April 8, 2003

The U.S. Army of Mass Destruction Series #6: Horrific, Wanton, Pointless Carnage All Over Iraq

Hello everyone

I'm feeling quite dizzy and overwhelmed with all that I know from what I've read preparing this compilation. Being aware of the insane, unbearable inhumanity of what U.S. soldiers are mindlessly doing - under orders or not! - in Iraq is fast becoming way too much to contemplate. Picture yourself on the sidewalks of this hellish city, looking around at the agony and pain inflicted to thousands upon thousands of human beings who moments before shared with you the grace of being healthy and alive in a body on this otherwise peaceful planet, lush with unfathomable beauty, sensing the torments of engulfing fear tearing at the hearts of defenseless children, unable to sleep for the past 21 days under the unrelenting bombardments of Uncle Sam, feeling the despair of the mothers and fathers of all those children who can only stand still in their trembling houses, hoping that the fury of this flesh-tearing hurricane with spare their family, knowing that hospitals and surgeons are no longer able to cope with the ever rising tide of wounded bodies, aware that water, electricity, telephone utilities have all been ravaged to various degrees by the hail of bombs falling from the sky and acutely conscious of the deadly consequences all this means for a people who rely on those vital service for its survival, you will come to realize like me that not only we MUST ban forever war from the face of this planet, but we must NOT accept any longer to be silenced into submission by those advocating, abetting and ordering such monstrosity and do whatever it takes to stop this war as well as prevent any other war from happening ever again on this planet.

Please stand up, speak out, and help stop this!

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

This compilation is archived at

After reading this compilation, you will probably need to see this utterly beautiful, inspiring and positively appeasing animation
Recommended by Da Vid <>

"The time for peace is now. At the dawn of a new millennium, there is no better time to review age old challenges with new thinking that peace is not only the absence of violence, but the presence of a higher evolution of human awareness with respect, trust and integrity toward humankind. Our founding fathers recognized that peace was one of the highest duties of the newly organized free and independent states. But too often, we have overlooked the long-term solution of peace for instant gratification of war. This continued downward spiral of violence must stop to ensure that future generations will live in peace and harmony."

- Congressman Dennis Kucinich -- Check
and help prepare for the introduction of Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Department of Peace (DOP) legislation in the House of Representatives. 

"Mourn not the dead. But rather mourn the apathetic throng - the cowed and meek who see the world's great anguish and its wrong, and dare not speak."

- Ralph Chaplin


1. Iraqi troops massacred from the air as US advances to Baghdad
2. Puzzling Questions Arise from Bush's Campaign of Fear
3. The pain of war never goes away
4. Oil War
5. Perpetual War Portfolio

See also:

US rampage through Baghdad kills thousands (7 April 2003)
The American military has officially claimed the 64th Armored Regiment of the US Third Infantry Division killed between 2,000 and 3,000 Iraqis during a three-hour rampage through southwestern Baghdad on April 5. In the aftermath of the assault, the Red Cross reported the city's hospitals filling with hundreds of wounded, both military and civilian, and morgues receiving dozens of bodies. From a staging area in the southern outskirts of Baghdad, the 64th Armored launched a "reconnaissance in force" north along Highway 8 and parallel roadways toward the centre of the city. The armored column then turned west and cut a swath through industrial and residential suburbs of southern Baghdad alongside a major expressway to the airport, which American forces had seized on the evening of April 3. ... The Washington Post reported: "US forces killed between 2,000 and 3,000 Iraqis during Saturday's show of force, which drew fierce but futile resistance from Iraqi soldiers and militiamen regarded as President Saddam Hussein's last line of defense." Troops of the 64th Armored described the attack to the New York Times as "a blistering gauntlet of death and destruction that engulfed civilians as well as Iraqi fighters". According to the Times: "The Iraqi fighters... fired from streets, from groves of trees, from highway overpasses. Many mingled with the civilians caught up in the unexpected armored thrust. Some people ran. Others waved white clothes or held up their hands." At the airport, a US trooper stated: "People were lying all over the side of the road. I couldn't even count how many." The reported American casualties were one dead and several wounded. ... The US military has admitted the action on April 5 had no military objective. US Central Command spokesman Captain Frank Thorp told a press conference in Qatar: "This isn't about taking or holding ground. At this point, that was not an objective, to hold any territory in Baghdad. This was an opportunity that the ground force commander saw to move troops through a major area of Baghdad, and [he] jumped on it." Major General Buford C. Blount, the field commander of the Third Infantry Division, told journalists: "We just wanted to let them know that we're here."

Robert Fisk : Amid Allied jubilation, a child lies in agony, clothes soaked in blood (April 8)
They lay in lines, the car salesman who'd just lost his eye but whose feet were still dribbling blood, the motorcyclist who was shot by American troops near the Rashid Hotel, the 50-year-old female civil servant, her long dark hair spread over the towel she was lying on, her face, breasts, thighs, arms and feet pock-marked with shrapnel from an American cluster bomb. For the civilians of Baghdad, this is the real, immoral face of war, the direct result of America's clever little "probing missions" into Baghdad.

