[van-discuss] Iraq: Weapons of MD, Oil & War

[Jill M]

Excerpts at the top are followed by the full articles.


[…]
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Let's keep in mind that the 
reason why inspectors are out of Iraq isn't because Iraq kicked them out, 
but rather they were ordered out by the United States after the United 
States manipulated the inspection process to create a confrontation that led 
to Operation Desert Fox and then used intelligence information gathered by 
inspectors to target Iraqi government sites including the security of Saddam 
Hussein.
[…]

***

[…]
The last time the United States went to war against Iraq, Dick Cheney did 
very nicely from it.

Having served as Defence Secretary, and basked in the reflected glory of the 
US military's surprisingly rapid advance across the desert sands to end the 
Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, he then managed to reap benefits of a very 
different kind once the war was over and he left government to become chief 
executive of Halliburton, the Texas-based oil services company.

It was Halliburton, under Mr Cheney's leadership, that cleaned up on the 
contract to repair war damage and get Saddam Hussein's oil pipes flowing at 
full capacity again. Two Halliburton subsidiaries did business worth almost 
$24m (£15m) with the man whom these days Mr Cheney calls a "murderous 
dictator" and "the world's worst leader"
[…]


***

[…]
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to 
focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil 
companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge 
proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the 
world outside Saudi Arabia.

"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, 
who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. 
"France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be 
told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, 
we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American 
companies work closely with them." But he added: "If they throw in their lot 
with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the 
new Iraqi government to work with them.
[…]

***
[…]
Canadians should also think about the fact that the Pentagon has opened an 
Office of Disinformation, for the precise purpose of misleading civilian 
populations during these precarious times. If the U.S. does actually have 
'proof' that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction exist it must know 
where these weapons are - in which case a few super-bombs could destroy 
those facilities without the necessity of a war that would produce thousands 
of military and civilian casualties.
[…]

***

Treating the decision to go to war as hypothetical ignores the fact that the 
war has already begun, or more accurately, intensified.

[…]
The bombing of Iraq has continued unabated since the Gulf War in 1991. The 
attacks have been made under cover of the UN mandate to enforce the northern 
and southern no-fly zones set up after the 1991 Gulf War. But the frequency 
of the attacks has shot up.


BRITISH and American warplanes have now bombed Iraq's most important air 
intelligence headquarters. It was the fifth coalition air strike on Iraqi 
military targets this month, and the 15th since August 5.

President Bush insisted yesterday that the world does not need proof that 
Saddam Hussein is building nuclear weapons before taking action. Mr Rumsfeld 
admitted for the first time that the US and Britain have no "smoking gun" 
proof that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
[…]

***

---------------------------------------
Interview With Scott Ritter (Iraq, USA)
by Miles O'Brien • Monday September 09, 2002 at 12:36 PM

Aired September 8, 2002 - 07:01 ET


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Even as some of the U.S. beat the war drums, 
former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter says action against Iraq would be 
a mistake. Ritter is in Baghdad to meet with Iraqi officials. He says 
despite U.S. claims, there is no evidence that Iraq has any weapons of mass 
destruction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT RITTER, FORMER. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: My country seems to be on the 
verge of making a historical mistake, one that will forever change the 
political dynamic, which has governed the world since the end of the second 
World War, namely the foundation of international law that set forth a 
United Nations charter, which calls for the peaceful resolution of problems 
between nations. My government has set forth on a policy of unilateral 
intervention that runs contrary to the letter and intent of the United 
Nations charter. The truth of the matter is that Iraq is not a sponsor of 
the kind of terror perpetuated against the United States on September 11 and 
in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamentalist extremism that 
characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: That was Scott Ritter not too long ago from Baghdad. Joining us for 
more on all of this, Scott Ritter live from Baghdad. Mr. Ritter, good to 
have you with us.

RITTER: Well, thanks, good to be here.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's talk for just a moment about the evidence. You 
seem very certain that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein is engaged 
in an effort to build weapons of mass destruction. How can you be so 
certain?

RITTER: Well, what I'm very certain of is that the Bush administration has 
not provided any evidence to substantiate its allegations that Saddam 
Hussein's regime is currently pursuing weapons of mass destruction programs 
or is in actual possession of weapons of mass destruction. Based upon my 
experience as a weapon inspector from 1991 to 1998, while we had serious 
concerns about unaccounted aspects of Iraq's weapons programs, we did 
ascertain a 95 percent level of disarmament that included all of the 
production equipment and means of production used by Iraq to produce these 
weapons.

