September 13, 2002

Defeating the U.S. War Plans Series #1: Earth To Rambush: NO IRAQ WAR!

Hello everyone

I've done quite a bit of research to prepare this compilation for you. Give it a look and explore the additional resources if you have some time on your hands to learn more about all this.

Bush wants the U.N. to enforce its resolutions regarding Iraq. And what about those concerning Israel? Seems like a double standard to me.

Time to take action! (suggestions below)

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

"An immense effect may be produced by small powers wisely and steadily directed"

- Webster


1. Officials: No cause for alarm over Iraq
2. Oppose US war against Iraq! Build an international movement against imperialism!
4. Iraq Peace Pledge

See also:

Mandela: U.S. Threat to World Peace (Sept 12)
"Neither Bush nor Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that," he said. (...) U.S. policy toward Iraq "is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America," he said.

Austin Against War: Iraq (This is a *MUST SEE!* for anyone interested in real serious info)

Testimony Prepared for Hearings on Iraq Policy Senate Foreign Relations Committee (31 July 2002)
This is by Phyllis Bennis - I saw her tonight on MSNBC and she is Most outstanding!
(...) The most recent leaked military plan for invading Iraq, the so-called "inside-out" plan based on a relatively small contingent of U.S. ground troops with heavy reliance on air strikes, would focus first and primarily on Baghdad. The Iraqi capital is described as being ringed with Saddam Hussein's crack troops and studded with anti-aircraft batteries. What is never mentioned in the report is the inconvenient fact that Baghdad is also a crowded city of four to five million people; a heavy air bombardment would cause the equivalent human catastrophe of heavy air bombardment of Los Angeles. CLIP

We, The People, Can Stop a War
Most Americans know deep down that this impending war with Iraq makes no sense. Our task is to turn latent misgivings into blatant opposition. (...) This time, we taxpayers would foot the entire $80 billion bill.

Playing skittles with Saddam (Sept 3),7792,785394,00.html
The game plan among Washington's hawks has long been to reshape the Middle East along US-Israeli lines. (...) For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.

Bush address to UN - Transcript

Israel's Iraq Dilemma (August 30) IMPORTANT REVEALING ARTICLE!
Israeli leaders are overjoyed at the prospect of a U.S. invasion -- but it isn't good politics to admit it.

Can 'Preemption' Preempt Redemption? (September 10)
Could it be that the Bush family, along with many of the most powerful and corrupt corporate interests across the globe, have decided capriciously that the oil under the country of Iraq is a commodity to which they have an absolute right, because they have the absolute power to take it? Are we witnessing true concern for the safety of the American People in action, or are we witnessing one of the grandest thefts in history?

The Cost of War

Coming Soon: "Total War" On the Middle East (August 29)

Former Arms Inspector Scott Ritter Doubts Iraq Capability


The army of media pundits, cabinet members, and military experts arrayed in favor of an attack on Iraq have one startling fact in common. Not one of them has a shred of wartime experience.

Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War
An excellent resource for truth on a subject that America's mass media tends to ignore and hide the truth about. This book focuses on an urgent issue that must be addressed and changed soon, if we want to stop the continuous genocide.

Excerpted from Iraq Under Siege : The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War (at the same URL as above)
"Iraqi children are totally innocent of oil power politics. All those who prevent the lifting of sanctions, including Madeleine Albright, are not. One line disclaimers of responsibility may appear suavely diplomatic, but the children are dead and we have seen them dying. According to the UN itself, they died as a direct result of the embargo on commerce with Iraq. Many United Nations members favored significantly easing these sanctions. The US government and Madeleine Albright as its spokesperson prevented that from happening. This economic embargo continues warfare against Iraq, a silent war in which only the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent non-combatant civilians-women, children and families-continue to suffer."

Iraq Under Siege: a book review
This book says: "The United States and Britain were the major suppliers of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War." (68) and "Those sales [of biological weapons from the US to Iraq] continued even after the Iraqi regime actually used chemical weapons against its own Kurdish population in Halabja in northern Iraq and against Iranian troops on the border in clear violation of a host of international conventions." (...) "The United States only became concerned with Iraq's military potential in 1990, after the invasion of Kuwait. The US supplied Iraq with most of its weapons. Just one day before Iraq invaded Kuwait, then-President George Bush approved and signed a shipment of advanced data transmission equipment to Iraq." (...) Again and again Iraq Under Siege brings startling facts to the forefront, facts that you won't hear on the evening news. 500,000 children have died from the sanctions, for example, which is apparently a worthwhile price. Or that the Pentagon spends $1 billion a year to maintain its force in the region, a force that continues to attack Iraq daily. Or the startling emergence of cancer among Iraqis, especially children, apparently due to depleted uranium from U.S. weapons. (...) What system of ethics governs U.S. foreign policy? We complain about Iraq's nuclear capacity when we're the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons and the number one proliferater of those weapons. We complain about Iraq's use of chemical weapons when we're the nation that supplied Iraq with those chemical weapons in the first place. Certainly the world needs to be wary of who has such devasting weapons, but perhaps we should look in the mirror. CLIP