Robert Fisk: The Allied grip tightens on Baghdad (April 7)
On the streets, grim evidence of a bloody battle
The aftermath of battle was everywhere. Burning trucks and armoured personnel carriers, overturned Iraqi field guns, craters and blackened palm trees and, right in the middle of the motorway, just to the right of a cloverleaf interchange, the unmistakable hulk of an American Abrams M1A1 battle tank, barrel pointing impotently towards the highway, its turret a platform for grinning Iraqi soldiers. ... And one with a heavy price to bepaid in blood and life. By the time I turned up yesterday, the more obviousand terrible detritus of battle - the corpses and the blood and vomit ˆ had been cleared away, but the Iraqi army and the Pentagon did their best to cloak this little killing field with lies. Two thousand Iraqis killed, crowed the Pentagon. Fifty Americans killed, boasted the Iraqis, rather more modestly. Both sides admitted "casualties" and it must be for the reader to judge what these might have been.... But what really happened here? ... but there were two tactical lessons to be learnt from all this. First, the American mission, whatever its original intention, was a failure. Their tank column did not "break into" the city as the Anglo-American headquarters originally stated. Iraqi resistance turned it back. The US response ˆ air assaults on individual Iraqi vehicles ˆ was presumably committed by Apache helicopters, because each smouldering wreck had been hit by a small rocket at close range. The second lesson was one for the Iraqis: they should never have brought their armour and military lorries so close to the front... And even if they did destroy six American tanks as the minister ambitiously claimed, they did so at a cost of more than five-to-one to their own vehicles and guns.

Robert Fisk in Baghdad: The twisted language of war that is used to justify the unjustifiable
Why do we aid and abet the lies and propaganda of this filthy war? How come, for example, it's now BBC "style" to describe the Anglo-American invaders as the "coalition". This is a lie.

"Shedding no tears for Iraqi civilians"
Firas discusses the civilian casualties in the current conflict in Iraq. Was warfare necessary? Was it necessary to kill the hundreds of confirmed innocents that have died so far?


War 'Against Iraqi People'
NAJAF, 8 April 2003 - This is no longer a war against Saddam and his regime, if it ever was. It has become a war against the Iraqi people. The number of civilians killed since the invasion began is massive, and is rising dramatically as American and British forces continue to make their way north through densely populated areas. Each Iraqi city has lost many civilians, at times entire families, to "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Sami Osama, a truck driver, was delivering 5,000 kg of tomatoes through the small town of Sanawa when he approached an American checkpoint. According to witnesses who spoke to Arab News yesterday, he did not understand the orders in English and approached the checkpoint as normal. The US forces opened fire, killing him instantly and injuring two of his passengers.

UN aid agencies paint grim picture of massive relief tasks in Iraq (7 April 2003)
Painting a grim picture of hardship and horror, United Nations relief agencies today underscored the massive humanitarian tasks awaiting them in war-shattered Iraq. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that hospitals in Baghdad and elsewhere were overwhelmed by the numbers of injured, the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) said a humanitarian clock was ticking with each passing day, and the World Food Programme (WFP) predicted it would have to move in massive amounts of food next month.

Britain Admits There May Be No WMD's in Iraq (April 5 by Al Jazeera )
Well into the war that was supposed to rid Iraq of its alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, a senior British official admitted on Saturday that no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction may after all be found. Making the startling confession in a radio interview, British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, added in the same breath that he would in any case rejoice the "fall'' of Saddam Hussein and his regime -- regardless of whether any weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq or not. The confession reconfirms the worst fears of opponents of the war that "weapons of mass destruction'' is only a ruse for the US and the British to go to war against Iraq. At the very least the admission certainly deals a serious blow to the moral legitimacy that the US and the British have been seeking in prosecuting the war. CLIP
WMD 'smoking gun' turns out to be pesticide
In the latest false alarm for evidence that would help justify the US-led invasion of Iraq, a military officer announced that pesticide, not deadly sarin gas, was found at a chemical facility south of Baghdad US troops had braced for chemical, nuclear or biological attacks as they advanced toward Iraq from Northern Kuwait. (...) The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed it was justified in bypassing the UN Security Council and launching an invasion of Iraq, because of the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But it is ironic, said Al Jazeera analyst Mohammed Ja'afar that both UN inspectors, and US-led troops, despite their deep thrust into the country, have not found any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has also vehemently denied he possessed such weapons.

Anti-American Sentiment Grows Over War in Iraq (April 6)
BERLIN (Reuters) - They were seen as the "good cops" who saved West Berlin, defended Western Europe during the Cold War and put an end to the bloodshed in the Balkans -- but the Iraq war has left that image of the United States in shreds. The erstwhile defenders of freedom and democracy are now more likely to be viewed by their allies around the world as war-mongering imperialists, "bad cops" and "bullies" who lost their way by brushing aside the United Nations and attacking Iraq.

