[casi] News, 28/9-4/10/02 (4)

[Peter Brooke <pbrooke@DELETETHISukonline.co.uk>]

News, 28/9-4/10/02 (4)

ARAB/MUSLIM OPINION

*  Changing rules
*  Payback time as Saddam's 'friends' desert him
*  Saudi Arabia Recalls Qatar Envoy
*  Al-Rai al-Aam: Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh says it is forbidden to assist
attacks on Iraq
*  Iraq Provoked U.S. Adventurism in Region: Kuwaiti Defense Minister
*  Has Damascus struck a deal with Washington over Baghdad?
*  Iran and Kuwait Sign MOU for Military Cooperation

MILITARY MATTERS

*  Iraqi sites targeted in air raids [Friday, 27th September]
*  U.S. Forces Building Up Around Iraq
*  Coalition Forces Hit Iraqi Radar [Sunday, 29th September]
*  U.S.-British airstrike hits Iraq military facility in no-fly zone
[Tuesday, 1st October.]
*  Four U.S. carriers closing in on Iraq
*  Allies Drop Leaflets Warning Iraqis [Thursday, 3rd October]
*  US Strikes Southern Iraq Air Defense Center [Thursday, 3rd October]
*  5 Iraqis killed in US-British raids [Thursday, 3rd October.]

NORTHERN IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN

*  Rival factions seek common ground
*  The dilemma of the Anti-War side: Lacking clear objectives


ARAB/MUSLIM OPINION

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/28_09_02_c.htm

*  CHANGING RULES
by Abdeljabbar Adwan
Daily Star, Lebanon, 28th September

The international scene with regard to the question of Iraq was transformed
utterly between the beginning and end of September, and the credit for that
is due chiefly to Arab pressure on the Iraqi president, and to the
intelligence and courage of the British prime minister.

Were it not for Tony Blair¹s intervention, we may arguably have been facing
the prospect of a declaration of war on Iraq by the Bush administration
before the end of September - without Congress or the United Nations having
been consulted, and with virtually the entire world (barring Israel)
opposed.

At the beginning of September, opinion polls were showing 71 percent of
Britons were opposed to their country joining in any American military
action without UN authorization, and a third was opposed even to a
UN-endorsed war.

At the same time, a majority of Americans were saying that the
administration should only initiate military action with the approval of
Congress and the support of America¹s allies.

It was in this climate of worldwide opposition to war that Blair travelled
to the US for talks with Bush. He stuck his neck out by voicing support for
the US president¹s warmongering posture beforehand, and gave the impression
of having put all his eggs in one basket. But he proceeded to persuade Bush
and his hawkish aides to do what no one had expected of them: to hold back
and seek some kind of UN endorsement, which would in turn make it easier to
rally congressional approval and international support.

The whole world was against an American war on Iraq. It had seen on its TV
screens how much the Iraqi people had already been made to suffer under a
dozen years of harsh economic sanctions. And it was unconvinced that there
was any link between Baghdad and international terrorism. But it was also in
favor of getting UN arms inspectors sent back to Iraq to complete their work
and the implementation of UN Gulf War resolutions, as a prelude to lifting
sanctions.

The hawks in Washington had steered Bush away from that reasonable demand in
pursuit of their agenda of imposing ³regime changes² throughout the region,
securing Israel¹s interests and asserting greater control over the oil.
Blair steered him back to the notion of addressing the threat supposedly
posed by Saddam Hussein via the UN and arms inspections.

It is not clear to what extent Blair was acting in concert with other
members of the European Union and sharing roles with them. Whatever the
case, Bush changed his approach in the face of concerted European, Arab and
international opposition to war and listened to Blair. He went to the UN,
and thus gave the Security Council a chance to assume a role. That in turn
set the stage for governments around the world to alter their official
positions and for Bush to obtain a vote from Congress giving him a free hand
to act against Iraq as he deems fit.

In the days between the Bush-Blair meeting and the US president¹s speech to
the UN General Assembly, the Americans and British sent a number of messages
to key world capitals, details of which remain unconfirmed.

Russia, which was previously adamantly opposed to war, is now reportedly
seeking a promise that if it backed a new Security Council resolution
against Iraq, its old loans and new business contracts in the country will
be honored by a post-Saddam regime.

The Arab League also changed tack, from rejecting any threat to Iraq to
pressing it to readmit arms inspectors. It is not clear whether this was
motivated by a desire to defuse the situation, or by hints that the
Americans might be prepared to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

Either way, sudden changes in policy followed Bush¹s Sept. 12 UN address.
Moscow quickly toned down its stance. And Arab states declared they wouldn¹t
oppose an attack on Iraq if it were internationally sanctioned, and indeed
offered to let their territory be used for the purpose. That was followed by
heavy Arab pressure on Baghdad to agree to the return of the inspectors
before the Security Council issued any new resolution. And it worked.

Baghdad¹s agreement to readmit the inspectors marks the end of one round and
the start of another.

Bush and Blair want to ensure that Iraq is free of weapons of mass
destruction both now and in the future. They believe only replacing the
current regime with a new and obedient one can do this. Should they back
down from that demand, they will want a stringent and permanent system of
arms monitoring put in place inside Iraq.

Accordingly, Washington seeks a new and more comprehensive resolution from
the Security Council authorizing quick military action should Baghdad
violate any arms inspection procedures. Russia, France and the Arab states
oppose that. It remains to be seen how British diplomacy proposes to bridge
the gap, reining in the administration¹s hawks while keeping up the pressure
on Baghdad.

Baghdad¹s announcement that it would readmit the inspectors unconditionally
took the wind out of the Americans¹ sails and reinforced worldwide
opposition - both official and public - to war, on grounds that any threat
posed by Iraq to the outside world will now be dealt with by the inspectors.

But Bush put things into perspective when he reiterated on Sept. 17 that he
would not allow ³the world¹s worst leader to threaten our friends and allies
with the world¹s worst weapons.²

Washington¹s Arab friends and allies, who are within range of Iraq¹s
weapons, made clear in the strongly worded new statement issued by Arab
foreign ministers after Saddam agreed to readmit the inspectors, that they
do not want Iraq to be attacked or threatened.

As for America¹s European allies, Iraq can¹t threaten them. Earlier UN
resolutions barred it from possessing medium- or long-range missiles, and
part of the task of the returning inspectors will be to verify that.

So Bush was referring to the threat Iraq poses to Israel. Yet the UN
resolutions that Baghdad is being told to comply with refer to Iraq¹s
disarmament as a step toward ridding the entire Middle East, including
Israel, of weapons of mass destruction. That has the support of the entire
world, which believes, along with the British, that the peaceful resolution
of the Middle East conflict would end all such threats.

