The illegal Blitzkrieg against Iraq

2002-08-14

Richard Moore

      Bcc: contributors
  Website: http://cyberjournal.org
  Website: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/


Friends,

First, Mr. Clark points out my careless spelling, and then some 
commentary about Bush's crimes-against-humanity invasion plans...

rkm

============================================================================
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:05:02 EDT
Subject: Proofreading
To: •••@••.•••

Please, it's "Guantanamo," not "Quantanamo"
and "Sudetenland," not "Sudenland."

R. Clarke,
Chicago

============================================================================
Delivered-To: •••@••.•••
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 01:53:43 -0700
From: "Butler Crittenden, Ph.D." <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Fw: US revises plans as kingdom courts Iraq
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-376519,00.html 
 
August 07, 2002

US revises plans as kingdom courts Iraq
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
 
SAUDI ARABIA is in the process of concluding a special
trade deal with Baghdad and is likely to deny the
United States access to its military bases for any
attack on Iraq, according to diplomatic sources.

The Saudi Government, which was host to 500,000
American troops for Operation Desert Storm in 1991, has
been engaged in talks with Iraq that could result in
the establishment of a free-trade area between the two
countries, the sources said.
---<snip>---

============================================================================
Delivered-To: •••@••.•••
From: "Nurev Ind" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:43:10 -0400

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2701-353176,00.html

July 11, 2002

West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields
By Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia and Roland Watson

THE removal of President Saddam Hussein would open
Iraqs rich new oilfields to Western bidders and bring
the prospect of lessening dependence on Saudi oil.

No other country offers such untapped oilfields whose
exploitation could lessen tensions over the Western
presence in Saudi Arabia.
---<snip>---

============================================================================
From: "Mid-East Realities" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Saudis Warned to Bow Down...Or Else!
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:23:30 -0400

http://www.MiddleEast.Org

Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies
Ultimatum Urged To Pentagon Board

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 6, 2002; Page A01

A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory
board described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United
States, and recommended that U.S. officials give it an
ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of
its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the
United States.

"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror
chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to
foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated
the explosive briefing. It was presented on July 10 to
the Defense Policy Board, a group of prominent
intellectuals and former senior officials that advises
the Pentagon on defense policy.

"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our
allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent
Murawiec, a Rand Corp. analyst. A talking point
attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even
further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of
evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in
the Middle East.
---<snip>---

===============
rkm> 

How ironic. Last week some friends invited me over to
watch an old video tape of "1984" with them.  One day
the enemy would be Oceana, the next it would be East
Asia.  Not only that, but when the enemy was being
Oceana, then it had _always been Oceana.  The rhetoric
or our Petagon briefers sounds just like the kind of
stuff that came over the airways in "1984":
   
  "Saudi Arabia as 'the kernel of evil,
  the prime mover, the most dangerous
  opponent' in the Middle East."

Defending Saudi Arabia, if you recall, was one of the
main justifications behind Desert Storm.  Or perhaps we
are committing Thought Crime by remembering such
things.

And prior to that, Iraq was our favored power in the
decade-long war between Iran and Iraq.  Iraq was our
'special client' in the region throughout the 1980s.

If Big Brother says the moon is green, then the moon is
green.  Then if he says it is pink, it was _always
pink.

The difference between our situation and that of the
film is that we have access to better information. 
Even the New York Times, as we saw above, tells us of
the realpolitik behind the new 'enemy' designation.

Orwell got it wrong.  He though you needed torture and
total censorship of information in order to control
what the masses think.  I suppose television was still
too new when he wrote the book for its subtle powers to be
fully understood.

rkm

============================================================================
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 02:01:04 -0700
From: "Butler Crittenden, Ph.D." <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Fw: Conflict could soon be nuclear
To: Adam Heilbrun <•••@••.•••>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-376516,00.html 
 
August 07, 2002

Conflict could soon be nuclear
From Roland Watson in Washington
 
THE US Congress has been warned that President Bush's
proposed attack on Iraq could escalate into a nuclear
conflict.

An assessment of Iraq's capabilities says that the US
is unlikely to knock out many, if any, of President
Saddam Hussein's mobile missile-launchers in a first
wave of airstrikes. It raises the possibility of
Baghdad hitting an Israeli city with a missile carrying
biological agents, saying that Saddam is likely to use
chemical and biological weapons.

Israel's likely reaction would be nuclear ground bursts
against every Iraqi city not already occupied by US-led
coalition forces. Senators were told that, unlike the
1991 Gulf War, when Washington urged Israel not to
retaliate against Iraqi missile strikes, Israeli
leaders have decided that their credibility would be
hurt if they failed to react this time.
---<snip>---

=================
rkm>

What's most interesting here is what's not said.

Nothing is said, for example, about the potential
consequences if the Iraq invasion turns nuclear as
described above.  Would Israel limit her strikes to
Iraq?  In her typical hyper paranoia, she might feel
preemptive strikes on other neighbors might be required
to 'cover her back'.  And are there other powers which
might feel Israel had gone too far if she uses nukes,
that might themselves reach for the red button? 
(Revelations about to come true?)