Iraq Under Siege The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War Edited by Anthony Arnove.

Blair and Bush Face Revolt Over Attack On Iraq

Mr Bush and Mr Blair have still not produced the evidence to justify war

Opposition Is Growing to Blair's Stand on Iraq

Poll Finds Unease on Terror Fight and Concerns About War on Iraq

U.S. Rift With Allies on World Court Widens

US organizing terrorist groups against Iran

Weapons of Mass Destruction - Intelligence Threat Assessments
List of States with Weapons of Mass Destruction

World Nuclear Arsenals 1996

Bush's New Nuclear Threat (August 14)

War on Iraq (All Alternet articles on Iraq)

Yahoo! Full Coverage on Iraq



Officials: No cause for alarm over Iraq

Views contrast Bush warnings; U.S. intelligence data questioned

September 7, 2002


WASHINGTON -- Senior U.S. officials with access to top secret intelligence about Iraq said they have detected no alarming increase in the threat posed to U.S. security and regional stability by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The officials said there are no indications that Iraq has obtained the plutonium or enriched uranium needed for a nuclear bomb. Nor does current intelligence suggest that Iraq is poised to unleash chemical or biological weapons against Israel or other countries in the region, they said.

Those views contrast sharply with Vice President Dick Cheney's warnings that Hussein will soon have a nuclear weapon or supply a weapon of mass destruction to terrorists.

Those warnings are fueling the administration's drive to convince skeptical allies, members of Congress and the American public that the war on terror's next military front may be Iraq.

The officials insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive nature of intelligence information and an apparent desire not to be seen as disputing administration policy. None of the officials said they were critical of the Bush administration's stance.

Sanctions, U.S. military containment and unobstructed UN inspections are the best way to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction, say critics of the administration's plan.

(...) "As far as I know, there is no significant reporting that indicates that the Iraqis have significantly advanced themselves in the weapons of mass destruction arena," said a senior U.S. intelligence official who does believe the focus on Iraq is hurting the hunt for the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

"Do I have a smoking gun? No," said another a U.S. official. "Can I tell you we've been looking like crazy? Yes."





Oppose US war against Iraq! Build an international movement against imperialism!

Statement of the World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board

9 September 2002

The World Socialist Web Site condemns the US war drive against Iraq and calls on all working people, youth and opponents of militarism in America and around the world to launch a popular movement against imperialist war, in opposition to Bush, the Democrats, and all other representatives of the US corporate and political elite.

In making an assessment of a great historical event—the headlong drive by American imperialism towards global war—it is necessary to call things by their right names, and not be disoriented or overawed by the flood of propaganda which emanates from the White House, Pentagon and Congress, amplified through the American media.

What Bush is proposing, and Congress is preparing to endorse, is a war of plunder by the most powerful nation in the world against one of the weakest. With the second largest oil reserves of any country, Iraq is a rich prize for ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and the rest of corporate America. When Bush speaks of “regime change” he means the replacement of an independent Iraq by a semi-colonial regime, headed by an American stooge like Hamid Karzai, the US-installed president of Afghanistan, which would cede effective control of the country’s resources to American and British interests.

No amount of name-calling against Saddam Hussein can transform Iraq into a significant strategic threat to the United States. The apocalyptic warnings by Bush, Vice President Cheney and other spokesmen for the administration—claiming that an Iraqi attack on the United States with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is imminent—are a cynical attempt to stampede US public opinion. These claims are lies, and Bush, Cheney & Co. know they are lies, but they know they will not be challenged by the corrupt American media or the Democratic Party.

War against Iraq sets the stage for further bloody conflicts, which threaten death and destruction on an unprecedented scale. In a recent commentary in the Washington Post, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski cautioned that a preemptive attack on Iraq would have a profoundly destabilizing effect on the entire structure of international relations. Its enemies would portray the United States as a “global gangster,” he warned. The term is more revealing than perhaps intended: the Bush administration is preparing to launch what is seen throughout the world as a criminal enterprise.