Blair¹s moves have so far helped to forestall a unilateral American war on
Iraq and to generate pressure that prompted Baghdad to readmit the arms
inspectors. It remains to be seen whether the British end up joining the
Washington hawks in war, or pressing the administration to seek a peaceful
settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would make the entire world a
more secure place.

(Abdeljabbar Adwan, a Palestinian analyst, wrote this commentary for THE
DAILY STAR)


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/29/1033283388149.html

*  PAYBACK TIME AS SADDAM'S 'FRIENDS' DESERT HIM
by Paul McGeough
Sydney Morning Herald, 29th September

There has been gnashing of teeth, but while the United States fights much of
the rest of the world, moody Arab leaders are resigned to the reality of
another war in their backyard.

And for all the cataclysmic rhetoric, a senior Saudi Arabian official said
on Saturday: "The Americans will get the use of the bases they need, even if
there is no United Nations decision. What can we do? Can we say no to the
United States?"

Even as one of the region's top diplomats, the Arab League's Amr Moussa,
warned that a US strike on Iraq would "open the gates of hell", the leaders
have said nothing about a very obvious US military build-up in the region -
not even the suggestion that an ambassador might be recalled; not even a
hint that they might resort to use of the oil weapon.

The regional media is filled with anxious words by the leaders. But stripped
of their domestic and regional worries, the message being sent to Washington
is this: If you are going to do this, do it quickly; we accept that you will
use the bases one way or another; we want Iraq's borders to remain intact;
and, please, be careful about how you thank us in public.

Perhaps the most telling sign is that leaders are already addressing the
critical issue of what happens after the war.

Turkey has ruled out a land-grab in northern Iraq, and official statements
from Tehran and Riyadh used identical words to describe the agenda of a
recent meeting between Iran's President Mohammad Khatami and Saudi Arabia's
Crown Prince Abdullah: "The aftermath of a military strike against Iraq."
Where does all this leave the anger of the so-called Arab street?

"The Arab world is paralysed," a Jeddah-based commentator, Jamal Kashoggi,
said on Saturday. "There will be demonstrations and the US flag will be
burnt. There will be fatwahs, and people will donate blood for the Iraqis
that will never get to them. But major demonstrations will not be allowed -
Arab governments are very powerful when it comes to controlling their own
people."

Kashoggi is a senior editor at Arab News, in which one of his colleagues,
Amir Taheri, last week ridiculed the Western hang-up with the whole notion
of the Arab street, dismissing it as "the Middle Eastern version of the Loch
Ness monster".

Ironically, the US is relying on the weakness of the Arab street to give it
a clear run at Baghdad, while part of its justification for a war is that
the region needs democratic muscle and that liberated Iraq will be a shining
example of democracy and freedom that will spread through the region.

There is a Western sense of a mass of seething Arab anger, but a local
observer said that the Arab street was frustrated, "but it has been deprived
of all the tools it might use to dictate terms to the leaders, by the
security regimes we have in place and by the denial of political
institutions, like unions and a formal opposition".

"In this part of the world civil society has been dismantled. ... [Our
leaders] have had us under the hammer for 50 years and they know how to keep
us in check."

Contrary to the view of some Saudis that Osama bin Laden had "won the war"
because of the damage he had wrought on the Saudi-US relationship, Kashoggi
argued that bin Laden had lost.

Kashoggi, a proponent of the "march of freedom in the Muslim world" of the
US National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said: "After the war, or
even before it's over, the US will have to set up a conference of Iraqi
dissidents to compose a transitional government.

"It doesn't like it, but the US now will be stuck with nation building in
this region. Thank you, Osama; this is the opposite of what you had hoped
for."

For all the hand-wringing, Saddam has ended up like the gangster who
offended too many of those he thought were his friends and then taken a
short-cut home one night through a darkened alley.

Columnist Amir Taheri described Saddam's loss of friends thus: "He has
antagonised traditional Islamists by preaching Ba'athism, seen by them as an
invention of Christian Arabs; radical Islamists have little love for him
because he attacked Iran in 1980; Pan-Arab nationalists are suspicious of
him because he killed more Nasserists than anyone in history; and the Arab
Left detests him because of his ruthless destruction of the Left in Iraq."

Saddam was safe as long as the US figured he was a better bet than a
Tehran-style ayatollah; the Iranians thought he was more manageable than a
Washington stooge on their doorstep; and the Syrians were able to make money
and engage in their own autocratic thuggery in his shadow.

The Saudis, the Egyptians and the so-called Gulfies, all of whom could do
with a dose of democratic salts, were able to bask in the mendicant
attention of Washington. Now the region has accepted what much of the world
is fighting - the US's serious intent. But that is all it has taken for
Saddam to be abandoned; now it is late on a dark night and he has just
turned into that alley.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020929/wl_nm/saudi_qatar
_dc_4

*  SAUDI ARABIA RECALLS QATAR ENVOY
Yahoo.com, 29th September

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has decided to recall its envoy to fellow
Gulf Arab state Qatar for consultations, the official Saudi Press Agency
(SPA) said on Sunday.

The agency did not give any reasons for the Saudi decision.

Ties between the two oil-rich neighbors have plunged to a new low over
programs by the Qatar-based al-Jazeera television channel which the
conservative kingdom sees as an affront to the Saudi royal family.

Saudi newspapers that usually reflect official thinking have blasted Qatar
for continued contacts with Israeli officials despite a pledge to cut all
ties with the Jewish state.

In August, Qatar played down a row with its powerful neighbor, saying the
"misunderstanding" would not rupture ties.

Gulf officials said they expected Riyadh to recall its envoy from Doha if
the problems were not sorted out. They said Saudi Arabia could also boycott
an annual summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), to be hosted by
Qatar this year.

The GCC regional political and economic alliance also includes Kuwait,
Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

It was not immediately clear if the Saudi move was linked to Qatar's
decision to allow their mutual ally, the United States, access to Qatari
military facilities that could be used in a possible attack against Iraq.

Faced with a possible refusal from Saudi Arabia to be a launch pad for
strikes on Baghdad, Washington has poured money into expanding its $1.4
billion Al Udeid airbase in Qatar, which officials say will be finished by
December.

Riyadh has said it opposes any attack against Baghdad, but earlier this
month it indicated it would support military action if it was authorized by
the U.N. Security Council.

Saudi Arabia played a pivotal role in the 1991 Gulf War ( news - web sites)
that ejected Iraqi troops from Kuwait after a seven-month occupation.

