Iraq cannot be fully determined, there is no question that their impact has been severe. Infant mortality has doubled from the pre-sanctions era, with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reporting a fivefold increase in mortality among children under age five. While the latter figure may be overstated,6 the health and nutritional profile of young children remains very poor, with an estimated 30 percent of children suffering from chronic or acute malnutrition,7 Kwashiorkor and marasmus--symptoms of severe protein deficiency and usually seen only in famines--are increasingly common. In explaining this situation, diverse sources point to a combination of "poor nutrition and increased prevalence of disease--compounded by inadequate health services"8--this in a country where, prior to the Gulf War, more than 90 percent of the population had access to primary health care. Maternal mortality is also believed to have increased several times since 1991, although hard data are not available.9

Other statistics reflecting the impact of the sanctions include a two-thirds decrease in the number of calories per capita supplied by government food rations; a 12-fold increase in the incidence of typhoid; and a 90 percent drop in per capita income (GDP/capita). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), "The vast majority of the country's population has been on a semi-starvation diet for years."10

Prior to the imposition of sanctions, Iraq imported some 70 percent of its food. Under the sanctions regime, the government attempted to increase agricultural production, but productivity has been limited by the lack of inputs (machinery, pesticides, water), as well as by increasing soil salinity. An FAO Mission to Iraq in the summer of 1997 found that 25 percent of young men and 16 percent of young women show signs of chronic energy deficiency, reflecting the reduced availability of food over the past seven years.11 This report also cited a number of nutrients missing from present-day diets in Iraq, vitamins A and C most notable among them. Before sanctions, 93 percent of urban and 70 percent of rural residents had access to potable water. Currently more than half of rural residents do not have access to clean water. Studies by UNICEF (1994) and WHO (1996) cited bacterial contamination in at least 30 percent of samples tested--also partly to blame for the increases in disease and mortality in the country.

--Compiled by Pamela Ording-Beecroft and Sally Ethelston

1 Population Reference Bureau, World Population Data Sheet (Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, 1989, 1997).
2 Peter Boone, Harris Gazdar and Athar Hussain, Sanctions Against Iraq: Costs of Failure (New York: Center for Economic and Social Rights [CESR], 1997), p. 12.
3 Data on birth rates, death rates, growth rates and fertility rates are from World Population Prospects: The 1996 Revision Annex II & III (New York: DESIPA/United Nations Population Division, 1996), p. 234.
4 The Lancet 346 December 2, 1995, p. 1485. Letter from Sarah Zaidi (CESR), Marcy C. Smith Fawzi (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston).
5 Ibid.
6 The Lancet 350, October 11, 1997, p. 1105. Letter from Sarah Zaidi, CESR.
7 John Lancaster and Nora Boustany, "Iraqis Bask Cautiously in Spotlight Drawn by Annan's Visit," The Washington Post, March 1, 1998, p. A25.
8 Unsanctioned Suffering: A Human Rights Assessment of United Nations Sanctions on Iraq (New York: CESR, 1996), p. 10.
9 The Health Conditions of the Population in Iraq Since the Gulf Crisis (Geneva: WHO, March 1996), p. 8.
10 Ibid., p. 16.
11 "Special Report: FAO/WFP Food Supply and Nutrition Assessment Mission to Iraq" (Rome: FAO, 1997), p. 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

 

TABLE OF COUNTRIES THAT Were for or against THE 2nd Resolution:

 

FOR

SPAN

USA

Brittain

 

 

AGAINST

China

Russia

France

Germany

Syria

 

 

 

30 Named Partners in 'Coalition of the Willing'

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan

 

 

 

 

 

 

MY THOUGHTS:

 

The 2nd resolution will be a trigger for war and would put an ultimatum on Saddam.  They needed 9 votes to get it through..so it became clear USA and Britain wanted war.  After the meeting in the Azores they decided not to even have the vote..WAR! looking at the list of countries..I realized how Isolated the United States is. 

 

 

 

AFTER WAR:

 

 

 

 

Report: Iraq to replace Saudis as U.S. headquarters

in region

 

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Monday, February 17, 2003

 

ABU DHABI - The United States plans to move troops from Saudi Arabia to Iraq as part of a realignment of interests in the Gulf, a new study says. The study published under the auspices of the government in the United Arab Emirates, reports on the drafting of an emerging U.S. national security policy that will vigorously promote democracy in the Middle East and launch an offensive against groups deemed as terrorists as well as their state sponsors.

 

"The Sept. 11 events have changed the U.S. attitude not only towards Iraq but the entire region, with which the U.S. has maintained friendly relations for a long period of time," the UAE study said. "The U.S. troops are expected to transfer all their military bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq and control all oil fields so that it no longer needs Saudi

crude oil. It is evident that some of the U.S. conservatives see Saudi Arabia as a threat similar to Iraq which must be faced." The UAE study said the United States envisions

regime changes in Iran and Syria in wake of the toppling of the Saddam regime, Middle East Newsline reported. The study also warned that Egypt could be affected by a new U.S. policy. The study was published in the publication "Public Affairs," issued by the Research Section at the Abu Dhabi Crown Prince's Court. The study was authored

by Edward Ghareeb, a lecturer at Washington-based International Peace Center. In his study, published in UAE newspapers, Ghareeb said the administration wants to revise its relations with a range of Middle East states, particularly Saudi Arabia. The relations would be based on a friendly and pro-U.S. Iraqi regime, which could produce enough oil to eliminate Saudi Arabia's influence. The UAE study reported that the administration has

drafted a document that envisioned military attacks on organizations deemed as terrorists, the control of global oil resources and fostering regional leaders such as Israel and Turkey. He said the document was drafted soon after the Sept. 11, 2001

attacks by Al Qaida on New York.

 

 "Although such an approach does not exactly reflect the official American policy, it has become an excuse to launch a military strike against Iraq," the study said. "Statements by the U.S. officials indicate clearly that Iraq will just be the beginning. This means the offensive against Iraq will be the start of a large-scale military and diplomatic operation with the aim of bringing about radical changes to the region, where Iraq will have

the first constitutional government in the Arab world, to be the first democratic system in a series of democratic changes."

 

U.S. officials in Washington said a range of government-sponsored panels are studying policy options in the Middle East after the fall of the Saddam regime. The officials said many of the The officials said many of the studies envision a new U.S. relationship with such countries as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

 

"The new U.S. conservatives believe the occupation of Iraq will prompt changes in Iran, Syria and even Egypt," the study said. "The Egyptians will be required to demonstrate their commitment to human rights issues, change their attitudes and stop campaigns against the U.S. and Israel."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush

Terry Jones
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience.

And so am I!

For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.

They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and Isay 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

MY THOUGHTS:

            THE UNTOLD STORY:  The War Money scheme…somebody is getting rich..

 

Carlyle's Way

Making a mint inside "the iron triangle" of defense, government and industry.

By Dan Briody

December 11, 2001

 

Like everyone else in the United States, the group stood transfixed as the events of September 11 unfolded. Present were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and representatives of the bin Laden family. This was not some underground presidential bunker or Central Intelligence Agency interrogation room. It was the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., the plush setting for the annual investor conference of one of the most powerful, well-connected, and secretive companies in the world: the Carlyle Group. And since September 11, this little-known company has become unexpectedly important.

 

 

That the Carlyle Group had its conference on America's darkest day was mere coincidence, but there is nothing accidental about the cast of characters that this private-equity powerhouse has assembled in the 14 years since its founding. Among those associated with Carlyle are former U.S. president George Bush Sr., former U.K. prime minister John Major, and former president of the Philippines Fidel Ramos. And Carlyle has counted George Soros, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud of Saudi Arabia, and Osama bin Laden's estranged family among its high-profile clientele. The group has been able to parlay its political clout into a lucrative buyout practice (in other words, purchasing struggling companies, turning them around, and selling them for huge profits)--everything from defense contractors to telecommunications and aerospace companies. It is a kind of ruthless investing made popular by the movie Wall Street, and any industry that relies heavily on government regulation is fair game for Carlyle's brand of access capitalism. Carlyle has established itself as the gatekeeper between private business interests and U.S. defense spending. And as the Carlyle investors watched the World Trade towers go down, the group's prospects went up.

