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] News titles, 6-13/7/02

News titles, 6-13/7/02

The mailing this week is huge and I apologise for this, especially since
most of it seems to me to be a lot of fluff produced with the intention of
accustoming us to the idea that war is inevitable. Among British papers, The
Times and,.more surprisingly, the Financial Times have been particularly
guilty in this respect, though let us not forget the unstinting efforts of
The Observer. Without wishing to encourage complacency on the list, however,
I still don't see how an attack can be launched without the collaboration of
a land neighbour. And all the neighbours, including Kuwait, have refused in
terms that make it difficult to see how they could be induced to change
their minds.

Turkey of course remains a possibility. But to attack from Turkey requires
the co-operation of the Kurds and they, for the moment, are not being very
co-operative. It is easy to see the problem. The Turks will only co-operate
on terms that are unacceptable to the Kurds and the Kurds will only
co-operate on terms that are unacceptable to the Turks. A problem that could
only be handled with great finesse - a quality lacking in the present US

The only sense I can make of the current media campaign is the hope that a
jittery Iraq will do something foolish (a possibility mooted in an article
by Rupert Cornwell - 'America rattles Saddam's cage ...' given below as a
URL Only under 'Criminal Conspiracies'). For the moment, however, the Iraqi
government's handling of the situation seems to be superb. They're just
continuing to use what resources they have at their disposal to increase the
links with the world which they were developing before it all started (see
the 'Middle East' and 'International' sections below. See especially my
favourite article in what follows: '26 Iranian Wrestlers, Coaches Depart for

That having been said, a very likely consequence of the current US/British/
Iraqi exile warmongering is intensified internal repression. By the time the
invasion starts, if it starts, a lot of potential leaders within Iraq will
most likely be dead. But perhaps the US and Iraqi exile warmongers won't
think that's a bad thing (we remember Stalin holding back to allow Hitler to
deal with the Polish resistance ...).

If the war did get underway it could presumably be won quite quickly
(difficult as it is to admit, we would have to hope for that. The quicker it
takes, the fewer people the US will massacre). This is on the assumption
that the Iraqi government has very little in the way of weaponry, never mind
weapons of mass destruction. Embarrassing situation for Mr Bush: the
justification for the war is the possibility that Iraq is acquiring weapons
of mass destruction. But fear of what Saddam might do with his weapons of
mass destruction if cornered is one of the main arguments being used against
the war. Leading to a secondary, perhaps stronger, argument. The blockade
can't last forever. As it crumbles, as it is doing, Saddam's ability to get
hold of WMDs will increase. And since it is clear that they have deterrent
power (otherwise what would be our justification for having them?) he has
every interest in acquiring them. Therefore he should be toppled now, before
he gets them.

Our position in all this presents some difficulties. In general we argue
that Saddam can't have much in the way of weapons of mass destruction
because the blockade has been so effective. But this amounts to an argument
in favour of the blockade (if, despite the blockade, he is armed to the
teeth as the Jim Hoaglands of this world would have us believe, then the
absurd criminality of the blockade is only made all the more evident). If
the blockade is lifted, as we want it to be, the opportunities for President
Hussein to acquire such weapons will be greatly enhanced. We have to be able
to argue that this would not pose a serious threat to the security of the

And one of the articles below, from the International Herald Tribune of all
places, actually does argue this ('Take a better route to regime change'
under 'Efforts at crime prevention'). It really isn't all that difficult.
Though we are constantly reminded that President Hussein has used chemical
weapons in the past we are not so often reminded that he only used them in
very extreme circumstances when the continued existence of Iraq was in
jeopardy. How would the rest of us have reacted if Iraq had been overrun by
the Islamic hordes of Iran, still under the leadership of the Ayatollah
Khomeini? And how would Ariel Sharon, the well known 'man of peace', have
reacted if he found himself in a similar position?