The kingdom has ignored repeated requests by Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh
Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani to visit to resolve what he called a
"misunderstanding between brothers."

Saudi newspapers have singled Sheikh Hamad out for scathing criticism after
he met his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres in August. They described him as
a "smart kid" trying to take his tiny state of 600,000 into the big league
and accused him of sowing discord among Arabs and serving Zionist interests.

Qatar has described al-Jazeera as a "perpetual headache" but insisted it
would not close the popular channel, which has ruffled feathers in the Arab
world for its outspoken political talk shows featuring dissidents banned in
their home countries.

Al-Jazeera is a private company funded by the Qatari government.


http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021001/2002100110.html

*  AL-RAI AL-AAM: AL-AZHAR GRAND SHEIKH SAYS IT IS FORBIDDEN TO ASSIST
ATTACKS ON IRAQ
Arabic News, 1st October

Al-Azhar Grand Mufti, Sheikh Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, has announced that it
is forbidden for any Muslim country to utilize its lands for the US or
others to attack Iraq, or to facilitate aggression against a Muslim people.

In a statement to the Kuwaiti daily al-Rai al-Aam issued on Sunday, Sheikh
Tantawi said "we are against that Iraq's children, women and the elderly are
attacked," because the Iraqi people are part of us and we are part of it,"
rejecting repression and aggression against any Arab or Islamic state
whatsoever.


http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=10/1/02&Cat=2&Num=15

*  IRAQ PROVOKED U.S. ADVENTURISM IN REGION: KUWAITI DEFENSE MINISTER
Tehran Times, 1st October

TEHRAN -- Visiting Kuwaiti Defense Minister Sheikh Jaber Mubarak al-Hamad
al-Sabah on Monday said that the lack of trust among regional states had
encouraged foreign interference in the Middle East and described as
dangerous U.S. policies for regime change in the region.

Al-Sabah, in a meeting with the secretary of Iran's Supreme National
Security Council (SNSC) Hassan Rowhani, blamed Iraq for giving the U.S. the
pretext to reinforce its military presence and interference in the region by
invading Iran and Kuwait.

He said that the Iranian and Kuwaiti nations have suffered the heaviest
damage as a result of the policies advocated by the Iraqi regime, adding
that the Iraqi people deserve a peaceful life with their neighbors.

The Iraqi people, al-Sabah said, are living in a dreadful prison under the
rule of the Iraqi regime, which has been unprecedented in world history.

He also stressed the importance of Iran and Kuwait closing ranks in joint
efforts to promote ties and decrease the foreign presence in the region and
highlighted the need for the two countries to reinforce cooperation toward
that end.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Iraqi [sic. it should obviously be Kuwaiti -
PB] defense minister said any change in the political map of the region was
impossible.

He also mentioned the Zionist atrocities in the occupied territories and
said the crimes perpetrated by the Zionist regime against the Palestinian
nation only served Baghdad's interests.

Al-Sabah also said that the Zionists' oppressive policies against
Palestinians had provided a pretext for Iraq to wage a propaganda campaign
in the Islamic world.

Rowhani, for his part, pointed to the historical affinities between Iran and
Kuwait as the appropriate groundwork to promote mutual ties and said Iran's
geopolitical position in the region had made the national security of both
countries inseparable.

He went on to say that Iran and Kuwait enjoy great potential to reinforce
mutual ties, stressing that regional and international conditions had made
the need to exploit this potential urgent.

He said that world powers are greedily eyeing the energy resources of the
geostrategically important Persian Gulf region, adding that this had
fomented regional tensions and the deployment of troops and interference by
extraterritorial powers in the region.

Rowhani added that the Islamic Republic remains skeptical about U.S.
objectives in their planned attack on Iraq and reiterated that Iran is
opposed to military action against Iraq.

"We hope Baghdad will never give any pretext to the U.S. to repeat the
bitter incidents in the region," he said.

Rowhani stated that it seems that the U.S. has extensive plans for the
Middle East and may try to change the political map of the region.

He said that the Islamic Republic believes that safeguarding the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of regional states and fostering strategic
cooperation among regional nations is the best way to promote peace and
stability.

Rowhani stated that Iran is pursuing a policy of détente with neighboring
countries and is willing to boost relations with Persian Gulf Cooperation
Council (PGCC) countries. The policy has made tangible headway, he added.


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/03_10_02_c.htm

*  HAS DAMASCUS STRUCK A DEAL WITH WASHINGTON OVER BAGHDAD?
by Ibrahim Hamidi
Daily Star, Lebanon, 3rd October

There were recent indications that Syria had changed its rhetoric vis-a-vis
US plans to invade Iraq and oust President Saddam Hussein. Similar changes
were also noted in the way Washington has been dealing with Damascus of
late. Have the two sides struck a deal? And how much have they shifted their
positions?

Since the possibility of an American war on Iraq was first mooted, there was
an understanding that Syria would assume a different position to that it
adopted in the 1991 Gulf War. Then, Syria joined the US-led international
coalition formed to evict Iraq from Kuwait. Syria joined the coalition for a
number of reasons: Then-President George Bush had promised to launch an
Arab-Israeli peace process; the Americans gave Syria a green light to bring
down Lebanon's General Michel Aoun, who wanted the Syrian Army out of
Lebanon; and the secular Syrian regime was desperate for US support in
resisting change coming out of Eastern Europe.

Where the current crisis is concerned, the perceived wisdom was that Syria
would oppose a US blitz on Iraq because the regime had not occupied another
country, the current administration of George W. Bush was not likely to
launch a new Middle East peace initiative, and the US was not interested in
making concessions to regional states like Syria, Turkey or Iran to entice
them into a coalition.

The Syrians pursued two apparently contradictory courses. On the one hand,
Damascus played host to high-ranking Iraqi officials and said it opposed
external attempts at "regime change." The Syrians said "any attack on Iraq
is an attack on the entire pan-Arab nation." Official Syrian media launched
a campaign saying US attempts to effect regime change in Baghdad were part
of "an American plan to create a new political, economic and security order
in the Middle East."

"The attack on Iraq," the Syrian media declared, "will serve Israeli
interests, since the borders drawn by the Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916 no
longer serve those interests."

On the other hand, Syria was aware that Congress was debating the so-called
Syria Accountability Act, a bill calling for additional political and
economic sanctions on Damascus. The Bush administration was not making any
visible efforts to oppose the bill - not to mention refusing to negotiate
with Syria.