 

In running what its own marketing literature spookily calls "a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals" that operates within the so-called iron triangle of industry, government, and the military, the Carlyle Group leaves itself open to any number of conflicts of interest and stunning ironies. For example, it is hard to ignore the fact that Osama bin Laden's family members, who renounced their son ten years ago, stood to gain financially from the war being waged against him until late October, when public criticism of the relationship forced them to liquidate their holdings in the firm. Or consider that U.S. president George W. Bush is in a position to make budgetary decisions that could pad his father's bank account. But for the Carlyle Group, walking that narrow line is the art of doing business at the murky intersection of Washington politics, national security, and private capital; mastering it has enabled the group to amass $12 billion in funds under management. But while successful in the traditional private-equity avenue of corporate buyouts, Carlyle has recently set its sites on venture capital with less success. The firm is finding that all the politicians in the world won't help it identify an emerging technology or a winning business model.

 

Surprisingly, Carlyle has avoided the fertile VC market in defense technology, which now, more than ever, comes from smaller companies hoping to cash in on what the defense establishment calls the revolution in military affairs, or RMA.  Thus far, Carlyle has passed up on these emerging technologies in favor of some truly awful Internet plays. And despite its unique qualifications for early-stage funding of defense companies, the firm seems to have no appetite for the sector.

 

Despite its VC troubles, however, the Carlyle Group's core business is set for some good times ahead. Though the group has raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill in the past, the firm's close ties with the current administration and its cozy relationship with several prominent Saudi government figures has the watchdogs howling. And it's those same connections that will keep Carlyle in the black for as long as the war against terrorism endures.

 

For the 11th-largest defense contractor in the United States, wartime is boom time. No one knows that better than the Carlyle Group, which less than a month after U.S. troops began bombing Afghanistan filed to take public its crown jewel of defense, United Defense, a company it has owned for nearly a decade. That this company is even able to go public is testament to the Carlyle Group's pull in Washington.

 

United Defense makes the controversial Crusader, a 42-ton, self-propelled howitzer that moves and operates much like a tank and can lob ten 155-mm shells per minute as far as 40 kilometers. The Crusader has been in the sights of Pentagon budget cutters since the Clinton administration, which argued that it was a relic of the cold war era--too heavy and slow for today's warfare. Even the Pentagon had recommended the program be discontinued. But remarkably, the $11 billion contract for the Crusader is still alive, thanks largely to the Carlyle Group.

 

"This is very much an example of a cold war-inspired weapon whose time has passed," notes Steve Grundman, a consultant at Charles River Associates, a defense and aerospace consultancy in Boston. "Its liabilities were uncovered during the Kosovo campaign, when the Army was unable to deploy it in time. It is exceedingly expensive, and it was a wake-up call to the Army that many of its forces are no longer relevant."

 

But the Carlyle Group was having none of that. While it is impossible to say what U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was thinking when he made the decision to keep the Crusader program alive, people close to the situation claim to have a pretty good idea. Mr. Carlucci and Mr. Rumsfeld are good friends and former wrestling partners from their undergraduate days at Princeton University. And while Carlyle executives are quick to reject any accusations of them lobbying the current administration, others aren't so sure. "In this particular effort, I felt that they were like any other lobbying group, apart from the fact that they are not," said one Washington, D.C., lobbyist with intimate knowledge of the Crusader negotiations, noting the fine line between lobbying and having a drink with a old friend.

 

According to Greg McCarthy, a spokesperson for Representative J.C. Watts Jr. (R: Oklahoma), whose district is home to one of the Crusader's assembly plants, the Carlyle Group's influence was indeed felt at the Pentagon. "Carlyle's strength was within the DoD, because as a rule someone like Frank Carlucci is going to have access," says Mr. McCarthy. "But they have other staff types that work behind the scenes, in the dark, that know everything about the Army and Capitol Hill."

 

Perhaps even more disconcerting than Carlyle's ties to the Pentagon are its connections within the White House itself. Aside from signing up George Bush Sr. shortly after his presidential term ended, Carlyle gave George W. Bush a job on the board of Texas-based airline food caterer Caterair International back in 1991. Since Bush the younger took office this year, a number of events have raised eyebrows.

 

Shortly after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, he broke off talks with North Korea regarding long-range ballistic missiles, claiming there was no way to ensure North Korea would comply with any guidelines that were developed. The news came as a shock to South Korean officials, who had spent years negotiating with the North, assisted by the Clinton administration. By June, Mr. Bush had reopened negotiations with North Korea, but only at the urging of his own father. According to reports, the former president sent his son a memo persuasively arguing the need to work with the North Korean government. It was the first time the nation had seen the influence of the father on the son in office.

 

But what has been overlooked was Carlyle's business interest in Korea. The senior Bush had spearheaded the group's successful entrance into the South Korean market, paving the way for buyouts of Korea's KorAm Bank and Mercury, a telecommunications equipment company. For the business to be successful, stability between North and South Korea is critical. And though there is no direct evidence linking the senior Bush's business dealings in Korea with the change in policy, it is the appearance of impropriety that excites the watchdogs. "We are clearly aware that former President Bush has weighed in on policy toward South Korea and we note that U.S. policy changed after those communications," says Peter Eisner, managing director at the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group in Washington, D.C., which has an active file on the Carlyle Group. "We know that former President Bush receives remuneration for his work with Carlyle and that he is capable of advising the current president, but how much further it goes, we don't know."

 

While the Center for Public Integrity looks for its smoking gun, others in Washington say hard evidence is unimportant. "Whether the decisions made by the former president are a real or apparent conflict of interest doesn't matter, because in the public's eye they're equally as damaging," says Larry Noble, executive director and general counsel of the Center for Responsive Politics. "Bush [Sr.] has to seriously consider the propriety of sitting on the board of a group that is impacted by his son's decisions."

 

And the controversy is expected only to increase as Carlyle's investments in Saudi Arabia are scrutinized during the war on terrorism. Mr. Eisner says that very little is known about Carlyle's involvements in Saudi Arabia, except that the firm has been making close to $50 million a year training the Saudi Arabian National Guard, troops that are sworn to protect the monarchy. Carlyle also advises the Saudi royal family on the Economic Offset Program, a system that is designed to encourage foreign businesses to open shop in Saudi Arabia and uses re-investment incentives to keep those businesses' proceeds in the country.

 

But the money flowing out of Saudi Arabia and into the Carlyle Group is of even more interest. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, reports surfaced of Carlyle's involvement with the Saudi Binladin Group, the $5 billion construction business run by Osama's half-brother Bakr. The bin Laden family invested $2 million in the Carlyle Partners II fund, which includes in its portfolio United Defense and other defense and aerospace companies. On October 26, the Carlyle Group severed its relationship with the bin Laden family in what officials termed a mutual decision. Mr. Bush Sr. and Mr. Major have been to Saudi Arabia on behalf of Carlyle as recently as last year, and according to reports, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently looking into the flow of money from the bin Laden family. Carlyle officials declined to answer any questions regarding their activities in Saudi Arabia.

 

But for all the questions, Carlyle has stayed clean in the eyes of the law. Lobbying laws in Washington, D.C., are ambiguous at best, requiring only that former politicians observe a one-year "cooling-off period" before they reënter the lobbying scene on behalf of industry. It is playing within this gray area that has given the Carlyle Group some of the best returns in the business.

