February 4, 2003
Media Compilation #112: Refocusing Attention on a Greater Imminent Tragedy
Dear journalist
With so much attention devoted to the tragic Columbia disaster, the much more important issue of the possible carnage in Irak and the worldwide opposition to it are obscured.
Here are some news that may help refocus everyone on the essential...
Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com
This compilation is archived at
http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com/Archives2003/MediaCompilation112.htm
Bush/Cheney: Malice in Blunderland - Bush is proof that empty warheads can be dangerous -- How did our oil get under their sand? -- Sacrifice our SUV's, not our children -- Look, I'll pay more for gas! -- He is a moron and a bully -- $1 billion a day to kill people -- what a bargain! --- Stop Mad Cowboy Disease --- How Many Lives Per Gallon? -- Regime Change Begins At Home -- All Humanity Is Downwind -- War is *so* 20th century!
- Some of the best signs in Washington during the peace march, January 18th
CONTENTS
1. Iraq war feared to be 'enviro-Armageddon'
2. U.S. Guilty of 'Shocking Double Standards' on Iraq - Butler
3. Analysis: Counting the dead
4. 41 Nobel Laureates Sign Against a War Without International Support
5. This looming war isn't about chemical warheads or human rights: it's about oil
6. New Endorsements for the 2003 Edition of Addicted To War
7. Germany and Iraq
See also:
Photos show odd images near shuttle (Feb 2)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/02/MN221641.DTL
Bright electrical phenomena flashing!
Too many smoking guns to ignore (Jan 25)
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison01252003.html
Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq
Saddam gets six more weeks (Feb 1)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,886826,00.html
Blair gains extra time to win over waverers. (...) US and British officials have embarked on a wide diplomatic offensive to win the backing of a majority of the 15 members of the UN security council for a resolution mandating military action. Over the last few days the US has agreed to blacklist three rebel Chechen groups, a long-standing request from Russia; approved $4.1m (£2.48m) for the resettlement of returnees to Angola; and approved an extra $2.1m for Liberian refugees hosted by Guinea, another council member. Only four of the 15 members currently favour a war (...)
Mandela attacks Blair and Bush (Jan 31)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,885966,00.html
Nelson Mandela yesterday launched a withering attack on George Bush and Tony Blair, implying they were racists intent on war with Iraq and accusing Mr Blair of abdicating his responsibility as prime minister to America. Mr. Mandela urged the American people to join protests against their president and called on world leaders, especially those with vetoes in the UN security council, to unite to oppose him. "One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust," Mr. Mandela said in a speech to the International Women's Forum. (...) "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings," he said. CLIP
US plans "shock and awe" blitzkrieg in Iraq
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/war-j30.shtml
The war being prepared by the White House and Pentagon on the people of Iraq will be characterized by barbarism on a scale not seen since the horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. The level of brutality will recall scenes seared into the collective consciousness of previous generations, such as the bombing of Guernica and the Nazi blitzkrieg against Poland.
I'm losing patience with My Neighbours, Mr Bush
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,882459,00.html
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! (...) There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. (...) I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.
U.S. unilateralism a threat to world peace (Jan 29)
http://www.yt.org/article.php?sid=1033
STORMIN' NORMAN: DON'T INVADE IRAQ (Jan 29)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12581187&method=full&siteid=50143
Gulf War hero calls for UN weapons inspectors to get more time. The American general who led allied troops to victory in the Gulf War, yesterday refused to accept that there was enough evidence to invade Iraq. Retired Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf insisted that UN inspections must continue and said the US had not considered the consequences for the Middle East after an invasion.
Who leaked Iraq's arms declaration? (Jan 28)
http://www.yt.org/article.php?sid=1027
The United States quickly confiscated Iraq's weapons declaration. In doing so, Al-Atraqchi explains how the U.S. was trying to keep information about U.S. involvement in Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" out of the public's eye. It is well known that U.S. companies supplied Hussein with the chemical weapons he used against the Iranians and then against the Kurds.
