October 2002

Our despair over our own powerlessness is simply a lie we are telling ourselves. – playwright, Tony Kushner

Feedback

Feel free to contact us with any questions or comments you may have. Our e-mail address is: iao@interactorg.com

Suggested Links

For more alternative news sources…

http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm

http://www.moveon.org/

Text Box: Our First Act of Charity…

We are collecting children’s clothing to send to Imbabazi, a Rwandan orphanage. If you would like to donate clothes to our collection or money to help us mail our package, please contact us for further information. http://allafrica.com/

http://www.aclu.org/index.html

http://www.amnestyusa.org/ainews.html

http://www.alternet.org/index.html

http://antiwar.com

http://www.wsws.org/index.shtml

Truth versus Truth

Al Qaeda is a network of terrorists created by Islamic Fundamentalist Extremists . . . Al Qaeda was created in the 1980's by the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan

http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/5.0_OBL_ike.html.

The US invasion of Afghanistan was developed after the September 11 bombings . . . The US planned to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban since December 1999

http://www.internationalsocialist.org/distortion.shtml.

As a rogue state amassing weapons of mass destruction, Iraq needs to be stopped…The United States is the country with weapons of mass destruction preparing to invade another country – who’s the rogue state? http://www.notinourname.net/downloads/NION_factsheet.pdf

The Pledge of Allegiance

In reviewing the history of the pledge, it is apparent that the 110 year old pledge spent equal time with and without “under God.” On June 26, 2002 our judicial system recently ruled these words an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" which sent Congress “to the steps of the Capitol to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, yelling out “Under God!” like the MOST annoying kid in Sunday School – like, who are you trying to impress, The Devil?” (http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war13.html)

All sarcasm aside, Americans responded to the court ruling with an intensity not seen since Coke changed its formula.

When forced to choose between believing, not believing, or not answering, Gallup reports that 86% of Americans say they believe in God. That leaves about 39 million Americans estranged by the current pledge, “Under God.”

On Thursday, June 27, 2002, the House of Representatives approved a resolution co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus that puts Congress on record in opposition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Several similar bills also received endorsement, so the whole matter has landed in a committee. One bill “declares that the first article of amendment to the U.S. Constitution shall not be construed to prohibit the: (1) recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, which shall be, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all;" nor (2) recitation or use of the national motto, which shall be, "In God we trust."” http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00108:@@@L&summ2=m&)

Is Thomas Jefferson rolling over in his grave? This protection of “God” goes against his own words, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” (January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association)

Let your representatives in Congress know your opinion on this sensitive issue. Do you want a constitutional amendment supporting “Under God” or would you prefer to respect freedom of religion and the 2002 court ruling?

- Jodie Hemerda

Positive gestures - in the most unlikely of places

Yasmin Abu Ramila a young Palestinian girl from east Jerusalem received the gift of her life last month. The family of Yoni Jesner, a medical student from Glasgow, donated his kidney after he was killed in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.

At a media conference arranged by the Jesner family in Israel on Sunday September 22nd, Ari Jesner said his brother would have been happy that someone had benefited after his death.

"The family is very proud that out of this tragic situation and Joni's death that we were able and Joni was able to give life to others. I think the most important principle here is that life was given to another human being.” Ari said at the conference. "What religion, nationality, race, culture or creed is not what's important here."

Dina, the girl's mother, said: "I don't know how to thank the family of the victim of the attack. I feel for their pain and thank them for the organ donation that saved my daughter's life."

The Maariv Daily reported that the kidney was successfully transplanted on Friday and the girl was in a stable condition. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2274298.stm#top)

- Jodie Hemerda

The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become. -- Charles Du Bos

Losing Our Rights

"The people who committed these acts are clearly determined to try to force the United States of America and our values from the world, or to respond by curtailing our freedoms. If we do that, the terrorists will have won, and we have no intention of doing so."

----- Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld

"America is a nation full of good fortune, with so much to be grateful for, but we are not spared from suffering. In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America because we are freedom's home and defender, and the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time."

--- President George W. Bush at National Cathedral Prayer Service, Friday, 9/15/01 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/527146/posts)

Our freedoms mentioned by Rumsfeld and Bush are outlined in the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused (note it says accused and not citizen) shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Rumsfeld and Bush promise to protect these freedoms. So why are forty-nine percent of Americans concerned the United States will give up too many rights and freedoms as it steps up its war on terror? And why are one-third of Americans fear the government is "threatening to cross the line" in its handling of people's right to privacy while another 21 percent said it had already done so?(The News International, Pakistan)

Citizens are rightfully concerned that the government has given law enforcement agencies too much power to snoop on people's private lives. Since September 11th, the government has substantially expanded its ability to investigate and detain Americans. This includes the authority to detain Americans indefinitely without charges and giving law enforcement agencies easier access to Americans' personal lives. (US National, AP)

As part of the government's War on Terrorism, Congress gave the Department of Justice sweeping powers to peer into our everyday activities. The hastily passed USA (Uniting and Strengthening America) Patriot Act (a mere 132 pages of small print) swept aside the checks and balances that had traditionally prevented the FBI from spying on Americans.