 

After David Rubenstein, a former aide in the Carter administration, and William Conway Jr., former chief financial officer of MCI Communications, hooked up at New York's Carlyle hotel in 1987 to form the company, the Carlyle Group spent two lost years investing in a hodgepodge of companies. It wasn't until 1989, when the company brought in Mr. Carlucci, fresh off his two-year stint as U.S. secretary of defense, that Carlyle got serious in government. In 1991 the company made a name for itself by facilitating a $590 million purchase of Citicorp stock for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Shortly thereafter, Carlyle snatched up defense contractors Harsco, BDM International, and LTV, turning the companies around and selling them to the likes of TRW, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.

 

The Carlyle Group has diversified its holdings since then, investing in everything from bottling companies to natural-food grocers. In the process, it has become one of the biggest, most successful private-equity firms in business, with annualized returns of 35 percent. (Judging by the early numbers from some of their funds, however, like many other private-equity funds, 2001 will be a considerably less profitable year for Carlyle.) "They are the new breed of private equity, acting more like a large mutual fund of private companies," says David Snow, editor of PrivateEquityCentral.net, a Web site that tracks private-equity firms. The numbers are impressive: Carlyle employs 240 people, as opposed to the 10 or 12 typical of most private-equity firms. It has ownership stakes in 164 companies, which collectively employ more than 70,000 people. George Soros invested $100 million in the group's funds; the California Public Employees' Retirement System is in for $305 million.

 

Carlyle has succeeded by raising money first, then finding the talent to manage it. For instance, it raised a fund for buying out telecom companies and hired William Kennard, the former U.S. Federal Communications Commission chairman, to run it. Accused early on of being nothing more than a bunch of Washington grip-and-grinners, Carlyle has proven its critics wrong. At a Salomon Smith Barney private-equity conference last March, a panel of professional investment managers were asked who the best fund managers are. Carlyle cofounder Mr. Conway was one of two managers chosen.

 

With its size and success, questions about the firm's ability to grow revenue has arisen. Carlyle has placed its bets for future growth on the VC markets, which it entered in 1996. But to date, it has found that venture capital is a game with far different rules than that of corporate buyouts. "They may be very established in private equity, but it seems to me that they don't really know the venture capital business," says one VC who has done deals with Carlyle. "In buyouts, you take over a company and fight the management, but in venture capital it's the opposite. You want to work with people."

 

Carlyle executives admit as much. As a result, the Carlyle Europe Venture Partners fund has been slow to commit its capital. So far, it has spent just more than 20 percent of its $660 million, and 3 of its original 17 investments have already folded. None has gone public or been acquired. As Jack Biddle, cofounder of Novak Biddle Venture Partners, dryly puts it, "I haven't been involved in a lot of venture deals where the participation of a president mattered that much. In venture capital, it's all about the technology."

 

For a firm that has made its money in highly regulated, politically charged industries, picking business-to-business plays is hardly second nature. While Carlyle has investments in highly regulated sectors like telecom and banking, it has avoided defense entirely, instead focusing on tech industries that have already gone flat. The firm's European fund alone boasts six B2B companies, two optical-networking companies, and Riot-E, a wireless media play. Jacques Garaïalde, managing director of the Europe fund concedes that expectations have been shifted. "Clearly, we can't make 100 times returns on B2B, but there are some situations in which we can make 3 times."

 

But the struggles in its VC business may be offset, at least temporarily, by the expected windfall from the war on terrorism. The federal government has already approved a $40 billion supplemental aid package to the current budget, $19 billion of which is headed straight to the Pentagon. Some of the additional government spending is likely to find its way into Carlyle's coffers.

 

The Bush administration isn't afraid to mix business and politics, and no other firm embodies that penchant better than the Carlyle Group. Walking that fine line is what Carlyle does best. We may not see Osama bin Laden's brothers at Carlyle's investor conferences any more, but business will go on as usual for the biggest old boys network around. As Mr. Snow puts it, "Carlyle will always have to defend itself and will never be able to convince certain people that they aren't capable of forging murky backroom deals. George Bush's father does profit when the Carlyle Group profits, but to make the leap that the president would base decisions on that is to say that the president is corrupt."

 

Additional reporting by Lawrence Aragon, Mark Chediak, Julie Landry, Christopher Locke, Eric Moskowitz, Mark Mowrey, and Michael Parsons.

 

Write to Dan Briody.

 

 

 

AGAINST  A WAR

 

 

            I write this appeal for your help as a pediatrician, a mother, and a

            grandmother -- and I am writing about the lives of tens of thousands of

            children.

 

            Although the current administration has demonstrated it has no

reservations about slaughtering up to 500,000 innocents in Iraq, there isone person whose life they absolutely will not risk. That person

            isPope John Paul II.

            While the Pope has already formally denounced the proposed war, calling it

            a defeat for humanity, as well as sent his top spokesperson to meet with

            Saddam Hussein, he now must take a historically unprecedented action of

            his own and travel to Baghdad. The Pope's physical presence in Iraq will act

            as the ultimate human shield, during which time leaders of the word nation

            can commit themselves to identifying and implementing a peaceful solution to

            this war that the world's majority clearly does not support.

 

            To persuade the Holy Father to take this unusual but potent action, he

            must hear from you and millions of others around the world who have already

            been inspired to stand up and speak out for peace. A mountain of surfacemail,

            email, faxes, and phone calls are our devices to inspire him. Please

            understand that your taking just a few minutes right now to communicate

            with him may ultimately spare the lives of thousands of innocent people who at

            this moment live in complete terror from the threat of an imminent

            U.S.-lead military strike on their homeland.

 

            So here is what you can do to be a part of this powerful final action to

            stop the march to war in Iraq.

 

            1. Do not forward the letter below. Its power depends upon your sending it

            directly, as a personal communication to the Pope.

 

            2. Simply cut and paste the letter below into a new email. Also cut and

            paste the Vatican email address we have provided.

 

            3. At the close of the letter, type in your name, city and state--no need

            to include your address.

 

            4. Either email, (accreditamenti@pressva.va), FAX (from USA]

            011-39-06698-85378 - from other countries drop the 011 prefix), or send a

            hardcopy of this letter to the addresses in the letter below. DO NOT put

            "Italy" anywhere on the envelope, as this will send your mail into the

            Italian mail system which is independent of the Vatican system. Should you

            wish to phone the Vatican directly, (from USA) dial 011-39-06-69-82--all

            other countries must use their appropriate international prefix.

 

            5. Pass this original email on to as many people you can so as to assure a

            critical mass is reached in this action.

 

            6. Note that as you and others begin sending your letters, faxes and

            emails, there will be a simultaneous effort to alert the media of this action, so

            as to be sure it is publicly known throughout the world.

 

            Thank you for participating in this formal request of the Pope. We just

            may stop this war in Iraq -- and save these childrens' lives.

 

            Dr. Helen Caldicott

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Alan Cooperman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A15

 

 

The Episcopal bishop of Washington and national leaders of the Methodist,

Presbyterian and Baptist churches yesterday proposed a six-point plan "to

defeat Saddam Hussein without war."

 

In a significant shift for the religious antiwar movement, the church

leaders said they feared that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was imminent and that

the only way to stop it was to put forward concrete alternatives.

 

"We're not just saying 'No' to war. We're not just saying, 'Do nothing.'

We're saying, 'Here's a third way,' " said Jim Wallis, editor of the

evangelical journal Sojourners and a member of the group.

 

In recent weeks, many antiwar protesters have called for intensified U.N.

weapons inspections rather than military force to disarm Iraq. But the

religious leaders' plan goes further. It advocates Hussein's removal,

putting leading figures in the antiwar movement on record in favor of many

of the Bush administration's policy goals, if not its methods.

 

The first point in the group's plan is establishing a U.N. tribunal to

indict Hussein for crimes against humanity, with the aim of removing the

Iraqi president and his Baath Party from power.

