War Without End

Guest-400c

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/02/22022003171926.asp

UN: Russia Affirms Objection To Second Resolution On Iraq

Moscow, 22 February 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yurii Fedotov is quoted today as saying his country opposes any new UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.Fedotov was quoted by Ekho Moskvy radio as saying, "If a resolution is presented that authorizes the use of force at this stage, Russia could not support it."Fedotov said if a new resolution is presented at the UN Security Council, Russia would study it. He declined to say if Russia would use its veto as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.The U.S. and Britain are preparing a second resolution that could be used to authorize military action to force Iraq to disarm.

Guest-400c

Forwarded Message:

Subj: War for Iraq and Control of Middle East well Underway

From: MERL@MiddleEast.Org
To: MER@MiddleEast.Org
Sent from the Internet (Details)

_______ ____ ______
/ |/ / /___/ / /_ // M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S
/ /|_/ / /_/_ / /\\ Making Sense of the Middle East
/_/ /_/ /___/ /_/ \\ www.MiddleEast.Org

News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups,
and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know!

************************************************
SELECT ARTICLES AND ANALYSIS NOW CONSTANTLY UPDATED AT:
www.MiddleEast.Org
************************************************

THE WAR IS ALREADY WELL UNDERWAY

Iran and Turkey sending troops into Iraq as regional war escalates

Israelis preparing to start expelling Palestinians

MID-EAST REALITIES - MER - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 2/19/2003: With US and Israeli Special Forces already operating in parts of Iraq; with nearly a quarter-million American and UK Troops already positioned to attack, with Iraq already divided on the ground and by 'no-fly zones' in the air, the war for Iraq and for control of the Middle East is already well underway. All that remains is the massive bombing campaign -- itself now set to 'shock and awe' in ways never before seen on Planet Earth -- followed by the ground invasion to take actual control of the country and kill/capture its current leadership. Meanwhile the Israelis are attacking the Palestinians more and more brutally, the apartheid-regime more firmly in place than ever, and clear signs of Israeli planning to 'expel' initially at least many thousands of Palestinians now evident. As for the Bush Regime in Washington, the President is more cocky than ever, General Powell has now largely discredited himself, and National Security Adviser Rice showed on TV over the weekend her weak, nervous, and dangerously simplistic personality. Iranian and Turkish troops are now on the move it appears. And let's not forget North Korea and what may be plans by the US to strike at that country's nuclear-processing plants also in the weeks ahead. As Walter Cronkite publicly warned some months ago now, the Bush Regime, in tandem with the Israelis, is risking igniting World War III.

U.S. LOSES PATIENCE AS SHIPS NEAR TURKEY CAN'T UNLOAD TROOPS

ANKARA - 19 February - WorldTribune — The United States has threatened to review its strategic relationship with Turkey unless Ankara immediately approves the deployment of tens of thousands of American troops now waiting on ships near Turkish ports.

The new U.S. approach was in reaction to yet another Turkish delay of a request by Washington for the deployment of up to 40,000 American troops in Turkey.

Turkey's parliament has not received a government request for U.S. troop deployment, Middle East Newsline reported. Officials said the government of Prime Minister Abdullah Gul will not ask for a parliamentary vote until negotiations over a U.S. compensation package with Turkey are completed.

"The United States has thousands of troops on ships waiting outside of Turkish ports and Ankara won't come to a decision," a Western diplomatic source said. "This situation is quickly coming to a head. It's a matter of hours and days."

[On Wednesday, NATO approved the deployment of early-warning aircraft, PAC-2 systems and NBC [nuclear-biological-chemical] response units to Turkey. The decision ended weeks of a stalemate over alliance help to Turkey.]

Turkish sources said the latest delay has infuriated the Bush administration. They said Washington is threatening to review its strategic relations with Ankara unless it quickly decides to allow U.S. combat troops in the country.

"If parliament doesn't pass the proposal, we will review our relations and they could suffer enormous damage," the Ankara-based Hurriyet daily quoted a U.S. official in Washington as saying. "We wouldn't forget such a thing."

On Tuesday, the Gul government relayed to U.S. ambassador Robert Pearson a new proposal for a compensation package for Turkey. Ankara was said to have asked for up to $25 billion in economic and military aid to compensate for losses incurring from a war against Iraq. The Sabah daily reported that the Turkish request would include $10 billion in grants.

In contrast, the United States is said to have offered no more than $4 billion in grants, with another $8 billion loan guarantees. Washington is expected to respond to the latest Turkish proposal by early Thursday.

"The other side must meet our demands, and if they do, then we shall see," said Recep Tayyip Erdogan, head of the ruling Justice and Development Party and regarded as the leading civilian authority in Turkey. "After this is finalized, the authorization will come to parliament."