It allows federal investigators to seize data such as phone company records and observe private activity such as our book-borrowing habits.

Critics claim that the act was a reactive, ineffective measure to quell fears of further attacks, especially since the government already had obtained enough information before Sept. 11 -- without a law that could potentially trample American citizens' constitutionally protected rights -- to prevent the attacks.

Proponents point to the lack of additional large-scale terrorist attacks on American soil as proof of its effectiveness.

Before Sept. 11, government investigators learned about al-Qaida operatives enrolled in U.S. flight schools, which they failed to investigate, and seized a computer belonging to the alleged 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, which they failed to explore. They had no need for the USA Patriot Act to gather this information; they simply needed to follow through with the leads.

"The problem the government faces is largely a targeting problem," said Jim Dempsey, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "They don't know who to tap, so they engage in widespread monitoring and collect far more information than they can begin to digest."

As a side benefit of the USA Patriot Act, the law includes a gag order that bars individuals who receive subpoenas or search warrants from making that information public. And the Justice Department has rebuffed attempts by several entities, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the House Judiciary Committee -- which has oversight over the department -- to obtain details about how the legislation has been applied.

Though the government has been tight-lipped about its surveillance activities, anecdotal data shows that investigators have been busy using their new powers to peer into private data, and that, in some cases, organizations have volunteered customer records without being asked.

"The sheer volume of subpoenas for information from telecommunication companies has tripled in the last year, starting the day after the Patriot Act was passed," said Seattle telecommunications attorney Al Gidari, whose clients include AOL and AT&T Wireless. (http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,55056,00.html)

Ayman Gheith, 27, Kambiz Butt, 25, and Omar Choudary, 23 felt the pressure of Bush’s War on Terrorism combined with public hysteria when they were falsely accused of plotting a terrorist activity (purchasing a car) and then speeding through a nearby toll booth (video camera caught them stopping and paying the toll). Read their story.

Dr. Sami Al-Arian had his tenure revoked and was fired by the University of South Florida (USF) for his criticisms of American foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly US support for Israeli attacks on Palestinians. His right to free speech has made him a target of an ever-widening assault organized by right-wing elements to intimidate and suppress opposition to the war policies of the Bush administration. Al-Arian, a computer engineering professor employed at the university since 1986, was suspended with pay at the Tampa campus shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Read his story. Then read more of his story.

This unprecedented assault on our civil rights should not be taken lightly or quietly. Without our rights we become just another rogue state. Get involved, use your rights and let Congress know you will not allow continued erosion of your freedom. Read more about how your freedoms have diminished in the last year.

Visit the ACLU website to get involved in protecting your American rights.

Visit the Amnesty International website to get involved in protecting your human rights.

THE CRUDE FACTS

By Lila Schow

As we gear up our killing machines for another taxpayer funded, Congress-bypassed, war on Iraq it is important to understand our history with this Gulf State.

For those of us who live in America, the Gulf ‘War’ began in the early 1990’s. It was swift, punishing and the United States emerged the morally triumphant winner.

But for the residents of the Middle East, there was an earlier war by the same name. Though this war received less attention by the American public, it had more devastating consequences for the region. It too was usurped by the oil obsessed American government.

In 1979, the American’s control in the region was threatened when the Shah of Iran, a huge Washington supporter, was overthrown and replaced with a less US friendly government.² That same year, Saddam Hussein rose to power in Iraq.

On September 22, 1980, Iraqi forces invaded Iran. The aggression stemmed from control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway.¹ Iraq, a land locked nation separated from the Gulf by tiny Kuwait, had been fighting its neighbor Iran over the waterway for centuries. At the time, Iraq’s only means of transporting oil resided in the waterway.

