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]

[casi] The real nuclear threat- we KNOW where it comes from

NOTE:  I am relatively new to CASI and almost never
post, as I am in the U.S.  I do read everything you
post though and felt this too important not to share.
BTW, thanks to all for the help on my question re
Saddam's help to Palestinians.

Lisa, now quoting:
This was a post by Jan Pole to We_the_People.

Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 22:29:06 +0100 (BST)

“What the Pentagon has done with this is sound
military conceptual planning.” This was the US
secretary Colin Powell commenting on the leaked 50
page Pentagon report entitled: “Nuclear Posture
Review” – proof, if ever it was needed, that the
lunatics have finally taken over the asylum.

What was so special about this “Review”? It contained
contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons on
seven countries that the US claim are the biggest
threat to world peace: China, Russia, Iran, Iraq,
North Korea, Syria and Libya. It orders the US
military to plan for the use of smaller nuclear
weapons, suggests the arming of Cruise missiles with
nuclear warheads and identifies four instances when
the US must launch a nuclear attack: an Arab-Israeli
conflict, war between China and Taiwan, an attack by
North Korea on South Korea and an attack by Iraq on
any of its neighbours.

Coming within a year of the US trashing of numerous
international treaties regarding weapons proliferation
and, bearing in mind the US response to the 11
September attack on mainland USA and the belligerent
tone of President Bush's recent State of the Union
Address, this is news to be taken seriously. It hints
at US unilateralism and a new era of unchecked US
aggression in defence of the interests of its
corporate elite.

Such US aspirations, however, are not recent, for they
can be traced right back to the 1820s and the “Monroe
Doctrine”, which announced that the Americas belonged
to the USA. Now, all US excesses can be rationalised
by a quick thumb over the shoulder in the direction of
Ground Zero. The US, having suffered considerable loss
of life in the 11 September attack last year, have
found in that atrocity the pretext to pursue their
goal of “full spectrum dominance” – military
domination of the world.

No sooner was this news out, when US vice president
Dick Cheney flew off for a ten-day tour of the Middle
East. Though ostensibly the trip was an attempt to
iron out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, few
commentators did not suggest that the real reason for
the visit was to drum up support for a full-scale
attack upon Iraq . Prior to his visit to the Middle
East he stopped over in Britain to ask a complacent
Tony Blair whether he could afford any US attack on
Iraq 25,000 British troops.

The signs of a coming US attack upon Iraq have been
visible for some time now. For months, US military
instructors have been in northern Iraq training
Kurdish fighters. Five thousand mothballed military
vehicles in Kuwait have been overhauled and 24 Apache
attack helicopters have arrived in Kuwait. Moreover,
In the wake of the recent anthrax scare, investigators
worked round the clock in a desperate and futile bid
to find the Saddam link, before concluding it was
probably the work of a home-grown crank.

And in recent weeks, Washington has continually
reminded us that Saddam has weapons of mass
destruction and must be prevented from using them,
whilst negligent of reports from the UN Special
Commission that Iraq's arsenal is now down to 5
percent of its 1990 level and seemingly oblivious to
questions relating to how he has amassed such deadly
weapons, considering the stringent sanctions which
even outlaw the export of ping-pong balls to Iraq.

Twelve years after the war with Iraq, the US now looks
serious about “regime change”. Back then though the
overthrow of Saddam was not part of the US agenda.
Having initially led the Kurds of northern Iraq and
the Marsh Arabs of the South into believing that they
would get US support if they rose up against Saddam,
they then sat back and watched as Saddam almost
annihilated them. It had occurred to them that Saddam
might be holding the country together, stopping the
spread of militant Islam, and that an Iraq minus
Saddam might divide into warring factions and further
threaten US interests in the region.

US allies in the Middle East – Egypt, Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait – have shown little enthusiasm for US plans for
Iraq, all voicing reservations and fearful of the
consequences. Turkey, another US ally, who has many
times loaned its airfields to the US for its
operations against Iraq, believes its economy could be
damaged by any such conflict, and King Abdullah of
Jordan has warned of the “catastrophic effect” that
any aggression towards Iraq would have on the Middle

Seemingly, only Tony Blair, George Bush's cheerleader,
has agreed that Saddam must be stopped, citing, in
Republican fashion, Saddam's elusive weapons of mass
destruction and, like the true political amnesiac,
never querying the weapons of mass destruction the US
and Britain have stockpiled or the nuclear weapons in
the hands of another Middle Eastern aggressor –

While the defenders of “freedom” attempt to whip up
support for another Gulf War, on the pretext that
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, the rest of us can
recall that both the US and Britain backed Iraq in its
war with Iran, even providing it with arms, and that
they were silent when Iraq used chemical weapons on
Iranians in 1984 (four months later the US even
reopened its embassy in Baghdad) and again when Saddam
used chemical weapons on the Kurdish village of
Halabjah in 1988, killing 5,000 civilians.

And remember the ferocity of the first US war with
Iraq, when Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened US oil
interests in the region? It lasted 42 days, during
which time 110,000 “Coalition” aerial sorties were
flown and 88,500 tons of bombs were dropped. It left
an estimated 100,000 dead, including tens of thousands
burnt to death retreating from Kuwait along the Basra
Road. Sanctions imposed since then have devastated
Iraqi civil society and have killed over 1.5 million
including 500,000 children under the age of five –
results the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide classifies
as “genocidal conduct” and a convention the US refuses
to comply with.

When asked what he estimated the number of Iraqi dead
were after the first Gulf War, Colin Powell remarked:
“Frankly, that's a number that doesn't interest me
much”. His predecessor, Madeline Albright, when asked
to comment on the half a million Iraqi children that
had died of starvation disease and replied: “the price
is worth it.” These are the type of people calling the
shots in Washington, working closely with the Pentagon
and the White House and in the interests of world

When we recall the horror of the first Gulf War and
juxtapose it with the statements of successive US
Secretaries of State and indeed the recent revelation
that the US will hit with a nuclear weapon whoever it
wishes, regardless of international opinion, we
realise that the job of securing world peace can never
be left to politicians. Defending the belligerent
stance of the US, George Bush recently said that
“inaction is not an option.”

It's a sentiment shared by socialists. For it is the
inaction and complacency of the working class that
enables such horrendous injustices to go on. For
almost a century we have warned of the dangers of
political apathy, of trusting in leaders, of accepting
all that governments say without question. Our
silence, more than anything, is what Bush and Blair
and Co. will depend on in coming months, that same
silence the master class toasts each day. Our inaction
is an important element in our continuing
exploitation, for the master class see in it our
consent for their excesses.

As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. Capitalism
may well breed war, but our apathy is very much a part
of the process. Bear the above in mind in coming
months when the US fleet heads off to the Gulf.

Jan (Pole)

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]