Bcc: contributors Website: http://cyberjournal.org Website: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ Friends, First, Mr. Clark points out my careless spelling, and then some commentary about Bush's crimes-against-humanity invasion plans... rkm ============================================================================ From: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 01:05:02 EDT Subject: Proofreading To: •••@••.••• Please, it's "Guantanamo," not "Quantanamo" and "Sudetenland," not "Sudenland." R. Clarke, Chicago ============================================================================ Delivered-To: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 01:53:43 -0700 From: "Butler Crittenden, Ph.D." <•••@••.•••> Subject: Fw: US revises plans as kingdom courts Iraq http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-376519,00.html August 07, 2002 US revises plans as kingdom courts Iraq By Michael Evans, Defence Editor SAUDI ARABIA is in the process of concluding a special trade deal with Baghdad and is likely to deny the United States access to its military bases for any attack on Iraq, according to diplomatic sources. The Saudi Government, which was host to 500,000 American troops for Operation Desert Storm in 1991, has been engaged in talks with Iraq that could result in the establishment of a free-trade area between the two countries, the sources said. ---<snip>--- ============================================================================ Delivered-To: •••@••.••• From: "Nurev Ind" <•••@••.•••> Subject: West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:43:10 -0400 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2701-353176,00.html July 11, 2002 West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields By Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia and Roland Watson THE removal of President Saddam Hussein would open Iraqs rich new oilfields to Western bidders and bring the prospect of lessening dependence on Saudi oil. No other country offers such untapped oilfields whose exploitation could lessen tensions over the Western presence in Saudi Arabia. ---<snip>--- ============================================================================ From: "Mid-East Realities" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Saudis Warned to Bow Down...Or Else! Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:23:30 -0400 http://www.MiddleEast.Org Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies Ultimatum Urged To Pentagon Board By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 6, 2002; Page A01 A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States. "The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated the explosive briefing. It was presented on July 10 to the Defense Policy Board, a group of prominent intellectuals and former senior officials that advises the Pentagon on defense policy. "Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp. analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East. ---<snip>--- =============== rkm> How ironic. Last week some friends invited me over to watch an old video tape of "1984" with them. One day the enemy would be Oceana, the next it would be East Asia. Not only that, but when the enemy was being Oceana, then it had _always been Oceana. The rhetoric or our Petagon briefers sounds just like the kind of stuff that came over the airways in "1984": "Saudi Arabia as 'the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent' in the Middle East." Defending Saudi Arabia, if you recall, was one of the main justifications behind Desert Storm. Or perhaps we are committing Thought Crime by remembering such things. And prior to that, Iraq was our favored power in the decade-long war between Iran and Iraq. Iraq was our 'special client' in the region throughout the 1980s. If Big Brother says the moon is green, then the moon is green. Then if he says it is pink, it was _always pink. The difference between our situation and that of the film is that we have access to better information. Even the New York Times, as we saw above, tells us of the realpolitik behind the new 'enemy' designation. Orwell got it wrong. He though you needed torture and total censorship of information in order to control what the masses think. I suppose television was still too new when he wrote the book for its subtle powers to be fully understood. rkm ============================================================================ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 02:01:04 -0700 From: "Butler Crittenden, Ph.D." <•••@••.•••> Subject: Fw: Conflict could soon be nuclear To: Adam Heilbrun <•••@••.•••> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-376516,00.html August 07, 2002 Conflict could soon be nuclear From Roland Watson in Washington THE US Congress has been warned that President Bush's proposed attack on Iraq could escalate into a nuclear conflict. An assessment of Iraq's capabilities says that the US is unlikely to knock out many, if any, of President Saddam Hussein's mobile missile-launchers in a first wave of airstrikes. It raises the possibility of Baghdad hitting an Israeli city with a missile carrying biological agents, saying that Saddam is likely to use chemical and biological weapons. Israel's likely reaction would be nuclear ground bursts against every Iraqi city not already occupied by US-led coalition forces. Senators were told that, unlike the 1991 Gulf War, when Washington urged Israel not to retaliate against Iraqi missile strikes, Israeli leaders have decided that their credibility would be hurt if they failed to react this time. ---<snip>--- ================= rkm> What's most interesting here is what's not said. Nothing is said, for example, about the potential consequences if the Iraq invasion turns nuclear as described above. Would Israel limit her strikes to Iraq? In her typical hyper paranoia, she might feel preemptive strikes on other neighbors might be required to 'cover her back'. And are there other powers which might feel Israel had gone too far if she uses nukes, that might themselves reach for the red button? (Revelations about to come true?) And nothing is said about the White House's attitude toward Israel's attitude. The implication seems to be that Washinton feels itself powerless to hold the Isralei's in check. That's not true of course, but everyone's been conditioned to believe it. Washington could pull the plug on Israel anytime it wanted to. Everything Israel does is as an agent of Uncle Sam. Consider this, for example: _______________________________________________________ To: "MER" <•••@••.