Recently the "arguments" of a high ranking military official
for attacking the country of Iraq, from 
 a military website, was shared on a mailing list with me..
in resposne to his "arguments" we noted not only the
truth, but also logic, has been butchered..
   
For example, he repeats again that Iraq has "flaunted" UN resolutions
and his prime example is "kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq" and one
problem with this argument of his is that it's false.

Iraq did not "kick out" the weapons inspectors.  Richard Butler, the
head of UNSCOM, pulled the inspectors out of Iraq after
Clinton/Albright told him (yeah, the US ordering around a UN official)
to get out as they were about to bomb.  After the bombing, the Iraqi
government refused to allow inspectors to return to the country. The
point of inspections is to eventually lift the sanctions, and certainly
not to have your country bombed. If they mean "bomb us any time you
want" then any government would say, "no thanks"
[See http://www.forusa.org/Programs/Iraq/IraqNews_72502.html ]

But don't take my word for  it, take a card-carrying  Republican who
voted for Bush in 20000, Scott Ritter, an ex-Marine who served as
the chief (note that, please..)  UN weapons inspector until 1998.

As he points out, it's even worse than I just stated; information
from spying during "inspection" was used FOR the bombing. Here's two
short Q/A from an interview with Ritter:

Q: In 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, the United Nations set up a 
special commission to monitor the destruction of Iraq's missiles 
and weapons of mass destruction. How effective were the U.N.
 inspectors?

A: UNSCOM inspectors were the best forensic investigators in the world.
We were pretty good at doing our job. By 1996 we were able to
 ascertain that 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's capabilities were 
destroyed. When Richard Butler came on board in 1997, we had 
already fundamentally disarmed Iraq.

Q: Then you were kicked out.

A: Saddam Hussein didn't kick out the U.N. inspectors. They were
ordered out by the U.S. government, which then used information they
provided to bomb 100 locations that had nothing to do with weapons of
mass destruction. So the weapons inspectors were used by the United
States. This is the reality: When Madeleine Albright called up Richard
Butler and said, "Jump!" Richard Butler always said, "How high?" It
was obvious from day one.

[See: http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/23/news4.shtml ]

I assume you already know this from my previous email, but does Dan?
If peace activists don't know the basic facts (and the "they kicked
out UN inspectors" lie is repeated as often as possible precisely to
bury the truth) -- how can we resist the onslaught, let alone convince
others, let alone stop the war?

Now, not only are the facts completely distorted, but so is the
logic. As if, any country that violates UN resolutions should be
invaded. Does Mr. Sims think Israel should be invaded for flaunting
far more resolution (which is can do only due to US support)? More to
the point, would it be morally ok (never mind the military
impossibility), would it be morally ok for others to invade, and bomb,
the only country which has used nuclear weapons against civilians (the
US), the country which refuses inspections of its
biological/chemical/nuclear weapons programs (US), the country which
was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court (US,
under Reagan, in massive state terrorism against Nicaragua, the
illegal mining of its harbors being the tip of the iceberg)?

Would we -- would Sims --  support other countries invade or bomb the 
country which unilaterally engaged in "aggression" (terrorism) against
another country, the Sudan, which did not attack it, under the pretext
of "we think those are chemical weapons factories) which if true,
would be no excuse to do it, and which, turned out to be false, with
Clinton backing off from the claim, oops, and Sudan demanding an
investigation to show its case they were pharmaceutical plants, with
probably far more civilians dead due to this than died on 9/11, with
HALF the pharmaceutical capacity of a *very* poor country wiped out by
the bombing?

Would anyone support the invasion or bombing of the country who
unilaterally invaded Panama, killed about 3,000 people (a hauntingly
familiar number since 9/11), and replaced one thug it had, itself,
under the CIA's payroll, with another thug as its puppet?

The answer is that outside of the likes of Bin Laden, no one supports
such actions, not the peace movement, not other countries in Europe,
not Arab states, not anyone -- and indeed Bin Laden (and his ilk) are
the only ones whose ideology is mirrored very closely by the
establishment of the most power rogue state in history.

Next, we're told Saddam would use what he has "in a heartbeat", which 
is the opposite of what even the CIA's head just said. We don't need
the CIA to say this (they are usually more obedient and lie when told
to lie, to support war) -- but they pointed out Saddam is very unlike
to use chemical, biological, or even nuclear -- if he had them -- 
weapons against others if not attacked. Further, that he is likely to
use them if threatened with annihilation. George Bush senior's former
pal Saddam's brutality doesn't make him stupid; he is not suicidal,
hence is very unlikely to attack anyone right now.

Let's not forget: even before attacking Kuwait Saddam personally
called over April Glaspie, the US ambassador, to ask for the US
opinion*; "we have no opinion on your border dispute with Kuwait"; and
only with US support was he able to invade Iran earlier, though that
was based on 2-sided mutual aggression between the two states.
[*: This says NOTHING nice about Saddam Hussein, only that
he is not stupid or suicidal. Bush would like us to think
Saddam is suicidal in order to convince us we "must" attack
Iraq. If thousands of Iraqis die, if many Americans die, if
there is more anti-Us terrorism, well, Bush has shown
time and again that's ok by him if there's a chance at more 
global and oil domination]


Let alone now, when he knows Bush is looking for the slightest excuse
to not only attack, but invade, and not only invade, but annihilate
him, and after Saddam's having been 90-95% disarmed as Scott Ritter
describes, ...the evidence against Saddam's making a move to attack
anyone else is very strong based on any *one* of this multitude of
facts.. Meanwhile the Arab neighbors Saddam is supposedly within a
micro-second of attacking don't' believe a word of it either,
obviously, since they all oppose a US attack on Iraq.
	