On to Damascus?
For months, even as Washington's hawks prepared for their long-sought war in Iraq, neoconservatives inside and outside the White House were eagerly speculating about which country would be next on the administration's list. Now, while US and British troops make their painstaking way toward Iraq and an urban battle military leaders want desperately to avoid, war party pundits are eagerly speculating once more. But this time, they are only writing about two countries: Syria and Iran. This week, in a speech to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee, the country's pre-eminent pro-Israel lobby group, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that Washington wanted to see "more responsible behavior" from Damascus. And he didn't stop there. Denouncing the Syrian government's harsh criticism of the US-led invasion of Iraq, Powell declared that Syria now "faces a critical choice." It was strong language reminiscent of the nuanced threats leveled at Iraq last year, and it was greeted by hearty applause from the AIPAC crowd. But is the Bush administration, in a war that few still believe will be quick or simple, actually considering turning its military attention toward Damascus? Neoconservatives dearly hope so.

Evidence Against Syria Is Questioned (April 3),0,4315121.story
Washington - The CIA has no credible evidence that the government of Syria has had a role in the shipment of night-vision goggles and other military equipment to Iraq, according to an administration official familiar with U.S. intelligence in the region. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last Friday suggested that Syria was responsible for the shipment to Iraq of defense-related goods, including the goggles, and warned that the United States considered "such trafficking as hostile acts and would hold the Syrian government accountable." Syria quickly denied the accusation. And the administration official yesterday said that while military goods, including goggles, have been smuggled through Syria into Iraq for many years, "It's not necessarily with the knowledge, consent or approval of the Syrian government."

US warned that oil cannot provide funds
A senior British official at the United Nations warned the United States yesterday that it should think twice before assuming it can administer post-conflict Iraq on its own terms. Mark Malloch Brown, the director of the UN Development Programme, also said Iraq's crippled oil industry would not finance reconstruction after the war. His candid remarks preface what is shaping to become another mammoth struggle between the powers in the UN Security Council over the role of the UN in running Iraq and helping it back to self-government. He said: "Maybe there are people in Washington who can't see round the next corner in the road and don't know where it goes, but eventually will." There is growing alarm in UN circles at what appears to be plans by Washington to install its own government in Iraq, headed by retired Lieutenant-General Jay Garner. He and a group of carefully selected US officials are in Kuwait waiting for the moment to transfer to Baghdad and take over Iraqi ministries.

Hawkish lawyer to oversee Iraqi ministries, The Pentagon selects group to take power (April 4),2763,929378,00.html
A Pentagon lawyer who sought to have US citizens imprisoned indefinitely without charge as part of the war on terrorism will supervise civil administration in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is removed. Michael Mobbs, 54, who will take charge of 11 of the 23 Iraqi ministries, is one of several controversial appointments to the Pentagon-controlled government-in-waiting being assembled in a cluster of seaside villas in Kuwait. Other top-level appointees include James Woolsey, a former CIA director with Israeli connections, who has long pursued a theory that Saddam Hussein, rather than Islamic militants, was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York.

Victory Plan Is Formed by U.S., Surrender Not Thought Essential (April 4)
The Bush administration has devised a strategy to declare victory in Iraq even if Saddam Hussein or key lieutenants remain at large and fighting continues in parts of the country, officials said yesterday.

'Liberated' city where looters run wild and death stalks the streets (April 4)
Nasiriyah is a city of suffering. After some of the most intense and bloody fighting yet of this war, the United States has now declared this city of up to 300,000 people in its control ˆ the largest city in Iraq to have been "liberated". Liberation has come at a price of undoubted suffering for the people of this settlement on the Euphrates: doctors claim that up to 250 people were killed by US air strikes or artillery attacks, and that up to 1,000 were injured. This could be the greatest challenge for the Allied forces. They have pushed north quickly, and many of the towns they have passed remain at best unstable. How best to police these cities without appearing as an occupying force appears to be something about which the Americans are unclear.

Irish Republicans Accuse Bush Of Using Visit To Justify War,,5944-638662,00.html
"We would be wrong not to point it out . . . the insensitivity of having a war summit which then discusses peace in the margins, of having a war summit which appears to be trying to use the Irish process as a stage or as a prop," (Gerry Adams) the Sinn Fein leader said.

Accusations fly over lack of action on friendly fire deaths (April 8),2763,931992,00.html

Anti-War Rallies Draw Sea Of Demonstrators Worldwide
WORLD CAPITALS, April 7 ( & News Agencies) ˆ Sea of anti-war protestors took to the streets in different parts of the world Sunday, April6 , for the18 th consecutive day to protest the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

Dozens of antiwar protesters injured at Port of Oakland (April 8)
In one of the fiercest Bay Area demonstrations since the Iraq war began, dozens of anti-war protesters were injured Monday at the Port of Oakland when police fired tear gas and projectiles to break up a crowd that failed to heed warnings to disperse.

