|
|
|
|
DUAL-USE MATERIALS AND THE WEAPONS SEARCH IN IRAQ Before the war, the US insisted, time and time again, that these weapons existed in large numbers and posed a threat so urgent that military action was required to "disarm" the deposed dictator. In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush laid out his administration's case for war with Iraq by saying that US "intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands." Bush also presented allegations, later refuted by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iraq had purchased enriched uranium ore from the African nation of Niger. Even facing certain loss of power as US tanks rolled into Baghdad, the Iraqi regime did not use the chemical or biological weapons whose "grave and gathering danger" Rice, Bush and Powell had posited before the war. |
|
| Jimmy Carter "We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers -- women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of our hostages and that is what has precipitated some of the terrorist attacks." Source: William Blum, American Empire for Dummies, 10/21/02 |
|
|
IT HAS LONG BEEN RUMOURED THE RUMSFELD HAS A HIT LIST OF COUNTRIES TO BE INVADED. 26 April 03See where your country is on the list! You can be first in your street to dig a decent bunker, store up water and food, convert your money to US dollars. Why you might even want to buy a little American flag to wave at the US tanks as they roll into your street. God bless America. |
|
|
AMERICA'S WAR OF "LIBERATION" MAY BE OVER. BUT IRAQ'S WAR OF LIBERATION FROM THE AMERICANS IS JUST ABOUT TO BEGIN. 17 April 2003 Robert Fisk:For the people on the streets, this is not liberation but a new colonial oppression It's going wrong, faster than anyone could have imagined. The army of "liberation" has already turned into the army of occupation. The Shias are threatening to fight the Americans, to create their own war of "liberation". READ THE FULL STORY |
|
|
US TRADE AND AUSTRALIA by Sean Healy April 15, 2003In the very week that the United States bombers, cruise missiles and marines started pulverising Iraq, a crack squad of US trade negotiators arrived in Canberra to begin talks on the long-awaited US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. A coincidence? Yes. But an illustrative one, a starting point for having a closer look at this FTA, the motivations and agendas behind it, and the linkage between security and trade. The FTA has been in the pipes for a considerable period of time, but it is only now that preparations have finally moved into the stage of direct negotiation. READ THE FULL STORY |
|
| WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD? George W Bush: We don't care WHY the Chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either for us or against us. There is no middle ground here. If the chicken is not on our side of the road, then we will be compelled to destroy the chicken so that it can have freedom. |
|
|
IRAQ IS A TRIAL RUN by Noam Chomsky and VK Ramachandran Frontline IndiaApril 02, 2003 Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political activist, is a powerhouse of anti-imperialist activism in the United States today. On March 21, a crowded and typical - and uniquely Chomskyan - day of political protest and scientific academic research, he spoke from his office for half an hour to V. K. Ramachandran on the current attack on Iraq. Noam Chomsky maintains that Iraq is the forerunner for more such attacks around the world. This is the trial. READ THE INTERVIEW |
|
|
IRAQ: WAR AND DEMOCRACY "I support regime change. I support it around the world, including in Iraq, where a dictator holds sway. The question, however, is whether we should support regime change by the United States military and whether there is any reason to believe that a U.S. invasion will lead to democracy for the people of Iraq, let alone for the wider region. There are many good reasons to be skeptical that a U.S. military assault will result in any sort of meaningful democracy. First, one only has to look at who the supposed agent of this democratic flowering is to be: George W. Bush, who rules the United States illegitimately, having stolen the 2000 election, and who presides over the most serious assault on the basic democratic rights of the people of the United States in over half a century. Second, one should look at the long record of U.S. foreign policy..." NOW READ ON |
|
|
PRO-ISRAEL HAWKS AND THE SECOND GULF WAR Joel Beinin April 6, 2003(Joel Beinin, a contributing editor of Middle East Report, is a professor of Middle East history at Stanford University.) "The interests of the pro-Israel lobby and the attack-Iraq caucus of the second Bush administration have converged, and are to a significant degree represented by the same people. That is not to say that the interests they are pursuing overlap completely. For the neo-conservatives operating under the patronage of Cheney and Rumsfeld, the immediate interests are demonstrating that the overwhelming military power of the US can and will be efficaciously deployed to make and unmake regimes and guarantee access to oil. Destroying the Iraqi regime and installing a long-term US military presence in the Persian Gulf of even greater magnitude than now exists will remove the present limited threat to US oil interests in the region. It would reduce the need to conciliate the Saudis or the Russians or to develop alternative sources of energy." READ THE FULL ARTICLE |
|
|
ONLY IN AMERICA "It is probably true that at the beginning of the present push of the administration to go to war, the connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were minimal. Each, on the face of it, had to distrust the other. From Saddam's point of view, bin Laden was the most troublesome kind of man, a religious zealot, that is to say a loose cannon, a warrior who could not be controlled. To bin Laden, Saddam was an irreligious brute, an unbalanced fool whose boldest ventures invariably crashed." |
|
|
11th March 2003, by George Monbiot.
THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE IRAQ WAR "... The Project for the New American Century, [is] the pressure group established, among others, by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad, all of whom (except the president's brother) are now senior officials in the US government. Its statement of principles, signed by those men on June 3 1997, asserts that the key challenge for the United States is "to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests". This requires "a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities." BUT WAIT, THERE IS MUCH MORE! This is an astounding article, backed up by documents. Even more surprisingly, you can read these same documents on line! They want to rule the world and they don't care who knows it! This is the web site where you can read about the master plan. http://www.newamericancentury.org/Here are the "statement of principles": http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm |
|
|
Finally: Osama/Hussein Link Exposed Powell Offers Proof of Saddam-Osama Link,March 27, 2003 by Gil Christner UNITED NATIONS - Secretary of State Colin Powell today offered incontrovertible proof of the long-sought-after link between Saddam Hussein's Regime and the al Qaeda Terrorist Network. In a speech before the General Assembly, General Powell was able to show, through a series of "degrees of separation," how Hussein was merely 6 people away from Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda. Using charts, graphs, and all AV equipment available to the U.N., Powell presented his case to the General Assembly and the entire world, which was watching via television cameras. Never rambling or tentative, a confident Sec. Powell spoke with a voice of authority, outlining the solid connection between the leader of Iraq and the group of terrorists deemed "the most dangerous people to Humanity" by Fox News Network. The series of charts and graphs were presented in 14 different languages, including Farsi, Aramaic and German. French was inexplicably left out of the languages used. In sum, here are Gen. Powell's arguments:
1. In December of 2002, actor Sean Penn went to Baghdad, home of Saddam Hussein.
2. Sean Penn is married to actress Robin Wright Penn 3. Robin Wright Penn made the movie "Forrest Gump" with Tom Hanks. 4. Tom Hanks made the film "Apollo 13" with Kevin Bacon. 5. Kevin Bacon made a Visa card commercial with Indian-born character actor Sahid Benjali. 6. Sahid Benjali used to bartend at the Lingerie Club in Hollywood. In the early 80's he served drinks to Carmen bin Laden, a former USC student, who is Osama's sister-in-law. After Gen. Powell's presentation, there were several heated discussions, with many of the delegates making angry responses, some of which were not too flattering to the case being made. "6 degrees? Fah!" said Ahmad Abul Gheit, the delegate from Egypt. "I can get from Saddam to Osama in 5 people! Including Madonna!" "5 people? I can do it in four," retorted Elinor Hammarskjold, the Swedish delegate. "And I don't need to use Kevin Bacon! Just give me the Farrelly Brothers and a pool boy in Bel-Air!" Where upon the entire floor of the U.N. erupted into arguments. Eventually the winner emerged: Tanzania delegate Mark J. Mwando was able to get from Saddam to Osama in 2 steps:
1. In 1983, Saddam Hussein met with then U.S. Envoy Donald Rumsfeld, working on behalf of the Ronald Reagan-George Bush Sr. administration, to arm Iraq against Iran.