So if Iraq has weapons today, like President Bush says, clearly they would 
have had to reconstitute this capability since December 1998, and this is 
something that the Bush administration needs to make a better case for, 
especially before we talk about going to war.

O'BRIEN: But just to be clear, while you've been there in Iraq, you've had 
no first-hand looks at any of these suspected sites where mass - weapons of 
mass destruction might be produced.

RITTER: That's absolutely correct. Look, I'm not here as a weapons 
inspector. The only people that can make that kind of finding of disarmament 
are weapons inspectors mandated by the Security Council. Right now these 
inspectors are not at work here in Iraq, and one of the things that I made 
absolutely clear to the Iraqi representatives today, and I will continue to 
do so with any governing officials I have the opportunity to meet with is 
that Iraq must allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors and 
grant them unfettered access to sites designated by the weapons inspectors 
for inspection. I've also put forward the concept of the honest broker, 
which is -- go ahead.

O'BRIEN: I'm sorry to interrupt you on this delay. It is a little bit 
frustrating, but when you say that to them, that it is important to allow 
these inspections to resume, what's the reaction?

RITTER: I think the Iraqi government understands that if they do not allow 
unconditional return of inspectors with unfettered access that war is all 
but inevitable, that there will be nothing that can stay the hand that 
President Bush and Tony Blair seem prepared to unleash on Iraq and so, 
that's why I've proposed that a mechanism be put forward that provides, you 
know, a confidence building measure for the Iraqi government so they can 
allow these inspectors to return unconditionally and give them unfettered 
access.

Let's keep in mind that the reason why inspectors are out of Iraq isn't 
because Iraq kicked them out, but rather they were ordered out by the United 
States after the United States manipulated the inspection process to create 
a confrontation that led to Operation Desert Fox and then used intelligence 
information gathered by inspectors to target Iraqi government sites 
including the security of Saddam Hussein.

O'BRIEN: But ...

RITTER: So it's going to take a lot to convince Iraqis that they should once 
again trust inspectors, but frankly, they have no choice.

O'BRIEN: But the situation had become untenable for those inspectors. It's 
worth reminding our viewers that you're taking that a bit out of context. 
The inspectors at that juncture weren't really able to do their job 
properly, were they?

RITTER: No, absolutely false. The inspectors were able to do their task of 
disarming Iraq without any obstruction by Iraq. Let's keep in mind that from 
1994 to 1998, the weapons inspectors carried out ongoing monitoring 
inspections of the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure and never 
once found any evidence of retained prohibited capability or efforts by Iraq 
to reconstitute prohibited capability, and at no time did Iraq obstruct this 
work. The obstruction only came when weapons inspectors sought to gain 
access to sites that were deemed by Iraq to be sensitive, and many of these 
sites, including intelligence facilities, security facilities, Saddam 
Hussein's palaces had nothing whatsoever to do with weapons of mass 
destruction. So you know, we've got to put this in its proper perspective. 
Yes there were obstructions, but this obstruction had little, if anything, 
to do with actual disarmament.

O'BRIEN: Let me ask you this, though, Mr. Ritter, it seems that sometimes we 
avoid seeing the forest for the trees here. Is there any doubt in your mind, 
taking aside what you've seen first hand or heard from the Iraqis, is there 
any doubt in your mind that Saddam Hussein would love to get a hold of 
nuclear weapons?

RITTER: Well, I think, you know, we have to be careful about, you know, 
trying to compare what Saddam Hussein and his regime were trying to do in 
the past with the current situation today. Saddam Hussein is a man who is 
very interested in the continued survival of Saddam Hussein, and I believe 
he recognizes that any effort by himself or his government to reacquire any 
aspect of weapons of mass destruction, let alone nuclear weapons, would be 
the equivalent of taking a suicide pill.

It would invite the immediate harsh response of the international community 
and would result in his ultimate demise. So yes, I truly believe that Saddam 
Hussein today is not seeking to acquire, not only a nuclear weapon, but 
weapons of mass destruction of any kind.