A program of Nazi-like aggression

The US government has embarked on a program of military violence and political provocation on a scale not seen since the days of the Nazis. This comparison is neither far-fetched nor rhetorical. In publicly proclaiming the doctrine of preemptive attack—in other words, war initiated for aggressive purposes, with barely a pretense of self-defense—Bush & Co. are preparing to commit the principal crime for which leaders of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were placed on trial after World War II, convicted and executed.

There is reason to believe that Bush administration officials are aware that they could face prosecution under the Nuremberg precedent that the Nazis were guilty of the crime of “waging aggressive war” when they carried out the unprovoked invasions of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands and other neighboring countries. Hence the strident US campaign to exempt American military and foreign policy personnel from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, set up under UN auspices to deal with charges of war crimes.

As the New York Times reported in an extraordinary article September 7, “The Bush administration is shifting its emphasis in seeking exemptions for Americans from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, telling European allies that a central reason is to protect the country’s top leaders from being indicted, arrested or hauled before the court on war crimes charges, administration officials say.”

US officials cited the legal actions brought against former secretary of state Henry Kissinger in Chilean and American courts, on charges that he was responsible for the mass killings which accompanied the 1973 CIA-backed military coup in Chile that established the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet. A top US official told the Times that the administration was concerned, not about American soldiers who might commit atrocities, “the Lieutenant Calleys of the future,” but about possible war crimes prosecution of “the top public officials—President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell.”

The Bush administration apes the “big lie” technique of Hitler and Goebbels in its attempt to portray Iraq as a deadly menace. This campaign relies on public ignorance of the most elementary facts. Iraq is an impoverished country already devastated by American attack only a decade ago. It is not and cannot be a threat to the United States, the military power which dwarfs any other on the globe.

Iraq is, in terms of population, the forty-fourth largest country in the world. In terms of land area it is only fifty-sixth, ranking on both counts even lower than Afghanistan. The disparity between Iraq and the US in economic power is staggering. Iraq had a GDP of $57 billion in 2000—less than the personal wealth of a single American, Bill Gates. The $11 trillion US economy is 200 times larger than that of Iraq, whose economic output places it just below Burma and Sri Lanka and just ahead of Guatemala and Kenya.

As for military power, the gap is even greater. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts were incinerated by US bombs, missiles and other high-tech weapons, while only a few hundred American soldiers lost their lives. In the intervening decade, Iraq has been subjected to an economic blockade and bombed repeatedly, and the Iraqi military has shrunk to one third its 1990 size. Meanwhile the Pentagon has been built up to the point where the US military budget now exceeds the combined total of military spending by the next 25 countries in the world.

The class character of the war

The fundamental character of a war is defined by the class nature and historical position of the states involved. The United States is the most powerful imperialist country, which seeks to dominate the globe. Its impending attack on Iraq is the culmination of two decades of increasingly reckless and aggressive behavior, in the course of which American forces have bombed, attacked, occupied or organized armed subversion in more than a dozen countries: Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the various states and fragments comprising the former Yugoslavia.

CLIP - Read the rest at




George Bush is MOVING AHEAD with his plans for WAR ON IRAQ. Your letters to Congress and the editor are very important. Please write letters even if you've written before. Visit Project VoteSmart at to find out who your elected representatives are.


Attacking Iraq will not reduce the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States. In fact, if American military forces attack Iraq, this will increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack on the United States. There is already considerable resentment in the Arab world over U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, a long history of US military actions against Arab states to satisfy our ever increasing thirst for oil, and US one sided support of Israel in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If we attack Iraq, this will only increase Arab resentment of the US thus making it more likely that some of them will get angry enough to attack us in return. Please vote against any war on Iraq.


Over the last 40 years, the United States has bombed Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Sudan, Libya, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. We have killed literally millions of human beings in small impoverished third world countries who were no threat to us. Not one of those people ever came over here and bombed us. If we want terrorism to stop, we must stop practicing terrorism ourselves. Please vote against President Bush's planned war on Iraq.


Former President George H. Bush saw his popularity ratings increase when he started the Gulf War against Iraq. It distracted people from his Iran/Contragate scandal and was nearly enough to get him re-elected. Former President Bill Clinton saw his popularity ratings increase when he started the war against Yugoslavia. It distracted people from his Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones sex scandals. President George W. Bush's popularity is continuing to drop. In addition, his extensive involvement in the Enron scandal is becoming more and more evident as the details of this sordid business become public. So now George W. Bush is trying to get a war against Iraq started so he can get his popularity ratings up and make people forget about his Enron ties. Do not let him get away with this. Just say no to a war against Iraq.