 

Bishop John B. Chane, head of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, said the

church leaders wanted to make clear that they agree with President Bush and

British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "regime change is imperative" in

Iraq. "But," he said, "we don't believe that all of the avenues available to

achieve that goal have truly been explored."

 

The other five points in the plan: "coercive disarmament" through more

aggressive U.N. weapons inspections; planning for a post-Hussein government

run temporarily by the United Nations rather than by the U.S military;

immediate humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people, with U.N. forces protecting

deliveries; recommitment to a "roadmap" for establishing a Palestinian state

by 2005; and reinvigorating the U.S.-led campaign against al Qaeda and other

terrorist groups.

 

Chane said the commitment to a Palestinian state was included because it

would defuse "the view of many people in the Middle East that this is a

21st-century Christian crusade against Islam."

 

Wallis acknowledged that the plan does not explain how Hussein is to be

removed from power. "When [Yugoslav President Slobodan] Milosevic was

indicted for war crimes, we didn't know how he would be removed, either," he

said.

 

Other authors of the plan in addition to Wallis and Chane are Clifton

Kirkpatrick, the Stated Clerk, or chief ecclesiastical officer, of the

Presbyterian Church (USA); Melvin Talbert, the ecumenical officer of the

United Methodist Council of Bishops; and Dan Weiss, the immediate past

general secretary of the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

 

Talbert previously appeared in television ads criticizing the

administration's march toward war. All five members of the group have been

active in Win Without War, a coalition of secular and religious groups that

includes the National Council of Churches.

 

The five went as a delegation to meet with Blair on Feb. 18 in London. Chane

said the prime minister asked what they would propose as an alternative to

war. Their answer was the six-point plan, which they posted yesterday on the

Sojourners Web site, sojo.net,and sent by letter to Bush and Blair, he said.

 

Wallis said the group also requested a meeting with Bush. The president met

this week with an envoy from Pope John Paul II, but has rebuffed requests

for a meeting by the bishops of his Methodist denomination.

 

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

 

 

 

LETS TRAVEL BACK IN TIME..did the USA really want peace?

 

 

 

Third day of no-fly zone strikes

Sunday, March 9, 2003 Posted: 2:40 AM EST (0740 GMT)

 

 

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, United States (CNN) -- Coalition aircraft have again bombed military sites in southern and western Iraq, the third straight day allied jets have struck targets between Baghdad and Iraq's border with Jordan, according to the U.S. Central Command.

 

Allied warplanes enforcing the southern "no-fly" zone over Iraq hit four military communication sites about 10:30 p.m. (6:30 p.m. GMT) Saturday after Iraqi troops fired at them, a Central Command statement said.

 

The sites were related to Iraqi forces' ability to control air defenses.

 

The sites were located near Qalat Sukkar, approximately 200 kilometers (125 miles) southeast of Baghdad.

 

Earlier, coalition jets hit a mobile missile guidance system about 370 kilometers (230 miles) west of Baghdad at about 8:20 a.m. (4:10 a.m. GMT), according to a statement from the Florida-based Central Command. The military said the strike was ordered "in response to Iraqi threats."

 

Warplanes monitoring the southern "no-fly" zone over Iraq targeted sites west of Baghdad on Thursday and Friday as well. Iraq's official news agency said the allied forces had targeted civilian infrastructure, but Central Command denied that charge.

 

U.S. and British forces have been monitoring no-fly zones in the northern and southern sections of Iraq since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Iraq considers the zones, and the patrols monitoring them, a violation of its sovereignty.

 

Leaflets

In the past week, with a military confrontation looming, the allies have increased dramatically the number of airstrikes in southern Iraq, focusing on mobile missile systems being moved into the area, military officials told CNN.

 

Officials said as many as 750 missions a day are now being flown by all types of aircraft, including fighters, refueling and reconnaissance aircraft -- two to three times the previous routine.

 

Military sources say Iraq is trying to move mobile surface-to-surface missiles, mobile surface-to-air missiles, early warning radars and anti-ship missiles into the southern no-fly zone.

 

Central Command said coalition aircraft also dropped 720,000 leaflets on Iraqi troops in four locations in southern Iraq, warning them not to resist U.S. and allied troops if war breaks out and listing radio frequencies for coalition propaganda broadcasts.

 

Other leaflets warned Iraqi troops against using chemical or biological weapons against coalition troops

 

 

U.N. civilian staff pulled back from border

Sunday, March 9, 2003 Posted: 6:29 AM EST (1129 GMT)

 

 

KUWAIT CITY (CNN) -- More civilian staff members supporting the U.N. observer team along the border between Iraq and Kuwait left for Kuwait City on Sunday, arriving here "for their own safety," according to the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM).

 

The move was triggered by UNIKOM's "red" alert status, which was upgraded Saturday as concerns grew that time may be running out for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime.

 

Although the 195 military observers and the 775 members of the Bangladeshi military supporting them will remain in the demilitarized zone, they have confined their patrols to daylight hours under the red alert.

 

While a few civilians will remain, almost all of the 228 civilian U.N. staff will end up in Kuwait City, leaving behind their residential quarters in the DMZ.

 

A high-ranking UNIKOM source adds the observers themselves are preparing for evacuation orders. Westerners have already received Italian visas, while non-westerners will be sent to Bangladesh.

 

The alert status is subject to review, although a UNIKOM spokesman doubts it would be reduced during the current U.N. Security Council deliberations.

 

Meanwhile, activity continued along the 125-mile (200 kilometer) border. Witnesses have reported openings in the electrified fence along the DMZ, some now at least temporarily closed with newly-installed gates. (Full story)

 

Parts of the sand ridge, or berm, outside the southern DMZ have been knocked into trenches by American forces. A number of ready-made bridges have also been seen in the area, which could serve to bridge the trenches.

 

The trenches, fence and berms were all put in place as defensive measures by Kuwait in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. Their removal could make access across the border easier for U.S. forces in the event of an incursion into Iraq.

 

 

n      CNN correspondents John King, Kate Snow and Jonathan Karl, and Capitol Hill Producer Dana Bash contributed to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

The facts activists need to know

Exposing their lies

 

October 25, 2002 | Page

 

MYTH

Saddam Hussein is "gaining the power to threaten our cities with annihilation."

--New York Times columnist William Safire

 

FACT

In truth, Iraq has no nuclear capacity and is years away from having the ability to turn fissile nuclear material--even if this could somehow be obtained--into a weapon.

 

Iraq also lacks any long-range missiles. Even the CIA reports that "Iraq is unlikely to test before 2015 any [intercontinental ballistic missiles] that would threaten the United States, even if United Nations (UN) prohibitions were eliminated or significantly reduced in the next few years."

 

The threat of Iraq’s weapons program is being wildly exaggerated by politicians and the media to scare people into supporting a new war on Iraq.

 

MYTH

Saddam Hussein is "a man who loves to link up with al-Qaeda."

--George W. Bush

 

FACT

Bush is desperately trying to make a connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks in the U.S.--though none exists. As Daniel Benjamin, who served on the National Security Council (NSC) from 1994 to 1999, wrote on September 30 in the New York Times, "Iraq and al-Qaeda are not obvious allies. In fact, they are natural enemies." An investigation by the NSC "found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship" between the two, Benjamin said. In fact, al-Qaeda militantly opposes the secular Iraqi government and Hussein’s Ba’ath Party.

 

MYTH

The Iraqi government could "deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so."

--British Prime Minister Tony Blair

 

FACT

This claim, from the so-called "Blair Dossier" on Iraq, is backed up by evidence about the history of Iraq’s weapons programs. But there’s very little evidence in the "dossier" about the Iraqi government’s current capabilities--because, say experts, there are very few capabilities left.