The United States watched the bloody conflict, anticipating Iraqi forces to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran. Almost four years later, with Iran still undefeated, the US government stepped in to tip the scales.²

Regan acted in December, 1983, dispatching then Special Envoy to the Middle East, Donald Rumsfeld,²⁰ to meet directly with Hussein, restoring diplomatic ties and offering US assistance.⁴ The first order of business removed Iraq from Washington’s official list of state sponsored terrorism, the second sent shipments of military aid and technology.³ Besides arming the Iraqi army in 1984, the CIA covertly transferred information used to target Iranian troops for mustard gas attacks.⁴

By early 1985, the CIA had provided Iraq with “data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography … to assist Iraqi bombing raids.”⁴ At the same time, US war ships patrolled Iran’s territorial waters. This forced Iranian planes and vessels to change their routes so they would not pose a threat to the Americans. Iraqi bombers, on the other hand, were allowed to fly directly over the war ships on Iranian bombing runs.²

In 1984 the US launched Operation Staunch, a campaign that pressured allies to cease arms sales to Iran. At the same time the US was preventing these shipments they were engaged in selling weapons to Iran in what later became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. “The cynical would note that Operation Staunch made the U.S. arms transfers to Iran that much more valuable.”⁵Along with weapons, Washington also began providing Iran with intelligence to fight Iraq. Asked the logic behind aiding both sides in a bloody war, a former official replied, "You had to have been there."⁵

From 1985 to 1989 (fourteen months before the US invasion of Iraq) private American suppliers sold Hussein the following biological weapons:

•Bacillus Anthracis, anthrax.

•Clostridium Botulinum, botulism.

•Histoplasma Capsulatam, a disease which attacks lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.

•Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that damages major organs.

•Clotsridium Perfringens, causes systemic illness.

•Clostridium tetani, tetanus.

•Escherichia Coli, e.coli⁷

A Senate Report later concluded, "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." Years later we learned, "that these

microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."⁶

In fact, Sam Gejdenson, Chair of the Congressional Investigation into US exports to Iraq found that from 1985-1990 “the US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application[s]”⁴

The United States officially dropped their support for Iran after the Iran-Contra scandal broke in 1986 and stepped up military support for Iraq. By August 1987, there were so many US military vessels in the Gulf a Congressional study called the buildup, "the largest single naval armada deployed since the height of the Vietnam War."⁵

That same year, the US military attacked several of Iran’s oil platforms and sank Iranian gunboats. The commanders involved reported that the attacks continued even though “the persons stationed in the platforms were not military men nor were they in a position to defend themselves.”²

On March 16, 1988, what today is being flagged as reason for Hussein’s removal, Iraqi forces murdered 5,000 Kurds when they used US-supplied helicopters and toxins to launch a poison gas attack in the Halabja village. What brings cries of outrage from the government now was glossed over fourteen years ago. In an ironic twist, White House spokesperson, Marlin Fitzwater told reporters, “They [the reports on the gassing] were

horrible, outrageous, disgusting and should serve as a reminder to all countries why chemical warfare should be banned.”¹¹

Four months after the genocide, “Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel Corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.”⁴

The US Navy warship Vincennes targeted Iranian Airbus A300 July 3^rd, 1988 and shot it down over the Gulf. The Airbus was a passenger flight, 290 innocent children, women and men were murdered.⁸ The captain of the Vincennes defended his actions, claiming the Airbus transponder was sending the wrong signal and that the plane was over international waters, which was nice talk for ‘New US Territory.’ The United States was tried and convicted of terrorism in the international court and both of the captain’s claims were proven false. “Only here, the way it went down was when they got back to the US they were given a ticker tape parade and lauded as heroes.”⁹

August 6, 1988 signaled the end of the Iran-Iraq Gulf War. Both sides signed a cease fire and the hostility moved underground.

Hussein remained in power when George Bush Sr. was elected president in 1989. Faced with the choice of “dual containment” in Iran and Iraq, the Bush administration instead opted to open the doors of trade to Hussein. The State Department ignored the plight of the Kurds, who were still being gassed, murdered, raped and persecuted, stating, “In no way should we associate ourselves with the 60-year-old Kurdish rebellion in Iraq or oppose Iraq’s legitimate attempts to suppress it.”¹¹

When the UN Human Rights Commission, tried to investigate the abuses of Hussein toward his people in 1989, the US refused to participate. By 1990, with the execution of a British journalist, publicity of the abuses became so glaring that President Bush had to work overtime to justify US trade relations with Iraq.¹¹

Finally, Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas received a detailed report of the atrocities from Amnesty International. She was so moved that, although Kansas exported one million tons of wheat each year to Iraq, she spearheaded a campaign to sanction the Gulf country, “I cannot believe that any farmer in this nation would want to send his products . . . to a country that has used chemical weapons and to a country that has tortured and injured their children.”¹¹Her passion induced the Senate to pass an amendment and on August 2, 1990 sanctions were applied to Iraq until Bush could prove Hussein was no longer in violation of human rights.