And nothing is said about the White House's attitude
toward Israel's attitude.  The implication seems to be
that Washinton feels itself powerless to hold the
Isralei's in check.  That's not true of course, but
everyone's been conditioned to believe it.  Washington
could pull the plug on Israel anytime it wanted to. 
Everything Israel does is as an agent of Uncle Sam. 
Consider this, for example:

    _______________________________________________________
    To: "MER" <•••@••.•••>
    From: "Mid-East Realities" <•••@••.•••>
    Subject: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will
             Strike First?
    Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:34:51 -0400
    
                    WAR FEVER RISING FAST
    
                    WHO WILL STRIKE FIRST?
    
    MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org 
    - Washington - 8/12/2002 
    
    Faced with hostility and war threats Israel struck
    first in 1967 destroying most of the Egyptian airforce
    on the ground; then a few days later Israel again
    struck first this time against Syria which had been
    assured by the U.S. that would not take place.  That
    "Six-Day War" led to the capture of what we today call
    the "occupied territories"; and thus to today's
    dangerously explosive imbroglio.
    
    During that war in 1967 it is not usually mentioned
    that the CIA provided Israel top secret
    photo-intelligence reconnaissance info that in fact
    allowed the Israelis to win the war so quickly and to
    capture so much additional territory.  Secretly US
    military personnel stationed at the huge US Base in
    Ramstein, Germany were taken to another major US
    military facility in Rota, Spain.  There they were
    stripped of all identifications and covertly flown to
    the Negev dessert where they performed the crucial
    espionage work in tandem with the Israelis using secret
    high-tech (at that time) U.S. Air Force planes with all
    U.S. identifications removed
    ---<snip>---
    _______________________________________________________


And nothing is said about delaying the invasion, given
that there is a nuclear danger involved.  If the reason
for the war is to avoid the use of weapons of mass
destruction, you'd think the danger of nukes might be a
reason for pause.  This raises the question of why
Congress was given this briefing, and why the briefing
was not in private.  It may be that the reason is to
prepare the public for the nuclear scenario... not
raise alarm, but get the idea out there with as little
fanfare as possible.

Consider how this fits into the larger context of U.S. 
strategic thinking:
    _______________________________________________________
    From: "Nurev Ind" <•••@••.•••>
    Subject: The new nukes 
    Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:42:45 -0400
    
    [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4476114,00.html
    
    The new nukes
    The US is developing a range of handy, 'low-yield'
    bombs - and it's prepared to use them. Richard
    Norton-Taylor reports
    
    Richard Norton-Taylor
    Tuesday August 6, 2002
    The Guardian
    
    For the first time since the height of the cold war,
    the US is seriously contemplating the use of nuclear
    weapons. But this time they would not be used, as they
    would have been then, against another nuclear power.
    The proposal is that they would be used against
    countries developing weapons of mass destruction -
    chemical and biological as well as nuclear weapons.
    
    Last week the Pentagon, for the first time, secured
    funds from Congress to develop "mini-nukes", low-yield
    nuclear weapons designed in particular to destroy
    underground bunkers. The plan to build a new generation
    of nuclear weapons, military analysts say, is behind
    the growing pressure on the White House to withdraw
    from the comprehensive test-ban treaty. American
    nuclear scientists last week also secured an agreement
    whereby tests on new warheads could start within a year
    of any request, rather than the existing mandatory
    delay of three years. They have been instructed to
    drill new boreholes in the test grounds of the Nevada
    desert.
    
    "Part of American thinking is that some tasks cannot be
    achieved without using nuclear weapons," says Paul
    Rogers, professor of peace studies at the University of
    Bradford.
    ---<snip>---
    _______________________________________________________


The overall scenario seem to go like this...  The U.S.
wants to control the world's oil, and it wants to be
able use nukes at will to keep the world's population
under control.  Indeed, it may be aiming to keep the
size of the population under control as well as the
actions of those still living.  Nukes are handy for
both objectives.  Israel serves as a sham 'rogue ally'
who can help pave the way for making nukes 'routine'. 
Meanwhile, media rhetoric talks only of the threats
posed by Saddam, none of which have any evidence to
back them up.  Is there no breaking point in the
Matrix?  Is there no limit to how much media reality
can conflict with actual reality?  The mind boggles.
"1984" was tame by comparison.

rkm

============================================================================
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:21:57 EDT
Subject: who is the enemy?
To: •••@••.•••

Subject: Brits v. Bush

George Monbiot
Tuesday August 6, 2002
The Guardian

There is something almost comical about the prospect of
George Bush waging war on another nation because that
nation has defied international law. Since Bush came to
office, the United States government has torn up more
international treaties and disregarded more UN
conventions than the rest of the world has in 20 years.
It has scuppered the biological weapons convention
while experimenting, illegally, with biological weapons
of its own. It has refused to grant chemical weapons
inspectors full access to its laboratories, and has
destroyed attempts to launch chemical inspections in
Iraq. It has ripped up the anti-ballistic missile
treaty, and appears to be ready to violate the nuclear
test ban treaty. It has permitted CIA hit squads to
recommence covert operations of the kind that included,
in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of
state. It has sabotaged the small arms treaty,
undermined the international criminal court, refused to
sign the climate change protocol and, last month,
sought to immobilise the UN convention against torture
so that it could keep foreign observers out of its
prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. Even its preparedness to
go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN
security council is a defiance of international law far
graver than Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with UN
weapons inspectors.