 

For example, the dossier says that Iraq "could" threaten the Persian Gulf region "if" it acquires the missiles it would need--which "might" happen within five years. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who led dozens of teams through Iraq between 1991 to 1998, says that the UN destroyed between 90 and 95 percent of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its ability to manufacture them.

 

Even more stunning is the hypocrisy of U.S. and British claims about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons. The reason that Washington knows so much about Saddam Hussein’s germ weapons programs before the Gulf War is that Washington supplied the materials--"a veritable witch’s brew," according to author William Blum, citing a 1994 Senate report.

 

MYTH

"This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors."

--George W. Bush

 

FACT

UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in December 1998 in anticipation of the U.S. bombing of Iraq in December 1998--on Washington’s orders. And, as the Washington Post reported on March 2, 1999, "United States intelligence services infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military." The information that the U.S. gathered was used to pick targets for the December 1998 bombing campaign.

 

MYTH

Before the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq massed troops along the border with Saudi Arabia, threatening an invasion.

 

FACT

In September 1990--four months before the Gulf War started--the Pentagon claimed that between 250,000 and 400,000 Iraqi troops and more than 1,500 tanks were amassed on Iraq’s border with Saudi Arabia. While USA Today and other papers reported the claim as fact, the St. Petersburg Times in Florida decided to look for the evidence.

 

The Times obtained commercial Soviet satellite images of the area--and found nothing. "It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the reporter who broke the story. "That [buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist," Heller told the Christian Science Monitor.

 

MYTH

Iraqi soldiers ripped Kuwaiti babies out of incubators when they invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

 

FACT

In October 1990, members of Congress listened to the powerful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti "refugee" named Nayirah. In tears, Nayirah described how she had witnessed Iraqi troops steal incubators from a hospital, leaving 312 babies "on the cold floor to die."

 

When the Senate voted to give support George Bush Sr.’s war--by a margin of only five votes--seven senators recounted Nayirah’s story in justifying their "yes" vote. The president himself repeated the story several times.

 

There’s just one problem: It wasn’t true. Nayirah’s false testimony was part of a $10 million Kuwait government propaganda campaign managed by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton. Rather than working as a volunteer at a hospital, Nayirah was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington.

 

"We didn’t know it wasn’t true at the time," claims Brent Scowcroft, Bush’s national security adviser. But, he admitted, "it was useful in mobilizing public opinion."

 

MYTH

"America is a friend to the people of Iraq."

--George W. Bush

 

FACT

After being subjected to the most comprehensive economic sanctions in world history and destruction of the country’s infrastructure by U.S. bombing, the people of Iraq know what a lie this is. As New York Times Nicholas Kristof wrote in an unusually truthful report from Baghdad, "While ordinary Iraqis were very friendly toward me, they were enraged at the U.S. after 11 years of economic sanctions."

 

"U.S. bombing of water treatment plants, difficulties importing purification chemicals like chlorine (which can be used for weapons), and shortages of medicines [have] led to a more than doubling of infant mortality, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization," Kristof acknowledged.

 

Iraqis know that another invasion will lead to more civilian casualties. And they know that for years, Washington backed Saddam Hussein, despite his brutality--because he was a "friend." The U.S. even gave its permission for Saddam’s forces to suppress a rebellion at the end of the Gulf War, maintaining him in power.

 

MYTH

The Bush administration is "driven not by any lust for global domination, but by out-and-out Wilsonian idealism: we want to make the Middle East safe for democracy."

--William Safire

 

FACT

As the New York Times reported October 11, "The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein. In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by an American military commander--perhaps Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of United States forces in the Persian Gulf, or one of his subordinates--who would assume the role that Gen. Douglas MacArthur served in Japan after its surrender in 1945…For as long as the coalition partners administered Iraq, they would essentially control the second-largest proven reserves of oil in the world, nearly 11 percent of the total."

 

Some democracy. The White House’s talk about controlling Iraq’s oil fields reveals what this war is really about. The rhetoric about weapons, democracy and human rights is a sham--just as it was in 1991.

 

But if we expose these lies, we can mobilize an opposition to Bush’s war--and link the fight against the war on Iraq to the fight for real democracy, at home and in the Middle East.

 

 

 

 

 

AFFECT ON OTHER NATIONS:

 

 

ENGLAND:

 

Cook resigns over Blair's Iraq policy


LONDON, March 17: British Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered his biggest political blow of the Iraq crisis on Monday when a senior cabinet minister resigned in protest at the prospect of war and another said she may follow.

"As I cannot give my support to military action...I write with regret to resign," Robin Cook said in a letter to Blair. "In principle I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support."

His resignation came as the United States issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country or face war after diplomatic efforts to win United Nations backing for military action collapsed.

The diplomatic impasse confirmed Mr Blair's worst nightmare.

The embattled prime minister faces a vote on a Gulf war in parliament on Tuesday and the prospect of a massive rebellion by his own party. Cook's resignation, the first time a cabinet member has quit in protest over policy since Mr Blair took power, could also lead other disgruntled ministers to walk.

Last month, 122 Labour members of parliament, more than one in four, defied Mr Blair's hawkish Iraq stance. Rebels in Mr Blair's ruling party say that number could rise by another 40 this time.-Reuters

 

FRANCE:

 

 

 

Speech by Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, before the United

Nations Security Council

 

New-York, March 7, 2003

(Unofficial Translation)

 

 

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary-General,

Ministers,

Ambassadors,

 

I would like to begin by telling you how pleased France is, that on this decisive day, the Security Council is being presided over by Guinea, by an African. I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the presentation they have just given us. Their reports testify to regular progress in the disarmament of Iraq. What have the inspectors told us? That for a month, Iraq has been actively cooperating with them. That substantial progress has been made in the area of ballistics with the progressive destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles and their equipment. That new prospects are opening up with the recent questioning of several scientists. Significant evidence of real disarmament has now been observed. And that indeed is the key to resolution 1441. With solemnity, therefore, before this body, I would like to ask a question-the very same question being asked by people all over the world: Why should we today engage in a war with Iraq? And I would also like to ask: Why smash the instruments that have just proven their effectiveness? Why choose division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction? Why should we wish to proceed, at any price, by force when we can succeed peacefully? War is always an acknowledgement of failure. Let us not resign ourselves to the irreparable. Before making our choice, let us weigh the consequences, let us measure the effects of our decision. We all see it: In Iraq, we are resolutely moving toward completely eliminating programs of weapons of mass destruction. The method that we have chosen works: The information supplied by Baghdad has been verified by the inspectors, and is leading to the elimination of banned ballistic equipment. We are proceeding the same way with all the other programs: with information, verification, destruction. We already have useful information in the biological and chemical domains. In response to questions by the inspectors, Iraq must give us further information in a timely fashion, so that we may obtain the most precise possible knowledge about any existing inventories or programs. On the basis of this information, we will destroy all the components that are discovered, as we are doing for the missiles, and will determine what the truth is. With regard to nuclear weapons, Mr. ElBaradei's statements confirm that we are approaching the time when the IAEA will be able to certify the dismantlement of the Iraq program. What conclusions can we draw? That Iraq, according to the very terms used by the inspectors, represents less of a danger to the world than it did in

1991. That we can achieve our objective of effectively disarming that country.

 

Let us keep the pressure on Baghdad.

 

The adoption of resolution 1441, the assumption of converging positions by the vast majority of the world's nations, diplomatic actions by the Organization of African Unity, the League of Arab States, the Organization mof the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement-all of these common efforts are bearing fruit. The American and British military presence in the region lends support to our collective resolve. We all recognize the effectiveness of this pressure on the part of the international community. We must use it to go through with our objective of disarmament through inspections. As the European Union noted, these inspections cannot continue indefinitely. The pace must therefore be stepped up.

