rkm: Ultra blitzkrieg genocide to be tested in Iraq

2003-03-12

Richard Moore

Comments follow this report.
rkm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "dnordin" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>,
        <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>,
        <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>,
        <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Fw: [NN] Mother of all bombs may be tested in Iraq war
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:24:00 -0800
----------
> From: Mike Wallace <•••@••.•••>
> To: •••@••.•••
> Subject: [NN] Mother of all bombs may be tested in Iraq war
> Date: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:02 PM
> 

Mother of all bombs may be tested in Iraq war

PTI[ WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 01:44:53 PM ]

NEW YORK: The United States, if it goes to war with
Iraq, intends to use a new monster weapon whose
explosive punch is equivalent to a small nuclear
device, a media report said today.

ABC television network quoted military sources as
saying that the weapon, still in the experimental
stage, would be used during the first nights of the
attack.

The bomb is called MOAB -- short for "Massive Ordnance
Air Burst" bomb - and is the bigger version of the
15,000 pound "Daisy Cutter" used in Vietnam, the Gulf
war and in Afghanistan.

MOAB is a 21,000-pound bomb that will be pushed out of
the back of a C-130 transport and guided by satellite
because it is not dropped by parachute, as was the old
Daisy Cutter. The aircraft can let it go from far
higher altitudes, making it safer for US pilots.

MOAB's massive explosive punch, sources say, is similar
to a small nuclear weapon. It is intended to obliterate
a command center hidden in tunnels and bunkers or a
concentration of Iraqi tanks.

Whatever the target, it must be far from cities where
civilians might be hurt. But one important aspect of
using this type of weapon, sources say, will be
psychological impact on enemy troops. It is intended to
terrorize Iraqi troops, drastically reducing their
desire to continue the fight, they add.

Michael D. Wallace
Department of Political Science &
The Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1
phone:(604)822-4550,
fax:822-5540

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friends,

I'd like to add some context to the above report. 

First, consider the claim, "[MOAB] is intended to
terrorize Iraqi troops, drastically reducing their
desire to continue the fight, [military sources] add."

The fact is that in the so-called Gulf War there was no
"continuing the fight", indeed there was no fight.  For
the most part Iraqi troops stayed in their bunkers for
the whole duration.  They knew that the minute they
stuck their heads out they'd get them blown off,
whether it be day or night.  There never was any
"ground war", there was simply the advance of ground
vehicles after all potential opposition had been
pulverized by missiles and bombs.  This particular
excuse for ultra-high explosives is phony.

Next, consider the fact that MOAB is only the tip of
the iceberg of ultra-lethal weaponry being scheduled
for deployment in Iraq.  The Pentagon talks about "shock
and awe" tactics on a much broader canvas...  "600
targets per day", "Nowhere in Baghdad will be safe",
etc.  There are plans to use internationally banned
chemical weapons, drone assassin planes, and other
esoteric and experimental killing machines. Even
nuclear weapons have been mentioned several times by
top officials as being necessary for certain kinds of
targets.

The level of violence being planned staggers the
imagination.  One is reminded of the firestorms that
devastated Dresden near the end of World War 2, killing
far more people than did the bombs in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.  A wall of fire advanced at 90 miles per
hour, destroying everything in its path, leaving
corpses melted into the asphalt.

Consider also that Washington has made it clear that
they "know" weapons of mass destruction have been
purposely hidden in or under civilian areas - and this
will not deter the US intention to target them.   The
"collateral damage" will be "Saddam's fault".

Consider also that the targets in the Gulf War were not
primarily military.  It was the infrastructure of the
nation that was targeted.  Power plants, water-
treatment facilities, transportation networks,
etc.  The objective and the result was to destroy the
fabric of the civil society - not to enable conquest
- but to ensure the nation would remain disabled for
decades to follow.

And then there are the sanctions - the most strictly
enforced in history.  A million children have died as a
result.  A large portion of the population is on the
verge of starvation, suffering from serious disease, or
both.  Medical supplies are almost non-existent.  Such
a society has no reserve capacity to endure further
hardship.  The image that comes to mind is of a bunch
of thugs, attacking an elderly patient in his hospital
bed, or attacking infants in the nursery.  The land of
the brave indeed.

Iraq will be turned into an extermination camp, a
killing field, salted with depleted uranium - the way
the Romans spread salt over Carthage after destroying
it and massacring all the inhabitants.  But by then
CNN will have moved on to other stories.  How much
media coverage do East Timor or Afghanistan get these
days, or Bosnia?  Areas that were SO IMPORTANT not 
so long ago.