In his June 24 speech, Bush criticized Syria and said it supported
terrorism. Several US officials spoke of a "blood feud" between Washington
and the Syrian-backed Lebanese Hizbullah. In other words, all indications
showed that Washington and Damascus were moving farther apart - until a few
days ago, when signs emerged indicating that relations were improving
somewhat. These signs were:

1. The Bush administration agreed to allow Syria and Lebanon to attend
meetings of the Middle East "Quartet" in New York. Washington had hitherto
refused to allow the Syrians and Lebanese to attend these meetings, held to
discuss the Palestinian issue.

2. No member of the US administration met with Aoun on his recent trip to
America. Aoun only met with congressmen Richard Armey, a Republican, and the
Democrat Eliot Engel, two of the most vociferous supporters of the Syria
Accountability Act.

3. The Bush administration finally moved to obstruct the Syria
Accountability Act by postponing the House International Relations Committee
hearings in the subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia several
times. These postponements made it impossible for the bill to be passed
before the mid-term congressional election in early November.

4. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David
Satterfield announced in Damascus at the beginning of September that the
Bush administration opposed the Syria Accountability Act. Satterfield also
praised Syria's role in the fight against terrorism. He did not attend the
congressional hearings in person and instead sent a statement lauding
Syria's role in the peace process and in saving American lives.

5. Most importantly, in a Sept. 3 letter to Democratic Congressman Robert
Wexler, Bush opposed the bill as it would "limit our options and restrict
our ability to deal with a difficult and dangerous regional situation at a
particularly critical juncture."

These developments coincided with a new Syrian approach toward Baghdad.
While Damascus was not expected to retract its public opposition to external
attempts at regime change, the Syrians nevertheless stressed that Baghdad
must implement UN Security Council resolutions. In other words, should a new
resolution be issued by the Security Council, it would be very difficult for
Syria to stand against it - especially since Syria has been insisting for a
long time that Israel implement Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and
return the Golan Heights. Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said last week:
"We should not provide the pretext for attacking Iraq. Iraq must implement
all relevant Security Council resolutions and allow weapons inspectors back
unconditionally in the context of a program designed to solve the dispute
between Baghdad and the United Nations and lift the economic sanctions
imposed on the Iraqi people." Whether these new positions came about as a
result of direct negotiations or through political calculation, they show
that each side has started to take the interests of the other into
consideration.

Syria realizes the US is determined to attack Iraq and it can do nothing to
deter that. However, Damascus will do its best to minimize Iraqi losses and
will work hard to prevent the fragmentation of Iraq and the possibility of
an independent Kurdish state in the north. The Syrians are anxious to
minimize the fallout of having a pro-American regime on their eastern flank.
Syria is worried about being hemmed in by pro-American states.

For its part, Washington realizes that having a stable, secular Syria is
critical to American interests in the Middle East. That is why the US will
not object to the continuation of some form of economic cooperation between
Damascus and Baghdad. Washington will also continue to support the Syrian
role in Lebanon, and will "work hard to achieve a settlement on all peace
tracks according to UN resolutions 242 and 338."

(Ibrahim Hamidi is a Damascus-based journalist specialized in Syrian current
affairs. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star)


http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=10/3/02&Cat=2&Num=12

*  IRAN AND KUWAIT SIGN MOU FOR MILITARY COOPERATION
Tehran Times, 3rd October

TEHRAN -- Iran and Kuwait here Wednesday signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) for military cooperation as Kuwaiti Defense Minister
Sheikh Jaber Mubarak al Hamad wound up a four-day visit to the Islamic
Republic.

In the memorandum, which was singed by Hamad and his Iranian counterpart
Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, the two sides called for exchange of views among
defense officials of the two Persian Gulf states on defense and security
issues in the region and the world.

Shamkhani hailed the agreement as a "turning point" in defense ties of the
Islamic Republic with littoral states of the Persian Gulf and an
"achievement" for the country in its "constructive cooperation" with members
of the (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council.

"The signing of this Memorandum of Understanding is a suitable pattern for
strengthening and expansion of constructive defense and security cooperation
in the region," he added.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has now put behind with success its
trust-building efforts with regional countries and entered a new stage to
expand a model for regional cooperation," Shamkhani went on to say.

Hamad arrived here at the head of a delegation on Sunday to strengthen
relations with the Islamic Republic and reach mutual understanding on
political, defense and security issues'.

He met with several Iranian officials, including President Mohammad Khatami,
Head of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as well as Secretary
of the Supreme National Security Council Hassan Rowhani and Foreign Minister
Kamal Kharrazi.

The two sides reiterated their opposition to a possible U.S. attack on Iraq
and called on Baghdad to cooperate with UN arms inspectors. Iran came under
Iraqi invasion in 1980, which sparked the two neighboring country's
eight-year war.

Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 before being evicted by a U.S.-led coalition.

President Khatami in the meeting underlined the importance of safeguarding
the region's security and stability. He also stressed Tehran's policy of
détente, friendship and non interference in the affairs of other states.

Khatami said Iran's defense and security cooperation with regional countries
does not threaten any country, IRNA reported.

Hamad also visited several defense industry units of Iran. He was seen off
by Shamkhani on Wednesday morning to return home.

The Kuwaiti minister's visit to the Islamic Republic came in response to
Shamkhani's trip to that country in May.


MILITARY MATTERS

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/28/1032734373216.html

*  IRAQI SITES TARGETED IN AIR RAIDS
Sydney Morning Herald, 28th September

US and British jets bombed two Iraqi surface-to-air missile sites south of
Baghdad after Iraqi forces fired on allied aircraft, the Pentagon said
yesterday.

In Baghdad, an Iraqi military spokesman said the targets attacked were
civilian and that one civilian was hurt.

The US Defence Department said the planes hit targets near Qalat Sikur,
about 200km south-east of Baghdad.

The jets opened fire in response to Iraqi firing at allied aircraft
monitoring one of the two so called no-fly zones imposed on the country
after the 1991 Gulf War, the Pentagon's Lieutenant-Colonel Dave Lapan said.

"On an almost daily basis, our aircraft are fired at by the Iraqis. Every
time we fly we get shot at," he said.

The Pentagon said the latest attacks by US and British warplanes brought to
32 the number of strikes in Iraq's southern zone this year. There have been
10 strikes in the north.

The Iraqi military spokesman said in a statement published by the official
Iraqi News Agency: "'The hostile planes attacked our service and civilian
installations in Dhi qar province and al Rifa'i district, hurting one
civilian."

The spokesman added that Iraq's defences fired at the planes, which returned
to their Kuwait bases.


http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=15929874&template=baghdad/indexsea
rch.txt&index=recent

*  U.S. FORCES BUILDING UP AROUND IRAQ
The Associated Press, 29th September

[.....]