If Saddam manages to work his country out of its 'cage' he will be a very
happy man and it is most unlikely that he will embark on new adventures. A
war against Israel? Far be it from me to justify Israel's possession of
nuclear submarines but the fact is that they make an outright war against
Israel very unlikely.

This still leaves one argument in the enemy's arsenal: that a powerful,
well-armed state could, discreetly, give help to freelance (ie non-state
based) 'terrorists'. But what is said about a powerful, well-armed state
could equally be said about powerful and rich individuals. The US attempt to
cut off the sources of terrorism logically leads to the refusal to allow the
continued existence of any powerful, disaffected person or group of persons.
It is an absurd and impossible struggle. If disaffection is the enemy it
would surely be easier to stop acting in such a way as to provoke
disaffection. Some Americans in high places are beginning to say that. Will
they ever be listened to?


*   UK to send 30,000 to help oust Saddam [This is the article Mil Rai
interprets as an inspired leak that reveals when the war will begin (Spring
2003). It ends with the remark that: "Justifying any attack would not be a
problem because the evidence exists that he has weapons of mass destruction.
It will not be made public yet because it would compromise the means by
which it was acquired." Judging from the scepticism of other European
leaders it seems that this information isn't even being shared with them,
never mind the general public.]
*  Bush to use 'all tools' for ousting Saddam [Despite the headline, the
substance of Bush's remarks - though perhaps this isn't the best account -
seems to me to be putting off the evil day rather than bringing it on.]
*  Barak warns Iraq, Iran next targets in terror war [Inviting Ehud Barak to
an 'anti-terror' conference is a bit like inviting Josef Goebbels to a
conference on freedom of the press. And how could anyone imagine that the
man who talks so blandly about massacring the inhabitants of two of his
neighbours is a serious interlocutor for peace? And why should the Agence
France Presse, never mind IranMania, allow itself to publish the following
monstrous sentence: 'Barak was pushed out of office by Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected a peace deal proposed
by Barak and then president Bill Clinton at Camp David in July 1999,
sparking off renewed Palestinian unrest in Israel.']
*  US questions Iraq offer on MIA [US refuses Iraq's offer of a full public
inquiry in the presence of impartial witnesses and the media, into the Scott
Speicher case.]

*  West's agents stir strife in Iraq
by Toby Harnden
The Age (Australia), 13th July
[This is only notable for the headline. Otherwise it reads like a drunken
conversation with a low level civil servant in a bar. But perhaps this
sentence should be retained: 'A lot of other European countries don't see
the same threat because we don't share intelligence with them," he said.' So
much for the EEC (and frankly the notion that British intelligence is better
than the German BND at fabricating evidence for weapons of mass destruction
is ludicrous)]
*  British secret services on the ground in Iraq
The Scotsman, 12th July
[More of the same. Might have expected better of The Scotsman.]
*  British 'to support Iraq invasion'
by Patrick Hennessy and Colin Adamson
London Evening Standard, 12th July
[More of the same]
*  America rattles Saddam's cage hoping he will lash out in anger
by Rupert Cornwell
Independent, 13th July
[The article begins with some mockery of the current spate of sabre-rattling
leaks, leading me to think that Rupert Cornwell was not the slavish
mouthpiece of US imperialism that I thought he was. But he quickly falls
back to type.]