U.S. invasion has landed it in Israeli territory (April 1)
Our rules of war are based on overwhelming superiority of the force at our disposal compared to that of the enemy. Israel's experience in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories tells that overwhelming force cannot quell fiery nationalism. And history tells that Iraqi nationalism is as fierce as any. The cost of ignoring that will only mount with time. We will turn to the Israeli military, the world's most experienced in combating suicide bombers, and adopt their methods. We'll claim our right to defend ourselves against the retaliation of those we attack. Our presence on their land is what they detest, yet we will see their killing of our soldiers as proof they are the terrorists our presence is needed to wipe out. We'll force cars to stop at a safe distance and make their occupants approach on foot. Then an Iraqi patriot will shuffle up to marines at a roadblock and detonate a concealed explosives belt strapped to his waist. Our counterterrorism experts will advise that we force Iraqis civilians to strip to their waists before they approach our men. The effect, as Israel knows all too well, will be to alienate the indigenous population. Our actions will ratchet up their resentment and intensify their loathing of the foreign military power controlling their lives. The number of Iraqis ready to die to kill anyone sporting a Star-Spangled Banner or a Union Jack will mushroom. We can win the war, but the peace will enervate us. Welcome, America, to a vicious cycle of violence like that Israel is mired in. In time our nation will yearn for freedom from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Israel Tells US: 'Send In the Bulldozers' (April 3 from The Guardian)
Pentagon Takes Notes on House-to-house Fighting in Jenin - Martin van Creveld's advice to the US marines on what lessons to draw from Israel's bloody urban battle in Jenin was precise: Forget the helicopters, invest in armored bulldozers. For months now, the Pentagon has been taking notes from the Israelis in preparation for what looks increasingly likely to be an arduous house by house, street by street, fight for Baghdad. Pentagon strategists have pored over videos of the Israeli military's assault on Jenin a year ago, when 150 lightly armed but determined Palestinians kept the army at bay for 11 days and killed 23 soldiers. US officers watched Israeli tank raids into West Bank cities in February, and American soldiers have learned in the Israeli desert how to blow their way from house to house to avoid booby traps and street fighting. The Israeli insights build on years of exchanges of military technology and intelligence between the deeply intertwined armies. Among other things, the US is using Israeli-manufactured drones to scout across Iraqi lines.

George Walker Bush X-Ray

U.S. issues new rules for 'interfering' Iraqi civilians (April 2)
CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq - Iraqi civilians who ''interfere with mission accomplishment'' can be detained up to 30 days under new guidelines the U.S. military issued Tuesday. The guidelines represent tougher military attitudes toward Iraqi civilians in the face of continuing attacks by Iraqi loyalist forces. The original rules of engagement issued for Iraq drew a careful line between military targets and civilians, who were to be protected.

Bush approves use of tear gas in battlefield (April 2)
Only to save civilian lives, military says ,Weapons experts fear violation of law - President George W. Bush has authorized American military forces to use tear gas in Iraq, the Pentagon says, a development that some weapons experts said could set up a conflict between American and international law. The U.S. Defence Department said that tear gas, which has been issued to American troops but not used by them, would be used only to save civilian lives and in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, ratified by the United States in 1997. Critics say any battlefield use of tear gas would violate the convention, offend crucial allies including Britain, and hand Saddam Hussein a legal basis for using chemical weapons against the United States.

Defending the dollar
Writing in the Sunday Times on March 30, Judge Richard Goldstone stated that there were only two lawful ways in which the U.S. could use military force against Iraq. One was if the UN Security Council sanctioned it; the other was in the case of"dire self-defence". The U.S. war against Iraq is in dire defence of dollar imperialism against the threat of the euro. Put another way, the war is about world economic dominance.

International Day Of Poetry Against The War
Next May 1, 2003 Create Antiwar Poetry Readings Worldwide - The Bush administration's barrage of bombs and bullets in Iraq is mirrored by its barrage of misinformation and doublespeak, a language the media too willingly repeats. An assassination attempt is termed a "target of opportunity"; murder of civilians is "collateral damage"; invasion is "liberation." Now more than ever, the world needs to hear the voices of poets. Poets Against the War is calling for May 1, 2003, to be an International Day of Poetry Against the War. In place of military rhetoric that glosses over human loss, poetry offers a way to share our experiences of hope, suffering, and dreams of what is possible. Across the globe, the movement against the invasion of Iraq is growing by the hour. Even if this war should be declared "over," it will not be over. The damage this action has caused to freedom of speech in America and to international relations cannot be repaired overnight, however much the language of the administration assures us to the contrary. And we should not neglect this administration's threats against Korea, Iran, Syria, and other nations. Please join us and many thousands of others on Thursday May 1, 2003. Lend your voice. Organize a reading. On behalf of Poets Against the War: Sally Anderson, Gray Foster, Nancy Giebink, Sam Hamill, Andrew Himes, Nancy Scott, Emily Warn.
Recommended by Mark Elsis <>



Iraqi troops massacred from the air as US advances to Baghdad

By James Conachy

4 April 2003

After a week of massive air attacks, the two-pronged offensive by US army and marine units launched on April 1 quickly pushed through the Iraqi Republican Guard divisions and regular army units defending the southern approaches to Baghdad. According to CNN, MSNBC and Fox television broadcasts throughout Thursday, April 3, US armoured columns have advanced into the outskirts of Iraq’s capital and are engaging Iraqi defenders around the Saddam Hussein International Airport. The city’s power has been cut off and it is under sustained bombardment from US aircraft and artillery.