Iraq Peace Pledge

Over 10,000 have already signed the Iraq Peace Pledge opposing any attack on Iraq. To sign on line go at

To download copies of the Iraq Peace Pledge or the Iraq Pledge of Resistance forms to collect signatures go to our Downloads Page at

Sign the Petition to the UN and WHO, requesting a delegation to Iraq to investigate the epidemic of cancers. Go at to read the petition or download it


We, the undersigned, represent an international group of physicians, organizations and individuals who are deeply concerned about the health conditions in Iraq. We are especially concerned about the constant increase in the incidence of cancer, particularly leukemia. According to UNICEF publications 5000 to 6000 Iraqi children die every month due to conditions related to the economic sanctions - malnutrition, lack of medicines and the effects of contaminated water. Due to the deteriorated health system in Iraq, children affected by leukemia cannot be treated sufficiently. While childhood leukemia is often curable in other parts of the world it is a death sentence for Iraqi children. For several years Iraqi doctors have published alarming figures about the rising frequency of cancer and leukemia in children and adults. Furthermore, they report increasing rates of congenital malformations. CLIP


Take The Pledge to Oppose War with Iraq at


Also from


“Iraq today is no longer a military threat to anyone. Intelligence agencies know this. All the conjectures about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lack evidence.” [Hans von Sponeck, Geneva/Dublin, 29 May 2001, UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000]

There has been no documented evidence made public of Iraq’s role in harboring, promoting, or financing terrorist threats to the United States.

Iraq is indicating positive gestures of resuming inspections by United Nations weapons inspectors.

Additional military spending to support an intensive war with Iraq will further erode support for domestic social programs, which are steadily and rapidly deteriorating.

A provoked war with Iraq and an attempt to dislodge Saddam Hussein will likely cause immense suffering to a nation and a population which have greatly suffered as a result of the 1990-91 Gulf War and the imposition of strict economic and trading sanctions since then. How much more pain will we inflict on them?

Read more on THIS website: Three Major Points

2. Instead of ending the economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States and Britain have come up with so-called “Smart Sanctions”, which is basically meant to institutionalize (and justify) the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people. The smart sanctions policy does not improve the desperate situation in Iraq, since: CLIP

3. After the September 11th attack, many high ranking officials as well as the media asked for a military attack against Iraq similar to the ongoing US military operations in Afghanistan, even though so far there has been no evidence linking the Iraqi regime to the terrorist operations in New York and Washington. Although they argue that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a constant source of threat to global peace and security, and hence should be eliminated, the fact is that any military strike against Iraq can destabilize the whole Middle East and create more problems for the international community, including the United States; CLIP

War Against Iraq Defies Law
Bush's plans for war against Iraq have no justification. Under international law a country can attack another country only if it is in immediate danger from that country. A country cannot attack another country if its leader is despicable or "evil", if it has weapons of mass destruction, or even if terrorists live there. That's international law, period.

There is strong evidence that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have pretty much been destroyed. Earlier this year, Iraq fully cooperated with international nuclear weapons inspectors. Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq for six years, asserts that 95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have been destroyed. On March 13, 2002, he wrote: "America claims that Iraq lied to inspectors and still has deadly stockpiles. But the Bush administration has shown little interest in sending the inspectors back. It has used their absence to hype the threat of a re-armed Iraq." Furthermore, the United States has presented no evidence that Iraq is harboring terrorists.

So what reasons does that leave our president to justify a war on Iraq? Bush's response: Iraq's leader is evil. Evil is very subjective and cannot be the basis for war. There are people in the world who see the actions of the U.S. as evil. Would this justify war against us? How can we condemn Iraq for its weapons (if indeed there are any left at all) when the United States possesses the most massive arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on the planet? This is a blatant double standard.

War against Iraq, the destruction of its infrastructure and the killing of Iraqi citizens and U.S. soldiers would be a crime against humanity. It is imperative that we do all we can to prevent this catastrophe. Find out how you can help at


Why Go After Iraq?

If you were planning a war, would you tell your enemy months in advance when you plan to launch the attack? That is just what the Bush administration did last week. Bush advisors were all over Washington, leaking the new that the drive to oust Saddam Hussein will start in May or June.