Along the featureless, rolling desert that is shared by Kuwait and Iraq as a
border, unarmed U.N. monitors stand guard in a 10-mile-wide demilitarized
zone. An electric fence and anti tank trenches mark it, but there's little
to slow an invading force.

Experts differ on the number of troops needed to invade Iraq ‹ estimates
vary from 50,000 to 350,000, depending on the strategy. Deployments already
planned would bring the number of troops in the region to near 50,000 by
November, which coincides with a U.S. proposed deadline for Iraq to comply
with U.N. resolutions.

U.S. military personnel, with their close-cropped hair, military-issue
luggage and incongruous civilian clothes, are already in hotels in Bahrain,
Qatar and Kuwait.

F-16 fighter jets roar over Qatar's capital, Doha, and vans full of troops
shuttle between the 5th Fleet's headquarters in Juffair, Bahrain, and the
international airport, where the U.S. Navy maintains a special terminal for
aircraft that fly to the USS Abraham Lincoln and other regional bases.

The aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman, leading a third battle group, is
scheduled to be within striking distance of Iraq in November to replace the
USS George Washington battle group, Pentagon officials say, bringing the
total U.S. naval forces in the area to more than 20,000 sailors and 255
aircraft.

The Marines, in Kuwait for the ``Eager Mace'' exercise, make up the 11th
Marine Expeditionary Unit, an amphibious invasion force of 2,200 troops. A
similar force accompanies most carrier battle groups, meaning 6,600 Marines
will be in the region in November.

The U.S. Air Force keeps 6,000 personnel and an undisclosed number of planes
at Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base; 1,700 troops at Incirlik, Turkey;
and 3,300 at the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, currently home to refueling
planes. Several thousand more U.S. Air Force members operate from two air
bases in Kuwait and hundreds of ground support workers are in the United
Arab Emirates and Oman.

Part of the 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division from Fort Benning is wrapping
up a routine six-month tour as Kuwait's defenders, waiting to be relieved in
November by the 2nd Brigade from Fort Stewart, Ga., a Central Command
spokesman said. A typical armored infantry brigade numbers between 2,500 and
3,000 troops.

The Fort Benning troops, like the USS George Washington battle group's
sailors, could have their stay extended, military spokesmen said.

Tanks and armored personnel carriers for another brigade sit ready at Camp
Snoopy in Qatar and the U.S. Military Sealift Command recently hired cargo
shops to carry more combat equipment to the region.

Apart from Djibouti, where U.S. special operations forces have set up a
base, residents of Eritrea have reported U.S.-financed construction at
former Soviet air and naval bases in their country on the Red Sea.

Sitting at a Starbucks in Kuwait City, Abdullah al-Mutairi said he thinks
war is inevitable and necessary.

``Kuwait has a lot to lose from a war and Kuwait has a lot to lose if Saddam
stays in power,'' al-Mutairi said. ``It is better we choose war than to
continue to live in fear.''


http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=15929873&template=baghdad/indexsea
rch.txt&index=recent

*  COALITION FORCES HIT IRAQI RADAR
The Associated Press, 29th September

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) ‹ Coalition aircraft patrolling Iraq's southern
``no-fly'' zone struck a mobile radar installation near Basra Sunday, along
with a missile site in Qalat Sikur.

A spokesman for Iraq's Ministry of Transport and Communications said the
attack in Basra happened at 12:45 a.m.

An official Radio Baghdad announcement did not mention casualties. It said
the strike further damaged buildings at the airport 330 miles south of
Baghdad.

A spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said coalition
aircraft monitoring the southern ``no-fly'' zone used precision-guided
weapons to strike a military mobile radar near Basra and a surface-to-air
missile site near Qalat Sikur in Nassirya province, 130 miles south of
Baghdad.

Asked whether the missile site was near the Basra airport, Air Force Maj.
Bill Harrison said he didn't know, but said coalition aircraft never target
civilian populations or infrastructure.

The past week has been a heavy one for U.S. strikes on Iraq as part of
routine patrols of the so-called no-fly zones, as global debate heightens
over U.S. threats to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for allegedly
stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorists.

The standoff has focused new attention on patrols by U.S. and British
warplanes over swaths of southern and northern Iraq declared off-limits to
the Iraqi military since shortly after the 1991 Gulf War to protect restive
Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis.

Last week, allied aircraft enforcing the southern ``no-fly'' zone hit eight
targets, including the Basra airport on Sept. 26. The United States said it
targeted a mobile air defense radar system at the airport, which it says has
military and civilian uses. Iraq says the airport is civilian. Officials
repeatedly have charged that Saddam moves military equipment to nonmilitary
sites in hopes coalition forces will not strike for fear of injuring
civilians.

[.....]


http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/international/ap_brit10022002.htm

*  U.S.-BRITISH AIRSTRIKE HITS IRAQ MILITARY FACILITY IN NO-FLY ZONE
Boston Herald, from Associated Press, 2nd October

WASHINGTON - Allied aircraft launched an airstrike in the southern no-fly
zone over Iraq after Iraqi aircraft penetrated the restricted area, defense
officials said Wednesday.

It brought to 45 the number of strikes reported this year by the United
States and the United Kingdom coalition put together to patrol zones set up
to protect Iraqi minorities following the 1991 Gulf War.

"They placed a mobile radar south of the 33rd parallel," the boundary for
the southern zone, said Navy Commander Frank Merriman, spokesman for Central
Command in Tampa, Fla. "And they flew military aircraft into the zone."

He declined to say how many Iraqi aircraft.

Coalition planes responded, targeting precision-guided weapons at the radar
at Al Kut, some 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, at 5 p.m. EDT Tuesday, a
statement from the command said.

It was the sixth time in a month that coalition aircraft have struck at Al
Kut, targeting it also on Aug. 29 and 30 and Sept. 5, 7 and 9. Pentagon
officials said Iraqis keep moving mobileradar equipment to the area.

The amount of any damage from Tuesday's strike was unknown because
assessment was still under way.

Tuesday's strike was in the southern zone, set up to protect Shiite Muslims,
and it was the 35th one in the zone this year. In the northern zone, set up
to protect Kurds, there have been 10 this year. Both groups were given
protection after unsuccessfully revolting against the regime of Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein.

[.....]


http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/03/iraq.usa.carriers.reut/index.html

*  FOUR U.S. CARRIERS CLOSING IN ON IRAQ
CNN, 3rd October

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- As many as four U.S. aircraft carriers are expected
to be within striking distance of Iraq by the end of December, Navy
officials said on Thursday, marking what may be the earliest possible moment
for a full-scale U.S.-led attack.