 

That is why France wants to make three proposals today:

 

- First, let us ask the inspectors to establish a hierarchy of tasks for disarmament and, on that basis, to present us as quickly as possible with the work program provided for by resolution 1284. We need to know immediately what the priority issues are that could constitute key disarmament tasks to be carried out by Iraq.

 

- Second, we propose that the inspectors give us a progress report every three weeks. That will make the Iraqi authorities understand that in no case may they interrupt their efforts.

 

- Finally, let us establish a schedule for assessing the implementation of the work program. Resolution 1284 provides for a time frame of 120 days. We are willing to shorten it, if the inspectors consider it feasible.

 

The military agenda must not dictate the calendar of inspections. We agree to timetables and to an accelerated calendar. But we cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors are reporting cooperation. That would mean war. It would lead the Security Council to relinquish its responsibilities. By imposing a deadline of a few days, would we be reduced to seeking a pretext for war?

 

As a permanent member of the Security Council, I will say it again: France will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the automatic use of force. Let us consider the anguish and the waiting of people all around the world, in all our countries, from Cairo to Rio, from Algiers to Pretoria, from Rome to Jakarta.

 

Indeed, the stakes transcend the case of Iraq alone.

 

Let us look at things lucidly: We are defining a method to resolve crises. We are choosing to define the world we want our children to live in. That is true in the case of North Korea, in the case of Southern Asia, where we have not yet found the path toward a lasting resolution of disputes. It is true in the case of the Mideast: Can we continue to wait while acts of violence multiply?

 

These crises have many roots: They are political, religious, economic. Their origins lie in the tumult of centuries. There may be some who believe that these problems can be resolved by force, thereby creating a new order. That is not France's conviction. On the contrary, we believe that the use of force can arouse rancor and hatred, fuel a clash of identities, of cultures-something that our generation has, precisely, a prime responsibility to avoid.

 

To those who believe that war would be the quickest way to disarm Iraq, I say it will establish gulfs and create wounds that are long in healing. And how many victims will it bring, how many grieving families?

 

We do not subscribe to what may be the other objectives of a war.

 

- Is it a matter of regime change in Baghdad? No one underestimates the cruelty of this dictatorship and the need to do everything possible to promote human rights. That is not the objective of resolution 1441. And force is certainly not the best way to bring about democracy. It would encourage dangerous instability, there and elsewhere

 

- Is it a matter of fighting terrorism? War would only increase it, and we could then be faced with a new wave of violence. Let us beware of playing into the hands of those who want a clash of civilizations, a clash of religions.

 

- Or is it, finally, a matter of remolding the political landscape of the Middle East? In that case, we run the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already marked by great instability. Not to mention that in Iraq itself, the large number of communities and religions already represents the danger of a potential break-up.

 

We all have the same demands: more security, more democracy.

 

But there is another logic beside that of force, another path, other

solutions.

 

We understand the profound sense of insecurity with which the American people have been living since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The entire world shared the sorrow of New York and of America, struck in the heart. I say this in the name of our friendship for the American people, in the name of our common values: freedom, justice, tolerance.

 

But there is nothing today that indicates a link between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. And will the world be a safer place after a military intervention in Iraq? I want to tell you what my country's conviction is: No.

 

Four months ago, we unanimously adopted a system of inspections to eliminate the threat of potential weapons of mass destruction and guarantee our security. Today we cannot accept, without contradicting ourselves, a conflict that might well weaken it.

 

Yes, we too want more democracy in the world. But we will achieve this objective only within the framework of a true global democracy based on respect, sharing, the awareness of a true community of values and a common destiny. And its heart is the United Nations. Let us make no mistake: In the face of multiple and complex threats there is no one response, but a single necessity: We must remain united.

 

Today we must invent, together, a new future for the Middle East. Let us not forget the immense hope created by the efforts of the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Agreement. Let us not forget that the Mideast crisis represents our greatest challenge in terms of security and justice. For us, the Mideast, like Iraq, represents a priority commitment.

 

This calls for great ambition and even greater boldness: We should envision a region transformed through peace; civilizations that, through the courage of the outstretched hand, rediscover their self-confidence and an international prestige equal to their long history and their aspirations.

 

In a few days, we must solemnly fulfill our responsibility through a vote. We will be facing an essential choice: Disarming Iraq through war or through peace. And this crucial choice implies others: It implies the international community's ability to resolve current or future crises. It implies a vision of the world, a concept of the role of the United Nations.

 

France believes that to make this choice, to make it in good conscience in this forum of international democracy, before their people and before the world, the heads of state and government must meet again here in New York, at the Security Council.

 

It is in everyone's interest. We must rediscover the fundamental vocation of the United Nations: to allow each of its members to assume its responsibilities in the face of the Iraqi crisis but also to seize, together, the destiny of a world in crisis and thus re-create the conditions for our future unity.

 

 

Embassy of France in the United States - March 7, 2003

 

 

 

THE ARAB League was established in 1945. It has 22 members: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The current Secretary-General is Amr Moussa, formerly Egyptian Foreign Minister. He was appointed at the Arab summit in Amman, in March 2001, to succeed Dr. Ahmad Esmat abd al-Meguid (also Egyptian). See list for previous secretaries.

 

 

 

 

Arab League fears US attacks

March 20, 2003

 

THE Arab League said today's launch of US attacks on Iraq marked a "sad day for all Arabs" and warned that other countries in the region would be next in the firing line.

 

"After Iraq, one day, it will be other Arab countries' turn," assistant secretary general Said Kamal told AFP.

 

"The question is, for every Arab citizen: Who gave the authorisation to (US President George W Bush) to interfere in Iraqi affairs? Who gave this authorisation?" he asked.

 

The pan-Arab organisation's secretary general, Amr Mussa, meanwhile, said it was a "sad day" for the Arab world.

 

"It's a sad day for all the Arabs, that Iraq and its people should be subjected to a military strike which will leave nothing standing and take no account of civilians nor of the whole of Iraq," he told reporters.

 

"I feel saddened and angry in the face of this aggression," he said.

 

Mussa called for the UN Security Council to take "the necessary measures to stop this destructive war ... despite having been marginalised when the decision was taken for war against Iraq".

 

The Security Council was still "the main party responsible for maintaining peace and international security," he said, adding he would consult Arab foreign ministers to call for the world body to hold an emergency meeting.

 

Mussa said the Arab League, whose own attempts to prevent war failed amid disputes among its 22 members, would go ahead with a meeting of foreign ministers scheduled for Sunday at the organisation's Cairo headquarters.

 

EU Middle East envoy Miguel Angel Moratinos met in Cairo today with Mussa and said it was "a very sad day for the region, a very sad day for diplomacy".

 

"The sooner the Iraqi crisis will be over, the better for the region," he said, adding that the European Union would adopt its stand at its summit today and tomorrow.

 

But he cautioned of "different points of view between the members" of the 15-member bloc.

 

 

Arab League chief discuss with Moratinos Iraqi issue developments

Regional-European Union, Politics, 3/21/2003

 

The secretary general of the Arab League Amr Mousa discussed yesterday with the EU Middle East special envoy Miguel Moratinos the escalation against the Palestinian people.

 

Following the meeting, Moratinos expressed the deep concern of the European Union over the American war on Iraq and its negative implications on the Middle East region as a whole. He called for an immediate halting of the war to protect the region, its security and stability.

 

Moratinos indicated that the European council was due to have held a meeting yesterday at the level of leaders in Brussels in order to discuss the Iraqi developments.

 

Moratinos also stressed the care of the European Union to reach a just solution for the Palestinian question according to international resolutions so as to guarantee the rights of the Palestinians to establishing their own independent state.

 

 

MY THOUGHTS:

 

     International Relations all  over the world have become the worst in years….The Bush admistrations policies have destroyed all the years international friendships..