They know the advance warning poses no risk. Whatever preparations the Iraqis make, the so-called war will probably be a rout. The Iraqi military turned out to be a pushover in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. After a decade of bombing and sanctions, the Iraqis are now much weaker.

Still, why the advance notice with trumpets blaring? Perhaps the Bushies are just building up public enthusiasm for the next battle. Perhaps they want to distract the public from the embarrassments of Enron. In addition, the stories about war in May or June are certainly trial balloons to test public opinion.

The president's approval ratings remain high, despite a sinking economy and rising scandal. So the Bushies probably figure that the U.S. public will happily enlist in another war against Saddam, the dictator we love to hate. It is foreign opinion, especially in Europe, that they are testing. European leaders are getting pissed off about the U.S. going to war "gung-ho and alone" (as one foreign headline put it).

The Europeans know that the U.S. excuses for war against Iraq are largely bogus. There is no serious evidence to show Iraqi support for Al-Qaida. The so-called evidence came from an Iraqi dissident leader, Ahmed Chalabi, long known for giving U.S. officials false information to promote his own interests. In return, the Bushies have declared Chalabi the figurehead leader of a largely fictional "united" Iraqi opposition.

What about all those weapons of mass destruction, which Iraq supposedly refuses to let us inspect? UN inspectors years ago declared the Iraqi nuclear program at least 90 percent dismantled. Today, Iraq is cooperating fully with inspections of their nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The head of the IAEA inspection team recently said: "During our inspection, representatives from the Iraqi Atomic Energy commission were present for the whole time and all help that is necessary to perform the inspections was provided by Iraqi authorities."

Meanwhile, Iraq has also indicated willingness to plan the return of another set of inspectors from the United Nations. Scott Ritter, who was once a high-ranking UN inspector in Iraq, points out that there is no evidence Iraq is anywhere close to having nuclear weapons. Recently, he explained why the U.S. may not welcome, but fear, UN inspectors going back into Iraq to look for evidence: "The resumption of serious weapons inspections would, by their very nature, open the door for the eventual lifting of the [economic] sanctions," the chief U.S. weapon for keeping Iraq a third-rate power. War could be one way to avoid the embarrassment of a U.S. veto of resuming UN inspections.

Then there is the question of what happens after Saddam is killed. Before the Persian Gulf War, one State Department official said clearly that the goal was to replace Saddam with another dictator, just as ruthless but friendly to the U.S. No suitable candidate was found. The elder George Bush decided he'd rather have Saddam in power than take his chances on the highly fragmented Iraqi opposition groups. U.S. planners have always feared that a power vacuum in Iraq would strengthen the hand of Iraq's age-old rival, Iran.

Al Hayat, the Arabic newspaper in London, recently reported that Bush the younger will hand over rule in a post-Saddam Iraq to General Nizar Khazraji, who used to be Saddam's army chief of staff. Or perhaps it will be the self-serving Chalabi.


You can call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111, or email

Printable Flyers: Update for your own community

Full page Flyer (PDF)

Full page Flyer (HTML webpage)

Halfpage Flyer in Word

Read more on OTHER websites:

The Education for Peace in Iraq Center

Article: Invasion of Iraq: It's Sooner Than You Think

Article: Whack Iraq? ... Striking Hussein is Ill-Conceived

Voices in the Wilderness

Not in Our Names

This website is part of an international campaign for the lifting of economic sanctions on Iraq, led by two former UN Humanitarian Coordinators for Iraq: Hans von Sponeck and Denis J. Halliday.

In September 1998 Denis Halliday resigned from his position as an Assistant Secretary General of the UN in protest against the morally indefensible consequences of UN policy towards Iraq. In February 2000, his successor, Hans von Sponeck also resigned.

Since their resignation, both Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck have campaigned for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq. Their latest inititiative is a full page advertisement in the International Herald Tribune containing a statement demanding an end to sanctions, signed by over 250 prominent public figures and organisations.

National Network to End The War Against Iraq

More about sanctions on Iraq

There are many websites and documents which contain reliable information about sanctions on Iraq.

Two particularly useful websites are that of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq (CASI) at, a registered society at the University of Cambridge, and Voices in the Wilderness UK at

CASI's site includes a guide to sanctions (at which introduces the key topics, and contains links to hundreds of pertinent official information sources (at which are particularly useful if you wish to do your own research into sanctions.

Voices UK's site includes answers to Frequently Asked Questions (at, a library of briefings and newsletters, and campaigning information at