*  US shelves a study on Iraq abuses [The study in question was compiled
with a view to setting up an international war crimes court like those that
have been established for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. The article claims that the
US government have done a major U turn on the issue. Not only are they
opposed to the ICC (which has some pretence to being out of their control);
they have also turned against the Rwanda and Yugoslav courts though the
latter in particular was a creature of their policy. They say they won't
support it beyond 2008, though the idea that it should continue in existence
that long is perfectly monstrous. The article does not suggest that US
implication in the war crimes attributed to President Hussein (not only
those of 1988 when Mr Hussein was the US's ally, but also those of 1991
which were rendered inevitable by US policy, and carried out under the noses
of the US military) might have something to do with their reluctance to hold
a trial.]
*  In the Killing Fields [Review of Samantha Power's A Problem from Hell.
S.Power is one of those who wants the US to go to war to prevent genocide
but who fail to notice that the US way of making war (massive attack from a
great distance) is itself inherently genocidal. These self righteous
humanitarian warriors succeeded in prolonging the war in Bosnia and all its
attendant horrors for at least five years ending up with a settlement no-one
wants to implement. The review concludes, interestingly and perceptively:
'What we knew of war in 1900 was that 85 percent of its casualties would be
warriors themselves - and only 15 percent civilians. But according to the
latest United Nations figures, by the end of the 20th century, that ratio
had pretty much reversed itself. More than 80 percent of the damage is
collateral. Which, of course, is insane.' One of the main events that helped
bring this about was the massive, genocidal bombing raids on Germany and
Japan at the end of the 1939-45 war. The difference between the good guys
and the bad guys is not as great as the likes of Samantha Power, who thinks
the US has the right to act as judge of the rest of the world, would have us
believe. And, incidentally, the 'age of genocide' was the nineteenth
century, when whole peoples were, literally, wiped out to make way for the
USA, Australia and New Zealand.]
*  U.S. argues need for doing it alone ['"You hear Europeans say Bush is a
cowboy from Texas," said William Wohlforth, an associate professor of
government at Dartmouth. "But when the Europeans were at the top of the
international heap, they were hard-bitten realists about using power ...'
Well, not much to argue with there ...]


*  US seeks ways to try Saddam for war crimes [Short article turning round
Indict, surely the most pointless, nauseatingly self righteous political
pressure group in existence in British politics at the present time. A war
crimes trial for the Iraqi Ba'ath leadership can only be a) a pretext for
war if the Ba'ath are still in power or b) (like the infamous Nuremberg
trials) a device for whitewashing the war crimes of the victor in the case
of a successful campaign to overthrow them.]
*  Put a war with Iraq in the diary for January [ The Times argues that an
invasion of Iraq would be very easy and popular with the population of Iraq
(Iraqis, like Afghanis, don't mind seeing their friends and relatives being
blown to pieces by their liberators) despite squeals from the European left.
The author's benign attitude to the Iraqi army and the knowing reference to
'the equilibrium between family clans that is the essence of traditional
Iraqi society' suggests that the article was written after a good lunch with
a member of the Iraqi National Accord.]
*  Iraq building up deadly arsenal, say defectors ['Apart from defectors and
the monitoring of Iraq's known smuggling routes for dual-use components, not
even Americas sophisticated technical intelligence-gathering systems can
uncover what Saddam is really up to.' Could it be because he really isn't up
to very much? Interesting to learn, though, that 'Terence Taylor, a UN
weapons inspector in Iraq for four years up to 1997' is now 'president of
the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington'.]
*  Allies remain lukewarm [The Times contemptuously dismisses the opposition
of other powers to a war on Iraq, e.g.: 'US officials hope that the promise
of oil contracts with a successor regime, together with access to the $8
billion that Russia is owed by Iraq, will earn Mr Putin's tacit approval.'
But why should The Times assume that the US has a right to make such
promises on behalf of a 'successor regime.'? What type of creature would be
willing to assume power under such circumstances (but I forgot. there are
70-90 of them meeting in London at the present time ...]
*  Iraqi sites for bio-war revealed by defector [Adnan Saeed al-Haideri, who
claims to have replastered walls in underground installations which might
have served for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons, is here
represented as being the 'least talked about defector since the Gulf War',
which is a bit unkind on the writers who produced the bumper crop of
articles on him around December/January. Three of them can be found in News,
13 22/12/01 (1). From these earlier articles we learn that the 'former
weapons inspector' quoted here was Richard Butler.]

URL ONLY:,,3-352781,00.html
*  Dictator alerts depleted forces
by Richard Beeston
The Times, 11th July
[Iraqi government attempts to marshal its defenses under difficult
circumstances. An important subject but one doesn't get the impression the
author of the article knows much more about it than you or I.]

