The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Corrective letter to Stratfor


Dear Stratfor people:

The recent Weekly Analysis below contains much of value in analyzing US motives and geostrategies regarding Iraq. It is just because this typifies so much of what you send out, that I feel the need to take you seriously to task for the considerable amount of misinformation that precedes it.

In the first place, in paragraph two you aver: "Under U.N. resolutions, Iraq contains two no-fly zones in the north and south of the country." This is a patently false statement. To prove this to you, I hereby authorize you undertake an official search for the UN resolution specifically authorizing the maintenance of these no-fly zones. If you can find the resolution which you suggest exists, I will happily remit your $35 search fee. However, if you CANNOT find it, then I entreat you to recant this piece of disinformation, and get the story straight: the US and Great Britain are maintaining these no-fly zones on their own, without ANY specific authorization from the United Nations Security Council.

But that is not all I hope that you will have the decency to recant: In the third to last paragraph you state: "The U.S. bombed Saddam after he refused to let UN inspectors in . . ." This also is a false statement, and the writer of this lazy history could have verified this for himself by checking the UN's own site, which only mentions an instance or two or Iraqi "non-cooperation" -- the significance of which depends upon the opinion solicited. In point of fact those of us intimately familiar with this history know full well that the instances in question were clear provocations on the part of UNSCOM, however, under no circumstances did Saddam "refuse to let UN inspectors in" to Iraq. They left of their own accord, just prior to the bombing (by no mean coincidence, it turns out, as you rightly mention their role as espionage agents for foreign interests).

Lastly, even the wording here is terribly misleading, and reflects the rhetoric of the US State Department rather than the actual reality. The US has never actually "bombed Saddam." Moreover, as a head of state, it would be technically illegal to target him. The US HAS, since the Gulf War, repeatedly bombed the PEOPLE OF IRAQ, resulting in 20 civilian casualties this August alone. I do hope that your rewrite will use more objective phrasing. An ancient Chinese sage once said: "If you want to change the world, start calling things by their proper names."

Yours truly,

Ken Freeland

Houston, Texas



"Madeleine Albright was wrong, wrong, wrong when she said to Lesley Stahl on US television that all those dead Iraqi children constituted 'a price worth paying'. Any ethical dimension to our foreign policy requires us radically to think again."  Read the complete text of George Galloway's magnificent address to the British Parliament at

Beware: the "Discussion Board" at "Nonviolence Web" (NVWeb) is censored for ideological content.  Censorship and genuine nonviolence don't mix.  Insist on the real thing!


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]