From: sockz at email.com (sockz loves you)
Subject: (no subject)

in january this year, the Blair government was told by the United States that
the "war on terrorism" was not a justification for attacking iraq.  that the
main aim in iraq was replacing Saddam Hussein who "stood in the way of the
West's control of Middle Eastern oil wealth" 

on February 5, the New York Times stated: "The Central Intelligence Agency has
no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United
States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President
Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda." 

yet we're now hearing suddenly that not only is Saddam behind the sept 11
attacks, but that the US has been watching him since 1991?! what an insult to
the collective intelligence of society!!  its utter crap.  the US has had since
1993 to name the Iraqi govt as the source of the long-term plot against the
WTC.  if that were the case then why lie to the leaders of strategic coalition
allied nations earlier this year and all the times before now???

also recently, if youve been watching the news you would have heard that Iraq
can have nuclear weapons constructed in as little time as 3 months.  whether
this rumour originated in iraq or on capitol hill is another matter entirely.
seems rather convenient that this information should suddenly be released NOW,
just weeks before the november 6 elections.  to make matters more confusing,
if you look at rittler's speech at the july 23rd boston meeting, we see that
"they [iraq] would have to start from scratch because they don't have the
factories any more, because we destroyed them (including the research and
development plant).  If they tried that, the evidence is readily detectable.
The technology is available; if Iraq was producing chemical weapons today on
any meaningful scale, we would have definitive proof to show, plain and simple;
and there is none."

so, whats so special about those elections? well Bush needs a war against iraq
before then, because if you thought he had trouble getting support from europe
now, with the republicans out of congress (as seems to be the favourable odds),
he's just not going to get his war (as europe tends to favour the republicans).
and thats what he's pushing for right now.  anger against iraq. 

and in relation to these allegations, that iraq isn't complying with weapons
inspections?  thats bullshit too.  on July 23 this year, senior weapons
inspector for 7 years, Scott Ritter said: 

"There is no case for war.  I say that, not as a pacifist, or someone who is
afraid of war. I've been to war with the US Marine Corps.  Moreover, I'm a
card-carrying Republican, who voted for George W. Bush for president.  More
important, I believe in truth. 

"The UN weapons inspectors enjoyed tremendous success in Iraq.  By the end of
our job, we ascertained a 90-95 per cent level of disarmament.  Not because we
took at face value what the Iraqis said.  We went to Europe and scoured the
countries that sold technology to Iraq until we found the company that had an
invoice signed by an Iraqi official.  We cross-checked every piece of equipment
with serial numbers.  That's why I can say that Iraq was 90-95 per cent
disarmed.  We confirmed that 96 per cent of Iraq's 98 missiles were destroyed. 

"As for chemical weapons, even if Iraq had succeeded in hiding stocks of sarin
and tabun nerve agents, these chemicals have a shelf life of five years; after
that they deteriorate and become useless gunk." 

thats a long quote. but a very important one.  almost as important as the fact
that the problem of iraqi resistence in 1998 came from Clinton's demand that
iraq had to open up its palaces for inspection.  not only was this considered a
mass violation of iraq's symbols of soveriegnty, but it was also coupled by
allegations in the Washington Post (which were soon confirmed as truths by US
officials) that some of the American members of Unscom were spying for
Washington.  i'm sorry but that is certainly room for resistance, especially
given the history between iraq and america. neither side could be trusted at
that point. 

Bush and Blair seem very ready to demand that weapons inspectors be allowed to
return to iraq, but what they fail to mention is that those inspectors were
never thrown out or Iraq.  they were removed by the UN after it was found that
they were actually spying for the American govt.  and thats what really pisses
me off.

it also angers me how the world is so quick to forget the events of its most
recent history.  its a long line of events that simply DONT add up to the
allegations that are suddenly being made today. 

there's also all this talk by Bush & Blair of what's in the "regions best
interests" for iraq.  they seem to make their claims as though the region
really needs iraq to be overthrown.  though the reality couldn't be farther
from these claims. 

trade relations between iraq and the region are improving. iraq has agreed to
return kuwait's national archives, and to make efforts to uncover the truth
about 'missing people' from the war.  russia and iraq have recently signed
trade deals.  the common border between saudi arabia and iraq has been re-
opened.  syria and lebanon have fully restored their foreign relations with
iraq.  jordan and iraq also have good relations these days.

the only thing thats really disturbing the region is this constant unending
obsession the US & UK and their follow-alongs have with suddam hussein. 

and why? 

western control of oil resources.  and nothing more.  it's sickening. 

so, to summarise:

1. iraq wasn't behind september 11.  iraq has never supplied usama bin laden
   with nuclear or biological weapons, and the CIA knows this. 
2. US weapons inspectors weren't thrown out of iraq, they were removed because
   they were proven spies. 
3. the nuclear capacity of iraq is minimal.  no, they cant create nukes in just
   3 months.  and their army is no great threat either. 
4. bush & blair are only pushing for this war now because they need it now.  if
   we get past november 6 without a war, then we might be able to play it off
   for a while longer, hopefully for at least another 2 years. 
5. iraq is working to improve regional relations.  which is why few nations in
   the region want to take sides.


now you ask what all this has to do with you.  simply put, this is a call to
throw down your security-focussed ways and take up knowledge and power against
this movement to wage war against iraq.  this is an unjustified war.  a war
which will see the continued death of millions of innocent iraqis... to replace
the iraqi government would be to destroy the region further.  for those of you
who have intelligence on your side, i urge you to commit that intelligence
towards efforts to end this propaganda and hatred against iraq and the middle
east.  the lives of millions of innocents relies upon your ability to counter
this disinformation campaign undertaken by our governments in a collective
effort to gather support for war against iraq.

do not just sit there and say that you are not involved in this scheme somehow.
do not just sit there and say that your talent lies in looking for trivial bugs
in a system...  work which will be redundant in 3 months time.  do not just sit
there and say that you dont care.  take this opportunity to think for yourself,
to gather information, to gather the truth, and let the truth be known.
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Powered by blists - more mailing lists