The day the amendment passed and financial aid was suspended, Hussein’s troops invaded Kuwait.⁴ Saddam Hussein claimed the invasion stemmed from Kuwait illegally drilling for oil in Iraqi territory. He also argued that Kuwait had once been a part of Iraq. The western world dismissed these claims.¹² What Hussein didn’t mention was that the

concessions from the Iran-Iraq war returned the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iran. This effectively cut off the only port Iraq had to the Gulf. If Hussein could conquer Kuwait, Iraq would no longer be a land-locked country.¹³

Worried that Iraq would use this maneuver to capture Saudi oil fields and disrupt oil prices for the west, the United States launched a vicious propaganda campaign to garner world support for an attack on Hussein.¹³

Washington cited satellite photos that showed a buildup of Iraqi troops on Saudi Arabia’s border as proof of the impending invasion. The Pentagon refuses to release these photos, and Soviet satellite images taken at the same time reveal empty desert where Hussein’s troops should have been.²¹

Media tapes from Kuwait played nightly on US new stations convinced the American public of Kuwait’s dire need for support. It was never mentioned that these tapes passed through public relations firms in both countries.¹⁴ However, the tapes were not enough to motivate the public to take action. The Bush administration needed a ‘hook,’ something so atrocious that no patriotic, freedom loving American could look the other way.

Enter Hill and Knowlton, a US public relations firm with a fabulous track record. They outdid themselves at a Congressional Human Rights Caucus held October 10, 1990. Nayirah, a fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti hospital volunteer, stood before the Caucus, sobbing as she described Iraqi soldiers yanking premature infants from their life-saving incubators and leaving them to die on the cold tile floor.¹⁴

President Bush Sr. recounted the story claiming, “There's no horror that could make this a more obvious conflict of good vs. evil...”¹⁵ The media recorded Nayirah’s heartbreaking speech and replayed it nightly across the nation.

Nayirah’s tale spread to our allies overseas and the number of deaths grew with each retelling. It, alone, was the motivating factor driving support for the war. And it was a lie.¹⁴

Nayirah turned out to be the daughter of the former Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States. Hill and Knowlton had coached her for days before the caucus, preparing her testimony and tears. A well known Kuwaiti “surgeon” who also testified to the baby killings was later revealed as a dentist who faked his credentials and admitted the whole thing had been a hoax. When the war ended, doctors from Kuwait and abroad certified that the incidents never took place and no shred of evidence beyond recounted testimonies has ever surfaced.¹⁵

A US-lead, international coalition launched its invasion of Iraq January 16, 1991, just three months after Nayirah’s testimony.¹Primary targets by the US during the attacks were the civilian infrastructure, namely water and sewage treatment plants which have

never been rebuilt, causing a tremendous amount of suffering and loss of life, not for Hussein, but for the innocent civilian Iraqi population.¹⁶ The invasion ended March 3, 1991 when Iraq accepted a cease fire.

The cease fire heralded an era of US bombing in no fly zones,¹⁰ spying on Iraq under the guise of weapon inspections¹⁰ and sanctions that prevent the delivery of air-conditioned trucks, medical equipment and supplies such as incubators¹⁸ and even pencils.¹⁷

Today, President Bush Jr. is rattling the saber, prepared to unleash the hounds of war once again in the name of freedom loving people world wide.

“I wonder what would happen if you literally had to fill up your gas tank with the bones of killed and raped people in order to make your car run?”¹⁹

Contact your Congressional representatives and speak out against Bush’s Iraqi war.

Sources for this article include:

1 Chronicle of 20^th Century Conflict by Neil Grant pg 361 1993 Smith Mark Publishing

2 A Review of the U.S. Policy Vis-à-Vis the Iran-Iraq War Salaam, (Morning Daily) Tuesday, July 18, 1995 http://www.nonviolence.org/iraq/

3 US helped Iraq develop bio, chemical arms-report LONDON (Reuters)Date: Friday, February 13, 1998 http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/ushelped.html

4 COVER STORY: How the US armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons BY NORM DIXON From Green Left Weekly, August 28, 2002. http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm

5 THE UNITED STATES AND THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR STEPHEN R. SHALOM "The United States and the Gulf War," which appeared in _Z_ magazine, Feb. 1990. my _Imperial Alibis_ (Boston: South End Press, 1993).] http://www.netiran.com/Htdocs/Clippings/FPolitics/950718XXFP04.html

6 : Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War I Written by William Blum Author Ihttp://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/IraqHypocrisy_WBlum.html

7 US Companies Sold Iraq Billions Of NBC Weapons Materials By William Blum The Progressive Magazine April 1998 Issue 3-26-2 http://www.progressive.org