2. George Bush Sr. was formerly the head of the CIA, the organization which armed Osama bin Laden and provided training to his followers in the 80's. For coming up with the winning entry, Delegate Mwando was treated to a party platter from the Carnegie Deli on 7th Ave. "This is wonderful," Mwando said as he munched on a dill pickle. Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld could not be reached for comment. |
|
|
25th March 2003. By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian DOES THE US SUPPORT THE GENEVA CONVENTION OR DOESN'T IT? "Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva Convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them."READ THE FULL STORY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL VIEW ON THE TREATMENT OF POWs. "From the outset, the US Government refused to grant any of the Guantánamo detainees prisoner of war (POW) status or to have any disputed status determined by a "competent tribunal" as required under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. In April 2002, Amnesty International warned the US administration that its selective approach to the Geneva Conventions threatened to undermine the effectiveness of international humanitarian law protections for any US or other combatants captured in the future.(6) The organization received no reply to this or other concerns it raised about the detainees." |
|
|
25 Mar 2003, by Marcus Clark
REPORT FROM THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH Black is white. Up is down. Truth is the first casualty of war."We are not bombing Baghdad!" Donald Rumsfeld, 24 March. (Shortly after 1000 cruise missiles and smart bombs hit Iraq, most of them in Baghdad). If five hundred cruise missiles hit New York would he tell the American people: "They are not bombing New York! Everything is okay, they are just targeting government buildings." And when the missiles hit homes and schools, "don't worry about it, that's just collateral damage." The horrible thing about this war is that it makes it seem like people who oppose the war, support Saddam. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where we differ from those waging the war is: 1. We believe any country that initiates war outside of the UN is setting a dangerous precedent and at the same time destroying international stability. 2. Waging a war when it is far from the last resort is wrong, and will not lead to a just and lasting peace. It will not bring peace, it will not bring true democracy because the motivation is wrong. It will not help prevent international terrorism. Wars like this breed acts of terrorism. 3. This war is going to kill a lot of people who oppose Saddam. It is going to kill and injure thousands of innocent people, it is going to destroy homes, schools, factories. Already there are reports of 250,000 refugees in the North. Sometimes war is necessary. This is not one of those times.
READ AND SIGN: We Stand for Peace and Justice Statement, initially prepared by 92 activists and writers from around the world on May 27 -- the initial signers -- and in the days since signed by 71,000 people and climbing. |
|
|
March 20, 2003 Marc Lynch, Middle East Report 225
USING AND ABUSING THE UN "As the United States and its small band of supporters begin a war against Iraq without Security Council authorization or even a majority show of support, questions about the future of the United Nations seem ever more urgent. For the last several months, Bush administration officials have issued dire warnings that failure to back war against Iraq would condemn the United Nations to irrelevance.According to the Bush team's interpretation, intransigent French resistance to the US-British-Spanish resolution authorizing war "forced" the United States to lead its "coalition of the willing" into the war that is now underway. In fact, it was George W. Bush's failure to secure a nine-vote majority in the Security Council, despite unusually brazen arm-twisting, that led the administration to withdraw its war resolution from consideration. Far from demonstrating its irrelevance, the Security Council's remarkable resistance to US pressure has dramatically enhanced its image in the eyes of most of the world, and no small number of American citizens. Had the UN surrendered to Bush's pressure and bestowed artificial legitimacy upon the war, the institution might indeed have lost its relevance. Refusing to stamp its imprimatur upon Bush's war has arguably given the UN greater relevance as a moral center of world politics than it has ever before possessed." |
|
|
Tuesday 18 March 2003, by Sami Ramadani
WHOSE INTERESTS AT HEART? "My wife sees Iraqi victims of torture every day where she works, at the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture; we wanted to tell Bridget Prentice that Iraq is in desperate need of regime change and the establishment of a democratic order. The Iraqi people need it much more than Bush and Blair could ever understand. But democracy for Iraq will not be achieved by bombing and invading the country. It cannot be trusted to George Bush. The US will not accept a democratic verdict which is not to its liking in a strategically important country, possessing the world's second largest oil reserves. They strangled just such a verdict in Congo in the 1960s and in Chile in the 1970s, and they are working hard to reverse it in Venezuela today."FULL STORY |
