ZGram - 1/8/2002 - "Just the Facts"

irimland@zundelsite.org irimland@zundelsite.org
Wed, 8 Jan 2003 18:30:53 -0800


ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

1/8/2002

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Today's ZGram is serious indeed:

{START]

Just the Facts
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

January 6, 2002

George W. Bush recently told American troops stationed at Fort Hood, 
TX, that the war he is about to send them to fight in Iraq will not 
be about conquering a nation, but about "liberating people." He 
failed to describe exactly how this will happen, as Iraq is a nation 
defined by religious and tribal schisms. 60% of the population is 
Shiite, 23% is Kurdish and the remaining 17% is made up of the Sunni 
tribes which gave birth to Saddam Hussein in the first place.

Strategically speaking, the Shiites cannot rule, because they are 
ideologically and theocratically aligned with the hard-line mullahs 
who control Iran. The Kurds cannot rule because Turkey will not allow 
it. If the Sunnis are allowed to control Iraq, the same tribal 
influences that molded Hussein will be present in whomever replaces 
him. The Sunnis control the Ba'ath Party, which in turn 
controls/represses the Shiites and the Kurds. None of this has 
anything to do with liberation or democracy. There is no way around 
it, either.

Stories are being floated in the international press indicating this 
push for war will be centered around a summertime engagement. This 
will be difficult in the extreme - the heat in Iraq is oppressive in 
the summer, and our troops will be expected to fight in MOPP gear 
(gasmasks and protective clothing) that will further exacerbate the 
man-killing temperatures. In fact, the months between April and 
August are brutal for soldiers and machines. February through March 
is mud season, making mechanized warfare extraordinarily difficult. 
The best window of opportunity falls between September and January.

Spokesmen from the Bush administration scoff at the dire American 
casualty predictions being spoken of regarding the impending attack. 
There were equally ominous predictions before the first Gulf War, and 
our total combat losses equaled 148 soldiers. No one seems willing to 
talk about the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who perished the 
last time around, nor will they quantify the expected civilian 
casualty rate for this engagement. That is because these same 
spokesmen refuse to acknowledge how this war is shaping up.

The last war was fought in the desert. This time, Hussein is 
preparing his troops and defenses for urban combat in the streets of 
Baghdad. All the super-technology in the world will not help us in a 
knife fight, and the five million civilians in that city will feel 
the hammer. American casualties in that kind of fighting will be 
significantly higher than anything the American populace is willing 
to accept, and the smashed bodies of Iraqi civilians will be 
broadcast via regional television to the entire Mideast. The 
detonation of rage from this, at home and abroad, will be 
unprecedented.

In all of these casualty discussions, little attention is paid to the 
tens of thousands of American soldiers who returned safe and sound 
from the first Gulf War, only to fall terribly ill soon after they 
got home. Dementia, joint pain, dizziness, fatigue, rashes, 
headaches, birth defects in their children, cancer, gaping brain 
lesions, Lou Gehrig's Disease and a host of other maladies came home 
with the troops, making their lives a living hell to this day.

These soldiers were exposed to ash and fumes from burning oil wells, 
depleted uranium from spent artillery and tank shells, pesticides 
used to beat back the insects, vaccines the military gave them to 
fight indigenous diseases, and the fallout from bombed chemical and 
biological weapons stockpiles. The Defense Department and Pentagon 
still refuse to acknowledge that connections between the war and 
their health have any credence, blaming the estimated 28% disability 
rate for Gulf War vets (160,000 out of 573,000 soldiers) on liberal 
policies of evaluating service-related injuries.

There are approximately 65,000 troops in the Gulf region today; 
another 25,000 will be shipped over in the next few weeks. If the war 
becomes a bloodbath in the streets of Baghdad, more will be needed. 
Considering the slow, brutal attrition rate suffered by the soldiers 
from the last war, it stands to reason that this war will inflict the 
same damage to our troops. Even if they survive the war, they stand 
at least a 28% chance of coming home ravaged by a disease the 
government refuses to acknowledge exists.

Iraq is a clear and present threat to everything America holds dear. 
This is what Bush and his team would have you believe. They'd have 
you believe Iraq could cripple our economy, as Bush described a few 
days ago. Since when did Saddam start working for Enron?

North Korea, now, is no big threat. Yes, they have nuclear weapons, 
and the capacity to make one nuclear bomb a month, and the missiles 
to deliver them, and the gall to throw the UN out on it's collective 
butt, and a leader that makes Saddam look almost sane by comparison, 
but they are no big deal. Iraq has no proven weapons, no proven 
missile technology, and has allowed the UN weapons inspectors to go 
everywhere and do everything they please, but they are the pressing 
threat.

What? Terrorist connections to Saddam? He's in cahoots with al Qaeda 
and Osama? That would be remarkable, considering the fact that 
Hussein has been viciously repressing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq 
for thirty years. If you proselytize for Wahabbi Islam in Iraq, that 
sect which is practiced by al Qaeda and Osama, you get shot. Period. 
Osama and al Qaeda have said many, many times that they want to see 
Saddam dead. So why would Saddam give them weapons? He is nothing if 
not a survivor, and he could conceive of better ways to commit 
suicide.

What could Iraq possibly have that North Korea does not have?

Oil?

Shhhhhhh. That's just crazy talk. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

The fact is that a basis for war has not been laid. The UN Secretary 
General, Koffi Annan, has recently said as much. Germany's addition 
to the voting body on the Security Council will make it difficult for 
Bush to bareface his way to war, as Russia and France are already 
there and have many times rolled their eyes at our Boy King. How 
could they not? After all, in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush told 
America, "We need to counter the shock wave of the evildoer by having 
individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates." 
It is hard to take such a man seriously. But we must.

"The fact is that we may be at war by the end of the month, and not 
this summer. The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq are due to report 
their findings on January 27th. The Bush administration has set a 
tentative date for his State of the Union address on the 28th. In the 
intervening weeks, we will all come to see in how much esteem Bush 
holds the international community. If he declares war regardless of 
what the inspectors report, things will get wild in a hurry."

( Source:  http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/010803A.wrp.facts.htm )

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is 
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior 
interest in receiving the included information for research and 
educational purposes.)

-------

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two 
books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context 
Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 
from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.
Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.