November 4, 2002

Defeating the U.S. War Plans Series #6: Cunning Duplicity, Murderous Aims

Hello everyone

This should normally be the last compilation you will receive this way as I've almost completed configuring the new automated listerver and preparing the current list of ERN subscribers for upload into its database. Hopefully I've made no omission but if it ever occurs you stop receiving compilations after this one, then let me know at and I'll correct the problem. So from now on you'll be responsible for managing your subscription to the ERN list - to my great relief! - and the way to proceed will be explained at the bottom of each compilation.

On the eve of the crucial midterm vote in the US, this compilation features some of the key reasons why the warmongering crowd threatening the world from the White House must be restrained.

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

P.S. See also my latest Media Compilation #95: Critical Midterm Choice & Secrets Exposed --- Posted at


1. Kucinich Draws the Line Against War
2. The Real Costs of War
3. Wheels Come Off U.S. War Plans for Iraq
4. Oil Economics Lubricates Push for War
5. The Dirty And Deadly Secrets Of Khamisiyah

See also:

Years from Now, They'll Call It "Payback Tuesday"

Now, More Than Ever, Don't Let the Bush Cartel Take Control of the Senate (Oct 28)
If They Do, Democracy May Be Lost - The Republicans are incorrigible at trampling on democracy. After stealing the 2000 presidential election (which Bush lost by more than a half a million votes), they are up to the same old tactics of bullying, lying, and deceit.

Republicans Conspire to Steal More Elections in 2002 (Nov 1)

In Democracy's Wake - The Anti-War Protest in Washington DC (30 October, 2002)
October 26, 2002, will be noted in history as a day when 250,000 Americans streamed into the nation's capitol to protest a war that has not truly begun. This is a remarkable thing; the Vietnam war had been underway for years before any massed public opposition of the size seen in Washington this week was mustered. On Saturday, Americans marched against a Presidential wish for war, rather than against an actual war. The crowd was so large it snarled traffic in the city for miles in all directions, so much so that protesters were still struggling to arrive as the event came to a conclusion. This was a protest mirrored across the country and the world. CLIP

(Excellent analyses!)

United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq
There are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions about countries (most of them U.S. allies!) other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Iraq has 22.

N. Korean Admission Destroys Bush's Casus Belli (Oct 30)

Inspection as Invasion, by George Monbiot (October 8)
For the past eight years, the United States has done everything in its power to prevent a resolution of the Iraq situation, and thereby justify the upcoming war.

Many more articles on the possible War on Iraq at
... including this: War Plans Gaining Momentum - While the U.N. continues to debate the proposed Iraq resolution, a situation which may benefit hawks in the upcoming elections, more U.S. forces are moving into the region and aircraft patrols of the no-fly zones are becoming more frequent. Opponents of the war say that these moves are designed to provoke Iraqi attacks, giving Bush an excuse to invade immediately. Meanwhile, France warns the U.S. and Britain that they will face reconstruction of Iraq alone, and the CEO of British Petrol worries that the U.S. has already divided Iraqi oil fields for the victors after the war. Sometimes it seems like everything's already decided, doesn't it?

US intensifies Iraq build-up (October 29)
The military is readying for a possible war in 2003 - The US military is continuing to move men and equipment towards Iraq as the Bush administration signals that the time for diplomacy at the United Nations is fast running out. Air strikes against Iraqi missile batteries and radars said to be threatening US and British aircraft patrolling the air exclusion zones over northern and southern Iraq have become more frequent. All the signs are that the military build-up could accelerate dramatically over the next few months if the US administration decides upon military action against Iraq. Whatever may have been happening at the UN, the US military has been working to a pre-determined timeline - one that envisages a potential conflict with Iraq early in 2003. (...) January or February is still most pundits' estimate of when a war might start. But, from early December, the US could have the capacity to pour troops and aircraft into the region with less than 10 days' notice.