Bush says that the main purpose of this onslaught is to
"disarm Iraq".  What a laugh.  Not one shred of
credible evidence has been presented that any weapons
of mass destruction exist.  In fact the evidence that
Powell so solemnly presented to the UN turned out to be
totally phony. So phony that Powell had to know it was
phony, that he was blatantly lying to the world.  Bush
repeatedly claims that his "intelligence sources" know
of many specific locations of "secret weapons".  If
there was any truth to this, then why doesn't Bush send
the inspectors to check it out?  It would certainly
enhance his ability to recruit support if such a cache
could be found and televised.  He has no reason to keep
such information secret, and every reason to go public
with at least ONE such site.  If there were any such
sites.  In the accompanying posting, "What weapons of
mass destruction?", a very credible and knowledgeable
eye witness claims such weapons were destroyed long ago
-- for reasons which make a great deal of sense.

---

I believe that two things are perfectly clear.  The
first is that the Administration knows all this.  They
know Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction.  They
know they are planning genocide against civilians and
not a war at all.  They have access to better
information that we do, and even we know that much.

Second, it is perfectly clear that the level of
violence being planned is far beyond any conceivable
objective related to Iraq itself.  Whether the
objective be to kill Saddam, destroy weapons caches,
control the oil - or even kill civilians - that
objective could be accomplished with a fraction of the
planned firepower.  Any ROTC student could outline a
more efficient battle plan, given a few days to think
about it.

If these things are clear, then the question is "Why
are they doing it?".

I think we can shed light on that question by looking
at historical precedents.  I believe that Dresden,
Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are relevant precedents.  Let
me offer a bit of background.

I saw a documentary, narrated by Robert Oppenheimer,
called "The Day After Trinity".  It was about the
Manhattan Project, following it from its beginnings in
Berkeley to its culmination in the first-ever man-made
nuclear explosion in the Nevada desert.  Oppenheimer,
as you all know, was the leader of the project.  Near
the end of the film, mentioned in passing, Oppenheimer
says, and I paraphrase, "We had set aside two Japanese
cities, putting them off limits to bombing, so that
they could serve as virgin test sites for our two types
of bombs (Uranium and Plutonium)".  When I heard that I
remembered reading, in more than one account, "The city
had miraculously escaped bombing before that fateful
day..."  I also recalled accounts of doctors which the
US Army had sent in right after the blast.  Their
instructions were to observe and record, and not to try
to help anyone.

One answer to the Iraq "Why?" question is clearly
"weapons testing".  Not testing whether they go bang,
that's been done by the manufacturers and the military
QA people.  Rather, testing their effects on
populations, both physical and psychological.

And not only the effects on the Iraqi population - also
the effects on the population and governments of the
rest of the world - particularly in every nation which
now or in the future might fall into disfavor with
Washington.  "We could easily do this to you as well"
is a very clear message, one that is heard loud and
clear in not only Libya, Korea, and Iran, but also in
Moscow and Bejing, and perhaps in Berlin and Paris as
well, both of which have had their share of not-so-long-
ago on-site warfare, for which the US (and the Bush's in
particular) turn out to have considerable culpability. 
(See March 6, "The Nazis and the Bush family".)

Considerable evidence exists that one of the objectives
of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, was to show the
Soviets that Uncle Sam (with his pet Bulldog) was both
able and willing to kill whole cities.  The message:
You Commies damn well better learn that hell hath no
fury like a vengeful Uncle Sam.  Thus began the
successful project of containment of the Soviet Union
and the suppression of non-capitalist and democratic
tendencies generally.

---

Besides what we might infer from historical
comparisons, we also have evidence in the form of
planning documents, in particular the plan for the "New
American Century", which Rumsfield was instrumental in
drafting.  The Middle East is the means to an end.  It
provides the fuel and the funding for wider campaigns,
for what can only be called the conquest of the world.
A goal which Hitler attempted, with the help of
Prescott Bush, Ford, General Motors, IBM,
and many others.  A goal which Baby Bush finally has
the means to achieve. Hitler wanted to turn the Slavs
and other "inferior races" into slaves of the Reich,
and exterminate those who were "useless".  The IMF and
globalization are succeeding where the Nazis failed.

Iraq is to serve as a testing ground for weapons
intended for quite different adversaries.  Adversaries
of much greater magnitude.  Adversaries where such
ultra weapon systems will be needed to assure quick
victory. Adversaries who actually do have strategic
weapons of mass destruction that could be launched in a
retaliatory strike.  All that stealth nighttime
ultra-potent technology begins to make sense if you are
planning to take out such an adversaries defenses all
at once.  Washington knows this.  So do Moscow and
Bejing.  It is not for a love of Saddam that so many
diverse governments have come together in opposition,
futile though their gestures may be.

We are all targets and it is our own survival which is
at stake.  "First they came for Muslim Americans,
then they came for Afghanistan, then Iraq, etc."  The
handwriting is on the wall.  We've been warned.  Shall
we watch it on television, or should we do something
about it?

rkm






-- 

============================================================================
cyberjournal home page: 
    http://cyberjournal.org

"Zen of Global Transformation" home page: 
    http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/

QuayLargo discussion forum:
    http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads

cj list archives:
    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj

newslog list archives:
    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog

subscribe addresses for cj list:
    •••@••.•••
    •••@••.•••
============================================================================

Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com