Amid the shameless celebration by the US media of the American assault, it is necessary to call things by their right name. What is unfolding in Iraq is a slaughter. It is one of history’s most unequal military conflicts. The US and British invasion forces are utilising their unchallenged control of the air and overwhelming technical supremacy to rain down death on Iraqi troops.

Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the US “shock and awe” policy of physically and psychologically crushing any enemy of US imperialism, gloated to the April 3 New York Post: “To appreciate why we’re making such progress, you have to understand the extraordinary advantages our forces have over the Iraqis. It’s a matter of overwhelming might. Our air power is unstoppable. And our ground power has massive capability to destroy the enemy with minimum losses to us.”

US and British bombers and fighters are flying more than 1,000 sorties over Iraq per day. The majority of air strikes over the past week have targeted the defensive positions of Iraqi Republican Guard units south of Baghdad. The US has kept 150 strike jets in the air continuously to enable constant “opportunity” attacks on any attempt by Iraqi soldiers to re-deploy, re-supply or retreat.

As many as 12,000 precision-guided bombs have been dropped since the invasion began, as well as thousands more “dumb” bombs. The Iraqi units that have withstood the aerial attacks have been subjected to massive artillery bombardments and assaults by jet fighters, A-10 tank-buster aircraft and Apache helicopter gunships.

The US and British military are not even giving official estimates of the number of Iraqis killed or wounded. The New York Times reported on April 1 that American officials say a death toll is “not a statistic that interests them.” A British air force officer told the Times: “We don’t do head counts and we certainly don’t publicise them.”

All indications, however, are that the casualty rate among Iraqi troops is horrific.

The Washington Post reported on April 2 that the 12,000-strong Medina Republican Guard Division positioned to the southwest of Baghdad around the town of Karbala had suffered a “relentless pounding in recent days by Air Force planes, including B-52 bombers.” The Post commented: “Scores of blown-up Iraqi vehicles and dozens of bodies lined the roads as the US troops passed by.”

The Los Angeles Times reported that “burned and blasted wreckage of Iraqi military vehicles littered the sides of Route 9 just east of Karbala.” The Associated Press reported on April 3 that the road from Karbala to Baghdad was lined with “hundreds of burning vehicles, both civilian and military” and added “hundreds of dead Iraqis, most in uniform, lay next to the vehicles.”

The British Guardian reported on April 3 that the Baghdad Division of the Republican Guard defending the town of Kut and the southeast approaches to the capital had suffered “intense” bombardment over the past week. This included the dropping of two 15,000-pound “daisy cutter” fuel-air bombs on their positions.

Daisy cutters detonate above the ground, engulfing a square mile in a firestorm that sucks out all oxygen, incinerating or asphyxiating everyone in the area. One description of their impact reads: “Those not incinerated are injured by the massive blast or the vacuum. Typical injuries include concussion, blindness, rupture of the eardrums, seared airways and collapsed lungs, multiple internal hemorrhages, displaced and torn internal organs.”

US Marine commanders told the Washington Post that long before their forces reached the lines of the Baghdad Division, 5,000 or more of the Iraqi unit’s 11,000 men had already been killed or wounded from the air, and 75 percent of their equipment destroyed. A Pentagon official told the Guardian: “They’ve been broken up and we’re taking them out one tank at a time. They’re sitting ducks.”

An embedded New York Times journalist with a Marine unit reported, “The bodies of Iraqi soldiers lay about in the wake of the American advance” and there was “a large pile of the Iraqi dead rotting in the morning sun” to the west of the Tigris river crossings.

Reinforcements were also cut off by US air power. The New York Post reported on April 3 that B-52s dropped six new CBU-105 cluster bombs on April 2 on a column of Republican Guard—believed now to be from the Al Nida Division—which was attempting to reinforce Iraqi positions. Dropped from as high as 40,000 feet, the CBU-105 releases 10 bombs above the battlefield, each of which fires four armour-penetrating warheads. Using infrared targeting, the warheads lock onto any vehicles within a 30-acre radius. According to the claims of the US Central Command, the new hardware wiped out an Iraqi force consisting of dozens of tanks and vehicles.

Despite their losses, the Iraqi military and civilians have continued to resist the American invasion. Numerous reports testify that Iraqi soldiers have launched heroic attacks to slow the advance of the US tanks and armoured vehicles, often with nothing more than pick-up trucks, rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. Survivors of Iraqi Guard units that have been flanked or bypassed by the US columns are attempting to retreat to Baghdad to join with defenders inside the city proper.

Summing up the military situation, a senior American military officer told the April 3 New York Times: “The enemy is taking what forces he can muster and is ordering them back into the city. He is bringing in the Republican Guard for a last stand. We have been trying to kill anything that is moving toward the city.”