AND, IN NEWS, 6-13/7/02 (2)


*  Saddam's vicious circle [This article argues that, without chemical
weapons, Iraq would probably have gone under to Iran. Given that the author
of the article, presumably, would not have wished Iraq to be taken over by
the Iran, does this not provide a justification for Iraq's use of chemical
*  Iraq 'seeks Ukraine arms links' [Considering how important it is for the
war-mongers we get surprisingly few stories about Iraq seeking arms (though
we may assume that any country that has to face the sort of threats Iraq is
facing at the present time will seek arms). This story comes from a very
tainted source (Timothy McCarthy, a former United Nations weapons inspector)
and proves very little, certainly very little on the subject of WMDs. So why
is the Financial Times, of all papers, lending itself to this sort of thing?
See also 'Kiev Denies Iraq Arms Sales Report' in the International section
*  Absence of weapons inspectors helps Iraq keep its secrets [This article
begins by making an incredibly ignorant and irresponsible confusion between
Unscom (the US spying enterprise) and the IAEA (the international body
charged with regulating the flow of nuclear material in the world. A body
which, we learned last week, is being deliberately sabotaged by US
underfunding): 'By 1998, the IAEA had destroyed facilities and removed from
Iraq weapons-grade nuclear material. But in 1998, the inspectors were
expelled ...' It took four leading FT journalists to write those two
sentences, As we know, of course, the IAEA is still present in Iraq; it was
only the spies who were expelled. The rest of the article comes from unnamed
'experts' and 'officials' and, of course, Unscom. It includes the following:
'UK officials say that if Iraq were no longer subject to UN sanctions, it
could produce a nuclear weapon within five years.' My memory is that this
was a 'calculation' - probably made on the back of a packet of Woodbines, to
coin a phrase - made by the German BND, the ones who brought us the wholly
fictitious 'Operation Horseshoe' as justification for the war against
Serbia. The article doesn't amount to an argument for war, but it is still
poison because it is an argument for maintaining sanctions.]
*  Iraq talk fuelled by Kosovo pull-out
*  No plans to attack Iraq, says Downing Street [It appears from this that
the much vaunted reduction of British troops in Kosovo was announced a month


*  Documentary says al Qaeda gunmen in Iraq [The documentary in question is
the first in the 'Wide Angle' series to be hosted by our old enemy, James
Rubin, Clinton's resident warmonger, doubtless trying to find a niche for
himself in the current order of things. The list has been alerted to this by
Roger Van Stroope and Drew Hamre.]
*  Officials: 'No evidence' defector saw bin Laden in Iraq [The 'Wide Angle'
programme. One may wonder why the CIA is so reticent about
al-Qaida/S.Hussein links. Given the record, it can hardly be a
straightforward concern for the truth, can it?]
*  We all can see what Saddam is [Jim Hoagland on the 'Wide Angle'
programme. He sees the suffering inflicted by Saddam Hussein on the Kurds,
but fails to see the suffering inflicted by G.Bush on the Iraqis. He fails
to see that when he looks at S.Hussein, he is looking in a mirror.]


*  US 'To attack Iraq via Jordan' [It seems absurd to imagine that the
Jordanian government could survive if it engaged in the contemptible piece
of treachery attributed to it in this clearly malicious article. One would
be tempted to put this down to Iraqi exile wishful thinking (and to despise
the Amman based Iraqi National Accord accordingly). But could it be that
this and its fellow articles on the same lines are designed to provoke the
only circumstances in which the Jordanian government might be able to
co-operate in this way - an Iraqi pre-emptive strike on Jordan? Either way,
savour the wonderful insouciance with which the Observer journalists (it
took three of them to put this together!) can pen a sentence such as the
following: 'The US has apparently given Jordan and other Arab states the
freedom to pay lip-service to support for Iraq.']
*  Jordan to let US troops use bases for war on Iraq [Article which could
have been included among the 'Crimes of the Times. Despite the headline,
what is being referred to is 'a US manned radar station and American search
and rescue teams to operate out of the country to pick up US pilots.' Which
although disgusting enough (but Jordan is a US dependant. ie it is not a
free and sovereign country) is not quite the same thing.]
*  Jordan denies US Iraq reports [This comes from Abdullah's uncle, Prince
Hassan, a man of integrity who argued strongly for a peaceful solution to
the crisis of 1990/91]
*  U.S. considers Jordan as a base for staging attacks on Iraq [The New York
Times has a more intelligent idea than The Observer of the difference
between what the US might 'consider' and what Jordan could deliver.]
*  Talk of war puts Arabs on same wavelength [Fine piece by Suzanne
Goldenberg on how the Jordanian population see news reports on the
possibility that Jordan will be used to launch the war.]