Two carriers and their battle groups are in the region, the Navy said. They
are the George Washington, which deployed on June 20 and is in or near the
Mediterranean, and the Lincoln, which got under way on July 24 and was in
the Gulf this week.

Scheduled to relieve them are the Constellation, due to leave the U.S. West
Coast next month, and the Harry S. Truman, due to ship from the East Coast
in December, officials said.

The four battle groups would bring together as many as 250 precision strike
aircraft and more than 2,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles -- assuming the
nuclear-powered Washington, homeported in Norfolk, Virginia, and the
Lincoln, based in Everett, Washington, stayed on beyond their normal
six-month cruises.

"I cannot see a full-scale invasion happening until the critical addition of
a couple more carrier battle groups to the regional force structure," said
retired Rear Adm. Stephen Baker, former chief of staff for the U.S. Central
Command's naval forces.

The carriers are accompanied by destroyers, cruisers and submarines capable
of firing Tomahawks, the Navy's land-attack weapon of choice.

On October 7, 2001, Tomahawks were fired at Taliban and al Qaeda targets
more than 500 miles (800 km) away from Los Angeles-class attack submarines
and Aegis guided-missile cruisers and destroyers in the first phase of the
U.S. war on terror sparked by the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United
States.

A fifth carrier, the San Diego, California-based Nimitz, could also be in
the Gulf region by late December, said Patrick Garrett, who has been
tracking U.S. deployments for GlobalSecurity.org, a research group in
Alexandria, Virginia.

And a sixth, the Yokosuka, Japan-based Kitty Hawk, also would be available
to be sent there by the end of the year, he said.

Multiple battle groups in the region could be essential at a time that Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf states may remain loathe to let the United States use
their soil to launch a war unless it is authorized by the United Nations.

"The carriers provide virtually unfettered operational capabilities," said
Scott Truver, who has studied the issue for decades and is now vice
president for national security studies at Anteon Corp., a Fairfax,
Virginia, defense contractor.

Another prerequisite is large-scale deployment of land-based fighter
aircraft and bombers, said Baker, who served during the 1991 Gulf War as
chief of staff for operations and plans for the Theodore Roosevelt battle
group and is now with the private Center for Defense Information.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that five aircraft
carrier battle groups would be used in a "Heavy Air Option" against Iraq
costing about $9 billion above that budgeted for routine operations. Such a
force likely would also include two and one-third Army divisions, 10 Air
Force tactical air wings and about one-third of a Marine expeditionary
force, the nonpartisan budget office said.

By contrast, it said six carrier battle groups had taken part in Desert
Storm, the 1991 U.S. led war that drove Iraq from Kuwait. But Truver, the
aircraft carrier expert, said he understood that no more than four carriers
had been engaged in Desert Storm at any one time.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2002/oct/03/100300301.html

*  ALLIES DROP LEAFLETS WARNING IRAQIS
by Pauline Jelinek
Las Vegas Sun, 3rd October

WASHINGTON (AP): In a direct message to Iraqi troops, allied forces on
Thursday dropped thousands of leaflets over the southern no-fly zone in Iraq
warning gunners to stop firing on U.S. and British patrol planes.

Iraqi forces responded by firing on aircraft delivering the leaflets. That
led allied forces to bomb an air defense operations center, U.S. Central
Command officials said.

The leaflet drop was the first known direct warning from the Pentagon to
Iraq's military rank and file in the Bush administration's campaign to
topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Defense officials said it was not directly related to another leaflet effort
in which the Pentagon plans to warn Iraqi officers against firing chemical
or biological weapons in the event of U.S. military action to remove Saddam.

The allied retaliation brought to 46 the number of "strike days" reported
this year by the coalition force that patrols zones set up to protect Iraqi
minorities following the 1991 Gulf War. On some days, more than one area is
bombed.

Defense officials said coalition aircraft dropped 120,000 leaflets depicting
a jet bombing a missile launcher and a radar site with the message: "Iraqi
ADA (air defense artillery) Beware! Don't track or fire on coalition
aircraft!"

The back side of the leaflet had another message. "The destruction
experienced by your colleagues in other air defense locations is a response
to your continuing aggression toward planes of the coalition forces,"
leaflets written in Arabic said.

"No tracking or firing on these aircraft will be tolerated. You could be
next," said an English translation released by defense officials.

"We were telling them 'Don't shoot at us or we'll shoot back,'" said Navy
Commander Frank Merriman, a spokesman for Central Command in Tampa, Fla.
"And they were shooting at that aircraft that was dropping the leaflets."

He said a similar leaflet drop was done in October 2001 to try to halt the
firing on patrol planes. That effort was not publicly disclosed until
Thursday.

Another defense official said Thursday's action was not related to any
possible war with Iraq, portraying it as done periodically to remind Iraqi
gunners that they target coalition planes at their peril.

Central Command said the strike came after Iraq air defenses fired
anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft.

The planes used precision-guided weapons against the operations center and
air defense headquarters for the sector near Tallil, about 160 miles
southeast of Baghdad, according to a Central Command statement. There was no
immediate damage assessment.

[.....]


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021003/ts_nm/iraq_usa_at
tack_dc_5

*  US STRIKES SOUTHERN IRAQ AIR DEFENSE CENTER
Yahoo, 3rd October

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. and British warplanes patrolling a "no-fly" zone
over southern Iraq attacked an Iraqi military air defense center southeast
of Baghdad on Thursday, the U.S. military said.

The strike was launched at 4:30 a.m. EDT (0830 GMT) and at 12:30 p.m. in
Iraq against an air defense and operations center near Tallil, about 160
miles southeast of Baghdad, the U.S. Central Command said in a release from
its Tampa, Florida, headquarters.

The command said the strike was in response to attempts to shoot down the
warplanes with both anti-aircraft missiles and artillery.

A Pentagon spokesman said the target was a military communications hub for
radar surveillance and anti-aircraft missile sites in the southern no-fly
zone.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters last week that he had
ordered U.S. aircraft to strike at more "fixed" air defense targets such as
buildings and command and control centers in response to attempts to shoot
down the patrolling American and British jets.

There have now been 46 strikes this year by U.S. and British aircraft
policing two no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq set up after the
1991 Gulf War. Thirty-six of those have come in the southern zone.

The frequency of the air strikes against Iraq has fluctuated over the decade
since the Gulf War, but they have increased sharply in recent months as
speculation has grown that President Bush might order an invasion to oust
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whom Washington accuses of developing
weapons of mass destruction.