|
18 March 2003 by Stephen Zunes You've heard the speech, now read the comment. In George W Bush's speech on 17th March he spoke eloquently, but where the things he said true? "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war." 'This is patently false. In 1998, President Bill Clinton successfully pressured UNSCOM director Richard Butler to withdraw inspectors without authorization from the Secretary General or the Security Council--before their mission was complete--in order to engage in a four-day heavy bombing campaign against Iraq. As predicted at the time, this illegal use of military force--combined with revelations that the United States had abused the inspections process for espionage purposes' -- FULL STORY |
|
| US MILITARY PHILOSOPHY: There is no problem that cannot be solved by high explosives. Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they did it by killing all those who opposed them. |
|
|
LIBERATE? On March 8, 1917, Lt. Gen. Stanley Maude issued a "Proclamation to the People of the Wilayat of Baghdad". Maude's Anglo-Indian Army of the Tigres had invaded and occupied Iraq - after storming up the country from Basra - to "free" its people from their dictators. "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," the British announced. "People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. "This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment." READ THE FULL ARTICLE |
|
|
RIGHT TAKES CENTRE STAGE Brian Whitaker looks at the influence of rightwing theorists on US policy in the Middle EastTuesday March 4, 2003 At the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute last Wednesday, the US president, George Bush, gave a speech outlining his political visions for Iraq and Palestine, and what he sees as the link between them. "Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state," Mr Bush said. ... The second notable feature of Mr Bush's speech came in a passage that was not generally reported by the media. Paying tribute to his hosts, the president said: "At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds. I want to thank them for their service." So what is the AEI, who are these great minds, and what, exactly, are they doing to help the president? The AEI is the most important rightwing thinktank in the US and, with assets of almost $36m (£23m) and an annual income of around $24m from (mainly anonymous) benefactors, it is probably the wealthiest, too. Among other things, it has been highly influential in promoting the "zap Iraq" policy. READ THE ARTICLE |
|
| Robert Fisk, 01 Mar 2003 What was it President Bush told us? "Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us," he said. Since when? When Iraqi men and women were being raped in President Saddam's torture chambers in 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was in Baghdad asking the Iraqi leader if he could reopen the US embassy. Rebuilding Iraq will require "a sustained commitment from many nations" but "we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more". How extraordinary. For these are precisely the same words used by Israel when it invaded Lebanon in 1982. It took Israel 22 years and hundreds of Israeli lives - and thousands of Arab lives - before that occupation ended. Ah, what it is to fight for "the liberty of an oppressed people" - this is Mr Bush on Iraq - provided, of course, they are not Palestinian. FULL STORY |
|
|
24 Feb 2003, by STEPHEN GREEN
WHO ARMED IRAQ? (As if you couldn't guess!) "At the time of the visit , Iraq had already been removed from the State Department's list of terrorist countries in 1982; and in the previous month, November, President Reagan had approved National Security Decision Directive 114, on expansion of U.S.-Iraq relations generally. But it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90 for lucrative U.S. weapons exports--some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical/biological and nuclear weapons equipment and technology, along with critical components for missile delivery systems for all of the above. According to a 1994 GAO Letter Report (GAO/NSIAD-94-98) some 771 weapons export licenses for Iraq were approved during this six year period....not by our European allies, but by the U.S. Department of Commerce." |
|
|
11 February 2003, Amnesty International AI Index: MDE 14/017/2003 IS THE SECURITY COUNCIL SCARED TO FACE UP TO THE HUMAN TOLL OF CONFLICT IN IRAQ? The humanitarian and human rights consequences of war must be given high priority by the Security Council (not to mention the US). When war is contemplated against a country whose people have been suffering from severe violations by their government and more than a decade of sanctions, the need for such an assessment is even more important.15 Feb 03 |
|
|
February 09, 2003, by Maria Tomchick