•••> From: "Mid-East Realities" <•••@••.•••> Subject: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First? Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:34:51 -0400 WAR FEVER RISING FAST WHO WILL STRIKE FIRST? MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 8/12/2002 Faced with hostility and war threats Israel struck first in 1967 destroying most of the Egyptian airforce on the ground; then a few days later Israel again struck first this time against Syria which had been assured by the U.S. that would not take place. That "Six-Day War" led to the capture of what we today call the "occupied territories"; and thus to today's dangerously explosive imbroglio. During that war in 1967 it is not usually mentioned that the CIA provided Israel top secret photo-intelligence reconnaissance info that in fact allowed the Israelis to win the war so quickly and to capture so much additional territory. Secretly US military personnel stationed at the huge US Base in Ramstein, Germany were taken to another major US military facility in Rota, Spain. There they were stripped of all identifications and covertly flown to the Negev dessert where they performed the crucial espionage work in tandem with the Israelis using secret high-tech (at that time) U.S. Air Force planes with all U.S. identifications removed ---<snip>--- _______________________________________________________ And nothing is said about delaying the invasion, given that there is a nuclear danger involved. If the reason for the war is to avoid the use of weapons of mass destruction, you'd think the danger of nukes might be a reason for pause. This raises the question of why Congress was given this briefing, and why the briefing was not in private. It may be that the reason is to prepare the public for the nuclear scenario... not raise alarm, but get the idea out there with as little fanfare as possible. Consider how this fits into the larger context of U.S. strategic thinking: _______________________________________________________ From: "Nurev Ind" <•••@••.•••> Subject: The new nukes Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:42:45 -0400 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4476114,00.html The new nukes The US is developing a range of handy, 'low-yield' bombs - and it's prepared to use them. Richard Norton-Taylor reports Richard Norton-Taylor Tuesday August 6, 2002 The Guardian For the first time since the height of the cold war, the US is seriously contemplating the use of nuclear weapons. But this time they would not be used, as they would have been then, against another nuclear power. The proposal is that they would be used against countries developing weapons of mass destruction - chemical and biological as well as nuclear weapons. Last week the Pentagon, for the first time, secured funds from Congress to develop "mini-nukes", low-yield nuclear weapons designed in particular to destroy underground bunkers. The plan to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, military analysts say, is behind the growing pressure on the White House to withdraw from the comprehensive test-ban treaty. American nuclear scientists last week also secured an agreement whereby tests on new warheads could start within a year of any request, rather than the existing mandatory delay of three years. They have been instructed to drill new boreholes in the test grounds of the Nevada desert. "Part of American thinking is that some tasks cannot be achieved without using nuclear weapons," says Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies at the University of Bradford. ---<snip>--- _______________________________________________________ The overall scenario seem to go like this... The U.S. wants to control the world's oil, and it wants to be able use nukes at will to keep the world's population under control. Indeed, it may be aiming to keep the size of the population under control as well as the actions of those still living. Nukes are handy for both objectives. Israel serves as a sham 'rogue ally' who can help pave the way for making nukes 'routine'. Meanwhile, media rhetoric talks only of the threats posed by Saddam, none of which have any evidence to back them up. Is there no breaking point in the Matrix? Is there no limit to how much media reality can conflict with actual reality? The mind boggles. "1984" was tame by comparison. rkm ============================================================================ From: •••@••.••• Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:21:57 EDT Subject: who is the enemy? To: •••@••.••• Subject: Brits v. Bush George Monbiot Tuesday August 6, 2002 The Guardian There is something almost comical about the prospect of George Bush waging war on another nation because that nation has defied international law. Since Bush came to office, the United States government has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has in 20 years. It has scuppered the biological weapons convention while experimenting, illegally, with biological weapons of its own. It has refused to grant chemical weapons inspectors full access to its laboratories, and has destroyed attempts to launch chemical inspections in Iraq. It has ripped up the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and appears to be ready to violate the nuclear test ban treaty. It has permitted CIA hit squads to recommence covert operations of the kind that included, in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of state. It has sabotaged the small arms treaty, undermined the international criminal court, refused to sign the climate change protocol and, last month, sought to immobilise the UN convention against torture so that it could keep foreign observers out of its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. Even its preparedness to go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN security council is a defiance of international law far graver than Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors. But the US government's declaration of impending war has, in truth, nothing to do with weapons inspections. On Saturday John Bolton, the US official charged, hilariously, with "arms control", told the Today programme that "our policy ... insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not". The US government's justification for whupping Saddam has now changed twice. At first, Iraq was named as a potential target because it was "assisting al-Qaida". This turned out to be untrue. Then the US government claimed that Iraq had to be attacked because it could be developing weapons of mass destruction, and was refusing to allow the weapons inspectors to find out if this were so. Now, as the promised evidence has failed to materialise, the weapons issue has been dropped. The new reason for war is Saddam Hussein's very existence. This, at least, has the advantage of being verifiable. It should surely be obvious by now that the decision to wage war on Iraq came first, and the justification later. Other than the age-old issue of oil supply, this is a war without strategic purpose. The US government is not afraid of Saddam Hussein, however hard it tries to scare its own people. There is no evidence that Iraq is sponsoring terrorism against America. Saddam is well aware that if he attacks another nation with weapons of mass destruction, he can expect to be nuked. He presents no more of a threat to the world now than he has done for the past 10 years. But the US government has several pressing domestic reasons for going to war. The first is that attacking Iraq gives the impression that the flagging "war on terror" is going somewhere. The second is that the people of all super-dominant nations love war. As Bush found in Afghanistan, whacking foreigners wins votes. Allied to this concern is the need to distract attention from the financial scandals in which both the president and vice-president are enmeshed. Already, in this respect, the impending war seems to be working rather well. The United States also possesses a vast military-industrial complex that is in constant need of conflict in order to justify its staggeringly expensive existence. Perhaps more importantly than any of these factors, the hawks who control the White House perceive that perpetual war results in the perpetual demand for their services. And there is scarcely a better formula for perpetual war, with both terrorists and other Arab nations, than the invasion of Iraq. The hawks know that they will win, whoever loses. In other words, if the US were not preparing to attack Iraq, it would be preparing to attack another nation. The US will go to war with that country because it needs a country with which to go to war. Tony Blair also has several pressing reasons for supporting an invasion. By appeasing George Bush, he placates Britain's rightwing press. Standing on Bush's shoulders, he can assert a claim to global leadership more credible than that of other European leaders, while defending Britain's anomalous position as a permanent member of the UN security council. Within Europe, his relationship with the president grants him the eminent role of broker and interpreter of power. By invoking the "special relationship", Blair also avoids the greatest challenge any prime minister has faced since the second world war. This challenge is to recognise and act upon the conclusion of any objective analysis of global power: namely that the greatest threat to world peace is not Saddam Hussein, but George Bush. The nation that in the past has been our firmest friend is becoming instead our foremost enemy. As the US government discovers that it can threaten and attack other nations with impunity, it will surely soon begin to threaten countries that have numbered among its allies. As its insatiable demand for resources prompts ever bolder colonial adventures, it will come to interfere directly with the strategic interests of other quasi-imperial states. As it refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of the use of those resources, it threatens the rest of the world with environmental disaster. It has become openly contemptuous of other governments and prepared to dispose of any treaty or agreement that impedes its strategic objectives. It is starting to construct a new generation of nuclear weapons, and appears to be ready to use them pre-emptively. It could be about to ignite an inferno in the Middle East, into which the rest of the world would be sucked. The United States, in other words, behaves like any other imperial power. Imperial powers expand their empires until they meet with overwhelming resistance. For Britain to abandon the special relationship would be to accept that this is happening. To accept that the US presents a danger to the rest of the world would be to acknowledge the need to resist it. Resisting the United States would be the most daring reversal of policy a British government has undertaken for over 60 years. We can resist the US neither by military nor economic means, but we can resist it diplomatically. The only safe and sensible response to American power is a policy of non-cooperation. Britain and the rest of Europe should impede, at the diplomatic level, all US attempts to act unilaterally. We should launch independent efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis and the conflict between Israel and Palestine. And we should cross our fingers and hope that a combination of economic mismanagement, gangster capitalism and excessive military spending will reduce America's power to the extent that it ceases to use the rest of the world as its doormat. Only when the US can accept its role as a nation whose interests must be balanced with those of all other nations can we resume a friendship that was once, if briefly, founded upon the principles of justice ============================================================================