The no-fly zones, which Baghdad does not recognize, were imposed to protect
a Kurdish enclave in the north and Shi'ite Muslims in the south from
possible attacks by the Iraqi government.

"Today's strike came after Iraqi air defenses fired anti-aircraft artillery
and surface-to-air missiles at Coalition aircraft in the Southern No-Fly
Zone," the Florida-based Central Command said in a statement.

"Coalition strikes in the no-fly zones are executed as a self-defense
measure in response to Iraqi hostile threats and acts against coalition
forces and their aircraft."

The last strike in the southern no-fly zone was against a military mobile
radar near Al Kut on Tuesday.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_77581,0005.htm

*  5 IRAQIS KILLED IN US-BRITISH RAIDS
Hindustani Times, 4th October

Five Iraqi civilians were killed and 11 others wounded when US and British
warplanes bombed southern Iraq on Thursday, an Iraqi military spokesman
said, quoted by the official INA news agency.

"Enemy warplanes bombed civilian installations in the town of Nassiriyah,
375 kilometers south of Baghdad, killing five Iraqi civilians and wounding
11 others," the spokesman said.

He claimed surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft batteries had forced
the "enemy warplanes to flee to their base in Kuwait," and that the US and
British aircraft had conducted 55 raids over 18 areas in the south of the
country during the day.

The US military said earlier that US and British warplanes struck in
southern Iraq today after an aircraft came under fire as it dropped leaflets
on Iraqi air defence positions warning gunners not to fire on coalition
aircraft or "You could be next."

Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Dan Hetlage said US and British planes
attacked an Iraqi air defense headquarters and operations center which was
believed to be the source of the fire.

With the United States also stepping up pressure for a renewed international
campaign against Iraq, the raid was near Tallil, about 250 kilometers
southeast of Baghdad, he said.

"The air strike was in retaliation for shooting at the aircraft dropping the
leaflets that say don't shoot at us," Hetlage said.


NORTHERN IRAQ/SOUTHERN KURDISTAN

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1031119899987&p=1012571727172

*  RIVAL FACTIONS SEEK COMMON GROUND
by Guy Dinmore in Arbil, Iraq, and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
Financial Times, 30th September

For the first time in eight years, Iraq's rival Kurdish factions will today
hold a joint session of parliament as they search for a united strategy
ahead of an expected US-led military overthrow of Saddam Hussein's
government in Baghdad.

The meeting of the National Assembly in Arbil in northern Iraq, just 10km
from the front line with Iraqi forces, follows concerted pressure from the
US administration on the Kurds to bury their differences and establish their
democratic credentials.

The parliament has not met in full session since 1994, when fighting erupted
between the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdish Democratic
party (KDP), leading to their territorial division of the north.

Jalal Talabani, the PUK leader, is expected to leave his stronghold in
Sulaimani to return to Arbil for a ceremonial opening jointly hosted by his
old rival, Masoud Barzani of the KDP.

"This is a major milestone in the reconciliation process between the KDP and
PUK," Fawzi Hariri, a KDP spokesman, said. Iraq's neighbours, though no
friends of the Baghdad regime, are less than enthusiastic, however.

In Tehran, an Iranian government spokesman said that the meeting was a "very
domestic issue for Iraq" and that Iran had declined an invitation to attend
as a guest. Turkey and Syria are also expected to stay away.

The three neighbouring countries, with substantial Kurdish minorities of
their own, have no desire to promote a process they suspect will eventually
lead to a bid by the Iraqi Kurds to set up an independent state.

High on the agenda for the Kurdish parliament is a joint proposal to
establish a federal Iraqi state, divided between Kurds and Arabs, once Mr
Hussein is removed.

Many Kurds are sceptical, however, that the two veteran Kurdish leaders will
be able to settle serious issues, such as unification of their separate
administrations and the sharing of revenues.

Today's meeting of all 105 members of parliament follows heightened tension
just to the south of Arbil. Three weeks ago observers reported a heavy
build-up of Iraqi armour, tank barrels pointed to the north. Some have since
withdrawn.

But with Arbil lying north of the 36th parallel and protected by a US- and
UK-imposed no fly zone, Kurds appear confident that Baghdad will not
intervene and repeat the events of 1991, when a Kurdish uprising was put
down with huge loss of life and the flight of 1.5m refugees.

Although the main Kurdish factions have bent to US pressure, there is little
sign that the Bush administration plans to use the 30,000 or so combined
Kurdish troops to act as a ground force in the event of an assault on the
Baghdad regime.

Diplomats say the US has no wish to see the Kurds move just a short distance
south and take the oil-rich towns of Mosul and Kirkuk. Nonetheless, there
are indications that the Kurds will attempt to do just that if they can
reach a power-sharing agreement.

This in turn has prompted widespread speculation in Arbil that Turkish
government forces would intervene to secure Mosul, which historically has
had a large Turkmen population. Turkish troops already have bases just
inside northern Iraq and support from proxy Turkman forces in Arbil.

"The battle for Kirkuk will be no less bloody than the war in Baghdad,"
commented an Iranian analyst in Tehran with close ties to the government.
Iran's defence minister has stated, however, that Iranian forces have no
intention of crossing the border, which would risk US retaliation.

The parliamentary building in Arbil has been spruced up with fresh coats of
paint and new panes of glass. Yellow ribbons were cut yesterday to celebrate
the inauguration of a closed circuit television system and the broadcasting
of proceedings.

As one delegate commented: "We are waiting, like everyone else, for the
attack on Baghdad. It's not in our interests to have an independent state
now. Everyone around us is terrified of that. But who knows in the future?"


http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1076

*  THE DILEMMA OF THE ANTI-WAR SIDE: LACKING CLEAR OBJECTIVES
by Rebwar Rashed
KurdishMedia.com, 3rd October

During the last couple of years one can see a growing activity against a
possible US strike on the Iraqi regime. Two different arguments are mainly
put forward. The first one is economical and the second is humanitarian.

When it comes to the economical argument the Anti-War side explains that
they have an anti imperialistic political view. They see the US as an
expansionist superpower, which seeks to open up new markets with through
military force, that the argument US does not care about the human suffering
and loss and that the US is only concerned with its short and long term
interests. They also argue that a universal moral value does not have a
place on the US political agenda.

"Machivellian" in short could be a definition of the current US policy
towards the rest of the world, according to the argument.

When it comes to the humanitarian argument, the anti-war side, which I
preferably would call an "interest group", claims that a war against Saddam
Hussein (most of them see it as a war against the Iraqi people) will for
sure results in high casualties among the Iraqi population. Those casualties
usually being children, women and elderly.