8 The British Association for Immediate Care (BASICS) http://www.basedn.freeserve.co.uk/restof1.htm

9 Looper's Delight Mailing List Archive http://www.loopers-delight.com/LDarchive/200109/msg00716.html

10 War And Forgetfulness -- A Bloody Media Game by Norman Solomon
August 01, 2002

http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2175

11 A Problem From Hell, America and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power pgs 230-245 Basic Books Publishing 2002

12 Iraq: U.S. Ambassador Analyzes Invasion Of Kuwait By Charles Recknagle

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1999/08/F.RU.990802124627.html

13 Economic causes of the Gulf War World Socialist Movement home page http://www.worldsocialism.org/90gulf.htm

14 How the public relations industry sold the Gulf War to the U.S. -- The mother of all clients Part Two By John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar2.htm

15 "During the Gulf War, the American media was manipulated into reporting exactly what the government and military had wanted them to report."- Jeff Pavir, host of CBC's Prime Time http://members.tripod.com/iraqbabies/babies.htm

16 Iraq Debate in Mainstream is Ultra-Hawks v. Moderate-Hawks by Robert Jensen and Rahul Mahajan Published on Friday, August 30, 2002 by CommonDreams.org http://commondreams.org/views02/0830-04.htm

17 Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, ed. Anthony Arnove (Cambridge: South End Press, 2000), pp. 67-75. To order, call 1-800-533-8478, email southend@igc.org, or visit http://www.southendpress.org/books/iraq.shtml

18 What about the incubators? By Kathy Kelly (4-14-00) http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/kelly/what.htm

19 "Get Your War On" website, page 13 http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/home.html

20 Oppose US war against Iraq! Build an international movement against imperialism! Statement of the World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board 9 September 2002

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/iraq-s09.shtml

21 In war, some facts less factual "Scott Gurian" <parallax@riseup.net>
"pjnews" Sunday, September 22, 2002 11:09 PM
peace-justice-news@enabled.com>

The war on Iraq officially lasted forty-five days. Besides the tangible costs, there are also the long term affects involved with another attack. According to the National Gulf War Resource Center Inc, during our first invasion:

- 100,000 U.S. troops were exposed to repeated low-levels of chemical warfare agents, including sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard gases;

- More than 250,000 received the investigational new drug pyridostigmine bromide (PB pills) the Pentagon "cannot rule out" as linked to Gulf War illnesses;

- 436,000 entered into or lived for months within areas contaminated by more than 315 tons of depleted uranium radioactive toxic waste possibly laced with trace amounts of highly radioactive Plutonium and Neptunium, almost all without any awareness, training, protective equipment, or medical evaluations;

- Hundreds of thousands lived outdoors for months near more than 700 burning oil well fires belching fumes and particulate matter without any protective equipment.

- Each of these exposures took place while troops were either engaged in combat, serving in a war zone, or stationed in the volatile region for a number of months.

The government has been reluctant to identify and address these issues and the long term effects on our soldiers and their families are unknown. According to JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) American troops also faced repeated threats in the form of chemical warfare from Iraq.

- Botulinum toxin is the most poisonous substance known. A single gram of crystalline toxin, evenly dispersed and inhaled, would kill more than 1 million people

- After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq admitted to the United Nations inspection team to having produced 19,000 liters of concentrated botulinum toxin, these 19,000 liters constitute approximately 3 times the amount needed to kill the entire current human population by inhalation. In 1990, Iraq deployed specially designed missiles with a 600-km range; 13 of these were filled with botulinum toxin, 10 with aflatoxin, and 2 with anthrax spores. Iraq also deployed special 400-lb (180-kg) bombs for immediate use; 100 bombs contained botulinum toxin, 50 contained anthrax spores, and 7 contained aflatoxin. It is noteworthy that Iraq chose to weaponize more botulinum toxin than any other of its known biological agents.

The US military was unable to protect our troops from chemical and biological warfare used by Hussein during those 45 days and thousands have suffered from Gulf War related illnesses. What does this say about the current administration’s views on the expendability of our soldiers that they want to send into the same deadly conditions?

There are no statistics available on the effect the toxins had on the Iraqi troops. We do have information about the devastation the war and sanctions have upon the civilians in this Middle Eastern country and how they have strengthened Hussein’s control over his people.

Sanctions, imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, are administered through the United Nations but in place only because the United States insists; most of the rest of the world has condemned them. The embargo is implicated in the deaths of more than 500,000 children under the age of 5, according to a UNICEF study. That's why two former U.N. humanitarian coordinators in Iraq -- Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck -- have resigned in protest, calling the sanctions immoral and even genocidal.

For every person killed by terrorist acts in the U.S. on 9/11, five hundred people have died in Iraq resulting from sanctions.