 

 

Dispute over Turkey's war role

Turkey has said that its troops will enter northern Iraq to prevent an influx of refugees across its borders, against the wishes of the United States.

 

Turkey's armed forces are also set to enter the Iraqi Kurdish enclave to prevent "terrorist activity", Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said.

 

However a US official said the US has not agreed to Turkey sending troops into northern Iraq.

 

Turkey has already stationed several thousand soldiers a short distance inside northern Iraq, but Iraqi Kurds oppose their presence.

 

Gul said Turkey had no designs on Iraqi territory

 

 

 

 

 

Q&A: How Strained Are U.S.-Turkey Relations?

From the Council on Foreign Relations, March 21, 2003

 

 

How strained are U.S.-Turkey relations?

 

They are very strained. The Bush administration was stunned by the Turkish Parliament's March 1 decision to deny the United States the use of its territory in the Iraq conflict. A long-time U.S. ally and NATO member, Turkey's assistance had been assumed--perhaps too much so, experts say. In a second vote March 20, the United States received belated permission to use Turkish air space. But even this move falls far short of minimum U.S. expectations that it be allowed to use Turkish air bases against Iraq.

 

Why did Turkey refuse to allow the United States access to its bases?

 

Experts cite many reasons. Public opinion in Turkey, which is solidly against the war, was certainly a key factor. But there were also other issues. Experts say Turkish lawmakers misread the Bush administration, and thought that they could prevent the war or gain billions of dollars in aid with delaying tactics. The strategy backfired on the Turks.

 

Another key problem was disarray within Turkey's majority political party, the Justice and Development Party. In the end, the party voted down a deal that had finally been agreed upon by U.S. negotiators and its own leaders. Finally, some experts say the Bush administration could have done a better job of courting Turkish support.

 

What was the deal?

 

The informal deal had three major points: First, the United States could base up to 62,000 troops in Turkey temporarily on their way into northern Iraq. Second, the United States could use Turkish airbases and Turkish airspace. Third, the Turks would receive $6 billion in grants, some of which could be turned into sizable loans to defend the faltering Turkish currency.

 

In addition, the agreement would have allowed Turkey to send 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers into an area not more than 18 kilometers from the Turkish border to set up camps to handle displaced persons, according to Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. This aspect of the deal, however, set off considerable fears among Iraqi Kurds of deeper Turkish intervention in Iraq.

 

Now that overflight rights have been granted, does the deal still hold?

 

No. Once it became clear that Turkey would not allow ground troops in time for the military action, the White House pulled the deal off the table. There are no financial guarantees for Turkey in the new agreement. And in recent weeks, the White House has sent its special envoy to the Iraqi opposition, Zalmay Khalilzad, to Ankara to encourage Turkey to keep its troops out of Iraq. Turkey has not agreed; in fact, on March 20, the Turkish parliament passed a law that would allow thousands of soldiers to enter northern Iraq.

 

What's the background on the Kurdish issue?

 

The Kurds are a group of about 25 million people united by ethnicity and language who hail from an area spanning eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, western Iran, and parts of Syria and Armenia. Nationalist movements among Kurds have been met with severe repression in Turkey and Iraq, and thousands of civilians have been killed. More than 30,000 people in Turkey have died in an on-going civil war with the Kurds in the last 10 years alone, according to Turkey experts. The fear is that an independent Kurdish state will serve as a model to encourage secession by Turkey's Kurds. Since the 1991 Gulf War, the Kurds have had a more-or-less autonomous area in northern Iraq free from Saddam Hussein's rule.

 

Does Turkey have a claim on Iraqi territory?

 

Not a legal claim, but a nostalgic one. The Turks in one form or another ruled Iraqi territory for more than a thousand years, from 833 to the early 1920's. When the Ottoman Empire was broken up by the victorious powers after World War I, the Turks claimed that Kirkuk and Mosul in northern Iraq were part of their national territory. The Turks eventually agreed to cede the land to the British, who created the modern state of Iraq. Some Turkish feelings of ownership over the land remain.

Do Turks still live in Iraq?

  Q&A: How Strained Are U.S.-Turkey Relations?

(Page 2 of 2)

 

 

 

Northern Iraq is home to the Turkomen minority, a Turkic-speaking group with between 500,000 and 1 million people that has ethnic and cultural ties with the Turks. Turkey is currently supporting the Turkomen leadership in their quest to be recognized as one of the official opposition groups in Iraq, which in turn would give the Turks more sway in a post-war Iraq. In addition, a desire to protect the Turkomen from Kurdish aggression may be one excuse Turkey could use to send its troops into Iraq in the current conflict.

 

Under what conditions would Turks enter Iraq in the ongoing war?

 

The main leaders of the Iraqi Kurds have told the United States they will stay out Kirkuk and let U.S. troops capture its oil fields. Some Kurdish soldiers, however, have told reporters that they are eager to get to Kirkuk as soon as possible, as it is a historic home of the Kurds that Saddam Hussein kicked them out of. If the Kurds move on Kirkuk, it could cause intervention from the Turks. The Turks have also said they will enter Iraq for humanitarian reasons: meaning, to prevent an overflow of refugees across the Turkish border. Turkey is also very concerned about members of a Turkish separatist terrorist group, the PKK, or Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, who have fled across the border. In fact, Turkey experts say it regularly sends thousands of soldiers into Iraq to hunt PKK suspects down.

 

Did Turkey offer its support in the 1991 Gulf War?

 

Yes, and it has allowed coalition forces enforcing the northern no-fly zone to fly from its territory for nearly a decade. It has also been very supportive in the recent war on terror. Since September 11, it has provided military support, tracked suspect financial networks, and been a major participant in the International Security Assistance Force, the peacekeeping force that operates in Afghanistan. That's why the most recent break in the relationship is such big news to Turkey experts. "It might sound hyperbolic, but it feels like 10 years of improving relations have just gone down the drain," said Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey.


 

 

 

GERMANY:

 

Can German-US relations recover?

Can they get back to happier times?

 

 

 

By Mike Linstead

BBC Monitoring

 

 

 

Fresh from his re-election, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder flies to London on Tuesday to meet Tony Blair. As he does so, there are voices urging him to begin mending relations with the US. But how much can he do?

 

 

 

The core of the bad feeling lies in two campaign events:

 

Mr Schroeder's rejection of any US-led attack on Iraq, calling it a "military adventure".

 

Alleged comments by his justice minister saying President Bush was using Iraq to detract from political problems at home - a tactic, she added, also used by Adolf Hitler.

 

 

I think you'll see a very changed policy towards Schroeder

 

US Republican Peter King 

The resignation of the minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, and a personal letter from Mr Schroeder to Mr Bush have failed to calm troubled waters.

 

The hurt on the US side is keenly felt. US Republican congressman Peter King says the damage will last: "In view of all the United States has done for Germany over the years, I think you'll see a very changed policy towards Schroeder."

 

 

What can Schroeder offer?

 

At present however, Mr Schroeder may not be able - or even willing - to offer much more in public.

 

 

Schroeder talked tough during election campaign

 

On Monday, he seemed unfazed by the row. Such differences of opinion were normal between friends, he said. "It will resolve itself because the relationship is intact, and I will play my part."

 

Pollsters are agreed that his anti-war stance was a major factor in winning him the election.

 

It is also a central plank of the policies of his coalition partner, the Greens, whose improved showing saved Mr Schroeder from defeat.

 

No change expected

 

To reverse this stance seems politically unthinkable.

 

Greens' secretary-general Reinhard Buetikofer told the BBC: "I'm quite convinced that the policy... is not going to change after the election. I mean, that was the purpose of all of it - to make clear to the German people which policy these two parties would be standing for."

 

 

Fischer could mend fences

 

There is speculation however that there is room for movement.