The Secret War,0,7355676.story
Frustrated by intelligence failures, the Defense Department is dramatically expanding its 'black world' of covert operations. In what may well be the largest expansion of covert action by the armed forces since the Vietnam era, the Bush administration has turned to what the Pentagon calls the "black world" to press the war on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The Defense Department is building up an elite secret army with resources stretching across the full spectrum of covert capabilities. New organizations are being created. The missions of existing units are being revised. Spy planes and ships are being assigned new missions in anti-terror and monitoring the "axis of evil." CLIP

Into The Dark - The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks (MUST READ!)
Also posted at



Kucinich Draws the Line Against War

By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, The Progressive

October 29, 2002

Unilateral military action by the U.S. against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

When Iraq possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, quite sad to say, it did so with the knowledge of, and sometimes with materials from, the U.S.

During the Administration of Ronald Reagan, sixty helicopters were sold to Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used U.S.-made helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons. According to The Washington Post, Iraq used mustard gas against Iran with the help of intelligence from the CIA.

Iraq's punishment? The U.S. reestablished full diplomatic ties around Thanksgiving of 1984.

Throughout 1989 and 1990, U.S. companies, with the permission of the first Bush Administration, sent to the government of Saddam Hussein mustard gas precursors and live cultures for bacteriological research. U.S. companies also helped to build a chemical weapons factory and supplied the West Nile virus, fuel air explosive technology, computers for weapons technology, hydrogen cyanide precursors, computers for weapons research and development, and vacuum pumps and bellows for nuclear weapons plants. "We have met the enemy," said Walt Kelly's Pogo, "And he is us."

Unilateral action on the part of the U.S., or in partnership with Great Britain, would for the first time set our nation on the bloodstained path of aggressive war, a sacrilege upon the memory of those who fought to defend this country. America's moral authority would be undermined throughout the world. It would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf and Middle East region. And it would signal for Russia to invade Georgia; China, Taiwan; North Korea, the South; India, Pakistan.

The U.S. must recommit itself to the U.N. Charter, which is the framework for international order. We have a right and a duty to defend ourselves. We also have an obligation to defend international law. We can accomplish both without going to war with Iraq.

There is a way out.

It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites.

The time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Emergency relief should be expedited. Free trade, except in arms, must be permitted.

Foreign investments must be allowed. The assets of Iraq abroad must be restored.

And a regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction should be established.

The only weapon that can save the world is nonviolence, said Gandhi. We can begin this practice today by calling upon the Administration in Washington to stop the talk of war, and stop the planning for war.

In their heart of hearts, the American people do not want war on Iraq. The American people want peace.

There is no reason for war against Iraq. Stop the drumbeat. Stop sending troops and supplies to Kuwait and Qatar. Pull back from the abyss of unilateral action and preemptive strikes.

We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.

We must drop the self-defeating policy of regime change. Policies of aggression and assassination are not worthy of any nation with a democratic tradition, let alone a nation of people who love liberty and whose sons and daughters sacrifice to maintain that democracy.

The question is not whether or not America has the military power to destroy Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The question is whether we destroy something essential in this nation by asserting that America has the right to do so anytime it pleases.

America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

We must work to bring Iraq back into the community of nations, not through destruction, but through constructive action worldwide. We can help negotiate a resolution with Iraq that encompasses unfettered inspections, the end of sanctions and the cessation of the regime-change policy.

We have the power to do this. We must have the will to do this. It must be the will of the American people expressed through the direct action of peaceful insistence.

If the U.S. proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, is head of the Progressive Caucus in Congress.



The Real Costs of War

By Ben Cohen

October 31, 2002

The President's men have compared their war in Iraq to a new product, but this is a product that nobody wants. So, they've timed it, "from a marketing point of view," and they've supported it with a "multi-million dollar P.R. blitz." But their product is a deadly distraction, bristling with nasty side effects and violating national law.

Speaking as businessperson, if I put this product out on the market, my shareholders would have my head.