NEWSWEEK Poll: Wait for War
http://www.msnbc.com/news/864241.asp
U.S. Fails to Sway U.N. Council on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq.html
US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix (Feb 1)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html
Us Prepared To Violate International Law
http://www.voice4change.org/stories/showstory.asp?file=030131~ccs.asp
Stronger than Ever (Jan 28)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,883654,00.html
Far from fizzling out, the global justice movement is growing in numbers and maturity
Israel: Sharon's victory presages internal strife amidst escalating aggression (Jan 31)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/isra-j31.shtml
U.S. unilateralism a threat to world peace (Jan 29)
http://www.yt.org/article.php?sid=1033
Bush's State of the Union speech: the war fever of a ruling elite in crisis
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/bush-j30.shtml
Colloquium to Address Untold Story of Impending Peak & Decline of World Oil Production (Next Feb. 5th in Austin TX)
http://globalpublicmedia.com/ACTIVISM/oil-peak.ut-colloquium.email.2003-01-28.php
1.
From: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30765
Iraq war feared to be 'enviro-Armageddon'
Pentagon preps for possibility Saddam will use oil wells as doomsday weapon
January 30, 2003
In the ancient land known as the "cradles of civilization," there are new concerns that an environmental Armageddon is about to take place.
Will Saddam Hussein exchange his oil wealth for a fiery inferno as evinced in Kuwait in 1991? Will the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers flow with fuel instead of water?
Both possibilities are being taken seriously by U.S. military planners looking to prevent what could become one of the worst ecological disasters in history - if and when the conflict with Iraq begins.
"You'd see mass unemployment, starvation and illness," oil-well engineer Les Skinner told London's Daily Telegraph. "It reminds me very much of the Books of Revelation."
As WorldNetDaily reported in December, sources indicate Saddam had already begun mining his wells with explosives in ways that would make it most difficult to extinguish fires and cap the wells.
A senior U.S. military official now echoes that with the British paper.
"There are indications through reliable intelligence sources that those activities have been planned and that, in some cases, they may have begun," he said.
The Telegraph says over the past month, the Pentagon has asked every one of the world's major oil-well firefighting companies for advice and contingency plans.
During the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam Hussein employed a scorched-Earth tactic, igniting close to 700 oil wells in Kuwait as his forces retreated. Midday skies in Kuwait City were said to look like midnight. It took some nine months to extinguish those blazes, utilizing virtually every piece of specialist equipment available from North America.
Factors that helped firefighters mitigate damage then were Kuwait's small size, flat terrain and easily accessible water supply via the Persian Gulf.
The situation is more difficult in Iraq, as many wells are located in mountainous regions far from the sea. They also have stronger flow rates of oil, thus making fires bigger.
Also an issue is the number of wellhead firemen, the elite who can handle the so-called "red zone" surrounding a blazing well. It's estimated there are less than 100 with Kuwait experience, with many now in their 50s, and others since retired.
Houston-based Cudd Pressure Control, the world's largest well-fire company, is additionally concerned about security issues - everything from minefields and unexploded ordnance to lingering Iraqi resistance and chemical and biological weapons.
"Luckily, biological agents don't survive long near heat," Skinner said. "But we need an assurance that the area is secure. If we're under a plume of oil, drenched in it, we have to be sure someone is not able to fire a flare into the plume and cook a bunch of firefighters."
But damage from fires and smoke could be just the tip of the iceberg if oil gets pumped into the water.
"The Tigris and Euphrates hold a large part of the fresh water for the Middle East," Skinner told the Telegraph. "If he drains oil into them, we can't use that water for firefighting. If there are ground fires, we may not be able to get to the wells."
In 1991, Saddam poured into the Persian Gulf at least 10 million gallons of crude - over 20 times more than the Exxon Valdez spilled in Alaska - to preclude a marine assault by igniting a curtain of fire. The cost of cleaning it up was $700 million.
According to a 1997 paper by American University, more than 800 miles of Kuwait and Saudi Arabian beaches were stained with oil, devastating marine wildlife. Thousands of birds perished from contact with the fuel, and some turtles in the region either perished or were found to have lesions.