Starting with a complete ban on oil sales and frequent restrictions even on basic medicines, the sanctions have gone through stages. Currently, there is no limit on total oil sales and most medicines are allowed in, but there are still major problems with funding projects to repair critical infrastructure and foster economic development.

Combined with the almost complete (and quite deliberate) destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, particularly water- and sewage-treatment plants, by U.S. forces during the Gulf War, the sanctions have meant increased malnutrition, disease and death -- not for Saddam but for the Iraqi people.

Worse, because of a retroactive oil-pricing scheme recently implemented by the United States (oil companies don't know what price they'll pay for Iraqi crude until after it is loaded), Iraqi oil exports are way down; in August, exports averaged 800,000 barrels per day, compared with more than 2 million at earlier points. This funding shortfall means Iraq is unable to pay even for some approved humanitarian imports. While the sanctions kill slowly, the United States continues to patrol the no-fly zones in the northern and southern parts of Iraq, bombing at will and killing civilians.

One infant out of four born live in Iraq weighs less than 2 kilos [five pounds], promising short lives, illness and impaired development. In 1989, fewer than one in twenty infants born live weighed less than two kilos[five pounds].

Faced with the huge threats to our soldiers and the continued depravation of millions of innocent civilians, are we truly prepared to foot the bill both for another war on Iraq?

Contact your Congressional representatives and speak out against Bush’s Iraqi war.

Sources for this article include:

http://commondreams.org/views02/0830-04.htm

ActionCenter.actgen@action-mail.org

http://www.ngwrc.org/facts/index.htm

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v285n8/ffull/jst00017.html

WHY WAR WON’T WORK

by Lila Schow

Eleven Iraqi Myths

Iraq possess an immediate threat to world security

The Iraqi military is a shambles: it is a "shadow" of the army that invaded Kuwait in 1990 and is so weakened that it does not pose a threat to neighboring countries.⁴

According to former United Nations Special Commission (Unscom) chief inspector Scott Ritter, "[F]rom a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction." While it is certainly possible that Iraq has the seed stock to rebuild its purported arsenal, Ritter has said that Iraq does not currently possess the capability to produce or deploy chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.²

In February 1998, former weapons inspector Raymond Zilinskas stated that "95 percent of [Unscom’s] work proceeds unhindered." He wrote in the Chicago Tribune, "Although it has been theoretically possible for the Iraqis to regain such weapons since 1991, the duplicity would have been risky and expensive, and the probability of discovery very high."²

The United States possesses, and keeps on alert, more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. The United States sits atop the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, refusing to comply with international treaties or allow its weapons programs to be inspected by international experts, and is the only nation in the world ever to drop an atomic bomb. In 1998 and 1999, the United States bombed four countries-Serbia, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan-all in violation of international law.¹

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction

According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.

Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'

He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance. ¹

Iraq has a history of invading other countries

George Bush cites two invasions of other countries by Iraq during the last 22 years. Iran and Kuwait.⁷

In the same last 22 years the U.S. has invaded, or assaulted Grenada, Nicaragua, Libya, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and others directly, while supporting assaults and invasions elsewhere in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas.⁸

The last war posed little threat to our troops

Exposure of US troops to Chemical and Biological Warfare was widespread. Much came as a direct result of allied bombings of Iraqi chemical and biological production and storage sites. According to former Senator Don Riegle, his two-year study identified 18 chemical, 12 biological, and four nuclear facilities in Iraq bombed by the U.S.-led allied forces.

Debris from the bombings was dispersed into upper atmospheric currents, as shown in U.S. satellite photos, as well as in videotape obtained by Congress. This airborne dispersal came down on the heads of allied personnel in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. Official documents show weather patterns over Iraq that carried chemical fallout to
coalition troop positions. So do U.N. assessments of damage done to well-stocked Iraqi chemical storage facilities.

Sandia, Los Alamos, and Livermore National Laboratories were consulted or prepared reports on the danger of chemical fallout from the bombings. Former Soviet CBW (Chemical and Biological Warfare) expert Ivan Yevstafyev warned that strikes on chemical and biological weapons facilities in Iraq's territory could rebound on us and cause damage to the population of our country.