This is a war based on lies:

• The connection between Saddam and al-Qaida is a lie.

• The idea that Saddam is capable of attacking the U.S. is a lie.

• And a war of so-called surgical strikes is a lie.

Many thousands of people -- fathers and mothers, sons and daughters -- will be killed in this war, and yet there is no imminent threat to the security of America that justifies sending our brave men and women in uniform off to die. And the idea that the people of Iraq, who have already been terrorized by the loss of 500,000 of their children due to U.S.-led sanctions -- the idea that these mothers and fathers want to be liberated by being bombed by the United States, is absurd.

The Bush administration is engaged in the most extreme form of power politics that I've ever seen. What their actions are saying is that we are the biggest, baddest bully on the block and, therefore, we can make and break the law as we see fit. We are told that we are to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein has violated U.N. resolutions. But just to put it into perspective, let's look at the U.S. record:

• The U.S. has repeatedly violated, and continues to violate, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

• The U.S. pulled out of the ABM treaty.

• The U.S. has refused to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty.

• The U.S. has scuttled the biological weapons treaty because we wouldn't agree to inspections.

• And we forced out the head of the chemical weapons convention, who was trying to bring Iraq into the fold.

• The last time UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq, the U.S. violated regulations by using them as spies.

• And now we have the Bush doctrine of preemptive war which states that WE can attack any country that we THINK might attack us, although I do not believe it gives that right to other countries.

But enough about war and lost lives and the rule of law. I mean, let's talk about money. After all, I'm a businessman and money's my game.

I've got a chart here that gives you an idea of how our government has been spending our money. Now this is a big crowd, but this is a big chart:

40 billion -- children's health care
34 billion -- children's education
15 billion -- higher education
7 billion -- job training
29 billion -- affordable housing
8 billion -- environmental protection
355 billion -- the Pentagon budget. And that does not include the 200 billion dollars that war with Iraq and the ensuing occupation and nation-building is expected to cost.

Now these are tough economic times for the U.S. America is on the brink of recession. Median household income is down. Poverty and unemployment are up. The huge surpluses of the last years have been frittered away on tax breaks. City, state and school budgets across the country are in shock. Retirement and college savings have been decimated.

And now the administration wants to add another 200 billion dollars to that last line on the chart. 200 billion -- that's a lot of money. What could we buy with that if we didn't have this war?

• For 55 billion dollars we could provide all of our public schools with state of the art computer systems for all of our students.

• For 11 billion dollars a year, we could reduce class size, kindergarten through 3rd grade, to 15 kids per class.

• For 6 billion dollars a year, we could provide health insurance for all those kids who don't have any today.

• For 2 billion dollars a year we could provide Head Start for the hundreds of thousands of eligible kids who can't get into the program.

• For another 2 billion dollars a year, we could double funding for clean and renewable energy.

• There are 30,000 children a day, around the world, who are dying from hunger. For 13 billion dollars a year, we could feed all of 'em!

• There are 6,000 people a day dying from AIDS in Africa. For 10 billion dollars a year, we can curb the disease.

• And for 1 billion dollars a year, we could provide complete public financing of all federal elections, allowing us to really, totally and absolutely get money out of politics -- for one billion dollars a year.

All of those things I just reeled off add up to 100 billion dollars. This war is going to cost 200 billion. We have another 100 billion leftover!

The continued belligerence of our leaders saps our souls, saps our spirit, and saps our strength as a nation.

Let us instead rededicate ourselves to helping our nation to match its actions with the spirit and soul of our people -- in goodness and justice and compassion and love.

Ben Cohen, of Ben and Jerry's fame, is founder of TrueMajority (, which offers free, one-click activism.