A Jan. 19 commentary published in the UK's Observer by the environmental group Friends of the Earth stated that air temperatures temporarily fell in Kuwait by 10 degrees Celsius due to reduced light from the sun. It also estimated the total cost of environmental damage from the first Gulf War at $40 billion, adding that a thousand people had been expected to die as a result of air-pollution effects.
"Since Iraq has the second-largest proven oil reserves of any nation on Earth, the potential environmental damage caused by destruction of oil facilities during a new war must be enormous," the commentary said.
2.
U.S. Guilty of 'Shocking Double Standards' on Iraq - Butler
January 28, 2003
by Reuters
SYDNEY - Former U.N. arms inspector Richard Butler said Tuesday that Washington was promoting "shocking double standards" in considering taking unilateral military action to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
Butler, who led U.N. inspection teams in Iraq until Baghdad kicked them out in 1998 (Common Dreams Editor's note: This is not true. See: http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html), said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein undoubtedly possessed weapons of mass destruction, and was trying to "cheat" his way again out of the latest U.N. demand to disarm.
But a U.S. attack, without United Nations backing, and without any effort to curb the possession of weapons of mass destruction globally, would be a contravention of international law and sharpen the divide between Arabs and the West.
"The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to regret," Butler said.
Butler's successor as the chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, reported Monday to the 15-member Security Council that Baghdad had only reluctantly complied with its latest demand to disarm. Washington is pressing the United Nations to take firm action but says it is prepared to go it alone and has amassed a considerable military force in the region.
Butler, addressing a conservative Australian think-tank, The Sydney Institute, said the stated U.S. motive -- to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction -- lacked credibility because of Washington's failure to deal with others on the same terms.
Countries such as Syria are suspected of possessing chemical or biological warfare capabilities, he said. U.S. allies Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenals but have not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States and other permanent Security Council members were themselves the possessors of the world's largest quantities of nuclear weapons, he said.
"Why are they permitting the persistence of such shocking double standards?" Butler said.
He said that, instead of beating the drums of war, the United States should propose an international mechanism -- similar to the Security Council -- to enforce the application of the three main conventions controlling the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. It should also take the lead by reducing its own stockpiles.
"I hope we don't have to await the train wreck before we decide to change history," Butler said.
3.
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4593608,00.html
Analysis: Counting the dead
In the event of war, how many Iraqi civilians will die? And how many will starve, or be displaced? In secret, the UN has been doing the sums
Jonathan Steele
January 29, 2003
The Guardian
With as much secrecy as the Pentagon, the United Nations has been busily counting the likely casualty toll of a war on Iraq. While the Pentagon focuses on its troops, the network of UN specialist agencies is trying to estimate what would happen to Iraqis.
The assessments are dramatic, though for reasons of internal diplomacy or because of American pressure the UN is unwilling to go public with the figures. But a newly leaked report from a special UN taskforce that summarises the assessments calculates that about 500,000 people could "require medical treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries", according to the World Health Organisation.
WHO estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civilians could be wounded and another 400,000 hit by disease after the bombing of water and sewage facilities and the disruption of food supplies.
"The nutritional status of some 3.03 million people will be dire and they will require therapeutic feeding," says the UN children's fund. About four-fifths of these victims will be children under five. The rest will be pregnant and lactating women.
Although Iraq's population at 26 million is almost the same as Afghanistan's, UN agencies say the effect of war in Iraq would be far worse. Afghanistan is largely rural so that people have long traditions of coping mechanisms.
By contrast, Iraq has "a relatively urbanised population, with the state providing the basic needs of the population". Some 16 million depend on the monthly "food basket" of basic goods such as rice, sugar, flour, and cooking oil, supplied for free by the Iraqi government.
