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, 18-25/5/02 (titles)

News, 18-25/5/02 (titles)

This week has seen President Bush¹s visit to Europe overshadowed by what
looks like a minor revolt on the part of the American military leadership
against the idea of a war on Iraq. Some of the reasons look unconvncing. Its
difficult to believe that the mighty US military machine really is
overstretched by hanging around in Afghanistan and Bosnia and chasing a
couple of hundred bandits in the Philippines. Recommended articles this
week: ŒAmerica the Fearful¹ and Robert Fisk¹s ŒThere is a firestorm coming
...¹ both under New World Order.


*  US may attack Iraq with Kurds' assistance [Curious French prediction that
the US will attack but may not win. Also claims that the US have been
Œnurturing¹ Kurdish forces. The Kurds of course have their own well
established military tradition but my impression is that over the past ten
years this has been discouraged rather than nurtured. Simply put, what
access do they have to arms and training?]
*  Toll could be high in Iraq strike [The New York Times argues that
possession of chemical and biological weapons is a necessary prerequisite
for any country that wishes to maintain its national sovereignty in the face
of possible US aggression: "Without question, it's the toughest nut to
*  U.S. military action to oust Saddam reportedly on hold [This widely
diffused article states very bluntly that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are
opposed to a war on Iraq and even that the term ŒIraq hysteria¹is current
among them.]
*  Iraq invasion would be error to rival Hitler's attack on Russia
[according to British general, Sir Michael Rose]
*  Bush backs off Iraq invasion

URL ONLY:,,3-306696,00.html
*  Pentagon retreats from plan to attack Baghdad
by Giles Whittell
The Times, 25th May


*  Thousands join anti-war protests
*  Bush Urges Europe to Deal With Saddam [This article suggests a rather col
recep[tion for Bush in the Reichstag. In contrast to the headline in The
Washington Times, which read: ŒIn Berlin, stunned applause¹ -]
*  U.S., Russia Sign Landmark Treaty [Includes the following surprising
statement from Bush, supposedly giving the Russians advice over Chechnya:
"The experience in Afghanistan has taught us all that there are lessons to
be learned about how to protect one's homeland and, at the same time, be
respectful on the battlefield."]
*  Tough talk from Bush on eve of summit [Extract on reasons for Russian
reserve with regard to the ŒAxis of Evil¹ rhetoric.]


*  Iraq blames Iran for failure to resume air link
*  Kuwait says Iraq not cooperating on POWs
*  Rafsanjani Blasts Western Policies Towards Iraq
*  MKO angrily denies US charges on Iraq links [Here is an interesting
point. Are the Mujaheedin al-Khalq Œterrorists¹ because they launch
guerrilla attacks in Iran? or only when they do such things at the behest of
the government of Iraq? Were the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan
*  Iranian rebels in quandary [More of the same]


*  US Plane Attacks Iraqi Air Defense
*  4 Hurt in U.S. Air Attack on South, Baghdad Says
*  Danger looms in Iraq no-fly zone
*  4 U.S. planes attack 2 Iraqi weapons sites with missiles

AND, IN NEWS, 18-25/5/02  (2)


*  America the fearful [Excellent article on the culture of fear currently
being cultivated by the US government: ŒThe destruction of the twin towers
shows that there are things to be afraid of, but our government's mad
responses are making us more vulnerable to such things, not less.¹]
*  Iran, not Iraq, cited as top terror sponsor [State Department report on
terrorism. Includes the curious statistic that: Œthe number of terrorist
attacks declined in 2001. There were 346, compared with 426 in 2000. And
more than half of the year's attacks were on an oil pipeline in Colombia ‹
not in the volatile Middle East or troubled South Asia.¹. It leaves us very
curious to know how the term Œterrorist attack¹ is defined. For example: why
should an attack on an oil pipeline be regarded as Œterrorist¹? And why
should the bombing of Afghanistan not be regarded as terrorist?]
* The schizophrenic Russian-Iranian nexus [Long, interesting article on
Russian-Iranian relations. Only an extract, on the dispute over oil
production in the Caspian Sea is given here, unbalancing the article
somewhat since the rest of it is on reasons for Russian/Iranian friendship
and cooperation.]
*  US "planned to attack Iran in 2003" : Mohsen Rezai
*  Iran Diary, Part 1: Sea of peace or lake of trouble? [Iraq isn¹t
mentioned in this article, but its Pepe Escobar on oil politics (in the
Caspian) so in it goes.]
*  IRAN DIARY, Part 1: Sea of peace or lake of trouble? [Pepe Escobar meets
the Grand Ayatollah Sannei in the Holy City of Qom. Sannei tells him that
all human rights are guaranteed under Islamic law. So that¹s OK.]
*  Time to end cold war with Cuba [Well deserved praise for Jimmy Carter and
his visit to Cuba and equally well deserved scorn for the present
administration¹s attempt to trash it by suggesting that because the Cubans
have developed an impressive pharmaceutical industry they¹re probably
manufacturing chemical weapons, and probably selling thm to terrorists.
Though a little unfair to blame the Cuban government for the country¹s
poverty when they¹ve been subjected to US embargo for 40 years ...]
*  There is a firestorm coming, and it is being provoked by Mr Bush [Robert
Fisk on the general none too encouraging state of the world]

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]