See also:

Wanted: Enemy to Justify $344 Billion War Budget (Also by Ben Cohen)



Wheels Come Off U.S. War Plans for Iraq

It is clear that global and domestic opposition to the invasion of Iraq is growing. But it is not a given that these developments have rendered the administration impotent or weakened its resolve. As FTW has been saying consistently since the administration took office -- and especially since 9-11 -- the degree of criminal, unconstitutional and aggressive behavior by the administration only serves to guarantee that its future moves will only be more illegal, more dangerous and more costly of human lives.

Some activists and analysts have openly speculated that the recent tragic death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, perhaps the administration's most vocal and committed critic in the Senate, was a murder perpetrated by a ruthless regime capable of stealing a presidential election and complicit in allowing the attacks of 9-11 to take place in order to provide it with a pretext for what is happening now. [FTW will have a story on a number of major inconsistencies in the Wellstone tragedy sometime this week.] Last week this writer had conversations with two Democratic Party members of the House of Representatives and both unhesitatingly expressed their belief that Wellstone was probably murdered.

Recently an anti-war activist was asked why no one was making a point of the now documented and glaring inconsistencies in the Bush Administration's actions, statements and conduct since the attacks of 9-11. "It's irrelevant," the activist said. An angry response came from the internet, "If you had paid attention to all the warnings and evidence of administration complicity in 9-11 we would not be looking at the coming murder of tens of thousands of people in the Middle East."

The point, well taken, was that the people in control of the U.S. government are capable of anything. And while these recent developments show that the administration is not omnipotent, it does not make it any less dangerous, any less capable of horrific actions, either overseas or right here at home. And the rest of the world, following the U.S. example, is showing increasing signs of instability that could unleash a variety of conflicts, the outcomes of which cannot be predicted.




Oil Economics Lubricates Push for War

October 16, 2002

Critics of an American preemptive assault on Iraq have repeatedly warned about its potentially disruptive short-term effects on the world economy. Much less attention has been paid to a more fundamental point. By setting a goal of "regime change" rather than weapons elimination, and by ostentatiously preparing to assume operational and oversight responsibilities in Iraq for a long stretch of time, the U.S. is sending a strong message to treasuries and foreign ministries around the world: In matters affecting either oil supply or the value of the dollar, we will act in our best interests, with little consideration of the interests or views of others.

A glance backward is the easiest way to see why oil and the dollar inevitably loom so large in any resolution of the Iraq crisis. The current configuration of the Middle East has its roots in treaties and understandings that grew out of the post-World War I settlement of the broken Ottoman Empire. That settlement was based on an assumption that the Russian Revolution had removed both Russia and Central Asia from the world oil market. Everything changed, though, in 1989, when the Soviet Union began to disintegrate and Russia and Central Asia came charging dramatically back into world oil markets.

With both the U.S. and the U.K. ardently promoting globalization, a traditional "spheres of influence" redivision of the world among the great powers did not occur. Instead companies and countries from all over the world started playing the new "great game" in Central Asia.

The blustering efforts of the Saudis to inhibit the flow of Russian oil to the West have received some recent publicity. These actions have caused tensions with the West, as have Saudi campaigns during the '90s to expand the influence of their austere brand of Islamic fundamentalism throughout Central Asia, including Afghanistan, and their ongoing rapprochement with Iran.

Then came Sept. 11, which brought into even sharper focus the points at which Saudi and American interests diverge. Since then, the Bush administration has expanded its efforts to weaken OPEC's grip on supply by developing oil resources in other parts of the world. Its cultivation of President Vladimir V. Putin and his Russian oil have drawn the most attention, but its policies toward Africa, Indonesia and South America also show clear evidence of this concern.

An American-led regime change in Iraq would take this campaign to a whole new level. It is now an accepted notion that lifting the current sanctions on Iraqi oil exports will put downward pressure on oil prices in the medium term. More important, however, Russian and most non-OPEC oil is relatively expensive to produce -- $15 a barrel or more. By contrast, Iraqi production costs, once damage from the war is repaired, should be highly competitive with Saudi oil at $5 a barrel or less.

This makes Iraq pivotal for stabilizing oil prices in both directions. If prices rise too high, Iraq can simply pump more. Less obviously, however, if the Saudis decide, as they have twice done in recent years, to wage a ruinous price war, lowering prices sharply in order to deter other cartel members from overproducing, then Iraq's role is again key. With another low-cost gas station open for business, the Saudis cannot count on maintaining total revenues as prices fall, because now they will have to split the take with the Iraqis. This downward price deterrence will be welcome news to marginal producers around the world, including those in Texas, and it is very important in assessing the long-run impact of the American move.

The currency implications of such a switch are equally momentous. The tremendous boom in U.S. stock markets in the '90s led to enormous inflows of foreign capital and sent demand for dollars soaring. In effect, the stock market bubble created a dollar bubble. With the stock market now coming back to Earth and American interest rates falling almost as low as those in Japan, only the prospect of even lower growth in Europe and Asia now sustains the dollar. In financial markets, the dollar's sharp decline earlier this year is widely regarded as a harbinger of things to come.

A major prop for the dollar has long been the simple fact that oil is priced in U.S. dollars. If the new Iraqi petroleum authorities announce that they will accept checks only in dollars, invest their surplus in dollars, and swell U.S. exports by contracting principally with American firms for services and goods, the dollar's prospects will brighten.


The economic situation is frighteningly precarious in Latin America, where Argentina, Brazil and even Mexico have recently suffered currency runs. In Africa, efforts to provide resources for public health, treatment of HIV/AIDS and social infrastructure are in conflict with debt burdens that are strangling the capacity of the public sector to respond to the challenges. In an atmosphere poisoned by U.S. go-it-alone tactics in oil and financial markets, resolving issues of debt relief and rescheduling and international banking coordination will surely become more difficult. The current discord between Germany and the U.S. poses a special obstacle, because Germany remains a financial powerhouse, whatever its military weakness.

All this takes no account of what may go wrong within Iraq itself or in the rest of the Middle East after Iraq is liberated. As they did after World War I, tensions between the U.S. and its major allies may well inflame ethnic rivalries that will run rife in whatever political structure emerges in the new Iraq. In the worst case, a likely casualty of a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq may well be the system of alliances that the U.S. has maintained since World War II. Going it alone in defense, as the new Bush doctrine proclaims, is bad enough. Going it alone on oil and the dollar is a momentous error.


Posted on the Earth Rainbow Village e-list by Goldi <>
To join this list, go at


31 October 2002

The Dirty And Deadly Secrets Of Khamisiyah

In Khamisiyah, southern Iraq, 1991, a man made plague was unleashed. Some of the world's deadliest chemical and biological warfare agents were housed in Khamisiyah, a sprawling desert bunker complex - and then released into the atmosphere. Released by allied soldiers who are now dying in their thousands, and released over the very same Iraqi population whom the U.S. hopes to 'liberate'.

Was this an accident? Did the U.S. administration know what they were exposing their soldiers to? Why were safety measures not taken during the weapons' destruction? What is the truth about the origins of Saddam's arsenal, and the fate of those exposed to it?

A U.S. led war seems inevitable unless weapons inspectors are allowed unfettered access to Iraq's much touted chemical and biological arsenal. But from whom did Saddam acquire these weapons?

For the suppliers of Saddam's quality genocidal apparatus, we need look no further than our global policemen. When not engaged ensuring a terrorist free democratic world based on truth justice and liberty, America, Britain, France, Russia, Germany and Italy (amongst others) sell arms to despotic regimes.

Arms exports are the United States' and the UK's biggest export earners and Iraqi petro-dollars were more than welcome in the U.S. as late as 1989.

It is widely known and reported that the U.S. supplied chemical and biological weapons 'technology' and 'seed stocks' in the 1980s. What is not so well known is that the sales of weapons of mass destruction by the U.S. and UK to Iraq went far further than this.