The slaughter accompanying the US advance on Baghdad demonstrates again the character of the Bush administration’s war to “liberate” Iraq. The resistance of the Iraqi people has inevitably seen the invasion degenerate into a campaign to wipe out the vastly outgunned Iraqi armed forces and traumatise and intimidate the population into accepting rule from Washington. A legacy of hatred has been created that will endure for decades to come.

With US forces encircling Baghdad from the south, west and east, the potential is now looming for a bloodbath. Significant sections of the Iraqi army have taken up positions in the capital for a last ditch battle to prevent a US entry into the city. The recklessness and desperation for victory of the Bush administration is such it may well order a street-to-street assault—at immense cost in both military and civilian lives.


Forwarded by "Mark Graffis" <>


April 3, 2003

Puzzling Questions Arise from Bush's Campaign of Fear

by Ralph Nader

With the chicken hawk-driven war on Iraq in high gear, Bush and Cheney have learned that the best way to silence the Democratic Party, distract from their miserable domestic outrages and provide the corporate and rich classes with favors is to envelop our nation in fear. Using false or distorted statements, contrary to the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies, to exaggerate Iraqi threats, weapons and terrorist (al-Qaeda) connections as reasons for the war, their invasion and prolonged occupation may produce greater risks of stateless terrorism in the U.S. Last fall, the CIA informed Congress of just this higher probability resulting from an Iraqi invasion. Watching reports describing our draft-dodging President as totally immersed in the scope and details of his Iraqi invasion, a number of puzzling questions arise:

1) Why is Bush pouring half of the entire U.S. military at huge cost into the Persian Gulf while rejecting the frantic requests by cities and states (such as New York City) for overdue monies for homeland security?

2) What will Bush say to Americans if no weaponized nuclear, chemical or biological materials are found in Iraq or, if found, not used, as 60 Minutes World War II vet Andy Rooney believes we ourselves would use if a powerful foreign invasion was overwhelming our country? The CIA told Bush that Saddam would be more likely to use these chemical and biological weapons if the U.S. invades.

3) With domestic necessities of the American people being ignored, why is Bush pushing Congress for yet another huge tax cut for the wealthy while Alan Greenspan is warning about larger budget deficits this year and afterwards?

4) Albeit surrounded by his little clique of ideologues, why has Bush refused requests to meet from any of thirteen major antiwar groups representing tens of millions of Americans? They include labor, business, clergy, human rights, war veterans, academics with national security experience, physicians and elected city officials who have much to inform him. Some have battle experience in the Gulf and know about toxic exposures to our troops. Others have returned from Iraq with first hand knowledge about conditions. Still others are steeped in the boomerang effect of ill-advised belligerence and distraction from more serious global conflicts and struggles against sabotage. Tony Blair in London received for nearly an hour a delegation from the National Council of Churches headed by former Congressman Bob Edgar. Yet the Council leaders have been rejected by their own President for the past year. There is the cause and effect of history that Bush needs to know about in the Middle East. Maybe he would not have used the word "crusade" or have invoked God's will and his divine guidance regarding overthrowing Saddam. Such references are viewed in Islamic societies as meaning a religious war.

But Bush does not seek any advice, information or insights from these informed Americans. He ignored all their written requests (see

5) Immersed in Iraq, Bush pays little attention to America. He is spending far more time on the Middle East, and destructively so, than on the manufacturing decline of the Middle West. And he wants to cut veterans benefits. His unchallenged domination of the mass media leaves little space for others to raise these issues.

Heard about opportunity cost (or opportunities lost) of his Messianicmilitarism lately? No attention to a long frozen minimum wage, worsening poverty, skyrocketing drug prices along with soaring consumer bills for oil and natural gas. Heard about advances needed for energy efficiency and solar power and less gas guzzling motor vehicles? Bush has put America on hold!

6) What is a weapon of mass destruction anyhow? Ask Iraqi families whether or not Bush has sent weapons of mass destruction from the air, from the sea and on land, to smash their country and destroy tens of thousands of lives in order to topple one man. Haven't the economic sanctions blocking medicines, surgical materials and sanitation purifiers for clean drinking water taken the lives of enough Iraqi children over a decade? Deliberately making civilians suffer for a military overthrow of a dictator happens to be a violation of international law.

7) Why did know-it-all Bush, who ironically brags about making decisions from his gut, stifle dissent from his war policy and its likely aftermath that still simmers at sub-cabinet levels inside the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department? Leading retired Generals, Admirals, diplomats and national security officials tried to articulate the same criticism publicly over the past few months.

8) Except for the oil and munitions industries, the war is a downer on the economy. A few business executives have spoken up strongly. Most are not prone to speak publicly for fear of retaliation by the Bush Administration which, in this area, is believed to be vindictive against corporate dissenters.

From the big Geneva Switzerland auto show last month, Automotive News' executive editor, Peter Brown of Detroit, talked to many European auto executives. He writes: "Personally, most of the executives oppose the war as unnecessary and likely to lead to greater terrorism and instability." This is pretty much the judgment of most of the U.S. foreign policy establishment whose prominent ex-government officials are also being ignored by the all-knowing, instinct-driven President.



The pain of war never goes away (April 07, 2003)

By David Antoon, Col., USAF Ret.