Turkish President Ahmet Sezer said his country could not allow the deployment of foreign troops without a UN decision. He cited Turkey's constitution, which restricts the entry of foreign troops.

US CONCERN AS IRANIAN-BACKED TROOPS ENTER IRAQ
By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran and Guy Dinmore in Washington

[Financial Times - UK - 18 Feb]: Iranian-backed Iraqi opposition forces have crossed into northern Iraq from Iran with the aim of securing the frontier in the event of war, according to senior Iranian officials.

The forces, numbering up to 5,000 troops, with some heavy equipment, are nominally under the command of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a prominent Iraqi Shia Muslim opposition leader who has been based in Iran since 1980 and lives in Tehran.

A US State Department official said he was aware of reports that part of Ayatollah Hakim's Badr brigade had crossed into northern Iraq but declined further comment. Analysts close to the administration of President George W. Bush said the US was concerned about the intentions of this new element in an increasingly complicated patchwork of forces in northern Iraq.

Turkey has long had a limited military presence in northern Iraq, and US special forces began moving into the region several months ago. The Badr brigade has been trained and equipped by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and could be regarded as a proxy force of the Iranian government.

Iranian officials insist that force's role in the north is defensive but its presence will exacerbate the concerns of the US and especially the Arab world that military intervention in Iraq will lead to a permanent disintegration of the country. Through inserting a proxy force, Iran is underlining that it cannot be ignored in future discussions over Iraq's make-up.

Ayatollah Hakim's forces had previously been based in southern Iran, close to Iraq. Two months ago they began moving into the area of northern Iraq governed by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of two Kurdish parties that rule an area the size of Switzerland outside Baghdad's control.

A senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named, said the presence of Ayatollah Hakim's troops was defensive and aimed at countering a possible attack on Iran by the People's Mujahideen Organisation (MKO), an Iranian opposition group based in Iraq and strongly supported by President Saddam Hussein.

Another official said the Badr force had moved into an area near Darbandikhan, a depopulated and rugged stretch of hills and ravines about 15 miles from the closest point on the Iranian border.

The MKO used Iraqi territory to mount attacks on Iran during the 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq. The Kurdish parties controlling northern Iraq have also expressed fears that Mr Hussein would try to use the MKO against them in the event of a US-led invasion of Iraq.

Ayatollah Hakim is the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), a mainly Shia Muslim group that fought in the failed 1991 uprising against Baghdad in southern Iraq. More recently Sciri has taken part in talks between the Iraqi opposition and the US.

His office in Tehran denied that the Badr brigade had moved into northern Iraq but said Sciri had maintained forces in that region for several years, gathered from Iraqi Shia who had fled the Iraqi regime. A representative of the PUK also denied there had been a recent movement across the border but confirmed a presence of Sciri forces.

U.S.-TURKISH TENSIONS MOUNT OVER AID, TROOPS
By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters - 19 Feb) - The United States said on Wednesday it had made a final offer of economic aid to Turkey to secure access to its bases for a possible invasion of Iraq, and was preparing to deploy American troops elsewhere in the region if Ankara rejected it.

"There comes a moment when plans must be made, decisions must be made, and (negotiations) cannot stretch on indefinitely," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, issuing what amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum.

While Turkish bases would be "desirable" as a springboard for a possible invasion of Iraq from the north, Fleischer said the U.S. military had the flexibility to carry out its mission without Turkey's help.

With Washington indicating a possible invasion could be just weeks away, U.S. war planners were counting on a quick agreement.

But Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan said Wednesday there were no plans for a parliamentary vote this week on allowing U.S. troops on Turkish soil for a possible attack.

"A date for the motion has not been set either for during the week or the weekend," Erdogan told NTV television.

Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul spoke by telephone with Secretary of State Colin Powell, but a written statement from Gul's office indicated the two NATO allies were no closer to reaching an agreement.

In exchange for Turkish help, the United States has offered Ankara an economic aid package that includes $6 billion in grants and U.S. government backing for up to $20 billion in loans that Ankara could secure through private banks.

But Turkey has, so far, balked at the offer, demanding more than $30 billion in assistance. Much to Washington's displeasure, Ankara deferred any decision to ask parliament to approve U.S. troop deployments pending an agreement.

Frustrated by Ankara's demands, White House officials dug in, describing the $26 billion aid package as final.

"There's not a lot of time left," Fleischer said. "Turkey has heard authoritatively what the position of the United States government is. And now Turkey has a decision to make and we look forward to hearing that decision."

With U.S. navy ships steaming into the region, U.S. officials said the possibility is growing that Washington will redirect forces southwards to join a main invasion force gathering near Iraq's southern borders.

"Turkey, of course, is desirable from a strategic point of view for any military staging, but the military of the United States is sufficiently flexible that whatever decision is made the United States will still be successful in carrying out any military operations," Fleischer said.

Facing record U.S. budget deficits, Bush is under pressure at home to limit the size of any aid package, which must be approved by Congress.

Congressional committees were told last month that the United States was offering no more than $14 billion to Turkey.

The package has since doubled in size and congressional sources say the administration has yet to brief them on the details. One congressional aide described the amounts sought by Turkey as "mind-boggling."

A complete breakdown in negotiations could hurt Turkish relations with the United States, which has backed Ankara through two recent economic crises and pressed its case for European Union membership.

But U.S. officials said it was premature to speculate about any diplomatic fallout.

"There's a long-standing strategic relationship that we have had with Turkey. And there's a real recognition that in the event of any basing of American forces out of Turkey, it will carry risks for Turkey economically," Fleischer said.

The United States is demanding that the proposed loans fall under the terms of Turkey's program with the International Monetary Fund, a condition Ankara resisted.

Officials are also sparring over the command structure for U.S. and Turkish troops that could enter northern Iraq.

U.S. officials acknowledge that Turkey is in a bind politically. Opinion polls show four out of five Turks oppose a possible war. Many fear the fallout could undermine the country's weak economy and stir unrest among Turkey's Kurds who mainly live in a region bordering northern Iraq.

But Turkish support could prove critical in shortening any war and cutting any American casualties by allowing U.S. troops to launch a secondary, northern front into Iraq to relieve a main invasion from Kuwait.

MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org

--------------------------
MiD-EasT RealitieS - http://www.MiddleEast.Org
Phone: (202) 362-5266
Fax: (815) 366-0800
Email: MER@MiddleEast.Org

To start or stop receiving MER (there is no cost) - http://www.MiddleEast.Org/subscribe

Cowboy · Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:19 pm Post subject:

U.S. readies new Iraq resolution

France's promise to oppose the new U.N. resolution represents the biggest diplomatic rift between the U.S. and France since WWII. But the French have not forgotten what the U.S. did for their country back then, NBC's Keith Miller reports.

Bush: Draft will say Saddam isn’t complying with requirements

NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

Feb. 22 — President Bush said Saturday a new U.N. resolution on Iraq’s weapons programs will “set out in clear and simple terms” that Saddam Hussein is not complying with disarmament demands. Meanwhile, U.N. weapons inspectors tagging Al Samoud 2 missiles for destruction were met Saturday by an irate factory director, who pleaded with them to let Iraq keep its weapons so it can defend itself in the face of war.

WITH AN important European ally, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, at his side, Bush said the resolution would be presented to the Security Council next week.
“The Security Council has taken a clear stand and it now faces a clear choice,” Bush said. “With all the world watching, the council will now show whether it means what it says.
Bush said U.N. resolution 1441, passed in the fall and setting up the latest round of weapons inspections, “did not ask for hints of progress or minor concessions. It demanded full and immediate disarmament.”
That has not happened, said Bush, speaking shortly after the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said in Iran that Iraq was not fully cooperating with inspectors.
Aznar, under heavy criticism at home for supporting Bush’s hard-line stand on Iraq, declared his solidarity with the president.
Bush brushed aside doubts about whether the resolution would overcome deep reservations by Russia, China and France.
“I think I remember getting asked the same questions” four months ago before the Security Council unanimously adopted the first resolution, Bush said.
Asked if this was the Security Council’s last chance to show its relevance, Bush answered curtly, “Yes.” Another question about whether he again was willing to wait two months before U.N. action also drew a one-word reply. “No,” the president said.
“Time is short,” Bush said.

Hunnibee · Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:32 pm Post subject: No democracy

On my last night in Iraq, I went to the Rabat Hall in the centre of Baghdad to watch the Iraqi National Orchestra rehearse. I had wanted to meet Mohammed Amin Ezzat, the conductor, whose personal tragedy epitomises the punishment of his people. Because the power supply is so intermittent, Iraqis have been forced to use cheap kerosene lamps for lighting, heating and cooking; and these frequently explode. This is what happened to Mohammed Amin Ezzat's wife, Jenan, who was engulfed in flames.

"I saw my wife burn completely before my eyes," he said. " I threw myself on her in order to extinguish the flames, but it was no use. She died. I sometimes wish I had died with her." He stood on his conductor's podium, his badly burnt left arm unmoving, the fingers fused together.

The orchestra was rehearsing Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite, and there was a strange discord. Reeds were missing from clarinets and strings from violins. "We can't get them from abroad," he said. "Someone has decreed they are not allowed." The musical scores are ragged, like ancient parchment. The musicians cannot get paper.

Only two members of the original orchestra are left; the rest have set out on the long, dangerous road to Jordan and beyond. "You cannot blame them," he said. "The suffering in our country is too great. But why has it not been stopped?"

It was a question I put to Denis Halliday one evening in New York. We were standing, just the two of us, in the great modernist theatre that is the General Assembly at the UN. "This is where the real world is represented," he said.

"One state, one vote. By contrast, the Security Council has five permanent members which have veto rights. There is no democracy there. Had the issue of sanctions on Iraq gone to the General Assembly, it would have been overturned by a very large majority.

"We have to change the United Nations, to reclaim what is ours. The genocide in Iraq is the test of our will. All of us have to break the silence: to make those responsible, in Washington and London, aware that history will slaughter them."

Cowboy · Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:36 pm Post subject:

Then if the EU is going to act as a unified political entity, it should get only one vote, just like the 50 United States do.

Cowboy · Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:42 pm Post subject:

By the way, that whole one country one vote thing to achieve a "democracy" is a conflict in terms. A democracy is about people being represented, not countries. According to your concept, the people of Luxemborg would get one vote in total, and the people of China would get one vote in total. By what distorted definition is that "democracy"?

we know best · Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 11:41 am Post subject:

It was interesting to hear Colin Powell accuse France and Germany of cowardice in not wanting to go to war. Or, as he put more succinctly, France and Germany 'are afraid of upholding their responsibility to impose the will of the international community'. Powell's speech brings up one of the most outrageous but least examined aspects of this whole war on Iraq business. I am speaking about the appalling collateral damage already being inflicted on the English language.
Perhaps the worst impact is on our vocabulary. 'Cowardice', according to Colin Powell, is the refusal to injure thousands of innocent civilians living in Baghdad in order to promote US oil interests in the Middle East. The corollary is that 'bravery' must be the ability to order the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis without wincing or bringing up your Caesar salad.

I suppose Tony Blair is 'brave' because he is willing to expose the people who voted for him to the threat of terrorist reprisals in return for getting a red carpet whenever he visits the White House, while Chirac is a 'coward' for standing up to the bigoted bullying of the extremist right-wing Republican warmongers who currently run the United States.

In the same vein, well-fed young men sitting in millions of dollars' worth of military hardware and dropping bombs from 30,000ft on impoverished people who have already had all their arms taken away are exemplars of 'bravery'. 'Cowardliness', according to George W. Bush, is hijacking an aircraft and deliberately piloting it into a large building. There are plenty of things you could call that, but not 'cowardly'. Yet when Bill Maher pointed this out on his TV show, Politically Incorrect, he was anathematised and the sponsors threatened to withdraw funding from the show.

Something weird is going on when not only do the politicians deliberately change the meanings of words, but also society is outraged when someone points out the correct usage.

Then there's 'the international community'. Clearly, Colin Powell cannot be talking of the millions who took to the streets last Saturday. The 'international community' he's talking about must be those politicians who get together behind closed doors to decide how best to stay in power and enrich their supporters by maiming, mutilating and killing a lot of foreigners in funny clothes whom they'll never see. And while we're at it, what about that word 'war'. My dictionary defines a 'war' as 'open, armed conflict between two parties, nations or states'. Dropping bombs from a safe height on an already hard-pressed people, whose infrastructure is in chaos from years of sanctions and who live under an oppressive regime, isn't a 'war'. It's a turkey shoot.

But then the violence being done to the English language is probably the price we have to pay for cheap petrol.

Language is supposed to make ideas clearer so that we can understand them. But when politicians such as Colin Powell, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair get hold of language, their aim is usually the opposite. That's how they persuade us to take ludicrous concepts seriously. Like the whole idea of a 'war on terrorism'. You can wage war against another country, or on a national group within your own country, but you can't wage war on an abstract noun. How do you know when you've won? When you've got it removed from the Oxford English Dictionary?

When men in power propose doing something that is shameful, wrong and destructive, the first casualty is the English language. It would matter less if it were the only casualty. But if they carry on perverting our vocabulary and twisting our grammar, the result will spell death for many who are now alive.

Guest-98a3 · Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:04 am Post subject: Perpetual Death From America

Guest-98a3

Nobody · Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:20 am Post subject:

It seems as if it's the only way to stop this madness, doesn't it? I mean what threat is Iraq to the US/UK? Who benefits attacking Iraq/Iran/Syria etc? It can't be the US who had very cordial relations with the Arab world right up to the 60's/70's. Fifth columnists with allegiances to other nations are gonna bring the US down and probably a few others too...

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq - page 2