The American Gulf War Veteran Association, campaigning over the issue of Gulf War Syndrome, have video documentary evidence of the huge chemical and biological weapons cache destroyed at Khamisiyah, the existence of which was denied officially till the mid 1990s.

Their video footage - taken by a U.S. soldier at the time - shows clearly that Iraq was not simply supplied the 'technology' and 'seed stocks' to make its own chemical weapons. Iraq was supplied fully functional weapons of mass destruction in the form of fully weaponised chemical and biological munitions.

It is disturbing in light of this evidence to consider the mass smallpox immunisation plans presently being considered in at least the U.S., Australia and Germany. Is there something we ought to be told about the weaponisation and export of smallpox munitions that we haven't been told?

Bush's administration claims to have taken the plight of the Iraqi people into consideration in its latest quest for authorisation to begin Gulf War II.

The Iraqi people, Bush says, need to be rid of an evil dictator who even used chemical weapons on his own people.

UK PM Tony Blair's 'dossier' on Iraq's WMD programme makes much of the 5000 Iraqis who died in the chemical attack on the Kurdish town of Halabjah.

But who manufactured the gas used there? A factory in Baghdad, or one in Bristol or Birmingham?

Officially - according to the Capitol Hill testimony of both Stormin' Norman Swartzkopf and General Colin Powell in the mid 1990s - there were no chemical weapons either used by Iraq or found by U.S. troops during Gulf War 1. None at all, period.

And officially - according to the Veterans Administration - the great majority of so called 'Gulf War Syndrome' cases are in fact manifestations of psychosomatic symptoms.

But Unofficially 16,000 Gulf War Veterans have died in the decade since Gulf War 1. (see also U.S. V.A .Data Confirms Massive Delayed Gulf War I Casualties)


Once the casualty rate of U.S. service members is considered - who were exposed for just a few months to the fallout from the demolition of the Khamisiyah chemical weapons dump - it is also worth considering the fate of the Iraqis who have no choice but to live in these contaminated zones.

Since the Gulf War, the incidence of child cancer in southern Iraq has increased by at least 400%. The use of illegal depleted uranium in allied munitions as well as the allied exploding of Iraqi chemical and biological ordinance are thought to be the main culprits.

When coupled with the estimates of over one million deaths caused by U.N (U.S/U.K) economic sanctions, it is hard to avoid comparisons between Saddam's massacres of his own people, and the deaths in Iraq attributable to foreign powers.

At the very least, Saddam appears to be in good company when he turns on his fellow Iraqis.

Video evidence from the American Gulf War Veterans Association shows that in the destruction of Khamisiyah, the U.S. government knowingly exposed its soldiers to a lethal cocktail of depleted uranium, chemicals and biological agents.

According to health researchers the resulting diseases, collectively known as Gulf War Syndrome, have so far killed a shocking 16,000 of America's armed service members (compared with 148 soldiers killed in action in the Gulf). Tens of thousands more have been incapacitated by Gulf War related illnesses.



It has been often observed lately that it would be strangely absurd if the U.S. were to go ahead and - illegally without a UN mandate - attack Iraq for breaking UN resolutions.

But it would seem surely even more absurd if it was widely known that the weapons which the U.S. is so desirous of removing from Saddam's arsenal are in fact weapons that the U.S. illegally sold to Iraq in the first place.

Such a morally repugnant war would involve the equivalent of an arms-dealing policeman raiding the home of an offender on an arms violation, killing the offender's innocent children on the way in, and then charging him in relation to weapons that he himself sold in the first place.


Saddam now arguably has a golden opportunity to take the PR battle one stage further. After all, he is now committed to disarming anyway.

And all he has to do is tell the truth.

CLIP - Read the entire article at

See also:

US Weapons Secrets Exposed (October 29),12271,821306,00.html
Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned yesterday that the US is developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
They redefined warfare in the 20th century and could redefine civilization itself in the 21st. A closer look at the ugly legacy of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons—and their unimaginable threat.