But the US government's declaration of impending war
has, in truth, nothing to do with weapons inspections.
On Saturday John Bolton, the US official charged,
hilariously, with "arms control", told the Today
programme that "our policy ... insists on regime change
in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether
inspectors go in or not". The US government's
justification for whupping Saddam has now changed
twice. At first, Iraq was named as a potential target
because it was "assisting al-Qaida". This turned out to
be untrue. Then the US government claimed that Iraq had
to be attacked because it could be developing weapons
of mass destruction, and was refusing to allow the
weapons inspectors to find out if this were so. Now, as
the promised evidence has failed to materialise, the
weapons issue has been dropped. The new reason for war
is Saddam Hussein's very existence. This, at least, has
the advantage of being verifiable. It should surely be
obvious by now that the decision to wage war on Iraq
came first, and the justification later.

Other than the age-old issue of oil supply, this is a
war without strategic purpose. The US government is not
afraid of Saddam Hussein, however hard it tries to
scare its own people. There is no evidence that Iraq is
sponsoring terrorism against America. Saddam is well
aware that if he attacks another nation with weapons of
mass destruction, he can expect to be nuked. He
presents no more of a threat to the world now than he
has done for the past 10 years.

But the US government has several pressing domestic
reasons for going to war. The first is that attacking
Iraq gives the impression that the flagging "war on
terror" is going somewhere. The second is that the
people of all super-dominant nations love war. As Bush
found in Afghanistan, whacking foreigners wins votes.
Allied to this concern is the need to distract
attention from the financial scandals in which both the
president and vice-president are enmeshed. Already, in
this respect, the impending war seems to be working
rather well.

The United States also possesses a vast
military-industrial complex that is in constant need of
conflict in order to justify its staggeringly expensive
existence. Perhaps more importantly than any of these
factors, the hawks who control the White House perceive
that perpetual war results in the perpetual demand for
their services. And there is scarcely a better formula
for perpetual war, with both terrorists and other Arab
nations, than the invasion of Iraq. The hawks know that
they will win, whoever loses. In other words, if the US
were not preparing to attack Iraq, it would be
preparing to attack another nation. The US will go to
war with that country because it needs a country with
which to go to war.

Tony Blair also has several pressing reasons for
supporting an invasion. By appeasing George Bush, he
placates Britain's rightwing press. Standing on Bush's
shoulders, he can assert a claim to global leadership
more credible than that of other European leaders,
while defending Britain's anomalous position as a
permanent member of the UN security council. Within
Europe, his relationship with the president grants him
the eminent role of broker and interpreter of power. By
invoking the "special relationship", Blair also avoids
the greatest challenge any prime minister has faced
since the second world war. This challenge is to
recognise and act upon the conclusion of any objective
analysis of global power: namely that the greatest
threat to world peace is not Saddam Hussein, but George
Bush. The nation that in the past has been our firmest
friend is becoming instead our foremost enemy.

As the US government discovers that it can threaten and
attack other nations with impunity, it will surely soon
begin to threaten countries that have numbered among
its allies. As its insatiable demand for resources
prompts ever bolder colonial adventures, it will come
to interfere directly with the strategic interests of
other quasi-imperial states. As it refuses to take
responsibility for the consequences of the use of those
resources, it threatens the rest of the world with
environmental disaster. It has become openly
contemptuous of other governments and prepared to
dispose of any treaty or agreement that impedes its
strategic objectives. It is starting to construct a new
generation of nuclear weapons, and appears to be ready
to use them pre-emptively. It could be about to ignite
an inferno in the Middle East, into which the rest of
the world would be sucked.

The United States, in other words, behaves like any
other imperial power. Imperial powers expand their
empires until they meet with overwhelming resistance.
For Britain to abandon the special relationship would
be to accept that this is happening. To accept that the
US presents a danger to the rest of the world would be
to acknowledge the need to resist it. Resisting the
United States would be the most daring reversal of
policy a British government has undertaken for over 60
years.

We can resist the US neither by military nor economic
means, but we can resist it diplomatically. The only
safe and sensible response to American power is a
policy of non-cooperation. Britain and the rest of
Europe should impede, at the diplomatic level, all US
attempts to act unilaterally. We should launch
independent efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis and the
conflict between Israel and Palestine. And we should
cross our fingers and hope that a combination of
economic mismanagement, gangster capitalism and
excessive military spending will reduce America's power
to the extent that it ceases to use the rest of the
world as its doormat. Only when the US can accept its
role as a nation whose interests must be balanced with
those of all other nations can we resume a friendship
that was once, if briefly, founded upon the principles
of justice

============================================================================

Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com