Gen. Raymond Germanos, a spokesperson for the French Ministry of Defense, confirmed in February 1991 the presence of chemical fallout from allied bombings, probably neurotoxins...a little bit everywhere. And in July 1993, the Czech Defense Ministry said it was able to irrefutably confirm traces of chemical warfare agents, including the deadly nerve agents sarin and Yperite.⁶

A new war will eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction

Here are some facts from Pentagon and Clinton Administration officials as reported in the February 21st, 1999 New York Times: U.N. inspection teams have destroyed many times more chemical and biological weapons than the 1991 Gulf War; a new war wouldn't even target weapon stockpiles since they're nearly impossible to locate. The likeliest targets of a U.S. air strike are those facilities already under U.N. inspection and the bombing would most likely destroy the monitoring equipment now in place. Pentagon officials do not suspect that any biological or chemical weapons are being stored in Hussein's presidential palaces; Iraq's refusal to open these palaces to inspectors is the supposed raison d'être of this war. Pentagon officials think it's unlikely that Hussein will launch any chemical or biological weapons in response to a U.S. attack. Iraq's Scud missiles are actually not very good at delivering chemical or biological weapons.

A war won't reduce Hussein's weapons stockpiles, and it probably won't drive him from power. The Pentagon acknowledges all this. It will make a few rich people even richer, especially the stockholders of military equipment manufacturers and Arab sheiks who gain the longer Iraqi oil is kept from the world market.⁴

The world will stand behind Bush and back his new campaign

France, China, and Russia are three countries among many that have criticized the economic sanctions against Iraq. As permanent members of the UN Security Council, they have challenged the US and UK position on sanctions and have questioned military strikes.

The Pope, more than fifty US bishops, numerous religious leaders, and scores of organizations have condemned and protested both sanctions and military strikes. Two Nobel Peace laureates and five congressional staffers traveled to Iraq in 1999 to promote international concern and understanding for the conditions found in Iraq today. The Arab League has called for the immediate lifting of the economic
sanctions.¹

The UN is acting in the best interest of the countries involved

Specifically targeting Iraq alone to eliminate 'weapons of mass destruction' violates Section 14 of Security Council Resolution 687, which calls for region-wide disarmament. Pakistan and India recently approached the brink of nuclear war. Israel is known to possess nuclear weapons. Disaster can only be averted when all countries agree to collaborate and begin the process of eliminating their stockpiles of 'weapons of mass

destruction.'¹

The revenues from oil sales continue to be held in an escrow account, placing control over Iraq's economy and thus the livelihoods of 22 million people in the hands of a small UN committee. This is perhaps the least democratic arrangement conceivable.⁴

The US is right to launch a pre-emptive strike

A military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the Peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come⁹

In publicly proclaiming the doctrine of preemptive attack the Bush administration is preparing to commit the principal crime for which leaders of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were placed on trial after World War II, convicted and executed.

As the New York Times reported in an extraordinary article September 7 2002, “The Bush administration is shifting its emphasis in seeking exemptions for Americans from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, telling European allies that a central reason is to protect the country’s top leaders from being indicted, arrested or hauled before the court on war crimes charges, administration officials say.”

When has the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction been a sufficient basis for invading a country? Since World War II Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan and Israel are known to have joined the United States in the possession of nuclear weapons. Dozens of countries possess the capability to build chemical and biological weapons in a matter of months. Yet throughout this period, no American government has ever gone to war over the issue. Instead, US policy has been to engage in diplomatic talks over arms control, resulting in treaties to restrain nuclear proliferation, reduce arms stockpiles and ban outright nuclear testing and biological warfare experiments.⁷

Iraq kicked out UN weapons inspectors and refuses to allow them back

"We have seen the situation with Iraq where they have violated some 16 U.N. resolutions and finally threw the inspectors out." Rumsfeld said on nightly news, "we have gone through... four years where they threw the inspectors out and there's been no one there."⁶

Unscom director Richard Butler removed inspectors from Iraq prior to the December 1998 bombardment of the country by the United States, contrary to what is commonly

reported. According to Butler’s own records, his team of weapons inspectors made numerous unimpeded visits the week before the December bombing. On only a few intentionally provocative visits was he prevented from inspecting a site.

Furthermore, the US government admitted (after an embarrassing Washington Post story) that it had been using Unscom to spy on Iraq. Iraq had previously charged Unscom with spying-a claim vehemently denied by the US government. The ultimate irony is that Iraq pays for the entire UN operation in Iraq through oil revenues, thus financing workers to spy on behalf of the United States"¹

A New York Times headline announced on Jan. 8, 1999 "Reports that the United States used the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq as cover for spying on Saddam Hussein are dimming any chances that the inspection system will survive." With its credibility badly damaged by the spying, the U.N. inspection system did not survive.