   "The draft is gone, and there's not likely to be another one. So rest easy, 
   folks, your kids won't have to go to war if they don't want to go."

And our kids will be so much safer when a MASSIVE recruitment effort
for Al Qaeda is done, namely, murdering somewhere between thousands
and millions or Iraqi civilians, men, women, children, and babies,
just like in Panama, just like in 1991 in Iraq, just like in
Afghanistan.

It's not just a grab for oil. It's grab for power. It might seem a bit
less "paranoid" when we hear peace activists talk about a power grab
and the thirst for military bases, when we learn about more facts that
are seldom talked about. 

In an interview  with him on www.freespeech.org, William Blum is asked
to back up what he said about US elites seeking to grab more power and
domination, and he happily responded by just rattling off the top of
his head a long list of U.S. bases I didn't even know about: from the
war on Yugoslavia Washington got brand new  bases; from the bombing of
Afghanistan the US got more new bases, in Afghanistan, and in
Pakistan. And even someone who resisted the 1991 war on Iraq, I wasn't
until recently aware of the now-permanent (more than a decade and
counting) new bases in Saudi Arabia Washington got in the aftermath of
that war..this permanent presence and turning his home country into a
little "base" for the US is one of the reasons Al Qaeda has been able
to recruit, since even non-extremist people in that region have a very
understandable resentment (the same we would have if it was done to
us) by turning the land of their prophet into a permanent based for a
non-believing military superpower dominating your region.

[* William Blum, who left the State Department in 1967, see
http://www.speakersandartists.org/People/WilliamBlum.html ]

While we're being honest, let's not forget Bush's Plan B.

We now know that the inspections were used to manufacture crises which
would serve as an excuse for more attacks. Not only Scott Ritter, but
Europeans and others who ere there first hand, have by now testified
to this. No matter how we find Saddam repugnant,  basic common sense
means that if you want cooperation should don't deliberately do
something (spying  to gather information to assassinate Saddam or give
his enemies in the region his state secrets) -- that you KNOW in
advance will cause lack of cooperation. That's just elementary logic.

In fact, it's not just Scott Ritter and others with integrity who
have spoken out -- the mainstream media itself has openly admitted
only a couple of years ago, that Washington was manipulating the
inspections and using them as a cover to spy..even though the
corporate media has given itself a case of amnesia and "forgets" this
today [http://www.fair.org/activism/usat-iraq.html ; With the
Washington Post revealing in 1999 how Washington "infiltrated agents
and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms
control teams in Iraq" without the UN's knowledge and "carried out an
ambitious spying operation" -- earlier revelations which are magically
transformed to "allegations" or even better, ignored outright by the
very papers whose exposes first revealed these facts; see
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0209/S00272.htm 
and see also Posts's deal with Washington to "keep mum" on what it knew
at http://www.fair.org/extra/9903/unscom.html

So the mainstream media dont' only lie, but "forget" things they
themselves reported...

Meanwhile, we move towards a much more dangerous world
with not only more terrorists against the US, but massive murder
of Iraqis and probably of neighboring countries when Iraq "goes for
broke" if faced with an annihilating attack, and who knows what
else. Who knew 1,000s of veterans would have Gulf War Syndrome, or the
depleted uranium and cancers in the area, or the massive environmental
pollution of the Gulf War?

= = = =

And perhaps biggest lie?

Not only do they lie about what Saddam has...or what he's likely to
do..and not only do they morally lie about the fact that invading
isn't the right response when countries (e.g. India, Pakistan, Israel)
*do* have the kinds of WMD capabilities that they lie to pretend Iraq has..

But it's really not about "disarming Saddam", and we all know that.

It's about removing him from power.

And it's not just about removing him from power, it's about killing
him and anyone they deem "close"  to him.

and it's not even just about that, it's about replacing him with a
another thug , only one who, like Bush-supported Saddam of
pre-1990, is more "obedient"

Now that is the height of non-sequitor: not only do they lie about the
facts and not only does it not follow that you invade a county that is
guilty of what Iraq is not guilty of, but it's not even "disarming" or
"invading" but "replacing the regime with one which will please
ExxonMobil and the Pentagon and let the US build more bases"

How's that for a non-sequitor for what "we really must do!" in
response to what are already lies in the first place?

After mass-murder leading to Bush "owning" the country of Iraq, the
plan is not just to grab the oil of Iraq (the #2 highest in the world
after Saudi Arabia, by the way) but to use it for bases for 
twisting the arms of Saudi Arabia (which as been less obedient lately)
and Iran and others  -- twisting arms meaning: threatening that they
will be bloodied up. And if not threatening, then outright attacking
and invading Iran, Saudi Arabia, or others.

The goal is to control the world's oil. Not just some of it. (Hence
the Washington backed coup attempt against Chavez in Venezuela), but
especially the oil in the middle east, where the highest
concentrations are.

Not just to control all the oil we need -- but to control the oil that
OTHERS will need, so they are utterly at your mercy.

Obviously, you absolutely need to do this if your goal is to run and
control the entire world, as Bush and his planners all but openly
state many times anyway. All of this is articulated by others,
most recently, Daniel Ellsberg, the former Pentagon man who 
leaked the Pentagon Papers, has said exactly the same things,
same analysis: it's there if we open our eyes.

[See e.g. http://www.sundayherald.com/27735 for a frightening read of
a leaked planning document ]

HB

To practice intellectual self-defense against the flood of lies:

Keep updated on Iraq: http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm

And daily news: http://www.democracynow.org 

If you have a fast internet connection: video: http://www.freespeech.org
(has audio too)

Sign the petition: http://www.noiraqattack.org