Dear cr,
My reasons for bringing up Iraq on the list were not to praise Saddam nor
even particularly to condemn neo-imperialism. It was really more about
propaganda and how it works. The strategic mission of propaganda is to
create the context in which people make judgements: to limit the
alternatives among which people are to choose.
In the case of Iraq, propaganda invites us to be either "for" or "against"
Saddam. If that were really the choice, then there isn't really any room
left for debate - who could be for Saddam?
I'm against Saddam - because I'm against dictatorship wherever it occurs.
But when you look at the dictators that exist and have existed in the
"free" world, you find that in most cases they've been created, funded, and
armed by the US and its allies for the purpose of suppressing the
population and enabling imperialist exploitation.
The US turns against such a dictator only when he loses his iron grip (as
with Marcos in the Phillipines) or ceases to cooperate with his external
bosses (as with Noriega or Saddam). Decades of abuse of civilians (such as
the Kurds) is permitted and downplayed in the media. However once the
dictator steps out of line, then suddenly the media is filled with all the
atrocity stories that could (and should) have been featured years before.
This is the Orwellian part: yesterday's friend becomes instantly today's
enemy, and the sheep obediently bleat in the new direction.
In the 1989 Encyclopedia Brittanica (according to a report which I
unfortunately can't locate right now) Iraq was presented as the model
middle-Eastern state: progressive, friendly to the West, a welcome ally in
the region. In the 1990 edition, Iraq was portrayed as an example of
modern-day Nazism. Needless to say, Iraq didn't change its stripes between
1989 and 1990 - rather the tactics of the West had been reformulated.
I've been "against" Saddam for decades, long before it was fashionable.
I'm also against all the other dictators found in the Middle East
(including Bahrain Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, not just Iran and Iraq), Latin
America, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere. It is Western imperialism
(economic and military) which largely keeps these regimes in power. I'd be
happy if the West became enlightened and stopped supporting all these
dicatators - but the actions against Panama and Iraq reveal no such
enlightmenent, they are simply adjustments to the imperial system,
changes-of-the-guard among dictators.
rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: "Dani Rubin, Jordan Valley college IL" <•••@••.•••>
Organization: Emek-Hayarden Regional College
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997
Subject: Re: cj#707> U.S. crimes against humanity / Iraq
> From: Parveez Syed
>
> LONDON-UK (SRTV-SC) - Millions of defenceless children and women
> civilians, including Western funded Kurds and Shias in Iraq were
> nuked during the Gulf assault by the Western "Allies", one
> Western intelligence source told Shanti RTV news agency.
I was really shocked by what I read in your message. BUT, on the
other hand. Why shouldn't you turn all those complaints against Sadam?
No doubt if he only has the nukes and chemicals he would use it
against MY children. Doing it without any hesitation (see his war
against Iran). Inspite of his the defeat he STILL try to get that
ability for using it, among other, against ME. It turns out that the
one who doesn't care what happens to the Iraqi children is the one
who has the ability to stop those terrible happenings at his will.
Honestly choosing between the choices that MY children will suffer it
or the Iraqi - my choice is clear and yours, if you were at risk (you
are NOT) will not be different!
Shalom
Dani
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Dani,
You're quite right of course, I'm not in immediate danger, and I have no
right to pass judgement on your attitude. When actually defending one's
children, who knows what lengths one might go to.
I invite you to read the piece below, however, and ask yourself whether US
policy is really to your benefit. Why was the US giving all these
bio/chemical weapons to Iraq? Wouldn't you rather the weapons weren't
there in the first place? Doesn't it bother you that US policy in the
Mideast seems to be to maintain the highest possible level of tension at
all times? ... to keep everyone in the region armed to the teeth?
US objectives are of course no secret - the proclaimed "national interest"
of the US is to maintain control over oil supplies (for the benefit, by the
way, not of the US but of the major oil companies).
Medieval regimes and regional instability make up the game plan for
control, and Israel is an unfortunate (if willing) pawn in the game. You
and your children will never be able to sleep in peace as long as this
pattern continues, even with your 200 nuclear weapons. What is needed is
regional peace and stability, an end to monarchical rule, and for the US to
give up "ownership" of the oil which was never its to own.