AND IN NEWS, 6-13/7/02 (3)


*  Still a bad idea / A leaked plan for a possible attack on Iraq [The
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette comes out against an attack on Iraq on the grounds
that no-one would support it except the US and Israel (Britain, quite
reasonably slipped their minds). Splendid as this is, the article does
contain an example of the misconceptions that are around when it says the
following: 'Saudi Arabia opened its border with Iraq -- closed since 1990 --
to normal trade in late May.' Normal trade? When Iraq can't export anything
except oil and everything it imports has to be approved by its enemies?]
*  The Iraqi mutiny [This is a witty summing up of the absurdity of the
present plans for invasion and of the embarrassments of the position in
which G.Bush has placed himself. Only quibble I have is with the following:
'Curiously enough, as things stand, Bush's Iraq policy is doing fine. We
have not had a cheep out of Saddam since September 11. Having specifically
rejected a policy of containment, the president is actually executing a
remarkably successful one.' So far as I can see, Saddam Hussein's behaviour
(shooting at planes that illegally violate Iraqi airspace and supporting
Palestinian opposition to the illegal occupation of their land) hasn't
changed at all under the pressure of all the US sabre rattling.]
*  Bush plan to invade Iraq challenged by senators [Another sign that, after
September 11, elements of intelligence are beginning to resurface in US
mainstream politics.]
*  We need to talk about the war on Iraq before it begins [I am not one of
Hugo Young's admirers but this is quite good on the absurdity of T.Blair's
rely to the question of whether or not Britain would support a war on Iraq:
"I suggest we have that discussion when the decisions are actually about to
be taken."]
*  Take a better route to regime change [Article in the International Herald
Tribune arguing that regime change can be effected by lifting sanctions and
allowing the Iraqi people to do it themselves. The author acknowledges that
this might allow Saddam Hussein access to some heavy weaponry but he
wouldn't be able to use it because he knows what the consequences would be -
and, it might be added, he would have something to lose. A little glimmer of
common sense in a sea of nonsense.]
*  Iraq visit shows weapon sites 'destroyed' [Von Sponeck on his visits to
places the US claimed were producing chemical weapons: 'he first went to the
Al-Dora plant on the outskirts of Baghdad, which used to produce vaccines
for foot-and-mouth disease but was destroyed by U.N. weapons inspectors
...'. The piece comes from CNN. Am I alone in beginning to feel twinges of
admiration for CNN, especially as Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Agency
increasingly is creeping up on us?]

*  Why Don't We Listen Anymore?
by Clyde Prestowitz
Washington Post, 7th July
[Long, thoughtful article about European and far eastern perceptions of the
US. The conclusion (not stated quite so bluntly) is that if the US wants to
rule the world it should allow other parts of the world at least an
appearance of input into its policy making.]
*  The hard road to Baghdad
by Michael O'Hanlon
Financial Times, 10th July
[A senior fellow at the Brookings Institution points out some of the
difficulties of an invasion of Iraq.],3604,754485,00.html
*  Sleepwalking to war
The Guardian (Leader), 13th July
[The Guardian is getting worried and suggests we should have a serious