 

Some commentators say Mr Schroeder could eventually back military action against Iraq if Saddam Hussein fails to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors and there is a UN resolution authorising force.

 

He could also help to relieve the operational pressure on the US and UK military by increasing the German contingent in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

 

The Fischer factor

 

Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer may also play a large part. He is believed to be well regarded in Washington, and has said Germany will never forget the part America played in defeating the Nazis and in helping with German reunification in 1990.

 

 

 

The iconic American figure of the lonesome cowboy enforcing the law on his own holds no attraction for many Germans

 

But, while this indebtedness is felt by many Germans, there is also a current of scepticism towards America.

 

One of the lessons the German political class drew from the liberation in 1945 was that Germany should be embedded in international structures to prevent the country "going it alone" again.

 

This fervent belief in multilateralism is sorely tested by what some see as US unwillingness to work within such structures itself.

 

The iconic American figure of the lonesome cowboy enforcing the law on his own holds little appeal in Germany.

 

 

Islamic countries call emergency meeting of the UN Security Council

Iraq-Regional, Politics, 3/21/2003

 

Secretary General of the organization of Islamic conference, Abdelouhaed Belkziz, called on Thursday for an emergency meeting of the United Nations' Security Council to probe the situation in Iraq after Americans launched military action early this Thursday morning.

 

In a release, the head of the pan-Islamic Organization voiced deep concern over the situation, calling for an immediate halt of the war, return to the Security Council for a peaceful a settlement and continuation of the international inspectors' mission.

 

"War is not the means to resolve conflicts, it will only lead to destruction and the killing of innocent people," said the OIC Secretary General.

 

"War will increase the suffering of the Iraqi people, threaten stability and intensify extremism and international terrorism," he added.

 

In Cairo, the Arab League spokesman announced that the member countries' delegates will hold an emergency session this Thursday to examine the Iraqi crisis and the US-British raids against Baghdad.

 

The meeting will look into an Arab stand after war on Iraq broke out. The pan-Arab organization's secretary general, Amr Moussa said this Thursday is a sad day for all Arabs and announced that he will be consulting Arab foreign ministers and Arab states delegates to the United Nations Organization over measures that should be taken.

 

Moussa also called the security council -- in its capacity as the only body in charge of protecting international peace and security -- to should shoulder its responsibility in immediately stopping the war.

 

 

Moussa: Sad day for all Arabs

Iraq-Regional, Politics, 3/20/2003

 

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa Thursday said this is a sad day for all the Arabs .

 

In statements, Moussa said "it is sad that an Arab nation and people are coming under a military attack that does not take into consideration the civilians...we are very sorry and angry."

 

Commenting on the start of military attacks on Iraq, Moussa called on the UN Security Council to shoulder its responsibilities, as a body in charge of keeping international peace and security, and to move fast to halt the war and the aggression on Iraq.

 

He referred to intensive consultations with Arab foreign ministers and their delegates to the Arab League to take the necessary steps, adding that the league's ministerial meeting will convene within the coming few days.

 

He said he will hold contacts with the Arab Group at the United Nations because the UN Security Council should bear the responsibility in keeping international peace and security, even if it has been marginalized in taking the decision of war,

 

He added that he was contacted by the Iraqi side informing him of what has occurred, pointing out that he held contacts with all the Arab bodies for consultations on the coming step.

 

MY THOUGHTS:

           

            Last night’s bombing in Baghdad was so terrible…we are lucky to have Robert Fisk:

 

 

Minute after minute the missiles came, with devastating shrieks Robert

Fisk in Baghdad 22 March 2003

 

 

Saddam's main presidential palace, a great rampart of a building 20

storeys high, simply exploded in front of me; a cauldron of fire, a

100ft sheet of flame and a sound that had my ears singing for an hour

after. The entire, massively buttressed edifice shuddered under the

impact. Then four more cruise missiles came in.

 

It is the heaviest bombing Baghdad has suffered in more than 20 years of

war. All across the city last night, massive explosions shook the ground.

To my right, the Ministry of Armaments Procurement ­ a long colonnaded

building looking much like the façade of the Pentagon ­ coughed fire

as five missiles crashed into the concrete.

 

In an operation officially intended to create "shock and awe'', shock was

hardly the word for it. The few Iraqis in the streets around me ­ no

friends of Saddam I would suspect ­ cursed under their breath.

 

From high-rise buildings, shops and homes came the thunder of crashing

glass as the shock waves swept across the Tigris river in both directions.

Minute after minute the missiles came in. Many Iraqis had watched ­ as

I had ­ television film of those ominous B-52 bombers taking off from

Britain only six hours earlier. Like me, they had noted the time, added

three hours for Iraqi time in front of London and guessed that, at around

9pm, the terror would begin. The B-52s, almost certainly firing from

outside Iraqi airspace, were dead on time.

 

Police cars drove at speed through the streets, their loudspeakers

ordering pedestrians to take shelter or hide under cover of tall

buildings. Much good did it do. Crouching next to a block of shops on the

opposite side of the river, I narrowly missed the shower of glass that

came cascading down from the upper windows as the shock waves slammed into

them.

 

Along the streets a few Iraqis could be seen staring from balconies,

shards of broken glass around them. Each time one of the great golden

bubbles of fire burst across the city, they ducked inside before the blast

wave reached them. At one point, as I stood beneath the trees on the

corniche, a wave of cruise missiles passed low overhead, the shriek of

their passage almost as devastating as the explosions that were to follow.

 

How, I ask myself, does one describe this outside the language of a

military report, the definition of the colour, the decibels of the

explosions? When the cruise missiles came in it sounded as if someone was

ripping to pieces huge curtains of silk in the sky and the blast waves

became a kind of frightening counterpoint to the flames.

 

There is something anarchic about all human beings, about their reaction

to violence. The Iraqis around me stood and watched, as I did, at huge

tongues of flame bursting from the upper stories of Saddam's palace,

reaching high into the sky. Strangely, the electricity grid continued to

operate and around us the traffic lights continued to move between red and

green. Billboards moved in the breeze of the shock waves and floodlights

continued to blaze on public buildings. Above us we could see the massive

curtains of smoke beginning to move over Baghdad, white from the

explosions, black from the burning targets.

 

How could one resist it? How could the Iraqis ever believe with their

broken technology, their debilitating 12 years of sanctions, that they

could defeat the computers of these missiles and of these aircraft? It was

the same old story: irresistible, unquestionable power.

 

Well yes, one could say, could one attack a more appropriate regime? But

that is not quite the point. For the message of last night's raid was the

same as that of Thursday's raid, that of all the raids in the hours to

come: that the United States must be obeyed. That the EU, UN, Nato ­

nothing ­ must stand in its way. Indeed can stand in its way.

 

No doubt this morning the Iraqi Minister of Information will address us

all again and insist that Iraq will prevail. We shall see. But many Iraqis

are now asking an obvious question: how many days? Not because they want

the Americans or the British in Baghdad, though they may profoundly wish

it. But because they want this violence to end: which, when you think of

it, is exactly why these raids took place.

 

Reports were coming in last night of civilians killed in the raids ­

which, given the intensity of the cruise missile attacks, is not

surprising. Another target turned out to be the vast Rashid military

barracks, perhaps the largest in Iraq.

 

But the symbolic centre of this raid was clearly intended to be Saddam's

main palace, with its villas, fountains, porticos and gardens. And, sure

enough, the flames licking across the façade of the palace last night

looked very much like a funeral pyre.

 

 

 

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS:

 

     As I conclude this compilation of thoughts and articles on this Friday Evening March 22nd 2003, this unjust war continues. I am against this war for basic fact that war lead to more and more death and destruction for a people suffering under UN embargo. how long will the war last? At what price? What about after the war? How many civilians will die? How many Us troops will die? The amount of uncertainty is incredible. And because there is not international backing of this war…lets pray for peace…..