The expected bombing of Iraq's infrastructure would disrupt these supplies and the UN would struggle to send in food from outside Iraq. The electricity network "will be seriously degraded", the UN says, leaving millions without proper drinking water because treatment plants will be unable to function. At the moment 70% of the urban population has access to water from treatment plants with standby generators, but if these are also hit, the numbers at risk would escalate. Only 10% of the sewage pumping stations have generators so bombing could quickly provoke cholera and dysentery.
The United Nations high commission for refugees estimates at least 900,000 Iraqi refugees will go to Iran. No figures have been given for those who may go to Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, or Turkey. Another 2 million could be displaced inside the country.
The UN report makes no estimate of likely Iraqi war deaths. In Afghanistan it is calculated that bombing killed about 5,000 civilians directly. Up to 20,000 other Afghans died through the disruption of drought relief and the bombing's other indirect effects, according to a Guardian investigation of death rates at camps for the internally displaced. Bombing in Iraq would probably produce similar proportions of direct and indirect fatalities.
The UN estimates that city dwellers who lose their homes will be able to move to partially destroyed buildings nearby but it foresees that hundreds of thousands will escape to the countryside and be forced to sleep in the open. It says 3.6 million will need "emergency shelter".
The UN report does not make any distinction on whether the war is authorised by the security council or not, since a bomb is just as lethal whoever orders it to drop. It is taken for granted that the United States will be in charge of the targeting, and the UN will not have any influence. The report was leaked to an American non-governmental organisation and posted on the website of the UK-based anti-war group, Campaign against Sanctions in Iraq. UN officials have not challenged its authenticity. Nathaniel Hurd, who obtained it, said yesterday: "The UN may have updated some assessments but this is only likely to affect estimates of refugee flows and not the figures on damage and destruction."
Other NGOs have been conducting their own assessments. Oxfam, which has sent water specialists to the region, says half of Iraq's sewage treatment plants already do not work because of shortages of spare parts caused by sanctions. "We are particularly concerned about water and sanitation and the problems of pumping. There is no normal economy because people rely on state food distribution on a massive scale", says Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's director.
Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, estimates casualties could be five times higher than in the 1991 Gulf war. "The avowed US aim of regime change means any new conflict will be much more intense and destructive, and will involve more deadly weapons developed in the interim," it says in a report available on the first Gulf war, the UN calculated that between 3,500 and 15,000 civilians died during the war (plus between 100,000 and 120,000 Iraqi troops). A new war of the kind projected by the US could kill between 2,000 and 50,000 in Baghdad and between 1,200 and 30,000 on the southern and northern fronts in Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul. If biological and chemical weapons were used, up to 33,000 more people could die.
Medact examines detailed recent analyses by other specialists on the various tactics the US may use. The wide range of figures comes from different estimates of the degree of Iraqi resistance and the length of the war.
The leaked UN report is at http://www.casi.org.uk/pr/pr030107undoc.html
The Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq (CASI) http://www.casi.org.uk
4.
From: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/013003G.41.laureates.htm
41 Nobel Laureates Sign Against a War Without International Support
Published on January 28, 2003 by the New York Times
Forty-one American Nobel laureates in science and economics issued a declaration yesterday opposing a preventive war against Iraq without wide international support. The statement, four sentences long, argues that an American attack would ultimately hurt the security and standing of the United States, even if it succeeds.
The signers, all men, include a number who at one time or another have advised the federal government or played important roles in national security. Among them are Hans A. Bethe, an architect of the atom bomb; Walter Kohn, a former adviser to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Pentagon; Norman F. Ramsey, a Manhattan Project scientist who readied the Hiroshima bomb and later advised NATO; and Charles H. Townes, former research director of the Institute for Defense Analyses at the Pentagon and chairman of a federal panel that studied how to base the MX missile and its nuclear warheads.
In addition to winning Nobel prizes, 18 of the signers have received the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest science honor. The declaration reads:
"The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support. Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world." Dr. Kohn, a Nobel chemist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, organized the declaration.
"No voice was speaking against the war," he said. "So I asked, `Can I somehow make myself useful?' and had the idea of contacting my Nobel laureate friends and trying to rally them around a reasonable position." Dr. Kohn said he eventually tried to contact all American Nobel laureates in science and economics, who are thought to number about 130. But some had died or were unreachable, he said, while others never replied. Dr. Kohn said only six respondents declined to sign the declaration.