(...) As I look back at these pointless losses with the benefit of 30 years hindsight, I wonder how this could have happened. I gaze at my children and I think about the dreams of some 60,000 young men that were never realized. I also think about the 3.8 million Vietnamese casualties and what their unrealized dreams might have been. The millions of deaths that most like to ignore in the "killing fields" of Cambodia must also be laid at the door of America's involvement in Southeast Asia. Even today, the casualties from that war continue to mount in the form of birth defects from groundwater contaminated with Agent Orange. Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara now says America's involvement in Vietnam was a mistake. A mistake? It was more than a mistake. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a hoax perpetrated on the American people and the world to justify a war that cost millions of unnecessary deaths. What hoaxes are being perpetrated on the American people today to justify war and how many lives will they cost?

In the first Gulf War, our Air Force incinerated retreating Iraqi troops on what became known as the "Highway of Death." American pilots described it as a "turkey shoot." Some criticize it as unnecessary, mindless carnage of an already defeated and retreating army and consider it a war crime. The depleted uranium we used to destroy thousands of fleeing vehicles and these young men in Iraq has resulted in untold numbers of birth defects in innocent children, just as Agent Orange continues to do in Vietnam. Future generations will continue to suffer from the wanton use of these carcinogens. Have we not learned from these mistakes?

George W. Bush had often said that Iraq has repeatedly ignored U.N. Resolution 1441 and should, therefore, be brought to task, with or without the international community. Hypocritically, he fails to mention that the United States has used its veto 41 times in the last three decades to thwart attempts by the United Nations to sanction Israel for its violations against the Palestinian people. In particular, Israel's defiance of U.N. Resolution 242 has gone on for over thirty-five years. It is easy to understand why America is becoming the most hated country in the world. As a result of this foreign policy, nearly every country in the world is protesting in anger against the United States.

Defying world opinion and a majority in the United Nations, we have marched off to war again. Colin Powell, the Army major who did the initial investigation and whitewash of the My Lai massacre, presented to the United Nations a student's dissertation (as an intelligence report) and a forged document as proof of the need to go to war. President Bush, who conveniently disappeared from his Guard Unit when the Air Force began mandatory drug screening, has now launched a war to create a "New World Order," under the guise of removing weapons of mass destruction, or regime change, or democratization -- all debunked by the CIA. Our government is "dissing" France because of their disagreement with our policies and determination to stop an unnecessary war. This administration conveniently forgets to mention that we owe a large debt to France for our national independence.




Oil War

The advocates of war insist it's not about oil. But global oil production is on the brink of terminal decline and when the West begins to run short of supplies - Iraq could be a lifeline.

26 March

After World War I, the oil companies carved up Iraq. Shell, BP, Exxon and Total all had stakes in the Iraq Petroleum Company. They paid pennies for each barrel of oil and built a pipeline to take it away.

In 1972 the Iraqis nationalised the industry and threw the foreigners out. From then on Western oil companies could only dream of Iraq's oil reserves - the second largest in the world.

With Saddam Hussein came decades of war followed by sanctions and Iraq's massive reserves lay largely untouched. But with Hussein's regime under threat, at last there was a chance to get back in.

Dwindling discoveries

It's not greed that's driving big oil companies - it's survival. The rate of oil discovery has been falling ever since the 1960's when 47 billion barrels a year were discovered, mostly in the Middle East.

In the 70's the rate dropped to about 35 billion barrels while the industry concentrated on the North Sea. In the 80's it was Russia's turn, and the discovery rate dropped to 24 billion. It dropped even further in the 90's as the industry concentrated on West Africa but only found some 14 billion barrels.

Shrinking production

In America, always the greediest consumer of oil, production has been falling for 30 years. Americans guzzle 20 million barrels of oil a day, but now they have to import over 60% of it.

That pattern is being repeated elsewhere. Geologist Dr Colin Campbell predicted a decline in the North Sea several years ago and claims by 2015 Britain may have to import over half its oil needs. "In 1999 Britain went over the top and is declining quite rapidly," he says.

"It's now 17% down in just three years, and this pattern is set to continue. That means that Britain will soon be a net importer, imports have to rise, the costs of the imports have to rise, and even the security of supply is becoming a little uncertain," Campbell adds.

In Norway the government forecasts that in the next ten years its North Sea production will halve. In Argentina oil production has been down for several years and in Columbia, which was a big producer in the 90's, production is now past its peak.

US energy security

When George Bush took power two years ago, his administration was already worried about the vulnerability of America's oil supplies - the buzzword was 'energy security'.

"I think it's quite possible that the United States realises the key importance of the Middle East generally to world supply in fact, and especially its own, and that it sees Saddam Hussein as a ready-made villain," points out Campbell.

"It finds this a convenient way in which to establish a military presence in the Middle East - aimed partially at Iraq by all means but with a wider significance to control the production elsewhere there."

The US pushed its allies hard to support military action against Iraq. With resolution 1441 last November they seemed to be making progress. But in December America's energy security took yet another turn for the worse. Venezuelan oil workers went on strike and oil prices soared - hitting $35 a barrel.