WHAT HAS IRAQ GOT TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERROR? NOTHING. There has been no evidence that Iraq has aided al-Qaida terrorists. Most analysts concede they are mortal enemies. But it does seem likely that if the US attacks Iraq, then al-Qaida will support Iraq.Only two days after Colin Powell made his presentation to the U.N. Security Council to provide conclusive facts on Iraq, the evidence he provided is unraveling. Through interviews with experts, intelligence sources, and an examination of the physical evidence, reporters are piecing together facts that refute all of his major claims. FULL REPORT |
|
| 25 Jan 2003, by Marcus Clark "The President is very grateful and today publicly thanks the people of Australia and the government of Australia for their actions. It will help keep the peace." White House spokesman. Really? Surely it's time President Bush's spin doctors told him the truth. The people of Australia are against an attack on Iraq without UN backing. Those who tag along with the Bush administration are a minority in Australia. Let's have a look at WHAT AUSSIES REALLY THINK. |
|
|
RUMSFELD "OFFERED HELP TO SADDAM" |
|
|
January 18 / 19, 2003 From Counterpunch What they decided to do was discredit the weapons inspectors. That way, if the inspectors never find anything, people will think it is because Blix and his team are incompetent, not that there aren't weapons. And the possibility of war remains a go." Read the full story... |
|
|
USA: one year on - the legal limbo of the Guantánamo detainees continues. The US government must end the legal black hole into which it has thrown hundreds of detainees in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. "No access to the courts, lawyers or relatives; the prospect of indefinite detention in small cells for up to 24 hours a day; the possibility of trials by executive military commissions with the power to hand down death sentences and no right of appeal: is this how the USA defends human rights and the rule of law?", Amnesty International asked, recalling the Secretary of State's promise last year that the USA would 'not relax our commitment to advancing the cause of human rights'. |
|
|
LET IRAN DO IT The dedicated efforts of the Bush administration to take control of Iraq -- by war, military coup or some other means -- have elicited various analyses of the guiding motives. The administration's goal, Lieven says, is "unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority," which is why much of the world is so frightened. The administration has overlooked a simple alternative to invading Iraq. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! (Pt 2) By Noam Chomsky and Lyle Jenkins The NY Times Internationally Syndicated Version Dec 2002 |
|
|
Regarding Intervention in General, 9-11 and Afghanistan One Year Later, and Iraq on the Verge of War Some examples of questions, with answers that make more sense than what comes from the Pentagon. "Is it true that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people? Yes. And such use is most certainly a despicable and heinous crime. And such use is one reason, among others, why it would be appropriate to call Saddam Hussein a "monster" on moral grounds. The British dossier and the Oct. 4, 2002 CIA report give details of these horrible actions by Hussein, but they omit one small fact: that the U.S. and British governments were backing Hussein when he committed these atrocities." By Stephen R. Shalom and Michael Albert |
|
|
After both houses of Congress granted the White House authorization for a US-led military strike to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, George W. Bush claimed that "America has spoken with one voice" about the "mortal threat" posed by Iraq’s presumed programs for weapons of mass destruction. But much of the US public remained unconvinced that Iraq really imperiled the world’s sole superpower. Bush has failed to prove the existence of an urgent threat coming from Iraq. His administration’s push for war begs for alternative explanations. This is a sixteen page pdf background report on Iraq. Produced by Middle East Research & Information Project, by Sarah Graham-Brown and Chris Toensing OCTOBER 2002 500 kb |
|
|
DEMANDS FOR IMPUNITY FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT In recent months, they have approached governments all over the world asking (ahhemm!) them to enter into agreements not to surrender their nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to the new International Criminal Court. 11 October 2002, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL |
|
|
CHOMSKY REPLIES ABOUT AVOIDING AMERICAN CRIMES "We need to win the support of many of those who favored the war in Afghanistan.... This means focusing on the dangers of war in Iraq rather than dwelling on US misdeeds in the past...." NOT AT ALL! by Noam ChomskySeptember 12, 2002 |
|
| NOAM CHOMSKY ANSWERS QUESTIONS ON THE LOOMING WAR WITH IRAQ. A different explanation to what comes from Rumsfeld. Hmmm, now which one sounds plausible? "What in your view are the true motives propelling a possible war?" by Noam Chomsky and Michael Albert August 29, 2002 ZNet InterActive |
|
|
LINK TO SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT COME DIRECTLY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE CounterPunchZ NET IRAQ |