Another factor in its demise was the U.S. government's declaration that sanctions against Iraq would remain in place whether or not Baghdad fully complied with the inspection regimen.³

The Iraqi government, knowing that the United States favors Saddam Hussein’s ouster and will impose sanctions until a "regime change," has no incentive to cooperate with the United States or intrusive inspections.¹

Hussein is violating UN Security Council resolutions

This may be true, since so many UN resolutions have been adopted on Iraq, legalizing the starvation of the population through sanctions, that only a regime of American stooges could comply with all of them. But since when has violation of UN Security Council resolutions been the basis for unilateral US military action? Israel violates UN Security Council resolutions far more flagrantly than Iraq, and there is no White House clamor for war with the state which still occupies the West Bank and Gaza Strip more than 35 years after the Six Day War.¹

Establishment of a clear timetable for ending inspections and recognizing progress made by the Iraqi government would provide clear incentive for future dialogue and compliance.⁸

Hussein is purposely starving his own people

The US State Department alleges in its September 1999 report that Iraq appears to be warehousing and stockpiling medicines, with malicious intent.

The warehousing of medicines is heavily monitored by the United Nations and is acknowledged by local UN administration and staff to be caused by logistical problems stemming from nine years of sanctions and lingering Gulf War damage.

Obstacles to efficient distribution include low wages of Iraqi warehouses workers, insufficient transport, and the poor condition of Iraqi warehouses in the provinces. The United Nations conducts frequent inventories of the food and medicine stored in Iraq.

Former humanitarian coordinator Hans von Sponeck and his deputy, Farid Zarif, have repeatedly called for the "depoliticization" of distribution, arguing that stockpiling is the result of Iraq’s damaged infrastructure, rather than malice on the part of the Iraqi government. There is a serious problem, which von Sponeck has referred to as "uncomplimentarity."

In many cases, Iraq must purchase goods from foreign suppliers. Items come in pieces; for example, dental chairs arrive but compressors must be ordered from another company, or syringes arrive but needles take longer. Thus, some shipments must be held in Baghdad until they are complete. This happens, von Sponeck explained, with about one-half of the orders. Moreover, the UN sanctions committee takes longer to approve some orders than others, thus forcing Iraq to keep medicine in storage until the complements are approved.

Temperatures in Iraq during summer often reach 130 degrees Fahrenheit. Air-conditioned trucks are therefore essential for shipping perishable goods, including cancer medication, surgical gloves, and foodstuffs. Yet air-conditioned trucks are practically nonexistent in Iraq, since the sanctions committee has barred them under "dual use" considerations. While it is certainly true that air-conditioned trucks could be used for military purposes, they are also necessary to ship medication.

The infrastructure is so degraded throughout Iraq that medicine and even spare parts are "a huge problem," according to von Sponeck. There are electrical shortages in every city, including Baghdad. Water and sanitation facilities have collapsed. Oxygen plants have fallen apart. Denis Halliday stated that Iraq would need at least $50 billion to rebuild its agricultural, medical, and social infrastructure.

After allocations are taken out of Iraq’s oil revenues to finance Gulf War reparations, and UN administrative costs, and other mandated expenses, the amount of money which trickles down to the average person in Iraq is completely insufficient. Iraq cannot afford to rebuild its infrastructure under the oil-for-food program. Water sanitation facilities, electrical grids, communication lines, and educational resources will remain permanently degraded until the sanctions are lifted.¹

Contact your Congressional representatives and speak out against Bush’s Iraqi war.

Sources for this article include

1. Voices in the Wilderness A Campaign to End the Economic Sanctions Against the People of Iraq Myths and Realities Regarding Iraq and Sanctions Voices in the Wilderness [Taken from Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, ed. Anthony Arnove (Cambridge: South End Press, 2000), pp. 67-75. http://www.southendpress.org/books/iraq.shtml

2. How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot Published on Sunday, September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

3. War And Forgetfulness -- A Bloody Media Game by Norman Solomon
August 01, 2002 http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2175

4. Overview of Iraq Crisis Last updated February 2002 http://www.nonviolence.org/iraq/

5. Edited from a document prepared by: National Network to End the War Against Iraq
nnewai@usa.com http://www.endthewar.org

6. Gulf War Syndrome Covered Up: Chemical and Biological Agents Exposed
by Dennis Bernstein http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.gws.html

7. From: "Action Center" <actioncenter@action-mail.org Friday, September 20, 2002 5:10 PM [IAC] Ramsey Clark Letter to UN: Do Not Support Attack on Iraq

8. From: "Scott Gurian" September 20, 2002 9:53 PM PBS peace-justice-news@enabled.com

9. Oppose US war against Iraq! Build an international movement against imperialism! Statement of the World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board 9 September 2002 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/iraq-s09.shtml

20 Oppose US war against Iraq! Build an international movement against imperialism! Statement of the World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board 9 September 2002

Send mail to InterAct's Webmaster with questions or comments about this web site. Last modified: 02/08/06