Iraqi oil for Iraqi people

As preparations for war gathered pace there were massive demonstrations around the world. The widespread view that it was all about oil worried the US and British governments so much that they came up with a plan - they would safeguard Iraq's oil for the Iraqi people.

"We will make sure that Iraq's natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the Iraqi people," President Bush told the world.

But even if the post-Saddam regime retains control of oil exports, at least the boost in Iraqi output will provide a growing supply to the West.

For a war supposedly not about oil, military planners made a high priority of securing the oilfields. Apart from a handful of wells torched by Iraqi troops, the huge southern oilfields were taken largely intact. But other major oil-producing regions are still in Iraqi hands and there is still a danger that, as in Kuwait 12 years ago, massive sabotage may hit oil production for years to come.

Terminal decline

Whatever happens, rebuilding Iraq will be a huge job and only US companies have been invited to bid for contracts.

Opposition leader Dr Salah Al-Shaikhly, of the Iraqi National Accord, admits Britain and America will benefit from helping remove Saddam. "Well definitely those who have helped us, all along, with regime change. Obviously they should have a little edge over the rest. I think even in economics, this is quite acceptable. as well as the politics."

But even if Iraq does boost its oil production ironically the effect could be short lived. Its vast reserves represent just four years of world consumption and by the time Iraqi oil is flowing freely, global oil production may already be in terminal decline.

Campbell thinks the decline will start by 2010. "It starts with a price shock due to control of the market by a few countries, and it is followed by the onset of physical shortage, which just gets worse and worse and worse," he says.

So if alternatives to oil are not found soon the changes could be radical. Unlimited use of cars and cheap flights around the world may well be a thing of the past. While international trade - the very basis of the global economy - will suffer.

See also:

Post-war oil may not flow (April 4)
Iraqi oil policies and the high political risk attached to big-ticket investments may delay a post-war Iraq oil boom for years, a leading London think tank said in a new report published yesterday. Oil majors will want to wait for a legitimate new government to settle in Baghdad before risking full-blown investment in undeveloped oilfields, said the report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA). "Although Iraq is sitting on massive oil reserves it will be years before they are tapped," it said. "It is likely to take over five years for a legitimate regime to be fully established." CLIP

Former Shell Man Set To Run Iraq Oil (April 2)
A former chief executive of the Shell Oil Company appears to be the leading contender to oversee Iraqi oil production after the fall of Saddam Hussein, industry experts who spoke to the Bush administration said yesterday. Those experts said the administration was still developing a plan for American involvement in the Iraqi oil sector, whose fields and facilities are dilapidated but whose employees are widely respected for their professionalism within international oil circles. They said it appears that the executive, Philip J. Carroll, 65, would probably be responsible for Iraqi oil production, and that someone else would probably be named to run the refining and marketing of Iraqi oil.


Date: 7 Apr 2003
Subject: Perpetual War Portfolio

Wow! Excellent research! Have a look at this webpage! And look for names like Libby, Wolfowitz, Rove, Feith, Armitage, Lott, Warner..... yes, ladies and gents, the truth Will out!! ;^D

Anni :º)


"About the PWP:

The Perpetual War Portfolio is an evenly weighted basket of five stocks poised
to succeed in the age of perpetual war. The stocks were selected on the basis
of popular product lines, strong political connections and lobbying efforts, and
paid-for access to key Congressional decision-makers."


Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman is positioned to profit nicely from the War on Terror. The company is the prime contractor on the B2, and a major subcontractor on both the F-18E/F and the new Joint Strike Fighter. Northrop Grumman makes the unmanned Global Hawk (which got rave reviews in Afghanistan), is building the X-47 UCAV for the Navy, and, like Boeing, has a strong UCAV program. The best thing about owning this company, however, is its strong connections with current officials in the Bush administration (the secretary of the Air Force is a former Northrop Grumman president, for crying out loud), and its well-targeted campaign contributions to key members of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.


B2 Bomber (prime contractor) | GS
Joint Strike Fighter (subcontractor)
F-18 E/F | GS
Global Hawk | GS
X-47 UCAV | GS
I. Lewis Libby - White House, Chief to the President | Consultant

Dov Zakheim - Defense; Under Secretary for Comptroller | Paid advisory board

Douglas J. Feith - Defense; Under Secretary for Policy | President and managing partner of former law firm, Feith & Zell; clients include Northrop Grumman

Paul Wolfowitz - Defense; Deputy Secretary | Consultant

James Roche - Air Force; Secretary | Former president

Nelson F. Gibbs - Air Force; Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment and Logistics | Former corporate comptroller

Sean O'Keefe - Office of Management and Budget; Deputy Director | Paid advisory board

2000 Lobbyist Spending: $6,882,720

2001/2002 Contributions: $1,181,280  


If you would like to subscribe to the Earth Rainbow Network automated listserver and regularly receive similar compilations covering a broad range of subjects, including each new Meditation Focus issued every two week, simply send a blank email at from the email account to which you want to receive the material compiled and networked by the Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator. Subscription is FREE!