O'BRIEN: I guess the concern is, though, that we're perhaps in an era where, 
which invites the necessity of a preemptive strike, and that perhaps the 
only smoking gun evidence we'll ever see here in the west of nuclear 
weapons, weapons of mass destruction, might well be a mushroom cloud. The 
stakes are pretty high, aren't they Mr. Ritter? Isn't it time to act 
differently perhaps?

RITTER: No, I agree the stakes are very high, and that's why it's imperative 
that the United States acts in accordance with its obligations under 
international law. We are a signatory of the United Nations charter and in 
doing so, we've undertaken to respect international law, especially in 
regards to issues pertaining to war. If the United States shreds 
international law, rips up the United Nations charter and intervenes against 
Iraq unilaterally, we will be redefining the entire way the world chooses to 
deal with situations of this sort.

You know, what will then stop India and Pakistan from going to war? What 
will stop China from intervening in Taiwan? There will be no guarantees. 
There will be no mechanism. We will be unleashing chaos. This is a bigger 
fear than any hypothetical concept of an Iraqi mushroom cloud exploding 
anywhere in the world.

O'BRIEN: All right ...

RITTER: This is a reality. An Iraqi nuclear weapon, at this point in time is 
sheer speculation.

O'BRIEN: Mr. Ritter, the satellites are about to go out, but I've got to ask 
you before we get away, I'm sure you've heard the criticism that this -- you 
are perhaps acting in a disloyal manner toward the United States. How do you 
respond?

RITTER: Well, I think I made it very clear that I'm acting as a fervent 
patriot who loves my country. As an American citizen, I have an obligation 
to speak out when I feel my government is acting in a manner which is 
inconsistent with the -- with the principles of our founding fathers. We 
have a Constitution, which says we will abide by the rule of law. We are 
signatories of the United Nations charter. Therefore, we are to adhere 
ourselves to the United Nations charter, and I see my government drifting 
decisively away from this. So, I feel I have no other choice as an American 
citizen than to stand up and speak out. It's the most patriotic thing I can 
do.

O'BRIEN: And with that, the satellite will expire. Scott Ritter, thank you 
very much for being with us here exclusively on CNN. Scott Ritter, the 
former U.N. weapons inspector, there in Baghdad as a private citizen on a 
private trip partially funded by himself, partially funded by sympathetic 
donors. We appreciate you being with us.

____


Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, will speak in Vancouver about 
Iraq and "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Scott Ritter, who is in Iraq right now addressing the Iraqi parliament, says 
"There is no case for war".

October 4th,
7 pm
First Baptist Church
969 Burrard St., Vancouver

Free

Organized by: Campaign to End Sanctions Against the People of Iraq
More info: 604-985-7147, cesapivan at yahoo.ca


--------------------------------------

Fortunes of war await Bush's circle after attacks on Iraq
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
15 September 2002

Neutral? Not on your life!

The last time the United States went to war against Iraq, Dick Cheney did 
very nicely from it.

Having served as Defence Secretary, and basked in the reflected glory of the 
US military's surprisingly rapid advance across the desert sands to end the 
Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, he then managed to reap benefits of a very 
different kind once the war was over and he left government to become chief 
executive of Halliburton, the Texas-based oil services company.

When the United Nations relaxed its sanctions regime in 1998 and permitted 
Iraq to buy spare parts for its oil fields, it was Halliburton, under Mr 
Cheney's leadership, that cleaned up on the contract to repair war damage 
and get Saddam Hussein's oil pipes flowing at full capacity again. Two 
Halliburton subsidiaries did business worth almost $24m (£15m) with the man 
whom these days Mr Cheney calls a "murderous dictator" and "the world's 
worst leader".

Since taking over as George Bush's vice-president, Mr Cheney has severed all 
formal ties with his former employer, notably when he cashed in $36m in 
stock options and other benefits at the height of the market in August 2000. 
But Halliburton - currently struggling with a corporate accounting scandal 
that may or may not implicate Mr Cheney - could profit all over again if the 
much-threatened new war against Iraq comes to pass.

We can certainly expect more air strikes against the oil fields, possibly 
combined with a ground invasion. Then, when it is all over, someone is going 
to have to mop up the damage once again. Halliburton, with its previous 
experience and unparalleled political connections (not limited to Mr 
Cheney), would be in pole position for the job.

Nobody could justifiably accuse the Bush administration of wanting to wage 
war on Iraq solely as a favour to its friends in the oil business and the 
military-industrial complex. But many of the companies that stand to gain 
most from a war enjoy remarkably close ties to senior figures in the 
administration. And some of the President's closest confidants have shown 
extraordinary elasticity down the years in their attitudes to President 
Saddam, America's on-again, off-again public enemy number one.

Mr. Cheney, who has gone from warmonger to dealmaker and back to warmonger, 
is just one example. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Defence Secretary, has 
repeatedly raised the spectre of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass 
destruction. But in 1983, when Mr Rumsfeld was President Reagan's special 
envoy to Iraq, he turned a blind eye to Iraqi use of nerve and mustard gas 
in its war with Iran, concentrating instead on forging a personal 
relationship with the Iraqi leader, then considered a valuable US ally.

Mr. Rumsfeld was actually in Baghdad on the day the United Nations first 
reported Iraqi use of chemical weapons, but chose to remain silent, as did 
the rest of the US establishment. Five years later, he cited his ability to 
make friends with Saddam Hussein as one of his qualifications for a possible 
run at the presidency.

This Bush administration has been much more upfront about the role of oil in 
its deliberations on Iraq than the last Bush administration. That is partly 
a matter of circumstance: since the 11 September attacks, the stability of 
Middle Eastern oil states has been a big policy consideration. But it also 
reflects the fact that much of the Bush inner circle, including the 
President himself, is made up of former oilmen. The oil and gas industry has 
pumped about $50m to political candidates since the 2000 election.

There are also uncomfortably cozy ties between the government and the 
defence industry. Mr Rumsfeld's oldest friend, Frank Carlucci, a former 
defence secretary himself, now heads the Carlyle Group, an investment 
consortium which has a big interest in the contracting firm United Defense.

Carlyle's board includes George Bush Sr. and James Baker, the former 
secretary of state. One programme alone - the Crusader artillery system - 
has earned Carlyle more than $2bn in advance government contracts. Carlyle's 
European chairman is John Major, who may have played a role in the Ministry 
of Defence's controversial recent decision to declare Carlyle the "preferred 
bidder" for a stake in its scientific research division.

None of these links is illegal, but that does not mean there is no conflict 
of interest. Messrs. Bush, Cheney and friends have either sold their stock 
holdings or put them in a blind trust, meaning personal gain is off the 
agenda. But gain for their friends and family may well be a by-product of 
the looming war against Iraq.

--------------------------------------------------

In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool
By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for 
American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between 
Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world 
petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi 
opposition.

Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to 
focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil 
companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge 
proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the 
world outside Saudi Arabia.

The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the 
administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing 
from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call 
for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members 
of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and 
China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of 
leadership in Baghdad.

"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, 
who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. 
"France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be 
told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, 
we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American 
companies work closely with them." But he added: "If they throw in their lot 
with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the 
new Iraqi government to work with them.

"Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by 
non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, 
which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the 
aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns 
have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case 
for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions.

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen 
nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, 
have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop 
Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped 
tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.

But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they 
will not be bound by any of the deals.

"We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a 
petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National 
Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed 
by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in 
Iraq elected by the people."

Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the 
creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have 
deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will 
have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.

The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure 
of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership.

While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast 
possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and 
uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.

Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of 
a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of 
Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, 
free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the 
flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.

While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest 
in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of 
Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to 
attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because 
low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil 
treasures far less appealing.

Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have 
long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of 
Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military 
planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to 
take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.

The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does 
not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. 
An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil 
had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the 
past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western 
leaders.

On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to 
Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials 
are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and 
American energy companies are expected.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic 
interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq 
ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close 
ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian 
leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances 
from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.

Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's 
Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials 
here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of 
Hussein's government.

But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil 
sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are 
already squabbling over the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and 
minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.

Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was 
importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the 
year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct 
involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between 
Washington and Baghdad.

Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields 
damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap 
undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been 
disappointing.

While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 
15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not 
commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the 
agreement unless work began immediately.

Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a 
$52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern 
Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also 
reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil 
in Iraq's western desert.

The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the 
huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 
billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer 
give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its 
decision to abide by the sanctions.

Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding 
playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. 
"There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive 
stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James 
Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.

But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, 
companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a 
role, industry officials said. "There's not an oil company out there that 
wouldn't be interested in Iraq," one analyst said.

----------------------------

CANADA MUST NOT SUPPORT U.S. WAR AGAINST IRAQ
U.S. Action Dangerous and Unnecessary Under Present Circumstances
TORONTO, Canada:

"Canada absolutely must not support the U.S. in what is likely to be one of 
the major blunders in world history," Paul Hellyer warned today. "Instead, 
our country must take a clear stand against any apparently-arbitrary power 
play on the part of our southern neighbours." The Leader of the Canadian 
Action Party and former Liberal cabinet minister was reacting to the U.S. 
request for Canadian support for, and possible participation in, a U.S. 
invasion of Iraq - a position that could have negative consequences for 
Canadians.

"Prime Minister Jean Chrétien says Canada will not support a U.S. attack 
without 'proof" that a threat exists, but what 'proof" would be convincing?" 
Mr. Hellyer asked. "The reliability of U.S. intelligence is suspect - as we 
have learned since last September 11th. "This is also the lesson Canadians 
learned when we cancelled the Avro Arrow interceptor program on the basis of 
a wildly exaggerated U.S. Air Force intelligence assessment of Soviet 
missile capability," the former Defence Minister suggested.

"It's the same old trick of the Pentagon producing 'evidence' to support 
U.S. policy rather than basing U.S. policy on solid evidence.

Canadians should also think about the fact that the Pentagon has opened an 
Office of Disinformation, for the precise purpose of misleading civilian 
populations during these precarious times," Mr. Hellyer noted. "If the U.S. 
does actually have 'proof' that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction 
exist it must know where these weapons are - in which case a few super-bombs 
could destroy those facilities without the necessity of a war that would 
produce thousands of military and civilian casualties," the CAP leader 
argued.

"It seems more than obvious that if U.S. leaders are sincerely concerned 
about the spread of weapons of mass destruction, they would not embark on a 
misadventure that will guarantee an unprecedented explosion of hate and 
violence," Mr. Hellyer said. "Such an explosion has the potential of 
spiraling out of control with genuinely frightening results," he stated, 
"because the Arab League has already warned the U.S. that an attack on Iraq 
would be considered an attack on all Arab countries, and has predicted that 
the consequences would be nothing less than a 'hell' in the Middle East.

"Based on my past experience in these matters, I know it cannot be stated 
too strongly or too often that Canada must not condone or endorse, let alone 
commit Canadian troops to participate in a war based on policy gone mad," 
Mr. Hellyer concluded. "There is simply too much at stake."


--------------------------------------------

The Mirror (UK) Sept. 18
WAR'S BEGUN

EXCLUSIVE: British jets hit vital Iraqi HQ

By Tom Newton-Dunn, Defence Correspondent

The bombing of Iraq has continued unabated since the Gulf War in 1991. The 
attacks have been made under cover of the UN mandate to enforce the northern 
and southern no-fly zones set up after the 1991 Gulf War. But the frequency 
of the attacks has shot up.


BRITISH and American warplanes have now bombed Iraq's most important air 
intelligence headquarters. It was the fifth coalition air strike on Iraqi 
military targets this month, and the 15th since August 5.

President Bush insisted yesterday that the world does not need proof that 
Saddam Hussein is building nuclear weapons before taking action. Mr Rumsfeld 
admitted for the first time that the US and Britain have no "smoking gun" 
proof that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

Command and communications links in Saddam's air defence system, and 
military airfields, are now being methodically targeted instead of guns and 
mobile radars. Air attack site Tallil is home to Iraq's key Southern Sector 
Operations Centre from where all air defences south of Baghdad are 
co-ordinated.

Destroying Saddam's air defences would be crucial for any land invasion.

Military expert Major Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, said 
last night: "There is no doubt in my mind that the first stage of war with 
Iraq has quietly begun.

Marine Corps General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the US military Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, said: "The recent strikes have degraded the air defence 
capabilities of Iraq."

Baghdad's outer air defence ring - which the Tallil base helps to 
co-ordinate - has seen the largest concentration of bombing raids in recent 
weeks.
British and US bombers appear to be clearing a wide path to the Iraqi 
capital from Kuwait and the Persian Gulf.

There have also been recent reports that US Special Forces entered northern 
Iraq as long ago as February to begin preparations for war. Operating freely 
in the semi-autonomous zone controlled by the Kurds, the troops are believed 
to be constructing key landing zones and airstrips to support a US-led 
invasion.







_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com