CLIP
5.
Robert Fisk: This looming war isn't about chemical warheads or human rights: it's about oil
Along with the concern for 'vital interests' in the Gulf, this war was concocted five years ago by oil men such as Dick Cheney
18 January 2003
I was sitting on the floor of an old concrete house in the suburbs of Amman this week, stuffing into my mouth vast heaps of lamb and boiled rice soaked in melted butter. The elderly, bearded, robed men from Maan - the most Islamist and disobedient city in Jordan - sat around me, plunging their hands into the meat and soaked rice, urging me to eat more and more of the great pile until I felt constrained to point out that we Brits had eaten so much of the Middle East these past 100 years that we were no longer hungry. There was a muttering of prayers until an old man replied. "The Americans eat us now," he said.
Through the open door, where rain splashed on the paving stones, a sharp east wind howled in from the east, from the Jordanian and Iraqi deserts. Every man in the room believed President Bush wanted Iraqi oil. Indeed, every Arab I've met in the past six months believes that this - and this alone - explains his enthusiasm for invading Iraq. Many Israelis think the same. So do I. Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-Opec fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
Take a look at the statistics on the ratio of reserve to oil production - the number of years that reserves of oil will last at current production rates - compiled by Jeremy Rifkin in Hydrogen Economy. In the US, where more than 60 per cent of the recoverable oil has already been produced, the ratio is just 10 years, as it is in Norway. In Canada, it is 8:1. In Iran, it is 53:1, in Saudi Arabia 55:1, in the United Arab Emirates 75:1. In Kuwait, it's 116:1. But in Iraq, it's 526:1. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
Even if Donald Rumsfeld's hearty handshake with Saddam Hussein in 1983 - just after the Great Father Figure had started using gas against his opponents - didn't show how little the present master of the Pentagon cares about human rights or crimes against humanity, along comes Joost Hilterman's analysis of what was really going on in the Pentagon back in the late 1980s.
Hilterman, who is preparing a devastating book on the US and Iraq, has dug through piles of declassified US government documents - only to discover that after Saddam gassed 6,800 Kurdish Iraqis at Halabja (that's well over twice the total of the World Trade Centre dead of 11 September 2001) the Pentagon set out to defend Saddam by partially blaming Iran for the atrocity.
A newly declassified State Department document proves that the idea was dreamed up by the Pentagon - who had all along backed Saddam - and states that US diplomats received instructions to push the line of Iran's culpability, but not to discuss details. No details, of course, because the story was a lie. This, remember, followed five years after US National Security Decision Directive 114 - concluded in 1983, the same year as Rumsfeld's friendly visit to Baghdad - gave formal sanction to billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Baghdad. And this forthcoming war is about human rights?
Back in 1997, in the years of the Clinton administration, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a bunch of other right-wing men - most involved in the oil business - created the Project for the New American Century, a lobby group demanding "regime change" in Iraq. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, they called for the removal of Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House, they wrote that "we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests [sic] in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power".
The signatories of one or both letters included Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's Pentagon deputy, John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for arms control, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's under-secretary at the State Department - who called last year for America to take up its "blood debt" with the Lebanese Hizbollah. They also included Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defence, currently chairman of the defence science board, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant who became US special envoy to Afghanistan - where Unocal tried to cut a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan territory - and who now, miracle of miracles, has been appointed a special Bush official for - you guessed it - Iraq.
The signatories also included our old friend Elliott Abrams, one of the most pro-Sharon of pro-Israeli US officials, who was convicted for his part in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was Abrams who compared Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon - held "personally responsible" by an Israeli commission for the slaughter of 1,700 Palestinian civilians in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre - to (wait for it) Winston Churchill. So this forthcoming war - the whole shooting match, along with that concern for "vital interests" (ie oil) in the Gulf - was concocted five years ago, by men like Cheney and Khalilzad who were oil men to their manicured fingertips.