*  Farrakhan warns against U.S. attack on Iraq [Louis Farrakhan's visit to
Iraq. It may be embarrassing to admit it but on this occasion, Farrakhan has
said exactly what needs to be said: '"This delegation believes that if the
American people really understood and knew the horror of sanctions and what
these sanctions have produced -- of suffering among the Iraqi people -- that
the American people would rise up against such a policy," he said.' Perhaps
another million man march might do the trick?]
*  He may be banned from entering Britain, but he's going to save the world
*  Farrakhan denies 'Iraqi victory' quote

TERRORIST CONSPIRACIES [This heading for, among other things, the London
conference of members of Saddam's military machine is justified by most of
what has been written on the subject. Nonetheless, the article 'Ex-Iraq
Officers, Groups Talk Saddam' provides some grounds for second thoughts on
the matter.]

*  Iraqi opposition to form military council to fill post-Saddam  vacuum -
[This military council is, it appears, quite separate from the meeting of
Iraqi officers in London being held under the auspices of 'the Iraqi
Coalition', a recently formed body. Nor, apparently, is it to be confused
with the 'Iraqi National Accord', the body which, we are told, also
represents exiled elements of the Iraqi army and which, according to The
Observer, intends to march up the road to Baghdad (most probably in the
baggage train of the US army). Its all one terrible mess. But is there any
part of the Iraqi 'opposition' which has the elementary decency to refuse
any co-operation with the torturers of the Iraqi people? Yes, there is.
There is the Iraqi Communist Party. And there is the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq.]
*  Exiled generals prepare for march on Baghdad ['One Western source said:
"One of the biggest problems faced by the opposition is the danger of making
a pact with the Devil."' "'The devil" referred to here is the Iraqi army.
But these are people who may have sold their souls to a worse devil than
that ...]
*  Iraqi dissident spells out his post-Saddam policy on oil [Assuming that a
post Saddam Iraq will see free and fair elections (let's just pretend to
assume that for a moment) why should Ahmed Chalabi think he will be in a
position to dictate oil policy. Especially since elsewhere ('Iraqi exiles
plot Saddam's fall') he tells us 'My job will end with the liberation of
*  Magnificent Seventy gun for Saddam [The article ends with a brief rundown
of opposition groups. the Iraqi Communist Party is mentioned but no more.
The article claims that the main item on the programme for the 'Iraqi
Military Alliance' (not the Iraqi National Coalition?) is a resolution that
the military will not take power but will hand over to a civilian
*  Ex-Iraq Officers, Groups Talk Saddam [Here they've become the Iraqi
National Coalition Military Alliance. Some credibility is bestowed upon them
by the presence of Prince Hassan of Jordan; and of course by the fact (if it
is true) that they're not being funded by the US. The hypothesis should be
considered that they are simply a group of Iraqi army people meeting to
discuss the very real problem of how Iraq can be saved from chaos in the
event of a US attack on their country. Simply that and not a bunch of people
hoping to get back into Iraq on the back of a US massacre.]
*  Iraqi exiles plot Saddam's fall [This is the article that quotes Ahmed
Chalabi promising not to seek power in the event of the 'liberation' of
Iraq. It remains to be seen.]


*  Most staff for U.S. have left Iraqi capital
*  Iraq told to let Polish envoys travel [This explains the previous
article. The problem is that US interests are represented in Baghdad by the
Polish Embassy. So the Iraqis won't allow them to travel overland
(presumably, under present circumstances, to prevent them from spying out
the land). But the US won't allow them to fly, because, they claim, the
flights are in contravention of UN sanctions. Catch 22? They've now all
decided to take a break because they managed to get on a 'legitimate'
humanitarian flight.]
*  Saddam hated, but wins the blame game [Australian Murdoch press
journalist finds that Iraqis in Iraq know perfectly well who is responsible
for their present suffering. He puts this down to the effectiveness of Iraqi
government propaganda.]

AND, IN NEWS, 6-13/7/02 (4)


*  UN deal leaves Iraq Kurds at Baghdad's mercy [Complaints about the system
of administering Oil for Food in the Kurdish Autonomous Zone where it seems
Baghdad treats the Kurds in much the same way that the US treats Baghdad.]
*  Rebel groups reject CIA overtures down on the farm [Interesting account
of the terrible mess of US relations with Iraqi opposition elements, in this
case the Kurds.]
*  Gunfights break out in northern Iraq [PUK/Islamist clashes near Halabja]
*  Kurds draw up post-Saddam constitution for Iraq [But CNN doesn't choose
to tell us very much about it.]
*  Kurdish Leader Talabani in Talks With Saudi Officials: PUK


*  Iraq to Return Kuwaiti Archives Soon
*  Al-Thawra: Third border center between Iraq, Iran
*  26 Iranian Wrestlers, Coaches Depart for Iraq
*  Baghdad, Ankara sign a minute of meetings for joint cooperation [Is this
what you do when you're planning to hand your country over to act as an
aircraft carrier for a superpower about to launch an all-out war of
destruction on your neighbour?]
*  Saudi Arabia to hold trade fair in Iraq in Sept
*  Turkey's struggle for stability
*  Yemen sells Iraqi ships to India
*  Kuwait won't serve as launch pad for US attack on Iraq [But of course the
US want us to believe that their friends and allies are lying through their
*  Wolfowitz to Discuss Iraq in Turkey [The article suggests that in the
present circumstances of Turkish politics W's visit is pretty pointless,
since whoever he is talking to is unlikely to be around for very long.]


*  Iraq's Aziz says US attack would strengthen Saddam [Aziz on visit to
South Africa.]
*  Iraq's Saddam foresees changed US role [Remarks made in the context of
the visit to Iraq of the Indian petroleum minister. Strange the extent to
which life is continuing as normal despite all the bloodcurdling noises
issuing from Mr Bush.]
*  Iraq and India ties warmed by oil deals
*  India eyes Iran, Iraq to lift sagging sugar sales
*  Military action against Iraq inadmissible, says Russia
*  Russian, Jordanian leaders discuss Mideast peace, Iraq
*  Iraq appeals to [South African firm] Eskom to help rebuild power grids
*  Kiev Denies Iraq Arms Sales Report [See 'Iraq 'seeks Ukraine arms links'
under Crimes of the Financial Times, above}
*  Govt Ordered to Repay Loans to Iraq [Is Uganda the only country in the
world where the judiciary is sufficiently independent-minded to find in
favour of Iraq in a dispute between Iraq and its own government? Or is there
something I have misunderstood?]


*  Iraq: UN caving to United States pressure [in reference to Annan and
Blix's refusal to engage in serious negotiations for the return of weapons
inspectors to Iraq.]


*  Iraq says 35 bln bbls oil reserves postponed by sanctions.
*  West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields [The Times takes it
for granted that after the war the US will control Iraq. i.e., they don't
pay any heed to all the bla about Iraqis being allowed to choose their own
government (a democratic Iraq might surely be expected to feel some
resentment against the power that has inflicted so much suffering on them).
Read this article and then fill up the petrol tank of your car with a clear
conscience, if you can.]


*  Missiles fired at US, British planes: Iraq


*  Saddam's Stepson Back in New Zealand

*  Quiet engineer's flight to nightmare
by Eugene Bingham and Geoff Cumming
New Zealand Herald, 13th July
[A very long detailed account of the Mohammad Saffi (Saddam's stepson)
incident. Its almost certainly the best account we're ever likely to get but
the issue is really marginal, the article is extraordinarily long, and I'm
at the end of my tether.]


*  Saddam was urged early on to seek power and glory, analyst says
Boston Herald (from Associated Press), 10th July
[Psychoanalysis by CIA expert. Utterly predictable and uninteresting. One
can only hope that more high quality thinking is taking place out of the
public gaze. Equally uninteresting remarks are made about Fidel Castro,
Yasser Arafat and Kim Jong Il]

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]