Due to those two major reasons there should not be a war against Iraq, they
argue.

As an Iraqi person, who never had the right to be or to count as an Iraqi by
the Iraqi regime, I am obliged to present the situation from a different
point of view. That view I believe is shared by the majority of Iraqi people
be in the Diaspora or at home.

It is quite strange that the Anti-war interest group never does care about
the status quo of the current political situation in the Middle East.
Therefore, in trying to remind them of some points which they should know, I
will summarize my points:

1. Every single state in the Middle East is either fascist, totalitarian or
a military democracy. Some times they are a fusion of all these. That means
that they have/are killed(ing), imprisoned(ing), persecuted(ing) their "own
citizens" (the word "own citizens" is politically and socially inhumane. I
will explain that later on). They are corrupted and criminal.

2. Every single of these States are guilty of at least (a -one) genocide
against a smaller nation within their territory.

3. No "minority" enjoys universal human rights, national or democratic
rights within these States. The "minorities" are usually seen and treated as
criminals or potential criminals.

4. In most of these States there is a "dynastic" system of coming to power.
The feudal principles of consuming, sharing, using and grabbing power are
almost practises on daily basis.

5. None of these countries spend a fair amount of their national income in
the public sector, civil industry, public services and so on. The major
expenditures are used to buy military equipment, devices and weapons of mass
destruction, modernising the army, building military loyalty etc.

6. Most of them have been, at least once, in an expansionist war against its
neighbour.

7. In our example, which is Iraq, I believe that there is not a single soul,
who can talk about human dignity and value and can deny the reality that
Saddam Hussein's regime is one of the most brutal regimes the world has seen
since the Second World War. We do not need to write a list.

Since the overthrow of the corrupt Iraqi monarchy, which the British gave to
the people of the newly established Iraqi State, as a semi post colonial
present, the Iraqis (Arabs in the south and Kurds in Kurdistan) have been
fighting this brutal regime. Thus the war for emancipation and national
independence is not really new and did not start with the US conflict.

The political must-to-do in the globalisation area, as I believe, is that
the economical changes enforce political changes. In other words, you cannot
let literally crazy dictators have access to weapons of mass destruction.

Somebody, and obviously with a political and a military capacity, must be
able to set a line and to show that the international community cannot
accept anarchy in the international political system. The lack of
homogeneity in the international sphere makes it difficult for a pan-front
answer to dangers that face the world. For instance, countries like Russia
and France are against a military attack only because they can lose the debt
money that they have given the Iraqi regime in form of weapons, and a regime
change in Iraqi could, if not would, jeopardise their national interests in
Iraq.

China is a country that has very beneficial interests with the Iraqi regime.
China is a communist dictator with grave violations of human rights, rights
of minorities and helping scoundrel states to get weapons of mass
destruction. These three countries in fact has been the first enemy of the
Iraqi people. They have unconditionally helped and assisted the Iraqi regime
to remain in power without taking the smallest note of how the Arab and
Kurdish nations are living.

These three countries, which unfortunately, the Anti-War side (or most of
them) prizes, are indeed assisting the Iraqi regime in killing the Iraqi
people.

Now, I am not saying or suggesting that the US differ principally from these
countries (I see of course the US government as more democratic, open and
frank than Russia and China. France has never been a better colonial power
than the US, so to speak) but the fellow protesters of the Anti-War must
understand that if they are protesting against a war, that should include
the War which the regime of Saddam Hussein has waged against the nations in
Iraq. They must, the way I see it, explain why they have been quiet all
those years when the Iraqi regime was killing millions in Iraq. In which way
could they help the Iraqi people to get rid of the Iraqi regime, which has
always been supported by countries that does not care about the Iraqi
people?

There are Europeans who say that if western democracies help a rebellion by
the Iraqi people that would lessen the probability of Arab states feeling
obliged to rush to Saddam's defence.

These Arab states are themselves a bunch of dictators and corrupt regimes,
which always support each other against their own citizens. There is not a
single Arabic state, which in practice would not constitute a problem for
the US. They only shout to pretend that they make noises. These are only
noises.

The Arab masses have not a clue about the fact that Saddam and his regime is
a slaughter machine.

The Iraqi people will definitely be librated if a war against the Iraqi
regime becomes a reality.

My fellow protesters, the European daydreamers of peace, must know that Iraq
is already a country in massive debts to Eastern and Western European
states. It does absolutely not matter if the US comes into the picture.

We have not only a possibility, but a golden possibility, to be able to
chose a democratic elected government and truly national assemblies in a
federal democratic state which could in turn see that the Kurdish nation has
all its rights in heaven to go its own way and choose it is own destiny.

In 3 days, on October the 4th, the Kurdistan national Assembly opens its
gates to a new era in the history of the people of Kurdistan.

That is not just good for the Kurdish nation; it is an enormous chance for
the Arab nation in Iraq to use the recent political experiences of Kurdish
nation, to unite them, to believe in democracy as a tool for governance and
representation.

I believe that it is a crucial moment for my fellow protesters, the spirited
Anti-War warriors, which look like lost souls, to help, assist, support the
Kurdistan Regional Government in every manner they can.

Help the Iraqi people, Arab and Kurdish nation, to organise themselves, to
get political and military tools to defend and protect themselves, to get
logistic and humanitarian support so they can plan for a new era for the
people of Iraq.

The US has for sure its own special interests (and who doesn't?) but we all
can make it better in that way that all of us makes the war a war against
the regime of Iraq while trying to lose as less lives as possible.

Saddam Hussein's regime, and many others in the area, are already belonging
to the lost ones, they are already the losing horses. Nobody should bet on
them.

Note

The words "own citizens" is politically and socially inhumane if and when
used to refer, for instance, to describe the Iraqi people and especially the
Kurdish nation, according to my political view, and that is due to two
reasons: Firstly, a human being is a "citizen" of a country at least when
his/her democratic rights and duties are constitutionally and legislatively
guaranteed. By that I mean the Citizenship should be a free choice of being
a member of a society and not a forced identity, which is only considered as
"obligations".

Secondly, In Iraq the word "citizen" is a political package that consists of
only "duties" and "obligations". and that belongs to a tradition which
begins from the early days of the Ottoman Turks down to Arabic regimes in
the area. The "Citizen" was a property "slave" belonging to the Sultan.
Saddam Hussien is not just useing that political tradition, but also has
managed to deepen it. The "Citizen" is a Slave Solder which only must follow
orders.




_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk