Posted 6:02 PM by Steve
There is always misinformation floating around in cyberspace but recently I was made aware of a list of countries the United States had "bombed" since WWII. The list tried to insinuate that the United States had not, through military action, changed the world for the better. Here is a school bell response to that list! The list tries to answer it's own loaded question by insinuating that, out of 19 countries, not a single one that the United States has taken military action against has improved it's form of government. A little research shows that many of the countries on the list have actually become MORE free and democratic.
1. South Korea is a Republic.
2. Guatemala is a constitutional democratic republic.
3. Congo is transitioning to a representative form of
government.
4. Cambodia has a multi-party democracy under
a constitutional monarchy.
5. El Salvador is a republic.
6. Nicaragua is a republic.
7. Panama is a constitutional
democracy.
8. Afghanistan is transitional.
9. Yugoslavia is
now:
A) Serbia (a republic)
B) Bosnia/Herzegovina (a federal democratic republic)
C) Croatia (a parliamentary democracy)

Even quickly glancing at the list reveals that through the years, the United States has been opposed to a "Who's-Who" list of evil regimes. It's unclear if the compiler of the list is insinuating that the U.S. should not have "bombed" these nations. In each case,
we should have. Here is why:

In some cases such as the bombing of Libya, The United States was responding to a direct attack on it's
citizens by state-sponsored terrorists. Grenada was seized by a Marxist military council on 19 October
1983. Six days later the island was invaded by US forces and those of six other Caribbean nations, which
quickly captured the ringleaders and their hundreds of Cuban advisers. Free elections were reinstituted the
following year.

As a nation, we have rightly fought against Absolutist regimes (read: Communism) all over the world. To be brutally honest when it comes to death and human suffering, war is an amatuer compared to
Absolutism.

For all the war and bombing,the real villain is absolutism. Statistically, Absolutism is not only many times deadlier than war, but itself is the major factor causing war and other forms of violent
conflict.

Need proof? Our century is noted for its bloody wars. World War I saw nine-million people killed in battle,
an incredible record that was far surpassed within a few decades by the 15 million battle deaths of World
War II. Even the number killed in twentieth century revolutions and civil wars have set historical
records. In total, this century's battle killed in all its international and domestic wars, revolutions, and
violent conflicts is about 35,654,000.

The shocking truth is that as horrifying as that number is, it is tiny compared to this century's total
killed by absolutist governments. Compared to the nearly 36 million killed by war and military conflict,
119,394,000 citizens were killed by their own governments. 96% of those deaths occured in Communist
or totalitarian regimes. This number already approximates the number that might be killed in a
nuclear war.

These figures do not even include the 1921-1922 and 1958-1961 famines in the Soviet Union and China
causing about 4 million and 27 million dead, respectively. The former famine was mainly due to the
imposition of a command agricultural economy, forced requisitions of food by the Soviets, and the
liquidation campaigns of the Cheka; the latter was wholly caused by Mao's agriculturally destructive
Great Leap Forward and collectivization.

Examples of totalitarian and Communist governments killing their own citizens are:

** The Soviet government's planned and administered
starvation of the Ukraine begun in 1932 as a way of
breaking peasant opposition to collectivization and
destroying Ukrainian nationalism. As many as ten
million may have been starved to death or succumbed to
famine related diseases.

** 2,250,000 Soviet citizens, prisoners of war, and
Russian exiles killed by the Soviets after being
forcibly repatriated.

** 795,000 Others (who were not Soviet citizens) found
in the Allied zones of occupation in Europe and
forcibly taken by the Soviets. These were executed, or
died in slave-labor camps or in transit to them.


Concerning mortality statistics it is frightening and appalling that hundreds of thousands of people can be killed by governments with hardly an international murmur, while a war killing several thousand people can cause an immediate world outcry and global reaction.

The international community was outraged at the American attempt to militarily prevent North Vietnam from taking over South Vietnam and ultimately Laos and Cambodia. "Stop the killing" was the cry, and eventually, the pressure of foreign and domestic
opposition forced an American withdrawal. The overall number killed in the Vietnam War on all sides was about 1,216,000 people.

Did the "killing" stop? After the United States pulled out of Vietnam, Cambodia was taken over by the communist Khmer Rouge: the government of this small nation of seven million alone killed 2, 270,000 (64
percent more people than died in the ten-year Vietnam War!)


To view this double standard from another perspective, both World Wars cost twenty-four million battle deaths. But from 1918 to 1953, the Soviet government executed, slaughtered, starved, beat or tortured to death, or otherwise killed 39,500,000 of its own people.

For China under Mao Tse-tung, the communist government eliminated an estimated 45,000,000 Chinese. The number killed for just these two nations is about 84,500,000 human beings, or a lethality of 252 percent more than both World Wars together. Yet, have the world community and intellectuals generally shown anything like the same horror, the same outrage, the same out pouring of anti-killing literature, over these Soviet and Chinese megakillings as has been directed at the much less deadly World Wars?

According to the numbers, communist governments are almost four times more lethal to their citizens than non-communist ones, and in per capita terms nearly twice as lethal (even considering the huge populations of the USSR and China).

In no case has a democratic government carried out massacres, genocide, and mass executions of its own citizens; nor are there any cases where such a government's policies have knowingly and directly resulted in the large scale deaths of its people though privation, torture, beatings, and the like.

Absolutism is not only many times deadlier than war, but itself is the major factor causing war and other forms of violent conflict. It is a major cause of militarism. Indeed, absolutism, not war, is mankind's deadliest scourge of all.

In light of all this, the peaceful, pursuit and fostering of civil liberties and confronting absolutist regimes around the world (whether they be Communist or Islamo-Fascist like Iraq) must be made mankind's highest humanitarian goal. Not simply to give the greatest number the greatest happiness, not simply to obey the moral imperative of individual rights, not simply to further the efficiency and
productivity of a free society, but also and mainly because freedom preserves peace and life.

Posted 11:33 AM by Steve
Facts about Iraq:

History
Formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, Iraq became an independent kingdom in 1932. A "republic" was proclaimed in 1958, but in actuality a series of military strongmen have ruled the country for decades. On July 17, 1968, Baath party officers staged a bloodless coup, ushering in what is currently the Baathist regime in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, then a member of the civilian branch of the Baath party, managed to gain power by the assassination and execution of his rivals, mostly in the military branch of the Baath party.

Iraq-Iran War:

Prior to the war breaking out, the United States saw Iran as the more strategically valuable of the two nations. The U.S. provided some weapons and training to Iran. However, the overthrow of the Shah and the hostage crisis led to a decline in our relationship with Iran. Iran’s new leader, unlike the Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini had equal disdain for the Soviet Union and the United States. The Soviet Union signed a “Treaty of Peace and Friendship” with Iraq and provided weapons and training. The war between Iraq and Iran (1980-88) was inconclusive and costly. In August 1990 Iraq seized Kuwait, but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during January-February 1991. The victors, following U.N. instructions, did not occupy Iraq, allowing the regime to stay in control. Following Kuwait's liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. UNSCOM and Iraqi authorities reached a point of confrontation in August 1998, when Iraqi authorities decided to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM, thus preventing its members from doing the inspections work they were in the country to do. In response to this noncompliance the United States and Great Britain threatened to -- and eventually did -- carry out a punishing series of air strikes to compel Iraqi cooperation. UNSCOM head Richard Butler evacuated the inspectors from the country to get them out of harm's way.
After the bombing stopped, Iraq announced that the inspectors would never be able to return, a policy that seemed to stand until two months ago.


Weapons of Mass Destruction


Iraq possesses 2,850 tons of mustard gas. It blisters the skin, eyes, and lungs. Bronchopneumonia, permanent pulmonary damage, and death can follow. Hussein unleashed mustard gas in Panjwin in October-November 1983, leaving 3,000 Iranian and Kurdish casualties. He likewise killed or injured another 2,500 Iranians on Majnoon Island in February-March 1984. An April 1987 mustard-gas attack left 5,000 Iranians dead or wounded in al-Basrah.

Hussein has 210 tons of tabun gas. According to the Army's Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, inhalation or tactile absorption prompts confusion, drooling, nausea, coma, cessation of breathing, and death. Hussein deployed tabun and mustard gas against some 3,000 Iranians at Hawizah Marsh in March 1985 and 5,000 more at al-Basrah in April 1987.
Originally developed as an insecticide in Nazi Germany in 1938, sarin gas is a highly lethal nerve agent, of which Iraq controls 795 tons. It produces headaches, anxiety, vomiting, convulsions, involuntary excretion and fatal respiratory arrest. Hussein used sarin and mustard gas against 3,000 Iranians in October 1987 at Sumar/Mehran. Several hundred Iranians and Kurds similarly were exterminated in Halabjah in March 1988.
Hussein also owns six grams of plutonium and 400 tons of uranium — perfect for radiological "dirty" bombs or thermonuclear weapons.

Islamic Terror Ties

State sponsorship is a major reason terrorists pose a danger to our country. State sponsorship gives terrorists refuge, training, weapons and logistical support. Terrorist training camps are known to exist in Iraq, including Salman Pak: a camp where trainees used a fuselage of a Boeing 707. al-Queda operatives are also linked to a poison camp in Iraq. Beyond their publicly known financial and moral support of Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, Iraq is connected to varying degrees with al-Queda and other terrorist organizations such as:
*Egyptian Islamic Jihad
*Jamaat Islamiyya, also from Egypt;
*the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
*the Islamic Army of Aden, in Yemen;
*Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammed, in Kashmir;
*the Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group, both of Algeria;
*Abu Sayyaf Group, in Malaysia and the Philipines

These groups share al-Queda's Sunni Muslim fundamentalist views. Note that Saddam Hussein is also a Sunni. Al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamed Atta flew halfway across the world to meet Iraqi Colonel Mohammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani in Prague April 2001, five months before piloting a hijacked airline into the World Trade Center.
Evidence is mounting that this meeting was not an isolated event. Atta's talks with al-Ani were only one of several apparent links between Iraq, the 11 September hijackers and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. Senior US intelligence sources say the CIA has “credible information” that in the spring of this year, at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States. They are believed to be Atta's closest associates and co-leaders, Marwan al-Shehri and Ziad Jarrah, the other two members of the 'German cell ' who lived with Atta in Hamburg in the late 1990s.

The Czechs eventually expelled al-Ani, who had diplomatic cover, as a hostile spy. According to senior US diplomatic sources Atta was not the only suspected al-Qaeda member who met al-Ani and other Iraqi agents in Prague. He said the Czechs monitored at least two further such meetings in the months before 9/11.
Many still suspect the anthrax which has so far killed four people in America has an ultimate Iraqi origin: in contrast to recent denials made by senior FBI officials, CIA sources say there simply is not enough material to be sure. However, it does not look likely that the latest anthrax sample, sent to a newspaper in Karachi, can have come from the source recently posited by the FBI - a right-wing US militant. From the level of sophistication of the anthrax found experts have concluded that the it represents a level of technique and knowledge that in the past has been associated only with governments. One analyst went so far as to say, ”If it's not Iraq, there aren't many alternatives.”
International Support
Despite widely publicized objections from France, Germany and Russia (the reasons for which will be detailed later), the United States has hardly acted “unilaterally’ on this issue. Compared to President’s Clinton use of force in Kosovo or the 1998 cruise missile attack in Iraq, President Bush has consulted both Congress and the United Nations. The United States has received support from leaders from Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Portugal, Latvia, Romania, and Slovenia.

Support at Home

Much has been made of the anti-war protests that have been seen in the streets around America, but rarely is the overall support for military action against Iraq mentioned. According to the most recent USA Today/Gallup, FoxNews/Opinion Dynamics and ABC News polls, between 66% and 71% of Americans support the United States taking military action against Iraq to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Only 30% disapprove. Apply these figures to the U.S. population and that is 206,229,441 Americans who support the United States taking military action against Iraq. Only 87,139,200 citizens oppose military action. Interestingly, 84% of all respondents (including those opposed to military action) think Iraq is not complying with what the United Nations resolutions.

French, Russian, German, and Chinese interests in Iraq

France
France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports. French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations. In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner.
Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. “Oil-for-Food” program.
France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.
Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq’s Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s reserves.
France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.

Germany
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.

Russia
Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports. Under the U.N. “Oil-for-Food” program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.
According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. “Oil-for-Food” program are to be signed over the next three months.
Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war.
Russia’s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.
In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian–Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.
In April 2001, Russia’s Zaruezhneft company received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion.
A future $40 billion Iraqi–Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq. The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.
Russia’s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.

China
China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.
China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.
In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import–Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell “meteorological satellite” and “surface observation” equipment to Iraq. The contract was approved by the U.N. “Oil-for-Food” program.
CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.
According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq’s weapons imports.

Summary and Conclusions

What do these facts mean exactly? They mean simply this: Iraq has a volatile recent history attacking its neighbors. Three times in three decades, Iraq has sent troops to attack other sovereign nations in the Middle-East. Iraq has a history of targeting civilians and using weapons of mass destruction in those conflicts. Iraq has links to al-Queda and other terrorist groups and supports terrorism not only within it’s own borders but around the world. Currently, Iraq is not complying with U.N. resolutions by disarming. Iraq currently owns weapons of mass destruction. UN resolution 1441 specifically called for Iraq to provide a complete list of their armaments total and unconditional and complete cooperation. Iraq neither provided a complete list nor has it expressed a willingness to cooperate unconditionally with the U.N.

Posted 10:18 AM by Steve
Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power

February 28, 2003


France

According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2] In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner.
Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.[4]
Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq’s Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s reserves.[5]
France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.[6]
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.[7]

Germany

Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[8]
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[9]
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[10]
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[11]
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.[12]

Russia

According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.[13] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[14]
According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[15]
Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war.
Russia’s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[16]
In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian–Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[17]
In April 2001, Russia’s Zaruezhneft company received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion.
A future $40 billion Iraqi–Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.[18] The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.[19]
Russia’s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[21]

China

According to the CIA World Factbook, China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.[22]
China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.[23]
In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import–Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell “meteorological satellite” and “surface observation” equipment to Iraq. This contract was approved by the U.N. oil-for-food program.[24]
CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.[25]
According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq’s weapons imports.[26]


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

[1]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[2]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle”, The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[3]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle,” The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[4]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[5]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[6]Evelyn Iritani, “Hussein’s Government Signs Lucrative Contracts, Especially with Nations that Oppose the U.S. Led Effort to Oust the Regime,” The Los Angeles Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, November 11, 2002.

[7]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPORTS_1982-2001.pdf.

[8]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[9]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[10]“Africa Analysis—Trade Points Way to Peace”, The Financial Verdana,Arial,Helvetica: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, November 19, 2002.

[11]Faye Bowers, “Driving Forces in War-Wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China Are Colored by Economic and National Interests,” Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003.

[12]“Helping Saddam Rearm,” The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2002.

[13]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[14]Testimony provided by Ariel Cohen to the House International Relations Committee, “Russia and the Axis of Evil: Money, Ambition and U.S. Interests,” February 26, 2003.

[15]Nelli Sharushkina, “Russia Plays the Field in Iraq—Mixed Signals Worry Baghdad,” Energy Intelligence Briefing, February 5, 2003.

[16]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[17]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[18]Scott Peterson, “Russia’s Newest Tie to Iraq: Moscow Is Set to Sign a $40 billion Economic Pact with Baghdad Next Month,” Christian Science Monitor, August 20, 2002.

[19]“Mideast Tensions to Delay Iraq Iraqi–Russian Signing,” Energy Compass, April 19, 2002.

[20]Dmitry Zhdannikov, “Russian’s Grim About Working Under Saddam,” The Houston Chronicle, April 14, 2002.

[21]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPORTS_1982-2001.pdf.

[22]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[23]Trish Saywell, “Oil: The Danger of Deals with Iraq,” Far Eastern Economic Review, March 6, 2003.

[24]Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam,” Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[25]Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam,” Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[26]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPORTS_1982-2001.pdf.

Posted 12:19 AM by Steve
The following is a list of important questions that President Bush recieved from the media during his press conference. The President did well for having to answer the loaded questions off the top of his head. But a few of the questions irked me to the point of having to write my own responses to them

Q Mr. President, you have, and your top advisors -- notably, Secretary of State Powell -- have repeatedly said that we have shared with our allies all the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein, and that they have been sharing their intelligence with us, as well. If all these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If you have questions about the conclusions and the interpretations of the intelligence that is carried out by countries other than the United States I suggest you ask them. I make decisions basd on the best information and intelligence I receive. The United States intelligence conmunity and our analysts are the finest in the world.


2. If you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision? And if I may, during the recent demonstrations, many of the protestors suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies.

The people "around the world" who take a different view have the luxury of living in the world of theoretical. As president, I have to be practical to act to defend our nation from legitimate threats. I have access to the best intelligence and my administration has experience and track record of success in evaluating risk and formulating winning strategies. To answer the question directly, those who do not see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace are either unwilling to do the research or unwilling to see the facts.

3. Sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?

The appeaser's fixation with keeping Saddam in power is what is making the world a more dangerous place. The cost to the economy would be a trifle compared to the cost of allowing a rogue state with terror ties, like Iraq, to provide a nuclear, chemical or biological device to terrorists like Al-Queda who could potentially strike the United States or our allies. It's ironic that the same people who claim Iraq has no terror ties are the ones who undercut their OWN ARGUMENT by saying attacking Iraq will cause "retaliatory strikes". The point of attacking Iraq is to further disrupt and weaken the terrorist network. Without state-sponsorship it's more difficult for terrorists to find refuge, training, weapons and logistical support.

4. In the past several weeks, your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N., and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets in anti-war protests. May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?

The United States policy on Iraq liberated Kuwait. The United States policy on Iraq has controlled and monitored the actions of Saddam Hussein for twelve years. The United States policy on Iraq has supported, along with every other U.N. security council member, resolution 1441: a last chance for the the disarmament of Iraq. France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey all support the disarmament of Iraq just like the United States. Don't forget our friends around the world: Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Portugal who are among the many countries that stand with us and have expressed support for the liberation of Iraq. If it's arrogant to liberate a nation of 24 million Iraqi's who live under the opression of a ruthless dictator, under the threat of violence, torture, rape and murder, then so be it.

4. As you know, not everyone shares your optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?

Liberating Iraq will cause the exact opposite. Leaving Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq, a nation with known terror ties and the capability to develop and distribute weapons of mass destruction will absolutely lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment and more instability in the Middle East.

5. Sir, you've talked a lot about trusting the American people when it comes to making decisions about their own lives, about how to spend their own money. When it comes to the financial costs of the war, sir, it would seem that the administration, surely, has costed out various scenarios. If that's the case, why not present some of them to the American people so they know what to expect, sir?

The costs will be insignificant compared to the potential costs of allowing Iraq to continue to provide refuge, training, weapons and logistical support to a group like Al-Queda who has terrorized and killed Americans and will continue to do so in the future.

Posted 9:30 PM by Steve
Europe's appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s is similar to the sad performance of France and Germany today. The '30s appeaser in chief -- British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- drew applause for capitulating at Munich and was said to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, just as Jacques Chirac has been mentioned for the prize today. Then, as now, France had a weak head of state unruffled by growing danger abroad and rising anti-Semitism at home.

The venerable journalist Alistair Cooke, who is old enough to remember the period, points out that Hitler reneged on the First World War peace treaty without much objection for two years before the Munich appeasement, compared with Saddam Hussein's 12 years of defying the terms of the United Nations' Gulf War cease-fire.

Then, as now, the timid and the fearful argued that a murderous tyrant may have terrible new weapons, but, after all, he hasn't turned them on us yet. The arguments for doing nothing were eerily like Western Europe's today, even down to the insistence that the comatose League of Nations, predecessor of the comatose United Nations, was the true guardian of world peace. The league exercised its guardianship by doing nothing about the Japanese seizure of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, approximately what the U.N. did when Syria seized Lebanon and China gobbled up Tibet.

"A majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler -- except fight him," Cooke said recently. Europeans were eager to talk but not to act. "The French especially urged, after each Hitler invasion, 'negotiation, negotiation.' They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied."

From 1939 on, it was an American president and a British prime minister standing up on behalf of the many backbone-free Europeans. Sounds familiar. "Western Europe has almost gone the way of Weimar," Victor Davis Hanson wrote recently on National Review Online. "Amoral, disarmed and socialist, it seeks ephemeral peace at all costs, never long-term security, much less justice." Just so.

Like the League of Nations, the United Nations today likes to fill the air with talk and content-free statements intended to placate all parties to any dispute. The aim is to keep the game going, not to solve anything. Hans Blix, the ultimate U.N. bureaucrat, is unusually good at this, issuing his many double-barreled statements that Iraq is both way out of compliance and almost in compliance at the same time.

Last week Blix announced that, on the one hand, Iraq has been "proactive" in complying with inspectors, although, on the other hand, its record of compliance "has not been good." The alleged proactivity consists of Saddam Hussein's striptease, throwing a few weapons overboard as pressure is applied, more as war comes closer. Blix of course was pleased and said he could use four more months of rummaging around the desert looking for weapons. Iraq agreed to comply in 15 days back in 1991, but if 12 years wasn't nearly long enough, 12 years and four months should certainly do it.

Bringing the United Nations along and coaxing it to live up to its 17 resolutions on Iraq would have been useful. But the notion that the U.N.'s "moral" approval was somehow necessary is ludicrous, particularly since U.N. morality includes turning over its human rights committee to Libya and repeatedly branding as racist the only Middle East democracy, Israel.

President Clinton got it right, verbally at least, in 1998. He said then that Iraq was "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals." In urging strong action on Iraq, The Washington Post referred to Clinton's words as "perceptive but ultimately empty" because they led to no meaningful action. In the post-9/11 world, refusing to act is far more dangerous. Saddam has the ability and the hostility to churn out weapons for those who wish to inflict grave damage on the United States. It's time to do something about it.