Viewpoint: Globalists push for Iraq invasion

Viewpoint: Globalists push for Iraq invasion

By Joe Baker

By Joe Baker

Senior Editor

Despite administration statements to the contrary, it appears the die has been cast in favor of attacking Iraq in the near future. The drums are being beaten loudest by members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which has many members in the government.

The CFR is a group that advocates and is dedicated to a one-world government.

In the current issue of CFR’s magazine, Foreign Affairs, Kenneth Pollack, deputy director for national security studies and former member of the National Security Council, writes: “The hawks are wrong to think the problem is desperately urgent or connected to terrorism, but they are right to see the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam as so worrisome that it requires drastic action. The United States should invade Iraq, eliminate the present regime, and pave the way for a successor prepared to abide by its international commitments and live in peace with its neighbors.”

Pollack said the reasons for taking such a drastic step have little or nothing to do with Sept. 11, but much to do with the course of American policy toward Iraq since 1991.

Gregory Gause III, writing in the same magazine in 1999, stated: “The United States … continues to support crippling economic sanctions on Iraq that have neither weakened Saddam’s hold on power nor prevented him from pursuing his weapons of mass destruction programs. They have, however, reduced the Iraqi people to penury.

“Most people live hand to mouth, relying on the inadequate rations provided by the U.N. “oil for food” program.” Commenting on the Clinton administration’s posture then of U.N. monitoring and a strong military threat, Gause wrote: “They have it backward. The United States should instead formulate a ‘take it or leave it’ proposal for Iraq, involving a substantial revision of the sanctions in exchange for the return of intrusive, on-the-ground inspections.”

The New York Times, in January 2001, quoted Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, to the effect that the U.S. likely would not attack Iraq in the next phase of the war on terror. Wolfowitz is a leading hawk in favor of attacking Iraq today. Several of our Arab and European allies had warned last year against any military action in that country.

Rep. Ron Paul, D-Texas, cautions against rushing into an attack on Iraq or any other country. He notes there is no hard evidence that Iraq had anything to do with Sept. 11 or that it has any weapons of mass destruction.

“Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States,” Paul said. “No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.”

Rep. Paul added: “Could it be that only through war and removal of certain governments, we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil, and have nothing to do with U.S. national security?

“Let it be clearly understood,” he said, “there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a declaration of war.”

As the Egyptian weekly, Al-Ahram pointed out, the recent missions of Vice-President Cheney and special envoy Anthony Zinni seemed somewhat at cross-purposes and in conflict with our allies in Europe and the Mideast. “For Bush,” said Al-Ahram, “the top priority is overthrowing Saddam. For the international community, it is putting an end to the violence in Palestine.”

That mission of Cheney’s was a failure. Arab nations rejected an invasion of Iraq; in fact, at the Arab summit, they embraced Iraq. But do we get the message?

We have certainly gotten millions of dollars for the weapons we sold to Iraq.

Progressive magazine, in April 1998, reported on then-President William Clinton railing against Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. The magazine observed that when it comes to WMDs, most Americans were ignorant of the fact that U.S. companies supplied Iraq with more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and various kinds of missiles, including the Scud.

A 1994 U.S. Senate report said American exports to Iraq included the precursors for chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical warhead-filling equipment.

Scott Ritter, former chief of the weapons inspection unit for the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, said: “It was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed. Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agents.”

The United States, however, has a vast arsenal of such weapons of mass destruction, and it has not hesitated to use some of them. Among the most serious threats to life in a large part of the Gulf region is depleted uranium. This material was contained in armor-piercing shells and ammunition used in Desert Storm.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a byproduct of uranium enrichment. It recycles deadly low-grade uranium and puts its high-density property to work. Once its protective coating is removed, DU is converted into microscopic, hard particles which can be inhaled, blown for miles or can remain on the ground for future dispersal by wind, water or human contact.

According to the International Action Center, an anti-DU group headed by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, between 300 and 800 tons of DU particles have been scattered over the soil and water in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. More than 940,000 30-millimeter, uranium-tipped bullets and more than 14,000 large-caliber DU rounds were fired during Operation Desert Storm, according to the Army’s Environmental Policy Institute.

As a result of this activity, hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers have suffered the effects of exposure to these weapons. Some 90,000 of the 697,000 U.S. troops who served in the Gulf have reported medical problems such as liver and kidney dysfunction, respiratory ailments, memory loss, fever, headaches and low blood pressure. Depleted uranium is a prime suspect in Gulf War Syndrome, but the government still refuses to admit any such possibility.

Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.4 billion years. These are highly toxic, radioactive weapons. They have taken a heavy toll on Iraq’s children. A strong increase in the rates of childhood leukemia and other rare cancers has been documented in southern Iraq. Since Desert Storm about 500,000 Iraqi children have died of these and other diseases linked to depleted uranium. Dr. Aws Albaiti, an Iraqi physician, said Iraqi children have experienced a 12-fold increase in leukemia and lymphomas.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright said U.S. policy makers believe the deaths “are worth it.”

The IAC says the Israelis have admitted using DU weapons in the past against the Palestinians. They also were used in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans, generating an outburst of anger from nations with troops participating in that conflict.

In the United States, in West Concord, Mass., a company called Starmet, one of two U.S. companies producing depleted uranium munitions, went bankrupt. They left behind a leaking, unlined pit in a residential neighborhood, containing 400,000 pounds of DU. It was buried there between 1958 and 1985. The cost of cleanup is estimated at $50 million.

Ramsey Clark declared: “Depleted uranium weapons are an unacceptable threat to life, a violation of international law and an assault on human dignity. To safeguard the future of humanity, we call for an unconditional international ban forbidding research, manufacture, testing, transportation, possession and use of DU for military purposes.”

Speaking of safeguards, this all leads up to the question, “Do we intend to wipe out another huge segment of the Iraqi population, and will we trade out Israel for Iraq?” That’s the only way we’ll get Arab support for an invasion of Iraq.

Enjoy The Rock River Times? Help spread the word!