CLIP
The world went to war 88 years ago because an archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo. The world went to war 63 years ago because a Nazi dictator invaded Poland. But for 11 empty warheads? Give me oil any day. Even the old men sitting around the feast of mutton and rice would agree with that.
6.
From: "Frank" <fdorrel@addictedtowar.com>
Date: 31 Jan 2003
New Endorsements for the 2003 Edition of Addicted To War
Due in 4 to 6 weeks
"Addicted to War is a rare gift to the American people. It should be read by every person who cares about the human condition. This book reveals truths that all Americans need to understand if we are ever to experience peace and justice for all the people of the earth."
- Father Roy Bourgeois, founder of School of the Americas Watch
"This book analyses why men are addicted to fighting and killing - an addiction that could now destroy all life on earth, in this the nuclear age, creating the final epidemic of the human race."
- Helen Caldicott, pediatrician and author of Missile Envy and many other books
"Addicted to War could not be more timely. It shows that the current war dance by the Bush administration is just the latest in along series of foreign adventures that cause more damage than reward for us as a country. Addicted to War is one of the best tools we could hope for in making a transition from the U.S. being an empire to being just one nation in a community of nations. Use it, and change the world!"
- Kevin Danaher, cofounder of Global Exchange
"As a veteran of three wars, World War II through Vietnam, with 33 years of Army service, I find this book to be the most truthful recitation of our government's policies available anywhere."
- Col. James Burkholder, U.S. Army, Retired
"Addicted to War should be required reading for every student in America. I encourage educators to use it to help students understand the consequences of U.S. militarism for people in this country and around the world."
- Rev. J. M. Lawson, colleague of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. from 1957 to 1968
"The enormous criminal impact of U.S. militarism on the people of the world and the people of the U.S. is hard to grasp. This book makes it easier to understand. Now we must ACT."
- Ramsey Clark, former attorney general of the United States, author of "The Fire This Time"
"As we're goose-stepping our way into the new millennium, Addicted to War provides us with an opportunity to see ourselves as others see us. As Augusto Sandino said: 'Every abuse of power only hastens the destruction of the abuser."
- Kris Kristofferson, singer/songwriter/actor
"Addicted To War is an extraordinarily important and powerful little book. Every American should read it."
- Ron Kovic, Vietnam veteran, author of "Born on the 4th of July"
"Addicted to War makes one point perfectly clear. We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace!!!"
- Michael Franti, musician, Spearhead
In Peace & Solidarity
Frank Dorrel P.O. Box 3261 Culver City, CA 90231-3261 (310) 838-8131
MORE DETAILS AT http://www.addictedtowar.com
7.
Date: 31 Jan 2003
From: "Palden Jenkins" <palden.jenkins@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Germany and Iraq
Dear Newsweek and BBC
Much of the press seems to regard Germany as being out of step on Iraq, yet the German government's stance against going to war seems to reflect majority European public opinion. Since we're talking about democracies versus dictatorships, is this not significant? Does the press need to clarify whether it is pro-democratic or pro-military, and declare its interest in the attractive media sales and ratings possibilities accompanying war? In recent decades, European governments have generally displayed greater European solidarity than the public, but in this case the people seem more united than governments. Germany now stands for peace: my parents and grandparents fought long and hard for this in two world wars - so, rejoice! I would find the argument for war more convincing if a commitment were made to a ten-year worldwide process of verifiable destruction of all weapons of mass destruction, including those of USA and UK. Such a policy would give this war more historic justification. It needs it. It might give Iraqi sacrificial victims a sense that their death or debilitation has more meaning.
Yours
Palden Jenkins
16 Chilkwell Street, Glastonbury, Somerset BA6 8DB
44-1458-834576
palden.jenkins@btopenworld.com
SUBSCRIPTION TO THE EARTH RAINBOW NETWORK MEDIA LIST
If you would like to subscribe to the Earth Rainbow Network automated Media listserver and regularly receive similar compilations covering a broad range of subjects, please click on this SUBSCRIPTION page.