By supporting the current excessive and misdirected sanctions against Iraq,
we are only acceding to this perverted system of US hegemony and
manipulation over the peoples of the region. Each brick in the path is
sold to us by the media, but the path is not going in the right direction.
rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997
From: Richard Clark <•••@••.•••>
Newsgroups:
alt.political.economics,alt.politics.org.cia,alt.journalism,alt.politics.rad
ical-left,alt.mindcontrol,alt.conspiracy
CC: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
Subject: Proof: the U.S. supplied biological weapons to Iraq
Virtually ignored by our mainstream media is a 1994 U.S. Senate Report
entitled "Arming Iraq: The Export of Biological Materials and the Health
of Gulf War Veterans." Known as the Riegle Report (it's named after its
author, Senator Donald J. Riegle, Jr), this report itemizes biological
weapons supplied to Iraq by the United States. Riegle and his team
identified no less than 61 batches of biologically hazardous materials
exported to Iraq: "Between the years 1985 and 1989, the United States
Government approved the sales of quantities of potentially lethal
biological agents that could have been cultured and grown in very large
quantities in an Iraqi biological warfare program," Senator Riegle
stated. Make no mistake, these were "disease-producing items." The
Report added, "we were unable to obtain any records prior to 1985."
Senator Riegle included in his report an extract from a Department of
Defense summary report written in 1992:
"By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed biological
weapons. Its advanced and aggressive biological warfare program was the
most advanced in the Arab world. The program probably began in the
1970s and concentrated on the development of two agents, bottulinum
toxin and anthrax bacteria. Delivery means for biological agents ranged
from simple aerial bombs and artillery rockets to surface-to-surface
missiles."
And in direct contradiction to this, the Pentagon now tells us that no
biological weapons were possessed or used (on American troops) by Iraq.
Other biological agents provided by the U.S. to Saddam Hussein's
biological warfare program included Histoplasma capsulatum, which can
cause symptoms resembling tuberculosis and can lead to the enlargement
of the liver and spleen, as well as anemia and skin disease. Please
note: these are problems that many Gulf War veterans and their families
and acquaintances now suffer from.
Another organism provided by the U.S. to Saddam was Brucella melitensis,
which, when "weaponized," causes chronic fatigue, profuse sweating and
loss of appetite, joint pains, insomnia and nausea, and can potentially
result in major damage to the vital organs. These are still more of the
symptoms and problems experienced by thousands of Gulf War vets and
their families.
Finally, U.S. shipments to Iraq included bacterial DNA, according to
Senator Riegle, no longer in office.
All of these facts are, of course, now being stonewalled by the U.S.
government. In response to this stonewalling and side-stepping, Senator
Riegle fired off a volley of letters to various officials. One letter
(to Secretary of Defense Perry, 9 Feb '94) stated that the "average
cost" of each of the various biological 'specimens' shipped to Iraq was
"less than $60" and that they were "acquired from a not-for-profit
organization." (Notice how Riegle needs to use the euphemism,
"specimens," in order to be able to even broach the subject with Defense
Secretary Perry. But they are not "specimens," they are biological
warfare agents!)
Would our own Department of Defense be capable of developing and using
biological warfare?! And would they allow biological warfare agents
(presently illegal) to be sold to a psychopathic scumbag like Saddam
Hussein? (Note: Iraq was an ally at the time of the sale.)
To better answer this question, perhaps we should take a look at a U.S.
Army War College publication entitled "The Revolution in Military
Affairs, and Conflict Short of War," dated July 25, 1994. In this U.S.
Army publication, authors Steven Metz and James Kievit say "Certain
biotechnical weapons---considered by some to violate the biological
warfare convention to which the United States is a signatory---also may
transgress American values regarding appropriate means." Metz and
Kievit go on to ask: "Could the government and military of this
multi-ethnic republic face charges that it was developing or using a
weapon that targeted Africans . . ." The authors then conclude:
"Overcoming these constraints . . would require fundamental changes in
the United States --- an ethical and political revolution may be
necessary to make a military revolution." This, the authors
"hypothesize," could be achieved by remodeling the way Americans think,
and also by the effective control of news management, using "advanced
psychotechnology" and other techniques such as "morphing."
Hard to believe that we taxpayers are funding this kind of diabolical
contingency planning?
=========================
Footnote: Among the various additional allegations being made by
persons other than Riegle is that the Wackenhut Corporations supplied
various biologically-engineered organisms to Iraq. Evidence for this is
provided by investigative journalist Carol Marshall in her 140-page
manuscript, "The Last Circle," an investigation into the so-called
"Octopus." This, of course, is the same story Danny Casolero was
investigating when he suddenly and mysteriously died, after telling
friends he was onto something very big and was that day to meet with
someone who would be providing him with some very important evidence.
=========================
This report is adapted from an article that appears in the
August-September issue of a British magazine, _Nexus_. The American
distributors of the magazine can be reached at 1-800-784-0745.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26 Wexford, Ireland
http://www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen)
* Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: